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

[GIThruster]

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer- ... socialflow

[Skipjack]

One trillion USD cost plus contract. But hey its never wasteful government spending if the money goes to a major defense contractor...

[choff]

Should have gone with the Growlers.

[D Tibbets]

Yes, the F-35 is such a terrible fighter, that is why nations are lining up to buy it over the Eurofighter and Rafael.

the F 16 was actually a cheap light fighter with minimal air combat capabilities other than close in dog fighting. Only the later versions with extensive radar, engine and weight growth became capable air to air platforms. Even then they suffer from short range, limited air to air weapon loads, and uncertain network capabilities.

The future of aircraft is - one stealth, two profound imrovements in sensors, three networking, four weapon improvements, and finally fifth manouverability.

In the realm of manouverability, the F35 will be close to the the later generation F16. It has already demonstrated almost +10 g manouvering (A version), roll rates well over 200 degrees per second, angle of attack capability similar to F18 (which opens up a whole range of manouvers unaviable to F16 or f15 fighters),
While the aircraft weighs a few thousand pounds more than late generation F16s, it has ~ 15,000 pounds more thrust, so at similar weapons and fuel loads it should accelerate much better than the F16.

Most of the "experts "that comment on comparisons, use f35 data that is out of date. The computer controlled flight controls have had a slow and painful evolution. Any comparison, though must apply to the latest flight software, and evolved flight envelope which is finally approaching deployment quality. Using 2012 or even earlier f35 data serves no purpose other than the punduts ego.

Will the F35 out dogfight a Eurofighter, or Rafael, or especially a Grippen in a close and slow dogfight? Probably not. Will it do good enough to survive many of these encounters provided the pilot is good and knows his tactics? Possibly. Will the f35 kill 9/10 aircraft before the merge happens, or alternately avoid the merge entirely? Probably. Given the same surface to air environment, which is more nervous, a stealth aircraft pilot or non stealth pilot. Some say stealth is not absolute protection. Of course not, it has never been. The key is to limit the range and time that you are vulnerable.
The Russians and Chinese are not persueing stealth technology because it is fashionable. They are doing so because of the real and perhaps profound advantages it gives. This is especially important as good and reliable radar homing missiles have finally matured. Then, don't discount the tremendous advantage that modern EASA radars give. Anything that limits their range and discrimination threshold is essential if you plan to survive in the modern air battlefield. I might add that it is not only radar stealth that applies, IR stealth is critical as the IR missles have become more maneuverable, and have intimidating lock on fields of view. They are getting close to where plane maneuver is irrelevant*. If you have a boggy at your 6, don't bother trying to maneuver to escape or bring your weapons to bear, just push a button, and your dogfight missile will be cued to the boggy, launch, turn quickly, lock on and boom. You either destroy him, or he maneuvers violently with flares, etc. If he survives and recovers, you are gone, or are sitting up for a second shot. First look, first see, first shot is the key to survival, not maneuvering (with matured missiles). Maneuvering only helps you if you are a 4th generation fighter trying desperately to survive against a 5th generation. Fifth generation usually implies stealth and the most modern radar equipment. But it also includes 360 degree IR and probably visual sensors, and extensive situational awareness and battle space awareness, thanks to networking. All presented to the pilot hopefully without blowing his mind.


* Good and reliable missiles with wide fields of view have been advertised for decades. That is why the US disdained guns as far back as the 1960s. Their confidence in the missiles were proven badly flawed then, but now the missiles may actually perform as advertised. Note that violent maneuvering can often defeat a missile, provided you have warning and time it right. For a missile to track a maneuvering aircraft it generally needs to be able to sustain about 5 times the G's of the aircraft. So, if the aircraft turns sharply at 9 G, the missile may need to turn at up to 45 G to avoid overshooting. Maneuvering still has its uses, but now it is mostly to desperately try to avoid death, rather than setting up your own shot. Another use might derive from needing visual confirmation befor eyou risk friendly fire. The enhanscd sensors though can mitigate this considerably(get visual confirmation from 30 KM instead of 3KM).

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

I didn't mention radar jamming. This is a large part of the method 4.5 generation fighters must use to survive. How much jamming capacity the F35 will have is unknown, but there are hints that it will be considerable. The dedicated F18G jammer helps to cover the Air forces legacy aircraft in this area. Onboard and podded jammers may be evolving such that adequate coverage is available to the individual fighter bomber though- provided you stay one step ahead, and provided you have the necessary load out capability for weapons, fuel and jammers- probably no problem for an F15E, and probably a challenge for an F16). Stealth would greatly ease this burden, and probably increase its effectiveness at the same time. I should mention that generation 4.5 fighters like the F18E, Euro fighter, and Rafael have some stealth characteristics, but not the fanatical application that is required for true "stealth" qualities. This level though does probably improve jamming effectiveness. The Su35, while no doubt a good fighter is a sitting duck from a radar and IR perspective. Even the new Russian T 50, while having frontal stealth appears to have grossly exposed engine exhausts. I suppose if you can keep your nose pointed at the enemy that is ok, but with multiple planes and any dog fighting or passing that will quickly change.

Dan Tibbets
















Dan Tibbets

[choff]

The other reason I like the Growlers, surviving bird strikes, two engines, how good are these advanced radars at picking up a flock of Canadian geese, and how well does the F35 engine hold up to one. I've also heard of test pilots complaining they can't see behind from the cockpit of an F35, assuming they ever do get into a dog fight.

Another point with these IR missiles, how far along is decoy flare technology, could incorporate radar beacon's as well. If both planes use up the missiles on decoys, they end up going to guns,(assuming they have any).

[hanelyp]

Old fashioned chaff can easily have a larger radar cross section than an aircraft with stealth design.

[ladajo]

I should stay out of this.

I offer two points:

I've also heard of test pilots complaining they can't see behind from the cockpit of an F35

This is silly, given the all aspect visualization system on F-35. In effect, for the pilot, there is no aircraft to block his view.

The second is that state of the art missiles are moving/have moved from monolithic sensing to dual mode or multi-mode methodologies.

This makes traditionally mono-mode counter measures more or less useless.

If you are going to have passive and active counter-measures in a Gen 5 fight, you need to have multi-mode coordinated systems or you will die. And to do this you must be absolutely sure of the systems you are facing regarding which spectrums and signatures they use, as well as how they fuse.

This is all what makes Gen 5 what it is. It is not something the layman or public really gets. There is too much under the blanket that is not visible.

Any aircraft flying today going against F-35, including the F-22 is going to have issues.

A flight of F-35s is not something that anyone in their right minds with any idea what they can really do is going to face. They will go "Iraqi" and stay on the ground while mystery ordnance drops from the sky and smokes their kit right in front of them.

Furthermore, what is being sold as the export version is extremely capable, but not a full up round like we will fly.

Single engine or not, F-35 is the premier air combat system on the planet. The sum of the whole far exceeds the "it only has one engine argument". And that "single engine" is the best aircraft engine flown ever pound for pound and capability wise.

And for the record, I am no aviator. I just have a clue what I am talking about.

[GIThruster]

I can't help but observe once more the pathetic defense of the F-35 always comes back to technology that would have been included in ANY and ALL next generation fighters. When you look at the things that are uniquely F-35, most especially the cheap single engine design that is not cheap and cannot compete with twin engine designs, and the absolutely idiotic notion of building 3 aircraft on the same frame, it is obvious that the F-35 is a kludge and an idiot's game. The ONLY reason the various nations are staying in the game is that they are already so deeply invested. The ONLY genius behind the F-35 program was that it was sold so broadly that it can survive any cost and time overruns, any nation bailing on them, any nation cutting back their number of fighters. It is the SALES program that is genius, not the plane!!!

[ladajo]

the pathetic defense of the F-35 always comes back to technology that would have been included in ANY and ALL next generation fighters.

I don' t think this is accurate. Only in the sense that if we did not build F-35, and built something else, it would have included some or maybe a good bit of the techology. Will the next build use some of the F-35 tech? Yes. Will it introduce it's own tech advances that F-35 doesn't have? Yes again.

There is tech in the F-35 (more than a little) that is unique to the airframe. Whether and how that translates into another build remains in question. F-35 is what is being built, not something else.
F-22 does not compare to F-35. Built for two different roles.
If I had my druthers, I would build a F-22 update, akin to the F-18E/F build program, that would re-engineer the F-22 to F-35 tech levels. But it would be a new aircraft. It would no longer be an F-22. It may look something like it, but it would not be it at all.

The bottom line here is that we are building F-35, and it has a lot of capability that is not in the open. Some of it may never get in the open either.
It really is a game changer, just like F-22 was.
Tying the F-35 package with the ongoing weapons advancements and off-board sensor and C2 integration as well as some other initiatives really do change the battlespace. unlike what the F-22 did.

Arguing that the F-35 tech would show up somewhere else is specious at best. What you arereally aruging is that we could build something different with the same tech. To some degree yes, but also to some degree no, as some of the tech defines how the airframe comes off. The tech and airframe are not mutually exclusive. It is not a pick-up truck you hang stuff on. The truck is integral of the system as a whole, thus they help define each other.

Taking my point and extending it to up-building F-22 to F-35 level would really only mean building a twin engine F-35. You could not simply hang F-35 tech on an F-22. It would be a total rebuild, and would not end up looking like an F-22. It would more than likely look like a twin engine F-35, but bigger.
This is what happened with the F-18. The up-build in engines and mounted systems resulted in a larger airframe requirement for fuel, strength and other issues. To keep it in the F-18 procurement lane, they made an effort to make it look just like the existing F-18 C/Ds when in fact it was a total new build. Congress bought it as an F-18 upgrade.


So is your argument really only centering on the single engine construct?

[GIThruster]

It's true I hate the single engine notion unless it can be like the F-16, cheap. If single engine means we can have 4X as many in the air, then I like single engine and that is how the program was sold back in the 80's. Trouble is, it is now the most expensive aircraft program ever. It's anything but cheap. It's a trillion dollar plane!

I also object to the Marines having to have their own platform built on the same frame. That is just a stupid idea. Building a standard A package for the Air Force, a B package for the Navy and a C package for the Marines is really just building 3 different planes, and if there were some savings to building them on the same frame, then okay (not possible), that's fine. BUT THERE IS NO SAVINGS!

From start to finish, JSF is a bilking not only of the American public, but of the public in Japan, and Australia, and all those in NATO who bought in, and Lockmart is pocketing all the cash. A trillion dollar slimefest from our friends at Lockmart, whom I think deserve to be drawn and quartered. F-35 challenges me to think outside the box as to what is acceptable punishment in a civilized society. I don't believe in torture, but I would love to keel haul a bunch of those Lockmart bastards.

[ladajo]

I also object to the Marines having to have their own platform built on the same frame. That is just a stupid idea. Building a standard A package for the Air Force, a B package for the Navy and a C package for the Marines is really just building 3 different planes, and if there were some savings to building them on the same frame, then okay (not possible), that's fine. BUT THERE IS NO SAVINGS!

Actually there was savings. Overall it was cheaper to do it that way. While certain components of the variants cost more than if built separately into a purpose built aircraft, the developmental costs of an entire other airframe far exceeded the cost of modding the F-35 (so to speak, as it was designed to support these variants) and the additional engineering requiremetns to make these mods fit the package. In the aggregate it was a cheaper way to go. Just like modding trucks and other mobility assets into some other role. Although, I must admit they took the Hummer to the extreme with the up-armor package. That actually did cost more than just going with Rhinos. Which in the end, and rightfully so, folks lost their jobs over. I personally know one of the USMC whistle blowers involved in that. He had some interesting commentary.

The marines in particular were between a rock and a hard place regarding aviation assets. They bought into and were boxed into the MV-22 at a cost and mission limitation they could not manage. This drove them to keeping the 53 series for heavy lift while the beancounters were trying to make it go away to pay for MV-22. The AV-8s are vintage and while a good airframe have become prohibitive in operating costs. They need a new V/STOL to meet CAS mission requirements. F-35 allows them to leverage the wider navy stock system with compatibility for a majority of the airframe against navy variants. This saves the DoN money in the aggregate since they can combine some of the sourcing streams to support both USN and USMC assets unlike the way things are now outside of the F-18 program.

Another analagous program is the Bradley IFV. Its variants built against a unified bas chasis and system were many, and much cheaper to maintain in the aggregate than diverse systems to meet each mission requirement.

I predict that once the F-35 sees combat and scares the living shit out of the other guys, and amazes our guys with just how much gap it creates with adversary systems, that there will be pressure to build a follow on twin engine for longer reach and payload using a manner similar to the F-18E/F program.

The F-35 really is a game changer.

[ltgbrown]

GIThruster,
Why can you not accept the "pushing the envelope of security" opinion of someone in the know? We all would love stuff to cost less. But the stuff doesn't always cost what we want or ask for.

And for the record, I AM an aviator. Ladajo does have a clue about what he is talking about.

Glenn
23 years flying
3500 hours in the air
1st pilot level 5 Weapons and Tactics Instructor
2 years doing airframe requirements and mission analysis (E-2D, which meant I had to learn about F-35, and a lot of other platforms, ALOT)

[GIThruster]

They need a new V/STOL to meet CAS mission requirements.

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. They can get air support from both the Navy and the Air Force. Arguing for VTOL is silly, and has now cost us hundreds of billions of dollars that would have been much better spent on anything from caseless ammo combat rifles, to power armor to CAS drones. Building a special purpose hackneyed version of another frame that has a lift fan in it is STUPID in the extreme, for this requires no version gets what it really needs to excel at its job.

So far as I'm aware, there are no engineers who think the F-35 was a good idea. It was a bean-counter's idea of how to rip off allied forces to the tune of a trillion dollars.

And just note, the Air Force could have just settled for more F-22's and they'd have a better fleet. The Army and Marines could have used updated A-10's and they'd have better fleets. The Navy could use X-47b's and they'd have better, larger fleets. We don't really need the F-35 program at all! Think of what a trillion dollars buys! You can buy Australia for that much money! A CONTINENT!

This is a terrible program.

And Commander Brown, while I do totally respect your opinions here, I don't think you think at all about the real costs of bad programs. A trillion dollar program is a shit program. End of story.

[paperburn1]

They need a new V/STOL to meet CAS mission requirements.

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. They can get air support from both the Navy and the Air Force. Arguing for VTOL is silly, and has now cost us hundreds of billions of dollars that would have been much better spent on anything from caseless ammo combat rifles, to power armor to CAS drones. Building a special purpose hackneyed version of another frame that has a lift fan in it is STUPID in the extreme, for this requires no version gets what it really needs to excel at its job.
End of story.

Well At first I was going to go full bore at GIThruster for his assessment of the marines need. But as 90 percent of the population has no real Q of what we do as marines I will refrain. We do need a new air frame to replace the AV8-B
The A-10 Idea just will not work for most of the primary marine mission extended expeditionary force model.
Marines without CAS are just cannon fodder. The navy and air force can not meet the support requirements as per the current example of FAST (Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Teams) team that has been deployed to Baghdad. MEF also needs the current model as well.
Marines are also the only force that can be applied by a pen stroke of the president without the backing of congress. (That is why we are called the president's own) In these situations the navy can only give us a ride to where we want to go, which we are very thankfully for, walking on water is hard work.
I have worked in aviation and training for twenty years. I have also flown the F35 simulator and to describe it with one word !awesomeness!
The only deriding factor is indeed cost, just like the MV-22 program we are paying far to much. without describing anything , the aircraft will preform as expected.