Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 2nd Jul 2015, 17:50
  #6441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the airframe wasn't representative of the operational model, what was the point of the exercise?
You didn't read the item I quoted, did you? The AIRFRAME was representative. But that's it. The REST of the package (like avionics, display systems, stealth, sensors, sensor fusion, weapons, etc) was not. They were testing the basic AIRFRAME (including its control systems), not the entire aircraft as a weapon system. I'll wager that a WWII vintage Zero fighter can turn inside an F-35. That does not make the Zero a superior weapon system.

KenV, I wish you had indicated whom you were quoting there. Without seeing the context I would agree with you entirely.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/join...g?sf10503378=1

Last edited by KenV; 2nd Jul 2015 at 18:10. Reason: added link
KenV is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 17:52
  #6442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RE AF-2

As I understood it AF-2 was indeed used, it has been the lead aircraft in all the flight envelope expanding testing for the F35, so it would seem it is used to doing near dog fighting manoeuvres.

The statements about AF-2 not having the latest stealth coatings etc would seem to be unhelpful if the exercise was about dog fighting.

The Pentagon and the JPO have not come out and said that the statements made are economical with the truth, as I see it they have come out and given some forms of words that could be construed to be excuses. Implicitly thus the project owners are stating that the report is near to the truth and possibly not unexpected. This I would see as a tax payer in a country that is building aircraft carriers for the B is slightly concerning, if a car was being sold like this in the UK Trading Standards could get interested.
PhilipG is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 17:53
  #6443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hmm pedantic's now Ken..; why not do what I do and just call them a cab?


glad rag is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 17:54
  #6444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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...
???? I have no idea what you meant with the above.
KenV is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 18:01
  #6445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The statements about AF-2 not having the latest stealth coatings etc would seem to be unhelpful if the exercise was about dog fighting.
Two utterly false assumptions.

1. The exercise was NOT "about dog fighting". Read the quote.

2. To state that stealth, sensors, sensor fusion, displays and all the rest don't contribute in a dog fight is absurd. If the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball and turn performance is all that matters, we may as well go back to WW1 Spads and Fokkers. Even in the early jet age of Sabres vs MiGs, there was LOTS more to air-to-air success than eyeballs and turn performance.
KenV is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 18:02
  #6446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ken, even an F35 that has fired its two internal missiles finds it difficult to shoot down enemy aircraft, particularly if they are a now totally unarmed B or C and we have just discussed how good the A is at dog fighting.
PhilipG is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 18:04
  #6447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Neither is turning performance...the F35 offers a very fine package that beats most everything out there
Does it? Pretty sure it's just proven that without its cloak of stealth, it does very badly in a WVR environment...get back to me when it's joining the fight higher and faster than some of its 'inferior' 4+ gen rate fighter contemporaries.

Guaranteed? Tell that to the nations buying the F35 and to Russia and China
The UK had its heart set on binning it back in the last defence review, but politics prevailed. Just a quick, cursory glance at China and Russia's stealth aircraft make a mockery of actually calling them true stealth fighters.

As long as it moves, produces heat, and reflects even the most minute radar signal, it's still going going to be detectable, and the exponential expansion of processing power in computers combined with Russia's arch Nemesis relying entirely on stealth surely makes it an inevitability that detection and tracking will evolve very rapidly in the next decade.
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 18:27
  #6448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a quick, cursory glance at China and Russia's stealth aircraft make a mockery of actually calling them true stealth fighters.
Aaaah yes, of course. Not only are they wasting their efforts developing stealth, what they have developed so far is "a mockery." And yet they continue to work at stealth and throw huge resources at it because stealth has no future in modern warfare. Yup, that makes perfect sense.

As long as it moves, produces heat, and reflects even the most minute radar signal, it's still going going to be detectable
True enough. But no one claimed (well no one knowledgeable anyway) that stealth is the same as a Klingon cloaking device. Stealth is NOT about "invisibility". It is about signature reduction. Significantly reducing signature (including reflected RF, emitted RF, and emitted IR) provides a significant tactical advantage over a non signature reduced aircraft, which makes the stealth aircraft an overall more effective weapon system. It does not provide non detectibility.
KenV is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 18:34
  #6449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Of course sensors and weapons are important in air combat, and to imply that anyone thinks otherwise is a bit obtuse.

However, EM and controllability are also important, until the dawn of the CSBA-predicted age of UCAVs and LRSB-derivatives launching >100 nm-range AAMs at each other. And it was EM and controllability that this demonstration was about. The idea was to see how the F-35's characteristics would work out in live combat as opposed to test points.

It's also completely beside the point to bang on about Zeros. The F-35A is a transonic 9g airframe designed to shoot AIM-9s and AIM-120s; that is, either it's designed to go nose to nose with F-16s, Sukhois &c or a lot of time and money has been wasted.

Also, it's a bit confusing to argue on the one hand that "you're not going to fight 4.5 gen aircraft" (if you must use that thoroughly misleading taxonomy) and in the next moment defend stealth by citing the PAK-FA and J-20. Make your mind up, willya?
LowObservable is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 18:40
  #6450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ken, even an F35 that has fired its two internal missiles finds it difficult to shoot down enemy aircraft.
Hilarious. The outboard internal weapons stations can carry either air-to- ground OR air-to-air weapons. So F-35 can carry more than just two air-to-air weapons. And it has LOTS of external weapons stations.

...we have just discussed how good the A is at dog fighting.
Utterly false. There has been lots of ASSUMPTIONS presented about F-35A dog fighting abilities (based on a misleading article) most of which are false if not downright absurd.
KenV is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 18:55
  #6451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Of course sensors and weapons are important in air combat, and to imply that anyone thinks otherwise is a bit obtuse.
Obtuse? Really? This entire discussion is about the absurd notion that the F-35's inferior turn performance relative to the F-16 makes it an inferior fighter. All the F-35's other features are neatly and conveniently ignored. Now THAT in my opinion, is obtuse.

The idea was to see how the F-35's characteristics would work out in live combat as opposed to test points.
Indeed. And NONE of those characteristics point to F-35 dog fight performance inferior to an F-16. That was a false conclusion leapt to by the ill-informed.

Also, it's a bit confusing to argue on the one hand that "you're not going to fight 4.5 gen aircraft" (if you must use that thoroughly misleading taxonomy) and in the next moment defend stealth by citing the PAK-FA and J-20. Make your mind up, willya?
OK, I give up. This discussion has become both pedantic and pointless.

But for the record I did NOT "cite PAK-FA and J-20". Someone else did and I mocked them. As for the "misleading taxonomy" of the term "4.5 gen aircraft" I did not use that term. I used 4+ generation. Can anyone suggest a better term to use when referring to 4th gen fighters upgraded with 5th gen systems as well as 5th gen fighters. Didn't think so. Adios for now.
KenV is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 18:57
  #6452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Ken,

Suddenly you seem to be arguing with everyone, can't quite work out why. With so many arguments I doubt you'll get to this. My use of the term airframe was in the UK sense - common word for an aircraft. So, I was referring to the aircraft, it's hardware, software and so forth. The entire package.

Sometimes I think you just look for fights to pick. Doesn't exactly help the discussion.

Last edited by Courtney Mil; 2nd Jul 2015 at 19:07.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 19:34
  #6453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,118
Received 151 Likes on 77 Posts
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.


That fantasy was explained to me by Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula (Retd) at the IQPC International Fighter conference in London in 2013.


I'm sure you're aware of his background.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 19:35
  #6454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Ken,

Inferior turn performance (inferior EM, to be exact) makes the F-35 an inferior fighter, other things being equal, unless we decide that EM no longer matters.

The case that EM no longer matters is far from proven, and indeed, if it doesn't, we don't need the F-35 because it expensively embodies maneuvering performance. We need a Super F-117.

You can argue that other things are not equal, but you have not made that case. Other jets have HOBS missiles, and HMDs. If the F-35 is in stealth mode it doesn't have HOBS missiles.

So "dog fight performance" was demonstrated as equal or superior to the F-16? (Since you state that anything else is a false conclusion.) How do you make that argument from the content of the paper?

Why do we try to pigeonhole fighters by generation at all? We got by without it for 90 years before some marketing dipweed in Foat Wuff decided to crib a Russian term and slap it on his products.

Last edited by LowObservable; 2nd Jul 2015 at 19:53.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 20:56
  #6455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
Obtuse? Really? This entire discussion is about the absurd notion that the F-35's inferior turn performance relative to the F-16 makes it an inferior fighter. All the F-35's other features are neatly and conveniently ignored. Now THAT in my opinion, is obtuse.
About 2 hours ago you were explaining how the F-35 is NOT an air superiority fighter. Now you're saying there are other features that we have ignored? Are you now saying it's better than the F-16? As a former F-15 instructor it pains me to say say this, but the 16 can certainly do that role.

So, which is it? It can't do a-a or it can?

You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. And then claim we didn't read your post properly.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 21:10
  #6456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Melmoth

Well aware of Deptula's views, which reflect USAF policy when he was active. But as they say, where you stand depends on where you sit. If you think you're going to get 1763 F-35s, and keep all your F-22s (that is, your fleet of Lamborghini single-mission air-dominance fighters is bigger than most people's entire fighter force), and get a new stealth bomber and a new super cruise missile for those hard to reach places, and arm everything in sight with JASSMs, you probably don't need to worry about whether the F-35 does everything best, or whether it has limitations.

The rest of the world doesn't have that luxury. And to be brutally honest (and it's above Dave's pay grade as well as mine) the USAF doesn't either.

Last edited by LowObservable; 2nd Jul 2015 at 21:43.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 21:41
  #6457 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If dogfighting will never happen in the future, then all well and good.
Its not going to be the battle of Britain because it won't happen. In todays society we are that adverse to everything, that the very concept of dogfighting in the strategic sense will be avoided like the plague.

Hence from a strategic perspective, how much resources do you put into a platform that will have an small probababiltiy of doing it, or the game plan is to try an avoid it?

keeping in mind relative adversies and their size and tehnology gradients.
rh200 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 22:03
  #6458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Rh200,

I take issue with your claim that "because it won't happen."

It has nothing whatsoever to do with today's society or political will or such like.

Here is the point (and I am surprised that none of the RN guys has contributed to this debate), should the UK decide to send its warship and its entourage to an incident, skirmish, Falklands II, Iraq (ISIS) III, or whatever may happen in future decades, there is always a risk that the big ship will come under attack (if it won't then we don't need all the frigates etc to protect it). It's defence will rely heavily upon its organic air = F-35B. As I mentioned earlier (did you read earlier posts?) it is very easy to see how the carrier's only jets could end up "backs to the wall" with a raid closing on the capital ship that needs to be defended.

You assure me that such a situation could never happen and the the next questions are: then why do we need a Fleet Air Arm? If we don't have one, we don't need the carrier or the jets.

Today's society does not change the nature of warfare. Maybe today's society is saying we won't have anymore wars. That doesn't seem to be working, does it?
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 22:38
  #6459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm curious if the US defense committees were aware of this (and other) pilot reports as part of their duty to oversee defense programs. My guess is that they were not. Perhaps we will have to reconstitute the special F-35 oversight committee that recently ran its course after the program's restructuring a few years ago. This (leaked) report is bad news for those who want to devise a block buy scheme to avoid the stiff requirements of a US multi year procurement program.
Maus92 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 22:43
  #6460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Maus, my guess is that they were.
Courtney Mil is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.