F-35 - Another News Article - NO politics Please !

[Slater]

Well, the US military is buying the great bulk of F-35 production, and Congress holds the purse strings. And members of Congress have their own opinions, many of which are not exactly pro-F35.

Now, to veer away from politics and back on track...

Edited December 20, 2015 by Slater

[bentwaters81tfw]

Um not to be rude but who the hell cares what the American public thinks? They are not buying the aircraft,

Er....yes they are, with their tax dollars, just like we are. Governments have no money. Its borrowed or tax.

[Nigel Foster60]

I am just concerned how much my Airfix F35B will cost to do in all those FAA and RAF colour schemes.

Nigel

[Kallisti]

So the American public will withhold their taxes so as not to pay for the F-35? I don't think so. Just as in the UK, we the public have virtually no control over what our great leaders do with the money they take from us.

[Slater]

Actually, Congress decides how many to buy or not to buy. And they are influenced (to some degree, anyway) by the public and by their own opinions. That said, I think that the F-35 is fairly safe as a major program since it's (by now) just too big to fail and it's being delivered in some numbers.

Besides, the chances of Gripen E in USAF markings is pretty remote anyway

Edited December 20, 2015 by Slater

[mhaselden]

Two aspects need to be considered, survivability of an aircraft with a single engine vs two (this is the biggest criticism by the Canadians), and the fact that the aircraft is still slow and cumbersome I an ACM environment. I have a close relative at USAFA and the word from instructors in the know is that officially the F-35 is the best fighter since the F-15, but unofficially the F-35 is too heavy and underpowered. This is not a platform that can go vertical out of ground effect like the F-16 and F-15, and the pilots have very strict performance envelopes they are orders to operate the aircraft within. If you have ever seen the F-35 fly, the acceleration is slow and when fully combat loaded the required amount of runway is excessive. The word is that the instructors at USAFA who have flown the F-35 have a very low opinion of the platform, thusly none of the cadets really want to fly the F-35. In the past the Air Force, as well as the Navy, had a policy of buy it first then fix it. Not only is the F-35 exceptionally expensive but any upgrades that will make the aircraft up to date will cost billions of dollars and not address the the biggest problem, thrust to weight. Regardless, even though this may seem nothing but here say, I will take the word of the USAFA instructors over anything put forward by the generals and Lockheed. The cadets have already been told that we will be at war with Russia within the next 5 years, this has nothing to do with politics (the real politics surrounding this platform are in Washington and the Pentagon) it is just political reality. I personally believe that we will be going at it with China and Russia, classic triangulation. The bottom line is that the F-35 is the wrong plane at a dangerously wrong time. This is only my opinion based on what I consider reliable information, no politics intended at anytime, but let's face it, it is a very political situation that surrounds this airplane regardless.

Cheers

There have been a number of responses to this post but I have a couple of additional observations to make:

1. Since the F-35 has a thrust-to-weight ratio of greater than 1.0 for some load configurations, I think it highly likely that we will see airshow performances where F-35s go vertical out of ground effect, just like the F-16 and F-15. Such departures are of zero use operationally and are purely an airshow gimmick.
2. I'd love to see how anyone can visually detect that the acceleration is low just by watching the aircraft flying. If you can do that, you're a better man than me.
3. It is hardly surprising former-F-35 pilots (now AFA instructors) report being constricted in ACM because F-35 only secured full performance release in 2015 with the flight trials done on airframe AF2 to expand the performance envelope to full AoA (as per the oft-misrepresented trial involving the F-16). This is not a defect in the aircraft - it was done per the ongoing Test and Evaluation programme. It should also be noted that restrictions on ACM are imposed for a range of reasons. When the F-15Es first deployed to the UK, they were banned from conducting ACM because the crews were still getting used to the very complex, and multi-layered, cockpit displays.
4. Whatever the aircraft's performance, it was designed and built to meet customer requirements. These are derived from platform CONOPS and mission profiles. Therefore, while the F-35 may not be as good as some platforms in some areas, it must meet enough of the key performance requirements to be accepted into service.
5. Based on the AoA trials, it seems that there is capacity for additional performance that can be wrung out of the airframe through tweaks to flight and engine control software. Such modifications will not "cost billions". I would also be interested in learning what modifications are needed to bring the aircraft "up to date"? It already possesses a more comprehensive sensor suite than any other aircraft in service, including sensors that are typically bolt-on additions to other platforms (and which often take up weapon pylons) such as targeting pods).
6. AFA is not involved in policy making, nor is it involved directly in the F-35 programme. It's a university. Thus any opinions about when the US might go to war with Russia and/or China are nothing more than speculation on the part of the individuals involved. As noted in my previous posts, I see plenty of risk of accidental confrontations between US and Russian forces...and that could get ugly, but I truly hope calmer heads prevail at all levels of command.

[Bordfunker]

Fair point, well presented but you get my point

So two engines bad then ?

Not at all, just bad when they share a single point of failure!

Karl

[PLC1966]

Not at all, just bad when they share a single point of failure!

Karl

Remember the days in the fairly recent past when only four engined passenger jets came across the Atlantic because two engined aircraft were not considered safe enough ? Things move on.

[PLC1966]

Besides, the chances of Gripen E in USAF markings is pretty remote anyway

Gripen in a retro Vietnam Era Camo scheme, very nice.

[Slater]

In an alternate reality, F-35 is binned and the USAF orders 650 Gripen E's. Everyone at SAAB and BAE gets to drink heavily for free on the day of contract award.

[Nigel Foster60]

And Sea Gripen for the USN and USMC?

Nigel

[upnorth]

Remember the days in the fairly recent past when only four engined passenger jets came across the Atlantic because two engined aircraft were not considered safe enough ? Things move on.

This! +1

I don't understand how someone can look at the latest example of a particular technology and usher up arguments that suggest that the various components within the whole have not experienced a similar degree of advancement. It's very old school thinking that hinders progress.

The arguement that a fighter MUST have two engines in this day and age shows a great deal of ignorance for how far engine technology has come since the 1980s, when that argument could still hold some water. The current generation of engines are a lot more dependable than some care to believe.

It's a similar case listening to someone today use old arguments to justify manual transmissions over automatic ones in cars these days. I don't drive often, but the last time I did (less than a year ago) it was in a rental car with an automatic transmission. The car was less than five years old and the experience was enough to convince me that automatic transmission technology has come a long way since the last time I drove a car of that sort a decade or so before.

Every argument you can create against a certain technology loses its validity if that technology is supported allowed to develop to potential.

For what I know of the F-35, I just don't understand where a lot of the arguments against it find ground to stand on.

Its sensor suite and associated countermeasures provide an unprecedented degree of coverage for the aircraft and situational awareness for the pilot. It will take an equally advanced air defence system to take an F-35 down.

A smaller weapon load is not exactly a disadvantage if it can plant the weapons it does have on target with greater accuracy.

As for comparisons to the A-10, which some people are wont to make; that's about as groundless as comparissons folks used to try to make between the F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Hornet. Two different aircraft from two different generations designed around different tactical philosophies that reflected changing times.

I always likened the F-14 to a meat cleaver and the Hornet to a Swiss army knife. One was a specialist tool designed to do one job to excellence above all others while the other was designed to be a swing role generalist that could do mulitple things in one mission.

The meat cleaver that is the A-10 and the Swiss army knife that the F-35 will certainly be, mirrors the old F-14 to F/A-18 comparisons quite well and makes as little sense.

Edited December 24, 2015 by upnorth

[Dennis_C]

Strange that while discussing single vs twin-engined aircraft, Gripen example is not mentioned. Gripen's commercial success is based among othr things on its lower cost that is achieved primarily through one-engine design. Compare that to the 'success' of twin-engined Rafael and Typhoon.

So it seems that having just a single engine is not really a problem in the today's world anymore.

[upnorth]

Strange that while discussing single vs twin-engined aircraft, Gripen example is not mentioned. Gripen's commercial success is based among othr things on its lower cost that is achieved primarily through one-engine design. Compare that to the 'success' of twin-engined Rafael and Typhoon.

So it seems that having just a single engine is not really a problem in the today's world anymore.

The relative success of the Gripen to the Rafale and Typhoon was more up to the Gripen's earlier availability and consequent jump start on further development based on in service experience. That there was also the option to lease the Gripen rather than buy it outright, made it attractive to nations with possibly a bit less money to put toward a full support structure for the aircraft; if you look at the countries using the Gripen, they are mostly small geographically and can be covered easily by a smaller machine like the Gripen. Weapons flexibility was also another point in the Gripen's favour.

The one thing holding the Rafale back as far as export sales go is its lack of flexibility to anything but French weapons and systems. You can't just buy a fleet of Rafales and hang any weapons on them, you have to buy French gear for it. That's just France shooting itself in the foot with its own nationalism.

As for the Typhoon, that's really just been a case of too many cooks stirring the proverbial pot. Number of engines aside, the Typhoon is a big joint project that suffered big delays and saw big price increases in the process of getting to service. I suspect any potential customers it had got scared off somewhere along the line. Not at all unlike the Tornado that went before it.

[Giorgio N]

The whole matter of 1 Vs. 2 engines for the F-35 honestly sounds like some attempt at finding a fault in an aircraft where the same fault is conveniently forgotten in a whole load of other types...

The choice of 1 or 2 engines has rarely had anything to do with the search for reliability and/or survivability, historically the need for 2 engines was simply to have the thrust required, no more no less. Even if we look at naval aircrafts, all two-engined types would have never been able to provide the required performances with a single engine and on the other hand there's a long history of single-engined naval aircrafts operating with success (F-8, A-7 and A-4 for example).

It's funny how a lot of criticism now seems to be pointed at the F-35 for having one engine only while many propose a return to the Harrier, an aircraft that if I remember right has one single engine too. The same Harrier not only has one engine but always had an accident rate much higher compared to other contemporary aircrafts. So much for wanting maximum reliability in a combat zone...

[heloman1]

That's the problem, it's gone too far to cancell. Just imagine all those people in America and elswhere out of work just because it's way over budget, don't do the job it might have been intended to do.. Then look again at Tronado., MRCA, 'Military Requirements Come Afterwards' it still don't do the job...

Sorry I hope it succeeds, some how it has to.

Colin

[steelpillow]

All these questions - number of engines, survivability, combat capability, air force vs, navy, etc., etc. were all being discussed to death in 1910, four years before anybody could possibly know what they were talking about. Looking back over the present discussion, I am minded of that old French proverb, "plus ça change, plus ç'est la mème chose" - or, in the words of Al Stewart (remember bedsit folk, anybody?), "The more it changes, the more it stays the same."

Edited December 27, 2015 by steelpillow

[Troffa]

OK, I'll bite- I'm intrigued to know what job the "Tronado" still isn't doing- as I would posit that it has done most of them very well over the past 25 years or so.

[-Neu-]

All these questions - number of engines, survivability, combat capability, air force vs, navy, etc., etc. were all being discussed to death in 1910, four years before anybody could possibly know what they were talking about. Looking back over the present discussion, I am minded of that old French proverb, "plus ça change, plus ç'est la mème chose" - or, in the words of Al Stewart (remember bedsit folk, anybody?), "The more it changes, the more it stays the same."

Hey.

I'd like to unpack your statement a bit, because on some level, I generally dislike some of the ways it addresses how we deal with doctrinal and technological change. It ignores that we are currently employing these technologies on present day battlefields while testing them against predicted adversary capabilities, or that militaries have correctly predicted a potential battlefield in history. On the latter I can just as easily point out counterintuitive example: The Soviet Union in the 1930s had conceptualized a way of war and equipped its armies to fight it. The concept of a deep battle and operational maneuver would be the hallmark of their operations throughout the war. They developed a wide range of equipment to meet their needs: SVT-40, T-34/KV-1, Katayusha, M-30, the Il-2, Yak series, Lagg series, the IL-2 and Pe-2.

Certainly there were limitations: the army was still in transformation when Barbarossa was launched, and German soldiers were better trained and led than their Russian Counterparts. However the Soviets had arguably better predicted the future battlefield than any of the great powers, and it was instrumental in their final victory.

Returning to present day, I've personally watched the development of battlefield networking over the past 15 years, and its effect has been groundbreaking. We've seen decision making cycles that used to take days in the 1990s shrunk down to minutes, if not seconds. And no system currently in development or service today reflects that view more than the F-35. I'm reminded of a comment made by Major Berke in the video I posted earlier. To paraphrase, despite the fact the F-22 is probably the most maneuverable and survivable aircraft by previous metrics, that's actually its least impressive feature to him (and he flew it for two years). This aircraft has a legitimate electronic attack capability, and brings the military into the 21st century when it comes to logistics capabilities.

In an earlier post you suggested that the balance of keeping a project classified is a reason why people don't understand these capabilities. I don't agree with that. The broad contours of what we are trying to do are easy to discern and understand if one actually goes and looks for the information. The Deep Battle theories of Tuckhacheveky were espoused in various field manuals and other documents in the 1930s. I've posted this video perhaps three times, and I really wonder how many people have actually watched it:

It isn't a comprehensive discussion, but its a good primer on it, as it very clearly explains from an operator's perspective how this aircraft changes their view of the battlespace. The problem is that people I think fall back on the stereotypes of how they think war should be fought, applying concepts that we put to rest back in the 1970s. This thread is replete with them: VIFFing, single engines are unreliable, the need for speeds above mach 1.6, the requirement to carry more than 4,000lbs of bombs, ect.

As a final note, I agree, that there is always the tendency to look to the last war and trying to fight it. I'm not saying that we can prove or disprove whether something will be successful beyond any doubt: of course we can't. However there is a fair bit that we currently do know and we can apply. The reality is that most fighters we currently talk about (The Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale ect.) are truly a generation behind developments in other armed services branches that are currently being used in the field today.

[Giorgio N]

As a final note, I agree, that there is always the tendency to look to the last war and trying to fight it. I'm not saying that we can prove or disprove whether something will be successful beyond any doubt: of course we can't. However there is a fair bit that we currently do know and we can apply. The reality is that most fighters we currently talk about (The Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale ect.) are truly a generation behind developments in other armed services branches that are currently being used in the field today.

It's often said that generals are always preparing to fight the last war rather than the next one. In this case though the "generals" are actually looking at ways to fight future wars while many enthusiasts seem to be stuck not even with the last war but with wars from 30 years ago...

[Slater]

Well, maybe the USMC will get some F-35B's in action over Syria or Iraq and they can showcase their capabilities.

[Knight_Flyer]

The one thing holding the Rafale back as far as export sales go is its lack of flexibility to anything but French weapons and systems. You can't just buy a fleet of Rafales and hang any weapons on them, you have to buy French gear for it. That's just France shooting itself in the foot with its own nationalism.

Probably although I'm not sure if France at the time had plans to export the plane. Seem to recall the French were supposed to be part of the Eurofighter program and decided to do their own because they were unhappy with the way things were progressing for their own requirements.

[Nachtwulf]

Took me awhile but I went through this whole thread and found it interesting and enlightening. Thank you to all who contributed!

[mhaselden]

It's often said that generals are always preparing to fight the last war rather than the next one. In this case though the "generals" are actually looking at ways to fight future wars while many enthusiasts seem to be stuck not even with the last war but with wars from 30 years ago...

I've seen numerous comments on modelling forums and elsewhere on the internet indicating that the F-35 is being foisted on aircrew by generals who don't understand modern combat operations. It's abundantly clear that the people making those remarks haven't met many modern general officers. In my experience, general officers are very attuned to operational and tactical needs, and are fully conversant with the technologies being proposed and implemented.

[steelpillow]

One might have hoped that was one of the advantages back in 1910, there were no past air wars to warp their thinking. However HG Wells' widely-discussed novel The War in the Air highlighted a then-current vision of a vast Zeppelin bomber fleet laying waste to enemy cities, followed by troop-carriers to land an invading army. When the bomber menace actually materialised in a small way, the British were soon able to counter it. Nevertheless, Wells was mistaken in assuming that Zeppelins were cheap to manufacture and his grand vision was wholly impractical.

OTOH there are valuable lessons to be learned from the past. perhaps the most widely-cited example was the British forgetting of the German flight unit of two pairs in loose formation - the "finger-four".

In recent years we have seen the massed drone attack menace in the form both of cruise missiles, with human-controlled ground-attack drones like Reaper beginning also to multiplying rapidly. While a robotic land army is still in the indeterminate future, drone-on-drone air combat cannot be that many years away (surely during the operational lifetime of the F-35). I wonder whether the finger-four will stand the test in a drone-dominated airspace.

Edited December 30, 2015 by steelpillow