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 3rd Jul 2015, 13:16
  #6481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pointless.
glad rag is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 13:17
  #6482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Since we cross-posted I deleted the last one and will use some of the same content.

First, there is some truth to the Zero analogy. Basically, Japan's measly industrial capacity could never generate vast numbers of 2000 hp engines like the R-2800. Indeed I don't think they ever built anything in that class. So as the war progressed the US could build fighters with heavy armament, armor/self-sealing tanks, speed and maneuverability.

However, the tactics (as reported by the Japanese) were hit-and-run rather than a maneuvering fight at higher speed. The key was "engagement control": attack when the position is favorable and get the hell out before the stuation becomes more equal. Ideally suited to quickly trained pilots, and avoided getting nuggets killed in their first two or three fights.

But there was another huge factor: the Zero, very maneuverable with slow-firing but very lethal armament, was ideal for the ultra-elite pilots of the IJN in November 1941. Unfortunately all of the world's flying skill is -all use when you are sitting on an aircraft carrier that is on fire and sinking. The IJN never recovered from Midway.

The Su family - which no Western AF has ever fought for real - is not, in this context, an analog for the Zero, because it is agile, fast and heavily armed. And the F-35 is only an analog for the F4U if it has dominant speed, climb, acceleration and altitude.

OK, says Team F-35, but what about systems and weapons and stealth?

The F-35 (they say) wins at long range with stealth and LPI and in WVR with HOBS, EO-DAS and HMDS.

But it can't do both on the same mission because (unlike F-22. J-20 and T-50) it has no internal HOBS missile. So even if the untested notion of winning in WVR with inferior EM works, the F-35 is still not suited for air-to-air missions. It's a stealth bomber with self-escort, and if its boosters would accept that, I would give them an easier time.

As for "nobody will do WVR because nobody's done it in XX years": Nope, nobody has because there has not been anything like a peer-to-peer air conflict. In those situations (particularly where only one side has AWACS) engagements are more likely to get decided BVR, and the other side avoids WVR because they don't want to die. So the absence of WVR is situational and not an eternal truth.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 13:21
  #6483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,263
Received 30 Likes on 22 Posts
Air combat is more to do with tactics and pilot skill than raw aircraft manoeuvring. Both the Mig-17 and Mig-21 were superior "dog fighters" to the F-4/F-105 however while they achieved kills so did the USAF/USN. Actually my friend Skip Holme who flew Thuds and Phantoms in Vietnam also flew the Mig-21 at the then 'secret' place in Nevada. He told me that if they had realised just how potent the Mig-21 was a a fighter he would have been more scared.

The IDFAF did very well using the Mirage 111 vs. Migs and the Mirage is not known for 'dog fighting'...

So the F-35 will mature into a good aircraft hopefully flown by great operators skilled in tactics.

PS: Clare Chennault devised tactics to defeat much more manoeuvrable Zeros etc in 1942 with his P-40 Tomahawks...
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 13:39
  #6484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's a stealth bomber with self-escort....
Interestingly, that's essentially what I've been saying all along.
KenV is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 13:41
  #6485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,106
Received 149 Likes on 75 Posts
Air combat is more to do with tactics and pilot skill than raw aircraft manoeuvring.
I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that the F-35 cannot perform air-to-air combat (not me, certainly), just that it does not appear to be able to deliver on its earlier promises of being a capable dogfighter.

“a single-pilot, survivable, first-day-of-the-war combat fighter with a precision, all-weather strike capability that uses a wide variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons—and that defends itself in a dogfight.” John Kent, senior comms manager for the F-35 in 2003.


Both the Mig-17 and Mig-21 were superior "dog fighters" to the F-4/F-105 however while they achieved kills so did the USAF/USN.
Yes, but weren't the F-15 and F-16 born out of the experience of Vietnam, with a heavy emphasis on the ability to perform close-in 'dogfighting'?

The hard lessons learned (or not, perhaps).
melmothtw is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 13:57
  #6486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First, there is some truth to the Zero analogy. Basically, Japan's measly industrial capacity could never generate vast numbers of 2000 hp engines like the R-2800. Indeed I don't think they ever built anything in that class. So as the war progressed the US could build fighters with heavy armament, armor/self-sealing tanks, speed and maneuverability.
I was not talking about "as the war progressed" nor was I talking about industrial capacity. I was talking about combat in 1942 and early/mid 1943 when the US was flying pre-war F4F Wildcats and P-40 Warhawks against the zero. The F6F Hellcat did not see action until September 1943.
KenV is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:01
  #6487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So how do you account for the comments of the test pilot when he bemoaned the close-in (dogfighting) performance of his aircraft compared to the F-16?
There are LOTS of test pilots who place turn performance above all else. Same thing happened in mid 30s Japan. They emphasized turn performance above all else for the Zero. It worked brilliantly, until the allied fighter jocks figured out how to fly against it.
KenV is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:04
  #6488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Beyond the M25
Posts: 517
Received 28 Likes on 20 Posts
So how do you account for the comments of the test pilot when he bemoaned the close-in (dogfighting) performance of his aircraft compared to the F-16?


There are LOTS of test pilots who place turn performance above all else. Same thing happened in mid 30s Japan. They emphasized turn performance above all else for the Zero. It worked brilliantly, until the allied fighter jocks figured out how to fly against it.
So, you're aware of this but a senior Lockheed Martin/USAF test pilot with previous operational experience of the F-15E Strike Eagle isn't?
Mil-26Man is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:11
  #6489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
“a single-pilot, survivable, first-day-of-the-war combat fighter with a precision, all-weather strike capability that uses a wide variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons—and that defends itself in a dogfight.” John Kent, senior comms manager for the F-35 in 2003.
There is a HUGE difference between an attack aircraft that "defends itself in a dog fight", and an air superiority fighter. The F-35 is NOT nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter.

Yes, but weren't the F-15 and F-16 born out of the experience of Vietnam, with a heavy emphasis on the ability to perform close-in 'dogfighting'?
Indeed. USAF's "fighter mafia" had a huge role in the development of those two aircraft, and they insisted on an air superiority fighter. The F-35 is not and was never intended to be an air superiority fighter. Think of the F-35 as a super duper A-7, which is of the same vintage as the F-15 and F-16. A-7 had eye watering air-to-ground performance and pretty damn good maneuverability. But it was never an air superiority fighter nor ever intended to be.
KenV is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:16
  #6490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, you're aware of this but a senior Lockheed Martin/USAF test pilot with previous operational experience of the F-15E Strike Eagle isn't?
I have no idea what he knows about the zero and its development. And its pointless anyway. He was used to flying an air superiority fighter and anything with less than that kind of maneuverability is just simply wimpy. But the F-35 is not nor was it ever meant to be an air superiority fighter.

If an A-7 jock had written disparagingly of the F-35 turn performance, then you might want to take notice. Might.
KenV is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:17
  #6491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,106
Received 149 Likes on 75 Posts
There is a HUGE difference between an attack aircraft that "defends itself in a dog fight", and an air superiority fighter. The F-35 is NOT nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter.
No one ever said it was (though perhaps LM would like to remind those many countries that are buying it as an F-16 replacement), but as the quote very clearly states, it is meant to be able to defend itself in a dogfight.

I'm aware of what the A-7 is, thanks, but I'm just guessing that most of the countries signing up for the F-35 are not looking for a 21st century A-7.

Your argument that the F-35 is more of an A-35 is interesting, as that seems to be the argument that most of its detractors are making. The problem for most Western nations though (and the US to a certain extent) is that in the coming decades it will become the sole or predominant platform in their inventories. A certain bias towards attack is ok, but if it has to perform all missions (just look at the aircraft types that the JPO say it will replace) then it needs to be able to demonstrate that it is up to muster to do so (and that includes close-in dogfighting).

Unfortunately for the F-35, as the old adage goes; 'You can make a bomber out of a fighter, but you can't make a fighter out of a bomber'.

Given that it is meant to be multirole, it's interesting that even its proponents concede that it can't do CAS or ground attack as well as the A-10, and it can't do air superiority as well as the F-15/16. Beyond Day 1 of a total war, what can it do well?

He was used to flying an air superiority fighter
The F-15E is not an air superiority fighter.

Last edited by melmothtw; 3rd Jul 2015 at 14:47. Reason: Spelling
melmothtw is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:36
  #6492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As for "nobody will do WVR because nobody's done it in XX years": Nope, nobody has because there has not been anything like a peer-to-peer air conflict. In those situations (particularly where only one side has AWACS) engagements are more likely to get decided BVR, and the other side avoids WVR because they don't want to die. So the absence of WVR is situational and not an eternal truth.

Aaaaah, we're finally drilling down to reality. The F-35 is not nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter. If an air arm that flies F-35 exclusively has to go up against an air arm that has modern air superiority fighters (and by that I mean has stealth, has multispectral sensors, has sensor fusion, has helmet sighting/cueing systems, and has off bore sight air-to-air weapons, AND has high maneuverability - does this pedantic description satisfy those who cannot abide the term "5th generation"?) then it is NOT a "peer-to-peer air conflict."

If the Royal Navy wants to go up against such a foe, they need more than the F-35. Sadly, their carriers can't handle anything other than the F-35. That does not make the F-35 defective.
KenV is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:43
  #6493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Methinks KenV is trolling for responses. He starts by telling us that;

a. the F-35 is all things, as advertised, then;

b. the F-35 isn't really an 'F', just an 'A' with a little 'f', then;

c. claims the big 'F' is legit, it's just the nay-sayers who downgrade it and the reports about the big 'F'-35 versus other true mature big 'F's' are biased and unreliable, then;

d. tries to compare it with the AM-6. Which has no similarities or relevance to the argument whatsoever...

Either a Walt, a LM senior exec, or someone needing votes. Given it's PPRuNe I'd say it's the foremost..
Hempy is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:43
  #6494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,106
Received 149 Likes on 75 Posts
If the Royal Navy wants to go up against such a foe, they need more than the F-35. Sadly, their carriers can't handle anything other than the F-35. That does not make the F-35 defective.
Au contraire, for the UK the F-35 was intended to be a carrier-borne aircraft capable of air defence of naval and ground forces and self-escorting ground attack (as set out in Staff Target 6464).

If it is unable to perform this mission, then it is defective.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:45
  #6495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
The F-35 is not nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter.

But in that case, Mr V, where did anyone get such nonsensical ideas into their heads?

Step forward, Maj Gen Charles "Slick" Davis, F-35 program boss in 2008:

Citing U.S. Air Force analyses, (Davis) said the F-35 is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market, including Sukhois.

Pentagon, Lockheed rebut F-35 fighter jet critics | Reuters

Old stuff, you say? Billy Flynn, front and center, please!

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.

"The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants.


IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics ?better than or equal to? Typhoon or Super Hornet - 2/7/2013 - Flight Global
LowObservable is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:50
  #6496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Beyond the M25
Posts: 517
Received 28 Likes on 20 Posts
Given this is Wimbledon week, I'd call that Game, Set, and Match.
Mil-26Man is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:50
  #6497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
And just to remind Melmoth again: the F-35B is 3200 lb heavier than the A. A bit like running into the fight with a Honda Accord in the bomb bay.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 14:53
  #6498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,106
Received 149 Likes on 75 Posts
Don't need reminding LO, thanks. You just (re)made my point as to the F-35 not cutting the mustard for the UK's naval air defence requirement.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 15:05
  #6499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No one ever said it was (an air superiority fighter)
Not in so many words, but you folks are certainly demanding it have the maneuverability of an air superiority fighter. It doesn't because it isn't.

I'm aware of what the A-7 is, thanks, but I'm just guessing that most of the countries signing up for the F-35 are not looking for a 21st century A-7.
Well then, I'm guessing the you're guessing wrong. Do you really think the Royal Navy (and the other F-35 buyers) think they're buying F-22 dog fight performance? REALLY?!!

The problem for most Western nations though (and the US to a certain extent) is that in the coming decades it will become the sole or predominant platform in their inventories.
Yeah, that is a problem. But not one caused by any F-35 design fault. The airplane is (mostly) meeting all its performance requirements. If a "Western nation" has put all its eggs in the F-35 basket and finds that it comes short on capability, that is a political problem, not a technical one.

And about the US fighter inventory, the F-35 will NEVER be the sole or even "predominant" platform in the USN inventory. The USN will always (well, until they are retired) have far more Super Hornets than F-35s. And USAF is planning on keeping their F-15s flying till well into the mid-century when the next air superiority fighter should become available. And USAF will be flying the F-22 till later than that. So there are at least two Western air arms that fully understand what the F-35 is and what it is not and have planned their inventories accordingly. If other air arms don't understand that (as you allege, but which I rather doubt) then their leaders need to be sacked. Perhaps shot.
Unfortunately for the F-35, as the old adage goes; 'You can make a bomber out of a fighter, but you can't make a fighter out of a bomber'.
You're still missing it aren't you? F-35 is predominantly a tactical bomber. But one that can escort itself to defend itself against fighters. It is not nor was it ever meant to be an air superiority fighter.

The F-15E is not an air superiority fighter.
I my goodness!!! The F-15A thru D are air superiority fighters. The F-15E retains essentially ALL the A thru D air to air performance while adding significant air to ground performance the A thru D lack.
KenV is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 15:10
  #6500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Melmothtw
Au contraire, for the UK the F-35 was intended to be a carrier-borne aircraft capable of air defence of naval and ground forces and self-escorting ground attack (as set out in Staff Target 6464).

If it is unable to perform this mission, then it is defective.
Thank you, Mel. Exactly what I've been trying to say.
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.