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

F-35 news roundup

Recommended Posts

Not sure it's been posted yet but here is the full report that caused so much angst.

Fulcrum already posted it yesterday. That's been pretty much what's been driving the thread for the past day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lastly comparing it to the F-4 and vietnam is a bit of misnomer. Air to Air practice (in all regimens), and things like Red Flag for example, are still going to go strong in the future. Training, is the difference maker. Acceptance that Air to Air and even dogfighting must remain sharp will ensure that Vietnam is not repeated. A complete lack of practice, training, doctrine etc is what caused the issues in Vietnam, it was not just a matter of having the "wrong" airplane. Take any key military skill, and ignore it and you get the same results no matter the subject. You can't ignore Vietnam no, but you must also acknowledge that you can't ignore the multiple advancements that have happened since.

I agree 100% with this. Things do change and maybe we are finally past the days when maneuverability and speed were a high (or highest) priority in the design of a fighter. My point was that it wouldn't be the first time the experts (no - not the self-proclaimed ones here on ARC, but the real ones who are designing jets) got it wrong.

Like I said before, as long as the rest of the F-35 delivers as advertised, all will truly be well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other Vietnam fact overlooked by those who insist on making the comparison is how crappy that generation of AAMs was compared to today. If Vietnam era AAMs had today's PK, the discussion would be markedly different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Vietnam era AAMs had today's PK, the discussion would be markedly different.

Ok. If I read these comments correctly, maneuverability / top end speed are no longer critical factors because:

- Today's SAM's and AAM's have such incredible end-game maneuverability that nothing a manned aircraft could do would cause a miss. If a modern SAM/AAM manages to defeat an aircraft's countermeasures and maintain it's lock, the procedure for the unfortunate pilot is to keep flying in a straight line, tidy up the cockpit, shut off the lights and then eject before missile impact. No need to turn and run, you'll just die tired.

- Stealth allows you to kill the bad guy before he even knows that you are there, hence there will be no more WVR fighting

- Cutting edge radars and networked sensors allow you to kill the bad guy before he even knows that you are there, hence there will be no more WVR fighting

- Tactics that have taken the last two points into consideration have evolved to the point that WVR fighting will not be required; as a senior AF guy noted a while ago - if an F-35 pilot finds himself in a dogfight, the pilot did something very wrong and deserves to be culled (I'm paraphrasing a bit but hopefully you get the point).

Did I miss anything?

So if all this is true, why are we spending billions to support the F-22 program? A design, I think we all can agree is somewhat optimized for very high speed and eye-watering maneuverability? If nothing else, should we not be looking at some cost saving measures since it's incredible maneuverability is no longer needed? Possibly de-tune the engines to save money on maintenance and fuel? Why would we need supercruise capability? The F-35 has shown us that slow and steady will get the job done. Remove those complex thrust vectoring nozzles, they undoubtedly increase maintenance costs and the benefits they add to the Raptor's performance are unnecessary. Take the savings and use it to fund more F-35's. Or maybe we should look at eliminating the entire F-22 fleet since it's design is pretty much an evolutionary dead end?

The above is tongue in cheek boys, but it seems like a reasonable question, given the responses posted in this thread. Why do we need the F-22 if a good portion of it's abilities are no longer needed? Or do these new rules only apply to the F-35? Last I read, I thought the F-22 had many of the same attributes as the JSF when it came to stealth and sensor prowess and yet for some weird reason, the AF also felt it was important to have a speed / maneuverability advantage over it's opponents.

Edited by 11bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. If I read these comments correctly, maneuverability / top end speed are no longer critical factors because:

- Today's SAM's and AAM's have such incredible end-game maneuverability that nothing a manned aircraft could do would cause a miss. If a modern SAM/AAM manages to defeat an aircraft's countermeasures and maintain it's lock, the procedure for the unfortunate pilot is to keep flying in a straight line, tidy up the cockpit, shut off the lights and then eject before missile impact. No need to turn and run, you'll just die tired.

- Stealth allows you to kill the bad guy before he even knows that you are there, hence there will be no more WVR fighting

- Cutting edge radars and networked sensors allow you to kill the bad guy before he even knows that you are there, hence there will be no more WVR fighting

- Tactics that have taken the last two points into consideration have evolved to the point that WVR fighting will not be required; as a senior AF guy noted a while ago - if an F-35 pilot finds himself in a dogfight, the pilot did something very wrong and deserves to be culled (I'm paraphrasing a bit but hopefully you get the point).

Did I miss anything?

So if all this is true, why are we spending billions to support the F-22 program? A design, I think we all can agree is somewhat optimized for very high speed and eye-watering maneuverability? If nothing else, should we not be looking at some cost saving measures since it's incredible maneuverability is no longer needed? Possibly de-tune the engines to save money on maintenance and fuel? Why would we need supercruise capability? The F-35 has shown us that slow and steady will get the job done. Remove those complex thrust vectoring nozzles, they undoubtedly increase maintenance costs and the benefits they add to the Raptor's performance are unnecessary. Take the savings and use it to fund more F-35's. Or maybe we should look at eliminating the entire F-22 fleet since it's design is pretty much an evolutionary dead end?

The above is tongue in cheek boys, but it seems like a reasonable question, given the responses posted in this thread. Why do we need the F-22 if a good portion of it's abilities are no longer needed? Or do these new rules only apply to the F-35? Last I read, I thought the F-22 had many of the same attributes as the JSF when it came to stealth and sensor prowess and yet for some weird reason, the AF also felt it was important to have a speed / maneuverability advantage over it's opponents.

If we were going to eliminate an aircraft it would be the F-15A/C. The F-22 is still a 5th generation fighter, meaning its ability to take and use information is superior. Maneuverability is still important defensively just as they said in one of those quotes. It would cost more money to undue the things you mention, and the money has already been spent to develop it.If we are going to spend money on the F-22, it will be adding to it, not taking.

honestly it doesn't really make sense when we are talking about F-22. We are talking about replacing teen airplanes from the 1970s with F-35 who don't have the things that the F-22/F-35 does like say, Stealth and the information and data capabilities. In other words the F-22 is a fifth generation fighter with amazing kinematics (and EW capability but we don't talk about that), where as teen fighters have kinematics, no LO, and old school avionics and sharing. in an actual shooting fight, F-22s are going to avoid mixing it up unless they have a total advantage. They pick and choose when and how to engage.

An air force officer wrote a paper about how we probably should have toned the F-22 down in some areas of kinematics, hindsight being what it is of course. I can't find right now, Google may make it possible

Why do we keep Hueys when we have blackhawks? Why do we keep blackhawks when we have Ospreys? why do we keep B-52s? Why do we keep A-10s? if we keep A-10s, why don't we remove some of their extensive armor and redundant systems? If it no longer hunts tanks, why don't we give it a smaller gun that holds more rounds? Why do we keep...

"The least impressive thing about the F-22 is it's speed-- and it is VERY fast"

I think a mistake that you made that a lot of people do is that we assume every single attribute a fighter has is for dogfighting. And that isn't really the case. The F-22s ability to manuever in an area teaming with SAMS, or supercruise for things like say reconnaissance are important. Far more energy has been spent dodging things fired UP rather than dog fighting throughout history as it is. That trend does not look to be going away.

I think folks also have the idea that All air to air= Dogfighting. Its not world war II, Air to Air can mean BVR kills. in fact in the real world lately thats most of what has happened. So people say "The F-35 can do air to air" and then others say "It can't even dogfight!" BVR is not WVR is not "Dogfighting" Airplanes have been killed WVR without a single turn involved. in fact the Red Baron Report says thats how the majority of kills have happened in history. Not a lot of turning involved. in WWII people sighted target, closed distance, and killed before the target knew it was a target. Thats the way the Red Baron did it, and its a lot more effective. Are kinematics still important? of course. But not as important as they once were.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think folks also have the idea that All air to air= Dogfighting.

I blame Top Gun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Russia is feeling the 5th Gen cost crunch also.

>>> Article <<<

Buying just a single squadron.

-Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that is exactly what it said. As I'm reading it, they are doing an initial buy of one squadron for test purposes, with full production occurring in 2016.

Anyone have a better read in Russian?

They only need to buy a handful anyways--just like they keep doing with each SuperFlanker variant--to get Western Defense planners all in a tizzy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that is exactly what it said. As I'm reading it, they are doing an initial buy of one squadron for test purposes, with full production occurring in 2016.

Anyone have a better read in Russian?

They only need to buy a handful anyways--just like they keep doing with each SuperFlanker variant--to get Western Defense planners all in a tizzy.

pFKsipw.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that is exactly what it said. As I'm reading it, they are doing an initial buy of one squadron for test purposes, with full production occurring in 2016.

Anyone have a better read in Russian?

Yes, that article and other similar statements that they have made earlier in the year refer to the initial approved production batch. They haven't made any announcements yet on whether the number that they eventually plan to purchase has changed, which I believe is in the order of about 150 aircraft. However, it seems from their statements that they do plan to procure them over a longer period while maintaining production of the cheaper Su-35. In the posted article, they say that they have cut the first purchase to "только одна первая пробная эскадрилья" - which one can translate directly as "only one initial trial squadron". I guess the timing and size of further purchases will depend on how their economy does in the next few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that article and other similar statements that they have made earlier in the year refer to the initial approved production batch. They haven't made any announcements yet on whether the number that they eventually plan to purchase has changed, which I believe is in the order of about 150 aircraft. However, it seems from their statements that they do plan to procure them over a longer period while maintaining production of the cheaper Su-35. In the posted article, they say that they have cut the first purchase to "только одна первая пробная эскадрилья" - which one can translate directly as "only one initial trial squadron". I guess the timing and size of further purchases will depend on how their economy does in the next few years.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks indeed. My Russian is limited to what Google translate provides...

So, is this the Russian equivalent to a LRIP buy before "serial" or full rate production? It kind of sounds similar, though it looks like this initial buy will be a test squadron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that is exactly what it said. As I'm reading it, they are doing an initial buy of one squadron for test purposes, with full production occurring in 2016.

Anyone have a better read in Russian?

They only need to buy a handful anyways--just like they keep doing with each SuperFlanker variant--to get Western Defense planners all in a tizzy.

Pretty much. A while back there were loads of news about how supposedly there was cuts of 40 frames, from 52 planned (initial contract for the "Phase 1" version with izd.117 engine). That was only from one newspaper that quoted "anonymous source" and was never stated officially. Now it is stated officially that they will initially buy 12.

Most likely they are planning to buy 12, test them fully out and iron out the bugs and only then commit to a bigger contract. With Su-35S they ordered 48 while the aircraft had ~500h of test flights and about dozen first ones had to go back to the factory after 1 year or so to be updated to a new standard. Clearly they don't want to repeat that.

That being said i got the slight feeling from the statements that they are planning to do overall cuts in the contracted number, but it is likely that i am reading too much into it.

PS; And full production wont start from 2016. 2016 is when the first serial (from that batch of 12) is due to be delivered.

Edited by Berkut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much. A while back there were loads of news about how supposedly there was cuts of 40 frames, from 52 planned (initial contract for the "Phase 1" version with izd.117 engine). That was only from one newspaper that quoted "anonymous source" and was never stated officially. Now it is stated officially that they will initially buy 12.

Most likely they are planning to buy 12, test them fully out and iron out the bugs and only then commit to a bigger contract. With Su-35S they ordered 48 while the aircraft had ~500h of test flights and about dozen first ones had to go back to the factory after 1 year or so to be updated to a new standard. Clearly they don't want to repeat that.

That being said i got the slight feeling from the statements that they are planning to do overall cuts in the contracted number, but it is likely that i am reading too much into it.

PS; And full production wont start from 2016. 2016 is when the first serial (from that batch of 12) is due to be delivered.

Thank you for the additional details. They are very hard to come by :thumbsup:

PAX_Burner.jpg

PATUXENT RIVER NAS, Md., 6 July 2015. The U.S. military is placing orders worth nearly a billion dollars with Lockheed Martin Corp. to prepare for building 94 F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter combat jets. The order involves conventional and vertical takeoff and landing versions, as well as carrier versions.

Officials of the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md. -- the organization handling F-35 procurement for all military forces -- announced a $920.4 million contract with the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics segment in Fort Worth, Texas, for long lead items involves with 94 F-35 aircraft.

http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/articles/2015/07/ia-f35-jets.html

2015_AR_Testing_04_15J00017_09_1267828237_4323.jpg

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to pick on 11bee

Watching the F-35 take off at night with full afterburner is pure bliss. I haven't seen an aircraft yet that can touch the length of its exhaust flame. To elaborate on the F-35 like I have said before is that the F-35 was built from the ground up to be an attack aircraft not a fighter. Although it has fighter capabilities as far as defensive weapons and stealth it is still an attack aircraft.

11bee talked about why not cut this and not that but lets talk about why we are cutting all of the other systems. First the F-35 is replacing them with it's 20 plus year newer electronics and aerodynamics. But second it's bringing all of the things its replacing into one airframe. Everyone keeps talking about cost and how much we should be putting into each program like the F-22. The F-22 should be considered 4th Gen without the F-35's electronics helping it. The F-22 is one bad fool aircraft I will not deny that. But the F-22 is a sitting duck when faced off with the electronics the F-35 has. I can't wait for the inevitable F-35 F-22 face off. Reason being is the F-22 will be cut off from all communication with the F-35 throughout the flight and will be helpless.

Super cruise. How much gas does an F-22 save using super cruise and why is it even relevant today. How much longer can it stay aloft with using super cruise alone. The F-22 has an internal capacity for fuel of 18,000 pounds. Roughly 2,600 gallons. The F-35A and C model have the same. The F-35B has an internal capacity of 13,500 pounds which is roughly 1,930 gallons. F-35 doesn't have super cruise but lets take both aircraft and let them loose on a target X miles away and find out which one hits first. Remember the F-35 can take off from a ship and the F-22 has to be based at an airforce base and not on a ship. All of a sudden Super cruise looses its momentum because the F-22 has to travel a further distance.

F-22 and its electronics suite are very good but even better when the F-35 is there to help with the BVR. 4 F-35's and 4 F-22's take off at the same time all get to target at the same time. What is the F-22 going to do about the ground targets and what will the F-35 do about the Air targets. Remember children we all need to play nice together. What happens to all of the F-22's if per say the F-35's drop out of the sky. Use Super Cruise and get out. What happens if all of the F-22's fall out of the sky do the F-35's turn tail and run. Nope the F-35's stay because they wouldn't be close enough to shoot at in the first place. The F-22's become the weaker link in the equation. Reason being is the F-22 will rely on the F-35 for Close Air Support. While the F-35 will rely on the F-22 for help in the air. There is no such thing as an aircraft that is suitable for every role you can throw at it anymore. This is why the F-35 was designed.

Both the F-35 and the F-22 compliment each other hand in hand when its all said and done so I'm not sure why everyone is still dogging the F-35. There are 3 different variants each bringing its own new capability to the table with all of them being built on common ground. I know its expensive but so was the F-22 and the B-2 Spirit we ended along with the F-117. So if there is a price thing going on here why not complain about bringing back our most coveted stealth planes so we can keep everything Vintage.

Talk about bone yard and what needs to go to the heap and not. What about the A-6 Intruder. That saw more service than any F-18 on this planet. Why don't you defend it. That thing was a Dump truck of CAS rolled into a subsonic airframe. What about the EA-6B Prowler who helped put bombs on target because of its ability to jam targets. What about the F-14 Tomcat whose standoff ability was second to none. Should we bring all of these aircraft back just because they were great aircraft. No because today is a different day and todays aircraft require different technologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude this shot is absolutely badass. I already saved it. not sure where your finding these but I have to know.

2015_AR_Testing_04_15J00017_09_1267828237_4323.jpg

Edited by Devilleader501

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude this shot is absolutely badass. I already saved it. not sure where your finding these but I have to know.

2015_AR_Testing_04_15J00017_09_1267828237_4323.jpg

Stealth pron, I tell you. Stealth pron w00t.gifrofl.gif !!1!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HA!! 11bee was right. You are a schill for LM, probably in their back pocket for linking to their corporate propaganda rag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HA!! 11bee was right. You are a schill for LM, probably in their back pocket for linking to their corporate propaganda rag.

I know, I know. the F-35 is actually super cheap, we just spend all the additional billions on internet campaigns and state of the art Cameras for our publications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I know. the F-35 is actually super cheap, we just spend all the additional billions on internet campaigns and state of the art Cameras for our publications.

How's the pay and are you hiring?

Edited by Trigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An extract from Defense Industry Daily....

Australia has reportedly dropped plans external link to procure the F-35B, owing to concerns over the costs required to complete modifications to the Australian Navy’s two Canberra-class Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs) which would have deployed the aircraft. The Australian government is expected to officially present this decision in a white paper scheduled for August. Australia’s commitment to the Joint Strike Fighter program has been historically unclear, with the purchase of F/A-18F Block II Super Hornets in May 2007 as an interim measure relieving the urgency to commit to the F-35.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aussies-to-be-first-to-dump-f-35-program-long-range-strike-bomber-decision-moved-back-lmco-textron-bid-for-little-orphan-sikorsky-030435/

This is arrant nonsense.

The RAAF has already received 2 F-35A aircraft and has placed orders for 70 more, bringing the total to 72. Australia has options for another 28 airframes.

In the context of the commissioning of HMAS Canberra, first of a pair of new LHDs for the RAN, the government of the day asked that consideration be given in the 2015 Defence Capabilty Plan (DCP) and 2015 Defense White Paper (DWP) to whether the options might better be taken up as F-35B for utilisation on the new LHDs.

Further, the Super Hornets were purchased to fill a capability gap after it became obvious that the lifetime of the F-111 fleet could not economically or safely be extended sufficiently to prevent a capabilty gap until the expected FOC of the F-35A

The DWP has not yet been released, but "sources" claim that the White Paper rejects the idea of purchasing extra F-35B airframes on cost/benefit grounds and incompatability with the existing DCP. The original 72 are still coming people.

The clickbait headline is not even consistent with the inaccurate text of the report. Australia has hardly dumped an aircraft it never intended to buy in the first place (B models). But of course, that doesn't suit the agenda

Shane

Edited by sweier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An extract from Defense Industry Daily....

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aussies-to-be-first-to-dump-f-35-program-long-range-strike-bomber-decision-moved-back-lmco-textron-bid-for-little-orphan-sikorsky-030435/

This is arrant nonsense.

The RAAF has already received 2 F-35A aircraft and has placed orders for 70 more, bringing the total to 72. Australia has options for another 28 airframes.

In the context of the commissioning of HMAS Canberra, first of a pair of new LHDs for the RAN, the government of the day asked that consideration be given in the 2015 Defence Capabilty Plan (DCP) and 2015 Defense White Paper (DWP) to whether the options might better be taken up as F-35B for utilisation on the new LHDs.

Further, the Super Hornets were purchased to fill a capability gap after it became obvious that the lifetime of the F-111 fleet could not economically or safely be extended sufficiently to prevent a capabilty gap until the expected FOC of the F-35A

The DWP has not yet been released, but "sources" claim that the White Paper rejects the idea of purchasing extra F-35B airframes on cost/benefit grounds and incompatability with the existing DCP.

The clickbait headline is not even consistent with the inaccurate text of the report. Australia has hardly dumped an aircraft it never intended to buy in the first place. But of course, that doesn't suit the agenda

Shane

I was amazed at that too. Australia has been one of the most steadfast supporters and has already ordered 72 percent of its plan!

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was amazed at that too. Australia has been one of the most steadfast supporters and has already ordered 72 percent of its plan!

And off course still is.

We'll have 72 F-35A, the only question asked was, "if we take up the 28 options, should they be F-35B". If the rumour is correct, the answer to that is no, so far as the 2015 DWP is concerned.

Note that it doesn't affect the 72 already ordered, and as far as anyone knows there is no decision about whether to take the extra 28 options as F-35A, or at all. This is a non story or a deliberate deceit.

Shane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And off course still is.

We'll have 72 F-35A, the only question asked was, "if we take up the 28 options, should they be F-35B". If the rumour is correct, the answer to that is no, so far as the 2015 DWP is concerned.

Note that it doesn't affect the 72 already ordered, and as far as anyone knows there is no decision about whether to take the extra 28 options as F-35A, or at all. This is a non story or a deliberate deceit.

Shane

I agree completely. The only question was which variant would be purchased, the number never changed.

IF its any consolation

'DID' is produced by "Watershed Publishing".

Here is Watershed Publishing's expansive facility located in the outskirts of that aerospace and defense Mecca called Thetford Vermont:

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=21083&t=1

behold!!

Seriously, DID is a data collator and news aggregator. An IT enterprise that is perhaps the ultimate in Basement Dweller outfits (though it may technically be in the barn or the garage I guess)..

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

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...