F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congress Orders F-22 Restart Cost Study
KenV....I never said nor remotely suggested...... I would never dream of bashing the KDC-10......l
Anyhow, back to the F-35, looks like the lighter helmet and neck injury reduction programs for lighter pilots are coming along. Lots of smart folks working hard.
First Light F-35 Helmet Test A Success
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, you were the one that said the MRTT is a better tanker than the KDC-10 "could ever hope to be" and I stated no one would suggest otherwise. I know you never said the KDC was better. Please, no need to twist my words.
A couple of F-35 questions from someone who's been out of the loop for a while:
1. The infamous 4.6g sustained turn performance - at what altitude and AUW is this? Doesn't mean a whole lot to me without knowing that.
2. The repeated claims by one or two posters here that the F-105 is superior in every conceivable metric - is there any data to back this up? Top speed is a no-brainer, but what of things like climb rate and turn performance? Sure, the F-35 is no F-22 or Typhoon, but I'm struggling to believe that its performance is so comprehensively inferior to the 105.
1. The infamous 4.6g sustained turn performance - at what altitude and AUW is this? Doesn't mean a whole lot to me without knowing that.
2. The repeated claims by one or two posters here that the F-105 is superior in every conceivable metric - is there any data to back this up? Top speed is a no-brainer, but what of things like climb rate and turn performance? Sure, the F-35 is no F-22 or Typhoon, but I'm struggling to believe that its performance is so comprehensively inferior to the 105.
It's a while since I looked at this, but if memory serves, the requirement was detailed at 15,000ft, M0.8, 60% internal fuel, 2xAMRAAM.
You do realise you may now be treated to an angry lecture on area ruling.
You do realise you may now be treated to an angry lecture on area ruling.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
You recall correctly. Those were the stated parameters. The thrust reduction that's caused this is a great shame in more areas than simply sustained g, but given the altitude for the spec, it wasn't altogether a crippling revelation.
You recall correctly. Those were the stated parameters. The thrust reduction that's caused this is a great shame in more areas than simply sustained g, but given the altitude for the spec, it wasn't altogether a crippling revelation.
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate You're a strange fellow, you compare a fighter developed in 1950's with a fighter of 2010's.. F-105 had avery dismal record in Vietnam war, the F-35 has not been tested in battle yet.The name of the game today is Avionics and no longer Aerodynamics. If someone detects you before you detect him, the game is pretty much over. Supersonic agility and maneuverability is useless if you don't know you're being shot at.F-35 will be able to carry the Meteor, AIM-120and if they survive and come close they have AIM-9X's to deal with.
Last edited by skylon; 24th Apr 2016 at 13:04.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the biggest factors affecting the outcome of aerial engagements, as studied and concluded by the USAF post-GW 1, is Situational Awareness. Yes, there are other factors, but they are in some cases significantly paler in comparison to this metric. This alone explains why such a premium has been placed on high-fidelity information flow. Datalink improvements; networks; less reliance on verbal comm. Shaping the engagement, dictating the flow, countering the enemy quickly through various means, all enhances lethality.
The playground spat on F-105 and the somewhat ill-understood (or poorly communicated) rant that followed it on area ruling isn't helpful or even remotely relevant to a debate on F-35. Regardless of the things other platforms are better at (B-52 can carry more than F-35 etc), the F-35 design concept was balanced with more pressing and more effective means in mind (Situational Awareness and a number of others). I couldn't give a rat's posterior if F-35 is thought to "minimally" conform to the Whitcombe Area Rule if it isn't as relevant today to lethality as it was back in the 60s. In those days your bombs rarely hit directly (had to carry more!) and had to have accel/speed to get outta SAM threats quickly.
Whether you agree or not, Channel 2, modern fighting concepts have moved on considerably from what was important even 20 years ago and we're now well beyond being able to "get outta dodge quickly". Stealth really is a must. If that stealth means you get in and get out then great. If SA means you are superior in engagements then great. If those and other factors mean you have to stick some of your Whitcombe Area Rule up your posterior, as a result of physics and expert design, then frankly I rest my case your Honour.
This is why most of the professional fighter pilots here read your remarks with more than a little bit of contempt.
The playground spat on F-105 and the somewhat ill-understood (or poorly communicated) rant that followed it on area ruling isn't helpful or even remotely relevant to a debate on F-35. Regardless of the things other platforms are better at (B-52 can carry more than F-35 etc), the F-35 design concept was balanced with more pressing and more effective means in mind (Situational Awareness and a number of others). I couldn't give a rat's posterior if F-35 is thought to "minimally" conform to the Whitcombe Area Rule if it isn't as relevant today to lethality as it was back in the 60s. In those days your bombs rarely hit directly (had to carry more!) and had to have accel/speed to get outta SAM threats quickly.
Whether you agree or not, Channel 2, modern fighting concepts have moved on considerably from what was important even 20 years ago and we're now well beyond being able to "get outta dodge quickly". Stealth really is a must. If that stealth means you get in and get out then great. If SA means you are superior in engagements then great. If those and other factors mean you have to stick some of your Whitcombe Area Rule up your posterior, as a result of physics and expert design, then frankly I rest my case your Honour.
This is why most of the professional fighter pilots here read your remarks with more than a little bit of contempt.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Whether you agree or not, Channel 2, modern fighting concepts have moved on considerably from what was important even 20 years ago and we're now well beyond being able to "get outta dodge quickly". Stealth really is a must......
https://news.usni.org/2016/04/21/nav...ds-fa-xx-title
"The break with the Air Force in a joint development of NGAD’s system speaks to a lingering cultural difference between the Air Force and the Navy in tactical air development. The Air Force has traditionally favored faster and stealthier manned platforms – like the F-22. The Navy focuses development on the ability of tactical aviation to field and deliver payloads.
In early 2015, then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said the follow-on to the Super Hornets would likely rely less on stealth and speed and would ideally be expandable to include evolving weapons systems.
“I don’t want to necessarily say that [stealth is] over but let’s face it, if something moves fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat – I don’t care how cool the engine can be – it’s going to be detectable,” he said. The Super Hornet follow-on “has to have an ability to carry a payload such that it can deploy a spectrum of weapons. It has to be able to acquire access probably by suppressing enemy air defenses… Today it’s radar but it might be something more in the future.”.........
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
This is now where the philosophy differs between the USAF and the USN for the next fighter/attack aircraft. IMHO, the next round will evolve two distinctly different aircraft, one for each service that matches their individually identified missions.
From what I have read, there is no mention of a future Marine style F-35B which IMHO, doomed both the A and C versions to less than optimum capability. I hopefully imagine the US DoD may have learned a lesson once again, forgotten from the years ago 1960s fiasco.
The USN disagree, perhaps the world has moved on again......
From what I have read, there is no mention of a future Marine style F-35B which IMHO, doomed both the A and C versions to less than optimum capability. I hopefully imagine the US DoD may have learned a lesson once again, forgotten from the years ago 1960s fiasco.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numbers Don't Tell The Whole Story
Since we are back to comparing yesteryear with today, numbers don't really work that well. The F-105D was designed for one primary purpose, the supersonic, low altitude penetration to deliver a single tossed, internally carried nuclear bomb. The emphasis was placed on low-altitude speed and flight characteristics, range and payload. Traditional fighter attributes such as maneuverability were a secondary consideration. Initial F-105Ds were based in Europe, within range of intended targets, generally flat terrain and open spaces. McNamara, upon coming to power, determined that the F-105 has only a single mission capability, failed to meet criteria for integrative enhancement of flexible force structure, and was non-cost-effective. Then came Vietnam.
Since assets to bomb Vietnam targets were minimal (the B-52s were limited to strategic retaliation against the USSR), F-105Ds were moved from Europe to the Far East. when there, the aircraft's offensive capabilities were sarcastically referred to as a "Triple Threat" — it could bomb you, strafe you, or fall on you. You don't need a degree in aeronautics to figure it out. Lose power in an F-105 and it will fall out of the sky like a rock. Hang a full load of ordnance under its wings and it won’t climb very high. Point its nose at the ground, and it will dive like a lawn dart. At that time, on the Howdy Doody Kiddies Show, there was a character by the name of Chief Thunderthud. It had a nice ring to it. Thunder THUD. Thud, as in the noise made by a large heavy object hitting the ground. So, the F-105 became the Thunderthud, and finally, in life and legend, just The Thud. There is no disrespect here. The name came from the pilots that flew them and mused in the club afterward what an appropriate name might be. 334 of 833 procured were lost over Vietnam. The F-105Ds had teething problems as well, in fact twice the entire fleet was grounded for engine failures and fuel flow problems in '61/'62. It took until '67 to fully resolve the engine problems.
As to area rules which have been credited for fantastic F-105D performance, OK465 explained the real area rules quite well.
There were three 'area rules' that applied to the F-105.
1) It took an inordinate amount of 'geographic area' to turn it around (7.33 corner was somewhere around 500 with reasonably negative SEP))
2) It was able to leave a 'geographic area' straight-ahead at an inordinately high speed in its early days (later on not so much)
3) It took quite a large 'geographic area' to build a runway long enough for it to get airborne (even with its water injection system)
1) and 2) limited the F-105d effectiveness in missions over Vietnam. Not only that, The F-105D turned too slowly to reliably beat the Russian-made MiG-21, the Thunderthud's main potential rival at the time. So the USAF received from the Israeli Government an MIG-21 to look at tactics for survival. What was learned was that encountering a MiG-21, the F-105 crew should try to flee, the testers advised. If the F-105 was behind the MiG-21 and the MiG flier didn’t know it, the Thunderchief crew could attempt a high-speed ambush.
But when the F-105 and MiG-21 started out in equal and opposite positions, the F-105 was in trouble. “If the F-105 attacker attempts a prolonged maneuvering engagement, it becomes vulnerable to follow-up attacks as the offensive situation deteriorates due to loss of energy and maneuvering potential,” the Air Force reported.
Comparing the F-35A to the F-105D by means of numbers and area rules isn't the whole story to conclude the F-105D is either equal to or better than an F-35A.
The F-35A's perceived lack of fighter maneuverability, yet to be fully determined, should be more than mitigated in air to air situations by its stand off electronic capability, situational awareness and communications with accompanying aircraft, at least I would hope so.
Since assets to bomb Vietnam targets were minimal (the B-52s were limited to strategic retaliation against the USSR), F-105Ds were moved from Europe to the Far East. when there, the aircraft's offensive capabilities were sarcastically referred to as a "Triple Threat" — it could bomb you, strafe you, or fall on you. You don't need a degree in aeronautics to figure it out. Lose power in an F-105 and it will fall out of the sky like a rock. Hang a full load of ordnance under its wings and it won’t climb very high. Point its nose at the ground, and it will dive like a lawn dart. At that time, on the Howdy Doody Kiddies Show, there was a character by the name of Chief Thunderthud. It had a nice ring to it. Thunder THUD. Thud, as in the noise made by a large heavy object hitting the ground. So, the F-105 became the Thunderthud, and finally, in life and legend, just The Thud. There is no disrespect here. The name came from the pilots that flew them and mused in the club afterward what an appropriate name might be. 334 of 833 procured were lost over Vietnam. The F-105Ds had teething problems as well, in fact twice the entire fleet was grounded for engine failures and fuel flow problems in '61/'62. It took until '67 to fully resolve the engine problems.
As to area rules which have been credited for fantastic F-105D performance, OK465 explained the real area rules quite well.
There were three 'area rules' that applied to the F-105.
1) It took an inordinate amount of 'geographic area' to turn it around (7.33 corner was somewhere around 500 with reasonably negative SEP))
2) It was able to leave a 'geographic area' straight-ahead at an inordinately high speed in its early days (later on not so much)
3) It took quite a large 'geographic area' to build a runway long enough for it to get airborne (even with its water injection system)
1) and 2) limited the F-105d effectiveness in missions over Vietnam. Not only that, The F-105D turned too slowly to reliably beat the Russian-made MiG-21, the Thunderthud's main potential rival at the time. So the USAF received from the Israeli Government an MIG-21 to look at tactics for survival. What was learned was that encountering a MiG-21, the F-105 crew should try to flee, the testers advised. If the F-105 was behind the MiG-21 and the MiG flier didn’t know it, the Thunderchief crew could attempt a high-speed ambush.
But when the F-105 and MiG-21 started out in equal and opposite positions, the F-105 was in trouble. “If the F-105 attacker attempts a prolonged maneuvering engagement, it becomes vulnerable to follow-up attacks as the offensive situation deteriorates due to loss of energy and maneuvering potential,” the Air Force reported.
Comparing the F-35A to the F-105D by means of numbers and area rules isn't the whole story to conclude the F-105D is either equal to or better than an F-35A.
The F-35A's perceived lack of fighter maneuverability, yet to be fully determined, should be more than mitigated in air to air situations by its stand off electronic capability, situational awareness and communications with accompanying aircraft, at least I would hope so.
Turbine D,
Surprised you're still discussing this ridiculous comparison, but your points are spot on. The F-105 was one of few aircraft withdrawn from a theatre of operations because of its appalling loss rate.
Surprised you're still discussing this ridiculous comparison, but your points are spot on. The F-105 was one of few aircraft withdrawn from a theatre of operations because of its appalling loss rate.
Originally Posted by MSOCS
If SA means you are superior in engagements then great
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll leave you to ad hominem to your heart's desire, C2. Odd that the Pacific Vision presentation (90-slide pack) cited a lack of turn/climb/runaway as a damning disadvantage in 2008 but the same author says it isn't the characteristic set required of the future, in the much more accurate (in my mil pilot opinion) trends analysis. I know that Stillion authored both. One set of his attributed analysis contradicts the other and but agree with most within his trends paper - very insightful in places. Stealth is a must; SA is king. Both increase weapon system lethality and are waaaayy more significant than manoeuvre, climb etc. The trends paper backs this thinking up.
Last edited by MSOCS; 25th Apr 2016 at 18:41.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picking up on the SA points made above, obviously a 5th Generation Stealth/y plane has an advantage over a non stealth/y plane with poor SA, the whole argument that a 5th Generation plane will engage at range and that Dog Fighting ability is not important, assuming that your plane has some weapons available.
My question is what happens when two equally SA and Stealth/y planes with equally competent pilots converge on the same piece of the sky, it would seem that there is a possibility that they might only be aware of each other within +/- Dog Fighting range, this brings into question how important it is to be able to dog fight in a 5th Generation plane.
Or put another way, if F22s have been both red and blue in an exercise at what sort of range did they become aware of each other? I am not seeking an exact range but an indication of at what sort of range the tactical map (SA) firms up.
My question is what happens when two equally SA and Stealth/y planes with equally competent pilots converge on the same piece of the sky, it would seem that there is a possibility that they might only be aware of each other within +/- Dog Fighting range, this brings into question how important it is to be able to dog fight in a 5th Generation plane.
Or put another way, if F22s have been both red and blue in an exercise at what sort of range did they become aware of each other? I am not seeking an exact range but an indication of at what sort of range the tactical map (SA) firms up.
If I recall correctly, Manfred von Richtoffen said something about seeing the other guy first, and accurate gunnery, deciding about 9/10 air to air engagements.
Skipping a little back on the thread and joining the dots I was left with the impression that despite a conventional high wing loading, the lifting body part of the airframe may make the aircraft 'normally' fighter wing loaded.
anyone care to elaborate on that?
If this is the case is the C model then a little lightly wing loaded? I was previously thinking the C model might have a bit of an edge in agility?
On a different tack does anyone have any ideas how the US Navy will use the aircraft WRT to the F-18E?
I'm sure not too many will disagree in calling both aircraft jack of all trades in terms of performance - but one is stealthy and the other isn't.
so F-35s take the strike role and the 18's air defence? or the other way around? I suppose the F-35 will get whatever is deemed as higher risk?
I'd assume as the F-35 comes on strength RAF Typhoons would concentrate more on Air Defence after taking on A-G as Tornado retires.
I can't imagine you would have F-35 doing Air Defence and the Typhoon A-G?
anyone care to elaborate on that?
If this is the case is the C model then a little lightly wing loaded? I was previously thinking the C model might have a bit of an edge in agility?
On a different tack does anyone have any ideas how the US Navy will use the aircraft WRT to the F-18E?
I'm sure not too many will disagree in calling both aircraft jack of all trades in terms of performance - but one is stealthy and the other isn't.
so F-35s take the strike role and the 18's air defence? or the other way around? I suppose the F-35 will get whatever is deemed as higher risk?
I'd assume as the F-35 comes on strength RAF Typhoons would concentrate more on Air Defence after taking on A-G as Tornado retires.
I can't imagine you would have F-35 doing Air Defence and the Typhoon A-G?