F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ken: Linked on previous page.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9033295
MSOCS
Dr Thompson is not a journalist. I don't think he would identify as such for a moment. And in this day and age, it's hardly "trashing" someone to link to his own site.
I take your point about his allegiance - but also commend him for coming clean, publicly. Some Ares bloggers tend not to.
So, are you going to say specifically what you mean here? Who is it who has an "allegiance" - loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause, it says here - that is not being disclosed?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9033295
MSOCS
Dr Thompson is not a journalist. I don't think he would identify as such for a moment. And in this day and age, it's hardly "trashing" someone to link to his own site.
I take your point about his allegiance - but also commend him for coming clean, publicly. Some Ares bloggers tend not to.
So, are you going to say specifically what you mean here? Who is it who has an "allegiance" - loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause, it says here - that is not being disclosed?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was sold as a successor to the F16 or F18, it was sold under false premisses and if you agree with the NAVY doctrine regarding the F35 you basically agree with me on that.
Almost nobody here has a problem with it (F35) not being a true Air Dominance, super agile fighter like the F16 initially was,
good enough is all we need and the other (A-type) abilities are certainly at least as , if not more ,important, but it's not really doing that either.
but not the standalone product it was intended to be.
I don't believe it was ever sold as equal in capability to F-16 in the air superiority role.
You can believe that if you wish, but you are quite wrong.
You're disregarding on-the-record, sourced quotes that say that not only is the F-35 equal to the F-16, it's dominant over every threat and competitor out there.
Do you think that your determination to ignore all evidence that contradicts your opinions is the reason for the negative attitudes about which you constantly complain?
You can believe that if you wish, but you are quite wrong.
You're disregarding on-the-record, sourced quotes that say that not only is the F-35 equal to the F-16, it's dominant over every threat and competitor out there.
Do you think that your determination to ignore all evidence that contradicts your opinions is the reason for the negative attitudes about which you constantly complain?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The cited article is dated Feb 2013. The F-35 was "sold" many years before that. How many "buy" decisions have been made since Flynn's claims? Did LM ever make during the early days of the program the claims Flynn made in 2013? I tend to think not.
2. "Kinematic performance better than or equal to Typhoon or F-18" is not the same thing as calling the F-35 an air superiority fighter. Indeed, I see Flynn's claims being made to COUNTER the oft repeated accusations that the F-35's kinematic performance is "abysmal". And it seems to me that the article goes to good lengths to describe the specifics of Flynn's claims compared to other Western fighters. And further, while his claims are controversial, none of Flynn's claims were shown to be false, as many here are suggesting.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're disregarding on-the-record, sourced quotes that say that not only is the F-35 equal to the F-16, it's dominant over every threat and competitor out there.
Do you think that your determination to ignore all evidence that contradicts your opinions is the reason for the negative attitudes about which you constantly complain?
2. I "constantly complain" about your "negative attitudes"? I respectfully deny that. I do point them out from time to time. Like I'm doing now. May I also suggest that I am hardly the only one to point out your "negative attitudes"? Others have noticed and pointed them out.
Last edited by KenV; 30th Jul 2015 at 13:22.
My, how the force structures and planning assumptions have changed over the years since, eh?
I think Ken is more right than wrong.
The air superiority fighter, before that buy was severely cut, was to be the F-22 with JSF filling in the multi role position. Of course, we must add in the "real expensive Harrier" as well .... thanks to how Joint Requirements arrived at what it is/was they wanted, and to allies who won't build cat and trap carriers, but still wish to have some FJ afloat capability.
But the basic customer, which were the US armed forces, didn't buy this as an air superiority fighter. That program was already off and running.
For nations with fewer dollars in their budgets, the F-22 wasn't available due to cost but there were also limits on that kit being exported anywhere for other reasons.
This leaves various partners and allies with looking at how to arrive at a 5th gen fighter (in small numbers that could still take advantage of a long production run that the Americans were setting up) was going to have to do Air Superiority too ... even though the platform was multi role by requirements definition. Why? Most of our allies have small forces, in sheer numbers, and so have to get a lot out of whatever it is they buy.
So let's be clear: F-35 was never built as "air superiority fighter" from the ground up.
It is forced to fill that role in projected inventories due to a whole lot of other factors, which include politics, budgets, force sizes, and the cost benefit of reducing the number of different systems in various inventories.
That last gets whacked due to the price we are seeing realized, which I am pretty sure each person in this thread agrees as one of the great stains on this programs shirt: this thing's turned into a seriously expensive aircraft, which is in direct contradiction to original program objectives.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue F-35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.
The recent debates on here have almost exclusively revolved around the ability of the F-35 to turn as well (sustained) as the F-16 - part of an out-of-context media bandwagon which the ill-informed have piled on if it suits their agenda.
The very small but real chance of being in a turning, visual fight is actually a very small part of the overall Air Superiority game in the modern age, but absolutely IS still relevant. If it really does all go ti*s-up for you and you end up in a visual fight (assuming he's seen you) and decide to stay and turn with him - vaingloriously trying to 'get the nose on the bandit' for a kill - then you're unfortunate because it shouldn't have gotten to that stage. You've also demonstrated that you've no idea how to use your air system (aircraft, sensors and weapons) so you're gonna be embarrassed very soon. Many factors go into modelling and simulations but i'm pretty sure that in Mr Liberson's statement that very few kills were attributed to a turning, visual fight.
Overall, is F-35 better than F-16 in the A-A game across the entire evolution - from detect, identify, target, shoot and confirm kill? No doubt in my mind. Unfortunately too many read the various "Top Trumps" cards for aircraft and they don't account for tactics, training, doctrine and environment.
LO - Just to clarify my comments, Dr Thompson writes often and publicly so to me he's performing many of the roles of a journalist; he blogs, he writes columns for Defense. He also confessed in his article that he is pro-F-35, immediately removing any notion that the article is neutral - so, apologies if the word allegiance in that context isn't as pure as you consider it should be but his "allegiance" is clearly toward the F-35. Finally, starting a line with "I'll spare you an extended gutting of the cited piece..." treats the author with contempt and in my book that's trashing, not to mention hilariously arrogant.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue F-35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.
Nevertheless, even though the F-35 was not designed nor optimized for the air superiority role, it does a creditable job there. Certainly as good as and usually better than any other aircraft designed and optimized for the strike role, and on occasion better than many non stealth purpose designed air superiority fighters.
Last edited by KenV; 30th Jul 2015 at 13:30.
Some of us appear to be talking at cross-purposes. Many F-35 critics seem to define 'air superiority' as the ability to outmanoeuvre opposing aircraft (i.e. KenV's 'aeroperformance') like a bespoke fighter whereas many F-35 adherents seem to define 'air superiority' as the ability to exploit attributes like better stealth, weapons, sensors, data fusion and tactics to beat other aircraft without the need to outmanoeuvre them.
Isn't air superiority simply the ease with which an aircraft is able to overcome its opponent(s), whatever the means employed, or is this a paradigm shift too far?
Isn't air superiority simply the ease with which an aircraft is able to overcome its opponent(s), whatever the means employed, or is this a paradigm shift too far?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to believe that in 2006 when this proclamation was made, LM intent was to deliver an F-35 that generally met these criteria outline by them and as US taxpayers, this is what we were to pay for:
The question remains, are we getting what Mr. Standridge predicted we would receive or was that false advertising?
Dr. Thompson receives money from L/M, Boeing and other defense contractors supporting the cost to run his blog and institute that he established. Of course he would be pro F-35, would he bite off the hand that feeds him? If Boeing had won the contract, he would be on the Boeing horse praising their offering. That is what the industry pays him to do and he plays the game quite well.
George Standridge, VP of Business Development of Lockheed Martin predicted in 2006 that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters. The design goals call for the F-35 to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040 and to be second only to the F-22 Raptor in air superiority.
Dr. Thompson receives money from L/M, Boeing and other defense contractors supporting the cost to run his blog and institute that he established. Of course he would be pro F-35, would he bite off the hand that feeds him? If Boeing had won the contract, he would be on the Boeing horse praising their offering. That is what the industry pays him to do and he plays the game quite well.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question remains, are we getting what Mr. Standridge predicted we would receive or was that false advertising?
Good question. We do (generally) appear to be getting what he promised in terms of aircraft/systems performance, but probably not yet in terms of acquisition nor sustainment costs. LM still has a long ways to go on those latter two. But then again, it's still mighty early in the program with only a single squadron of one model approaching IOC and the program not yet in full rate production.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd buy that KenV; a fair assessment.
Concur that the capability is there and the growth is pretty phenomenal compared to how much further legacy platforms can be adapted/upgraded to face the near and medium-term future threat and challenges. I would also say that the trend in acquisition and sustainment is going in the right direction. of course, there are indeed huge lessons and a number of red faces (Govt and Contractor) to be had if the history of the F-35 Program is ever written and things could have been done quite a lot better in a few key areas.
Concur that the capability is there and the growth is pretty phenomenal compared to how much further legacy platforms can be adapted/upgraded to face the near and medium-term future threat and challenges. I would also say that the trend in acquisition and sustainment is going in the right direction. of course, there are indeed huge lessons and a number of red faces (Govt and Contractor) to be had if the history of the F-35 Program is ever written and things could have been done quite a lot better in a few key areas.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Wolf has it about right
The USAF wanted more F-22's, the rest of the world wanted a cheap (cheaper/cheapest) new generation all singing all dancing aircraft so what we've finished up with is a F-104 story in reverse if you like - a limited load, reasonably stealthy strike aircaarft sold buy LM and the various air staffs as able to do ANYTHING a protential customer asks about
surprised they haven't suggested it for the UK MPA requirement TBH
The USAF wanted more F-22's, the rest of the world wanted a cheap (cheaper/cheapest) new generation all singing all dancing aircraft so what we've finished up with is a F-104 story in reverse if you like - a limited load, reasonably stealthy strike aircaarft sold buy LM and the various air staffs as able to do ANYTHING a protential customer asks about
surprised they haven't suggested it for the UK MPA requirement TBH
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
2. "Kinematic performance better than or equal to Typhoon or F-18" is not the same thing as calling the F-35 an air superiority fighter.
Why is this discussion permanently sidetracked into 'but the F-35 is the better in air-to-air', when we're examining one particular aspect where LM was outright deceitful about, in spite the fact it was obvious they were 'wrong'.
I may get corrected by people flying both planes, but I doubt even an empty F35 can fly what Makepiece flew loaded a couple of years ago on RIAT, so there's really no room for rhetoric here.
Indeed, I see Flynn's claims being made to COUNTER the oft repeated accusations that the F-35's kinematic performance is "abysmal".
Wouldn't you agree, or you're more of a Machiavellian type of guy?
IMO, this is a very important question, since customers are left upon the 'good will' of a single company, that has a next to carta-blanco contract, which would be in some other time and place called a communism.
On the other hand, our forefathers knew better than 'trust' each other and thus invented contracts and courts, which specify provided services and protect both sides.
Again, if you're building a fighter aircraft without specified flight performance it's a...well, I've never seen one.
If you're building a STRIKE fighter without specifying flight performance...that may go, but then you don't go around talking rubbish about how fast and maneuverable your new plane is, when...it isn't.
This is then the base block that shows you know what you're doing and that you're not hiring clowns in your PR dpt. since you're not running a circus, but what is to be a serious defense company.
Or, I may be from some other time when people actually died in war, unlike today when you just press 'Reload' button when your unit gets wiped out by the enemy and start over?
Who knows...
FODplod
It just makes it more difficult to swallow figures and statements etc - it is fairly easy to post (say) 82% cheaper etc but 82% of what ?
Some of his statements are perhaps a little err optimistic and it should be remembered that this thread is about the 'B' model only.
Yes he is to be commended for coming clean but that could be for a double edged reason - but personally I would prefer to read an article by somebody completely neutral.
I can say what I like about the F35 because my future employment does not depend on it - other posters may not be able to say that.As I have said previously I also say what I like about the aircraft because I am a taxpayer !
longer ron - Would you have felt better if he'd kept that bit quiet or, like me, appreciated his candour and taken his background into account while reading his blog? Does it invalidate the factual evidence, backed up with actual figures, he presents?
Some of his statements are perhaps a little err optimistic and it should be remembered that this thread is about the 'B' model only.
Yes he is to be commended for coming clean but that could be for a double edged reason - but personally I would prefer to read an article by somebody completely neutral.
I can say what I like about the F35 because my future employment does not depend on it - other posters may not be able to say that.As I have said previously I also say what I like about the aircraft because I am a taxpayer !
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this point, I believe nobody really cares.
...but I doubt even an empty F35 can fly what Makepiece flew loaded a couple of years ago on RIAT,
Yes well, you don't negate accusations with lies if you're responsible person/company
...while his claims are controversial, none of Flynn's claims were shown to be false, as many here are suggesting.
May I gently point out that you have not just "suggested" Flynn's claims are false, but you have directly called them "lies." Can you please provide any data that supports your accusation? Or is this a wild conclusion based on false assumptions?
Again, if you're building a fighter aircraft without specified flight performance it's a...well, I've never seen one.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
May I...
What you 'may' do, is provide the data corroborating LM/Flynn's claims, which are:
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 F35 should have plenty of other advantages over Typhoon, so why not concentrating on those instead of making yourself a clown?
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nitro, "Combat configured 4th gen" are the key words. A lot happens before you get to a guns only dogfight.
Joint Strike Fighter, the name says it all doesn't it? although as per LO's link was sworn to aussie parliament that it has a 'minimum' kill ratio of 6:1 against red air in the 2015-2020 time frame.
4 F-35 vs 8 red air.
Just because it's not called an air superiority platform, doesn't mean it wont have air superiority over its opposition
Joint Strike Fighter, the name says it all doesn't it? although as per LO's link was sworn to aussie parliament that it has a 'minimum' kill ratio of 6:1 against red air in the 2015-2020 time frame.
4 F-35 vs 8 red air.
Just because it's not called an air superiority platform, doesn't mean it wont have air superiority over its opposition