Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
MarkW

F-35 news roundup

Recommended Posts

I dont know about doom and gloom, but I think the F-35 is essentially a Stealth fighter upgrade with BVR Air to Air capability, I think the F-16 and F-22 had much better abilities. I don't understand why they destroyed the Raptor tooling? All those who think maneuverability is unnecessary for a BVR fight, watch the video the F-16 trying to outmaneuver SAMs, dogfighting and maneuvering aren't dead yet

Excellent points.

It's been proven time and time again over the last 60+ years that close-in dogfighting is as important today as it was during the Korean war and onward.

IMHO; I wish the USAF would have acquired at least twice as many F-22s than what they actually ended up with.

I am grateful that they developed a gun pod for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps F-35s so they at least have a gun option. Unlike the Navy/Marine Corps F-4s in Vietnam War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may well be dogfights but they are going to be rare and will be different as it is. HOBS missiles, cooperative engagement, thrust vectoring, low observable aircraft etc basically ensure that it's going to be like Comparing waterloo infantry tactics to fallajah infantry tactics. If you can be shot or shoot from nearly any aspect suddenly maneuvering to the 6 becomes pointless or perilous.

what made the F-22 different suggests how the F-35 is different.

The F-22 is a very fast and maneuverable aircraft, but that is not where it excels.

It is an information dominant aircraft, a characteristic that the F-35 takes to another level.

“The F-22 is the fastest, the most powerful fighter ever built.

The least impressive thing about the Raptor is how fast it is, and it is really fast.

The least impressive thing about the Raptor is its speed and maneuverability.

It is its ability to master the battlespace is where it is most impressive.”

Rather than focus on speed is life and more is better, the Raptor has started the rupture in air combat whereby information dominance in the battlespace is the key discriminator.

--LT. Col. "Chip" Berke USMC. F-18, F-16, F-22, F-35 pilot.

Also no one destroyed the F-22 tooling it's been Stored and can be put back into operation if money is no object or if push comes to that much shove.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know about doom and gloom, but I think the F-35 is essentially a Stealth fighter upgrade with BVR Air to Air capability,

There is more to the F-35 than that, a lot more. and the F-35 will be at or near (in some cases better than F-16) in terms of kinematics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unnamed test pilot = Drastically over exaggerate and/or fabricate what really happened dry.gifBANGHEAD2.jpg .

Only the spirit of attack borne in a brave heart will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.

— General Adolf Galland

...or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Picard FacePalm times eleventy....You've got to be kidding me. When is this dogshit platform going to be killed?

It's not, because lucky for all us the people running the program are far smarter than you, and even the people not running the program are smart enough to know that war is boring is agenda driven punk journalism at its finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not, because lucky for all us the people running the program are far smarter than you, and even the people not running the program are smart enough to know that war is boring is agenda driven punk journalism at its finest.

What's the agenda and why is it punk journalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they had built the F-35 along side F-16 and F-15 silent eagle wand more Raptors, we waste so much on social programs when we need more aircraft for me to model

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the F-35 will be at or near (in some cases better than F-16) in terms of kinematics.

Where do you get that info from? I've never seen anything officially released that would support this statement, just snippets and somewhat vague PR releases that would seem to be just as dependable or undependable as the War is Boring article.

Granted WoB does have an anti-JSF agenda but assuming the report they have is the real deal (obviously a big if), not being able to outmaneuver an F-16 fitted with two external tanks is just a bit worrisome, is it not? Previously when this subject came up, the JSF proponents said something to the effect that the F-35's saving grace was that it could carry all it's weapons internally whilst it's opponent would be burdened with draggy external tanks, weapons, etc. This would result in a more level playing field, on which JSF would then have the upper hand.

If this report is correct, the F-35 in question was externally clean and had no internal weapons, so it was pretty much in optimum dog-fighting configuration, while the F-16 was a D-model (heavier than the C), with two external tanks. About as favorable of a scenario for the F-35 as you could probably get and yet the JSF still seemed to be sub-par.

Although as mentioned previously, the whole dog-fighting / maneuverability thing now seems to be passe so this entire controversy is somewhat moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the agenda and why is it punk journalism?

They have a book to sell. They have previously d*cked with numbers in the past too. When an F-22 crashed War is Boring took all kinds of liberties to declare "The USAF just lost a 600 million dollar F-22" or something like that and the only way to arrive at those numbers is to include a lot of BS.

This is a carefully parsed article on a 5 page report, with unnamed sources?

What would you think if someone obviously biased against something got a report they didn't show from sources they won't identify that shockingly included zero context and carefully selected quotes along with lots of negative adjectives??

BRB, off to Facebook to hear about POTUS "Secret speech" from an "unnamed source"

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you get that info from? I've never seen anything officially released that would support this statement, just snippets and somewhat vague PR releases that would seem to be just as dependable or undependable as the War is Boring article.

Granted WoB does have an anti-JSF agenda but assuming the report they have is the real deal (obviously a big if), not being able to outmaneuver an F-16 fitted with two external tanks is just a bit worrisome, is it not? Previously when this subject came up, the JSF proponents said something to the effect that the F-35's saving grace was that it could carry all it's weapons internally whilst it's opponent would be burdened with draggy external tanks, weapons, etc. This would result in a more level playing field, on which JSF would then have the upper hand.

If this report is correct, the F-35 in question was externally clean and had no internal weapons, so it was pretty much in optimum dog-fighting configuration, while the F-16 was a D-model (heavier than the C), with two external tanks. About as favorable of a scenario for the F-35 as you could probably get and yet the JSF still seemed to be sub-par.

Although as mentioned previously, the whole dog-fighting / maneuverability thing now seems to be passe so this entire controversy is somewhat moot.

Multiple test pilots have equated it to F-16. F-35 has better Alpha though. It's been tested Officially to 9.9 G, and 110 degress AoA officially as well. All the way back in 2011 for the Gs in fact. for some context A Rhino can pull 7.6 G BTW.

I am waiting to read the report myself, and find out rather than get the Axe version. Maybe the report was 5 pages because it needed to be 5 pages and not the abbreviated version. This is click bait.

This is now a very familiar song and dance. Journalist writes something more akin to an editorial, almost always from unnamed sources, internet goes wild, and then a few days later the US military/Government respond, along with LM, and a bunch of people who actually do this stuff for a living add some context and then it basically disappears other than when someone wants to bring it up in an internet debate and they link to it as definitive "proof" that things havn't evolved and the 1970s are the way to go.

Is this any different than any of the nasty early reports we heard about the super hornet? I'm being serious. The "we outflew them out ran them and ran them out of gas, I was embarrassed for them" quote? Remember when the old bug was beating the new bug?

Though the deception worked, the new aircraft - the Super Hornet - does not. Because it was never prototyped - at the Navy's insistence - its faults were not evident until production aircraft rolled out of the factory. Among the problems the aircraft experienced was the publicized phenomenon of "wing drop" - a spurious, uncommanded roll, which occurred in the heart of the air craft's performance envelope. After a great deal of negative press, the Super Hornet team devised a "band-aid" fix that mitigated the problem at the expense of performance tradeoffs in other regimes of flight. Regardless, the redesigned wing is a mish-mash of aerodynamic compromises which does nothing well. And the Super Hornet's wing drop problem is minor compared to other shortfalls. First, the aircraft is slow -- slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s. In that one of the most oft- uttered maxims of the fighter pilot fraternity is that "Speed is Life", this deficiency is alarming.

But the Super Hornet's wheezing performance against the speed clock isn't its only flaw. If speed is indeed life, than maneuverability is the reason that life is worth living for the fighter pilot. In a dog fight, superior maneuverability allows a pilot to bring his weapons to bear against the enemy. With its heavy, aerodynamically compromised airframe, and inadequate engines, the Super Hornet won't win many dogfights. Indeed, it can be outmaneuvered by nearly every front-line fighter fielded today.

"But the Super Hornet isn't just a fighter", its proponents will counter, "it is a bomber as well". True, the new aircraft carries more bombs than the current F/A-18 - but not dramatically more, or dramatically further. The engineering can be studied, but the laws of physics don't change for anyone - certainly not the Navy. From the beginning, the aircraft was incapable of doing what the Navy wanted. And they knew it.

The Navy doesn't appear to be worried about the performance shortfalls of the Super Hornet. The aircraft is supposed to be so full of technological wizardry that the enemy will be overwhelmed by its superior weapons. That is the same argument that was used prior to the Vietnam War. This logic fell flat when our large, expensive fighters - the most sophisticated in the world - started falling to peasants flying simple aircraft designed during the Korean conflict.

---The Navy's super fighter is a super failure

By JAY A. STOUT

The Virginian-Pilot,

December 15, 1999

And so it goes.

Lastly there is already talk of relaxing some of the F-35 flight control laws and of course it's still in development!!! The point of the test was to TEST:

“When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010.

The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

There are going to be tens of thousands of training dogfights in the F-35s future, I'm sure. and just like the Rhino, its not where you start but where you finish. Also note where it says "first" dogfight. Implying there have been more.

I wish they had built the F-35 along side F-16 and F-15 silent eagle wand more Raptors, we waste so much on social programs when we need more aircraft for me to model

Its going to take years and years for the F-35 to fully replace the F-16, so they will be alongside each other for a awhile. The F-15SE is a dead end.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a book to sell. They have previously d*cked with numbers in the past too. When an F-22 crashed War is Boring took all kinds of liberties to declare "The USAF just lost a 600 million dollar F-22" or something like that and the only way to arrive at those numbers is to include a lot of BS.

This is a carefully parsed article on a 5 page report, with unnamed sources?

What would you think if someone obviously biased against something got a report they didn't show from sources they won't identify that shockingly included zero context and carefully selected quotes along with lots of negative adjectives??

BRB, off to Facebook to hear about POTUS "Secret speech" from an "unnamed source"

He didn't reference the book nor pitch it in anyway. Attacking the substance is one thing, but just going straight to the author or the medium (pun intended) they use don't fly. If I were to quit reading articles from unnamed sources with little context and selected quotes I may as well just quit reading most of what comes out of the beltway. I'm not a fan of David Axe articles and his click bait style journalism, but if he makes a point then he makes a point. Agree or disagree how you come up with a $600 million dollar aircraft is the same way you come up with a one million dollar grunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't reference the book nor pitch it in anyway. Attacking the substance is one thing, but just going straight to the author or the medium (pun intended) they use don't fly. If I were to quit reading articles from unnamed sources with little context and selected quotes I may as well just quit reading most of what comes out of the beltway. I'm not a fan of David Axe articles and his click bait style journalism, but if he makes a point then he makes a point. Agree or disagree how you come up with a $600 million dollar aircraft is the same way you come up with a one million dollar grunt.

The books is routinely pitched all over the site, including links to other site links thus driving traffic. Combine this with lack of journalistic standards.

His F-22 cost included lifetime costs for an airplane that had crashed. I know it's crazy but I don't think they water the wreckage with fuel and spare parts for decades

I want to see this report myself. But that wasn't included. (How strange)

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is now a very familiar song and dance. Journalist writes something more akin to an editorial, almost always from unnamed sources, internet goes wild, and then a few days later the US military/Government respond, along with LM, and a bunch of people who actually do this stuff for a living add some context and then it basically disappears other than when someone wants to bring it up in an internet debate and they link to it as definitive "proof" that things havn't evolved and the 1970s are the way to go.

Is this any different than any of the nasty early reports we heard about the super hornet? I'm being serious. The "we outflew them out ran them and ran them out of gas, I was embarrassed for them" quote? Remember when the old bug was beating the new bug?

---The Navy's super fighter is a super failure

By JAY A. STOUT

The Virginian-Pilot,

December 15, 1999

Didn't we already have this media discussion a few months ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the report the test was initiated in January of 2015. Weren't all F-35's put into limited maneuvers and not able to go over even a certain amount of flight hours per day because of the engine problems 3 flight hours per day if I am correct. If I recall they were limited to something like 3 G's as well and nothing past like 75% power output. If that is the case and this test happened with these circumstances then no wonder why the F-35 couldn't hack it. Just seems to me like a bunch of Jargon. And as TT stated Click Bait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that the United States, at this point, would produce a lemon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that the United States, at this point, would produce a lemon.

Have you not been following the news since 1-20-1960?---John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that the United States, at this point, would produce a lemon.

76cSCchvt11.jpg

1971-ford-pinto_100350093_m.jpg

large_yW0NihzYEcQkETaIfQyEqv3vKRF.jpg

stories-04-02.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they had built the F-35 along side F-16 and F-15 silent eagle wand more Raptors, we waste so much on social programs when we need more aircraft for me to model

Here I was thinking your first post was troll bait, and here you redeem yourself above all others. Seriously, what is the point if we don't get cool models out of any of this crap?!

Is this any different than any of the nasty early reports we heard about the super hornet? I'm being serious. The "we outflew them out ran them and ran them out of gas, I was embarrassed for them" quote? Remember when the old bug was beating the new bug?

While David Axe is an agenda driven hack, no argument there, the above WAS true and still IS true today. The StuporHornet is inferior kinematically to the legacy Hornets. It is a drag queen, and needs to hit tankers on go-arounds. This is not debatable.

Edited by MarkW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...