F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Going by the DACT squabbles, it doesn't seem to be F-22-like above the others.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-RP
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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,"
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.
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.
"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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
To return to our thread's topic:
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.
- F-35 still not cancelled.
- Some nations are unhappy with extended timelines and cost
- USMC declares IOC
- F-22 is a better dogfighter, and was always the Hi in the Hi Lo mix.
- F-22 is not for sale and isn't the topic of this thread
- F-35's performance in a shooting war remains to be seen.
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.
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
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
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...
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...
• 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...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I will now redouble my efforts to avoid getting baited again.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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 ...
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.