F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV,
As expected, you have quoted my first sentence and ignored the rest. Any chance, for once, of a complete answer?
Quote:
Oh my goodness. The gross ignorance of the above statement is matched only by the certain confidence with which it was stated.
Google "Boeing JSF" and you will get literally thousands of pictures of a very ugly airplane.
If Googling is problematic, dude, try one of the links below
As expected, you have quoted my first sentence and ignored the rest. Any chance, for once, of a complete answer?
Quote:
Oh my goodness. The gross ignorance of the above statement is matched only by the certain confidence with which it was stated.
Google "Boeing JSF" and you will get literally thousands of pictures of a very ugly airplane.
If Googling is problematic, dude, try one of the links below
1. I was replying to glad rags, not you.
2. I did a cut and paste quote of every word of glad rag's post when I replied to him.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now it looks like we didn't want/need an air superiority fighter on a capital ship. Strange choice.
Do you think equipping the new carriers with Rafale (or Su-33) instead of F-35B would have resulted in a better overall result? Really? Why?
Last edited by KenV; 6th Jul 2015 at 19:14.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sustained turn rate is of course quite another matter. This is dependent on the thrust used and the induced drag present at the conditions where it is measured. Since we don’t know those details it is quite possible that there are circumstances where they are in favour of the F35 (and others where they are not!)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
And none of these facts, arguments and handbags ( and KenV determined attempt to bring facts to the inter web) have changed the fact that it's late, hideously overpriced and still rising, being "spun" by media consultants more than test pilots and worst of all........
It is a bad hodge podge of roles and specs with the result that all the money wasted would have developed three complete different aircraft with much better performance in their designed field....
If this turkey gets into the uk fleet I will be very suprised as they way costs are going we will end up with a Friday afternoon timeshare slot on one European wide superjet - and all the world knows the RAF doesn't do Friday afternoons without a war being on
It is a bad hodge podge of roles and specs with the result that all the money wasted would have developed three complete different aircraft with much better performance in their designed field....
If this turkey gets into the uk fleet I will be very suprised as they way costs are going we will end up with a Friday afternoon timeshare slot on one European wide superjet - and all the world knows the RAF doesn't do Friday afternoons without a war being on
I'll take your last post first, Ken, although you may not have meant what I read. I have been in many DACT fights with F-16s and they can sustain 9 g for a long time, as my students and my neck can attest.
Now, not sure if you were using "corner velocity", sustained rate, sustained min radius, or g. Again, we don't have the SEP graphs or rate/radius/g graphs available so it's going to be a tricky one to call. Max energy manoeuvre is probably a better tactical measure, ie where the g limit, altitude and SEP all meet. But only if folks are firing real weapons.
Now, not sure if you were using "corner velocity", sustained rate, sustained min radius, or g. Again, we don't have the SEP graphs or rate/radius/g graphs available so it's going to be a tricky one to call. Max energy manoeuvre is probably a better tactical measure, ie where the g limit, altitude and SEP all meet. But only if folks are firing real weapons.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV,
Courtney is more than capable of answering for himself, and probably will soon, but any regular readers of his posts knows he is an ex UK fighter pilot, who has flown F-15s on an exchange tour with the US, and has had completed staff work on various fighter topics, with respect to both Typhoon and the early days of UK involvement with JSF.
You?
Courtney is more than capable of answering for himself, and probably will soon, but any regular readers of his posts knows he is an ex UK fighter pilot, who has flown F-15s on an exchange tour with the US, and has had completed staff work on various fighter topics, with respect to both Typhoon and the early days of UK involvement with JSF.
You?
I started out flying A-4 Skyhawks for USN. I ended flying F/A-18Cs for USN. All PACFLEET. My log book has over 200 Hornet combat hours flying in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. And well over another 300 Hornet combat hours flying in Operation Southern Watch and related operations. I am a quintuple centurion (over 500 traps). I have served at the squadron level, been a squadron commander, served on wing staff level, served on WEET (Weapons Effectiveness Evaluation Team) and JWEET post Desert Storm, and am a graduate of USNA and the Naval War College.
Between my A-4 and F-18 careers I cross-decked and flew P-3Cs for USN for a single tour. I spent 4 months on a "black shoe" exchange tour with the Royal Netherlands Navy aboard HNLMS Evertsen.
Most of my time with USN was as a reservist. While flying in the reserves I was employed full time by Douglas Aircraft Company as an engineer. I am currently a Boeing engineer. Most of my time at Douglas was on the C-17 program, but I also have DC-10 and MD-11 experience and headed Boeing's aborted C-27J effort. I hold an MRB Certificate for all current Boeing commercial aircraft (including former Douglas Commercial aircraft) and a PPPR certificate for the C-17 and F/A-18.
Last edited by KenV; 6th Jul 2015 at 18:19.
Solid responses all round. I wouldn't worry too much about the 'troll' thing Ken, as that seems to be quite a common accusation thrown at anyone here who begs to differ from the accepted PPRUNE orthodoxy. It's unfortunate, but so it goes.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another view from a former RAF pilot.
From The Daily Telegraph Online 07/04/2015 Author: Alan Tovey
Air combat is advancing at such a pace and about to head in a new direction that reports of a hi-tech F-35 fighter “losing” a simulated dogfight to a 1970s-design F-16 are irrelevant to the new stealth jet’s future, according to an ex-RAF group captain.
The advanced systems and sensors aboard the F-35 mean its pilots will fly and fight in a new way, and the jet should not be measured using the same standards as older fighters, according to Andrew Linstead, who spent 27 years in the RAF flying in Tornados.
His comments came after a test pilot’s report was leaked that indicated his F-35 was unable to reliably beat an F-16 at close-in dogfighting because it was too sluggish.
The Ministry of Defence is buying a fleet of the jets to equip its new aircraft carriers.
“I can understand the scepticism that people might have,” said Mr Linstead. “People are using metrics they know, understand and may have an emotional attachment to but they have to think about it differently. If you look at the development of air combat over the years then there have been two main themes: aircraft performance and the struggle for situational awareness.
“Speed, height and agility all developed but for many years situational awareness was all visual. It wasn’t until radar in the Second World War that we saw the first mechanism for trying to gain an advantage there.” Performance and technical developments such as better radar and missiles that can shoot targets beyond visual range continued apace to produce so-called “4th generation” fighters such as the Typhoon and F-18 that are the pinnacle of these two streams of technology.
However, in recent years a separate theme has come to the fore with advances in computing power, electronic warfare and stealth technology, which makes aircraft hard to pick up on radar. Combining these attributes with agility and situational awareness to create 5th generation aircraft such as the F35 means aerial combat of the future will be very different, said Mr Linstead.
“All modern aircraft have speed, agility and situational awareness equipment now,” said Mr Linstead. “What discriminates the F-35 is the way it gathers and processes all the information to the pilot in a ‘fused’ way and its [stealth] allows it to operate where aircraft might not have been able to go before.”
The F-35’s sensors can create a picture of the battlefield in the air and on the ground that pilots can easily understand and share with each other – and ultimately with other friendly forces – allowing them to make smarter decisions and pick fights where they have the advantage.
“Previously pilots might have had to fight their way in to a hostile area,” said Mr Linstead, who now works for Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor on the F-35 programme. “The battlefield picture they now have means they can avoid their adversary or choose to fight in a way that will give them a better outcome.
“In the Tornados I flew in during the 1990s, the struggle was to make sense of what was going on. We had a lot of tools to pick up information but they were not fused and you had to put the information together in your head.
“The hardest thing to understand about flying a fast jet is that it is not easy to understand what is really going on,” he added. “Being given better situational awareness is a weapon in itself.”
The F-35’s advanced sensors and difficulty in detecting it mean that the jet’s tactics could see it position itself to shoot down adversaries from a distance before they are even aware it is nearby. However, this doesn't mean that hard-turning, high-speed dogfights such as those seen over London during the Battle of Britain are gone.
“The F-35A is an agile aircraft, it has speed and can pull a 9G turn like an F-16,” said Mr Linstead. “It would be trite to say dogfights are over. But if an F-35 got into a dogfight situation then the pilot would have probably done something wrong.”
Air combat is advancing at such a pace and about to head in a new direction that reports of a hi-tech F-35 fighter “losing” a simulated dogfight to a 1970s-design F-16 are irrelevant to the new stealth jet’s future, according to an ex-RAF group captain.
The advanced systems and sensors aboard the F-35 mean its pilots will fly and fight in a new way, and the jet should not be measured using the same standards as older fighters, according to Andrew Linstead, who spent 27 years in the RAF flying in Tornados.
His comments came after a test pilot’s report was leaked that indicated his F-35 was unable to reliably beat an F-16 at close-in dogfighting because it was too sluggish.
The Ministry of Defence is buying a fleet of the jets to equip its new aircraft carriers.
“I can understand the scepticism that people might have,” said Mr Linstead. “People are using metrics they know, understand and may have an emotional attachment to but they have to think about it differently. If you look at the development of air combat over the years then there have been two main themes: aircraft performance and the struggle for situational awareness.
“Speed, height and agility all developed but for many years situational awareness was all visual. It wasn’t until radar in the Second World War that we saw the first mechanism for trying to gain an advantage there.” Performance and technical developments such as better radar and missiles that can shoot targets beyond visual range continued apace to produce so-called “4th generation” fighters such as the Typhoon and F-18 that are the pinnacle of these two streams of technology.
However, in recent years a separate theme has come to the fore with advances in computing power, electronic warfare and stealth technology, which makes aircraft hard to pick up on radar. Combining these attributes with agility and situational awareness to create 5th generation aircraft such as the F35 means aerial combat of the future will be very different, said Mr Linstead.
“All modern aircraft have speed, agility and situational awareness equipment now,” said Mr Linstead. “What discriminates the F-35 is the way it gathers and processes all the information to the pilot in a ‘fused’ way and its [stealth] allows it to operate where aircraft might not have been able to go before.”
The F-35’s sensors can create a picture of the battlefield in the air and on the ground that pilots can easily understand and share with each other – and ultimately with other friendly forces – allowing them to make smarter decisions and pick fights where they have the advantage.
“Previously pilots might have had to fight their way in to a hostile area,” said Mr Linstead, who now works for Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor on the F-35 programme. “The battlefield picture they now have means they can avoid their adversary or choose to fight in a way that will give them a better outcome.
“In the Tornados I flew in during the 1990s, the struggle was to make sense of what was going on. We had a lot of tools to pick up information but they were not fused and you had to put the information together in your head.
“The hardest thing to understand about flying a fast jet is that it is not easy to understand what is really going on,” he added. “Being given better situational awareness is a weapon in itself.”
The F-35’s advanced sensors and difficulty in detecting it mean that the jet’s tactics could see it position itself to shoot down adversaries from a distance before they are even aware it is nearby. However, this doesn't mean that hard-turning, high-speed dogfights such as those seen over London during the Battle of Britain are gone.
“The F-35A is an agile aircraft, it has speed and can pull a 9G turn like an F-16,” said Mr Linstead. “It would be trite to say dogfights are over. But if an F-35 got into a dogfight situation then the pilot would have probably done something wrong.”
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't worry too much about the 'troll' thing Ken.....
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, not sure if you were using "corner velocity", sustained rate, sustained min radius, or g.
Quote "stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance" - yep, on balance I'd say that broadly sums up the sort of package the UK is looking to buy into with the B. People may question the wisdom of that, but given where we are that's the judgment that's been made.
About speed: a couple of decades later, Phantom pilots versus Migs tended to abide by the "speed is life" motto ...
I think the F-35 can be more compared to the F-105 or the 104 in European duty than the A-7. I wonder if the 104 was also touted as an Air-Air machine when Lockheed and the US govt decided they were just what Europe needed
Of more relevance I'm interested how you think the F-35 stacks up? Draggy, low power to weight and high wing loading.
My! A lot of posts to read and links to follow, with plenty of sidelines too. I'll get back to you when I've had a chance to do all your posts justice by reading them and considering them.
Purely an initial impression, I'm not quite sure why we're discussing WWII props and Gen 1, 2 and 3 jets. Gen 4 maybe. I would hope that today's Tornado GR4/4a and FOC JSF are not closely comparable - if they are, someone has pulled a real blinder. But even with the generation gap, it's hard to tell if if one can directly compare the Tornado's weapon load, range and TFR with either the Harrier or the JSF. But there are some interesting points.
Later...
Purely an initial impression, I'm not quite sure why we're discussing WWII props and Gen 1, 2 and 3 jets. Gen 4 maybe. I would hope that today's Tornado GR4/4a and FOC JSF are not closely comparable - if they are, someone has pulled a real blinder. But even with the generation gap, it's hard to tell if if one can directly compare the Tornado's weapon load, range and TFR with either the Harrier or the JSF. But there are some interesting points.
Later...
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
I'm not. I've noticed that a few folks here have very dearly held opinions and don't tolerate well contrary opinions. And they have various tactics to discredit the holders of contrary opinions and/or to shut them up. The "troll" epithet is but one.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maus92, I could not agree more. But then they're mostly blind to any shortcomings of the platform there. And here's an illustration of the sort of thinking you'll find there, this example strangely found here:
My bold there, obviously. Bold points in order:
"air-to-ground role for which it was primarily designed" - agreed, it's a bomber.
"Tornado" - different generation, different threat, very different conops, different load, different range, not supposedly air-to-air (refer you to John Farley's recent support of claims that F-35 is a magnificent air-to-air fighter). You'd have to be ill-informed or clutching at straws to make that comparison.
"NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment" - as yet, it has proved nothing. The Project Office and LM have claimed what you claim. So far, the test pilots have released some weapons. It will be a long time before that bold claim can be proved.
"stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance" - Stellar? And good enough? No proof of "stellar" yet. "Good enough" was not the claim until a few years ago. It was supposed to be indestructible and invisible. Look at the claims and links in the first 150 pages of this thread alone. Why have all those claims suddenly gone away? In who's service will it be only just "good enough"?
As for better than the Phantom and the Tornado (not sure which model you mean), it should be better than the one that first flew in 1958 (Phantom) and it is in a different class (not saying better nor worse, just different) to any Tornado (E, F or GR).
Originally Posted by KenV
Now, let's compare how the F-35 "stacks up" against any other airplane in the air-to-ground role for which it was primarily designed. Both the Tornado and the F-35 were primarily designed for the tactical air-to-ground role. It would appear that NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment. I would assume the folks that are buying the F-35 are smart enough to know they've got a stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance. It's certainly MUCH better than a Tornado or even a Phantom in close in dog fighting. And oddly enough, plenty of air arms did quite well flying the Tornado and the Phantom.
"air-to-ground role for which it was primarily designed" - agreed, it's a bomber.
"Tornado" - different generation, different threat, very different conops, different load, different range, not supposedly air-to-air (refer you to John Farley's recent support of claims that F-35 is a magnificent air-to-air fighter). You'd have to be ill-informed or clutching at straws to make that comparison.
"NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment" - as yet, it has proved nothing. The Project Office and LM have claimed what you claim. So far, the test pilots have released some weapons. It will be a long time before that bold claim can be proved.
"stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance" - Stellar? And good enough? No proof of "stellar" yet. "Good enough" was not the claim until a few years ago. It was supposed to be indestructible and invisible. Look at the claims and links in the first 150 pages of this thread alone. Why have all those claims suddenly gone away? In who's service will it be only just "good enough"?
As for better than the Phantom and the Tornado (not sure which model you mean), it should be better than the one that first flew in 1958 (Phantom) and it is in a different class (not saying better nor worse, just different) to any Tornado (E, F or GR).
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I had to go to war again tomorrow, air-air or air-ground, I'd take the F-35B (at Block 2B standard) every single day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I've flown it, I've chased it in single bubble F-18C, and I've flown F-16, Tornado F-3, Jaguar, Harrier, Typhoon and a few others. The F-35 isn't perfect at everything, but for goodness' sake the RAF & RN have spent the last 30 years flying things like the Tornado, Jag and Harrier (FA and GR) with far above-average results. If you think the world is ending, carriers are going to sink and the UK is about to get invaded by the Faroe Islands because we're buying the very best multirole aircraft available today in the western world might I suggest you're a bit of a glass is half empty kind of a person?
Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
I've flown it, I've chased it in single bubble F-18C, and I've flown F-16, Tornado F-3, Jaguar, Harrier, Typhoon and a few others. The F-35 isn't perfect at everything, but for goodness' sake the RAF & RN have spent the last 30 years flying things like the Tornado, Jag and Harrier (FA and GR) with far above-average results. If you think the world is ending, carriers are going to sink and the UK is about to get invaded by the Faroe Islands because we're buying the very best multirole aircraft available today in the western world might I suggest you're a bit of a glass is half empty kind of a person?
Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Exactly, M2. And that's where I see the behavior as trollish.
-Dramatic overstatement. NOTHING (anyone ought to know what capitals mean) beats the F-35 in A2G. Countering such screaming hyperbole factually takes time and effort.
- The "appeal to authority" fallacy. "I would assume the folks... are smart enough". Sure, these smart folks gave LockMart a contract for an airplane they couldn't build, for a budget they couldn't meet, on a schedule that was a joke.
- As you point out, "stellar" A2G? No HDTV sensor, no Rover, no moving-target weapon... Even in 3F.
Let's be real. The guy is here to derail the discussion, for whatever reason.
-Dramatic overstatement. NOTHING (anyone ought to know what capitals mean) beats the F-35 in A2G. Countering such screaming hyperbole factually takes time and effort.
- The "appeal to authority" fallacy. "I would assume the folks... are smart enough". Sure, these smart folks gave LockMart a contract for an airplane they couldn't build, for a budget they couldn't meet, on a schedule that was a joke.
- As you point out, "stellar" A2G? No HDTV sensor, no Rover, no moving-target weapon... Even in 3F.
Let's be real. The guy is here to derail the discussion, for whatever reason.
SS - Really and over what?
The 2B is a 40kft/Mach 1.2/5.5 g jet. If you have to check out a Global Express you watch as it blows past above you. No AIM-9 so in a QRA your options are to use lethal force from min range or to close to where weapons may be unusable. No gun, nothing for CAS except an LGB.
Rafale today does cruise missile carriage. Six PGMs on six DMPIs. LOROP. Antiship. 6+ AAMs, including Meteor by the time 3F arrives. ESM. Nuclear strike, even. And the F-35 is "the very best multirole aircraft available today in the western world"?
My glass may be half empty but it's not full of what some people are drinking.
The 2B is a 40kft/Mach 1.2/5.5 g jet. If you have to check out a Global Express you watch as it blows past above you. No AIM-9 so in a QRA your options are to use lethal force from min range or to close to where weapons may be unusable. No gun, nothing for CAS except an LGB.
Rafale today does cruise missile carriage. Six PGMs on six DMPIs. LOROP. Antiship. 6+ AAMs, including Meteor by the time 3F arrives. ESM. Nuclear strike, even. And the F-35 is "the very best multirole aircraft available today in the western world"?
My glass may be half empty but it's not full of what some people are drinking.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Not sure what I'm supposed to have been drinking. I was just giving an opinion based on years of working on and flying the F-35, Typhoon and F-18 amongst others. Do you honestly believe that LM's business development folks have pulled the wool over the military, industrial and political experts of all 3 US Services + all the partner nations? And do you really believe that Egypt, Qatar and India (some of whom may not have had the option to buy an F-35 anyway...) have got it right where the UK, Israel, Japan, Australia, Canada etc have all got it wrong?
Is it not a smidge more likely that Bill Sweetman, Karlo Kopp and a number of X-Files conspiracy theory fantasists who don't have access to real data might be more accurately accused of drinking the funny stuff, or having ulterior motives such as self-promotion, exaggerating headlines to sell copy etc?
Wasn't aware we were in imminent danger of attack by swarms of Global Express. But while we're on the subject I'd highly recommend the Global 7000/8000 as a cab to go to war in if you can do it. Especially if you get the cabin with the 3 seat divan - very civilised. FTV-1 is sitting on its wheels now in Toronto and is looking real pretty.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Not sure what I'm supposed to have been drinking. I was just giving an opinion based on years of working on and flying the F-35, Typhoon and F-18 amongst others. Do you honestly believe that LM's business development folks have pulled the wool over the military, industrial and political experts of all 3 US Services + all the partner nations? And do you really believe that Egypt, Qatar and India (some of whom may not have had the option to buy an F-35 anyway...) have got it right where the UK, Israel, Japan, Australia, Canada etc have all got it wrong?
Is it not a smidge more likely that Bill Sweetman, Karlo Kopp and a number of X-Files conspiracy theory fantasists who don't have access to real data might be more accurately accused of drinking the funny stuff, or having ulterior motives such as self-promotion, exaggerating headlines to sell copy etc?
Wasn't aware we were in imminent danger of attack by swarms of Global Express. But while we're on the subject I'd highly recommend the Global 7000/8000 as a cab to go to war in if you can do it. Especially if you get the cabin with the 3 seat divan - very civilised. FTV-1 is sitting on its wheels now in Toronto and is looking real pretty.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Do you honestly believe that LM's business development folks have pulled the wool over the military, industrial and political experts of all 3 US Services + all the partner nations?
