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

[mhaselden]

IOC doesn't mean it can undertake sustained combat missions but it does mean it can be put in harms way - sheer lack of numbers could prevent true sustained operations. If the USMC wasn't confident it could do that, then they shouldn't have declared IOC.

The negative press has been no better than your view of L-M. They push a constant stream of bad news, often recycling a years-old Rand report and not factoring in true accomplishments since then. A couple of recent classics included the nonsense about the ejector seat not being suitable for particularly light pilots, and the "can't dogfight an F-16" AoA trial.

I think we'd all benefit from some more balanced reporting rather than the highly polarized stuff we're getting at present.

[Truro Model Builder]

IOC doesn't mean it can undertake sustained combat missions but it does mean it can be put in harms way - sheer lack of numbers could prevent true sustained operations. If the USMC wasn't confident it could do that, then they shouldn't have declared IOC.

The negative press has been no better than your view of L-M. They push a constant stream of bad news, often recycling a years-old Rand report and not factoring in true accomplishments since then. A couple of recent classics included the nonsense about the ejector seat not being suitable for particularly light pilots, and the "can't dogfight an F-16" AoA trial.

I think we'd all benefit from some more balanced reporting rather than the highly polarized stuff we're getting at present.

And the point about blaming L-M for costs?

[Alan P]

Really have you got a video of the F-35 doing combat manoeuvre's ?, as so far apart from some interesting angle of attack profiles I haven't yet seen it even match the Tornado F-3 for moves so far.

How much can you tell from a flight video about sensor integration, data transfer rates, situational awareness, electronic identification, weapon targeting, battlefield dominance, other joint force asset integration, engagement ranges and so on, and on? Once again, like many F-35 critics, this approach completely fails to understand the metrics involved in evaluating 5th gen capabilities.

You are in effect trying to unfavourably compare a 2015 iPad with a 1996 Windows 95 PC on the basis that the PC makes a better paperweight. It's not really any comparison at all, using a dated and irrelevant metric.

[mhaselden]

And the point about blaming L-M for costs?

I was extrapolating, and clearly going too far. Sorry...but the general tenor of so many posts in this thread is that L-M is the blood-sucking contractor and is responsible for this over-priced, overdue and under-performing capability. However, I shouldn't have applied it to your particular post.

Frankly, I tend to follow the comments from the operational users more than anything. That's where, IMHO, we'll get more accurate commentary on the aircraft's performance.

[bentwaters81tfw]

How much can you tell from a flight video about sensor integration, data transfer rates, situational awareness, electronic identification, weapon targeting, battlefield dominance, other joint force asset integration, engagement ranges and so on, and on? Once again, like many F-35 critics, this approach completely fails to understand the metrics involved in evaluating 5th gen capabilities.

Then again AWACS and JSTARS are supposed to be able to handle these, without delivering weapons. The last time I looked, the F-35 was referred to as the Joint Strike FIGHTER. From your description, it's a flying data processor, whereas it also has to be proficient in turning and burning combat to be classed as a fighter. If it can't, and e/a will find ways to circumvent it's clever features, it could well be vulnerable.

[Alan P]

No-one has suggested that the F-35 is invulnerable. And please could you link to your chosen definition of "fighter". It would be very illuminating. As I said, time and again, every time the debate arises, (and yes, you should ask why haven't I learned to walk on by and let the aviation dinosaur echo chamber operate without my input), apply the wrong metric indiscriminately and you can make the F-35 sound inferior to a Sopwith Camel.

So carry on, chaps.

[mhaselden]

Then again AWACS and JSTARS are supposed to be able to handle these, without delivering weapons. The last time I looked, the F-35 was referred to as the Joint Strike FIGHTER. From your description, it's a flying data processor, whereas it also has to be proficient in turning and burning combat to be classed as a fighter. If it can't, and e/a will find ways to circumvent it's clever features, it could well be vulnerable.

'Fraid the view that AWACS and JSTARS are the assets to handle data is rather last century. Every platform with a sensor is now contributing to the shared situational awareness, including fighters. One specific example is a cooperative engagement, with one fighter illuminating and other players being silent shooters. Being able to do that using multiple onboard sensors, and having all those data feeds fused with data from the offboard sensors you cite (and others) is what makes F-35 such a game-changer.

[Mike]

A friendly reminder from your Moderating team to keep it civil, avoid casting aspersions on each other's sanity or IQ.... thank you

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

Just a random thought. Why can't we do what the Russians did with the Kuznetsov? I'm referring to the large ski ramp that enabled it to deploy Flankers, surely it wouldn't be beyond the realms of sanity and finance to equip the new RN carriers in the same fashion and have them use the regular non STVOL F-35 instead? Surely that would be a better way forward.

thanks

Mike

[mhaselden]

A friendly reminder from your Moderating team to keep it civil, avoid casting aspersions on each other's sanity or IQ.... thank you

Thanks for the reminder Mike. My comment about AWACS and JSTARS was sailing too close to the wind.

The point I was trying to make (but was doing it badly) is that the modern battlespace is far more complex than ever before. The US Army has a concept of "every soldier a sensor" which literally means that every pair of eyes and every sensor that soldiers carry or operate, needs to contribute to the wider shared situational awareness picture to ensure optimal decision-making. The same is true in the air environment. The F-35 is the first multi-role combat aircraft specifically designed to operate in this new world of fused SA. In the past, we relied on the human to fuse disparate data which is challenging to do in 3 dimensions and, ultimately, people run out of capacity to do that while flying many modern fighters. The F-35 is supposed to provide better processing and data fusion than ever before, thereby enabling far more effective engagement of air and ground targets...and to do so in a stealthier form factor which should allow greater freedom of manoeuvre or, if nothing else, gain a second or two's advantage in combat...and often that's the difference between victory or being a smoking hole in the ground.

[Moggy]

Any example of these types deemed as failures that entered service because of the economical impact ?

The Supermarine Swift? The F3D-1 Demon? The F4U Cutlass? And I'm keeping to the late '50... ;-)

Cheers, Moggy

[Dermo245]

I'm really enjoying reading this thread and debate. I'm also waiting on someone to bring up Pierre Sprey....

Dermot

[Giorgio N]

The Supermarine Swift? The F3D-1 Demon? The F4U Cutlass? And I'm keeping to the late '50... ;-)

Cheers, Moggy

None of these 3 types entered service because of financial reasons though, that is what was originally suggested. All 3 were pretty poor designs that however had some sort "good" feature that made them useful in that moment

The Swift: designed as an insurance in case the Hunter proved unseccesful... Now I always struggled to understand why the RAF did not trust Hawker considering that they had already designed jet fighters and also swept wing ones. In any case the Swift was built and entered service and then a role had to be found for the type. I wonder if too many RAF officers were too sentimental because of the Supermarine name attached to this type..

The Demon: never managed to fulfil its potential for a number of reasons, the engine being the first. In any case it gave the USN an interceptor with a decently powerful radar and pioneered the use of guided missiles. It made some sense as a complement to other lighter fighter types

The Cutlass: a very ambitious project, could have given the USN a very advanced fighter but failed. Really entered service in small numbers, a fate common to other types in those years. But again, it wasn't adopted to justify the investments made but only because in those days the USN seemed to adopt pretty much everything (what about the Pirate for example).

As you mentioned the Demon and the Cutlass, I may add the F11F Tiger and a few other USN types (Pirate, A2D, even the Skyray probably). All these were transition types, it's not that thet were adopted because too much money had been spent on them. None of them was a particularly good aircraft (really the only good USN types were probably the Panther/Cougar and the Crusader before the Phantom arrived), but they filled their role somewhat until replaced by better types.

Edited: I should add that the long development time seen on modern combat aircrafts is in part due to the need to avoid failures like the abovementioned types. Clearly today a lot of design work can be made with computers and I doubt that anything as bad as the Swift F.1 may ever take to the air again, at the same time the testing done on every aspect of a new aircraft is much tougher than it was in the '50s. None of the types mentioned would have survived in their original form with today's evaluation approach

Edited November 24, 2015 by Giorgio N

[raptormodeller]

With regard, to everything that's being said. the F-35 WAS designed as an aircraft that could STILL be an up to date and potent weapon, even 60 years after entering service. And from that mind-set you COULD say that LM and other sub-contractors have done a pretty good job integrating modern, even futuristic tech in the turkey. I think that these costs are among other things due to the LM design team thinking too far ahead in the time frame (the 263K helmet is an example) .

[Alan P]

A friendly reminder from your Moderating team to keep it civil, avoid casting aspersions on each other's sanity or IQ.... thank you

Sorry mods, and sorry Mr Bentwaters and Rich G mea culpa

Al

[Duncan B]

I suspect that in 35 years time the residents of BM will be dissecting and wishing ill of the F35's replacement and wishing the F35 (proven wonder beast that it has become) could fly on forever. Such is the way of aviation advances versus aviation enthusiasts.

Duncan B (still mourning the passing of the Fabulous Phantom)

[Dermo245]

None of these 3 types entered service because of financial reasons though, that is what was originally suggested. All 3 were pretty poor designs that however had some sort "good" feature that made them useful in that moment

The Swift: designed as an insurance in case the Hunter proved unseccesful... Now I always struggled to understand why the RAF did not trust Hawker considering that they had already designed jet fighters and also swept wing ones. In any case the Swift was built and entered service and then a role had to be found for the type. I wonder if too many RAF officers were too sentimental because of the Supermarine name attached to this type..

The Demon: never managed to fulfil its potential for a number of reasons, the engine being the first. In any case it gave the USN an interceptor with a decently powerful radar and pioneered the use of guided missiles. It made some sense as a complement to other lighter fighter types

The Cutlass: a very ambitious project, could have given the USN a very advanced fighter but failed. Really entered service in small numbers, a fate common to other types in those years. But again, it wasn't adopted to justify the investments made but only because in those days the USN seemed to adopt pretty much everything (what about the Pirate for example).

As you mentioned the Demon and the Cutlass, I may add the F11F Tiger and a few other USN types (Pirate, A2D, even the Skyray probably). All these were transition types, it's not that thet were adopted because too much money had been spent on them. None of them was a particularly good aircraft (really the only good USN types were probably the Panther/Cougar and the Crusader before the Phantom arrived), but they filled their role somewhat until replaced by better types.

Edited: I should add that the long development time seen on modern combat aircrafts is in part due to the need to avoid failures like the abovementioned types. Clearly today a lot of design work can be made with computers and I doubt that anything as bad as the Swift F.1 may ever take to the air again, at the same time the testing done on every aspect of a new aircraft is much tougher than it was in the '50s. None of the types mentioned would have survived in their original form with today's evaluation approach

Sorry if this is off topic or answered elsewhere but if the Swift was so bad, why have Airfix produced a kit of it instead of something with a longer UK service life like say, an RAF/RN Phantom?

(Again, not wanting to go off this excellent topic!)

Dermot

[Giorgio N]

Sorry if this is off topic or answered elsewhere but if the Swift was so bad, why have Airfix produced a kit of it instead of something with a longer UK service life like say, an RAF/RN Phantom?

(Again, not wanting to go off this excellent topic!)

Dermot

Guess that they saw a niche for such a product and considered this a better investement than a Phantom. Personally I'm happy they did as kits of the Swift have been quite rare and in any case it is part of the RAF Cold War history. The Phantom is covered by Fujimi with a good kit. In the end what modellers want is not always necessarily what had been succesful as a real aircraft.

Mind, we had a long discussion on the Swift a while ago, the fact that it was "so bad" was debated at length.. talk about controversial aircrafts

[Booty003]

Seeing as we are fully committed to the F-35B (financially and also through carrier design) I, and I would imagine a fair few on here, really do hope that this ugly duckling of an aircraft does come good. As stated, this is an aircraft designed for not only todays battlefield but also the battlefield of the future; wherever that may be..... Time will tell.....

My own personal anger and bewilderment is that our new carriers are hugely limited to aircraft choice due to the lack of CATOBAR features. This is the true failure that I see for our Armed Forces. A comment has already been made that it could be an entire generation before we potentially see a 'proper' aircraft carrier.

Phil

[Knight_Flyer]

Sorry if this is off topic or answered elsewhere but if the Swift was so bad, why have Airfix produced a kit of it instead of something with a longer UK service life like say, an RAF/RN Phantom?

(Again, not wanting to go off this excellent topic!)

Dermot

I would agree with Giorgio's statement

"In the end what modellers want is not always necessarily what had been successful as a real aircraft."

If the kit sells then Airfix will happily produce it. There's still a possibility Airfix could do an RAF/RN Phantom and hopefully they will.

[Av8fan]

Is there a replacement for the AGM-88 that the F-35 can carry internally? I read that the AGM-88 didn't fit internally. Has this changed?

Or will sead by carried out by drones?

IIRC the latest Russian SAM systems outrange the AGM-88. Not good if you have an F-35 carrying the missile externally.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Av8fan

[Rich G]

Following this logic, the RAF in 1936 should have developed only the kind of aircrafts that had been used in combat for the previous 15 years, that is light support types capable of dropping small bombs on lightly armed tribesmen as part of colonial policing operations. And yet for some reason the RAF decided to develop high performance fighters capable of fighting and eventually winning a war against enemies capable of fielding the most advanced possible weapons. In this way when the Luftwaffe attacked they were met by Spitfires and not by Lysanders...

Any type entering service in 2016 will have to be able to fight for at least 30 years. While today's wars are against enemies with no advanced air defence systems, it would be utterly foolish to field types not capable of fighting against the best that any possible enemy could have in the next decade or two.

What I was pointing out was that the types of modern conflict that our nation gets involved in are ones which do not require a stealth capability, if they designed a new aircraft like the Typhoon to fulfill the role that the very expensive F-35 is going to fill a 4.5 generation aircraft would do that perfectly well and most likely cost less.

The US is just in love with Stealth, but it is not the answer to everything.

Rich

[PhantomBigStu]

SEAD will continute to be provided by the F-16CJ and EA-18G, the next gen of missle is just another upgraded AGM88

[Rich G]

Thought I'd highlight the mind-boggling counter-logic of that bold statement as the least egregious of the many misconceptions in that post. "People defend it, so they must know it's a terrible failure". Extraordinary. Perhaps these "apologists" should just be quiet and let the ill-informed misinformation form a false consensus. That way, we'd know they truly believe in the product. Yeah.

As for the latest Defence Review - an admission that scrapping Nimrod was a mistake, followed by an expanded F-35 order. Still doesn't ring any bells? No?

I wish they'd stop pulling all these nails out of the coffin, it's really spoiling the critics' fun.

Look back at the development of the F-22, how many times did it get mentioned that it had underperformed or had a set back as often as the F-35, it was praised throughout development even when it had a software issue and the like. Now when you look at the development of the F-35 it is being defended all the time and is always in the press for some kind of setback or poor performance issue.

That was the point I was making,

Rich

[mhaselden]

Seeing as we are fully committed to the F-35B (financially and also through carrier design) I, and I would imagine a fair few on here, really do hope that this ugly duckling of an aircraft does come good. As stated, this is an aircraft designed for not only todays battlefield but also the battlefield of the future; wherever that may be..... Time will tell.....

My own personal anger and bewilderment is that our new carriers are hugely limited to aircraft choice due to the lack of CATOBAR features. This is the true failure that I see for our Armed Forces. A comment has already been made that it could be an entire generation before we potentially see a 'proper' aircraft carrier.

Phil

Phil,

Don't disagree with your last statement. As noted in one of my previous posts, I think the selection of the F-35B for the UK's needs was a mistake. Too much influence by the Harrier mafia. We should have gone with the C variant.

As for the F-35 being an ugly duckling, can you imagine the beauty critique had Boeing's offering won the JSF contract. In case you can't remember, this was it:

Makes the F-35 look svelte and sexy (IMHO)!