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 » Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:29 am

And for high threat, you can tuck a few on internal only;

Does this work?

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 4:02 am

It would be interesting to see how many air to air weapons the F18 can carry in comparison. Suffice to say, if 4 F18E/F/G's had it out with 2 F35's, I suspect the only thing left flying in the end might be a half dozen missiles without any targets left. Given that future air to air combat would involve very small numbers of planes, perhaps they should carry more decoys and fewer missiles.
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 » Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:08 pm

The cited number for F-35 v. Gen 4 is 400% more effective.

Growlers are good. F-35 is better as a Sensor/Jammer. Unlike Growler, the 35 series are built ground up with integrated and fused sensors and jamming. Add to that the pod (which is an update to what the Growler carries) and it is better.

Why would you mix a Foxtrot into an air combat fight?

I am not so sure that the end result wouldn't be 2 F-35s and 4 smoke trails and 5 parachutes based on what I know.

Especially if the F-35s went with internal stores only.
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 » Sat Jun 21, 2014 5:53 pm

The F 35 wepons loadout is still a work in progress. How much flexibility and designed capacity is probably based more on politics rather than engineering. The current configuration might be two ground attack JDAMS, with two AMRAMs internally. But this is just an example for a strike mission, not necessarily an air combat patrol mission. Certainly two AMRAM for each bay is straight forward. And there are speculations of up to three per bay, perhaps with a Sidwinder thrown in.
Then there is the possibility of advanced weapons -eg:

http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/

The limit on internal AA weapons in the F 35 is a moving target. And it is very important that this capacity is in the stealth mode. With external ordinance the comparison with other current fighters (except the F22) applies, but this is in addition to the internal load, not a substitute for the internal load. This is what is important when comparing to legacy fighters.

As for the cost, 200 million cost estimate is badly outdated. Actual cost will be more in the range of 100-120 million per copy. Still expensive, but the cost ratio is more in line with 1:2 (or less) rather than 1:4. A large unknown is the life cycle costs- what it costs to keep it flying, compared to other aircraft. I think this is a big factor for the F22, keeping it flying and stealthy is very expensive. The F35 has been designed to avoid much of this cost (at least so goes the advertisements).

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

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 » Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:00 pm

Aside from the actual capabilities of the aircraft, there is an impression that LM has demonstrated considerable incompetence or even worse with the F35. This is partially why the development has dragged along. Before 2012, the pentagon was incompetent also (if that is the appropriate word). But since then, the pentagon has gotten it's act together and seems to have forced LM to do the same. The cost picture, and program progress has changed considerably for the better since then.

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

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 10:31 pm

The limit on internal AA weapons in the F 35 is a moving target.


I do not agree.
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 » Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:25 pm

ladajo wrote:
The limit on internal AA weapons in the F 35 is a moving target.


I do not agree.


I understand that the current F35 bay configuration, rails etc. are not configured for carrying a lot of air to air missiles. My point, hopefully not to far off, is that the bays have the volume capacity to be modified for a more profuse Air to air combat role. That it is not done may be political as much as other reasons. You don't want to intrude on the F22s territory, or even the F15 territory.

Then there is the possible on again, off again new missile designs. The link in my previous post is an example of this. A missile that is capable and can be changed out with SDBs without plane modification (sort of) implies A-A missile numbers could equal SDB capacity. In the picture this is 3 per bay in the F35 for a total of 6 internal A-A missiles[ EDIT-Opps, make that 6 per bay for a total of 12 internal Cuda missiles]. Of course an F15 or F18, or even 16 might carry a considerable number of these missiles also, but only externally.

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

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 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:09 am

Dan,
This is the point.
You can mount up to 6 AA weapons per bay of various flavors, for a total of twelve.
And an F-35 on internal storage outperforms an F-16 in maneuverability.
Now, if you hang external, then the F-35 loses it kinematic advantage.

This does not take into account the sensors and integration advantage that the F-35 enjoys over everything that flys.
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 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:15 pm

You are preaching to the quire about the F35 planned capabilities. The implementation has been more prolonged than advertised, but this does not detract from the capabilities once implemented.

I am somewhat amused by detractors that say first that internal carrage is too limited, and then deparage F35 external carriage, because it is not stealthy (ignoring associated flight performance changes that apply to all aircraft). Then they say, the F35 cannot survive, without conceding that any 4th generation aircraft also cannot survive given the same threat environment. The economy of losing a 60 million aircraft to a 1 million AA missile , is claimed to be less painfull than losing a 100 million (or their preferred price of 200 million). This ignores the cost of operations, the pilots, the fuel, the loss of mission achievement, etc. Also, the cost of discarding expensive and limited supply external tanks at the first hint of a threat- which also implies abandonment of the mission, as your efforts become focused on returning home on your suddenly reduced fuel supply (an argument about internal vs external fuel capacity).

There has always been an argument about quality versus quantity. While the differences in quality are not too great, the answer is debatable. But when the difference is greater, the answer is more biased towards quality.
And, my impression is that the quality of the F35 in the important considerations is profound. The only drawback is that adversaries are well aware of this and are working hard to address this with their own 5th generation designs (not to mention drones). There is a window of opportunity, and the prolonged development of the F35 is eating into this.

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

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 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:59 pm

Yes.
And I would also add that it is probable that what the other guys market as "5th Gen" really isn'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)

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 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:50 pm

quire?
lol :P
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe

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 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:25 pm

"quire"? Do you mean "choir"? Yes, it's one of those words where spelling doesn't match pronunciation.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

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 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:41 pm

D Tibbets wrote:I am somewhat amused by detractors that say first that internal carrage is too limited, and then deparage F35 external carriage, because it is not stealthy (ignoring associated flight performance changes that apply to all aircraft).
Note that only the US get the stealth version. But yeah, hanging stuff on the outside of a stealth craft is pretty stupid.

Then they say, the F35 cannot survive, without conceding that any 4th generation aircraft also cannot survive given the same threat environment. The economy of losing a 60 million aircraft to a 1 million AA missile , is claimed to be less painfull than losing a 100 million (or their preferred price of 200 million).
F35 is already projected to hit 300 million per copy and it will go higher if the Aussies pull out, which is always looking more likely. They know they've been had since Rand did their study back in the 90's that the F35 sucks so bad.

And, my impression is that the quality of the F35 in the important considerations is profound.
That's because you're happy to ignore the fact that F35 was designed, marketed and sold as a cheap fighter and pretend its okay when it's not a cheap fighter.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:21 pm

ladajo wrote:Dan,
This is the point.
You can mount up to 6 AA weapons per bay of various flavors, for a total of twelve.

Source please? I have read several times now that the F35 can carry one surface weapon per bay only, or a couple air to air per bay but not both, and that the gun needs to either be mounted in a pod that disturbs the stealth, or between the internal bays taking over one of the bays entirely. Looks like this is all true from this:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/T ... ayward.pdf

So where did you get 12 interior weapons and how is it it carries twice what F22 does. I just don't believe it.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:10 pm

The marketed strike package is two 2000lb weapons along with two AIM-120s using the 1760 Class I interfaces in the two internal bays.
The bays also support twin racks and door mounts. So if you substitute the 2000lb weapon you gain another interface.
At a bare minimum, you can mount two 120s per bay. The addition of twin rails in the JDAM mount slot and you get three per bay.
Mounting 120s is the hardest as they are the longest and biggest. If you switch to AIM-9 series, you gain a lot of real estate.
This could support two in the inside door, and depending on rack configuration, 4 in the JDAM well, or 2 up top and 2 on the outer door.
There are options.

The gun pod for the USN & USMC does not mount in the bay, it is external.
The gun for the USAF variant is in the airframe on the leading edge of the port wing, with no cost to bay space.

There are newer air to air missiles in the works that will add even more options to the configuration.
In a high threat environment, I can see a 6 weapon internal load as becoming the standard. This gives multiple shots and also limits stores weight, thus enhancing performance.
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)


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests