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 6th Aug 2015, 13:55
  #7281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
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.
Interesting opinion, especially considering that:
1. F-35 is nowhere near a "pet project" for me. So the opinion appears based on yet another (false) assumption.
2. I never remotely suggested that anti-vaxxers and the Mayan Apocalypse are "in the same category" as media criticism of the F-35, so yet another (false) assumption.
3. You are expending as much or more time, effort, and electrons attacking me personally than disagreeing with my opinions.

So given 1 & 2 above, and especially #3, may I ask what that "says about you"?

Now, to return to the subject matter at hand,

I asked, Could a LM statement, "three times better at air-to-air", be sensationalized into "three times better in a close-in turning fight"?

To which you replied: 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."

So in reply to the above I make the following comments:
1. "Comparable or better" covers a very large envelope of possibilities.
2. Having "comparable or better" E-M diagrams is not the same as saying that F-35 is either 3 times better or even marginally better in a close-in turning fight.
3. This latest frenzy is about claims made that the F-35 test with an F-16 proves:
a) that the F-35 has "abysmal" maneuverability and
b) that Flynn's claims were all a pack of "lies".

It is my contention that both a) and b) are false because:
1. The test was not designed nor intended to test the F-35's maneuverability, so drawing conclusions about maneuverability based on that test is a non sequitur
2. No one has produced or claims to have compared any E-M diagrams that show the F-35's diagrams are not "comparable or better" than the aircraft Flynn listed.
KenV is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 14:13
  #7282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
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.
I agree, that statement is "hard to reconcile" on several points. That being said, we must look at the full context of Flynn's statement, which included:

The F-35 s 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.

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.

Clearly Flynn is not comparing two clean, unloaded aircraft. He is comparing an F-35 with a full internal weapon load against other aircraft "hogged up" with external weapon loads. Is this a "fair" or even "reasonable" comparison? Maybe. Maybe not. The article discusses the implications of that difference at some length. And it did NOT conclude that Flynn's claims were "lies". Nor that the F-35's maneuverability was "abysmal".

And related to the current discussion specifically, it does not remotely imply that the statement, "three times better at air-to-air" is either false, or is not achievable in either simulated or real world conditions.
KenV is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 14:45
  #7283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,556
I never remotely suggested that anti-vaxxers and the Mayan Apocalypse are "in the same category" as media criticism of the F-35, so yet another (false) assumption.

If you did not want to group F-35 criticism with anti-vaxxers &c, you probably should not have listed them in the same paragraph and described them with the same highly loaded word.

It's this "but, but I didn't say that", when you very obviously did, in plain language, that raises my suspicions about what type of structure you live under.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 15:59
  #7284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
LO said, And let us not forget the B will fly exactly as an A, with the addition of some 3000 pounds of empty weight.


It also has about 5000 pounds less fuel and 1000 pounds less internal bomb. It might be time to drop that cherry pick.

If you are suggesting that the current FCS sucks and it's like flying on a piece of elastic and badly needs some development money spent to tune it. However it's as safe as houses and doesn't depart controlled flight. I'd agree and is what I took from the report

Last edited by a1bill; 6th Aug 2015 at 16:35.
a1bill is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 16:03
  #7285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 5,659
To return to our thread's topic:
  1. F-35 still not cancelled.
  2. Some nations are unhappy with extended timelines and cost
  3. USMC declares IOC
  4. F-22 is a better dogfighter, and was always the Hi in the Hi Lo mix.
  5. F-22 is not for sale and isn't the topic of this thread
  6. F-35's performance in a shooting war remains to be seen.
Insofar as the US forces, it's the gal we are gonna bring to the dance for the multi role FJ, ship and shore based, as the older airframes eventually get too long in the tooth.
Like it or not.
Expensive or not.
Imperfect or not.
As the groom realizes walking away from the alter, we are committed.

Flashback:

There we were, in the Med, 1985. I was in CIC on AW (a cruiser, air defense commander for our BG) and we had the darnedest time managing the fighter grid because F-18A deck cycle times (and refueling coordination) wasn't as generous as the F-14's that we were used to dealing with. It seemed that them Hornets were always out of gas, or near to it.

Learning curve for the whole BG in the operational sense, but a frustrating operational characteristic of a good jet. C/D and E/F weren't quite that challenge thanks to a number of factors to include more folks getting used to the Hornet's operational quirks. This is "here we are at the dance, let's do a waltz and a polka" operational growth.

F-35 will doubtless encounter similar operational growth development. And in this day and age, great public gnashing of teeth and rending of garments will accompany such as bit of the adaptation process dribble out into the public domain.

Get yourselves a lot of popcorn, ladies and gentlemen, this is a long movie.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 16:28
  #7286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,296
A1bill and LoneWoolf, I concur with the above.

The discussion about the claims made by LM, JPO and test polite has seen a distinct shift of positions as some of the old claims have started to emerge out of the archives. LM have wisely removed those claims from their website, but they live on in carefully rephrased statements, modified to compatible, equal to or better, etc, which are still open to debate, especially as they now include caveats such as Gen 4 jets being "hogged up" vs F-35 carrying only internal weapons.

I am not criticising F-35 here, simply the arguments being fielded.

There was a very interesting post by a newcomer, glaaar, a few pages ago now, that raises some pertinent points, most of which went largely unnoticed (apart from the Arguments about WVR manoeuvre and some other stuff) in the fog of longbows, British nationalities and press reporting. I would commend a scan of it. If we don't want the F-35 to get into turning fights, the stuff about the longer range air-to-air battle should be relevant to any discussion of its capabilities.

The points I've been making for some time now are the ability to manoeuvre at range and to accelerate and climb for energy at launch and to defeat incoming aams without exposing areas of higher RCS.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9071284
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 18:00
  #7287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 807
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
...The discussion about the claims made by LM, JPO and test polite has seen a distinct shift of positions as some of the old claims have started to emerge out of the archives. LM have wisely removed those claims from their website, but they live on in carefully rephrased statements, modified to compatible, equal to or better, etc, which are still open to debate, especially as they now include caveats such as Gen 4 jets being "hogged up" vs F-35 carrying only internal weapons...
How far do you need to go back? This is from LM's website of seven years ago, accessed via the extremely useful internet archive wayback machine:
Originally Posted by Maj Gen Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer 19 Sep 2008
Here are the facts:

The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages...
I'm not disputing that LM has gilded the lily on occasion, possibly in the same press release, but curiosity led me to check out your specific accusation.
FODPlod is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 18:01
  #7288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
There we were, in the Med, 1985. I was in CIC on AW (a cruiser, air defense commander for our BG) and we had the darnedest time managing the fighter grid because F-18A deck cycle times (and refueling coordination) wasn't as generous as the F-14's that we were used to dealing with. It seemed that them Hornets were always out of gas, or near to it.
Aaaah, yes, the good old days. I remember those same times with the Phantoms still in the mix, and the pilots, seeming constantly low on fuel, calling "Tanker Posit! Tanker Posit!"

And if memory serves, the A-7s, also still in the mix, had carrier cycle times better than the Hornets and similar to the Tomcat's. Two big drivers for Super Hornet development was to increase carrier cycle times and bring back, which were accomplished. I'm curious as to whether the F-35 will have the Super Hornet's or the Hornet's carrier cycle times. If the latter, then it'll be deja vu all over again.
KenV is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 18:19
  #7289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
If you did not want to group F-35 criticism with anti-vaxxers &c, you probably should not have listed them in the same paragraph and described them with the same highly loaded word.
I regret getting baited into yet another tit for tat with you, but here goes.

May I offer that making an analogy between two disparate objects is far far far removed from putting those two objects "in the same category". I also made an analogy between swords vs rifles and swords vs long bows. No reasonable person without an axe to grind would conclude that I was placing rifles and longbows "in the same category" as F-35's. The operative word there appears to be "reasonable".

It's this "but, but I didn't say that", when you very obviously did, in plain language, that raises my suspicions about what type of structure you live under.
If the "plain language" you are referring to is English, we've already concluded that there's a BIG problem between your usage of English and mine. I'll not say who's usage was "right" and who's was "wrong" in that discussion, but I will remind you that my usage was in 100% conformance with the dictionary definitions.

I will now redouble my efforts to avoid getting baited again.
KenV is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 18:37
  #7290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
LM have wisely removed those claims from their website, but they live on in carefully rephrased statements, modified to compatible, equal to or better, etc, which are still open to debate, especially as they now include caveats such as Gen 4 jets being "hogged up" vs F-35 carrying only internal weapons.
"As they now include caveats...?"

May I offer that way back in 2008, well before flight envelope expansion, essentially the exact terminology used by Flynn was used by the F-35's deputy program officer, Maj Gen Davis:

The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.

So from my perspective, these allegedly "new" caveats have been around for quite some time.

Edit: Ooops. I see that FodPlod beat me to this quote.

Last edited by KenV; 6th Aug 2015 at 18:45. Reason: added oops
KenV is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 19:12
  #7291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 5,659
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
And if memory serves, the A-7s, also still in the mix, had carrier cycle times better than the Hornets and similar to the Tomcat's.
IIRC, some A-7 were configured to carry buddy stores (for AAR). FWIW one of the things that bugs me of developments over the past decades is that we don't seem to have replaced the AAR capability of KA-6D. It's simply lost.
Seen some video of V-22 tanking F-18s and other stuff ... have not sorted out if F-35 will buddy store or leave that to a different platform. Might not be worth the development dollars ...
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 19:15
  #7292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by FODPlod
Originally Posted by Maj Gen Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer 19 Sep 2008
Here are the facts:

The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages...
Well, you can argue that neither of the 4th gen can get into 'stealth configuration' in the first place, which renders this claim a priori true, but the innuendo behind the claims is quite clear.
NITRO104 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 19:42
  #7293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,037
Ignoring the stealth bit but it was quite an exaggeration to suggest that the F-35 with (in the future) 4 x AIM-120 was ever going to out perform a Typhoon with say 2 x AIM-132 and 4 x AIM-120. Even if you added more fuel and a couple more missiles it would leave an F-35 in the dust.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 20:04
  #7294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
IIRC, some A-7 were configured to carry buddy stores (for AAR). FWIW one of the things that bugs me of developments over the past decades is that we don't seem to have replaced the AAR capability of KA-6D. It's simply lost.
Every Super Hornet has a buddy store capability and I understand that every Super Hornet squadron has at least 2 AAR buddy stores, with most of the crews qualified to tank both as tanker and receiver.. That was part of the plan for the Super Hornet: it would replace F-14s and KA-6s. And with the advent of the Growler, its replacing the Prowler. Maybe the Super Hornets will be the tankers for F-35 as well.

The biggest gripe I have is that the Phoenix missile got retired with the Tomcats. AMRAAM is in no way a replacement for the Phoenix and now USN has no long range air-to-air weapon. Aegis and the SM-2/3 is supposed to fill the gap, but I have my doubts.
KenV is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 20:04
  #7295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,296
Jeez, KenV. I try to put your ridiculous shifting arguments to one side and move the debate along to talking about F-35 and its future capabilities and you still just want to pick holes in sentences and continue to nit pick about who said what. Please give it a rest.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 20:11
  #7296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
Jeez, KenV. I try to put your ridiculous shifting arguments to one side and and move the debate along to talking about F-35 and its future capabilities and you still just want to pick holes in sentences and continue to nit pick about who said what. Please give it a rest.
I will not be baited into a tit for tat with you.
KenV is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 20:16
  #7297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 69
Posts: 350
KenV,

I am not sure why you think that the Phoenix is such a great missile and should have been retained? Yes, you could fire it at great range but it was VERY slow. I understand that if fired at long range and the Tomcat then followed in and fired an AIM7 at 8 miles, the AIM7 got to the target first? OK for fleet defense 30 years ago but not a missile for the 2020s?
Dominator2 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 20:25
  #7298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 5,659
Originally Posted by Just This Once... View Post
Ignoring the stealth bit but it was quite an exaggeration to suggest that the F-35 with (in the future) 4 x AIM-120 was ever going to out perform a Typhoon with say 2 x AIM-132 and 4 x AIM-120. Even if you added more fuel and a couple more missiles it would leave an F-35 in the dust.
FWIW, I think that folding in the stealth bit was the point that holds that whole assertion together. Why do you think ignoring stealth is a relevant reply to that?
The first rule of all air combat is to see the opponent first.
General Adolf Galland, Luftwaffe.
This makes sense: see him first and begin to dictate the terms of the engagement? Seeing has become a multi sensor activity, which includes many sensors as well as the Mk I Mod 0 eyeball." The whole "stealth" sales point supports seeing first ...

At the esoteric level, this is the principle of war called "Initiative" but on the more practical level it's the first step (Observe) in Boyd's infamous OODA loop. You get inside of his decision cycle by starting the engagement before he sees you with any sensor.
(Long ago memory of a picture in a squadron office ... what two MiG 21's looked like from a mile away, head on ... two little black dots on the picture ... )

How stealthy is stealth? Well, there's a can of worms to open ...
What if both sides are "stealthy" eh?
How stealthy is your stealth, today?
More cans, more worms, and now we get to some very interesting problems in getting the drop on one's opponents ... does that mean stealth is moot, or just another factor or measure of effectiveness?

The rest of the Galland quote ....
Like the hunter who stalks his prey and maneuvers himself unnoticed into the most favourable position for the kill, the fighter in the opening of a dogfight must detect the opponent as early as possible in order to attain a superior position for the attack.
This remains true if the fight begins BVR.

See also:
One of the secrets of air fighting was to see the other man first.
— Air Vice-Marshal J. E. 'Johnnie' Johnson, RAF.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th Aug 2015 at 20:37.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 20:58
  #7299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,556
LW50 - at a certain point your stealth goes away. The question is whether you can decide the combat (1) before it does or (2) soon enough to disengage.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 09:04
  #7300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
The name of the game surely hasn't changed since Adolf Galland made his remarks.

If you see first, you can shoot first.

Today that requires that you have armament that can reach the opponent at the moment of first sight.

In the past it was said that the F-22 could detect a Typhoon far earlier and had missiles with greater range.

I assume the F-35 would have had similar capability.

Surely the ability to see first and reach the target trumps in close dogfighting which is extremely rare. It has been said on this thread that if you allow yourself to get into a gunfight, you weren't doing your job in the first place.

So one wonders about the usefulness of stealth - is it worth the cost? Surely more advanced sensors and air-to-air missiles can carry the day? After all, the object of the exercise hasn't changed since WW I it isn't to engage in heroic one-to-one combat, it is to prevent enemy aircraft from attacking ones own ground assets. If the strike aircraft can detect at greater range and fire at greater range, it doesn't need to be a first class dogfighter.
Royalistflyer 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.