F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Killface
...sweetman can be just as doggedly determined and stubborn as the mouth breathing JSF fanboys, which i think was F/A-18s point.
The harshest critics of the program seem to jump from one issue to the next...performance, cost, delays, compromise, noise, O&S... Each time the program (belatedly) addresses one of these, they just switch to another! It's just a non stop, "Ok, but what about..."-a-thon!
Oh, and be careful about drawing any kind of link between Bill Sweetman and anyone else who may or may not appear on this fourm...you may end up with a rather rude private message pointing to some obscure PPRuNe rule/clause accompanied by threats of being barred!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile, away from the bickering, a brief interview with someone who actually knows what he's talking aboutYouTube
Feel free to discuss his credentials but here we have an RAF test pilot who flies the Development Test F-35B and C for a living. All thanks to advice from John Farley....
Feel free to discuss his credentials but here we have an RAF test pilot who flies the Development Test F-35B and C for a living. All thanks to advice from John Farley..
..
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said to henra, "perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too"
I wouldn't use the f-22 as the benchmark of an intergrated system platform
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11
Air Vice Marshal Osley :.... If we play to the F35's strengths, and it has a lot of strengths of stealth, good sensors and exceptional situation awareness. For instance, the situational awareness is linked to the capacity of the software. It has roughly three times the software of the F22. That gives you an indication of its capability. It has a datalink capability that is exceptional for talking to not only other F35s but the rest of the system out there. If you have the right weapons on board, and they will need to be upgraded, if you have good training, good tactics and good supporting capabilities, the F35 will prevail.
...
And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example—is that it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range.
I wouldn't use the f-22 as the benchmark of an intergrated system platform
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11
Air Vice Marshal Osley :.... If we play to the F35's strengths, and it has a lot of strengths of stealth, good sensors and exceptional situation awareness. For instance, the situational awareness is linked to the capacity of the software. It has roughly three times the software of the F22. That gives you an indication of its capability. It has a datalink capability that is exceptional for talking to not only other F35s but the rest of the system out there. If you have the right weapons on board, and they will need to be upgraded, if you have good training, good tactics and good supporting capabilities, the F35 will prevail.
...
And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example—is that it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range.
JSFfan,
Pleased to see you have dropped the comparison from the front of your benchmarking remark. You should have been a politician; just quote the lines from documents that suit your case. Whilst a bit old now, your link to the Parliamentary Joint Committee from last March was an interesting read - it took a while to get down to the F-35 bit. I thought Osley's rebuttal of the Airpower Australia and RepSim findings was well handled.
To maintain some balance here, it's only right to point out what Osley's words were that you omitted from your quote, otherwise you may give the impression that, as Program Manager New Aircraft Capability, Osley's analysis of the platform is all glowing. For example, perhaps better to quote the entire paragraph (including the bit you represented by "..."):
The difference may seem small if you choose to read it that way, but it is important with any program to maintain the intended meaning of people's words when using them to support your case.
Pleased to see you have dropped the comparison from the front of your benchmarking remark. You should have been a politician; just quote the lines from documents that suit your case. Whilst a bit old now, your link to the Parliamentary Joint Committee from last March was an interesting read - it took a while to get down to the F-35 bit. I thought Osley's rebuttal of the Airpower Australia and RepSim findings was well handled.
To maintain some balance here, it's only right to point out what Osley's words were that you omitted from your quote, otherwise you may give the impression that, as Program Manager New Aircraft Capability, Osley's analysis of the platform is all glowing. For example, perhaps better to quote the entire paragraph (including the bit you represented by "..."):
I will take the detailed questions there on the sensors on notice. What I would like to say is that the simulation that has been done was actually done using highly trained fighter pilots, acting as Red Air, using to the best of their knowledge, the best capability they could to defeat the F35. The point I would like to make here is that if you use the F35 and play to its strengths, not its weaknesses, you can prevail in air combat. Winning in air combat late in this decade and into the 2020s is not going to be easy. I am not saying that the F35 will answer all our prayers. If you use the F35 incorrectly and do not play to its strengths, you will probably lose. But the same could be said for the F18 and the F16. If we play to the F35's strengths, and it has a lot of strengths of stealth, good sensors and exceptional situation awareness. For instance, the situational awareness is linked to the capacity of the software. It has roughly three times the software of the F22. That gives you an indication of its capability. It has a datalink capability that is exceptional for talking to not only other F35s but the rest of the system out there. If you have the right weapons on board, and they will need to be upgraded, if you have good training, good tactics and good supporting capabilities, the F35 will prevail.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, I'm but a shadow of your part quoting ability,
"I'm hearing the F-35 is snotting the F-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too "
The link was provided to read the whole page if desired, not just what I highlighted. Do I need to show you how to paste the first couple of words in 'find' on the page to find what I indicted by .... as a part quote? Click edit on the bar and select 'find'
If I further condense it, what you may have noticed was
"....the situational awareness is linked to the capacity of the software. It has roughly three times the software of the F22. That gives you an indication of its capability.... it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen..."
"I'm hearing the F-35 is snotting the F-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too "
The link was provided to read the whole page if desired, not just what I highlighted. Do I need to show you how to paste the first couple of words in 'find' on the page to find what I indicted by .... as a part quote? Click edit on the bar and select 'find'
If I further condense it, what you may have noticed was
"....the situational awareness is linked to the capacity of the software. It has roughly three times the software of the F22. That gives you an indication of its capability.... it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen..."
Last edited by JSFfan; 13th Jun 2013 at 10:02.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFFan There is a saying in the computer world GIGO (Garbage in Garbage Out), I am not saying that the F35 is no good, it is unproven, as I understand it, the latest software has minimal war fighting capacity, the computer infrastructure needs to be upgraded for the normally accepted IOC standard software to work when it has been developed. There remains a large amount of testing still to do to sign off the F35 of any variety, it thus confuses me as to how anyone can develop a realistic simulator for the F35 and then make pronouncements on how much better than another platform it is.
Quite possibly if the F35 performed as it was initially promised to when a mature platform that had met all of the KPIs in its development, there might be some validity in your comments.
As I understand it the F35C simulator does things that the real plane does not do, such as catch a wire when landing on a carrier. The simulator software will need to be changed every upgrade to the F35 to reflect the actuality of the plane's performance. Sadly LM does not yet seem to be able to change the performance of the LRIP planes to get back on track to the initially promised performance parameters.
I assume that in sim land the F35 helmet works?
Regarding your comments about Situational Awareness, in theory there is nothing to stop the sensor suite from the F35 being incorporated in a 4th generation fuselage.
Quite possibly if the F35 performed as it was initially promised to when a mature platform that had met all of the KPIs in its development, there might be some validity in your comments.
As I understand it the F35C simulator does things that the real plane does not do, such as catch a wire when landing on a carrier. The simulator software will need to be changed every upgrade to the F35 to reflect the actuality of the plane's performance. Sadly LM does not yet seem to be able to change the performance of the LRIP planes to get back on track to the initially promised performance parameters.
I assume that in sim land the F35 helmet works?
Regarding your comments about Situational Awareness, in theory there is nothing to stop the sensor suite from the F35 being incorporated in a 4th generation fuselage.
The "F-35 rules" scenario outlined by the Ozzies has been discussed.
Good news: It's feasible.
However, given the numbers it has to be heavily dependent on first-look/shot/kill for the F-35. I have seen this kind of scenario presented in F-22 sims.
This leads to an observation and a question.
First, the scenario is dependent on educated guesswork and analysis, just like the sims that Osley and the rest are trying to debunk.
Second, if the F-35 is that good why does the USAF think it needs the F-22?
Hate to waste time on recap, but we have been over this.
Good news: It's feasible.
However, given the numbers it has to be heavily dependent on first-look/shot/kill for the F-35. I have seen this kind of scenario presented in F-22 sims.
This leads to an observation and a question.
First, the scenario is dependent on educated guesswork and analysis, just like the sims that Osley and the rest are trying to debunk.
Second, if the F-35 is that good why does the USAF think it needs the F-22?
Hate to waste time on recap, but we have been over this.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second, if the F-35 is that good why does the USAF think it needs the F-22?
We also took into consideration the capabilities of the newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale – some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program. And we already have eight foreign development partners. It has had development problems to be sure, as has every advanced military aircraft ever fielded. But if properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come if – and it is a big if – money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft that our military leadership considers of lower priority or excess to our needs.
Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need – a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios – specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s – a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs. These are examples of how far-fetched some of the arguments have become for a program that has cost $65 billion – and counting – to produce 187 aircraft, not to mention the thousands of uniformed Air Force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it.
In light of all these factors, and with the support of the Air Force leadership, I concluded that 183 – the program of record since 2005, plus four more added in the FY 09 supplemental – was a sufficient number of F-22s and recommended as such to the president.
The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable for many of the reasons I described before. The most substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries have now or in the pipeline.
Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security.
Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need – a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios – specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s – a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs. These are examples of how far-fetched some of the arguments have become for a program that has cost $65 billion – and counting – to produce 187 aircraft, not to mention the thousands of uniformed Air Force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it.
In light of all these factors, and with the support of the Air Force leadership, I concluded that 183 – the program of record since 2005, plus four more added in the FY 09 supplemental – was a sufficient number of F-22s and recommended as such to the president.
The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable for many of the reasons I described before. The most substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries have now or in the pipeline.
Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security.
I think its because the Air Force has liked to maintain a hi/lo mix for decades though. or that General Mosely was willing to sacrifice large swaths of the USAF to get a fighter pilot crown jewel. I guess it depends on who you ask, really. why does the USAF need the F-22? is it to kick butt in the air, or is it the same "solution looking for a problem" that the F-35 has been called? I remember in the early 2000's that the F-22 was getting the same criticisms leveled against it that the F-35 is nowadays. especially since it was a "cold war" anachronism. lets not pretend the F-35 is the only airplane who's "need" can also be explained by bureaucratic inertia. The USAF "needs" the F-22 like the USMC "needs" the F-35B everyone is so wild about. if the F-35 is "too big to fail" the F-22 was serious sunk cost mentality and "too expensive to mothball" there is plenty of politics with the F-22, just like the F-35. the phrase "corporate welfare" and "Military-industrial complex" were thrown around a lot at the time.
I'm not saying that the F-22 isn't a superb fighter, at an astronomical cost, that only poisons its pilots occasionally, I am talking about the F-22 as a system and its own political fights for survival and what some call "dubious value", others call "essential for the future" There are a great many, that much like sweetman and the F-35, thought it should be cancelled outright and its systems and lessons should be incorporated into a new fighter, rather than doggedly sticking with the F-22 "no matter the cost".
sorry if the original question was meant to be a rhetorical silver bullet.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It has a datalink capability that is exceptional for talking to not only other F35s but the rest of the system out there.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The immediate reason for the requested resignations of Gen. T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, and Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne was a report on the accidental shipment of nuclear triggers to Taiwan. However, the dismissals came amid a long-brewing dispute between Gates and the Air Force leadership.
Gates has been critical of Air Force officials' calls to build more F-22 fighter jets, an advanced but expensive plane. He also has been frustrated over what he sees as insufficient deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles over Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gates has been critical of Air Force officials' calls to build more F-22 fighter jets, an advanced but expensive plane. He also has been frustrated over what he sees as insufficient deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles over Iraq and Afghanistan.
Originally Posted by Killface. I'm not saying that the F-22 isn't a superb fighter, at an astronomical cost, that only poisons its pilots occasionally,
And who builds the OBOGS for the F-35 .... Honewyell
Honeywell Aerospace in the UK produce and supply Air Management and Life Support Systems for civil and military aircraft. It has vast experience and capability in Life Support, from a background of traditional, high pressure, stored gaseous and liquid oxygen to today’s On Board Oxygen Generation Systems (OBOGS). The consolidation of experience on the B-1B, B-2, F-22 and Eurofighter aircraft, and other state-of-the-art systems made it capable of being readily tailored to many different single/twin seat and multicrew aircraft and, ultimately, selection for the F-35.
Originally Posted by Killface. I am talking about the F-22 as a system and its own political fights for survival and what some call "dubious value", others call "essential for the future" There are a great many, that much like sweetman and the F-35, thought it should be cancelled outright and its systems and lessons should be incorporated into a new fighter, rather than doggedly sticking with the F-22 "no matter the cost".
See CAPT Fanell’s comments starting at 0:21:00
Panel: Chinese Navy: Operational Challenge or Potential Partner? - YouTube
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original procurement of the F-22 was to be 750 aircraft
find it interesting that both Gen Mosley and Secretary Wynne were willing to “fall on their swords” for the F-22.
However if, as is presented in the video below, there is a possibility we might just encounter an advisory with more capable weapons systems, then the F-22’s air-to-air capability will be critical.
Last edited by Killface; 14th Jun 2013 at 02:18.
Is any potential adversary likely to get even 10% of the projected number of F-35 aircraft?
Quantity has a quality of its own (to quote Stalin). Its a quality that seems to be overlooked.
Quantity has a quality of its own (to quote Stalin). Its a quality that seems to be overlooked.
Last edited by peter we; 13th Jun 2013 at 22:02.
For Air Forces who spend all the money they have available for flying assets in order to acquire 20 or 30 of these Jets the situation might be different. Especially if they have to sacrifice other essential assets (AEW, SEAD, EW) in order to afford this not exactly cheap Jet.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with your last statement JSFfan. I think this is a very polar argument. I think the pro-JSF camp has flaws in its arguments namely:
1. The latest frontline jets, and in particular the Super Hornet (called Rhino by the crews round these parts, not SH (Support Helo) or Super Bug (errr, OK)), seem to have reduced their RCS without anyone noticing and as a result the layman (of whom there appear to be quite a few) seem to draw the 'LO' line below Gen 5. This is total rubbish of course.
2. The layman is still convinced that technology such as data fusion, IRST, AESA, NCTR, Link, Very High Off Boresight Cueing, HMS, 9X are still to come in Gen 5. They aren't, they're here now and work well. Incidentally two of those aren't available to the current Gen 5 super hero....which you can see through open source.
The anti-JSF camp has one flaw in its argument and it is simply this:
1. What we have always considered 'first day of the war' has now (good example Syria getting some pretty fearsome systems) become 'every day of the war'. I will badly misquote Hugh Bicheno from his (excellent) book on the Falklands War. <<Something is never better than nothing in warfare>>. You just have to decide whether or not you agree. Is there any point paying a single penny for an aircraft that cannot exist inside an enemy IADS? If you want to spend billions on a system like Typhoon but be secure in the knowledge that it can't play until all the double digit SAMs have gone - well, what capability have you actually bought?
And that for me is the key to this argument. We talk too much of cracks in this spar or heat on this surface, we anchor far too much on anachronistic arguments about speed and turn rates. We need to look at the capability this thing brings. For obvious reasons we don't get a full read out of what that is. As a Gen 4.5 practitioner and part time colleague of Gen 5 warriors I cannot wait. What they bring to the fight is awesome. For me it brings what has become the entry level capability.
I (without expecting everyone/ anyone to agree) think it's worth the money, we're getting a good Maritime Striker here.
1. The latest frontline jets, and in particular the Super Hornet (called Rhino by the crews round these parts, not SH (Support Helo) or Super Bug (errr, OK)), seem to have reduced their RCS without anyone noticing and as a result the layman (of whom there appear to be quite a few) seem to draw the 'LO' line below Gen 5. This is total rubbish of course.
2. The layman is still convinced that technology such as data fusion, IRST, AESA, NCTR, Link, Very High Off Boresight Cueing, HMS, 9X are still to come in Gen 5. They aren't, they're here now and work well. Incidentally two of those aren't available to the current Gen 5 super hero....which you can see through open source.
The anti-JSF camp has one flaw in its argument and it is simply this:
1. What we have always considered 'first day of the war' has now (good example Syria getting some pretty fearsome systems) become 'every day of the war'. I will badly misquote Hugh Bicheno from his (excellent) book on the Falklands War. <<Something is never better than nothing in warfare>>. You just have to decide whether or not you agree. Is there any point paying a single penny for an aircraft that cannot exist inside an enemy IADS? If you want to spend billions on a system like Typhoon but be secure in the knowledge that it can't play until all the double digit SAMs have gone - well, what capability have you actually bought?
And that for me is the key to this argument. We talk too much of cracks in this spar or heat on this surface, we anchor far too much on anachronistic arguments about speed and turn rates. We need to look at the capability this thing brings. For obvious reasons we don't get a full read out of what that is. As a Gen 4.5 practitioner and part time colleague of Gen 5 warriors I cannot wait. What they bring to the fight is awesome. For me it brings what has become the entry level capability.
I (without expecting everyone/ anyone to agree) think it's worth the money, we're getting a good Maritime Striker here.
Orca,
Good points (and in fact there are some F-35 critics who would agree with you completely).
There are few entirely non-stealthy aircraft being built today and the number is reducing. All air forces will field stealth, one way or another.
The question is whether the way to go is to try to build one system that does everything - CAS, deep-strike, air combat - inside an F-22-level stealthy wrapper, and then try to replace your entire air force with it.
If the current plan holds, the US will by 2030 have spent 35 years trying to do that, and will be less than half-way to that goal. The price for the USAF will be that the rest of its fighters will average more than 40 years old and that it will have to forgo most other re-equipment efforts.
So the question is: what is the best way to build stealth into your air force?
Good points (and in fact there are some F-35 critics who would agree with you completely).
There are few entirely non-stealthy aircraft being built today and the number is reducing. All air forces will field stealth, one way or another.
The question is whether the way to go is to try to build one system that does everything - CAS, deep-strike, air combat - inside an F-22-level stealthy wrapper, and then try to replace your entire air force with it.
If the current plan holds, the US will by 2030 have spent 35 years trying to do that, and will be less than half-way to that goal. The price for the USAF will be that the rest of its fighters will average more than 40 years old and that it will have to forgo most other re-equipment efforts.
So the question is: what is the best way to build stealth into your air force?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So the question is: what is the best way to build stealth into your air force? "
Make it unrequired
Use large numbers of cheap attack missiles / disposable UAVs that can overwhelm the defence by the numbers used.
Make it unrequired
Use large numbers of cheap attack missiles / disposable UAVs that can overwhelm the defence by the numbers used.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with your last statement JSFfan. I think this is a very polar argument. I think the pro-JSF camp has flaws in its arguments namely:
1. The latest frontline jets, and in particular the Super Hornet (called Rhino by the crews round these parts, not SH (Support Helo) or Super Bug (errr, OK)), seem to have reduced their RCS without anyone noticing and as a result the layman (of whom there appear to be quite a few) seem to draw the 'LO' line below Gen 5. This is total rubbish of course.
2. The layman is still convinced that technology such as data fusion, IRST, AESA, NCTR, Link, Very High Off Boresight Cueing, HMS, 9X are still to come in Gen 5. They aren't, they're here now and work well. Incidentally two of those aren't available to the current Gen 5 super hero....which you can see through open source.
1. The latest frontline jets, and in particular the Super Hornet (called Rhino by the crews round these parts, not SH (Support Helo) or Super Bug (errr, OK)), seem to have reduced their RCS without anyone noticing and as a result the layman (of whom there appear to be quite a few) seem to draw the 'LO' line below Gen 5. This is total rubbish of course.
2. The layman is still convinced that technology such as data fusion, IRST, AESA, NCTR, Link, Very High Off Boresight Cueing, HMS, 9X are still to come in Gen 5. They aren't, they're here now and work well. Incidentally two of those aren't available to the current Gen 5 super hero....which you can see through open source.
You must be new to this thread...no one agrees with me about anything. With it's 'go to war kit' fitted, I've 'heard' it's said here, that the RCS of the Super Hornet blk 2 is surprisingly small. As a pleb, I would only add that LO seems an enabler for what happens under the skin.
The anti-JSF camp has one flaw in its argument and it is simply this:
1. What we have always considered 'first day of the war' has now (good example Syria getting some pretty fearsome systems) become 'every day of the war'. I will badly misquote Hugh Bicheno from his (excellent) book on the Falklands War. <<Something is never better than nothing in warfare>>. You just have to decide whether or not you agree. Is there any point paying a single penny for an aircraft that cannot exist inside an enemy IADS? If you want to spend billions on a system like Typhoon but be secure in the knowledge that it can't play until all the double digit SAMs have gone - well, what capability have you actually bought?
And that for me is the key to this argument. We talk too much of cracks in this spar or heat on this surface, we anchor far too much on anachronistic arguments about speed and turn rates. We need to look at the capability this thing brings. For obvious reasons we don't get a full read out of what that is. As a Gen 4.5 practitioner and part time colleague of Gen 5 warriors I cannot wait. What they bring to the fight is awesome. For me it brings what has become the entry level capability.
I (without expecting everyone/ anyone to agree) think it's worth the money, we're getting a good Maritime Striker here.
1. What we have always considered 'first day of the war' has now (good example Syria getting some pretty fearsome systems) become 'every day of the war'. I will badly misquote Hugh Bicheno from his (excellent) book on the Falklands War. <<Something is never better than nothing in warfare>>. You just have to decide whether or not you agree. Is there any point paying a single penny for an aircraft that cannot exist inside an enemy IADS? If you want to spend billions on a system like Typhoon but be secure in the knowledge that it can't play until all the double digit SAMs have gone - well, what capability have you actually bought?
And that for me is the key to this argument. We talk too much of cracks in this spar or heat on this surface, we anchor far too much on anachronistic arguments about speed and turn rates. We need to look at the capability this thing brings. For obvious reasons we don't get a full read out of what that is. As a Gen 4.5 practitioner and part time colleague of Gen 5 warriors I cannot wait. What they bring to the fight is awesome. For me it brings what has become the entry level capability.
I (without expecting everyone/ anyone to agree) think it's worth the money, we're getting a good Maritime Striker here.
Last edited by JSFfan; 16th Jun 2013 at 22:50.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Turning on lights for F-35B night ops
Turning on lights for night ops 14 Jun 2013
Turning on lights for night ops | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation
&
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/NGVLA_1.jpg
http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landi...nding-Aids.pdf (1.7Mb)
"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. -- Dan Bischoff, Visual Landing Aids in-service engineering team lead for air-capable and amphibious assault aviation ships, installs pencil line and deck edge outline lights Tuesday in preparation for F-35B Joint Strike Fighter short takeoff night operations at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., AM2 Mat vertical takeoff and landing pad.
The Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment Program Office (PMA-251) VLA team at Patuxent River installed the two Next-Generation Visual Landing Aids for upcoming nighttime carrier landing practices. The systems provide pilots with rotation-line lighting cues for the simulated flight deck."
The Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment Program Office (PMA-251) VLA team at Patuxent River installed the two Next-Generation Visual Landing Aids for upcoming nighttime carrier landing practices. The systems provide pilots with rotation-line lighting cues for the simulated flight deck."
&
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/NGVLA_1.jpg
http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landi...nding-Aids.pdf (1.7Mb)
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 17th Jun 2013 at 11:05. Reason: Add URL PDF
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
F-35B 750 STOs and more than 400 VLs
Rolls-Royce reaches key LiftSystem delivery milestones for F-35B 17 Jun 2013
Rolls-Royce reaches key LiftSystem delivery milestones for F-35B
"...Rolls-Royce is also supporting the US Marine Corps in preparation for upcoming sea trials with the F-35B aircraft, as well as the process moving toward Initial Operational Capability in 2015....
...The unique 3BSM is a swivelling exhaust capable of redirecting the rear thrust from the horizontal to the vertical position, tilting downward 95 degrees in only 2.5 seconds....
...Lockheed Martin has delivered 26 F-35Bs and the fleet has surpassed 3,000 flight hours, with approximately 750 short takeoffs and more than 400 vertical landings using the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem®.
In May 2013, an F-35B test aircraft completed the first vertical takeoff in programme history."
...The unique 3BSM is a swivelling exhaust capable of redirecting the rear thrust from the horizontal to the vertical position, tilting downward 95 degrees in only 2.5 seconds....
...Lockheed Martin has delivered 26 F-35Bs and the fleet has surpassed 3,000 flight hours, with approximately 750 short takeoffs and more than 400 vertical landings using the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem®.
In May 2013, an F-35B test aircraft completed the first vertical takeoff in programme history."