F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[ORAC]

First the purchase of new F-15EX to cover until the new PCA fighter comes into service in the 2030s. Now the F-16 fleet gets an upgrade to last until the same timeframe.

And the only place the money comes from is stretching out and reducing the F-35A buy.

https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven...EiIztCPrSWE0w/

[golder]

You shouldn't follow nonsense blogs. You might want to google it, but the aesa radar for the f-16 actually saves money on maintenance, over its time and pays for itself

[ProPax]

Originally Posted by gums

Where are the factual basis for

Oh, let's not get there. You didn't give any factual basis for anything you said, so let's keep it civil.

Originally Posted by gums

The helmet is working very well or we would have had numerous crashes when the folks are doing things you have not thought of or can imagine. Have you seen the optical and other sensor systems that dwarf anything previous fighter/attack planes have? You can actually look thru the floor using that : helmet toy".

You can. IF you are short enough and your head is far enough from the canopy to be able to actually move that helmet in that cockpit. One of the pilots complained that he could not use all those wonderful systems because he simply couldn't turn his head.

Originally Posted by gums

Makes it real easy to land on a small carrier like the Marines do. Awfully nice to "check six", ya think?

I think they did that even when the helmet wasn't operational. As a matter of fact they made NINETEEN vertical landings on USS Wasp AT SEA without that Nintendo gadget.

Originally Posted by gums

This plane has had a lower crash/loss/whatever in its first few hundred thousands than we have seen since the F-106 in the 60's, and maybe the USAF A-7D in the 70's.

Well, back then the loss of "only" 10% of a passenger plane issue made a good safety record. We now expect a bit more from our planes, don't we? And losing a plane two weeks after the first Japanese squadron was declared operational is a bit 1970-ish, don't ya think?

Originally Posted by gums

There is a lotta difference between "falling outta the sky" and "hitting the ground when you do not want to".

Really? What exactly is the difference? The result is still a "BOOM!".

Originally Posted by gums

I flew three planes within one year of when they were adopted by USAF ( although one was not declared "operational" for the military mission for another year). So my opinions of the F-35 safety record is not without a few thousand hours of experience.

In your own words, explain that to the family of the Japanese pilot who has likely lost his life in that plane.

Originally Posted by gums

If I told you that the F-35 looks like a small bird on basic air traffic control radar or various air defense radar systems. I would not be bragging. It is not completely invisible, but so small that it can be too close for you to react.

If you told me that, I would remind you that it is only true for the USAF planes. For the export ones, it's more like the same as F-16 and maybe a bit larger. And the "Level 1 partners" paid a lot of money for that program BEFORE they knew that. And quite a few air forces around the world have either dropped the plane completely or reduced the orders by A LOT.

Originally Posted by gums

The jet has a transponder for "peacetime" use when training and to allow civilian ground radar to "see" it.

As far as I know, ALL military planes have those, even the Tu-95. Because civilian ATC don't use primary radars but rather get the information from those transponders.

Originally Posted by gums

Otherwise, go to the military websites and see what the opposing pilot reports are when encountering the beast.

Would you be so kind as to point me to the right quote? The "opposing pilots" is who? Chinese? Russian? North Korean? I'd love to see what they say about the beast.

Originally Posted by gums

Oh yeah, go to other sites and see how much of a "dog" the thing is at an airshow. See:

OH, WOW! It banks almost as much as an A340!!! And gains altitude almost as fast! When the afterburner is on. COOL!
And now, this:

You Tube

Check out the 2:25 mark and WEEP! If you show that video to F-35, it won't stop running until its only engine stalls.

[golder]

A lot of words, Propax. I'll only correct your first point, re the f-16 pilot and seeing behind. You may find that the wide seat headrest, in an early block without EODS, that restricted his view. Let me know when they put mirrors on the Bow, like other aircraft

It was a nice video though. I'm unable to do an EM chart from a video, so I'll leave it to those that can. I'm not that good on flight departure and recovery. The SU does kinetic energy stunts well, as you pointed out at 2:25. One of the test pilots commented on the SU and it's airshow and how the f-35 wasn't designed for show. Perhaps it was sour grapes, perhaps not. I find both put on a good display.

Though both wouldn't like an IR missile at them, while doing their air show maneuvers. It's not that entertaining to have the announcer say that a f-35 is in the area and took out aircraft, but you can't see it.

You Tube

talking about a kinetic display

You Tube

[Bob Viking]

Propax

I think it would be fair to say that your understanding of the roles and capabilities of the F35 fall a little short.

Clearly the SU35 is very manoeuverable and looks great at an air show but which would die first in a fight?

Anyone who judges the F35 by its manoeuverabity immediately demonstrates their own lack of understanding.

I realise your mind is already made up so I won’t waste my own time arguing.

Enjoy RIAT this year though. It promises to be quite a show.

BV

[ProPax]

Originally Posted by golder

Though both wouldn't like an IR missile at them, while doing their air show maneuvers.

I may be wrong but I always thought that those "stunts" are the missile evasion maneuvers. Correct me if I'm wrong. The missile can't maneuver fast enough to catch such a target.

Originally Posted by golder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA

Two things that don't impress me. One, it's a corporate marketing video with a lot of clever editing. And two, they're doing that at what looks like 5,000-6,000 meters altitude. And they are losing A LOT of it.

Originally Posted by golder

talking about a kinetic display
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY

No offense, but talk is cheap. I'm sure Su-35's designer can talk a lot about his creation.

[ProPax]

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

Clearly the SU35 is very manoeuverable and looks great at an air show but which would die first in a fight?

And you know the answer to that question? I don't. On paper and video F-35 looks like an inferior plane. Single-engine design is less reliable in combat that a double-engine. Su-35S is more agile allowing it to evade oncoming missiles. Its electronic suite is unknown. The rest is in the numerous comments sections on numerous websites.

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

Anyone who judges the F35 by its manoeuverabity immediately demonstrates their own lack of understanding.

Oh, please! A plane that was designed to rely on its electronic toys and long-range missiles hoping it'll never get closer that 100km to the adversaries. Did I get it right enough? The real question is, how long will it last in a real war when mechanics won't be able to use surgical scalpels in dust-free rooms to fine-tune its microchips?

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

I realise your mind is already made up so I won’t waste my own time arguing.

MY mind... right.

PS For everyone else's info, I don't want to start or join an argument about which plane is better. With so little reliable information it's just silly. I'd much rather prefer a sensible discussion without any symptoms of fanboyism. Yes, I do have my opinions and I'd like to have them tested by counter-arguments. But no, I don't think any plane is inherently "better" than any other.

[Stuff]

Originally Posted by ProPax

Su-35S is more agile allowing it to evade oncoming missiles.

That comment alone confirms what we've thought since you started posting. You know absolutely nothing about the subject.

[golder]

Propax, Proximity fuse, but we are getting way off topic for this thread now. I would encourage you to start a SU-35 thread.

Or if a MOD could move them please?

[Bob Viking]

So maybe, just maybe...

...to avoid people who have no idea what they’re talking about, with regards to F35/SU35, this forum should be reserved for the guys and gals who operate or support the military hardware?

I’m sure there are plenty of other forums for fanboys to discuss the latest manoeuvres on Ace Combat 7 without spouting off on here.

Although that would have denied me the pleasure of watching a fanboy trying to tell Gums (ex USAF F jet operator) that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Does that all sound a bit mean?

Soz.

BV

[F-16GUY]

Originally Posted by ProPax

I may be wrong but I always thought that those "stunts" are the missile evasion maneuvers. Correct me if I'm wrong. The missile can't maneuver fast enough to catch such a target.

You are very wrong. Do that in the air to counter a missile and you will die. The Flanker might be swopping ends and rolling very quickly, but it does so at a very slow speed while moving along the same path. Combine that with its enormous size, and its big hot engines, I would say that even an oldschool AIM-9 M/L type of missile would easily hit it.

By the way, and even further of topic, did you alp monkeys drop the Gripen NG so you could have a new fighter competition and select the F-35 like the rest of us? Those hornets can't fly on forever you know....

[Steepclimb]

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

...to avoid people who have no idea what they’re talking about, with regards to F35/SU35, this forum should be reserved for the guys and gals who operate or support the military hardware?

I’m sure there are plenty of other forums for fanboys to discuss the latest manoeuvres on Ace Combat 7 without spouting off on here.

Although that would have denied me the pleasure of watching a fanboy trying to tell Gums (ex USAF F jet operator) that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Does that all sound a bit mean?

Soz.

BV

That idea gets trotted out on Pprune regularly over the years. But it's unenforceable. In any case the fantasists generally give themselves away. Like our friend above, by making daft statements which even a non military pilot like me knows is BS.

In any case he'll soon head back to YouTube or wherever he's gleaning his limited knowledge.
​​

[gums]

Salute!
One of the misconceptions the armchair pilots have is that a quick turn without a large turn radius is a good thing for defense. It is not.

As pointed out above,, if I am the pursuing jet and do not have enough room for a missile to arm, then the jet performing the "cobra" or whatever you call it becomes a strafing panel in the sky. Otherwise, most of us would let the bandit try to get some smash to get away but I have gone vertical to get arming time for my missile (the IR seeker type). Nice rudder turn as you see in the F-35 airshow videos. Then good tone on mt Lima or "X" and off it goes,
Gums...

[Asturias56]

I always thought the whole point of "stealth" was to avoid being anywhere near the need to get into a dog-fight......... to compare the F-35 (and I'm not a big fan) with the Su35 is a very bad case of apples and...... just about any fruit you care to mention

[BEagle]

Yo gums!

About the only useful purpose I can think of for the Russian jet's manoeuvre would be if it could assist nose-pointing to achieve a rather last ditch firing solution from the defensive. Otherwise - just so much snake bait as you describe!

I wonder what an old school PD / AIM-7E III would make of the Su-35's tumbling gyrations?

[Archimedes]

Originally Posted by ProPax

F-35 per se started in 2000. But it can easily be traced to a Joint Strike Fighter program which started in 1993!!! But even if we take the X-35 as a starting point, it's been 19 years since its inception. The technology has stepped so far forward that it is now possible to fly planes via a satellite while sitting in a shipping container somewhere in the wild west.

Whereas the Su-35 can be traced to the Sukhoi T10 of 1977...

Originally Posted by ProPax

F-35 is, as close as makes no difference, obsolete. As usually, it took Lockheed too long to develop a fantasy concept. It has a pilot onboard which in today's world is considered Victorian. Recent UAV developments showed that the signal can be transmitted fast enough to even perform SOME evasive maneuvers and launch air-to-air missiles.

Apart from the fact that China, Russia, the US, France, the UK and Japan are all looking at a future manned/unmanned mix. The only UAV to try launching missiles in combat against another aircraft was shot down. The work of Colin Willis (who will be known to many on here) based on his PhD thesis is instructive in terms of the potential and limitations of unmanned platforms in air combat (although as it's published by an academic press, it may well be as unaffordable as it is instructive).

Originally Posted by ProPax

F-35 was made for the Big War, like a WWIII. It's designed to attack or repel a massive armada of enemy forces. Anything other than that, and it's useless. As with the F-22 it's "too valuable to...". F-22 started flying in 1997 but managed to avoid all conflicts where it could be useful - Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria. Pentagon was worried that it could fall into enemy's hands and reveal its secrets. The same will happen to the F-35. It will be kept on friendly bases and guarded from any exposure.

One of the key reasons that the F-22 didn't participate in operations over Yugoslavia might be that the Dayton Accords were signed ten years before the first F-22 entered front line service, while Allied Force ended more than five years before that occurred. The part of the Iraq war where the F-22's capabilities against air defences might have been hugely useful took place two years before the 1st FW became operational. And as the Iraqi AF didn't fly, it's a moot point.

The F-22 has been used over Syria, as googling 'F-22 Syria' will illustrate.

Originally Posted by ProPax

.......And my personal prediction - F-35 will soon be gone just like the F-22 was with a couple of hundred built.

This prediction will require some 180-200 airframes to be dismantled for spares for it to be realised.

[gums]

Salute!

Yeah, BEagle..... the high AoA stuff is more for nose-pointing when offensive, and the F-35 as well as the F-22 demo routines show that as much as their great vertical capabilities.

As far as the Sparrow goes, the later ones were pretty good compared to ones my buddies used in 'nam. I feel the Skyflash verion would have done well in 1991, and not sure if the Tornado carried any on their missions.The local fighter wing at Eglin used to have a sign attached to their official one.at the gate. They had done very well in the Storm using the "M" model, and their humble sign stated "Largest distributor of Mig parts in Southwest Asia".

Gums sends...

[Davef68]

I do think that the American habit of labelling anything small and tactical a 'fighter' has been to the detriment of the F35, in terms of it's media image. I suspect we will see far more of them dropping bombs than carrying out A2A

[gums]

Salute!

You are correct, Dave.
They should have labeled the F-35 as "A" for attack. About 30 years ago we started to use "F/A" for planes like the Hornet. But I really do not see any rationale to call the F-35 a fighter. And it will primarily be used in the attack role and prolly carry one Slammer for A2A, or maybe have all bombs and such while a wingman has two Slammers or Aim-9X.
The F-16.net forums on the F-35 are an excellent source of accurate info as well as opinions that many of us express.
I have only had two close up tours of the beast and talked with a few pilots. Being at the training base, I can watch them in the pattern and such, but have not seen a demo, as I think that is done by a Luke AFB pilot, and he did one helluva demo at Melbourne a week or so back to please the Aussies.

Gums sends..

[BEagle]

gums, neither the Tornado GR1 nor GR1A carried semi-active AAMs in Desert Storm. Just 9 lima. Whereas the RAF Tornado F3 carried Skyflash and 9L - but their only action was chasing Iraqi Mirage F1s in the early days of the war. The Iraqis bugged out at high Mach and couldn't be caught....