F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the airframe wasn't representative of the operational model, what was the point of the exercise?
KenV, I wish you had indicated whom you were quoting there. Without seeing the context I would agree with you entirely.
Last edited by KenV; 2nd Jul 2015 at 18:10. Reason: added link
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE AF-2
As I understood it AF-2 was indeed used, it has been the lead aircraft in all the flight envelope expanding testing for the F35, so it would seem it is used to doing near dog fighting manoeuvres.
The statements about AF-2 not having the latest stealth coatings etc would seem to be unhelpful if the exercise was about dog fighting.
The Pentagon and the JPO have not come out and said that the statements made are economical with the truth, as I see it they have come out and given some forms of words that could be construed to be excuses. Implicitly thus the project owners are stating that the report is near to the truth and possibly not unexpected. This I would see as a tax payer in a country that is building aircraft carriers for the B is slightly concerning, if a car was being sold like this in the UK Trading Standards could get interested.
The statements about AF-2 not having the latest stealth coatings etc would seem to be unhelpful if the exercise was about dog fighting.
The Pentagon and the JPO have not come out and said that the statements made are economical with the truth, as I see it they have come out and given some forms of words that could be construed to be excuses. Implicitly thus the project owners are stating that the report is near to the truth and possibly not unexpected. This I would see as a tax payer in a country that is building aircraft carriers for the B is slightly concerning, if a car was being sold like this in the UK Trading Standards could get interested.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So they can refuel and rearm whist airborne Ken, that is what the numbers game entails ..when your shot out you are suddenly at a significant disadvantage...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The statements about AF-2 not having the latest stealth coatings etc would seem to be unhelpful if the exercise was about dog fighting.
1. The exercise was NOT "about dog fighting". Read the quote.
2. To state that stealth, sensors, sensor fusion, displays and all the rest don't contribute in a dog fight is absurd. If the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball and turn performance is all that matters, we may as well go back to WW1 Spads and Fokkers. Even in the early jet age of Sabres vs MiGs, there was LOTS more to air-to-air success than eyeballs and turn performance.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, even an F35 that has fired its two internal missiles finds it difficult to shoot down enemy aircraft, particularly if they are a now totally unarmed B or C and we have just discussed how good the A is at dog fighting.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither is turning performance...the F35 offers a very fine package that beats most everything out there
Guaranteed? Tell that to the nations buying the F35 and to Russia and China
As long as it moves, produces heat, and reflects even the most minute radar signal, it's still going going to be detectable, and the exponential expansion of processing power in computers combined with Russia's arch Nemesis relying entirely on stealth surely makes it an inevitability that detection and tracking will evolve very rapidly in the next decade.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick, cursory glance at China and Russia's stealth aircraft make a mockery of actually calling them true stealth fighters.
As long as it moves, produces heat, and reflects even the most minute radar signal, it's still going going to be detectable
Of course sensors and weapons are important in air combat, and to imply that anyone thinks otherwise is a bit obtuse.
However, EM and controllability are also important, until the dawn of the CSBA-predicted age of UCAVs and LRSB-derivatives launching >100 nm-range AAMs at each other. And it was EM and controllability that this demonstration was about. The idea was to see how the F-35's characteristics would work out in live combat as opposed to test points.
It's also completely beside the point to bang on about Zeros. The F-35A is a transonic 9g airframe designed to shoot AIM-9s and AIM-120s; that is, either it's designed to go nose to nose with F-16s, Sukhois &c or a lot of time and money has been wasted.
Also, it's a bit confusing to argue on the one hand that "you're not going to fight 4.5 gen aircraft" (if you must use that thoroughly misleading taxonomy) and in the next moment defend stealth by citing the PAK-FA and J-20. Make your mind up, willya?
However, EM and controllability are also important, until the dawn of the CSBA-predicted age of UCAVs and LRSB-derivatives launching >100 nm-range AAMs at each other. And it was EM and controllability that this demonstration was about. The idea was to see how the F-35's characteristics would work out in live combat as opposed to test points.
It's also completely beside the point to bang on about Zeros. The F-35A is a transonic 9g airframe designed to shoot AIM-9s and AIM-120s; that is, either it's designed to go nose to nose with F-16s, Sukhois &c or a lot of time and money has been wasted.
Also, it's a bit confusing to argue on the one hand that "you're not going to fight 4.5 gen aircraft" (if you must use that thoroughly misleading taxonomy) and in the next moment defend stealth by citing the PAK-FA and J-20. Make your mind up, willya?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, even an F35 that has fired its two internal missiles finds it difficult to shoot down enemy aircraft.
...we have just discussed how good the A is at dog fighting.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course sensors and weapons are important in air combat, and to imply that anyone thinks otherwise is a bit obtuse.
The idea was to see how the F-35's characteristics would work out in live combat as opposed to test points.
Also, it's a bit confusing to argue on the one hand that "you're not going to fight 4.5 gen aircraft" (if you must use that thoroughly misleading taxonomy) and in the next moment defend stealth by citing the PAK-FA and J-20. Make your mind up, willya?
But for the record I did NOT "cite PAK-FA and J-20". Someone else did and I mocked them. As for the "misleading taxonomy" of the term "4.5 gen aircraft" I did not use that term. I used 4+ generation. Can anyone suggest a better term to use when referring to 4th gen fighters upgraded with 5th gen systems as well as 5th gen fighters. Didn't think so. Adios for now.
Ken,
Suddenly you seem to be arguing with everyone, can't quite work out why. With so many arguments I doubt you'll get to this. My use of the term airframe was in the UK sense - common word for an aircraft. So, I was referring to the aircraft, it's hardware, software and so forth. The entire package.
Sometimes I think you just look for fights to pick. Doesn't exactly help the discussion.
Suddenly you seem to be arguing with everyone, can't quite work out why. With so many arguments I doubt you'll get to this. My use of the term airframe was in the UK sense - common word for an aircraft. So, I was referring to the aircraft, it's hardware, software and so forth. The entire package.
Sometimes I think you just look for fights to pick. Doesn't exactly help the discussion.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 2nd Jul 2015 at 19:07.
You're welcome to believe your wild fantasy. USAF and USN both disagree. And they have some hard data to back up their opinions. You have less than none.
That fantasy was explained to me by Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula (Retd) at the IQPC International Fighter conference in London in 2013.
I'm sure you're aware of his background.
That fantasy was explained to me by Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula (Retd) at the IQPC International Fighter conference in London in 2013.
I'm sure you're aware of his background.
Ken,
Inferior turn performance (inferior EM, to be exact) makes the F-35 an inferior fighter, other things being equal, unless we decide that EM no longer matters.
The case that EM no longer matters is far from proven, and indeed, if it doesn't, we don't need the F-35 because it expensively embodies maneuvering performance. We need a Super F-117.
You can argue that other things are not equal, but you have not made that case. Other jets have HOBS missiles, and HMDs. If the F-35 is in stealth mode it doesn't have HOBS missiles.
So "dog fight performance" was demonstrated as equal or superior to the F-16? (Since you state that anything else is a false conclusion.) How do you make that argument from the content of the paper?
Why do we try to pigeonhole fighters by generation at all? We got by without it for 90 years before some marketing dipweed in Foat Wuff decided to crib a Russian term and slap it on his products.
Inferior turn performance (inferior EM, to be exact) makes the F-35 an inferior fighter, other things being equal, unless we decide that EM no longer matters.
The case that EM no longer matters is far from proven, and indeed, if it doesn't, we don't need the F-35 because it expensively embodies maneuvering performance. We need a Super F-117.
You can argue that other things are not equal, but you have not made that case. Other jets have HOBS missiles, and HMDs. If the F-35 is in stealth mode it doesn't have HOBS missiles.
So "dog fight performance" was demonstrated as equal or superior to the F-16? (Since you state that anything else is a false conclusion.) How do you make that argument from the content of the paper?
Why do we try to pigeonhole fighters by generation at all? We got by without it for 90 years before some marketing dipweed in Foat Wuff decided to crib a Russian term and slap it on his products.
Last edited by LowObservable; 2nd Jul 2015 at 19:53.
Originally Posted by KenV
Obtuse? Really? This entire discussion is about the absurd notion that the F-35's inferior turn performance relative to the F-16 makes it an inferior fighter. All the F-35's other features are neatly and conveniently ignored. Now THAT in my opinion, is obtuse.
So, which is it? It can't do a-a or it can?
You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. And then claim we didn't read your post properly.
Melmoth
Well aware of Deptula's views, which reflect USAF policy when he was active. But as they say, where you stand depends on where you sit. If you think you're going to get 1763 F-35s, and keep all your F-22s (that is, your fleet of Lamborghini single-mission air-dominance fighters is bigger than most people's entire fighter force), and get a new stealth bomber and a new super cruise missile for those hard to reach places, and arm everything in sight with JASSMs, you probably don't need to worry about whether the F-35 does everything best, or whether it has limitations.
The rest of the world doesn't have that luxury. And to be brutally honest (and it's above Dave's pay grade as well as mine) the USAF doesn't either.
Well aware of Deptula's views, which reflect USAF policy when he was active. But as they say, where you stand depends on where you sit. If you think you're going to get 1763 F-35s, and keep all your F-22s (that is, your fleet of Lamborghini single-mission air-dominance fighters is bigger than most people's entire fighter force), and get a new stealth bomber and a new super cruise missile for those hard to reach places, and arm everything in sight with JASSMs, you probably don't need to worry about whether the F-35 does everything best, or whether it has limitations.
The rest of the world doesn't have that luxury. And to be brutally honest (and it's above Dave's pay grade as well as mine) the USAF doesn't either.
Last edited by LowObservable; 2nd Jul 2015 at 21:43.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If dogfighting will never happen in the future, then all well and good.
Hence from a strategic perspective, how much resources do you put into a platform that will have an small probababiltiy of doing it, or the game plan is to try an avoid it?
keeping in mind relative adversies and their size and tehnology gradients.
Rh200,
I take issue with your claim that "because it won't happen."
It has nothing whatsoever to do with today's society or political will or such like.
Here is the point (and I am surprised that none of the RN guys has contributed to this debate), should the UK decide to send its warship and its entourage to an incident, skirmish, Falklands II, Iraq (ISIS) III, or whatever may happen in future decades, there is always a risk that the big ship will come under attack (if it won't then we don't need all the frigates etc to protect it). It's defence will rely heavily upon its organic air = F-35B. As I mentioned earlier (did you read earlier posts?) it is very easy to see how the carrier's only jets could end up "backs to the wall" with a raid closing on the capital ship that needs to be defended.
You assure me that such a situation could never happen and the the next questions are: then why do we need a Fleet Air Arm? If we don't have one, we don't need the carrier or the jets.
Today's society does not change the nature of warfare. Maybe today's society is saying we won't have anymore wars. That doesn't seem to be working, does it?
I take issue with your claim that "because it won't happen."
It has nothing whatsoever to do with today's society or political will or such like.
Here is the point (and I am surprised that none of the RN guys has contributed to this debate), should the UK decide to send its warship and its entourage to an incident, skirmish, Falklands II, Iraq (ISIS) III, or whatever may happen in future decades, there is always a risk that the big ship will come under attack (if it won't then we don't need all the frigates etc to protect it). It's defence will rely heavily upon its organic air = F-35B. As I mentioned earlier (did you read earlier posts?) it is very easy to see how the carrier's only jets could end up "backs to the wall" with a raid closing on the capital ship that needs to be defended.
You assure me that such a situation could never happen and the the next questions are: then why do we need a Fleet Air Arm? If we don't have one, we don't need the carrier or the jets.
Today's society does not change the nature of warfare. Maybe today's society is saying we won't have anymore wars. That doesn't seem to be working, does it?
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious if the US defense committees were aware of this (and other) pilot reports as part of their duty to oversee defense programs. My guess is that they were not. Perhaps we will have to reconstitute the special F-35 oversight committee that recently ran its course after the program's restructuring a few years ago. This (leaked) report is bad news for those who want to devise a block buy scheme to avoid the stiff requirements of a US multi year procurement program.