F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[ORAC]

Quote: To answer your question, "we" meant those nations that have been sucked into going down the all-purpose, single-type route.

Sucked into? By whom?

[Turbine D]

Original quote by Courtney Mil: No, it was NEVER intended to be a fighter, but I think its air-to-air capabilities were both over-stated in the early days and over-expected. I can't demonstrate that in public, but I was involved in the trials designed to evaluate that.

When you pay for a sports car and family sedan is delivered by the dealer, that is a problem, isn't it? Years ago, the United States Department of Defense awarded a contract to Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney (engine manufacturer) over competition from Boeing and GE/Roll Royce. The announcement was followed by backslapping and champagne toasting by all winning partners involved. At that time it was touted that the following attributes were assured: the F-35 would be “four times more effective” than current fighters in air-to-air combat, “eight times more effective” than current fighters in air-to-ground combat and “three times more effective” than current fighters in recognizance and suppression of an enemy’s air defenses. Further, they claimed that F-35 would have better range and require less logistics support than existing fighters and be the “premier strike aircraft through 2040 and to be second only to the F-22 in air superiority.” In turn, the Pentagon states that the F-35 will be "the most affordable, lethal, supportable and survivable aircraft ever to be used."

The facts are to date that none of the assurances are true and most will never be true. The only one that might be true is the reference of the F-35 being second to the F-22 and even that isn't assured.

A measure of success are promises made and promises kept exhibited by the product delivered. So far success is Zero! So will we ever see success or just excuses as to why what was promised didn't happen?

[KenV]

Non-US fighters contemporary with the F-35 don't all have HMD, correct. At least not as yet, although I suspect more will by the time Block 3 is operational. (I believe Typhoon is getting a new HMD, and JAS 39E will have one.) On the other hand, IRIS-T is out there with a lot of customers, as is Python 5, and both have their advantages over AIM-9X.

All of which kind of makes my point. How many potential "foes" are actually out there that have 4+ gen fighters? Very few. And against 3rd and 4th gen fighters the F-35 does really well. The F-35 design is a compromise, with priority given to air to ground. The decision to buy F-35 is by definition a compromise of competing requirements. If the buyer's priority is air supremacy against 4+ gen fighters, F-35 is the wrong airplane.

And I ask again, if the buyer's priority is air supremacy against 4+ gen fighters, what aircraft currently in production should they buy?

[Bastardeux]

Ken, you asked us to propose a 4+ gen aircraft as an alternative to the F35 for those nations only able to afford one aircraft type; well what about Typhoon, with its shiny new radar that from all accounts is going to be nothing short of frickin' badass. That surely would offer a cheaper, combat proven (sort of) alternative...plus its AA combat capabilities are known to be extremely capable.

I like the race car analogy, it puts the whole thing into a more real-world logic. Who in the right mind would commit to buying a £300,000 super car and stump up the cash when it turned out to be a golf GTI?

[melmothtw]

An interesting take on the Joint Program Office's rebuttal of the War is Boring article


Gareth Jennings‏@GarethJennings3 58 mins58 minutes ago
#JPO refutes @warisboring report that F-35 can't dogfight...by admitting F-35 can't dogfight http://www.janes.com/article/52715/jpo-counters-media-report-that-f-35-cannot-dogfight… pic.twitter.com/BKGa1S9n4U

• Retweets 31
• Favourites 24
• 

8:55 am - 2 Jul 2015 · Details


View photoHide photo 31 retweets 24 favourites Reply
Retweet 31 Retweeted 31
Favourite 24 Favourited 24
More

[PhilipG]

The other big problem as I see it is that the lateness of the project and the price increases, whatever price it comes out at it will with due respect be as cheap to purchase or cost less to run than an F16.
The late arrival at the ball of the F35 has meant that a number of countries have had to do major maintenance on their older generation aircraft reducing the available budget and the higher than anticipated running costs when factored into austerity budgets will no doubt reduce the number of airframes purchased.

I am sure that the F35 as initially puffed to the world, cheap to purchase, cheaper to run than your old aircraft, fantastic as a fighter even better at Air to Ground, that the project made eminent sense; sadly it seems to be late, over budget and not as capable as it was initially expected to be, not that we really know what it is presently capable of.

[KenV]

the F-35 would be “four times more effective” than current fighters in air-to-air combat,

Hmmm. When that statement was made "current" meant 3rd and 4th gen fighters. And it is.

Of course this depends on the definition of "effective". In this case it does NOT mean one-on-one against a 4th gen fighter in a close-in furball. F-35 probably only holds a slight edge in that scenario. But over the full spectrum of air-to-air combat, the F-35 meets or exceeds its design objectives.

[Bastardeux]

Quote:
the F-35 would be “four times more effective” than current fighters in air-to-air combat...Hmmm. When that statement was made "current" meant 3rd and 4th gen fighters. And it is.

Is that not exactly the point. It isn't. It just got beaten by an F16...what would be the outcome if you put it up against an Su30?

[KenV]

Ken, you asked us to propose a 4+ gen aircraft as an alternative to the F35 for those nations only able to afford one aircraft type; well what about Typhoon, with its shiny new radar that from all accounts is going to be nothing short of frickin' badass. That surely would offer a cheaper, combat proven (sort of) alternative...plus its AA combat capabilities are known to be extremely capable.

If stealth does not contribute to "badass", then yeah sure. Super Hornet is pretty badass too, and probably more stealthy than Typhoon. Maybe the F-15 "Silent Eagle" is even more badass. But if you need serious stealth to attack a highly defended target on the first day of the war, who you gonna call? Super Typhoon, Super Hornet, Silent Eagle, or Lightining II? USN has chosen Lightning II as has USAF. But then again, USN also has bunches of Super Hornets and USAF has Raptors. Neither tries to make one aircraft do EVERYthing.

[Bastardeux]

Don't know how the stealthiness of the airframe is linked to the power of the radar, but if it does, it serves only to be a detrimental effect as it limits the size of a nose cone you can fit it into.

And stealth is definitely not everything. Especially in an airframe supposedly expected to be in service 3 or 4 decades from now...the ability to detect stealthy aircraft is already in its infancy, give it another 10 years and it will be well developed. Guaranteed.

[KenV]

Is that not exactly the point. It isn't. It just got beaten by an F16...

Completely false.

July 01, 2015
The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.

Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.

The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.

...what would be the outcome if you put it up against an Su30?

Probably the same if AF-2 was used. VERY different if a fully operational and equipped F-35 was used.

[melmothtw]

USAF has Raptors

China's 400+ J-11s will blow right through the USAF's 184 (ish) F-22s before they know what's what. That's before you even start to take into consideration the J-20, J-31 etc. The same is true for Russia and its Su-27-series aircraft, plus PAK-FA.


The old 'quantity and a quality...' thingemebob.

[melmothtw]

That JPO response is all very good, so long as the F-35 gets to fight the fight it wants and on its terms. In citing the special stealth coatings and advanced sensors, the JPO does nothing to refute the premise of the original piece - that the F-35 cannot dogfight.


If dogfighting will never happen in the future, then all well and good.

[Courtney Mil]

And there we have it. Even just two years ago we were being told it would be able to hold its own. No one was mentioning the things it can't do or the things it wasn't designed to do. Quite the opposite, in fact. I posted here the speed/altitude/turn rate/g/SEP graphs for other types which were misinterpreted by some posters here even though they clearly demonstrated pretty much what we see here.

Frankly, the JPO's "rebuttal" is nothing more than a bunch of excuses and, in equal measure, a series of admissions of the very points that were being made in the test pilot's notes.

Most of the 320 or so pages of this thread have contained a lot of very good information about the design, test point achievements and progress of the programme. Frankly, I understand (to a degree) why it is late, over budget and under-spec. Now we are starting to deal with the tactical and operational realities. Now we are starting to see the aircraft for what it really is. This is where I become less of a "neutral observer" and start to question the capability of the concept and the compromises that have gone, seemingly, unquestioned.

The "it wasn't designed for this" arguments should not sit well with the customers. They would do well to reassess what they need and how they are going to get it.

[KenV]

And stealth is definitely not everything.

Agreed. And neither is pure turning performance, which is (allegedly) the F-35's weakness and what this whole discussion is about. It's a PACKAGE deal, and right now the F-35 offers a very fine package that beats most everything out there in most every scenario.

Especially in an airframe supposedly expected to be in service 3 or 4 decades from now...the ability to detect stealthy aircraft is already in its infancy, give it another 10 years and it will be well developed. Guaranteed.

Guaranteed? Tell that to the nations buying F-35 now and to Russia and China (and India?) who are very hard at work developing stealth aircraft of their own. Those efforts are pointless and a waste, huh?

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by KenV

Probably the same if AF-2 was used. VERY different if a fully operational and equipped F-35 was used.

please do give us a time and a date for this " fully operational and equipped F-35 " to appear.

The decade need be close enough for now...

[KenV]

China's 400+ J-11s will blow right through the USAF's 184 (ish) F-22s before they know what's what. That's before you even start to take into consideration the J-20, J-31 etc. The same is true for Russia and its Su-27-series aircraft, plus PAK-FA.

You're welcome to believe your wild fantasy. USAF and USN both disagree. And they have some hard data to back up their opinions. You have less than none.

[Courtney Mil]

If the airframe wasn't representative of the operational model, what was the point of the exercise? Apart from being able to use that as an excuse for the dismal performance, obviously.

KenV, I wish you had indicated whom you were quoting there. Without seeing the context I would agree with you entirely.

[KenV]

USMC is operating their's now.

[glad rag]

So they can refuel and rearm whist airborne Ken, that is what the numbers game entails ..when your shot out you are suddenly at a significant disadvantage...