how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in outrag

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby ladajo » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:23 pm

Well no, they don't. Since Vietnam, the Marines have been demanding their own air force but they don't need their own air force apart perhaps from lifting troops off their carriers--hence the MV-22 which is a mission enabling technology as it has such extended range.


Well, yes they do.

The navy and the airforce are not nearly as good at CAS for the marines as the marines are. That is why the marines do have their own "air force" and always will.
Marine pilots train for CAS, navy pilots know how to do CAS. That is a big difference. And marines on the ground transistioning phase lines are not going to trust a non-marine with critical fires. It is what marine aviators do. As part of the deal, they float VMFAs as part of CVN Wings. I guess you missed the memo on that one.

In any event, as I have stated before, the MV-22 has legs but not lift. This is a large problem for the marines. A BLT needs to move some large heavy stuff fast, especially in the fires function. This is done by 53s. MV-22 can not do it. If you take away the 53s, the lighting part of a BLT landing (otherwise known as "violence of action") is not there. They can not transition past the first phase line without organic fires. The faster this kit makes the beach the faster the BLT advances. MV-22 does not do it. The AV-8s currently help fill the fires transition gap until heavier items make the fight. Without the AV-8 CAS (or soon to be F-35) CAS role, that leaves the marines hanging with sustained fires to support the advance or manuever functions. The reason there is a V/STOL requirement for CAS is that the marines use AV-8 from FARPs to add depth to the battle space. FARPs give them much faster CAS cycles than feet wet/feet dry does. F-35 will fill that role with AV-8 going to the boneyard.

You really do not understand so much how an expeditionary landing is conducted and the requirements to support it. It is a very complex animal and V/STOL CAS has a key part, as does feet wet CAS from primary role fast movers like VMFA. Dynamic phase line CAS is NOT what you have watched on TV for the last 10 years. That is Strike.
Two different animals. If anyone executes operational art with full understanding it is the marines. They know what they need to do, and they know what they need to do it. They know they need the F-35. It was not forced on them, and what it brings them is huge.

On another note, the AF CAS guys are more akin to Strike and rolling fires. They are not nearly as dynamic as the marine flyers. The main reason is that the AF trains to support the army. And the army treats combat aviation as a maneuver element. The navy and marines do not. It is a fundamental differnce in employment philosophy that in simple terms causes the AF to stay Army focused. They foray to some degree into the maritime, but not as experts. The other part to this is the the marines have integral to the C2 construct the organizations to fully integrate marine CAS into the marine fight. This is another part of the system that is critical. Marines practice this all the time. The AF and USN hardly ever go in for full marine support, and when they do so they use standard joint methodology, not the polished familiarity that is found within the marines themselves.

You are really trying to bin things into one size fits all arguments, and it doesn't work. The complexity of the topic prevents it.
I as much as many would love to see the A-10 fly on with an upgrade package, or even update build. I would also love to see the same for F-22. But neither of these are going to be primary support options for USMC operations, just like VFAs aren't. It ain't what we pay them to do.

For the record, as you know, I am not a marine either.

You can't have it all. And F-35 is a good answer. Really good. There is no match for it, and won't be for a long time. It really is that far ahead.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby ladajo » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:26 pm

I have also flown an F-35 sim. And it is beyond awesome. I have also flown an F-22 sim. It is awesome as well, but does not compare to what F-35 can do.

And as I said earlier there are many things it can and will do that you and many others will never know.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby D Tibbets » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:58 am

The F35 is a compromise plane. As such I intrepret it as the A model being the baseline, the B being a hodge podge addition of a lift fan and a rotating jet nozzel, while the C is weighted down with larger wings and structure. As such the C model would fit the punduts that quote wing area to weight as the fighter mantra as it does have the highest ratio despite the additional wt. Yet the A will have the advantage over the C I'm sure. It will be rated at 9+G while I believe the B and C will be 7+G. What was the G ratings for an AV-8 Harrier?

The argument about two versus 1 engine is complex. One engine will always provide more thrust to weight that a two engine solution (I read this). If an engine fails per so many flight hrs, having two engines means the failure rate will be twice as great. But, it is comforting to have a second engine to get you home as it is unlikely both will fail at once. A number of F16s have been lost due to its one engine. Hopefully, the F35 does better as jet engines have become more reliable and durable.

The total package, as stressed, is the definition of 5th generation. A 4th generation fighter can have various devices stuck in it and hung from it, but the package is always a compromise of competing options. A plane designed to incorporate all of these multiple systems from the design phase will always be more elegant and effective. You can go a long way with additions- the F18G is probably a good example, but it is a struggle and a compromise. I personally like the idea of an enhanced F18 with better stealth, power, capabilities and unfortunately weight. But, I doubt it could compete with the F35 as a penetration attack plane, or as a survivable plane in an air battlefield.

One comparison that is liked by nay sayers is to compare the early F16 fully loaded with internal fuel against a fully fueled F35. What they ignore is that the early F16 was lacking very much capability that was added through Block 52. With a stronger engine the thrust to weight is still less in the later F16s. The internal fuel load for a F16 might be ~ 7,000 lbs. A F35 is 18,000 pounds. Of course the F 35 is going to suffer in this comparison, and of course this is totally meaningless. A better comparison would be to compare the aircraft with the same range fuel load. This might be 5,000 pounds for the F16 and 8,000 pounds for the F35. Now the wing loading and the acceleration comparisons have more meaning. The F16 might have a T:W ratio of 1.0 and the F35 would have a T:W ratio of ~1.2. Also, any ordinance is going to eat into this ratio less for the F35. An new F16 with 10,000 pounds of internal and external fuel and 10,000 pounds of ordinance might weigh ~ 46,000 pounds with a 29,000 pound thrust engine. Then there is the aerodynamic penalties due to all of this stuff hanging off of the plane. An F35 with 15,000 pounds of fuel and 10,000 pounds of ordnance would probably have a little bit more range and the total weight would be ~ 54,000 pounds with 44,000 pounds of thrust. The F16 is down to a thrust to weight ratio of ~ 0.6 while the F35 is at ~ 0.8.

Any argument about the field of view from the cockpit is totally misleading once the sensor fusion and the helmet mounted displays are factored in. Of course the counter argument is that the helmet is crap and will fail way too often...

Comparisons are pretty much what you want them to be, just choose the conditions that fit your view point.

I do find it interesting that the Marine Corp, with arguably the most complex and compromised version of the F35 is fielding the aircraft 1-3 years before the other versions.

PS: There is a video of an F18 performing a high angle of attack turn on a dime what would decimate (and kill) any opponent not prepared for it. AV-8 pilots have also decimated other fighter pilots. This stresses the importance of training and tactics being more important than raw aircraft performance.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

choff
Posts: 2432
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby choff » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:33 am

I don't feel so bad if the CAF gets F35's now that I've heard all this. Part of my attraction to the F18GIII International Pathway comes from a make do mentality. Us Canucks get so used to doing things from either a material or numerical disadvantage we can feel lost if we have the top gear, improvising becomes ingrained over taking advantage of the bells and whistles. That and if the pilot has to bail out over the tundra in the dead of winter because he only has one engine and there's a goose stuck in it, the poor guy's liable to get eaten by polar bears before rescue arrives.

If we still get F18's over F35's, probably it's going to be a case of the price tag bites too much.
CHoff

Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby Stubby » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:28 am

It was be a mistake for Canada to buy the 35.
Almost every engine failure, be it design, maintenance or FOD related, would result in the loss of airframe. We can't afford many airframes.

A dual engine model, whether the 18 or some equivalent, is better suited to our budget.

The Defence Department says that Canada’s fleet of two-engine CF-18s suffered an engine shut down 228 times between 1988 and 2012, though some of those may have been precautionary shutdowns rather than actual failures.


Can we afford to replace 228 F35s? The engines are better now? Are they 300% better? They are talking about only 65 units, so how long before a complete replacement of the fleet?

Twin engines allow precautionary shutdowns, thus preventing catastrophic damage.
Single engine aircraft not so much.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe

choff
Posts: 2432
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby choff » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:18 am

True enough, a lot of why the CAF might go for the F35 would come down to spinoff contracts. The advantage of the F18/E/F/G package is the minimal adaptation required, being an upgrade on what we already have. The other reason is the F35 is overkill for present requirements, that could change in the future, but who knows. Yes, at 200 million per airplane, we can't afford engine failures, so the F35 has to be a real super plane to compensate, presumably it is.

Another factor would be if future fighters can deploy multimode decoy flares against air to air missiles, especially combined with jamming opposing stealth fighters radar. Then if the other guy only has expensive stealth fighters but no effective surface to air capability because a plane like the G blinds him, those stealth fighters have to slow right down and dogfight with guns, all 5th generation capability neutralized.
CHoff

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby ladajo » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:18 pm

My first question is for the 228 engine shutdowns, how many were on the ground and how many were followed by inflight re-starts?

And then...

those stealth fighters have to slow right down and dogfight with guns, all 5th generation capability neutralized.


Not so much.
One of the inherent problem with jammers is that everyone knows where they are. It is not hard to localize a jammer. Nor is it hard to toss Anti-Radiation weapson at it.
But beyond that, a 5th gen like F-35 would not be "blind" and have to slow right down for guns. It has a fantastic on and off-board fused sensing capability that is something like hollywood. If I was going to fly, I think that is what I would want to be in.
The other rule you should never forget about airfights (or any fight for that matter) is "bring friends". F-35 is all about integrating with friends. And that is huge.

Canada can probably get along for a round with F-18 heavies. But, if Canada wants to play as an equal, then F-18 heavy is not going to cut it in about 5 years.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby hanelyp » Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:14 pm

ladajo wrote:One of the inherent problem with jammers is that everyone knows where they are. It is not hard to localize a jammer. Nor is it hard to toss Anti-Radiation weapson at it.

The point of ejecting a packet of chaff, or a flare, it the enemy's weapon system can see it but can't properly identify you over the noise. A jammer carried on an aircraft would be a liability. A disposable jammer flying separately can disable enemy radar for a time, unless they fire a (not cheap) missile at it. And when your aircraft has the radar signature of a small bird a few random strands of chaff can make even that disappear. They know for certain that something is in the area, but can't target properly.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

choff
Posts: 2432
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby choff » Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:17 pm

You have to also remember that while the F18G is busy jamming the Stealth fighters radar, because he only costs half as much he can bring his friends with him, the F18E/F's. How many IR missiles can a plane like the F35 carry internally, and how many externally without compromising stealth? At half the price per plane it's two against one, the F18's also have IR missiles, one of them has a gun, the F35 has to attack them for taking out ground defenses. How's he going to do it if he runs out of missiles taking out decoys and he has no gun, how can he find them if his radars jammed. True he can jam their radar as well, but then it's an all visual dogfight.
CHoff

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby GIThruster » Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:00 pm

choff wrote:How many IR missiles can a plane like the F35 carry internally, and how many externally without compromising stealth?

They carry 2 missiles max. That's one of the reasons they suck so bad. You need three times as many of them as say, F-22's to do the job and they're still slower and less maneuverable. Any/all of the gee wiz electronics that can go into F-35 is in or will be in F-22, so the obvious conclusion is, F-35 sucks. We would have been much better off adapting the F-22 to carrier use, adapting the A-10 for next gen and building drones.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Skipjack
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby Skipjack » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:07 pm

GIThruster wrote:
choff wrote:How many IR missiles can a plane like the F35 carry internally, and how many externally without compromising stealth?

They carry 2 missiles max. That's one of the reasons they suck so bad. You need three times as many of them as say, F-22's to do the job and they're still slower and less maneuverable. Any/all of the gee wiz electronics that can go into F-35 is in or will be in F-22, so the obvious conclusion is, F-35 sucks. We would have been much better off adapting the F-22 to carrier use, adapting the A-10 for next gen and building drones.

I agree with that!

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby ladajo » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:15 pm

I don't.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby hanelyp » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:32 pm

Relevant to evaluating how many missiles they carry is how many do they need to do the job?
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby ladajo » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:53 am

Is this enough?

Image
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

choff
Posts: 2432
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: how the F-35 sucks so bad it ought to make you cry in ou

Postby choff » Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:14 am

That would work!
CHoff


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 23 guests