F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Originally Posted by JSFfan
The F-35 will fly above 90% of the group of ground weapons that caused problems with GR4 in Iraq.
The F-35 will fly above 90% of the group of ground weapons that caused problems with GR4 in Iraq.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Lake District ( Cumbria )
Age: 52
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats funny that JSF Fan, where i live the RAF still go LL, so i assume they still think it is well worth keeping on?other wise it would have been phased out after the last gulf war.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gee, thats a bit rough... it's the mission profile that the combat radius is speced for
flin, I'm sure it is, the same was with our F-111 and I can think of an over sea ingress where it could be still the first choice
flin, I'm sure it is, the same was with our F-111 and I can think of an over sea ingress where it could be still the first choice
Last edited by JSFfan; 26th May 2013 at 19:18.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well depends where the bullets are coming from - I don't see small arms as a realistic threat to fast air. If you are talking about ZSU 23/4 and the like then valid point - a very nasty threat at LL, should've included it so up to 50%.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I'm happy enough with 50% for this, you are a tough crowd, but I think the 90% was about volume ..more than the type...but the intent of what I meant still applies either way
Last edited by JSFfan; 26th May 2013 at 19:31.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the other guys were being a little hard - had a few BH Sunday night drinks, maybe , so feeling feisty!
The volume thing is what I mean by making stuff up to suit whatever you want to say. If you count every AK in countries we have fought in then yeah but a chipmunk flies above that threat!
The volume thing is what I mean by making stuff up to suit whatever you want to say. If you count every AK in countries we have fought in then yeah but a chipmunk flies above that threat!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no worries, you were very polite to what I'm use to...I would imagine both the hornets and super hornets have LL on the books and the f-35 when it comes..BFM won't disappear either, regardless of what the LM power points suggest
Neither harsh nor impolite, JSFfan. You're always very quick to counter anyone's statement with a quote or a link to something. If you come up with a statement like that, it shouldn't surprise you if it's challenged - especially making military judgements on a military forum.
That said, it raises a very important issue. Two actually. How F-35 will fare in the LL environment would be interesting to explore. Same goes for doing close combat in an environment where it's manoeuvrability has been compromised by its other design requirements.
That said, it raises a very important issue. Two actually. How F-35 will fare in the LL environment would be interesting to explore. Same goes for doing close combat in an environment where it's manoeuvrability has been compromised by its other design requirements.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mainly when I read what I even know is nonsense and that's pretty sad when a pleb like me needs to post..well they wanted M1 at sea level for some reason,.. f-35a with 50 deg aoa and 700-750 kts, good hms and missiles...sounds ok to me
copy paste from someone years ago
"Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program, explained that critics of the F-35 simply do not understand the fundamental requirements and technologies behind the aircraft, nor have these critics been briefed about the true capabilities of the new warplane. The F-35 is "not designed for an air-show in Paris," Davis said referring to the thrust vectoring Russian Su-35 aircraft which regularly performs spectacular routines at air-shows around the world. Davis said that while the F-35 was not designed as a pure air superiority machine, the program has a requirement to defeat any threat aircraft today- or any projected threat aircraft in the future.
...
In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.
...
What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.
...
Beesley explained that the F-35 is different from legacy fourth generation fighters such as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, or even more modern aircraft such as the Eurofighter, in that the primary weapons load is stored internally. This arrangement means that there is no added drag to the airframe from externally carried weapons, fuel tanks, or sensor pods as in older aircraft types. The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters. Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft "felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel" but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts' performance."
copy paste from someone years ago
"Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program, explained that critics of the F-35 simply do not understand the fundamental requirements and technologies behind the aircraft, nor have these critics been briefed about the true capabilities of the new warplane. The F-35 is "not designed for an air-show in Paris," Davis said referring to the thrust vectoring Russian Su-35 aircraft which regularly performs spectacular routines at air-shows around the world. Davis said that while the F-35 was not designed as a pure air superiority machine, the program has a requirement to defeat any threat aircraft today- or any projected threat aircraft in the future.
...
In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.
...
What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.
...
Beesley explained that the F-35 is different from legacy fourth generation fighters such as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, or even more modern aircraft such as the Eurofighter, in that the primary weapons load is stored internally. This arrangement means that there is no added drag to the airframe from externally carried weapons, fuel tanks, or sensor pods as in older aircraft types. The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters. Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft "felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel" but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts' performance."
Your quotes of Jon Beesley, Lockheed Martin test pilot, proves how great the aircraft is. I wonder how long his contract with them would have lasted if he'd said otherwise.
There's more to operating at low level than being able to do M1. And a lot more to visual combat than the sparse figures you quote.
I'm very pleased to see your experise in military aviation and operations hasn't been blunted by your absence.
There's more to operating at low level than being able to do M1. And a lot more to visual combat than the sparse figures you quote.
I'm very pleased to see your experise in military aviation and operations hasn't been blunted by your absence.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to post what did the f-35 do wrong to get WVR in the first place, but that would have ended any debate..heck it's not hard to get over my head with corner speed etc and I've never said different
although the RAF say as much as the RAAF when it comes to exercises...it will be interesting hearing about the RAF f-35 getting kills on planes that didn't know it was there and calling BS when they get the call that they're dead
although the RAF say as much as the RAAF when it comes to exercises...it will be interesting hearing about the RAF f-35 getting kills on planes that didn't know it was there and calling BS when they get the call that they're dead
Last edited by JSFfan; 26th May 2013 at 22:04.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Mighty Fin
The RAAF do use the Super Hornets low level. An ex F111 Nav who is now on the Rhino told me they can and do fly the same profiles that the Pig flew except for the hard ride tfr mode which was 50ft ( you would need balls of steel to fly at 50ft at night in northern NSW ). He was sitting in A44-208 at the time with what appeared to be sand blasted paint on the wing leading edges. The jet had been in Australia for less than a month at the time.
The RAAF do use the Super Hornets low level. An ex F111 Nav who is now on the Rhino told me they can and do fly the same profiles that the Pig flew except for the hard ride tfr mode which was 50ft ( you would need balls of steel to fly at 50ft at night in northern NSW ). He was sitting in A44-208 at the time with what appeared to be sand blasted paint on the wing leading edges. The jet had been in Australia for less than a month at the time.