F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[PhilipG]

I would have thought that as the technical standards of the F35s keep changing and that there will I understand be a technical refresh before Software Version 3F, the IOC standard for the UK and USN, that data on the MTBF of earlier models will not be much help.

Also the lack of a fully functioning Alis system, that should have helped populate the MTBF database cannot have helped.

[Lonewolf_50]

@Biggus: KenV's answer is a gritty reality with which I am familiar. I confess that I was being very optimistic, perhaps overly so, in the "maybe" response and accept that KenV's answer is a far better breakdown of PBL as it works ... or doesn't.

[Maus92]

I'm attending Oshkosh this year, and was on hand for the F-35A demo / arrival early this afternoon. Pretty tame stuff: a few low speed passses and breaks, culminating with a landing and taxi to the VIP area. The pilot kept the plane spooling for a 15 minute fashion show, then taxied to the other (non-pubic) side of the field for parking. Apparantly no static display, unlike the F-22 yesterday, under armed guard.

Some observations: this is not a small aircraft like the F-16. In fact it looks as big as a F-22 (in the air at least), and the cockpit sits pretty high up, F-105 like high. It's also louder than F-22, but about the same as a Super Hornet.

[MSOCS]

I'd expect a relatively tame display from a jet that is currently limited to almost half its design Gz as well as being limited to below its max KCAS at SL.

How could the pilot refuse to "park his jet" in a pubic area - fnaar.....

[Maus92]

I'd expect a relatively tame display from a jet that is currently limited to almost half its design Gz as well as being limited to below its max KCAS at SL.

How could the pilot refuse to "park his jet" in a pubic area - fnaar.....

I'm assuming that there was some housekeeping to perform on the jets after landing - maybe something sensitive IDK. Anyway, they've moved one aircraft over to Boeing Plaza for static display - next to a F-22 and a P-38.

[LowObservable]

MSOCS - I would not expect a relatively tame display for a jet that's been in full-scale development for >13 years, and whose supporters will be letting off fireworks and dancing in the streets in a few days' time to celebrate its initial "operational" capability date.

[MSOCS]

LO,

I would expect you to have the maturity and sense to appreciate that, were it not for the loss of AF-27's engine last year, the "13 year" development nightmare mantra -which you seem to wheel out over, and over, and over again on this forum - would be flying a full up display.

Some times stuff happens that isn't anticipated (A400M loss, for instance) in Programs.

Please, get some real perspective and shelve the hate for some common sense.

[ORAC]

it may not build a fully representative picture of training missions (although there have been some of those) or ops, but the data could get it started? Wood from the trees sort of problem......

Problems plaguing F-35's next-gen maintenance system (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/15/problems-facing-f35-maintainers-automated-system/25781075/)

The F-35's highly touted, next-generation software system designed to detail maintenance issues on the jet is plagued with problems that could lead to more delays with the jet's development.

The F-35's Autonomic Logistics Information System is a program that a maintainer plugs into the jet, and it is expected to outline what is wrong and what is working, and to streamline the process of identifying replacement parts. It has been a touted as a game-changing technology to simplify the maintenance process for the new jet. But members of the House Armed Services tactical air and land subcommittee who spoke with maintainers last month at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, heard a different story. Maintainers there said 80 percent of issues identified by ALIS are "false positives." Additionally, the program is sluggish, slowing down maintenance instead of streamlining it, subcommittee chairman Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said during a hearing Tuesday.

"When we asked them how many false positives, I thought it would be a high number because it is a new system," Turner said. "But when they said 80%, I was taken aback.".......

The system is not meeting requirements for service members operating the jets, said Sean Stackley, the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition. "The issue of false positives is very real," Stackley said. "The concerns with regards to the reliability, responsiveness, the timeliness of ALIS informing the war fighter is at the top of our priority list."........

[LowObservable]

MSOCS - The entire fleet is supposed to be retrofitted by 1Q16. I'd lost track, however, and thought that the restrictions had been lifted.

F135 Fix Nears Completion As Production Ramps Up | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f135-fix-nears-completion-production-ramps)

And there wasn't (AFAIK) a sea-level KCAS restriction due to AF-27 incident. Where'd that come from?

[FODPlod]

...Pretty tame stuff: a few low speed passses and breaks, culminating with a landing and taxi to the VIP area...

So it was no more impressive than any other stealthy 5th generation production model supersonic STOVL jet fighter-bomber? What a disappointment. :O

..."When we asked them how many false positives, I thought it would be a high number because it is a new system," Turner said. "But when they said 80%, I was taken aback."...
Sounds like a modern car. Every time I get a fault alert these days, I'm more likely to suspect the sensor than the actual component/sub-system because that's the way it's turned out on the last three occasions. The sensors aren't that cheap to replace, either. :*

[sandiego89]

Maus92Oshkosk debut
I'm attending Oshkosh this year, and was on hand for the F-35A demo / arrival early this afternoon. Pretty tame stuff.....


MSOCS I'd expect a relatively tame display....

Are we talking about the jets arrival at the airshow or have we actually seen the full rehersal/actual F-35 display that will be flown on the key display dates at Oshkosh?

If we are just talking about the arrival I would not judge an act by their arrival- yes some announce their arrival with a bit more flair than others, but we should not expect a full on demo upon arrival. It is an arrival day after a long cross country flight, briefs to attend, checks on the jet as others mention, etc.

I agree it will likley be tame compared to full burner turns by a F-16 or the like, but perhaps after the weekend flying we can then better pronounce the calls of "worst demo ever, tame, boring, late, can't make a turn...."

[MSOCS]

LO,

I've reviewed my previous two posts and can see how one could intimate the KCAS limit being due to the engine incident. It isn't. KCAS is below final design limit in Block 2B/3iR due to DT schedule - it will be full-up at Block 3F. I don't see the display needing more than the current limit anyway so apologies for the red herring there.

Now, the Gz IS due to the engine and will limit what the pilot can do, hence my comment on the previous "tame" comment. There will be nothing tame about the jet when the pilots are allowed to throw her around and demonstrate its agility in future. Think Super Hornet style of display and you won't be far off. Then, if it's a B variant, finish with the spectacle of hovering and almost no-speed flight manoeuvring. Loud, bold, in your face.

Can't wait for RIAT 16!

[LowObservable]

That will be thoroughly exciting. RIAT 16, eh?

[MSOCS]

Yes LO, the first public UK display of F-35 - providing all goes well.

Being a realist with reasonable expectations I'm rarely disappointed.

[Maus92]

Are we talking about the jets arrival at the airshow or have we actually seen the full rehersal/actual F-35 display that will be flown on the key display dates at Oshkosh?

If we are just talking about the arrival I would not judge an act by their arrival- yes some announce their arrival with a bit more flair than others, but we should not expect a full on demo upon arrival. It is an arrival day after a long cross country flight, briefs to attend, checks on the jet as others mention, etc.

I agree it will likley be tame compared to full burner turns by a F-16 or the like, but perhaps after the weekend flying we can then better pronounce the calls of "worst demo ever, tame, boring, late, can't make a turn...."

It was the arrival. There will be no demo. The senior pilot - Col Niemi (a full colonel) - said in the briefing this morning that they (the USAF) are too busy getting the jet ready for IOC to divert resources to develop a demo routine, get it cleared by leadership, vet it for security, and train the pilots. I had an opportunity to speak with him last evening, and he had some interesting things to say about the aircraft, the program, his favorite aircraft, etc. Very candid in toto.

[LowObservable]

Niemi - the name is familiar.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/2012-Nov-Dec/F-Niemi.pdf

I think we can take a guess at his "favorite airplane" as cited by Maus92.

[MSOCS]

Not that I would expect you to divulge a personal conversation but I hope that your candid discussion was enlightening in all respects.

There is no denying the F-35 Program has its issues and challenges. There are priorities and challenges for all the respective US Services and foreign partners alike as they try to modernise their fleets. That said, I do also hope that the Col gave you some positive news from the F-35 world, Maus because as I've said for my entire time on this forum, there is a lot of excellent work and achievements that go unsung all too often.

Hope you enjoy Oshkosh!

[LowObservable]

There is a lot of excellent work and achievements that go unsung all too often.

Not for the lack of a healthy Choir Fund...

[Kitbag]

Having had a quick canter through the article I wouldn't be so sure, his conclusion seems to argue for a mixed force of LO & 4th Gen aircraft:


The ATF’s overly specialized design constituted a fundamental flaw in the uncertain post–Cold War environment. The Air Force subsequently missed the best opportunity to adapt the F-22 when it issued the EMD contract without modification to ATF requirements. Throughout EMD, the service remained overly focused on the F-22 at the expense of A-10, F-15E, and F-16 recapitalization. When acquisition eventually shifted to the F-35, the Air Force largely ignored its F-22 experience and failed to plan for inevitable developmental problems with the F-35. Despite massive cost overruns and schedule delays, the Air Force continues to hope that the F-35 can solely recapitalize 1,770 aging F-15Es, F-16s, and A-10s. However, continuing developmental problems and the emerging national fiscal crisis threaten to undermine this strategy.
Although stealth is a powerful enabler for offensive systems, its greatest advantage lies in its ability to dramatically increase aircraft survivability against radar-dependent threats. Consequently, stealth’s utility depends on the presence of those threats. By insisting on acquiring only stealth fighters (regardless of the cost), the Air Force assumes that future adversaries will not counter stealth technology and ignores the fact that many air combat operations continue to occur in low-threat environments. For example, allied fourth-generation fighters operated freely over large portions of Iraq (both in 1991 and 2003),
Serbia, and Libya from the beginning of those conflicts. Future hostilities likely will continue this long-standing historical trend, and currently fielded stealth assets can mitigate risk to operations in high-threat environments where fourth-generation fighters are most
vulnerable.

An all-stealth Air Force fighter fleet deserves reconsideration even today. Stealth technology demands significant trade-offs in range, security, weapons carriage, sortie generation, and adaptability. Stealth provides no advantage in conflicts such as those in Afghanistan or Iraq
(since 2003), and (despite its obvious utility) it cannot guarantee success in future struggles with a near-peer adversary. Most importantly, the cost of F-22s and F-35s threatens to reduce the size of the Air Force’s fielded fighter fleet to dangerously small numbers, particularly
in the current fiscal environment. These facts suggest that the Air Force should reconsider its long-standing position that fifth-generation fighters are the only option for recapitalizing its fighter fleet.

[dagenham]

So can we part ex tranche 1 typhoons for a dave?

[Rhino power]

A couple of news items from the af.mil website...

Hill activates their first F-35 fighter squadron > U.S. Air Force > Article Display (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/610450/hill-activates-their-first-f-35-fighter-squadron.aspx)

Ground testing for F-35 gun conducted at Edwards AFB > U.S. Air Force > Article Display (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/610801/ground-testing-for-f-35-gun-conducted-at-edwards-afb.aspx)

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

Loving the gun :)

[Just This Once...]

Fast gun, small ammo tank and with a boresight achieved via a helmet tracker.

I understand it make an awesome noise though.

[a1bill]

How soon we forget, JTO
Isn't there 150 rounds on the Typhoon?


In 2001, it was announced that the RAF would not use the aircraft's internal 27 mm Mauser cannon. This was due to a desire to save money by removing gun support costs, ammunition stocks, training costs, etc. The gun was also deemed unnecessary since the missile armament was believed to be adequate in the Typhoon's fighter role. However, because removal of the cannon would affect the aircraft's flight characteristics, requiring modification of the aircraft's flight software the RAF decided that all of its Typhoons would be fitted with the cannon but that it would not be used or supported. The service argued that this would save money by reducing the requirement for ground equipment, removing training costs and avoiding the fatigue effects of firing the cannon. The RAF maintained the option to activate the cannons at very short notice were operational requirements to change.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants#cite_note-14) However in a third change of policy, the Daily Telegraph (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Telegraph) reported on 3 October 2006 that the RAF will fully utilise the cannon.

[glad rag]

True, but at least it [Typhoon] can supercruise >60k and is combat proven unlike, hmm, let me think...

[LowObservable]

Particularly in A2A, a revolver cannon does not need as many rounds as a Gatling because it has a shorter time-to-rate and can therefore fire a shorter burst for the same effect.

The Su-27's GSh-301 is not even a revolver cannon - it's a recoil-operated autocannon and has effectively zero time-to-rate.

[a1bill]

I think irrational criticism and false claims tend to diminish this thread.


GR, the RAF has a max 55k celling on the typhoon
RAF - Typhoon FGR4 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.cfm)

[Turbine D]

I think irrational criticism and false claims tend to diminish this thread. the RAF has a max 55k celling on the typhoon.
Google Typhoon FGR4 again on a wider basis besides RAF and I think you will find that it is good to go, perhaps even to 65k feet.:ok: Could be the RAF are like the police who claim their cars have a max speed of 125 mph, when in fact they go to 160 mph, advantage police or RAF, whichever…

[Vzlet]

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3730/14081638148_bedbe9290d_c.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3835/14756060034_933ff0206a_c.jpg

[Tourist]

Glad


I've got nothing against the Typhoon, but to call it combat proven is a joke.


It has never been tested.


Spitfire is combat proven.
A10 is combat proven.
Apache.
FRS1
ME109
P51




All these things have done their job against real opposition and been found effective.


Until 100 Typhoon have fought against 100 Su27 or Mig 29 then its just guesswork.


Lobbing bombs from safety is just a sideline. A C130 could do the job as well and cheaper

[Courtney Mil]

Tourist,

Calm down, Dear. I think it was pretty obvious to anyone that glad rag's point was that Typhoon has met a lot of specified requirements and has been deployed on ops. I don't recall 100 v 100 DACT being one of the requirements. But if that is your metric, then by all means go for that. It might be a long time before we can draw any comparisons by your metric.

Back to the point, IOC must be close now.

[Cows getting bigger]

There are those that know and then there are those that talk out of their hoop.

[LowObservable]

CM - Very close... I think there's a conference call this afternoon.

[a1bill]

TD, the comment was meant in general and not necessarily directed to GR, who I tried to make a separate comment to. Otherwise I might have asked why GR thinks the Typhoon can supercruise above 60k.
Is it possible that he RAF 55k limit may be an atmosphere one for the pilot?

[Courtney Mil]

It's easy to to work out when there is no '35 news or when we are all waiting for some by the drifts into other jets.

We have a pretty good idea what Typhoon can do. It's been doing it for some time. I'm very much looking forward to JSF IOC. It will be the first truly operational endorsement, albeit with some political pressure.

Now, what is the question about an in-service platform?

A1, it was a quoted aircraft capability, nothing to do with what limits are placed upon it.

[Tourist]

Its nothing to do with calming down.


Typhoon has never seen combat. Combat is a two way fight. lobbing bombs from above in a near zero threat environment is not combat.


To call it combat proven loses all credibility.


As I said, I have nothing against the typhoon, I think it is probably great, but until it actually goes up against some opposition then it is not combat proven.


This sort of pro typhoon fanboy talk is as bad as the over enthusiastic F35 proponents and brings nothing to the discussion.

[ORAC]

Typhoon has never seen combat. Combat is a two way fight. lobbing bombs from above in a near zero threat environment is not combat

The raison d'être of a stealthy bomber such as the F-35 surely? The aim of warfare being not to give the enemy an even chance......

[Tourist]

No, the raison d'être of the F35 is to operate in an extremely high threat environment and render the threat ineffective.


Added to this of course is the fact that F35s primary role is to lob bombs from above.


Primary role of Typhoon is to shoot down other aircraft.


It has shot down none whatsoever, and even the bomb lobbing had helpers.

[WhiteOvies]

One of the key bits of info from the F-16 vs F-35 debate which seems to have been missed in the vitriol of previous pages was the test pilot's conclusion that the flight envelope of the F-35 can be opened up by further tweaking the flight control software. That's why AF2 (a Development Test asset) was used. The continued progress of Development Test, which then feeds into the Operational Test environment, which then flows into the frontline will mean that the frontline pilots do not have to make it up as they go along or work it out for themselves. No doubt there is plenty of DACT being flown so that further enhancements can be made.

Versions of ALIS have been in use since the start of the Development Test program, another system that is being finessed as problems are encountered and where direct hands-on experience from Military maintainers embedded at the Integrated Test Forces (Edwards and Pax River) is always listened to. Likewise the Reliability and Maintainability teams have been collecting data since AF1,BF1 and CF1 first started flying. Reality vs models of sustainment is a full time job for more people than you might think. One of the key tests for the recent OT1 embarkation on WASP was to see how ALIS worked in that environment. Remember that ALIS is really a system of systems, not one giant,stand alone chunk of software.

Given that the decision of the UK, taken back in 2003, was that the carriers would not need an organic A-A/swing role platform and hence JFH could safely go to an all GR9 force, the UK is taking a huge leap forward with F-35B. It is still the only UK fighter to be fitted with an AESA radar for a start, trials with ASRAAM and PW4 have already started. In fact the dates between Typhoons and F-35 dropping PW4 weapons were surprisingly close.

People really should start looking at the positives for the UK and the other partner /export nations.

[glad rag]

One of the key bits of info from the F-16 vs F-35 debate which seems to have been missed in the vitriol of previous pages was the test pilot's conclusion that the flight envelope of the F-35 can be opened up by further tweaking the flight control software. That's why AF2 (a Development Test asset) was used. The continued progress of Development Test, which then feeds into the Operational Test environment, which then flows into the frontline will mean that the frontline pilots do not have to make it up as they go along or work it out for themselves. No doubt there is plenty of DACT being flown so that further enhancements can be made.

Versions of ALIS have been in use since the start of the Development Test program, another system that is being finessed as problems are encountered and where direct hands-on experience from Military maintainers embedded at the Integrated Test Forces (Edwards and Pax River) is always listened to. Likewise the Reliability and Maintainability teams have been collecting data since AF1,BF1 and CF1 first started flying. Reality vs models of sustainment is a full time job for more people than you might think. One of the key tests for the recent OT1 embarkation on WASP was to see how ALIS worked in that environment. Remember that ALIS is really a system of systems, not one giant,stand alone chunk of software.

Given that the decision of the UK, taken back in 2003, was that the carriers would not need an organic A-A/swing role platform and hence JFH could safely go to an all GR9 force, the UK is taking a huge leap forward with F-35B. It is still the only UK fighter to be fitted with an AESA radar for a start, trials with ASRAAM and PW4 have already started. In fact the dates between Typhoons and F-35 dropping PW4 weapons were surprisingly close.

People really should start looking at the positives for the UK and the other partner /export nations.

Yes but what is the purpose (!) of a stealthy aircraft if to employ one of the above weapons in it's swing role (!) if by that it negates the reason for spending all that money on the airframe!!!

[Not_a_boffin]

Given that the decision of the UK, taken back in 2003, was that the carriers would not need an organic A-A/swing role platform and hence JFH could safely go to an all GR9 force, the UK is taking a huge leap forward with F-35B.

I think to be exact, the decision made was not that organic A-A wasn't needed, but that "risk would be taken" (to coin a phrase that Alan West seems to have forgotten uttering) against AAW capability, particularly prior to T45 ISD, given the costs of keeping both SHAR and Harrier II in-service. Whether that was the right decision is neither here nor there now.

People really should start looking at the positives for the UK and the other partner /export nations.

Absolutely right.

[KenV]

People really should start looking at the positives for the UK and the other partner /export nations.

Heresy!!!

(May I respectfully inquire how long it will take for the fan boys to call for WO's banishment from the forum?)

[KenV]

Tourist,

Calm down, Dear.

May I respectfully inquire if the above is an example of the "professional" discussion previously demanded by a certain subgroup within this forum?

[NITRO104]

...
Enjoy the Sun and hope you have a nice weather on your vacations.

People really should start looking at the positives for the UK and the other partner /export nations.
How can we not to, when LM/JPO is feeding us 'positives' 24/7?
However, the question remains, how will AFs of Danemark, or Netherlands eg. fulfill their primary function of air-policing, with such an expensive plane that failed to meet its KPP in aspects that are crucial for that particular task?
After all, Danemark's and Dutch F35s will spend vast majority of their operational life doing air-policing, not bombing sheep in various 'stans or Chinas.
I believe this is an important question that deserves a considerable consideration and a meticulous declaration from LM/JPO.

RN is another matter and, IMO, F35B is a good replacement for Harrier and the only plane out of the three, worth pursuing.

[Jackonicko]

Tourist,

The point has been made perfectly by others:

“There are those that know and then there are those that talk out of their hoop.”

You demonstrably do have something “against the Typhoon,” as is evident from your posts on this thread and elsewhere.

You say that: “Lobbing bombs from above in a near zero threat environment is not combat.”

You should perhaps tell that to those mourning the losses of the Jordanian and Moroccan pilots in recent ops, or indeed to the Saudi F-15 crew who were luckier when they ejected from their aircraft.

The Typhoon has always been intended to be multi-role for the RAF (look back at AST403 or 409) and especially for the Saudis. Thus it’s not accurate to claim that: the “Primary role of Typhoon is to shoot down other aircraft.”

You’re equally inaccurate when claiming that: “even the bomb lobbing had helpers.” Typhoons in the Libyan do did sometimes take advantage of third party laser designation by Tornados, but they also spiked for themselves and for Tornado.

Since then, of course, the Saudis have used PWII and PWIV (self-designated using Damocles) and strafe in combat.

I’d call that pretty ‘proven’

[WhiteOvies]

Nitro, in my opinion (and experience) I really don't think the aircrew will be disappointed with the aircraft's performance. The question really for Denmark and the Netherlands is whether the cost involved limits the numbers purchased and hence the effectiveness of the force in completing their missions. It does however allow those countries politicians to bring more capability to the table when discussing coalition air operations. Whether the politicians see this as worth it when they decide on their Defence budgets is perhaps a different question....

Jacko, as I recall Typhoon was always touted as the Jaguar replacement. Unfortunately due to budget issues the A-G capabilities were put on the back burner initially.

[Maus92]

Not that I would expect you to divulge a personal conversation but I hope that your candid discussion was enlightening in all respects.

There is no denying the F-35 Program has its issues and challenges. There are priorities and challenges for all the respective US Services and foreign partners alike as they try to modernise their fleets. That said, I do also hope that the Col gave you some positive news from the F-35 world, Maus because as I've said for my entire time on this forum, there is a lot of excellent work and achievements that go unsung all too often.

Hope you enjoy Oshkosh!

I can give you the gist of the convo:

About the F-16 1 v. 1: The F-16 is an excellent dogfighter, while the F-35 has a greater un-refuelled range than the F-16, emphasizing the point that there are design trade-offs. He did not make excuses like the AF-2 was a development jet.

The A-10 vs. F-35 in CAS role: The A-10 is a more capable CAS platform - in a low-threat environment. If there was money, he thinks the USAF should keep it.

The status of the program in general: If you listen to Lockheed Martin, everything smells like roses. If you listen to the critics, it's a disaster. The truth is somewhere in between.

Visibility behind the jet: is not as good as in the Strike Eagle or F-22. He has personally only flown the front seat of the F-16 once, so he let his wingman that has experience in the F-16 answer that. The canopy design was affected by signature concerns.

The HMDS. His wingman likes the new HMDS. It's well balanced and is more comfortable than the F-16 helmet - particularly when equipped with NVGs / cueing system. The pilot can turn his head, and see the vertical stabs, and the O2 mask stays in place. Yes, he and others have dropped the helmet. He hasn't broken it yet, but other have: repaired not ruined. A new, more protective helmet bag was specifically designed for it. The wingman also prefers the more upright seating position in the F-35.

I stated that the aircraft seemed to be more of a F-117 replacement that can defend itself (rather than a fighter,) the Col refined my point, saying that the aircraft capabilities were more like a combination of the F-117 and a block 50/52 F-16.

Overall, the aircraft is a step up in terms of range, ground mode radar capabilities and situational awareness over the F-16 (and of course stealth.) Any performance tradeoffs can be mitigated by using the aircraft as it was designed: engaging enemies from a distance, and by fighting as a team.

[Tourist]

No, nothing against Typhoon. I like it and I like F22 despite neither of them being combat proven I just think people should be more honest about things. So far all these toys have been used against the equivalent of people who are attacking with sharpened mangos. Hardly combat.

Jacko, Are you under the impression that the Saudi F15 was shot down?

[kbrockman]

I think, like many times before, the US NAVY has the right idea about what
the F35 really is and how it is best used.
Navy Doesn't Seem to Care That the F-35 Can't Dogfight | RealClearDefense (http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/27/navy_doesnt_seem_to_care_that_the_f-35_cant_dogfight.html)
Navy Doesn't Seem to Care That the F-35 Can't Dogfight
To the sailing branch, the stealth fighter is a sensor

...
the JSF “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” to quote one infamous 2008 war game report.

But the U.S. Navy — the third-largest purchaser of F-35s — seems unperturbed. Indeed, in recent planning the Navy describes the JSF less as a traditional fighter than as radar-evading, flying sensor and communications node.

The Navy apparently doesn’t care that its F-35C version of the stealth jet — as well as the Marines’ F-35B model — is a poor performer in raw kinetic terms. In the sailing branch’s evolving battle scheme, the JSF will focus onfinding targets … for older F/A-18 fighters and missile-armed warships to shoot down.

To be sure, the F-35 packs lots of high-tech sensors. In the nose — a Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 electronically-scanned radar composed of a thousand tiny transmitter-receivers. Under the nose — Lockheed Martin’s AAQ-40 Electro-Optical Targeting System, basically a high-resolution, zooming camera.

In addition, the JSF comes with the Northrop Grumman AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System, a bank of six infrared cameras scattered around the airframe that automatically detects heat plumes from incoming missiles and other threats. Finally, the F-35 boasts BAE Systems’ highly-sensitive AN/ASQ-239 electronic warfare suite, which listens for enemy radar signals.

Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, the Navy’s top aviator, called the JSF’s sensor combo a “game-changer.” “Suck[ing] in all that information,” an F-35 can paint “a great, clear picture of who’s good and who’s bad.”

And that can help solve one of the Navy’s biggest problems — identifying targets at long range inside enemy lines so that surface ships and non-stealthy F/A-18 fighters can bring to bear their SM-6 and AIM-120 missiles, which can travel farther than the shooters’ sensors can see.

Indeed, the Navy is building an entire battle plan around the F-35’s sensors and its ability to share sensor data via radio data-link, all while avoiding detection by enemy forces. “The F-35 will lead the way ashore, disabling information nodes and grids, while providing the air-ground task force with unprecedented awareness of opposing challenges,” the Navy explained in itsNaval Aviation Vision planning document from 2014.
....
The Navy has a name for this battle plan — “Naval Integrated Fire Control — Counter-Air,” or NIFC-CA. There’s actually a lot more to it than just F-35s, F-18s and destroyers. At its heart, NIFC-CA is actually an expanded version of the Aegis system that equips all of the Navy’s cruisers and destroyers.


It's not an air dominance fighter, it's also not a CAS platform, maybe not even a real bomber like the Strike eagle or Rafale

It's a very useful force multiplier in addition/cooperation with other, cheaper and also more conventional fighter like platforms.
For the US NAVY the combination of AWACS (E2D), ship based radar/sensors, Satellite, GROWLER, the F35 will be the spear of the information and detection bubble, able to deploy near the edge of the danger zone (pun intended ref. to TOP GUN ;)).

Which again leads to the question, what's in it for us, how can we make it work ?
We might need a couple of squadrons of F35A's but not the wings our top brass is currently dreaming of.
Also makes anyone wonder on why they decided to make it look like a 9G fighter in stead of something a little more relevant and cheaper.

[ORAC]

the JSF will focus onfinding targets … for older F/A-18 fighters and missile-armed warships to shoot down........ around the F-35’s sensors and its ability to share sensor data via radio data-link, all while avoiding detection by enemy forces...... Indeed, the Navy is building an entire battle plan around the F-35’s sensors and its ability to share sensor data via radio data-link, all while avoiding detection by enemy forces.

Hmmmm. How?

I mean, we've been through the issues of MADL being incompatible with the other air and sea assets without a relay like BACN, which the navy don't and not have up threat - and using L16 blows the stealth. So, as I say, Im a bit hazy on how this battle plan is going to work.

[longer ron]

May I respectfully inquire how long it will take for the fan boys to call for WO's banishment from the forum?

Grow up Ken FFS... we are all entitled to our opinion - that is the purpose of a forum after all :)

[glad rag]

May I respectfully inquire if the above is an example of the "professional" discussion previously demanded by a certain subgroup within this forum?


wmin5WkOuPw

[Radix]

...........

[Turbine D]

Tourist and Jackonicko,

Here is the story I read about the Saudi F-15 in the WSJ:
By
Julian E. Barnes
Updated March 27, 2015 9:17 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—The U.S. rescued two Saudi Arabian airmen from the Gulf of Aden after their two-seater F-15 fighter jet crashed Thursday, a U.S. defense official said Friday.

The jet appears to have been taking part in operations over Yemen, however, the defense official wouldn’t say why the airmen ejected from the F-15 or why the plane went down over international waters.

Saudi Arabia requested assistance on Thursday afternoon Washington time from the U.S. after the airmen ejected from their plane, the official said.

An HH-60 helicopter flying from Djibouti, where the U.S. maintains a major regional base, recovered the two Saudi airmen at approximately 5:20 p.m. ET on Thursday. The recovery operation took about two hours from the time of notification to the rescue of the airmen, the defense official said.

The rescue operation, the official said, was coordinated by the USS Sterett, a destroyer operating in the region. The USS New York was also involved in the rescue, the official said.

The defense official said the two airmen were ambulatory after they recovered, but referred further questions to the Saudi government.

The request for assistance, the official said, was handled on the tactical level, not requiring contacts at high levels between the two governments. Military planners in the region took the call for emergency assistance and contacted the USS Sterett, which began the hunt for the pilots and called in the HH-60 from Djibouti

“It’s a great example of the logistical assistance we are providing,” said the U.S. official. The rescued airmen were initially taken back to the U.S. base in Djibouti, officials said.

The Saudi plane wasn’t shot down by enemy fire, the official said. While a mechanical problem is suspected, an investigation continues, the official said.

The destroyer USS Sterett, coordinated the rescue of the two Saudi pilots.

Saudi officials in Washington didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Hope this helps in your discussions…

[KenV]

However, the question remains, how will AFs of Danemark, or Netherlands eg. fulfill their primary function of air-policing, with such an expensive plane that failed to meet its KPP in aspects that are crucial for that particular task?

My I inquire as to which KPPs the F-35 "failed to meet?"

[KenV]

Grow up Ken FFS... we are all entitled to our opinion - that is the purpose of a forum after all

Totally agree.

And yet..........there are a few among us who work very hard to shut some up, indulge in witch hunts, and/or push the moderators to ban them. Perhaps they need to be admonished to "grow up?"

[NITRO104]

It does however allow those countries politicians to bring more capability to the table when discussing coalition air operations. Whether the politicians see this as worth it when they decide on their Defence budgets is perhaps a different question....
Indeed, but I find this more of an academic point, since I doubt that Danemark or Netherlands will declare war on China or Russia ever, even if USA gets involved, so this point is rather moot, IMO.
For bombing sheep, I'd imagine F16 is more than enough, at a much lower cost.

[Bastardeux]

kbrockman

The U.S. Navy has the right idea

I couldn't agree more.

[longer ron]

Ken
Generally speaking - ye reap what ye sow !:)

[Turbine D]

KenV,
My I inquire as to which KPPs the F-35 "failed to meet?"

The Defense Department defines KPPs as “performance attributes of a system considered critical to the development of an effective military capability.” In plain English, a Service establishes multiple KPPs for a new weapon system, including attributes for its affordability, range/persistence, payload and weapons capacity, interoperability, sustainability, and even related training and force protection needs.
DoD should consider all of the ramifications of establishing cost as a KPP, but probably didn't as applied to the F-35. It is without question that avoiding 99 percent exquisite platforms that are so costly in favor of developing 80 percent capability solutions results in lowered costs, a higher potential for on time delivery to the customer and the possibility for actually acquiring the number of desired aircraft.

It is highly unlikely the cost goals (KPP) for new F-35 aircraft procurement will ever be met, the gap is too great to overcome. Secondly, an elephant in the living room is the affordability (cost) of maintaining the F-35 aircraft over time in various locations and conditions (KPP). There are no doubt hundreds of KPPs for the entire F-35 operating platform. For sure, some are not being met nor will they ever be met, such as weight for example. Now I will leave the flight capabilities to the pilots on the forum, but IMHO, not all will ever be met because some of the original KPPs have been changed (moving the goal posts) to make it appear all is well and being met. My suspicion is that we will get an 80% performer verses original promises, but pay as if we are getting a 99% performer, my honest opinion.

[MSOCS]

TurbineD,

There are indeed many Performance Parameters in the F-35 Program; only a handful are "Key". None of the ones you've stated are key and certainly don't amount to hundreds either.

Of the ones that are key, rest assured they are being watched very attentively. A KPP bust invokes the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) which is a pretty messy and bad situation to be in. Nonetheless, you are right - cost is not a KPP; rather, it is an independent variable. IMHO, there have been no breaches of KPP in the last 8 or so years - minor clarifications perhaps but no breaches.

By that reasoning, it is only right that KenV has a decent answer to his question:

My I inquire as to which KPPs the F-35 "failed to meet?"

Because I'm also very interested to hear what you have to say when you get around to answering the specific question concerning the F-35's Program Of Record "KPPs" rather than what you think should be a KPP.

[LowObservable]

There are indeed very few KPPs (at least in the unclass realm), and few of them define an exciting aircraft.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf (page 50)

I don't think SGRs have been demonstrated yet, and I'm fairly sure that the reliability numbers have not been met.

[NITRO104]

Because I'm also very interested to hear what you have to say when you get around to answering the specific question concerning the F-35's Program Of Record "KPPs" rather than what you think should be a KPP.
Transonic acceleration (SEP) and consequentially climb, turn, etc. aren't 'Key' parameters?

[LowObservable]

Nitro - AFAIK, they are not, at least in the unclass version.

[ORAC]

New Pentagon Report: F-35 Performance Problems (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/153013/asd_se-report-sees-f_35-performance-problems.html)

y Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering (DASD(SE)) Stephen Welby has published his FY2013 Annual Report addressing the systems engineering capabilities of the Department of Defense (DoD) and systems engineering activities relating to the Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP)..........

Stephen Welby reports that:

The program is on track to meet seven of the eight KPPs. An issue with incorrect analysis/assumptions is hampering the attainment of the Sortie Generation Rate (SGR) KPP. The program office is examining the sensitivity of the SGR KPP to establish more operationally realistic ground rules and assumptions. As a result, the program plans to reassess SGR.

This is remarkable, because the JORD (requirement specifications) of the F-35 the key performance parameters (KPP) specifies about the (minimum) sortie rate:
- Sortie rate F-35A: 3 sorties per day
- Sortie rate F-35B: 4 sorties per day
- Sortie rate F-35C: 3 sortie........


OTHER KEY PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

One could say: Key Performance Parameters (KPP) is the basic performance requirement by the F-35. Back in February 2012 the JROC (Joint Requirements Oversight Council) ordered the JSF Program Office to reconsider KPPs that some versions of the F-35 were to miss. This resulted in:
- F-35A combat radius target (objective was 690 miles, down to 580 miles)
- F-35B longer run allowed for short take-offs
- F-35C higher maximum landing speed

However, at this moment in time DASD(SE) concluded that:

Although on track, the combat radius, STOVL performance, and CV recovery KPPs have limited margins.

The sortie generation KPP is not as contracted; the logistics footprint KPP is in danger. The mission reliability KPP (minimum 93%), at this moment, has a long way to go.

The DOT&E report FY2013 (January 2014) found “Reliability is poor and ranges from 30 to 39 percent behind the current objective. The “availability” of the existing fleet is getting worse and has never reached, is receding from, its quite modest threshold of 50 percent at this stage in the program. The amount of time needed to repair failures “has increased over the past year. ........

[Hempy]

Gotta love 'management speak'...

The program is on track to meet seven of the eight KPPs. An issue with incorrect analysis/assumptions is hampering the attainment of the Sortie Generation Rate (SGR) KPP. The program office is examining the sensitivity of the SGR KPP to establish more operationally realistic ground rules and assumptions. As a result, the program plans to reassess SGR.

i.e The rules that we set and agreed to meant that the playing field is too long, so we are in the process of resetting the goalposts to ensure that we can get within scoring distance.

[a1bill]

Orac, do you have the outcome of the 2013 report? Perhaps the 2014 report or even a mid 2015 update?

[NITRO104]

Nitro - AFAIK, they are not, at least in the unclass version.
But why would LM seek approval for extended acceleration time, if it wasn't contracted in some form?
Why not just declare test results and move on? It doesn't make sense.

[a1bill]

AFAI have read, LM didn't ask for any extension. JPO makes the requirement decisions.
From ORAC's link "Already in the 2003 Selected Acquisition Report to the US Congress on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program of Record, the Pentagon warned: "

“Some non-KPP Threshold Requirements will not be met for all variants.”

[Engines]

Perhaps I can help a little here, as there is some understandable confusion over how the F-35 programme's requirements process worked. Sorry if this repeats some of my earlier posts.

The F-35's requirements were developed over a period of many years from around 1994, via a document called the Joint Interim Requirements Document, the JIRD. As in any requirements document, there are two main types of things that drive its content.

First, what the user(s) want the system to do operationally. This is the stuff that pilots are comfortable with. However, it also needs to reflect such areas a logistics, personnel, etc. This will also include any hard constraints (e.g has to fit in a certain hangar)

The second, and less obvious area, is what the technology can deliver. Clearly, one can write a requirement asking for a Mach 5 jumbo with an invisibility cloak, but it's unlikely to be met. However, some level of technology risk will always have to be carried - you could write a very low risk requirement for an armed Chipmunk, but it might not be very effective. (I exaggerate to make my point here - sorry for that).

The operational side of the JIRD was built via a number of iterations (JIRD I, JIRD II...) using information gleaned from hundreds of scenario model events, war-games, and other studies. This process was rigorous, and subjected to external reviews and assessments. It was also internationally supported, and I know that some contributors to this thread were involved. (Not me, by the way). Experience from previous US use of LO aircraft was definitely factored in.

The technology side was guided by evidence from the UK/US ASTOVL work, plus US 'black programmes like SSF, and other (very) high level technology reviews and assessments. Key elements of that were engine performance targets and LO technology.

The end product of this was the JSF Joint Operational Requirements Document, the JORD. It was a fairly succinct document, given the size of the programme. It ran to around 160 discrete requirements, plus annexes, and was trying to reflect then current thinking on acquisition reform, particularly the need for the requirement to spell out 'what' was required, not 'how' to achieve it. The aim was to give the biggest possible 'trade space' for the designers to work in. The annexes gave some ground rules for interpreting and calculating performance against the requirements, plus key technical information on any constraints.

Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) were those requirements that were going to have the biggest impact on the overall system design. They were going to drive cost, and were absolutely vital to operational efficiency. In UK speak, they are KURs (Key user Requirements). And KPPs cannot be traded away without very high level attention. The small number of KPPs reflected the desire for a large trade space. There were just 19 in all, covering the three variants. The 'Joint' KPPs applied to all three variants and comprised RF signature, combat radius, SGR, Logs footprint, mission reliability and interoperability. The F-35B had two unique KPPs for STOVL TO distance and vertical lift bring back. The F-35C had a single KPP for approach speed to the carrier.

The JORD included other items such as turn rate, sustained g, key dimensions, key weapon loads and so on. However, as MSOCS has pointed out, these weren't KPPs, and were inside the anticipated 'trade space'.

Once the contract was awarded, LM began the job of taking the JORD and building the much (much) more detailed set of requirements that would be used for the design of the system. This process is sometimes called 'requirements management', and it's a systems engineering discipline. The result (for a complex job like F-35) is literally tens of thousands of requirements, usually built using database tools like DOORS. This, sadly, was an area where the LM team did not perform well. Instead of a disciplined (and long) process of building the requirements down from the top level JORD, in many cases LM teams, short of time, reached for existing specs, or were given 'requirements' by US military SMEs. In many cases, this worked OK. In some, it didn't.

In my view (alert - Engines opinion - not a fact) this was a major contributor to the weight crisis in 2004. The design was, in some areas, being driven by SME 'wants', not actual requirements 'needs'. I can't give details, but at some point in the future, there is a decent book (or PhD study) to be written on this angle of the programme. To this day, it's probably the source of much of the comment of the programme.

I hope that this has given some useful background on how requirements are supposed to work, and what KPPs are and aren't.

Best Regards as ever to those doing the requirements management task - thankless but essential,

Engines

[FODPlod]

The latest on F-35B IOC for the USMC: USMC expects F-35B IOC 'soon' (http://www.janes.com/article/53235/usmc-expects-f-35b-ioc-soon)
An initial squadron of 10 Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters met all the requirements for a declaration of combat readiness during a recent review, the US Marine Corps' (USMC's) top aviator told reporters on 27 July. USMC commandant General Joseph Dunford will likely make a final decision about F-35B initial operational capability (IOC) "soon", said Lieutenant General Jon Davis. Lt Gen Davis said results of this month's F-35B operational readiness review were positive and the commandant is now completing the final paperwork for IOC...F-35B Lightning II Initial Operating Capability (IOC) (http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/nae/Air%20Plan/Oct%2014%20Air%20Plan.pdf)
“USMC defines IOC as a squadron of 10 F-35B aircraft capable of executing close air support, limited offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, air support escort, armed reconnaissance and limited suppression of enemy air defenses.”

Lt. Gen. Jon Davis,
U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Aviation

[NITRO104]

The JORD included other items such as turn rate, sustained g, key dimensions, key weapon loads and so on. However, as MSOCS has pointed out, these weren't KPPs, and were inside the anticipated 'trade space'.
Thx and perhaps this is technically true (I'm not privy to such things, only public leaks where Bowman's doc showed performances being KPPed), but this is a fighter aircraft.
Wouldn't it be much cheaper and faster to evolve the F117 then, since apparently there is no supersonic KPP, either?
You see, where's the line?
Who's determining what goes and what doesn't and based on what criteria and why is traditionally crucial stuff solved ad-hoc, instead of being contracted?

I don't know, but this particular aspect the program doesn't make any sense to me.

[KenV]

The design was, in some areas, being driven by SME 'wants', not actual requirements 'needs'.

This sounds very familiar. The early C-17 program was bedeviled by USAF/SPO "Subject Matter Experts" who drove the detailed design in all sorts of different directions, running up costs and stretching out the schedule. It was a mess and almost killed the program.

As for the numerous KPPs F-35 was claimed to have violated, that claim was apparently once again an exaggeration based on false assumptions that led to a wild conclusion.

[Engines]

Nitro,

Perhaps I can help make some sense of it for you, and I apologise for not being clearer earlier.

You ask 'where's the line'? Very good question. Essentially, it is where it ends up once all the various trades (performance, cost, time) have been made, measured, assessed and decided. As an example, say the customer wants Mach 2 capability (again, I'll exaggerate to make the point).

Getting the Mach 2 will drive the design - bigger engines, more fuel, larger wing, higher weight, lots more cost, probably extra time to develop the engine performance required within a lower weight, and so on. So, if the answers are outside the budget/time envelope, the team will start to trade. In a simple world, they would look at M1.9, and generate the figures. Then M1.8. Then M1.7. And so on.

Just to make it a little more complex, this speed trade study could be combined with other parameters being traded. (In fact, it almost certainly would be).

On F-35 the decisions on these trades rested with the customer. There were literally hundreds, if not thousands of such decisions being made in the early years of the programme, with LM briefs, plus very detailed input from the customer's technical and operational specialists. The outcome of that work is what has shaped the aircraft we see today. It certainly wasn't 'ad-hoc'. It may seem that way, but honestly it's not.

As KenV correctly identifies, an aggressive SME can make a big difference to the process. If you agree with the SMEs, then you say 'they did a great job'. In other cases, you could say that the design was driven the wrong way by SMEs. (This is, I understand, called 'the attack of the killer SMEs'). (Attempt at humour there). On F-35, both happened.

The F-35 is, as the title says, a 'strike fighter'. The customers never wanted a pure F-16 replacement, but an aircraft that could attack in a high threat environment, and defend itself as required. Personally, i believe that it should be the 'F/A-35', but there you go.

The F-117 would actually be a really bad place to start if you wanted a fighter. the 'F' designation was. I understand, a cover for the aircraft's main role, as a bomber.

I hope this helps a bit,

Best Regards as ever to those having to make the calls,

Engines

[NITRO104]

The F-117 would actually be a really bad place to start if you wanted a fighter.
I over-exaggerated a bit here, too. :)

The F-35 is, as the title says, a 'strike fighter'. The customers never wanted a pure F-16 replacement, but an aircraft that could attack in a high threat environment, and defend itself as required. Personally, i believe that it should be the 'F/A-35', but there you go. And this is probably the fairest F35 assessment I've seen so far and would like to see something like that come from LM, instead of superlatives across the board. :ok:
Might do wonders for their credibility and deescalate animosity their PR developed towards the public, so far.

[Lyneham Lad]

Just came across this link on the Reuters site:-
Podcast: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may be the future, but is that a good thing? (http://blogs.reuters.com/war-college/2015/07/28/the-f-35-may-be-the-future-but-is-that-a-good-thing/)

[FODPlod]

Sorry Lyneham Lad but I stopped listening after all three participants in the 'discussion', including the chairman, immediately agreed that the "fancy-named" Lightning II was "...one of the worst weapons systems an American company has ever devised", everyone who has flown it hates it and the gun doesn't work.

Hardly a balanced or factual discussion. At least the podcast had the good grace to forewarn that the opinions expressed were those of the participants, not Reuters itself.

[KenV]

And this is probably the fairest F35 assessment I've seen so far and would like to see something like that come from LM, instead of superlatives across the board. :ok:It seems to me that the opinion that LM only dispenses "superlatives across the board" is as much based on assumptions and wild conclusions as the opinions regarding KPPs not being met.

Might do wonders for their credibility and deescalate animosity their PR developed towards the public, so far. I doubt that "deescalating animosity" towards the F-35 is possible on this forum. It's been pointed out for some time by multiple forum members and a four star general in charge of the program that the F-35 was designed as an attack aircraft with a "good enough" self defense capability, and not as an air superiority fighter. Such statements just served to escalate the animosity on this forum, not deescalate it.

[Lonewolf_50]

It's been pointed out for some time by multiple forum members and a four star general in charge of the program that the F-35 was designed as an attack aircraft with a "good enough" self defense capability, and not as an air superiority fighter. Such statements just served to escalate the animosity on this forum, not deescalate it.
More an A-7 than an F-15, eh? :cool:

I am reminded of the great furor that erupted over the F-18, and the later F-18E/F (is it still an F-18?) and discover that the Hornet has done pretty well over its years in the fleet.

It was trying to be both attack and fighter, to replace the A-7 but still be able to perform Fighter roles.

Seen through that lens, F-35, or A-35, or F/A-35 seems to be arriving with furor, and the burden of multi role requirements. Something don't change.

What's in a name?

@Kbrockman:
Which again leads to the question, what's in it for us, how can we make it
work ? We might need a couple of squadrons of F35A's but not the wings our top brass is currently dreaming of. Also makes anyone wonder on why they decided to make it look like a 9G fighter in stead of something a little more relevant and cheaper.
Because the requirements folks did like was done for the F-18: it has to perform multiple roles.

[LowObservable]

I don't wish to start an endless feedback loop, but the idea that the F-35 is a bomber with secondary strike capability is not, from my perspective, new or controversial.

However, it's not how the aircraft has been sold.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-325.html#post9033295

[NITRO104]

KenV,
building a fighter aircraft without KPPing flight performance is essentially a 'carta-blanco' contract and we know what that is (a communism, in case you've been wondering).
Also, not that long ago we had Flynn (and not only him) in front of LM, making some pretty bold claims regarding F35's performance, which have now been shown fake.
Then there's the issue of pre-Bogdan program management and spending, where trucks of money delivered next to none results.
Etc, etc...

So, considering all, I think the LM managed to develop a substantial animosity with their 'everything is fine' PR policy, where a more measured and cautious approach would yield a milder public response and perhaps a degree of sympathy from a wider audience than just hard-core fans.

However, it's not how the aircraft has been sold.
Which exactly is the issue, since LM changes stories like a kid caught stealing jam in the store, as the test results keep coming in.

[KenV]

So, considering all, I think the LM managed to develop a substantial animosity with their 'everything is fine' PR policy, where a more measured and cautious approach would yield a milder public response and perhaps a degree of sympathy from a wider audience than just hard-core fans.I see the other side of the same coin. I see a "public response" that has generally been "mild". The "animosity" comes from the "hard-core" detractors, not the public. And seemingly nothing will dissuade those hard-core detractors. I for example am not even a fan of the F-35, never mind a "hard core" fan. The program and the airplane it produced has many flaws. Some likely insurmountable. My view of theF-35 is generally similar to the USN view. It has an important role to play in the overall modern combat environment, but it fills only one niche in that environment and does so at the expense of others. My gripe is and has been with the vitriol expressed by some here which on more than one occasion has simply been over the top.

In my view the "hard core" detractors are making the highest claims about the F-35 rather than LM, like that it is supposed to be an air superiority fighter. And they are doing so as a straw man. Easy to knock down, but not congruent with reality.

[KenV]

KenV,
building a fighter aircraft without KPPing flight performance is essentially a 'carta-blanco' contract....

May I respectfully point out that is your opinion. And one not at all shared by the many services from many nations that had a big hand in producing the F-35's KPPs.

May I gently point out that Engines has already made clear the inputs that drove the KPPs and the vast number of requirements that flowed down from those KPPs. F-35 flight performance was not nailed down in the beginning because aeroperformance was a part of the overall trade space. Nailing down flight performance at the very beginning can result in eye watering aeroperformance (like perhaps the Lightning, Raptor, SR-71?), but that leaves an airplane with a lot to be desired in actual real world military operations.

For example, earlier a few made a big deal of the Typhoon's ability to supercruise above 60,000 ft. That is indeed impressive, but is it really valuable in real world military operations? I don't know, but RAF clearly does not think so since they've put a 55,000 ft ceiling on the aircraft. So what was sacrificed on Typhoon to get that capability that RAF does not use? I don't know. More importantly, if that ability had been required of the F-35 what would have been sacrificed to achieve that result? Would that have been worth it? I don't know. Perhaps LM also does not know. But not knowing does not in my mind equate to giving LM "carto blanco".

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

[NITRO104]

The "animosity" comes from the "hard-core" detractors, not the public.So, hard-core detractors are just born that way (disidents and anarchists) and LM bull****ting public has nothing to do with that?
You know, Darwin wrote in English...

In my view the "hard core" detractors are making the highest claims about the F-35 (like that it is supposed to be an air superiority fighter) as a straw man.Strawman?
Because ppl, when told the F35 will replace and surpass their their F16s in performance, cost, etc., believed LM?
Are we seriously having this conversation?

F-35 flight performance was not nailed down in the beginning because aeroperformance was a part of the overall trade space.Well you know, designing a fighter aircraft with its flight performance allowed to fall into 'trade space', is kinda like building a missile without specifying payload and range and thus application.
You can do that ofc, but who knows what will the result be and how much will it cost.
You may get a SRM, or you may get a LRM, depending on what the contractor delivers.
Why would you build the future of your security on a whim of a single company that may, or may not deliver?
There's no chance that such a project goes live in a clean private sector awarded tender and with a good reason.

[KenV]

However, it's not how the aircraft has been sold.

Maybe. Maybe not. But in my considered opinion the hard core detractors of the F-35 have made the highest claims for what the F-35 is supposed to do and be, not LM. Like being an air superiority fighter. The aeroperformance of the F-35 has been generally known since before its first flight, and air superiority fighter performance was never a selling point. Basically from the beginning it was described as F/A-18 like. So in many ways the F-35 is an all aspect stealthy F/A-18. That's clearly how USN looks at it. It seems to me that its the detractors that insist that F-35 is and must be an air superiority fighter, not LM.

[NITRO104]

The aeroperformance of the F-35 has been generally known since before its first flight, and air superiority fighter performance was never a selling point.
Well, Flynn and the LM would disagree on that.
Do I need to quote him/them?

[Radix]

...........

[KenV]

Well, Flynn and the LM would disagree on that.
Do I need to quote him/them?

That would be appreciated.

[KenV]

So what about cost eh? Cost has spiraled on every high risk program. And this program had more high risk stuff in it than almost any other, maybe even including the F-22. Aeroperformance KPPs don't rein in costs. If anything, they tend to drive them upward.

No, the airplane is just stinking expensive.Yup, that's one of it's biggest flaws. The program managers promise they've got that under control and that cost will come down during full rate production, but we'll have to wait and see how much. And as regards the Dutch specifically, may I ask how much of the reduction in buy was due to price growth, and how much was due to revenue shortfall? Which had the greater influence?

They were promised an aircraft that could do such and such at such a price and it's just not delivering.Seemingly not on price. At least at present. But I don't know the details of the contract as regards price. If you know those details, may I respectfully ask that you share with us the contractual price that is being violated. And could you please clarify what performance "such and such" F-35 does not meet? As mentioned by others above, it is meeting its KPPs. Without facts, we are yet again dealing with false assumptions and wild conclusions.

Looks like a pig, smells like a pig, we should call it 'the pig II'.
That's an interesting opinion. Another poster above has the opinion that the F-35 looks too unnecessarily like a "9G fighter" for just a bomber. Please excuse the repetition, but we appear to be faced with wild conclusions drawn from (false) assumptions.

[NITRO104]

That would be appreciated.
You can't look for yourself, half the page up?

[chopper2004]

The Israeli Air Force : First F-35I ("Adir") Squadron to be Opened next We (http://www.iaf.org.il/4423-45306-en/IAF.aspx)

Cheers

[FODPlod]

This should help sweeten the bitterest of naysayers. Ten Signs The F-35 Fighter Program Is Becoming A Smashing Success (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/07/13/ten-signs-the-f-35-fighter-program-is-becoming-a-smashing-success/)
Summer is the silly season for defense coverage in the nation’s capital. With much of official Washington gone, journalists have to work harder to find anything worth reporting. When they uncover an item that sounds like it might be newsy, they get as much mileage out of it as they can.

One approach is to take the latest glitch (real or imagined) in the Pentagon’s biggest weapon program and use it as a pretext for revisiting past issues — even though most of those issues have long since been resolved. The F-35 fighter is an easy target because its budget dwarfs funding for other programs, and the plane thus is a lightning rod for every conspiracy theorist’s fears about the machinations of the military-industrial complex. Few of the reporters on the defense beat realize that all of the legacy fighters sustaining America’s global air power today were subjected to the same sort of withering scrutiny during their own development...

[longer ron]

FODPlod This should help sweeten the bitterest of naysayers.


I was right with the article until the start of the third paragraph - and I quote ; )

I have an emotional attachment to the F-35 because I have worked with many of the companies that build it, including prime contractor Lockheed Martin, for much of my adult life

So not necessarily a detached and neutral view then !

[FODPlod]

longer ron - Would you have felt better if he'd kept that bit quiet or, like me, appreciated his candour and taken his background into account while reading his blog? Does it invalidate the factual evidence, backed up with actual figures, he presents?

[kbrockman]

Because the requirements folks did like was done for the F-18: it has to perform multiple roles.

Which initially was a true LWF and by no means as multi role as the F35, the SH on the other hand might be a better example, the difference being that it was below weight ,on time and budget and not over promised and sold.

My view of theF-35 is generally similar to the USN view. It has an important role to play in the overall modern combat environment, but it fills only one niche in that environment and does so at the expense of others

Which is exactly my opinion too and therefore makes the following remark a bit strange;
The aeroperformance of the F-35 has been generally known since before its first flight, and air superiority fighter performance was never a selling point. Basically from the beginning it was described as F/A-18 like. So in many ways the F-35 is an all aspect stealthy F/A-18. That's clearly how USN looks at it. It seems to me that its the detractors that insist that F-35 is and must be an air superiority fighter, not LM.
You might be rewriting history here and falsely interpreting the problems many people have with the F35.

It was sold as a successor to the F16 or F18, it was sold under false premisses and if you agree with the NAVY doctrine regarding the F35 you basically agree with me on that.

Almost nobody here has a problem with it (F35) not being a true Air Dominance, super agile fighter like the F16 initially was, good enough is all we need and the other (A-type) abilities are certainly at least as , if not more ,important, but it's not really doing that either.
Like you said a good niche weapon, in cooperation with other more conventional fighters but not the standalone product it was intended to be.
Replacing the F15, F16, F18 A10 and Harrier was its initial goal, its either way too expensive, or simply limited in its abilities to do so.

[LowObservable]

But in my considered opinion the hard core detractors of the F-35 have made the highest claims for what the F-35 is supposed to do and be, not LM.

I re-linked on this page to two very specific claims, one from a program manager and another from an LM test pilot, which cast doubt on your opinion. Here's another, from LM's Tom Burbage in Sept 2008:

"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access - all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again."

I don't think anyone could make a higher claim than that, except by appending "while solving the global warming crisis at the same time".

[KenV]

So, hard-core detractors are just born that way (disidents and anarchists) and LM bull****ting public has nothing to do with that?

Were they born that way? If that is your conclusion, then you apparently believe that "the public" are born with "animosity", because the original premise was that the public is showing animosity to the program. It was my premise that the public sentiment has been mild, and the "animosity" is coming from the hard core detractors. You are welcome to disagree with my position, but may I suggest that concluding that people are "born that way" is based on false assumptions?

Personally, I doubt anyone is "born that way". I see it as more of a choice. Humans get satisfaction both from tearing things down and from building things up. Some folks just choose to focus on tearing things down. I don't know why. Perhaps because its easier than the alternative?

Because ppl, when told the F35 will replace and surpass their their F16s in performance, cost, etc., believed LM?Has LM really claimed that the F-35 will "surpass" the F-16 as an air superiority fighter? Or is that an assumption? LM has certainly claimed F-35 will surpass the F-16's strike (air to ground) performance and far surpass the F-16's survivability in heavily defended airspace. And all while retaining good self defense capability against opposing fighters. And did some people then assume this meant it could surpass the F-16's aeroperformance? And then from that (false) assumption make wild conclusions?

Well you know, designing a fighter aircraft with its flight performance allowed to fall into 'trade space', is kinda like building a missile without specifying payload and range and thus application.
May I respectfully suggest I "know" no such thing. And indeed no one knows any such thing. May gently suggest that this is yet another (false) assumption.

Why would you build the future of your security on a whim of a single company that may, or may not deliver?
With respect, I believe the above is a wild conclusion (future of your security?!!) based on a false assumption (whim of a single company??!!) .

There's no chance that such a project goes live in a clean private sector awarded tender and with a good reason. And as respectfully and professionally as I can state it, I believe this to be yet another wild conclusion based on false assumptions.

[LowObservable]

FodPLOD

I'll spare you an extended gutting of the cited piece, and simply point out that the same consultant is the author of the memorable line from November 2009:

If you don’t follow the defense business closely, then you can be excused for believing that the F-35 joint strike fighter is in trouble.

FOUR REASONS FOR CONFIDENCE IN THE F-35 - Lexington Institute (http://lexingtoninstitute.org/four-reasons-for-confidence-in-the-f-35/?a=1&c=1129)

As long-time subscribers to this thread will remember, within three months of that statement, SecDef Gates had discovered that the wool had been pulled over his eyes concerning the F-35 program's progress, the Pentagon program manager had been booted with extreme prejudice, and a new team had been parachuted in to sort the mess out, resulting in a multi-year delay to the delivery of full operational capability.

[MSOCS]

Journos trashing Journos on this forum.

The author makes excellent points and is more 'on the money' than many I have read in a number of months. I take your point about his allegiance - but also commend him for coming clean, publicly.

Some Ares bloggers tend not to.

[LowObservable]

Has LM really claimed that the F-35 will "surpass" the F-16 as an air superiority fighter?

Yes, under oath:

Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue F-35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 20/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0001%22)

[KenV]

You can't look for yourself, half the page up?

I apologize, but I cannot find a quote from Flynn on this page.

[LowObservable]

Ken: Linked on previous page.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-325.html#post9033295

MSOCS

Dr Thompson is not a journalist. I don't think he would identify as such for a moment. And in this day and age, it's hardly "trashing" someone to link to his own site.

I take your point about his allegiance - but also commend him for coming clean, publicly. Some Ares bloggers tend not to.

So, are you going to say specifically what you mean here? Who is it who has an "allegiance" - loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause, it says here - that is not being disclosed?

[KenV]

It was sold as a successor to the F16 or F18, it was sold under false premisses and if you agree with the NAVY doctrine regarding the F35 you basically agree with me on that.

It is my opinion that F-35 was sold "as a successor to the F16 or F18" in the strike (air-to-ground) role, and in the case of the F/A-18 specifically, as equally able to defend itself against opposing fighters in that role. I don't believe it was ever sold as equal in capability to F-16 in the air superiority role.

Almost nobody here has a problem with it (F35) not being a true Air Dominance, super agile fighter like the F16 initially was,With respect, I must disagree. I believe this latest round of criticism is levied against the F-35 based on a blog about its (alleged) poor close-in dog fight performance against an F-16. (I say alleged because the test was not designed or intended to test close-in dog fight performance. That was yet another false assumption, leading to a bad conclusion) My argument from the beginning has been that the F-35 was never intended or designed to do that, and they argue (rather fiercely) otherwise.

good enough is all we need and the other (A-type) abilities are certainly at least as , if not more ,important, but it's not really doing that either.Fascinating. "Good enough" were my EXACT words and they took fierce exception with that. As for the F-35 "not really doing that" (living up to its air-to-ground performance requirements), I have no data to support that. If you have such data would you mind sharing? Thanks in advance.

but not the standalone product it was intended to be.With respect, has ANY fighter ever been sold as a "stand alone product"? Yes, some nations buy only one fighter type and make it do everything, but that is a cost decision, not a technical or tactical decision. The F-16 is likely the greatest example of that. The Harrier was another for the Royal Navy. But for those nations/air arms that buy just one fighter and make it do everything, the F-35 is the best standalone product one is going to find, even though NOTHING can ever be truly "standalone". And I don't think LM ever sold it as "standalone." They DID sell it as the most survivable strike platform in heavily defended airspace when operated as designed (i.e. operated in groups (not standalone), all datalinked together for mutual support.)

[LowObservable]

I don't believe it was ever sold as equal in capability to F-16 in the air superiority role.

You can believe that if you wish, but you are quite wrong.

You're disregarding on-the-record, sourced quotes that say that not only is the F-35 equal to the F-16, it's dominant over every threat and competitor out there.

Do you think that your determination to ignore all evidence that contradicts your opinions is the reason for the negative attitudes about which you constantly complain?

[KenV]

Ken: Linked on previous page.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ? (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-325.html#post9033295)

Thank you. Two comments:

1. The cited article is dated Feb 2013. The F-35 was "sold" many years before that. How many "buy" decisions have been made since Flynn's claims? Did LM ever make during the early days of the program the claims Flynn made in 2013? I tend to think not.

2. "Kinematic performance better than or equal to Typhoon or F-18" is not the same thing as calling the F-35 an air superiority fighter. Indeed, I see Flynn's claims being made to COUNTER the oft repeated accusations that the F-35's kinematic performance is "abysmal". And it seems to me that the article goes to good lengths to describe the specifics of Flynn's claims compared to other Western fighters. And further, while his claims are controversial, none of Flynn's claims were shown to be false, as many here are suggesting.

[KenV]

You're disregarding on-the-record, sourced quotes that say that not only is the F-35 equal to the F-16, it's dominant over every threat and competitor out there.Dominant in the air superiority role, or dominant in the strike role? There's a big difference. May I request you share "on-the-record, sourced quotes" that state F-35 is dominant in the air superiority role?

Do you think that your determination to ignore all evidence that contradicts your opinions is the reason for the negative attitudes about which you constantly complain? 1. May I humbly request you share this evidence that LM claims the F-35 is dominant in the air superiority role?

2. I "constantly complain" about your "negative attitudes"? I respectfully deny that. I do point them out from time to time. Like I'm doing now. May I also suggest that I am hardly the only one to point out your "negative attitudes"? Others have noticed and pointed them out.

[Lonewolf_50]

I don't believe it was ever sold as equal in capability to F-16 in the air superiority role.

You can believe that if you wish, but you are quite wrong.
The acquisition of this platform began about 20 years ago.
My, how the force structures and planning assumptions have changed over the years since, eh?

I think Ken is more right than wrong.
The air superiority fighter, before that buy was severely cut, was to be the F-22 with JSF filling in the multi role position. Of course, we must add in the "real expensive Harrier" as well .... thanks to how Joint Requirements arrived at what it is/was they wanted, and to allies who won't build cat and trap carriers, but still wish to have some FJ afloat capability.

But the basic customer, which were the US armed forces, didn't buy this as an air superiority fighter. That program was already off and running.

For nations with fewer dollars in their budgets, the F-22 wasn't available due to cost but there were also limits on that kit being exported anywhere for other reasons.

This leaves various partners and allies with looking at how to arrive at a 5th gen fighter (in small numbers that could still take advantage of a long production run that the Americans were setting up) was going to have to do Air Superiority too ... even though the platform was multi role by requirements definition. Why? Most of our allies have small forces, in sheer numbers, and so have to get a lot out of whatever it is they buy.

So let's be clear: F-35 was never built as "air superiority fighter" from the ground up.

It is forced to fill that role in projected inventories due to a whole lot of other factors, which include politics, budgets, force sizes, and the cost benefit of reducing the number of different systems in various inventories.

That last gets whacked due to the price we are seeing realized, which I am pretty sure each person in this thread agrees as one of the great stains on this programs shirt: this thing's turned into a seriously expensive aircraft, which is in direct contradiction to original program objectives.

[MSOCS]

Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue F-35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

I'm sorry to inform you but the above statement is more true than you wish to believe. He hasn't lied or been economical with the truth there.

The recent debates on here have almost exclusively revolved around the ability of the F-35 to turn as well (sustained) as the F-16 - part of an out-of-context media bandwagon which the ill-informed have piled on if it suits their agenda.

The very small but real chance of being in a turning, visual fight is actually a very small part of the overall Air Superiority game in the modern age, but absolutely IS still relevant. If it really does all go ti*s-up for you and you end up in a visual fight (assuming he's seen you) and decide to stay and turn with him - vaingloriously trying to 'get the nose on the bandit' for a kill - then you're unfortunate because it shouldn't have gotten to that stage. You've also demonstrated that you've no idea how to use your air system (aircraft, sensors and weapons) so you're gonna be embarrassed very soon. Many factors go into modelling and simulations but i'm pretty sure that in Mr Liberson's statement that very few kills were attributed to a turning, visual fight.

Overall, is F-35 better than F-16 in the A-A game across the entire evolution - from detect, identify, target, shoot and confirm kill? No doubt in my mind. Unfortunately too many read the various "Top Trumps" cards for aircraft and they don't account for tactics, training, doctrine and environment.

LO - Just to clarify my comments, Dr Thompson writes often and publicly so to me he's performing many of the roles of a journalist; he blogs, he writes columns for Defense. He also confessed in his article that he is pro-F-35, immediately removing any notion that the article is neutral - so, apologies if the word allegiance in that context isn't as pure as you consider it should be but his "allegiance" is clearly toward the F-35. Finally, starting a line with "I'll spare you an extended gutting of the cited piece..." treats the author with contempt and in my book that's trashing, not to mention hilariously arrogant.

[KenV]

Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue F-35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.May I suggest that a false assumption has been made. Four F-35's beating eight red defenders is NOT a claim about close-in dog fight air superiority. Four F-35s cooperatively penetrating defended air space can indeed (in simulations) beat eight advanced red defenders. There is no claim made here about close-in dog fighting in an air superiority role. In other words, a bad conclusion based on a false assumption.

Nevertheless, even though the F-35 was not designed nor optimized for the air superiority role, it does a creditable job there. Certainly as good as and usually better than any other aircraft designed and optimized for the strike role, and on occasion better than many non stealth purpose designed air superiority fighters.

[FODPlod]

Some of us appear to be talking at cross-purposes. Many F-35 critics seem to define 'air superiority' as the ability to outmanoeuvre opposing aircraft (i.e. KenV's 'aeroperformance') like a bespoke fighter whereas many F-35 adherents seem to define 'air superiority' as the ability to exploit attributes like better stealth, weapons, sensors, data fusion and tactics to beat other aircraft without the need to outmanoeuvre them.

Isn't air superiority simply the ease with which an aircraft is able to overcome its opponent(s), whatever the means employed, or is this a paradigm shift too far?

[Turbine D]

I tend to believe that in 2006 when this proclamation was made, LM intent was to deliver an F-35 that generally met these criteria outline by them and as US taxpayers, this is what we were to pay for:
George Standridge, VP of Business Development of Lockheed Martin predicted in 2006 that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters. The design goals call for the F-35 to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040 and to be second only to the F-22 Raptor in air superiority.
The question remains, are we getting what Mr. Standridge predicted we would receive or was that false advertising?

Dr. Thompson receives money from L/M, Boeing and other defense contractors supporting the cost to run his blog and institute that he established. Of course he would be pro F-35, would he bite off the hand that feeds him? If Boeing had won the contract, he would be on the Boeing horse praising their offering. That is what the industry pays him to do and he plays the game quite well.

[KenV]

The question remains, are we getting what Mr. Standridge predicted we would receive or was that false advertising?


Good question. We do (generally) appear to be getting what he promised in terms of aircraft/systems performance, but probably not yet in terms of acquisition nor sustainment costs. LM still has a long ways to go on those latter two. But then again, it's still mighty early in the program with only a single squadron of one model approaching IOC and the program not yet in full rate production.

[MSOCS]

I'd buy that KenV; a fair assessment.

Concur that the capability is there and the growth is pretty phenomenal compared to how much further legacy platforms can be adapted/upgraded to face the near and medium-term future threat and challenges. I would also say that the trend in acquisition and sustainment is going in the right direction. of course, there are indeed huge lessons and a number of red faces (Govt and Contractor) to be had if the history of the F-35 Program is ever written and things could have been done quite a lot better in a few key areas.

[Heathrow Harry]

I think Wolf has it about right

The USAF wanted more F-22's, the rest of the world wanted a cheap (cheaper/cheapest) new generation all singing all dancing aircraft so what we've finished up with is a F-104 story in reverse if you like - a limited load, reasonably stealthy strike aircaarft sold buy LM and the various air staffs as able to do ANYTHING a protential customer asks about

surprised they haven't suggested it for the UK MPA requirement TBH

[NITRO104]

2. "Kinematic performance better than or equal to Typhoon or F-18" is not the same thing as calling the F-35 an air superiority fighter.

At this point, I believe nobody really cares.
Why is this discussion permanently sidetracked into 'but the F-35 is the better in air-to-air', when we're examining one particular aspect where LM was outright deceitful about, in spite the fact it was obvious they were 'wrong'.
I may get corrected by people flying both planes, but I doubt even an empty F35 can fly what Makepiece flew loaded a couple of years ago on RIAT, so there's really no room for rhetoric here.

Indeed, I see Flynn's claims being made to COUNTER the oft repeated accusations that the F-35's kinematic performance is "abysmal".Yes well, you don't negate accusations with lies if you're responsible person/company and that is a very serious thing if your company produces what is to be the backbone of your defense structure for the next 50 years.
Wouldn't you agree, or you're more of a Machiavellian type of guy?
IMO, this is a very important question, since customers are left upon the 'good will' of a single company, that has a next to carta-blanco contract, which would be in some other time and place called a communism.
On the other hand, our forefathers knew better than 'trust' each other and thus invented contracts and courts, which specify provided services and protect both sides.

Again, if you're building a fighter aircraft without specified flight performance it's a...well, I've never seen one.
If you're building a STRIKE fighter without specifying flight performance...that may go, but then you don't go around talking rubbish about how fast and maneuverable your new plane is, when...it isn't.
This is then the base block that shows you know what you're doing and that you're not hiring clowns in your PR dpt. since you're not running a circus, but what is to be a serious defense company.

Or, I may be from some other time when people actually died in war, unlike today when you just press 'Reload' button when your unit gets wiped out by the enemy and start over?
Who knows...

[longer ron]

FODplod

longer ron - Would you have felt better if he'd kept that bit quiet or, like me, appreciated his candour and taken his background into account while reading his blog? Does it invalidate the factual evidence, backed up with actual figures, he presents?

It just makes it more difficult to swallow figures and statements etc - it is fairly easy to post (say) 82% cheaper etc but 82% of what ?
Some of his statements are perhaps a little err optimistic and it should be remembered that this thread is about the 'B' model only.
Yes he is to be commended for coming clean but that could be for a double edged reason - but personally I would prefer to read an article by somebody completely neutral.
I can say what I like about the F35 because my future employment does not depend on it - other posters may not be able to say that.As I have said previously I also say what I like about the aircraft because I am a taxpayer !

[KenV]

At this point, I believe nobody really cares.
May I offer that your reply suggests you care.

...but I doubt even an empty F35 can fly what Makepiece flew loaded a couple of years ago on RIAT,May I ask if this conclusion is based on actual data, or on assumptions? And if the former, would you mind sharing the data?

Yes well, you don't negate accusations with lies if you're responsible person/company

May I repeat my previous statement that appears to have been either missed or ignored?

...while his claims are controversial, none of Flynn's claims were shown to be false, as many here are suggesting.

May I gently point out that you have not just "suggested" Flynn's claims are false, but you have directly called them "lies." Can you please provide any data that supports your accusation? Or is this a wild conclusion based on false assumptions?


Again, if you're building a fighter aircraft without specified flight performance it's a...well, I've never seen one.May I respectfully inquire how many aircraft development/procurement programs you have been directly involved with? And how many of those programs met all the performance requirements without modification, and were on budget and were on schedule? If the answer is none, then may I venture that having "never seen one" rather moots your argument.

[glad rag]

https://www.f35.com/support

Do you find the above site serves a useful purpose Ken ?

[NITRO104]

May I...
No, you may not.
What you 'may' do, is provide the data corroborating LM/Flynn's claims, which are:
Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.Considering test results from March '15, how do you figure the F35 is going to measure up vs Typhoon?
The F35 should have plenty of other advantages over Typhoon, so why not concentrating on those instead of making yourself a clown?

[a1bill]

Nitro, "Combat configured 4th gen" are the key words. A lot happens before you get to a guns only dogfight.




Joint Strike Fighter, the name says it all doesn't it? although as per LO's link was sworn to aussie parliament that it has a 'minimum' kill ratio of 6:1 against red air in the 2015-2020 time frame.
4 F-35 vs 8 red air.

Just because it's not called an air superiority platform, doesn't mean it wont have air superiority over its opposition

[KenV]

No, you may not.Oh my!!

What you 'may' do, is provide the data corroborating LM/Flynn's claims,May I gently point out that the article that was cited did exactly that.

Considering test results from March '15, how do you figure the F35 is going to measure up vs Typhoon?How do I figure? Well, I started by reading the entire article that was cited. May I suggest you read what Flynn actually claimed and not what you assume he claimed? Except for it's gun Typhoon carries all its weapons externally. Combat configured for an air-to-air missile fight where F-35 carries its missiles internally, F-35 is equal or better. Transonic acceleration is equal or better. Sustained and instantaneous turn rate is equal. Max load factor is equal. Overlays of Energy Maneuverability (E-M diagrams) show F-35 equal or better. And F-35 has a 50 degree AOA limit while Typhoon's is 25 degrees.

Now on the subject of the "March '15 test results" you asked about, may I point out that those tests had NOTHING to do with close-in dog fight performance and used airframes that included no air-to-air weaponry (beyond the gun) on either aircraft.

Now using your wording, "how do you figure" Flynn "lied". To be courteous and to remain "professional", I shan't address your "clown" remark.

[Radix]

.............

[NITRO104]

Combat configured for an air-to-air missile fight where F-35 carries its missiles internally, F-35 is equal or better. Transonic acceleration is equal or better. Sustained and instantaneous turn rate is equal. Overlays of Energy Maneuverability (E-M diagrams) show F-35 equal or better.
Bless you and watch out for that bus when crossing the street.

[Just This Once...]

F-35 will turn out to be the greatest air superiority fighter ever made.

It has already decimated a number of air forces, including the Dutch F-16 fleet, well before achieving full operating capability. No doubt it will claim many more.

[Biggus]

I'm a bit reluctant to enter this "no prisoners" thread, but here goes. First of all I'm not pro or anti F-35, but offer the following observation:

A comment about 5 posts ago discussed a claimed a kill ratio vs red air in the 2015-2020 time frame, apparently made to the Australian parliament. Well, we're already in 2015, and by the time the Aussies get F-35 in service I would expect us to be over half way through the 2015-2020 time period!

[LowObservable]

Combat configured for an air-to-air missile fight where F-35 carries its missiles internally, F-35 is equal or better. Transonic acceleration is equal or better. Sustained and instantaneous turn rate is equal. Max load factor is equal. Overlays of Energy Maneuverability (E-M diagrams) show F-35 equal or better. And F-35 has a 50 degree AOA limit while Typhoon's is 25 degrees.

Cool that you have E-M diagrams for the F-35 and Typhoon that have not been made up by some fankiddy/gamer. You must have some interesting clearances.

High AoA limits are not a bad thing in themselves, but if you don't have the E-M and control authority to use them without becoming a grape, they are of little tactical signficance.

[a1bill]

Biggus, It was from the joint sims that LM,USAF,USMC,USN and partners conduct. They said they get a better LER when they put pilots in the loop.
They can 'guess' what red air is post 2020, but they may wait to see what evolves. I think Australia will go IOC in 2020

[LowObservable]

I don't think you can dismiss Flynn, Davis, Burbage or Liberson on the grounds that the F-35 had already been "sold".

The program has 30 international orders under contract. Of the eight partner nations, one has reopened a competition, another is contemplating doing so and at least two may buy many fewer than the originally planned numbers. So it continues to be important to sell the program.

[a1bill]

LO, you may be able to add Australia to that list, we did plan for 100. We have committed to about 75. We replaced the F-111 with 24 FA-18f till a 2025 time frame. The now 36 super hornet/growlers fleet may well extend and be retired with the USN fleet.


Canada I see as politics, as both parties have shown support for the F-35. It must be a well governed country if the way it is procured is all they have to squabble about.


They will be 'publicly' selling the F-35 for the next 30 years with carefully chosen phrases. I don't think that sways the numerous evaluation teams that report to their air force leaders and governments.

[Biggus]

a1bill,

Thanks for the reply!

[GeeRam]

The Dutch are having to spend extra money again to keep the ageing F-16 fleet operational, because LM is just not delivering.

F-16's end up being sold off and others being taken out of active service to be cannibalised for spares. They started with 200 F-16's. There are 60 left. The high cost of the F-35 means they can only afford ~35 F-35's.

More fool the Dutch for having not already bailed out and bought something else then......

[malcrf]

They should have bought Gripens................then they could have had a decent number and they would have worked!

[PhilipG]

Interesting that the US Marines have yet to declare IOC?
A recommendation is reported to have been sent up the line for approval a number of days ago, one would have thought that this would have been a simple case of rubber stamping....

[glad rag]

Interesting that the US Marines have yet to declare IOC?
A recommendation is reported to have been sent up the line for approval a number of days ago, one would have thought that this would have been a simple case of rubber stamping....

Lets see what transpires. It will be telling just what initial actually turns out to be.

[melmothtw]

The 'rumour mill' has it that IOC will be declared this afternoon, US time. I suppose there is just no putting it off any longer...

[KenV]

So, what about time eh? The Dutch are having to spend extra money again to keep the ageing F-16 fleet operational, because LM is just not delivering. What about time? To the best of my knowledge no one is saying or even suggesting that that the F-35 is not waaaay behind schedule. Nor waaaay over budget. But may I point out that those are non sequiturs when the discussion is about maneuverablility.

[KenV]

Cool that you have E-M diagrams for the F-35 and Typhoon that have not been made up by some fankiddy/gamer.

1. I never remotely suggested that I have access to them. Flynn does.

2. You are welcome to call the F-35 Joint Test Force "fankiddy/gamer", but I disagree on that point.

3. I was asked for specifics. AOA was just one of them.

May I ask once again if you have found any relevant data that would support the accusation that Flynn's claims were "lies". Or were the accusations based on assumptions?

[KenV]

A few quotes from David "Chip" Berke (a USMC pilot with F/A-18, F-16, F-22, F-35 and Typhoon experience.)

4th Gen Rule 1: "Speed is life and more is better"

5th Gen Rule 1: "Info is life and more is better"

If you are measuring an airplane by speed and agility, you are misunderstanding the capabilities of an airplane in a 5th Generation fight.

The Raptor has more speed and maneuverability than any other fighter. Yet the LEAST impressive feature of the Raptor is its speed and manueverability. Speed and maneuverability are the LAST thing I am concerned about in a 5th Gen fight.

Innovation takes time and it is painful and expensive, but it is absolutely essential in a 5th Gen fight. And when talking 5th Gen, that means 2020 to 2025, not today. We aren't there yet operationally.

If you are thinking in 4th Gen terms, you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose. It is not just about the role, it is about the potential.

The F-35 facilitates an entirely new war fighting ecosystem in the same way that the iPhone created an entirely new mobile device ecosystem.

If you think of the iPhone as a phone that happens to play music and access the internet, you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose. If you think of the F-35 as a fighter that happens to be stealthy and interconnected, you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose. F-35 must be viewed is a sensor/collaborator/shooter platform.

4th Gen air warfare is about airplane dominance.
5th Gen air warfare is about spectrum dominance. F-35 is an overwhelming advancement in breadth and depth of spectrum.

Stealth means access, not just reduced detection, so that WE dictate access, not the threat

The presence of 5th Gen fighters makes 4th Gen fighters more lethal and survivable.

F-35's innovation is not what it does by itself, but what it contributes beyond the aircraft.

It is critically important to understand what it means to be part of a 5th Gen ecosystem. Equally important is understanding what it means to be excluded from it.

=======
That last line may be why so many nations are buying F-35, even though it's expensive. They understand what it means to be excluded from the 5th Gen fight and really want to be part of that fight. And they apparently view the wait and the cost as worth it.

My personal bottom line summary: You cannot use 4th Gen rules nor a 4th Gen pilot mindset to fight a 5th Gen fight. Do so and you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose.

May I gently suggest that we seem to have lots of folks here permanently stuck in a 4th Gen mindset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

[glad rag]

Just saved myself a whole load of bandwidth.

"oh my"

[KenV]

I don't think you can dismiss Flynn, Davis, Burbage or Liberson on the grounds that the F-35 had already been "sold".

For clarification, I've not dismissed anything those guys have said. The accusation was that the F-35 program was sold on lies by LM. The "proof" that was provided was flawed in two ways:
1. It post dated the "selling" of the program by more than a decade.
2. None of their performance claims have been shown to be wrong, much less lies.

The program has 30 international orders under contract. Of the eight partner nations, one has reopened a competition, another is contemplating doing so and at least two may buy many fewer than the originally planned numbers. So it continues to be important to sell the program.
May I point out that I indicated that Flynn likely made those statements to counter the vast numbers of false claims made that the F-35 kinematics are "abysmal". Refuting false information is part and parcel to any "keep sold" effort.

[KenV]

Just saved myself a whole load of bandwidth.

"oh my" Thanks for your feedback. Such agreement is rare.

But which part of Berke's presentation do you disagree with?

[airsound]

A presser has flooded in from the USMC U.S. MARINE CORPS DECLARES THE F-35B OPERATIONAL
HEADQUARTERS U.S. MARINE CORPS (July 31, 2015) -- The U.S. Marine Corps' F-35B Lightning II aircraft reached initial operational capability today with a squadron of 10 F-35Bs ready for world-wide deployment.
Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121), based in Yuma, Arizona, is the first squadron in military history to become operational with an F-35 variant, following a five-day Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI), which concluded July 17.
“I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees,” said Gen. Joseph Dunford, Commandant of the Marine Corps. “VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting Close Air Support, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort and Armed Reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force.”
Dunford stated that he has his full confidence in the F-35B’s ability to support Marines in combat, predicated on years of concurrent developmental testing and operational flying.
“Prior to declaring IOC, we have conducted flight operations for seven weeks at sea aboard an L-Class carrier, participated in multiple large force exercises, and executed a recent operational evaluation which included multiple live ordnance sorties, said Dunford.” The F-35B’s ability to conduct operations from expeditionary airstrips or sea-based carriers provides our Nation with its first 5th generation strike fighter, which will transform the way we fight and win.”
As the future of Marine Corps tactical aviation, the F-35 will eventually replace three legacy platforms: the AV- 8B Harrier, the F/A-18 Hornet, and the EA-6B Prowler.
“The success of VMFA-121 is a reflection of the hard work and effort by the Marines in the squadron, those involved in the program over many years, and the support we have received from across the Department of the Navy, the Joint Program Office, our industry partners, and the Under Secretary of Defense. Achieving IOC has truly been a team effort,” concluded Dunford.
The U.S. Marine Corps has trained and qualified more than 50 Marine F-35B pilots and certified about 500 maintenance personnel to assume autonomous, organic-level maintenance support for the F-35B.
VMFA-121’s transition will be followed by Marine Attack Squadron 211 (VMA-211), an AV-8B squadron, which is scheduled to transition next to the F-35B in fiscal year 2016. In 2018, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 122 (VMFA-122), an F-18 Hornet squadron, will conduct its transition.

There's also a fillum reminding us of how easy the road has been so far. https://vimeo.com/lmaeronautics/review/134357538/9feb00145d

airsound

[LowObservable]

So, Ken - What is the value of information dominance in the event that you have expended all your AMRAAMs (two today, four tomorrow) but have failed in the process to kill or Winchester all your adversaries, which have superior speed, acceleration and endurance-at-speed?

This is the question that websites like the one that (I think) you got that from will never ask.

By the way, the argument as to whether the statements by Flynn, Burbage &c have been proven false is a strawman. They have not been proven true, and are so inflated that the burden is on those making the statements to prove them true; and Flynn's statements about kinematics are at odds with the infamous leaked report.

[NITRO104]

2. None of their performance claims have been shown to be wrong, much less lies.
Ok, so can you explain how come the empty F35 couldn't match a family B.40 with two external tanks in terms of S.E.P. and yet according to LM/Flynn it can match or surpass Typhoon in flight performance?
Which Typhoon would that be? RC?

[just a pax]

This is my first post so please be gentle.

Isn't that why Gen. Mike Hostage for example is talking about the need to have the F-35s hunt in packs of eight?

Do they lack the ability or are less capable to proper self defence, and not able to get out of the situation as other aircrafts are?
If so this raises a lot of other questions. Not only for the US but for all those partners and countries that do not have the financial prerequisites to buy them in large quantities.


“Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”
Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/)

Or is it just a way of trying to keep the fleet from any numerical cuts?

[Lonewolf_50]

I guess we'll need to wait for the next shooting war to find out if this plane's any good.

[Radix]

...........

[KenV]

p.s. Nevertheless thanks for posting the link, it was interesting.
You're welcome, and thanks for your reply.

As for this statement:

First your defending the opinion that that the F-35 really is quite a manoeuvrable aircraft, and now that you've watched a youtube video, manoeuvrability is suddenly irrelevant...?My position was and is that F-35 maneuverability is "good enough" (I literally used those words on multiple occasions) and roughly the same as F/A-18C. It is not stellar, but it was never intended to be. (also words I have used on multiple occasions.) That's been my position from the very start of this discussion.

My position has also always been that the the F-35 must be viewed and evaluated as a PACKAGE. You cannot take any one feature and say "Aaahah! Abysmal fighter." Berke just captured my sentiments and packaged them much much better than I could.

[KenV]

So, Ken - What is the value of information dominance in the event that you have expended all your AMRAAMs (two today, four tomorrow)....

Sigh. May I politely ask if you actually watched the Berke video? I ask because you are still missing the point. You are still thinking and arguing in 4th Gen 1v1 terms. F-35 was designed to operate in mutually supportive groups. It is not just a fighter any more than the iPhone is just a telephone. It is a sensor/collaborator/shooter platform. It enables an entirely new ecosystem in air warfare, just as the iPhone enabled an entire new ecosystem in mobile devices.

And once again I ask politely, what part of the Berke presentation do you disagree with?

[a1bill]

As the marines say, AEGUS/SM-6 is my wingman. Which the F-35 can launch and target, from what I have read. I think it will use all offboard assets before it used its own. But with an unsupported group, 6:1 LER 4 vs 8 ..if a f-35 is reduced to guns 1 vs 1 in a full system event ..the mission planner is going to have to buy everyone beer for a month.

[Heathrow Harry]

Ken

I'm sure you are right - that it is designed to work in groups - however history tells us that you can't guarantee how you will have to fight in reality. “No Battle Plan Survives Contact With the Enemy”

Helmuth von Moltke.



the other point is that I doubt many (?any?) of the non -US buyers will have the IT, networking and other sensor capability to actually form a "group" - they're planning to use the F-35 as a straight replacement for 3rd & 4th Gen aircraft

[glad rag]

Indeed HH, it is ironic in the extreme that the latest proposed use for the F35 is for it to be used as a reconnaissance "scout" ahead of a main package ..

Roll on 2025 when the software and weapons integration finally catch up..a stealthy wild weasel....:hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:

"Even though the Green Knights squadron is technically read to deploy, its first overseas rotation to Iwakuni, Japan isn’t planned until 2017."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/first-operational-f-35-squadron-declared-ready-for-combat-415284/

[LowObservable]

It enables an entirely new ecosystem in air warfare.

Which means exactly what? I hate to break it to anyone here who has not been paying attention since 1940 or so, but air combat is an inherently networked operation. In most recent campaigns, Blue dominated Red in the ability to gather and disseminate information, and also disrupted Red's network.

By the way, automated low-latency information-sharing within a flight of combat aircraft is not a 5GenTM invention. It's been with us since the early 1980s. F-22 and F-35 do it in a manner that is focused on LPI, but there's no sign that MADL is otherwise better than TIDLS on Gripen.

And as we all know, too, once we get outside the four-ship, or (future) four-ship to four-ship of F-35s, we're back to Link 16, and anyone who thinks that is an "entirely new ecosystem" probably thinks we were using tin cans and string before St Steve invented the iPhone.

A1 - The F-35 most certainly can't "launch" SM. Whether it can plug into CEC via Link 16, I don't know, and I don't think anyone in the Navy has talked about that. Some people get confused over what they can postulate as F-35 capabilities and what's actually there, and some of them list LM as a Gold Sponsor on their sites too, but I'm sure the two are unrelated.

[a1bill]

Do you think more research and less hanging around forums bagging LM, other sites and the f-35 might help?


Perhaps I should make longer posts, to be precise. the F-35 being a remote sensor, will feed the data for the launch and subsequent flight updates. The SM-6 uses the AIM-120 seeker and should therefore be compatible with the f-35 system..
Navy, Raytheon Test Standard Missile-6 Against Supersonic Over-the-Horizon Threat - USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2015/06/17/navy-raytheon-test-standard-missile-6-against-supersonic-over-the-horizon-threat)


plugging in the f-35
http://defensetech.org/2015/01/22/navy-to-integrate-f-35-with-beyond-the-horizon-technology/

[LowObservable]

Thanks for the clarification. I'd forgotten that the latest iteration of the CEC concept was NIFCA-CA. However, what seems to be discussed at your second link is a demonstration, so I guess we'll have to see if NIFCA-CA integration makes it on to Block 4 (that is, pre-2027).

However, if I'm planning to use something as a radar/ESM/IR picket I would prefer something with persistence, and it doesn't need a pilot.

[Maus92]

Perhaps I should make longer posts, to be precise. the F-35 being a remote sensor, will feed the data for the launch and subsequent flight updates.

A new long range LPI DL (probably some flavor of ATDL) needs to be developed for the F-35 to enable the passing of initial and mid-course targeting data back to the E-2D that manages the engagement. SM-6 terminal guidance is handled onboard by its active seeker derived from the AIM-120 program. The remote sensing capability is not limited to the F-35: EA-18s (will) have this capability via Link-16 or TTNT. The novel aspect of using (a section or division) of F-35 as a remote sensor is the ability to deploy an array of sensors (array in the sense of widely spaced aircraft) far forward of the attacking force.

[Radix]

...........

[a1bill]

What makes you think that UAV's aren't remote sensors too, in a full system event? Perhaps if you google NIFCA-CA and UAV it may shed some light on what is envisioned.

[layman]

F22 rather than F35 but, enough similarity to be relevant?

"I had the opportunity to fly in an opposition Red Air F‐15D fitted with a sophisticated EW jamming capability. I was looking forward to being on the mission having been on the receiving end of “Red Air” over the years. However, instead of witnessing the normal attrition of a strike package I witnessed a demonstration of the superiority of the fifth generation aircraft.

What I didn’t account for was the effect of the eight escort F‐22s. The good thing about Red Air is that you are allowed to regenerate if you suffer a simulated kill.

So what happened? Well we advanced into the airspace about 40nm and were killed with no idea who or what had caused our demise. We regenerated and the next time only advanced 20nm. We regenerated a total of 5 times and only advanced a maximum of 40nm into the airspace; such was the dramatic superiority of a 5th generation aircraft.

Post flight I was then fortunate to view the engagement from the viewpoint of the F‐22 formation. The level of situational awareness was dramatically different. The F‐22 pilots had a complete gods‐eye view of the battle space and the differences between the benchmark 4th generation aircraft and a 5th generation aircraft were quite stark. It is this situational awareness that determines who wins and who losses in the fight for control of the air."

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/UploadedFiles/General/The_Role_of_the_RAAF_in_Australia's_National_Security_-_RUSI_-_26_Jul_2012.pdf

[Baron 58P]

:):)A bit of light entertainment. This comes from Duffle Blog this morning - Pentagon Regrets Taking Out Payday Loan for F-35 (http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/07/pentagon-regrets-payday-loan/?utm_source=DuffelBlog.com+fans&utm_campaign=3defac6c75-Duffel_Blog_Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6d392bc034-3defac6c75-23733141&goal=0_6d392bc034-3defac6c75-23733141&mc_cid=3defac6c75&mc_eid=873c552b87)

[a1bill]

Yes, it's always a good site to read.


A demonstration of the F-35’s new technology.
http://www.duffelblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/galaga.jpg

Read more: New F-35 Technology 'Radar' May Detect Objects In Sky (http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/07/new-f-35-radar/#ixzz3hkTGTItB)

[glad rag]

F22 rather than F35 but, enough similarity to be relevant?

"I had the opportunity to fly in an opposition Red Air F‐15D fitted with a sophisticated EW jamming capability. I was looking forward to being on the mission having been on the receiving end of “Red Air” over the years. However, instead of witnessing the normal attrition of a strike package I witnessed a demonstration of the superiority of the fifth generation aircraft.

What I didn’t account for was the effect of the eight escort F‐22s. The good thing about Red Air is that you are allowed to regenerate if you suffer a simulated kill.

So what happened? Well we advanced into the airspace about 40nm and were killed with no idea who or what had caused our demise. We regenerated and the next time only advanced 20nm. We regenerated a total of 5 times and only advanced a maximum of 40nm into the airspace; such was the dramatic superiority of a 5th generation aircraft.

Post flight I was then fortunate to view the engagement from the viewpoint of the F‐22 formation. The level of situational awareness was dramatically different. The F‐22 pilots had a complete gods‐eye view of the battle space and the differences between the benchmark 4th generation aircraft and a 5th generation aircraft were quite stark. It is this situational awareness that determines who wins and who losses in the fight for control of the air."

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/UploadedFiles/General/The_Role_of_the_RAAF_in_Australia's_National_Security_-_RUSI_-_26_Jul_2012.pdf


Hmm what looks good at first falls apart when you actually rationalise what he's talking about...

[LowObservable]

Layman - very illuminating.

It's strongly illustrative of the trap that has been constructed from the 5GenTM mythology. As the author notes, he was flying in a USAF F-15D, a type that entered service at the end of the 1970s. In this scenario, the most important element of the "sophisticated EW system" was the ALR-56C RWR, a superheterodyne analog system...

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/public/documents/document/mdaw/mdm5/~edisp/baes_020003.pdf

...which understandably failed to detect the LPI radar on the F-22s. The F-22 radars, meanwhile, could be power-managed to match the humungous nose-on RCS of the F-15D (a basic LPI technique), exploiting jet engine modulation to obtain positive ID.

The F-15C/Ds, meanwhile, were individually blind unless each aircraft used its radar (lacking intra-flight datalink), so there was no possibility of using a trailing element to use radar. The digital ALR-94s on the F-22s would have picked them up as soon as they transmitted.

Finally, the F-22s had height and speed to give their AIM-120s (six per jet) enough launch boost to perform high Pk launches at range, so they could exploit any advantage in detection and tracking range. The F-15C/D does not have MAWS, as far as I am aware.

So now let's equip Blue with F-35s, with max four missiles, with less range.

The adversaries have RCS reduction (probably 20 dbsm below an untreated Eagle) that denies JEM and requires the LPI radars on the F-35s to run at much higher power, which makes the signal easier to detect. Red also has digital ESM, which operates on all frequencies all the time rather than scanning like an analog superhet. LPI has suddenly become far more difficult.

Red may also have IRST. If they use radar they can hop the transmission around the formation and share the data via datalink. Red has decent sensor fusion, too.

Red has MAWS, effective DRFM jammers and auto-evasion, all of which conspire to make a high-Pk shot more difficult and (other things being equal) reduce missile range and F-pole distances.

(But in 5GenTM land, this Red force is still just "4Gen" and grouped with the old F-15s.)

And finally, if it goes wrong for the F-22s they can disengage with their superior energy maneuverability, including speed and acceleration. On the other hand...

Historical note: The F-15 Aggressor unit was deactivated last year, while F-16 Aggressors have been carrying IRST...

[WhiteOvies]

LO,

Out of curiosity which 'red' platform are you thinking of? PAK FA?

[KenV]

Ken I'm sure you are right - that it is designed to work in groups - however history tells us that you can't guarantee how you will have to fight in reality. “No Battle Plan Survives Contact With the Enemy”

No one is making any "guarantees", and may I suggest that any demands for such are absurd. Look at the data: in a 4 v 8 scenario the exchange rate is 1 to 6, and NOT 0 to 8. So no, 5th Gen does not make you an invulnerable Superman, and yes, 5th Gen operators will lose some airplanes. The idea is to make the enemy lose far more than you, it is NOT to make sure you lose none.

Further, one can design and build for the 3rd percentile worst case air-to-air scenario. F-22 did that. F-22 is even more expensive than F-35 AND it has a lousy air-to-ground capability. Once again, F-22 is optimized for air-to-air and has traded a LOT of air-to-ground capability for that stellar air-to-air performance. F-35 is optimized for air-to-ground and has traded some air-to-air performance to get it, with the idea being the F-35 pilots will avoid the low probability close-in dogfight for which they are not optimized. Industry was able (eventually) to figure out how to build a 4th Gen aircraft very good in both air-to-air and air-to-ground performance (F-15E and later, F/A-18E and later, Typhoon Block 15/FGR4 and later, Gripen NG and later, etc). But we are not yet able to build a 5th Gen aircraft stellar in both air-to-air and air-to-ground performance. May I politely state that demands for such at this time are absurd.

the other point is that I doubt many (?any?) of the non -US buyers will have the IT, networking and other sensor capability to actually form a "group" - they're planning to use the F-35 as a straight replacement for 3rd & 4th Gen aircraft Well, if you think that every nation other than the USA is hopelessly stuck in 4th Gen thinking and 4th Gen operations, and incapable of 5th Gen operations, then I would politely suggest you think again. My opinion is that the nations that bought into the F-35 program understand the value of the 5th Gen fight and are buying into it so they can fight a 5th Gen fight, not a 4th Gen fight. Those nations that are incapable of moving into the 5th Gen world can buy (and indeed many are buying) Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, F-15, Super Hornet, Sukhoi, etc.

[LowObservable]

None specifically. J-10B would be close, as would Su-35S; and it's still four years before F-35 Block 3F is operational, and until then it's only two AMRAAMs...

[WhiteOvies]

LO,

Thanks. With the performance differences and the technological advances in both east and west I see any actual air-air combat between near-peer States being much more decisively swung by good intel and ops planning, tactics and aircrew ability.

I would hope that the OT people at Edwards and Nellis have enough intel on the capabilities of their adversaries to be able to come up with tactics that put the F-35 at an advantage. On paper a Sea Harrier FA2 should never have beat a Mig 29 or F-15C but tactics were devised to be able to make it happen during DACT sorties.

[glad rag]

Tactics are only useful until a counter tactic is devised..

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Of course, but devising a counter-tactic* that is effective, reliable and affordable is not guaranteed.

*or, more accurately, staying ahead in the continual game of tactic and counter

I recall flying a non-wonder jet against the latest wonder jet in DACT, and at the end of the third day of being told each winning cheap trick tactic we had used would never work again, our QWI said "Yes, we know that, but there are only 7 days left, and we have 9 more cheap tricks!"

[glad rag]

Of course, but devising a counter-tactic* that is effective, reliable and affordable is not guaranteed.


Not a problem in Putin’s Russia though....they start "losing"..

http://thewe.cc/thewei/&_/images7/nuclear_bombs/atmosphere_nuclear_bomb_test.jpe

[NITRO104]

But we are not yet able to build a 5th Gen aircraft stellar in both air-to-air and air-to-ground performance.

Fair enough, but how does that help, say, Danemark in light of recent Russian threats?
Why would they need a stealth strike aircraft, when they face a tac.nuclear threat?
Apparently, there's a strategic discrepancy between US and some other JSF partners' needs, which shouldn't be there according to the picture that has been painted over the years, where JSF was supposed to equalize or outclass partners' F16s in all aspects, including flight performance and cost.

As a consequence, Danemark is facing a smaller fleet of slower and costlier planes to protect its borders.
This doesn't make any sense and is questionable whether the time such a fleet can buy until the cavalry arrives is long enough to be a viable strategy, because whereas the F35 can hide in the EM cluster**** of a moder EW war, an AB, or a dockyard, or a city can't.
...or the US can keep an F22 wing in Danemark, but then there's Norway and Netherlands and ...

[WhiteOvies]

Nitro,

Given that Denmark have an F-16 at Edwards supporting the F-35A Integrated Test Force and the Danish military are represented at the F-35 Joint Programme Office I would suggest that the Danish Defense Officials have a good view on the true capabilities between the two aircraft.

The Russian rhetoric is just that and is a diplomatic issue. The NATO Baltic Air Policing mission should detect and track the bad guys well before they enter Danish airspace. An F-35 equipped Danish Air Force ups the potency of this mission significantly, for which I am sure the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians will be very grateful.

I would suggest that the US has not put F-22s into the Baltic Policing Mission due to the increased implied threat to Russia this would cause. Whether the Baltics would wish for this level of deterrence is another matter.

Wheter F-35 is the right aircraft for Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands? Maybe the Industrial share and integration into the project for each country makes the expense worthwhile? As I recall the F-35C hook system is designed by a Dutch company, Kongsberg are involved in the F-35 wepaons system for integration of the NSM etc. I have not seen any interviews with the Dutch F-35 pilots yet or the Danes involved, their opinion would be interesting. For the UK economy we actually make more money from F-35 than the MOD is spending to buy our aircraft so the investment is worth it.

[ORAC]

The Russian rhetoric is just that and is a diplomatic issue. Honour the threat, the ones you don't tend to be real.

[NITRO104]

Given that Denmark have an F-16 at Edwards supporting the F-35A Integrated Test Force and the Danish military are represented at the F-35 Joint Programme Office I would suggest that the Danish Defense Officials have a good view on the true capabilities between the two aircraft.Yes, but how can they leave now many years into the project, even if they wanted to?
I'm not a politician, but I imagine it's not that easy to do a U-turn, after advocating one thing for so long.
Also, Danes were/are contemplating a new tender, but I'm not sure in what phase that project currently is.

The Russian rhetoric is just that and is a diplomatic issue.I agree and Russian tycoons live too good only to jeopardize that with another war so it's probably just empty chatter, but then again IMO one should prepare for the worst, if he's already determined to keep the defense capability and is paying a big buck for it.

Obviously, I'm not privy to JSF's combat capabilities, so my comments on this particular issue are made on academic level and public data only, but smaller number of slower fighters can't be a good thing vs a supersonic bombers, CMs, TBMs, etc. Remember what plane had the most success in dealing with V1 over UK, 70 years ago and it wasn't particularly sophisticated, but was powerful and fast.

[WhiteOvies]

I don't think the Danes will pull out unless finances absolutely dictate it. As you say, a lot of political effort is invested and any re-competition at this stage would cause a significant capability gap or additional cost of running on/upgrading F-16.

Of course the UK took the gap option when money ran out so it's not unheard of!

[KenV]

Fair enough, but how does that help, say, Danemark in light of recent Russian threats?
Why would they need a stealth strike aircraft, when they face a tac.nuclear threat?If they truly face a nuke threat, no fighter is going to make much of a difference. Basically, the only defense against any nuclear threat is certain nuclear retaliation. The Danes would need to become a nuclear power with their own nuclear deterrence. If so a stealthy jet would make an excellent delivery platform. Their other option is to rely on an alliance partner (perhaps like NATO) to provide the deterrence. Perhaps with a stealthy jet delivery platform.

JSF was supposed to equalize or outclass partners' F16s in all aspects, including flight performance and cost.Is the ability to "outclass" F-16 in a close-in dogfight a KPP, or an assumption? As a reminder, previous posts in this thread have made very clear the F-35 kinematic performance was NOT a KPP.

As for cost, you have to look at total cost to the nation. Plenty of Dane companies are doing work on, and making money on, and employing workers on, the F-35 program. In the overall scheme of things, the Danes may be coming out ahead finance wise.

[sandiego89]

just a pax: This is my first post so please be gentle.

Isn't that why Gen. Mike Hostage for example is talking about the need to have the F-35s hunt in packs of eight?

Do they lack the ability or are less capable to proper self defence, and not able to get out of the situation as other aircrafts are?
If so this raises a lot of other questions. Not only for the US but for all those partners and countries that do not have the financial prerequisites to buy them in large quantities.


“Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”
Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/)

Or is it just a way of trying to keep the fleet from any numerical cuts?

Just a Pax, think you are reading too much into the Generals statment in the linked article. He was comparing the capabilty of the F-22 to the F-35 in the air superiority realm, which he admits is not the main F-35 mission. The F-22 has superior range/endurance, missle load out and sensor capabilty for the air to air mission- everyone recognizes this. You would need 8 F-35s to do a comparable air superiority mission that 2 F-22's could do, not really a plan to "hunt in packs of eight."

Yes part of it is to get more aircraft.

He expands: "....The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”

I would say it is more of a statement on the impressive capabilties of the F-22, and the need to fully fund the F-35A fleet.

[NITRO104]

Is the ability to "outclass" F-16 in a close-in dogfight a KPP, or an assumption?
Neither, it's a selling point LM used to sell JSF to partners and around the world.

[KenV]

Neither, it's a selling point LM used to sell JSF to partners and around the world.

Is that documented, or an assumption? So far the documentation provided that LM made such claims to "sell JSF to partners" has shown them making no such claims.

[Lonewolf_50]

I don't think the Danes will pull out unless finances absolutely dictate it. Reminds me of a date long ago, when I could not afford to have a kid ... :}

I'd like to address the Russian Threat rhetoric.

This news inspired bit of the sky falling regarding "Russians make a nuclear threat versus Denmark" is a bit of hyperbole, to say the least.

Two reasons for that:

1. Of all the places to expend nukes, it's a low payoff target.
2. Article V.

As to the time lag between Denmark's threat assessment that led to "buy some F-35's" and now, that's a few years shy of 20 years, right?

Stuff changes over time.

[LowObservable]

I swear I hadn't seen this when I made a comment about J-10B...

Iran orders from China 150 J-10 fighter jets | Defence blog (http://defence-blog.com/?p=7108)

It's DebkaFile, so you need this...

http://www.systemsaver.com/images-maintenance/solar-salt.jpg

...but talk about coincidence.

[Lonewolf_50]

I swear I hadn't seen this when I made a comment about J-10B...

Iran orders from China 150 J-10 fighter jets | Defence blog (http://defence-blog.com/?p=7108)

It's DebkaFile, so you need this...

http://www.systemsaver.com/images-maintenance/solar-salt.jpg

...but talk about coincidence.
LO, what can one say about PPRuNe's rep? This announcement indicates that people read this site because then need to hear from the experts! :E

Even folks in Iran and China understand how awesome PPRuNe is. :ok:

I'll have a nice bag of the seasoning as well, to go with my post. :}

[NITRO104]

Is that documented, or an assumption? So far the documentation provided that LM made such claims to "sell JSF to partners" has shown them making no such claims.
Ken, I'm starting to suspect you're JSFfan and that's not a good thing, in case you've been wondering.
We had this very same discussion a couple of pages back when LM/Flynn came forth with funny ideas and yet now you're asking me if that's documented?
I don't know. What do you think?

[KenV]

We had this very same discussion a couple of pages back when LM/Flynn came forth with funny ideas and yet now you're asking me if that's documented?
I don't know. What do you think? What do I think?

1. Contrary to the claims made, nothing Flynn said was shown to be a "lie".

2. The "JSF Partners" formed their partnership way more than a decade before Flynn made those claims. If Flynn's statements were used to sell those partners on the JSF program as claimed, LM would have had to invent a time machine first.

[KenV]

Has China been able to make their indigenous engine work in the J-10? Or is it still powered by the Russian AL-31? And if so, will Russia permit China to export that engine to Iran?

[LowObservable]

And, as has been pointed out, Flynn's claims are far-reaching and the results of tests against the F-16 certainly cast doubt on them, whether or not anything is proven true or false to the point of accusing him of lying (which I have not done).

It's also been pointed out that very few of the partners have signed orders yet, so LM still wants to conclude contracts on 650-some remaining aircraft identified in the PSFD MoU.

I would also point out that you've repeatedly made assertions on this board (the eyeball-tracking Gen IV helmet, JAS 39E much more costly than C/D, &c) that are not backed by evidence, but seem to demand all kinds of proof from anyone else.

[NITRO104]

2. The "JSF Partners" formed their partnership way more than a decade before Flynn made those claims. If Flynn's statements were used to sell those partners on the JSF program as claimed, LM would have had to invent a time machine first.
Kenny, I know that this isn't as simple as discovering the meaning of life if there only wasn't for that pesky bus, but let's try.
LM is trumpeting about how the F35 is equal or better than pretty much any 4th gen fighter in about all possible metrics (which by definition includes the F16), for as long as I can remember and it was surely one of the cornerstones around which partnership was formed and MoU signed, because partners-to-be saw an excellent opportunity to upgrade their F16s with a new cool SciFi stuff at very good rates and who can blame them?
That claim which later proved to be false, gave local politics the significant momentum in obtaining a 'go' for project participation/finance with their respective governments.
So, taking all into account, it's rather obvious that JSF we have in 2015 isn't what partners (and not only partners but US services as well) signed up for 15 or so years ago and in some aspects most probably will never be.

There's an obvious problem with that, since once you sign up for something, you expect to get what you signed up for and not what someone else arbitrary decides is good for you, or in layman terms;
"I'd like to buy that chair, please."
"Excellent, sir. Sign here, pls. Expect it delivered tomorrow morning. Thank you."
(tomorrow morning)
"Good day, sir. Where can I unload your couch?"

Are we on the same page now?

[KenV]

Kenny, I know that this isn't as simple as discovering the meaning of life if there only wasn't for that pesky bus, but let's try.I'm not going to "stoop to the level of my detractors" and will ignore this and keep my reply "professional".

LM is trumpeting about how the F35 is equal or better than pretty much any 4th gen fighter in about all possible metrics (which by definition includes the F16), for as long as I can remember and it was surely one of the cornerstones around which partnership was formed and MoU signed....May I ask if you have a single LM quote that supports what you "can remember"? Can you provide a single quote that established a single "cornerstone" of the program? Please consider that the traditional cornerstones of a program are called KPPs and there is not a single KPP for the F-35 that requires it provide kinematic performance equal to an F-16.

On the other hand, Maj Gen George Meullner way back in 1994 (more than two DECADES ago!) when he was the head of the JSF program said this:

The JSF complements the F-22 in the high-low mix. The F-22, as the high-end of the force mix, is designed to dominate the air superiority arena through the combination of stealth, supercusise, integrated avionics, and large internal weapons bays. The JSF, as the low-end, will be designed as a stealthy multi-role air-to-ground fighter reliant on the enabling force of the air dominant F-22.

Two decades ago when the partnership was forming the head of the program firmly established that the JSF would be optimized for air-to-ground, NOT air-to-air, as you (falsely) claim. AND he said that it would be "reliant" on an air-dominant fighter and would not BE an air-dominant fighter, as you (falsely) claim. Have you got a single quote from LM that contradicts MajGen Meullner? Just one? May I gently suggest that what you "remember" is subject to all sorts of (false) assumptions.

Are we on the same page now? Sadly, not even close.

[KenV]

Flynn's claims are far-reaching and the results of tests against the F-16 certainly cast doubt on them"Far-reaching?" How so? Is that an assumption?
And "certainly?" Why?
And "cast doubt?" How so? What assumptions are required for the test to "cast doubt"?

1. Flynn never said nor suggested F-35 was equal to an F-16 in close-in dog fight performance, nor has LM ever claimed the F-35 would be equal to an F-16 in close-in dog fight performance. And nothing has been provided that "casts doubt" in the least on any of Flynn's claims regarding the F-35's maneuverability. In point of fact, over two DECADES ago the head of the program said the JSF would be optimized for air-to-ground (NOT air-to-air) AND that it would "be reliant" on an air-dominant fighter.

2. The test you refer to was not designed nor intended to test close-in dog fight performance and provided nothing that casts any sort of doubt on Flynn's claims.

As for the eyeball-tracking Gen IV helmet, I owned up to that error and apologized for it.
As for the cost of the Gripen E vs the Gripen C/D, there's been zero evidence provided that my statement was wrong, and I've provided reasoning (and evidence, which you rejected out of hand) why it was correct. If it does turn out I was wrong I will be happy to concede my error.
May I ask if you are claiming you have made zero errors in your arguments regarding the F-35? Not one? I don't recall you ever admitting to any. Sorry if I missed that.

[LowObservable]

KenV is at this point simply trolling. No more and no less.

[NITRO104]

Two decades ago when the partnership was forming the head of the program firmly established that the JSF would be optimized for air-to-ground, NOT air-to-air, as you (falsely) claim. AND he said that it would be "reliant" on an air-dominant fighter and would not BE an air-dominant fighter, as you (falsely) claim. Have you got a single quote from LM that contradicts MajGen Meullner? Just one? May I gently suggest that what you "remember" is subject to all sorts of (false) assumptions.
Ken, LM claimed and claims F35 being superior in flight performance (FP) to 4th gen.
No one is saying anything about air-dominance, but specific metrics.
F16 isn't an 'air-dominance' (whatever that means) fighter either, but commands certain FP, which LM claimed the JSF had surpassed.
AFs decide about a certain model based on various metrics not nomenclature, so 'air-dominance', or 'air-superiority' is meaningless.

[KenV]

Ken, LM claimed and claims F35 being superior in flight performance (FP) to 4th gen.
No one is saying anything about air-dominance, but specific metrics.

Very well, let's use your terminology. May ask what "specific metrics" did LM publish/present to claim F-35 would be equal in "flight performance" to F-16? Flynn certainly provided none such. I remind you that what you are calling "flight performance" was not a KPP for the F-35 program. And the F-35 partners jointly developed and all agreed on the KPPs.

[Not_a_boffin]

There's only one way to settle this...(and you know what it is)

https://world4justice.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/harry-hill-fight-ap-wdc5.jpg

[NITRO104]

NaB,
you're right.
Sorry for jacking the thread.

[a1bill]

My take on it. Back in 2000. The JSF was going to match a clean f-16 and FA-18. Trading off for wanted performance for 2007, first flight and the reality of a F-35. Now it's going to match a dirty f-16 for a F-35 type mission.

The EM is said to fall between the F-16 and a FA-18E/F. I Would think that when the FCS is sorted, it will get it's share of BFM.
The sustained turn and acceleration was downgraded from the 2000 wishes. These have been published. I haven't seen it said that it doesn't match a clean FA-18 or super hornet.
The manuals are online for both and can be measured against the released data, for those that can read them.


Oh, as a passing thought, I think I might wait till SDD is finished and read the OT&E.

[Just This Once...]

The original performance 'target' was a clean F-16C; the 'threshold' (ie the minimum acceptable) was a clean F/A-18C [albeit with a few more details on the actual required performance table].

[glad rag]

Reminds me of a date long ago, when I could not afford to have a kid ... :}

I'd like to address the Russian Threat rhetoric.

This news inspired bit of the sky falling regarding "Russians make a nuclear threat versus Denmark" is a bit of hyperbole, to say the least.

Two reasons for that:

1. Of all the places to expend nukes, it's a low payoff target.
2. Article V.

As to the time lag between Denmark's threat assessment that led to "buy some F-35's" and now, that's a few years shy of 20 years, right?

Stuff changes over time.

Yep.

"This was not included in the new doctrine,however, which says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear strike or a conventional attack that endangered the state's existence.



Ref. [1] Insight - Russia's nuclear strategy raises concerns in NATO | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/uk-ukraine-crisis-russia-nuclear-insight-idUKKBN0L825A20150204)

[2] RUSSIAN POSTURES AND POLICIES ON NUCLEAR DETERRENCE, FIRST USE, AND THE NUCLEAR THRESHOLD: BALANCING ON A TIGHTROPE | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov) (http://www.pprune.org/RUSSIAN POSTURES AND POLICIES ON NUCLEAR DETERRENCE, FIRST USE, AND THE NUCLEAR THRESHOLD: BALANCING ON A TIGHTROPE | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov))

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, the claims about outclassing Gen4/4.5 aircraft were made, but no longer appear on the various websites - certainly gone from the headlines on the LM one. Hardly surprising.

As for WVR manoeuvre, this was discussed here at some length back in (what?) 2013? My point there was that without knowing the F-35 (A, B and C) figures, we can't do meaningful SEP/rate/radius/g comparisons. We can only read what a man that flies it says about these things - there are a million (insert your own frealistic figure) uses of phrases such as, "do you have a link for that?". Yes, the man that raised some issues about manoeuvre.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT anti-F-35; but I am happy to debate and enquire about its capabilities. Both the "pro" and "anti" factions need to appreciate that being critical does not mean being burnt at the stake any more. To be fair, I think most of the so-called "nay-Sayers", "Detractors" one"antis" are actually firmly in the same camp; it's just that we are too readily labelled by fans that don't like heresy.

But, yes, the claims about all metrics were made. Sorry I can't be arsed to look any further to fail to find them.

[LowObservable]

Thanks, JTO.

[Courtney Mil]

P.S. For those that missed it, manoeuvre was around page 130, stealth and EW a couple of weeks earlier and the conclusions from various simulations were a couple of weeks before that. Some stuff will have changed since then.

[Heathrow Harry]

Courtney - maybe you should publish (on the web so it can be kept up to date)

The Official Index to "F-35 Cancelled"

it's getting hard to track the various issues....... ;);)

[glad rag]

Yes, the claims about outclassing Gen4/4.5 aircraft were made, but no longer appear on the various websites - certainly gone from the headlines on the LM one. Hardly surprising.

As for WVR manoeuvre, this was discussed here at some length back in (what?) 2013? My point there was that without knowing the F-35 (A, B and C) figures, we can't do meaningful SEP/rate/radius/g comparisons. We can only read what a man that flies it says about these things - there are a million (insert your own frealistic figure) uses of phrases such as, "do you have a link for that?". Yes, the man that raised some issues about manoeuvre.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT anti-F-35; but I am happy to debate and enquire about its capabilities. Both the "pro" and "anti" factions need to appreciate that being critical does not mean being burnt at the stake any more. To be fair, I think most of the so-called "nay-Sayers", "Detractors" one"antis" are actually firmly in the same camp; it's just that we are too readily labelled by fans that don't like heresy.

But, yes, the claims about all metrics were made. Sorry I can't be arsed to look any further to fail to find them.

I would say that we are [unfortunately] locked into the F-35B, via a combination of [coughs] business acumen and political narcissism [what, change my mind again-never-what would the proles think] .

However to attempt to portray the airframe as a quantum step forwards was dishonest to say the least.

As to the Avionics, software and LO, well they are what, 10-15 years old already, neither fully developed or providing what the manufacturer claimed and actually may well not be relevant when the airframe eventually meets it's supposed operational standards baseline in what, 5 years time, minimum??

So you can discuss helmets and looking through the floor to your hearts content, but if the aircraft is in the position of being obsolescent by the time it matures in operational service well what do you do then???? Are we at the cusp of manned aircraft being obsolescent already????/

[Lonewolf_50]

Has China been able to make their indigenous engine work in the J-10? Or is it still powered by the Russian AL-31? And if so, will Russia permit China to export that engine to Iran? Betting money is yes, but that's a guess. I am not sure how deep the SCO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation) runs, in terms of what level of cooperation on defense matters the parties (http://www.sectsco.org/EN123/)undertake.

[Lonewolf_50]

So you can discuss helmets and looking through the floor to your hearts content, but if the aircraft is in the position of being obsolescent by the time it matures in operational service well what do you do then???? Are we at the cusp of manned aircraft being obsolescent already????/
It's been my belief for over a decade that the F-35 is the last manned "fighter" the US will build. (If I am wrong, fine.) Big reasons are the time to develop the next marginal increase in capability versus cost versus other options for the same defense dollar.

The promise of platforms like X-47B (http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/x47bucas/Pages/default.aspx) will keep attracting funding, as UAV have for the last 20 years. A core reason for this is that people are darned expensive.

Speculation Begins:
I suspect that there's a deeper motivation. I have found out that non-pilots frequently have a hard time dealing with pilots ... understandable, since they have to admit that they are lesser beings. :E There's double motive, therefore, to pursue a unmanned strike fighter of whatever people want to call the next generation ... and they won't have to buy a million dollar helmet for each pilot!

(OK, will all of the Navs, BN's and RIOs commence with brick throwing, and when we are done we all buy lots of beer for the folks who keep these things flying ... )

Anyway, F-35 looks to be the last of the breed, to me. Been a hell of a ride since Biggles flew over the trench lines in France, eh?

X-47B UCAS Makes Aviation History?Again! (http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/x47bucas/Pages/default.aspx)

[Courtney Mil]

Ken, further to Lonewolf's post (7205), I think the WS-10 is a long way off. As for sales, I'm pretty sure Russia will want a say on who the engine goes to, but they're not usually very picky. As long as it's not the French at the moment, I doubt they'll care much.

Moving on to unmanned vs manned, I can see that happening for air-to-ground, but I suspect there will still be "men" in the air-to-air role for a while yet. Yes, possible to fly from a cabin on the other side of the world, but I think we'll need to push the boundaries of bandwidth and latency a long way yet. Or are we going to have the RoE for autonomous fighters? Hell of a ride, as you say, LoneWolf; Biggles to Battlestar Galactica :ok:

[WhiteOvies]

Lonewolf - the secret is in the timing, the Dutch political call to pull out was perhaps left too late...;)

Billy Flynn and Doc Nelson (the test pilot cited in the F-16 DACT report) are colleagues at LM who both work together alongside the test pilots from BAeS, the US Military and Partner nation military test pilots. The point of Development Test is to be critical and the inclusion of Military test pilots, FTEs and Maintainers on the Integrated Test Forces was to ensure that the F-35 was developed with the frontline in mind from the outset. Call it 'keeping Industry honest' if you will, but what it has meant is that the varied real world experiences from USN, USAF, USMC, RN, RAF, BAeS and all the others have been used to get the aircrfat to where it is now and push capabilities further in the future.

Glad Rag, I can assure you that the F-35 is a massive leap forward to what we in the UK are used to. Have you considered the vintage of the avionics currently fitted to Typhoon and Tornado when making statements about the design age of the F-35 system? For aerodynamic performance comparisons look for interviews with the RAF and RN aircrew who have actually flown the F-35 to get their opinion. Luckily due to experience that the UK has with Harrier, Typhoon, Merlin etc. the RN and RAF actually have a significant number of personnel who are well versed and experienced in composite repairs, including the challenges presented by doing this whilst embarked on a ship.

My personal opinion on your question regarding manned aircraft being obsolete is that we are nowhere near that point yet. The current technology demonstrators in test (X-47B, Taranis, Neuron etc) are not anywhere close to being "fighters". Deep strike and reconnaisance platforms from a host nation or CVN maybe but they are not designed for or thought of as air-air combat platforms.

Whilst the tecnology will continue to develop, and the work that the X-47B team are doing is incredible, there is no point in waiting around until something useful for what the UK needs is developed in however many years.

[glad rag]

Luckily due to experience that the UK has with Harrier, Typhoon, Merlin etc. the RN and RAF actually have a significant number of personnel who are well versed and experienced in composite repairs, including the challenges presented by doing this whilst embarked on a ship.


Interesting point but I think you will find that:-

A. None of the UK military services that operate FJ actually repair anything anymore. Change components, yes, repair no. And that has been for almost a decade I believe.

B. Above is a mute point as any trained, authorised and experienced personnel [see above again] have long left the service[s].
Good luck in getting civil contractors [yes the ones who ^^^ got out^^^] on board any tub in an operational/war scenario.

"not for all the tea in china"

Of course HMG can recall whomever they like...

[WhiteOvies]

Glad Rag, those are foolish and insulting statements to make. I'm going to leave it at that.

[glad rag]

WO sorry if I've upset you.

But those are facts.

Apologies again.

gr.

[WhiteOvies]

Not in the Sqn I'm on or my friends or colleagues in the FAA and RAF.

Also facts.

Not upset, just disappointed in your opinion of the aircraft engineers in the Forces.

[glad rag]

What do you operate under?

[WhiteOvies]

Shall I just post up my CV?? ;)

[Lonewolf_50]

Above is a mute point I'd always heard of a "moot point" but maybe on this side of the pond it's different.

@White Ovies:

Agree that as of this writing, XB-47 is still in the 'great potential' category and a work in progress. (I recall how long ago XV-15 was first out and about flying, and how long it took to get V-22 IOC ...)

If we look at the life span of fighters in the jet age, it appears that a good design has about a 30 year life span, with the Phantom being a bit of an outlier in terms of longer. Tomcat went a bit past 30 years. F-18 A/B's are about done, not sure how much longer the C/D's will be in service. E/F's are comparatively new (mid-late 90's, right?)

Let's say F-35 gets IOC in 2016-2017 time frame ... they'll be flying about until 2047-2050.

What does 30 years means in development? F-18 to F-35 is one template to follow.

On a different layer of complexity, rotary wing, the AH-1G showed up as an attack helicopter in 1965/1967, but as it had some commonality with the Huey ... maybe a bad example, but I'll roll with it.

30 years later, 1996, Comanche was flying. The difference in capability and tech was profound.
(Sure, at that point the Mission Systems weren't quite there yet, and sadly, Comanche lost the great budget wars).

Is there a breakthrough pending that makes 6th gen FJ something substantially different from this 5th gen? I've no idea.
We probably don't know fully what "5th gen" does/means for a while in the multi role fighter. It's early yet.

In the meantime, the AI side is just now opening doors they couldn't ten years ago, which suggests to me that projects similar to XB-47 will see faster rates of capability improvement than the move from 5th to 6th gen, or maybe they both join up in 6th gen.

OK, head hurts, off for a cup of coffee.

[Royalistflyer]

I wonder if LO hit the nail on the head? I have for some time wondered if KenV was in fact an LM troll - maybe an employee or something? He seems to have gone quiet, so maybe we can get back to our own discussion whether the F35 is right for the UK.

[Lonewolf_50]

He seems to have gone quiet, so maybe we can get back to our own discussion whether the F35 is right for the UK.
Is that what this thread is about?
Just about the F-35 and the UK?

You could have fooled me.

PS: as noted by myself previously, seems not to be cancelled any time soon. Given that page 1 was presented in the year of our Lord 2010, three weeks shy of five years ago today, might it be time to shut this thread down?

I can see an argument against being "shut it down the day IOC happens for the RAF."

[alfred_the_great]

WO sorry if I've upset you.

But those are facts.

Apologies again.

gr.

You're making things up aren't you?

[KenV]

Ken, further to Lonewolf's post (7205), I think the WS-10 is a long way off. As for sales, I'm pretty sure Russia will want a say on who the engine goes to, but they're not usually very picky. As long as it's not the French at the moment, I doubt they'll care much.

Maybe not. But Iran is pretty close to Russia. And given the state of the current "nuclear agreements", that would put another less than friendly nuclear power at their door step. Would they want to assist in giving them a delivery platform?

[KenV]

I have for some time wondered if KenV was in fact an LM troll - maybe an employee or something? He seems to have gone quiet, so maybe we can get back to our own discussion whether the F35 is right for the UK.

For the record I am currently employed by LM's top rival, Boeing.

And "gone quiet??!!" Not in the least.

And "back to your own discussion?" I had no idea this was a private thread for a select few in the UK only. Should I be embarrassed for having trespassed?

And "right for the UK"? I thought this was a LM bashing thread. It sure has that look and feel.

[Courtney Mil]

LoneWolf is correct, Royalist. This is not a UK site.

[Courtney Mil]

And "right for the UK"? I thought this was a LM bashing thread. It sure has that look and feel.

Not really justified. There are plenty of folk here with the full spectrum of views. Were it not for that, there wouldn't be much discussion and the thread would end up like the hundred or so F-35 fan threads on F-16.org where everyone just keeps posting how wonderful everything is. Fine if you like that sort of thing, but not of much interest if one is capable of independent thought.

Yep, plenty of UK folk who don't blindly trust defence manufacturers, with good reason. Remember there is a history in the UK of bashing BAES, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for very wrong ones - changing political requirements, changing military requirements from MoD and some massive differences of opinion with consortium partners, among other things. So it's hardly surprising that there are lots of people around that are not easily taken in by contractors' glossy brochures and assurances that all is well.

LM have not been flawless in the programme and there's nothing wrong with examining those flaws. The press and other open sources have often been dramatically wrong or just plain disingenuous (been wanting to use that word for years). We are fortunate to have lots of well-informed people here to keep us all straight when the arguments go beyond the bounds of reason.

Just my thoughts. Everyone keep doing what we do here and keep on self-policing when the "banter" gets too harsh.

[KenV]

We are fortunate to have lots of well-informed people here to keep us all straight when the arguments go beyond the bounds of reason.

Thanks. Maybe I'm jaded, but from where I sit there seems to be lot more "going beyond the bounds of reason" here than "keep us all straight." For example, disagree with the LM bashers, and you're a LM stooge, plant, troll, etc.

[Tourist]

I go back and forward on whether I like F35 based upon what I read/hear from people with pedigree, though I am quite sure the B model is wrong for the RN.

That said, there is far more naysaying without evidential justification on this forum than fanboying.

KenV as pretty much a lone voice on here does a very good job of arguing his corner whilst resorting to much less personal attacking than others......

[melmothtw]

I go back and forward on whether I like F35 based upon what I read/hear from people with pedigree...

I'm glad I'm not the only one! As a defence journalist I've been following the programme for years, and throughout that time my opinion has swayed back and forth in much the same way. The one thing that does give me hope for the F-35 though, is that whenever I speak to folks that have actually flown the thing, or who have a proper knowledge of its capabilities, they can't stop raving about it. These are guys with thousands of hours on today's types, and yet without fail each and everyone of them that I have ever spoken to says that the F-35 will change the paradigm in ways that we don't yet fully understand.

KenV as pretty much a lone voice on here does a very good job of arguing his corner whilst resorting to much less personal attacking than others......

Absolutely. I don't always agree with what KenV has to say, but he argues his case well and dismissing him as a 'troll' is juvenile in the extreme, although sadly a bit predictable.

[kbrockman]

I still think we're being ripped of (F35 price and contractual obligations) but at some point we're going to have to move ahead and make the best of it.
Also there is the fact that it is not only a case of an over expensive fighter but also a criminal neglect of providing enough funds for our military.

The F35 won't be cancelled , that's a simple fact, and now that the MARINES have pushed through and declared IOC, the rest our bound to follow.

I think the Dutch way of ordering a limited amount of F35's in combination with another, lighter and cheaper, platform might be the way to go for us (maybe something like F35 and Gripen).

Personally I wouldn't mind us (Belgium) having 24 JSF's in combination with 24-30 Gripen NG's, both have excellent sensor fusion, AESA and excellent linking abilities.

Now throw some Meteors, IRIS-T,Brimstone and a whole load of stand-off weapons in the mix and we are set for the next few decades.

Our biggest political party has already stated that the F35 is too expensive too replace the F16 on a 1 on 1 base (this would mean 56-68 needed) but a mixed buy might be a better alternative.

We seem to have put the (Socialists party) idea of quitting the fighter jet business to bed for good and with the plan to purchase 3 A330 MRTT's thing look better than 4 years ago for our Fighter jet pilots.

[PhilipG]

Obviously the answer to this question is in principle unknown as the F35's sensor fusion is not fully functioning at the moment as I understand it.

Much has been made of the ability of the F35 to fuse all the information from its sensors to give a competitive advantage in Situational Awareness to the war fighter, also by communicating this information by LPI links to gather more of the picture from other F35s.

My question is how much of a leap is the prospective F35 sensor fusion above the levels being achieved with latest tranche Typhoons, Rafales, F18s and Gripens, or should I say the 4.5 Gen fighters?

Is the level of situational awareness about the same and the USP of the F35 is it's stealth?

Or

Is the F35 planned to be way in advance of what is currently latest operational technology?

[Parson]

Slightly off topic, but I've always thought that if an aircraft looks right, it flies right (with the notable exception of the A10). Anyone agree that the F35 looks darn right ugly? Especially the B with that see-through flap.

Am sure it does/will fly well given the amount of time and money invested but don't see it becoming a 'loved' aircraft.

[typerated]

kbrockman,

"I think the Dutch way of ordering a limited amount of F35's in combination with another, lighter and cheaper, platform might be the way to go for us (maybe something like F35 and Gripen)"

Can you point me at where the Dutch have said something like this?

I think the Dutch, Belgians and Danes would be better buying a larger number of only Gripens.

Do you really care if you can't go bombing downtown on day one?

Thought not!

[Glaaar]

KenV,


>
Few weeks ago in a Flight Global piece (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-hornet-382078/) by Dave Majumdar, Bill Flynn, Lockheed test pilot responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for the F-35 had claimed that all three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter will have better kinematic performance than any fourth-generation fighter plane with combat payload, including the Eurofighter Typhoon (http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fia12-typhoon-raptor/) and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (http://theaviationist.com/2012/10/15/unusual-formation-2/).
>


http://theaviationist.com/2013/03/07/f-35-visibility/


The F-35 rides body lift off the forward fuselage which, like the F-22, allows the jet to push the wing as far back as possible to maintain an aspect ratio compatible with transonic acceleration.


Just punching the Mach will give you a +20% F-Pole advantage in terms of range for time of flight.


However; in maneuvering flight you end up having a 'two airfoil airplane'. One forward whose AOA rises with the nose at one index angle and the other aft, which rises as the much higher, shoulder mounted, wing does.


What this means is that as the lifting body is running out of juice the wings take on more and more of the pitch rate + lift sustainment to keep the aircraft moving around the turn.


There is some help here in that the large vortices which wash aft from the corner 'horns' of the inlets help keep the wing lifting but, unlike the F-16 for instance, there is no reflex moment as the LEF/TEF move to 2` up and the stabilator moves back down to form it's own lift component so that the aircraft pulls rather than pushes (down, as tail force) around the turn.


The tails have to pull more and more lift as the lift from the fuselage runs out and this puts both greater down force on the wing and robs them (the stabs) of tail down moment sufficient to stabilize the nose point.


As a result, to keep the jet 'carefree' in it's zero-departure handling characteristics, it _must_ start to rob the tails of further pitch authority which is where you hear the Test Pilot complain that the jet doesn't have enough pitch rate in the 'transitional' 20-26 AOA range, even though it is supposedly stable to well in excess of 60` alpha, just like a Hornet.


If you can't use the absolute alpha point for guns because the rate of nose pitch is too slow and if that same rate issue prevents the sudden out-of-plane maneuvering that allows the jet to deflect and defeat equivalent gun/missile shots; it is not a capable Air Combat Platform.


Now, we all know that the JSF is shy of A2A weapons in comparison with the F-22 and that the F-35B in particular is also unable to load a BRU-61 with GBU-53 onboard due to wiring difficulties in the shorter bay. Finally, we know that the a is 8 seconds, the B is 16 seconds and the C is 43 seconds off predicted acceleration. Indicating a lot of lift at drag issues on what it likely a much heavier jet than the program wants to admit.


Without adequate shot count (CUDA) and without standoff (Meteor or T-3) weapons and with poor acceleration robbing it of that 20% F-Pole boost, the F-35 _will_ be brought to the merge because it can't fire enough, from far enough, to run away from it.


Now add to this the reality of a very poor pitch rate with _empty_ weapons bays and recall that the F/A-18E/F, the only other in-production fighter we can turn to if the JSF turns out to be a failure, ALSO failed it's KPP in OPEVAL with suboptimal alpha rates, loaded roll, pitch down and acceleration from a loaded state.


The F-35 is not simply across-the-board closer to a Corsair II than an F-16 as Bill Flynn stated but it is so in an arena where, for the Navy and Marines, there are no alternative choices, particularly in a high radar threat GBAD environment where the F-35 would normally be operating alone anyway.


I would like to bring up another set of points which I believe are relevant to your statement about the jet being a world class strike fighter.


As a function of shock tactics and agit prop defense, the JPO recently ALSO stated (as a direct contradiction of prior statements) that the F-35 has superior front quarter signatures to the F-22.


A. If they lied about performance, how do we know they aren't lying about signature values?


B. If the signature values are truly -50dbsm, -25dbms, -20dbsm for front quarter, beam and rear aspect signatures what happens when you try to bring a 12.5nm ranged GBU-31 or 32 into a target terminal area where the threats popup BEHIND THE JET???


Increasingly, you don't design a stealth jet as a standalone item and then slap on already fielded munitions as though the signature values alone are all the matter.


First, because a dumb bomb with a rough-cast casing is going to be a valid transonic target in it's own right. Second, because if you hit the target, you don't need even the 500lbs of a PWIV or GBU-12. And third because stealth enables standoff as a function of BOTH kinematic performance and sensor graze angles. Getting close to a target is violating the 'no see'em too good' understanding that Stealth needs to hide behind a wall of jamming and that jamming is more effective if the jet itself doesn't have to approach any closer than 25-30nm BRL for GBU-39/53. If F-35 could carry the SDB and if the SDB was cleared into service as part of the initial weapons load. It can't and the munition isn't.


With all these defaults in performance, the F-35 is neither a capable air superiority platform nor a capable strike fighter. It will be seen. It will be shot. And it lacks the energy performance to either improve it's F-Pole or runaway from threat counterfire. It even lacks an internal DRFM jammer or DIRCM (the latter of which was promised) to help defeat missiles already inbound.

This is why Bill Flynn was scoffed at by both RAF Typhoon and USAF Raptor pilots in making his superior kinematics claims. And it's starting to look like he was indeed talking from the rear as it were. Unless the F-35 has an AGrav generator or a really effective HPM mode in it's radar, all three of our services are in deep deep trouble as far as this aircraft replacing the entire fleet of Gen-4 types without being an operationally suitable, functionally well integrated, weapons system.

[kbrockman]

Can you point me at where the Dutch have said something like this?


Luchtmacht overweegt Italiaanse vliegtuigen (http://defensie-platform.nl/luchtmacht-overweegt-italiaanse-vliegtuigen/)

Weaponized M346's to complement the F35.

BTW Belgium is looking at both the Gripen NG and/or F35 very seriously.
More offset works possible for the Gripen but the EU ban on compensation possibilities for defense work creates a big hurdle, also it is a government to government negotiation iso a government to supplier one pretty much closing the door for non NATO nations to bid seriously.
Also they want to keep the Americans as friends so the Super Hornet and F35 are in pole position.

The TF-X program might deliver some serious new possibilities too.

[melmothtw]

Looking at that link kbrockman, it doesn't say anything about the M-346s being weaponised. As far as I can make out (according to the English translation), it says they're being procured for training only.

Do you have any other information regarding them being operated as frontline combat jets to complement the F-35s?

[kbrockman]

My question is how much of a leap is the prospective F35 sensor fusion above the levels being achieved with latest tranche Typhoons, Rafales, F18s and Gripens, or should I say the 4.5 Gen fighters?

A large portion of the Sensor suite is from Northrop who have stated ever since 2010 that it is available for sale and (according to them fairly straightforward) integration into other weapon systems (vehicles, fighters, larger aircraft and helos).
Nobody up until today seems to have been interested seriously enough.
Might not say anything at all but it certainly seems not to be such a big item on many clients wish-list.

[KenV]

My question is how much of a leap is the prospective F35 sensor fusion above the levels being achieved with latest tranche Typhoons, Rafales, F18s and Gripens, or should I say the 4.5 Gen fighters?

Depends on who you ask. Ask folks like LtCol Berke who has flown the latest and greatest Gen 4 fighters (F/A-18, F-16 and Typhoon) and both of the Gen 5 fighters (F-22 and F-35) and he says the leap is huge and requires a whole new mindset and way of fighting. He also says pilots of Gen 4 aircraft (including himself) have a tough time making that leap.

I don't know if this is a proper analogy, but lets try it.
Suppose warfare was entirely based on hand weapons like swords and spears (as it was for centuries) and someone gives one army rifles. It takes a whole new way of fighting to make best use of the rifle. The naysayers will say it can't work because what happens when you run out of ammo? A sword never runs out of ammo. Guys used to swords have a tough time adjusting to the new way of fighting where you avoid the merge rather than aggressively push for the merge. And what happens when opposing forces do merge (and of course it is "obvious" that the forces "must" merge) and everyone is fighting hand-to-hand? Sure, you can attach a bayonet to the rifle and use it like a sword, but it's a lousy sword.

I see the F-35 in much the same way. It requires a whole new skill set to operate, and a whole new set of tactics to employ to best effect. And while it has the ability to merge and fight close-in, that's not what it was designed for. Further, if you get to that point you haven't used/fought the weapon correctly.

Bad analogy?

[kbrockman]

Looking at that link kbrockman, it doesn't say anything about the M-346s being weaponised. As far as I can make out (according to the English translation), it says they're being procured for training only.

Do you have any other information regarding them being operated as frontline combat jets to complement the F-35s?

Sorry for the Dutch link but it says that they initially would be bought for pilot training and keeping their hours up and that ;
En hoewel de Luchtmacht vooral inzet voor trainingsdoeleinden voor ogen heeft, is de M346 ook operationeel inzetbaar, omdat het toestel voorzien kan worden van wapensystemen.
meaning that it can also be used operationally and equipped with weapon systems.

edit:
Also they buy weapons for it too;
The weapons carried include: MK82 500lb and MK83 1,000lb free fall or retarded bombs; rocket launchers; AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles; Raytheon AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles; MBDA (formerly Alenia) Marte MK-2A anti-ship missiles.

This in combination with what they said on air pretty much clarifies their intent on using it as a cheap operational fighter/attack wherever the F35 is not needed in non contested airspace meaning in 90% of conflicts all but the first days of war.

[KenV]

Slightly off topic, but I've always thought that if an aircraft looks right, it flies right (with the notable exception of the A10).

I challenge that!! I think the A-10 is a lovely son of a @!%*!?. It looks as bad-a$$ as it is. ;-)

[Parson]

KenV - fair point - I did add the bit in brackets as an afterthought! If function followed form, there is no better.......

[a1bill]

KB, yes like most trainers, they can weaponise it. When was the last time a decent air force sent a trainer to war?

[melmothtw]

Thanks kbrockman. If the Dutch are buying weapons for it, that does certainly suggest they plant to field it operationally.

The F-35-force multiplier is an interesting market, and one that you'd think would be prime for the Textron Scorpion to clean up in (half the price to procure than even the M-346!)

[melmothtw]

KB, yes like most trainers, they can weaponise it. When was the last time a decent air force sent a trainer to war?

Is the M-346 any less capable than the AMX, which the Italians sent to Afghanistan?

[KenV]

May I weigh in on the Dutch/Belgian view of a high-low mix where F-35 is high and M-346 is low? Two decades ago USAF said F-35 was part of a hi-low mix, with F-22 high and F-35 low. And two or more decades before that USAF said F-16 was part of a high-low mix with F-15 high and F-16 low. Holland and Belgium bought F-16.

It seems to me that the hi-low mix has been bantered about for around half a century now and is nothing new. But high-low is relative. One force's low is another force's high. And one force's trainer is another force's low end fighter (Hawk? F-5 Tiger? A-37?, etc). And with the M-346 being offered to fill USAF's T-X requirement and likely their "red aggressor" requirement, the M-346 could become a very capable (and maybe cheap) weapon platform and effective for conflicts other than near-peer. Or would used and refurbed A-10s be even better and cheaper?

[melmothtw]

Or would used and refurbed A-10s be even better and cheaper?

I'm not sure that's even an option anymore Ken - USAF rules out international A-10 sales - 7/24/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-rules-out-international-a-10-sales-414975/)

[LowObservable]

Suppose warfare was entirely based on hand weapons like swords and spears (as it was for centuries)

The victors of Agincourt and Crecy would beg to differ.

However, if you really want an analogy comparable in magnitude to the introduction of powder and shot, I suggest that you need to look to directed-energy weapons.

[a1bill]

@ Mel, I think it was to sell them to Astan, wasn't it?
Alenia offers surplus AMX fighters to Afghanistan for close air support - 9/22/2009 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/alenia-offers-surplus-amx-fighters-to-afghanistan-for-close-air-332618/)

[melmothtw]

I'm not sure about that a1bill, but they certainly flew operationally which I think was the gist of the earlier comment http://theaviationist.com/2012/01/28/cleared-hot/

[LowObservable]

The Dutch M-346 situation is interesting, a sort of stealth mission creep.

It begins with saying "We need access to high-performance trainers", because they can afford only 37 (two squadrons) of F-35s and they're all single-seat. (The first high-g pull in a $100m F-35 is no time to find out that you just don't handle g very well.)

Next, you download some of your multi-aircraft training, so that your 2 v 2s are two F-35s v two M-346s. This requires some LVC training features and simulated weapons.

But then, if you have an Afghan/Iraq/Mali kind of operation with no air threat, you have combat-trained M-346 pilots and the aircraft is much less costly to deploy than the F-35.

[Lonewolf_50]

@CourtneyMil
LM have not been flawless in the programme and there's nothing wrong with examining those flaws. The press and other open sources have often been dramatically wrong or just plain disingenuous (been wanting to use that word for years). We are fortunate to have lots of well-informed people here to keep us all straight when the arguments go beyond the bounds of reason. Understatement of the week. :ok:
The armed services (at the program level) on this side of the pond, have certainly not helped that problem.

All firestorms aside, I am reminded of the V-22's consistently bad press and being bashed as it worked its way to IOC. And then, it went operational.

It's done a pretty solid job ... but like the F-35, is freakin' expensive.

[melmothtw]

The press and other open sources have often been dramatically wrong or just plain disingenuous

Speaking as open source press myself Courtney, I think that's a little harsh. As 'open source' implies, we are no more privy to confidential or classified material than anyone else, including yourself. If we've got it dramatically wrong, then that's likely down to others in more informed positions being disingenuous. Not that we don't try to get it right, but without flying the damned thing ourselves we have to take a certain amount on face value.

All firestorms aside, I am reminded of the V-22's consistently bad press and being bashed as it worked its way to IOC. And then, it went operational. That bad press didn't come out of nowhere Lonewolf ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey ), and the fact that the media has changed its tune since the V-22 went operational and proved itself shows that it is not being disingenuous but is instead judging the aircraft on its merits, as it should.

[KenV]

KB, yes like most trainers, they can weaponise it. When was the last time a decent air force sent a trainer to war?

Isn't the Hawk a trainer? I know there are weaponized versions of the Hawk. Have they never gone to war? Not even for the Indian Air Force? I think IAF is a pretty "decent" air force. And Indonesia has certainly used their Hawks in combat. The also have F-16s. Does that qualify them as a "decent" air force?

And for decades the F-5 (also a trainer) was a front-line fighter for many nations, with more than a few seeing combat.

And the A-4 was also a trainer and was used very extensively in combat in Vietnam and in and around Israel. Not to mention the Maldives (oops, Falklands). ;-) I think USN has a pretty "decent" air force.

The A-37 was used extensively in combat in Vietnam, South America, and elsewhere. And USAF is a pretty "decent" Air Force.

So I believe there's a long history of using jet trainers as fighters.

[melmothtw]

Agree with your overall point Ken, but in half of those cases (F-5, A-4) I'd suggest that it was fighters being used as trainers, rather than the other way around.

That said, I think the distinctions are somewhat artificial in many cases. It is interesting to note that both the M-346 and Yak-130 were born out of a joint design, yet the former is a trainer with a secondary light attack/fighter capability, while the latter is a light attack/fighter with a secondary trainer capability.

[KenV]

I'm not sure that's even an option anymore Ken - USAF rules out international A-10 sales - 7/24/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-rules-out-international-a-10-sales-414975/)Excellent point. But Congress has stymied USAF's attempts to retire the A-10 and maybe Congress will flex their muscles again to force USAF to sell the A-10s to someone. Boeing has some clout with Congress and may decide to pressure Congress to allow sale of the A-10. But that likely won't happen until the A-10s are actually retired and actually in the boneyard. Looks like we'll have to wait and see.

[KenV]

That said, I think the distinctions are somewhat artificial in many cases. It is interesting to note that both the M-346 and Yak-130 were born out of a joint design, yet the former is a trainer with a secondary light attack/fighter capability, while the latter is a light attack/fighter with a secondary trainer capability.

Agreed. And Korea's T-50 is another excellent example of such. It began life as a trainer and is being offered for the T-X program, but is already also being looked at for fighter duties. Another very interesting tie-up is SAAB and Boeing on the T-X. It looks like their "clean sheet" design will be based on the Gripen, which is similar to T-50 in size and probably performance. So while the base Gripen moves upward significantly in capability with the E model, it could also move "down" in missionization to become a very high performance trainer. We live in interesting times.