Once again, you're missing the argument entirely. The point that is being made is that these figures are still representative of a specification that is yet to be achieved, irrespective of whether they were from 2001 or 2005; the argument remains that these are simulated exercises based on capabilities that still have to be integrated into the aircraft, and given its test history and the comments coming from people in the know, that integration is going to be challenging to say the least. The day a lonesome F35 goes head to head with 6 baddies and kills them all, I will happily eat my words. But right now, I'm pretty confident I won't be doing that.

Yet not understand.

once again you are only showing what you don't know, there isn't a simed result released and I doubt even ran with a single f-35 vs 6 bad guys.
the released simed result was based on 4 f-35 vs 8 red

You are arguing with people who have/had access to the JSF program. You are arguing with people who have flown teen-series fighters as well as UK FJ aircraft.

Why?

well if they had access, they wouldn't be making silly mistakes about the f-35, as far as I've seen there are only a couple of guys that know what they are talking about, engines and another guy who escapes me at the moment

Just This Once,

Never argue with an idiot. He drags you down to his level and beats you with experience....

Fair point ORAC, fair point indeed.

Once again, and I'll repeat for the final time, you're missing the point of the argument; you could have said they'd come out with a kill ratio of 1,000,000 to 1 and it wouldn't have mattered. It's a fictional scenario based on specifications that are currently theoretical and nothing more...it may well be the case that all of those capabilities are realised, equally it may be the case that none are realised, it'll probably be somewhere in the middle, but at the moment, past experience suggests there are very big hurdles ahead.

The reason people are so pessimistic about it, is that we have seen much less complicated aircraft run into significant and costly problems, which in some cases have not and never will be resolved. People are rightly questioning the value for money, particularly as we're sacrificing so much for such a small number of aircraft that will be no-where near the end of their test programme by the time we have them in service...

Back when the 400 per cent claim jumped to 600 per cent (I think it was 2008), someone cited this as proof that the F-35 could indeed be upgraded and improved through software alone.

The software in this case being PowerPoint.

Of course, in 2008 we were still being assured that the USAF would be declaring IOC right around now, with Block 3 IOT&E just starting.

By the way, the Ignore List function is very useful. It's in the User CP menu on the left of the topmost yellow bar.

yes, a sim is somewhat speculative until it's shown in real world, but as per the example of the 4:1 being increased to 6:1, it becomes more accurate as the program moves foreword. If you knew about the f-35, we wouldn't be wasting our time talking about how fast it goes

Going by what I have read, I don't see most of the posters here having a grasp of 5th gen and are thinking in 3rd and 4th gen. As the hornet pilot said in effect when he transfered to the f-22, it's a different ball game.

Our hornet pilots knew bugger all about the true capabilities of the f-111 and visa versa. I won't accept "I'm a pilot of x, so I know"

I'm starting to become an advocate of post-natal abortion. :ugh::ugh:

Report: Lightning a Threat to JSF; Cutting Weight Erodes Safety

Despite undergoing regular test flights, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, called the Lightning II, remains vulnerable to its namesake — lightning.

Additionally, attempts to lighten the JSF by 11 pounds may have left the fifth-generation stealth fighter more vulnerable than the aircraft it will replace.

Those are among the findings of a new report from the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation office (OT&E), first obtained by Time magazine. Test flights are “not permitted” within 25 miles of known lightning conditions due to a needed redesign to the On-Board Inert Gas Generating System (OBIGGS), which maintains correct oxygen levels in the fuel tank. The system is crucial to protecting the engine from exploding in case of a lightning strike.

A poor design for the fuel tank venting system also means that when the single-engine jet is below 20,000 feet, its descent rate is limited to no more than 6,000 feet per minute.

“Neither restriction is acceptable for combat or combat training,” according to the report. The program is redesigning the OBIGGS system to compensate for these deficiencies...........

Are you on glue!?

Wrong. As I said, neither of us KNOW what data they're using and the air forces can only use what is supplied to them. But I'm pleased you are SURE, even without knowing. It doesn't look to me like you haveany experience of simulation of this type. I do.


Those are both vital ingredients in the simulation because energy at launch has a MASSIVE effect on missile suuccess and missile evasion. But, again, we don't know what figures they used in the experiments.

Again, you are showing your ignorance here. My expeerience with manned, multi-station simulation supports what you say, but it still comes down to the data they are using for the dynamic modelling, which AGAIN we don't know.

Your supposed evidence is unsupportable, Fella.

@JSF fan
 

Perfect summation......;)

Hmm, did they really mean to say that?

Or is it just another reason to give it the :\chop'ity:\ chop, :\chop :\if they can't even describe the basics correctly?? [fuel tank inerting]:}

Orac,

I am in total agreement with JSFfan.

What right do you have to comment on the JSF? After all the aircraft you flew worked. Well, mostly.

JSFfan, simulators are interesting products. Particularly when the actual aircraft, as opposed to the simulator, is under development. The simulator is a "simulated" version of what the development company would like the real aircraft to be. Initially the simulation is totally unrealistic. With time, as the real aircraft reaches that time for introduction to service for active duties, both the simulator and the air craft should fly as alike as is possible.

Unfortunately, due to development issues with all versions of the JSF, for financial reasons and for political reasons the simulator does not match the current flying version at all well. The simulator is overly optimistic.

The JSF project is unlikely to ever meet its original stated aim and objectives; most certainly not without large amounts of time, resources and development.

Many countries who were/ are going to purchase the aircraft are reaching their limits of financial viability for the project. They may not allow the aircraft to be developed as it could be to attain full functionality.

Unfortunately, it would appear that some fundamental and basic mistakes were made at the start of the project with respect to a number of design features and in attempting to create three different aircraft from one.

Glad rag,

Perhaps the aim is cessation of the aircraft with a certain immediacy in order to reduce embarrassment. :E

Oh, I don't know hval. There are plenty of letters left in the alphabet after A, B & C...

The only question is whether the projected out-of-service date will be before or after the letter Z.

Perhaps they need to outsource the software development to somewhere with cheap labour. China, for example.

Willard Whyte,

Just hope the Chinese are not going through the same problems with their version the J-31. Having written that, since they stole all the files for JSF I suspect hey may well be aware of the issues and have worked around them.

I bet the Chinese get their aircraft in service before JSF appears.

That would be an embarrassment. Perhaps that's why the Americans won't give up on the project? I reckon we will be on Double Z plural alpha before we get a working one