F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Turbine D]

F-35, Air to Ground Attack or Air to Air Dog Fighter… Lets ask the USAF General in charge:

In the aftermath of the F-22's cancellation, the Air Force was forced to alter its plans and press-gang the F-35—originally meant as a ground-attack aircraft—into service as an air-to-air fighter. It was the only way for the flying branch to keep enough dogfighters in the air.

“Operationally, we have to have it,” says Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh. “The decision to truncate the F-22 buy has left us in a position where even to provide air superiority [we need the F-35], which was not the original intent of the F-35 development.”

To be clear, the F-35 has always had some air-to-air capability. But that latent dogfighting ability was mostly meant for self-defense—not for aggressively challenging another country’s fighters in the air.

But now the Air Force has no choice but to put the F-35 on the aerial front lines. “You have to have the F-35 to augment the F-22 to do the air superiority fight at the beginning of a high-end conflict to survive against the fifth-generation threats we believe will be in the world at that point in time,” Welsh says.

By contrast, there are troubling questions as to how well the F-35 would fare against the new foreign fighters. While the F-35 has air-to-air sensors and can carry air-to-air missiles, it does not have the kinematic performance of the F-22. It’s simply sluggish in comparison. The F-35 does have integrated avionics—in some ways more advanced than even the Raptor’s—and it has stealth. But the F-35 lacks aerodynamic performance. U.S. military test pilots say the JSF is similar to the Boeing F/A-18C in speed and maneuverability.

So, the little skirmish between the F-35 and the F-16 was an early examination to see what might be necessary for the F-35 to fulfill the role the F-16 was capable of doing.

IMHO, it revealed that F-35 pilots need much training and time in the air to determine what the F-35 is capable of in terms of air to air tactics to defeat the enemy. But more importantly, the time to accomplish this training may be crimped by less available aircraft (limits on bankrolling procurements), flight cost per hour (most expensive of any recent aircraft) and cost of maintenance plus continued upgrades to equipment and software that requires retraining. It is what General Bogdan has hinted out as one of his top worries.

[glad rag]

It was part of the concept right from the start.

Bang on the money.

The really important bit is not getting into the situation where you need to use LOAL defensively in the first place and that requires an airframe of outstanding kinematic performance that gets you into and out of Dodge, scot free.



Gratuitous asraam/132/9x seeker image...Is it a J??





IRST? Hmm, this is from 1969, methinks things will have moved on a LONG way since...

[kbrockman]

Originally Posted by Turbine D

IMHO, it revealed that F-35 pilots need much training and time in the air to determine what the F-35 is capable of in terms of air to air tactics to defeat the enemy.

What's also worrying is that it used to be so, certainly up until well into the 90's, that our Air forces had far better training tools and methodology than its most likely adversaries enabling them to practise and develop alternative tactics to defend and keep the upper-hand against foes with better equipped and/or more manoeuvrable fighters.

Most of our possible opponents methods where the result of old style Soviet tactics which where rigid and severely limited the pilots abilities and possibilities of conducting good and effective air dominance strategies.
A good read;
How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs

Originally Posted by Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton

....the Soviet model of tactical aviation. That means the pilot was an extension of the ground controller. As many have read, innovative tactics and autonomous operations were not approved solutions in the Warsaw Pact countries. The cockpit switchology is not up to western standards and the sensors are not tools used to enhance pilot situation awareness, rather they are only used as tools to aid in the launch of weapons....

This advantage we had is quickly disappearing, nowadays you cannot just devise a simple tactic to hide and compensate for serious flaws in your fighter jets.
Most of the most capable opponents will most likely do just the same and also constantly re-evaluate their own tactics and methodologies.
Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore, neither is the PLAAF or maybe not even the Iranians, the only ones are most likely the likes of North Korea.

In the end, with similar tactical prowess and availability to advanced tech (we still have an edge but it is shrinking year after year) it will once again come down to the man/woman in the cockpit, meaning enough training time both flying , in the sim and on the ground is necessary , a real problem with massively expensive fighters both to use, maintain, upgrade and acquire like the F35, F22 and Typhoon.
And secondly it will also come down to having a platform that gives you as many options as possible both on the technical and performance sides and this is where the F35 might run into some serious problems, you just cannot keep your fingers crossed and hope that alternative tactics will be the answer, it might do the trick for a little while but the enemy is now more flexible too and has access to the latest tech too.

Don't get me wrong we need the F22 and Typhoon and even the F35 (as and A and not an F) in sufficient numbers to gain Air supremacy and have a big enough stick to attack but more than that we need a bigger group of new , much more affordable true Light weight Fighters, single engine sub 40,000 Lbs MTOW with existing and available high-tech.
In 2010 Northrop made its DAS available for other platforms, a good AESA is readily available on the market and there are more than enough weapons that can be integrated to make it a formidable LWF.

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by O-P

I'm not saying that it should be the primary employment mode, just an option if your buddy is going to die unless you do something. I can't see RoE being a problem as long as it's not used as the primary option. ie "Get to RNE and chuck 'em all off and run".


I remember the QF4 piccy! Yikkes.

You're right, of course. I was about to find the picky, but glad rag kindly did it for me. Thank you


Kbrock and Turbine, Welsh said there exactly what I've been saying all along. It lacks the speed, climb and manoeuvre to optimise BVR shots and doesn't have the sustained rate/g/radius close in. HOBS and HMDS will help it there, but it won't be the only bomber in town with those. Having to field it as an air superiority fighter will become a real challenge against the big boys.

Originally Posted by Welsh

By contrast, there are troubling questions as to how well the F-35 would fare against the new foreign fighters. While the F-35 has air-to-air sensors and can carry air-to-air missiles, it does not have the kinematic performance of the F-22. It’s simply sluggish in comparison. The F-35 does have integrated avionics—in some ways more advanced than even the Raptor’s—and it has stealth. But the F-35 lacks aerodynamic performance. U.S. military test pilots say the JSF is similar to the Boeing F/A-18C in speed and maneuverability.

The last comparison may be a bit subjective at this stage, but the rest is as expected.

[KenV]

No you haven't, it doesn't exist. You may have had a go with an early development prototype, but at this stage it is little more than a technology demonstrator belonging to Visual Systems International. If it wasn't theirs then you were playing with a research model, not necessarily representative of any future DASH HMDS Gen IV.

Hmmmm. Lets just say that Drew Brugal is a classmate of mine. We were plebes in the same company at USNA and we both served on the same carriers. At the time he was the CEO of Vision Systems International, the joint venture between Rockwell Collins and Elbit and the developer/producer of the F-35's HMDS. At the time Gen III had been accepted for F-35 but was not yet approved for production, and what I was provided was represented as Gen IV that would be included as part of the F-35's block 3F package.

I acknowledge that in my earlier post I got ahead of myself (and the F-35 program) by characterizing Gen IV as what's in the airplane today. It is not. My apologies.

[KenV]

...we need a bigger group of new , much more affordable true Light weight Fighters, single engine sub 40,000 Lbs MTOW with existing and available high-tech.
In 2010 Northrop made its DAS available for other platforms, a good AESA is readily available on the market and there are more than enough weapons that can be integrated to make it a formidable LWF.

I generally agree. And the answer may lie in the T-X competition. That airframe should be smallish, light, affordable, and have exceptional kinematic performance. And if USAF's requirements for an aggressor aircraft are rolled into the T-X requirements mix, the result may be pretty much what is described above.

[LowObservable]

When you are citing info that's at least three and a half years old (before Brugal left VSI), concerning what was never more than a tech demo (VSI was deep in the weeds on Gen III at the time and would have been nuts to talk Gen IV for 3F), and you haven't bothered to recheck it... You might hold that know-it-all tone in check and resist the urge to tell everyone else they are wrong.

[LowObservable]

Affordable lightweight fighters? A good idea, KB. But why do I now have "Waterloo" and "Fernando" running through my head?

[KenV]

To be clear, the F-35 has always had some air-to-air capability. But that latent dogfighting ability was mostly meant for self-defense—not for aggressively challenging another country’s fighters in the air.

Hmmmm. Why does that sound familiar with regards to this thread?

[Snafu351]

Question for KenV.
If as you state the F-35 should really be the A-35 where does that leave those nations which are not the USA who are purchasing the aircraft as their primary fighter?

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil

You're right, of course. I was about to find the picky, but glad rag kindly did it for me. Thank you


Kbrock and Turbine, Welsh said there exactly what I've been saying all along. It lacks the speed, climb and manoeuvre to optimise BVR shots and doesn't have the sustained rate/g/radius close in. HOBS and HMDS will help it there, but it won't be the only bomber in town with those. Having to field it as an air superiority fighter will become a real challenge against the big boys.



The last comparison may be a bit subjective at this stage, but the rest is as expected.

If, due to the lack of software/ordinance they get used as "scouts" for a main force there now is the picky problem of comms and maintaining a LO ......

[KenV]

If as you state the F-35 should really be the A-35 where does that leave those nations which are not the USA who are purchasing the aircraft as their primary fighter?

Hmmmm.

1. "IF"? "As I state"? Ummm, that quote was from General Mark Welsh. Not me. But yeah, it's what I said from the very beginning of this latest F-35 "controversy" and which the fanboys declared "false."

2. What's it mean to those who are buying F-35 as their primary fighter? I don't know because it depends on many factors. Who is buying only F-35 and who do they expect to go up against with no allied support? And as Gen Welsh stated, even USAF is expecting in some scenarios to press the F-35 into the air superiority role for which it was not originally intended. And USAF is doing that despite the fact that the design parameters of the F-35 airframe and its kinematic performance have been known for literally well over a decade.

3. The same statement says the F-35 kinematic performance is similar to the F/A-18. I suppose USN's carriers, like HMS Queen Elizabeth, are all defenseless sitting ducks because of that.

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by LO

When you are citing info that's at least three and a half years old (before Brugal left VSI), concerning what was never more than a tech demo (VSI was deep in the weeds on Gen III at the time and would have been nuts to talk Gen IV for 3F)

Brugal left VSI just three months after BAES had been brought on board to produce a helmet to replace the Gen II HMDS, roughly the point when VSI switched to developing GenIII as their replacement. It was only late the following year that the JPO had enough confidence to cancel the BAES development contract. As you say, VSI were full-on with Gen III at that stage.

KenV,

Given that they were still a long way away from sorting Gen III when Brugal left the company (and I don't know how long before that he shared his toys with you) and that they were still struggling with Gen II untill not long before then, it's hard to imagine how anyone could provide anything that could have been "represented" as Gen IV, no matter who's mate he is.

Sorry about this:

[Mach Two]

Courtney Mil, haven't seen the flag raised here for a long time. He is posting similar rubbish all over the forum on all sorts of topics. A good call!

EDIT: in fact, let me back you up

[Courtney Mil]

Gratefully noted, MT. Check your PMs.

[KenV]

Aaah yes. The fanboys making (false) assumptions and leaping to conclusions based on those assumptions continues apace.

I was first introduced to VSI by my old classmate and shipmate. When he left VSI my contacts within and my involvement with VSI did not suddenly disappear. It was not a one-man operation!! As I stated in my earlier post, when I saw the Gen IV helmet, Gen III had been accepted by Lockheed and DoD (meaning it had completed all its tests and the production process had been approved.) but had not yet gone into full production. That happened....wait for it....in late 2014, less than a year ago.

It is clear that the apology I offered has been soundly rejected and has even been used by the fanboys as an excuse to "pile on" with further personal attacks, attacks based once again on leaping to conclusions based on false assumptions. The same fanboys that demanded "professional" behavior in this thread. Sigh.

[ORAC]

[Courtney Mil]

Really, KenV? Looks like you're changing your story a bit. Please compare the phrases I have made BOLD for you in your two posts:

Originally Posted by KenV

Hmmmm. Lets just say that Drew Brugal is a classmate of mine. We were plebes in the same company at USNA and we both served on the same carriers. At the time he was the CEO of Vision Systems International, the joint venture between Rockwell Collins and Elbit and the developer/producer of the F-35's HMDS. At the time Gen III had been accepted for F-35 but was not yet approved for production, and what I was provided was represented as Gen IV that would be included as part of the F-35's block 3F package.

And

Originally Posted by KenV

I was first introduced to VSI by my old classmate and shipmate. When he left VSI my contacts within and my involvement with VSI did not suddenly disappear. It was not a one-man operation!! As I stated in my earlier post, when I saw the Gen IV helmet, Gen III had been accepted by Lockheed and DoD (meaning it had completed all its tests and the production process had been approved.) but had not yet gone into full production. That happened....wait for it....in late 2014, less than a year ago.

[KenV]

At the time he was the CEO of Vision Systems International.

At the time Gen III had been accepted for F-35 but was not yet approved for production, and what I was provided was represented as Gen IV

That happened....wait for it....in late 2014, less than a year ago.

Oh my.

At the time I met my former classmate and shipmate (outside the USN environment) he was the CEO of VSI. I stated that because he is not now the CEO of VSI.

At the time I tried on the Gen IV helmet, it had been accepted for the F-35 but was not yet approved for full production. The very first Gen III HMDS was delivered in late July 2014. ( ref ?Magic Helmet? for F-35 ready for delivery | Ars Technica) Like almost all first production articles, this first helmet was produced using production materials and processes, but not on the actual final production line. In other words this was a pre-LRIP/LRIP article (I don't know the details of the production contract.) Later that same year I got to see and try on the Gen IV helmet. I don't know if the Gen III helmet has since received full rate production approval. Certainly the airplane its used on has not, so it would seem likely the helmet has not.

[APG63]

I dont post here much, but I have to say this is getting major stupid. KenV, your changing your story by the hour. This story looks like cxxp, what else about other claims are cxxp too?