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 5th Aug 2015, 16:48
  #7261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
But you have to ask yourself Ken, where did the press, bloggers, and fanboys get their information from?
Well, it seems to me that the press, bloggers, and fanboys (both positive AND negative) get their basic information from the same source. Some sensationalize that information in one direction, and others in another direction. Surely, this cuts both ways. Or am I missing something?

So now ask yourself, who would have a vested interested in over-inflating the F-35's capabilities, if that is indeed what has been going on?
If over-inflating capabilities sells newspapers (or magazines or blogs or whatever) there would be "vested interests" doing exactly that. By the same token, if making sensationalist negative charges sells newspapers (or magazines or blogs or whatever) there would be "vested interests" doing that. Surely, this cuts both ways. Or am I missing something?
KenV is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 16:59
  #7262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,630
Well, it seems to me that the press, bloggers, and fanboys (both positive AND negative) get their basic information from the same source. Some sensationalize that information in one direction, and others in another direction. Surely, this cuts both ways. Or am I missing something?
There appear to be two F-35 programmes - one which is briefed by LM and the JPO where everything is on budget and ahead of schedule; and another which you'll find in GAO and POGO reports and the like, where costs are spiraling out of control and the aircraft isn't fit for purpose.

I'd suggest that the tack taken by the particular journalist, blogger, or fanboy in any particular story depends in a large part on where they have got their information from - LM/JPO etc or the GAO/POGO etc. Leaving one to draw the conclusion that is the former that is putting out the information that is leading the stories that might be over-hyping the aircraft's capabilities.

If over-inflating capabilities sells newspapers (or magazines or blogs or whatever) there would be "vested interests" doing exactly that. By the same token, if making sensationalist negative charges sells newspapers (or magazines or blogs or whatever) there would be "vested interests" doing that. Surely, this cuts both ways. Or am I missing something?
I think if this did sell newspapers in the way that you suggest, we'd all be doing it a lot more about other platforms besides the F-35....and we're not.

Anyhow, its 6pm here and I need to grab my supper. Will pick this up another time. All the best....
melmothtw is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 17:00
  #7263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,556
Is it possible that the sensational claims made of the F-35 and attributed here repeatedly as LM "lies" and "PR" is actually a product of sensationalist press, bloggers, and fanboys?

No. See p9 and p22. And note that the June 2007 date precedes any export contracts, and is earlier than 99.9 per cent of the public criticism of the project.

f-35 lightning ii a new generation of fighter f-35 free pdf download

The acquisition and O&S cost numbers on p22 are particularly amusing.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 17:33
  #7264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,296
So they did claim it is three times better at air-to-air than "legacy" aircraft. Page 9 doesn't quite bear out the F-15's kill ratio.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 17:41
  #7265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Well the RAAF did it in 1942 and it did not go well for them.
Royalistflyer is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 17:44
  #7266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
Now that's not a can of worms I want to open Ken (see the many Scotland independence threads on this forum to find out why). But to answer your questions about the relations between the constituent nations of the UK - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10
So the bottom line is that folks in Britain view themselves as English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish first, and British second? Even though all have British passports. Interesting.
KenV is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 17:54
  #7267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 250
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
So the bottom line is that folks in Britain view themselves as English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish first, and British second? Even though all have British passports. Interesting.
It gets worse than that, but you're pretty much on the button there.
Army Mover is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 18:26
  #7268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
So they did claim it is three times better at air-to-air than "legacy" aircraft.
Could a LM statement, "three times better at air-to-air", be sensationalized into "three times better in a close-in turning fight"? And may I respectfully point out that there's quite a difference between the two statements.
KenV is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 18:46
  #7269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
I think if this did sell newspapers in the way that you suggest, we'd all be doing it a lot more about other platforms besides the F-35....and we're not.
Two comments:

1. They'd all be doing it? I don't ascribe this behavior to "all" the press. I believe most of the press is more responsible than that.

2. Extreme high visibility programs like the F-35 tend to generate what I will call a feeding frenzy. Irresponsible press make sensationalist claims, the claims go viral, and the responsible press picks it up. This happened with the end of the world in 2012 "prophecy" (based on a Mayan calendar!!), with the vaccines cause autism frenzy, with the Y2K tech apocalypse, with the silicon breast implant frenzy, the Alar-tainted apple frenzy, and many more too numerous to mention. The V-22 (another big, hi viz program) attracted its share of feeding frenzies. As did the M-1 Abrams tank, way back in the day. Even Space X vs ULA/EELV generated a feeding frenzy. F-35 and V-22 are unique in that the programs went on and on and on and so did their feeding frenzies.

Or maybe I'm seeing this all wrong.
KenV is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 19:23
  #7270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,630
I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle Ken - the F-35 is certainly a high profile programme that attracts more than its fair share of attention, but a lot of the bad attention is self-inflicted with unrealistic timelines, underestimated budgets, and over-optimistic expectations.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 21:00
  #7271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,556
Could a LM statement, "three times better at air-to-air", be sensationalized into "three times better in a close-in turning fight"?

Well, no. But actually, nobody has said that, or claimed that LockMart that. What Flynn did say was:

If one were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35's, "It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there."

I think the fact that you place media criticism of your pet project in the same category as anti-vaxxers and the Mayan Apocalypse says much more about you than it does about the media, BTW.

Or maybe I'm seeing this all wrong.


Last edited by LowObservable; 5th Aug 2015 at 21:23.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 21:55
  #7272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
CM, yes, they say they re-evaluate as it progresses and more in known. It started at 3 times, then 4 times and now 4 vs 8 red air is 6:1 LER. They said they get an even better LER when they use piloted sims. I haven't seen it said what the full system sims are giving.
a1bill is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 22:04
  #7273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,556
Or as someone put it, proof positive that the F-35's performance can be improved via software.

The software in this case being PowerPoint.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 22:07
  #7274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
LO, I don't think anyone would say that the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon have the same EM. As it is well known that they don't. I think the included word, comparable needs to be taken into account. They are saying the EM is closest to the FA-18. I would put the FA-18 as comparable to the F-16 or Typhoon in EM.


The sims are run by USAF, USN and the partners. I wouldn't discount their professional assessment.
a1bill is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 22:18
  #7275 (permalink)  
O-P
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
a1bill,


I'll give you a choice of F-18 or F-16, I'm taking the Typhoon, post 3-9 line kills only. We are just testing the EM, not the weapon system. 100 000 cases of beer to the winner.


Outwards turn for combat "GO".


I'll PM my address so you can FedEx the beer!
O-P is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 22:20
  #7276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 296
Originally Posted by melmothtw View Post
I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle Ken...
Yes. In my experience that's normally where it's to be found.

There does seem to be a bit of a lynch mob mentality at times in this thread (albeit with some honourable exceptions) towards anyone who has the temerity not to tuck in behind the approved local orthodoxy that the F35 is and will remain a lemon. The task of teasing out the truth isn't helped by ad hominem attacks on those with whom one disagrees, however wrong people may think they are.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 22:38
  #7277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
O-P, I know the f-16 and FA-18 have different EM, but there are pilots of both that have said they have not lost to the other. So I think it can be said to be comparable. I haven't seen the EM specs of the Typhoon, but it had recent physical modification to improve it considerably.


Going by the DACT squabbles, it doesn't seem to be F-22-like above the others.
a1bill is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 23:25
  #7278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Originally Posted by a1bill View Post
I haven't seen the EM specs of the Typhoon, but it had recent physical modification to improve it considerably.
The LERX and fuselage strake mods were test items only, none of the partner nations have signed up for the mods, yet, despite what appears to be significant aerodynamic performance gains from what are little more than bolt-on parts!

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 05:28
  #7279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
I would think if they want to go post merge and get into guns only dogfight, they will get the advanced EM. It's interesting that it wasn't funded by the partners as a requirement.


IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics ?better than or equal to? Typhoon or Super Hornet - 2/7/2013 - Flight Global
as a refresher to the hub-bub from a few years ago: my opinion is it's what you cherry pick from the news conference and it's nice to read the full transcript which is conveniently forgotten most of the time. This includes this article.

"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, "that the F-35 can go out on any given day, and we have, gone to the red line of the airplane" with a full internal weapons load. Going to the limits of the aircraft's envelope with a full load of weapons is "inconceivable in any of the other fourth-generation airplanes, including Typhoon


You maneuver the airplane much like an F-22 or a lot like I maneuvered the prototype F-16 20 years ago with thrust vectoring," Flynn says. "You maneuver the airplane back and forth with amazing controllability at the highest degree of angle-of-attack, and that is not the case with the only other Western airplane that can go to high AOA, the F/A-18." The one other exception is the Raptor, which Flynn does acknowledge as having better high AOA performance than the F-35 due to its thrust vectoring capability. The Typhoon, by comparison, has a 25 AOA limit. In the F-35, Lockheed made the decision to limit the AOA to 50, but test pilots have flown the aircraft well past that.

The high AOA limit gives the F-35 "great" instantaneous turn performance. "We knew that 50, from our years of research, is about as far as you need to go to take advantage of the aerodynamic performance" of the jet, Flynn says. "There is no reason to be there [at extreme AOA]; you're not going to get much more capability at 75 than you would at 50." The limiter will allow an F-35 pilot to fly with "reckless abandon", which Flynn says is not possible in a Hornet because an F/A-18 can depart from controlled flight.


Even with the reduced transonic acceleration times mentioned in the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation 2012 report, the F-35, including the C-model which had its specifications reduced by 43 seconds, still out accelerates competing aircraft in a combat configuration, he says. ( LO's part quote) If one were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35's, "It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there,"

Last edited by a1bill; 6th Aug 2015 at 05:57.
a1bill is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 13:03
  #7280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,556
The statement...

"It (E-M) is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there,"

... is still hard to reconcile with the infamous WiB report, that describes E-M as being inferior to that of the F-16 Block 40. It was also (at the time of Flynn's statement) rather difficult to see how the F-35's E-M would be "comparable" (and when you say "comparable or better" you are not implying "measurably worse", are you?) to that of the Typhoon, which has 20 per cent more wing, 5000 lbs less OEW and roughly equal thrust.

As for the other comments - alpha, controllability/stability at high alpha and instantaneous maneuver: They do seem to mesh with the WiB report, with the difference that in "unscripted" situations, maneuvering in response to an unpredictable target rather than performing test points, the limiters and lack of E-M both made alpha, controllability and instantaneous maneuver harder to exploit.

And let us not forget the B will fly exactly as an A, with the addition of some 3000 pounds of empty weight.
LowObservable is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.