F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original post by a1bill: well the rumor I heard was that sweetman is on the payroll of boeing and saab. doing fluff pieces and slagging off other makers. let us hope it is wrong. though it does make me wonder.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If sweetman reported negative stuff when it happens with boeing and saab, it would be more believable that he wasn't on their payroll. when there are just a series of fluff pieces, it makes me wonder. My mother doesn't even speak that nicely about me.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I pointed out to your friends MSOCS and KenV, I'm rather careful not to accuse anyone.......
Last edited by KenV; 29th Feb 2016 at 19:57.
The righteous indignation of those yelling "defamation" rings mighty hollow. The same folks now righteously indignant about one defamation previously had no problem accusing certain individuals on this forum of far FAR worse than merely "being a paid spokesman" for LM. So if one is going to accuse another of "defamation", may I suggest one take a hard look in the mirror first?
Some of us haven't accused anyone of being paid spokesmen but we still think it is fairly useless to make totally unsubstantiated claims of bribery and it doesn't really matter "who hit who first" - the result is just noise.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember the accusations and defamation against you Ken. It was horrendous from several on here, including LO. I don't know why sweetman deserves better treatment than you did, but he seems to be the golden child to some here.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 i nærkamp ? hva har jeg lært så langt? (The F-35 in a dogfight ? what have I learned so far?) |
The F-35 in a dogfight – what have I learned so far?
Major Hanche
I now have several sorties behind me in the F-35 where the mission has been to train within visual range combat one-on-one, or «Basic Fighter Maneuvers» (BFM). In a previous post I wrote about aerial combat in general (English version available), and about the likelihood that the F-35 would ever end up in such a situation. In this post, however, I write more specifically about my experiences with the F-35 when it does end up in a dogfight. Again, I use the F-16 as my reference. As an F-35-user I still have a lot to learn, but I am left with several impressions. For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16.
I’ll start by talking a little about how we train BFM. This particular situation – a dogfight one-on-one between two airplanes – may be more or less likely to occur, as I have described in a previous blog post (Norwegian only). Nonetheless, this kind of training is always important, because it builds fundamental pilot skills. In this kind of training we usually start out from defined parameters, with clearly offensive, defensive or neutral roles. This kind of disciplined approach to the basic parameters is important, because it makes it easier to extract learning in retrospect – a methodical approach to train for air combat.
So how does the the F-35 behave in a dogfight? The offensive role feels somewhat different from what I am used to with the F-16. In the F-16, I had to be more patient than in the F-35, before pointing my nose at my opponent to employ weapons; pointing my nose and employing, before being safely established in the control position, would often lead to a role reversal, where the offensive became the defensive part.
The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.
Update: Since I first wrote this post, I have flown additional sorties where I tried an even more aggressive approach to the control position – more aggressive than I thought possible. It worked just fine. The F-35 sticks on like glue, and it is very difficult for the defender to escape.
To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.
In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable. I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me. (Same principle as many would have seen in Top Gun; «hit the brakes, and he’ll fly right by.» But me quoting Top Gun does not make the movie a documentary)
Defensive situations often result in high AOA and low airspeeds. At high AOA the F-16 reacts slowly when I move the stick sideways to roll the airplane. The best comparison I can think of is being at the helm of ship (without me really knowing what I am talking about – I’m not a sailor). Yet another quality of the F-35 becomes evident in this flight regime; using the rudder pedals I can command the nose of the airplane from side to side. The F-35 reacts quicker to my pedal inputs than the F-16 would at its maximum AOA (the F-16 would actually be out of control at this AOA). This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent. This «pedal turn» yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the «pedal turn» provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely.
The overall experience of flying the F-35 in aerial combat is different from what I’m used to with the F-16. One obvious difference is that the F-35 shakes quite a bit at high g-loadings and at high angles of attack, while the F-16 hardly shakes at all. The professional terminology is «buffeting», which I also described in an earlier blog post (English version available). This buffeting serves as useful feedback, but it can also be a disadvantage. Because the buffeting only begins at moderate angles of attack, it provides me an intuitive feel for how much I am demanding from the aircraft; what is happening to my overall energy state? On the other hand, several pilots have had trouble reading the information which is displayed on the helmet visor, due to the buffeting. Most of the pilots here at Luke fly with the second-generation helmet. I fly with the third-generation helmet, and I have not found this to be a real issue.
What I initially found to a bit negative in visual combat was the cockpit view, which wasn´t as good as in the F-16. The cockpit view from the F-16 was good – better than in any other fighter I have flown. I could turn around and look at the opposite wingtip; turn to the right, look over the «back» of the airplane and see the left wingtip. That´s not quite possible in the F-35, because the headrest blocks some of the view. Therefore, I was a bit frustrated during my first few BFM-sorties. However, It turned out that practice was all it took to improve the situation. Now I compensate by moving forward in the seat and leaning slightly sideways, before turning my head and looking backwards. In this way I can look around the sides of the seat. I also use my hands to brace against the cockpit glass and the canopy frame. With regards to cockpit view alone, I had an advantage in the F-16, but I am still able to maintain visual contact with my opponent during aggressive maneuvering in the F-35. The cockpit view is not a limitation with regards to being effective in visual combat, and it would be a misunderstanding to present this as a genuine problem with the F-35.
On the positive side I would like to highlight how the F-35 feels in the air. I am impressed with the stability and predictability of the airplane. Particularly at high AOA and low airspeeds. It is a peculiar feeling to be flying the F-35 at high AOA. I can pull the nose up to where my feet «sit» on the horizon and still maintain level altitude. I’m also impressed by how quickly the F-35 accelerates when I reduce the AOA. High AOA produces lots of lift, but also tremendous induced drag. When I «break» the AOA, it is evident that the F-35 has a powerful engine. The F-35 also makes a particular sound at this point. When I quickly reduce the AOA – stick full forward – I can hear clearly, even inside the «cockpit» how the F-35 howls! It seems like the «howling» is a mix of airflow over the wings and a different kind of noise from the engine. Maybe this isn’t all that relevant, but I still think it´s a funny observation. Another aspect is the kind of reaction I get when I push the stick forward; the F-35 reacts immediately, and not delayed like the F-16. Looking at another F-35 doing such maneuvers is an impressive sight. The various control surfaces on the airplane are large, and they move very quickly. I can monitor these movements on the screens in my cockpit, and I´m fascinated by how the control surfaces move when I manipulate the stick and pedals. Especially at high AOA, it is not always intuitive what control surfaces move, and by how much.
The final «textbook» for how to best employ the F-35 in visual combat – BFM – is not written. It is literally being written by my neighbor, down here in Arizona! We have had many good discussions on this topic over the last few weeks, and it feels very rewarding to be part the development. I would emphasize the term “multirole” after experiencing this jet in many roles, and now also in a dogfight. The F-35 has a real bite! Those in doubt will be surprised when they finally meet this «bomber”.
...........................
@t43562 I think that's a personal attack, I hope you don't mind if I don't respond.
The F-35 in a dogfight – what have I learned so far?
Major Hanche
I now have several sorties behind me in the F-35 where the mission has been to train within visual range combat one-on-one, or «Basic Fighter Maneuvers» (BFM). In a previous post I wrote about aerial combat in general (English version available), and about the likelihood that the F-35 would ever end up in such a situation. In this post, however, I write more specifically about my experiences with the F-35 when it does end up in a dogfight. Again, I use the F-16 as my reference. As an F-35-user I still have a lot to learn, but I am left with several impressions. For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16.
I’ll start by talking a little about how we train BFM. This particular situation – a dogfight one-on-one between two airplanes – may be more or less likely to occur, as I have described in a previous blog post (Norwegian only). Nonetheless, this kind of training is always important, because it builds fundamental pilot skills. In this kind of training we usually start out from defined parameters, with clearly offensive, defensive or neutral roles. This kind of disciplined approach to the basic parameters is important, because it makes it easier to extract learning in retrospect – a methodical approach to train for air combat.
So how does the the F-35 behave in a dogfight? The offensive role feels somewhat different from what I am used to with the F-16. In the F-16, I had to be more patient than in the F-35, before pointing my nose at my opponent to employ weapons; pointing my nose and employing, before being safely established in the control position, would often lead to a role reversal, where the offensive became the defensive part.
The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.
Update: Since I first wrote this post, I have flown additional sorties where I tried an even more aggressive approach to the control position – more aggressive than I thought possible. It worked just fine. The F-35 sticks on like glue, and it is very difficult for the defender to escape.
To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.
In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable. I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me. (Same principle as many would have seen in Top Gun; «hit the brakes, and he’ll fly right by.» But me quoting Top Gun does not make the movie a documentary)
Defensive situations often result in high AOA and low airspeeds. At high AOA the F-16 reacts slowly when I move the stick sideways to roll the airplane. The best comparison I can think of is being at the helm of ship (without me really knowing what I am talking about – I’m not a sailor). Yet another quality of the F-35 becomes evident in this flight regime; using the rudder pedals I can command the nose of the airplane from side to side. The F-35 reacts quicker to my pedal inputs than the F-16 would at its maximum AOA (the F-16 would actually be out of control at this AOA). This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent. This «pedal turn» yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the «pedal turn» provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely.
The overall experience of flying the F-35 in aerial combat is different from what I’m used to with the F-16. One obvious difference is that the F-35 shakes quite a bit at high g-loadings and at high angles of attack, while the F-16 hardly shakes at all. The professional terminology is «buffeting», which I also described in an earlier blog post (English version available). This buffeting serves as useful feedback, but it can also be a disadvantage. Because the buffeting only begins at moderate angles of attack, it provides me an intuitive feel for how much I am demanding from the aircraft; what is happening to my overall energy state? On the other hand, several pilots have had trouble reading the information which is displayed on the helmet visor, due to the buffeting. Most of the pilots here at Luke fly with the second-generation helmet. I fly with the third-generation helmet, and I have not found this to be a real issue.
What I initially found to a bit negative in visual combat was the cockpit view, which wasn´t as good as in the F-16. The cockpit view from the F-16 was good – better than in any other fighter I have flown. I could turn around and look at the opposite wingtip; turn to the right, look over the «back» of the airplane and see the left wingtip. That´s not quite possible in the F-35, because the headrest blocks some of the view. Therefore, I was a bit frustrated during my first few BFM-sorties. However, It turned out that practice was all it took to improve the situation. Now I compensate by moving forward in the seat and leaning slightly sideways, before turning my head and looking backwards. In this way I can look around the sides of the seat. I also use my hands to brace against the cockpit glass and the canopy frame. With regards to cockpit view alone, I had an advantage in the F-16, but I am still able to maintain visual contact with my opponent during aggressive maneuvering in the F-35. The cockpit view is not a limitation with regards to being effective in visual combat, and it would be a misunderstanding to present this as a genuine problem with the F-35.
On the positive side I would like to highlight how the F-35 feels in the air. I am impressed with the stability and predictability of the airplane. Particularly at high AOA and low airspeeds. It is a peculiar feeling to be flying the F-35 at high AOA. I can pull the nose up to where my feet «sit» on the horizon and still maintain level altitude. I’m also impressed by how quickly the F-35 accelerates when I reduce the AOA. High AOA produces lots of lift, but also tremendous induced drag. When I «break» the AOA, it is evident that the F-35 has a powerful engine. The F-35 also makes a particular sound at this point. When I quickly reduce the AOA – stick full forward – I can hear clearly, even inside the «cockpit» how the F-35 howls! It seems like the «howling» is a mix of airflow over the wings and a different kind of noise from the engine. Maybe this isn’t all that relevant, but I still think it´s a funny observation. Another aspect is the kind of reaction I get when I push the stick forward; the F-35 reacts immediately, and not delayed like the F-16. Looking at another F-35 doing such maneuvers is an impressive sight. The various control surfaces on the airplane are large, and they move very quickly. I can monitor these movements on the screens in my cockpit, and I´m fascinated by how the control surfaces move when I manipulate the stick and pedals. Especially at high AOA, it is not always intuitive what control surfaces move, and by how much.
The final «textbook» for how to best employ the F-35 in visual combat – BFM – is not written. It is literally being written by my neighbor, down here in Arizona! We have had many good discussions on this topic over the last few weeks, and it feels very rewarding to be part the development. I would emphasize the term “multirole” after experiencing this jet in many roles, and now also in a dogfight. The F-35 has a real bite! Those in doubt will be surprised when they finally meet this «bomber”.
...........................
@t43562 I think that's a personal attack, I hope you don't mind if I don't respond.
Original post by a1bill: well the rumor I heard was that sweetman is on the payroll of boeing and saab. doing fluff pieces and slagging off other makers. let us hope it is wrong. though it does make me wonder.
That's defamatory a1bill, and repeating someone else's libel or slander is no defence in court. And in case you're wondering, your PPRuNe moniker doesn't offer you the anonymity you might think it does.
I remember the accusations and defamation against you Ken. It was horrendous from several on here, including LO. I don't know why sweetman deserves better treatment than you did, but he seems to be the golden child to some here.
An internet moniker (Ken V, or whoever) has no reputation to protect and so cannot be defamed. A professional, long standing, and much respected aerospace journalist however does have a reputation and can be defamed.
That's defamatory a1bill, and repeating someone else's libel or slander is no defence in court. And in case you're wondering, your PPRuNe moniker doesn't offer you the anonymity you might think it does.
I remember the accusations and defamation against you Ken. It was horrendous from several on here, including LO. I don't know why sweetman deserves better treatment than you did, but he seems to be the golden child to some here.
An internet moniker (Ken V, or whoever) has no reputation to protect and so cannot be defamed. A professional, long standing, and much respected aerospace journalist however does have a reputation and can be defamed.
Last edited by melmothtw; 1st Mar 2016 at 13:11.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sandiego89 : "Interesting read from the Norwegian pilot, especially about the high AOA handling and and nose pointing."
yes it is, it sounds as if they have been tweaking the flight control laws.
@melmothtw, perhaps that's where we differ, I don't see swetman as a "professional, long standing, and much respected aerospace journalist" I think the guy has turned into a gosip pusher of FUD, fear uncertainty and doubt, who for some reason constantly slags LM while giving boeing and saab a free ride and sings questionable praise about them
yes it is, it sounds as if they have been tweaking the flight control laws.
@melmothtw, perhaps that's where we differ, I don't see swetman as a "professional, long standing, and much respected aerospace journalist" I think the guy has turned into a gosip pusher of FUD, fear uncertainty and doubt, who for some reason constantly slags LM while giving boeing and saab a free ride and sings questionable praise about them
Last edited by a1bill; 1st Mar 2016 at 13:44.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the caveat is that a1bill is in Australia, it really doesn't matter - 'An individual can normally sue in the country where the defamatory statement was read or viewed, if there is sufficient circulation, or viewers'.
or perhaps there's another caveat?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to point out that I am merely being pedantic rather than having any knowledge or opinion about the subject.
That it's libellous, slanderous, or defamatory? Well, that wouldn't be for me to judge Tourist, but I would suggest that such comments about a military aviation journalist posted on a military aviation website might be judged to be harmful to his professional reputation.
Of course, all of this is a1bill's concern rather than mine....
Of course, all of this is a1bill's concern rather than mine....
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
again you seem to think he still has a professional reputation, I think he lost that when avweek stood him down for bad mouthing LM
I think the guy is a hack now, this letter to SLD was enough to confirm that for me
SLD Forum
ps,
'An individual can normally sue in the country where the defamatory statement was read or viewed, if there is sufficient circulation, or viewers'.
I would love a trip to the US, I'll start packing.
I think the guy is a hack now, this letter to SLD was enough to confirm that for me
SLD Forum
ps,
'An individual can normally sue in the country where the defamatory statement was read or viewed, if there is sufficient circulation, or viewers'.
I would love a trip to the US, I'll start packing.
Last edited by a1bill; 1st Mar 2016 at 14:40.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on thread sometime soon?
Any chance that this thread could get back on thread soon?
All the to and fro about dogfighting seems a little premature to me, I thought that the idea of 5th Generation was that they were part of an integrated battlespace management solution, or something like that, so they can if deemed necessary take out an enemy without necessarily revealing their position using sensors on other F35s, Linked aircraft, or land and sea based resources, so dog fighting was not what the aircraft was designed for.
Taking dog fighting a bit further, as I understand it no non development F35 is cleared to go to the design maximum G yet and will not be for a time, nor is the external carriage of weapons available on line aircraft yet, nor is the use of the integrated or indeed podded gun. I do wonder what the point of trial dog fighting in an aircraft that will in the future be able to turn sharper etc, when the only weapons that you have are AMRAAMs and possibly 2,000lb bombs, neither a particularly dogfight optimised weapon system.
It would be good to hear on the progress to final sign off of the as initially promised 3F software, how the multi ship communications problems are being resolved and how progress was being made on the design of spars that did not crack under load.
All the to and fro about dogfighting seems a little premature to me, I thought that the idea of 5th Generation was that they were part of an integrated battlespace management solution, or something like that, so they can if deemed necessary take out an enemy without necessarily revealing their position using sensors on other F35s, Linked aircraft, or land and sea based resources, so dog fighting was not what the aircraft was designed for.
Taking dog fighting a bit further, as I understand it no non development F35 is cleared to go to the design maximum G yet and will not be for a time, nor is the external carriage of weapons available on line aircraft yet, nor is the use of the integrated or indeed podded gun. I do wonder what the point of trial dog fighting in an aircraft that will in the future be able to turn sharper etc, when the only weapons that you have are AMRAAMs and possibly 2,000lb bombs, neither a particularly dogfight optimised weapon system.
It would be good to hear on the progress to final sign off of the as initially promised 3F software, how the multi ship communications problems are being resolved and how progress was being made on the design of spars that did not crack under load.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think we will hear about what goes on BVR, air shows and a bit of BFM exercises is all we can hope for.
But perhaps he was in one of the test planes, he is a U.S. Navy Test Pilot School graduate and the norgs are part of the testing.
But perhaps he was in one of the test planes, he is a U.S. Navy Test Pilot School graduate and the norgs are part of the testing.
ps,
'An individual can normally sue in the country where the defamatory statement was read or viewed, if there is sufficient circulation, or viewers'.
I would love a trip to the US, I'll start packing.
'An individual can normally sue in the country where the defamatory statement was read or viewed, if there is sufficient circulation, or viewers'.
I would love a trip to the US, I'll start packing.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PhilipG, Guys,
Perhaps I can help here.
The F-35 was certainly not designed as an 'out an out' dog fighting aircraft. I've certainly never claimed that, nor has the programme as far as I know. However, it was required to have a good level of manoeuvrability so as to be able to defend itself, and the post earlier today from A1bill with Maj Hanche's comments seems to show that it might have achieved some of that. I'm sure other contributors may have a different view.
The F-35 is a strike aircraft that's intended to be a balanced design, using reduced signature, advanced active and passive sensors, very good datalinks and good weapons. Time will tell if LM have succeeded. I'm certainly not privy to any of the detailed (and almost certainly highly classified) combat assessments, so I can only offer my knowledge of what the programme was aiming to do.
External carriage of weapons has certainly been tested, I've not yet seen any weapon drops from the stations, so that may not yet be cleared. The gun has certainly been tested on the A, the pod has been ground tested, and carried in flight, so I'd expect the gun to come along in due course.
The recent OT&E report gave a lot of detail on progress towards 3F software, multi ship communications (I presume you mean MADL) is certainly being worked, and the spars didn't exactly 'crack under load', they cracked under fatigue cycle loads, and are being redesigned. Not a great result, but not at all unknown - Tornado suffered some fairly massive fatigue issues (in service) with its wing structure. Please note that I'm not having a 'pop' at the Tornado, just using it as an example of how damn hard designing combat aircraft airframes is. BAe fixed the Tornado, LM will fix the F-35.
I'm not, repeat not, claiming all is rosy on F-35. Software development progress has been a problem for some years now, as I've said in other posts. But, and I do think that it bears repeating, the F-35 programme has aimed very, very high, and is breaking new ground in areas such as integrated avionics, MADL, sensor integration and signature management.
I'd also gently point out that this thread only survives because so much information about the programme is being made publicly available. Some UK aircraft programmes that consumed large amounts of our small defence budget (e.g. Typhoon) had some fairly horrible problems that took a long time to be solved at great cost, but these were kept out of public gaze for no other reason than to avoid embarrassment.
Finally, may I make a gentle suggestion that accusations about libel, slander, defamation and the legal aspects would be better done via PM? There's a real danger that if the tone of this forum carries on down this track, it could degenerate into a board with three or four people shouting bad stuff at each other. Just my thoughts, it's a free forum at the end of the day.
Best Regards as ever to all those trying to do the right thing at the right time for the people at the front line,
Engines
Perhaps I can help here.
The F-35 was certainly not designed as an 'out an out' dog fighting aircraft. I've certainly never claimed that, nor has the programme as far as I know. However, it was required to have a good level of manoeuvrability so as to be able to defend itself, and the post earlier today from A1bill with Maj Hanche's comments seems to show that it might have achieved some of that. I'm sure other contributors may have a different view.
The F-35 is a strike aircraft that's intended to be a balanced design, using reduced signature, advanced active and passive sensors, very good datalinks and good weapons. Time will tell if LM have succeeded. I'm certainly not privy to any of the detailed (and almost certainly highly classified) combat assessments, so I can only offer my knowledge of what the programme was aiming to do.
External carriage of weapons has certainly been tested, I've not yet seen any weapon drops from the stations, so that may not yet be cleared. The gun has certainly been tested on the A, the pod has been ground tested, and carried in flight, so I'd expect the gun to come along in due course.
The recent OT&E report gave a lot of detail on progress towards 3F software, multi ship communications (I presume you mean MADL) is certainly being worked, and the spars didn't exactly 'crack under load', they cracked under fatigue cycle loads, and are being redesigned. Not a great result, but not at all unknown - Tornado suffered some fairly massive fatigue issues (in service) with its wing structure. Please note that I'm not having a 'pop' at the Tornado, just using it as an example of how damn hard designing combat aircraft airframes is. BAe fixed the Tornado, LM will fix the F-35.
I'm not, repeat not, claiming all is rosy on F-35. Software development progress has been a problem for some years now, as I've said in other posts. But, and I do think that it bears repeating, the F-35 programme has aimed very, very high, and is breaking new ground in areas such as integrated avionics, MADL, sensor integration and signature management.
I'd also gently point out that this thread only survives because so much information about the programme is being made publicly available. Some UK aircraft programmes that consumed large amounts of our small defence budget (e.g. Typhoon) had some fairly horrible problems that took a long time to be solved at great cost, but these were kept out of public gaze for no other reason than to avoid embarrassment.
Finally, may I make a gentle suggestion that accusations about libel, slander, defamation and the legal aspects would be better done via PM? There's a real danger that if the tone of this forum carries on down this track, it could degenerate into a board with three or four people shouting bad stuff at each other. Just my thoughts, it's a free forum at the end of the day.
Best Regards as ever to all those trying to do the right thing at the right time for the people at the front line,
Engines