F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[aussienscale]

F35B Supersonic Flight

Just wondering if someone could clarify something for me ? An article posted on this site on the 15th June said that the F35B had done a supersonic flight on the 10th June reaching a speed of Mach 1.07 for the first time. An attached video from Youtube complete with pilot interviews about the subject state that the F35B achieved this in Jul 2001 ? In the interview with the pilot it was stated he was the first pilot in aviation history to do a Short Takeoff, Supersonic sprint and Vertical Landing in the one flight reaching a speed of Mach 1.05 ?
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSFnAKZhXj4&feature=related[/nomedia]

 

[Scorpion82]

Just wondering if someone could clarify something for me ? An article posted on this site on the 15th June said that the F35B had done a supersonic flight on the 10th June reaching a speed of Mach 1.07 for the first time. An attached video from Youtube complete with pilot interviews about the subject state that the F35B achieved this in Jul 2001 ? In the interview with the pilot it was stated he was the first pilot in aviation history to do a Short Takeoff, Supersonic sprint and Vertical Landing in the one flight reaching a speed of Mach 1.05 ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSFnAKZhXj4&feature=related

The X-35B have demonstrated it back in 2001. But I think the Russian YAK-41 was in fact the first aircraft to do so, though I could be wrong on the latter one. Fact is the YAK-41 which never went beyond prototype status was the first supersonic capable STOVL aircraft in the world.

 

[aussienscale]

The X-35B have demonstrated it back in 2001. But I think the Russian YAK-41 was in fact the first aircraft to do so, though I could be wrong on the latter one. Fact is the YAK-41 which never went beyond prototype status was the first supersonic capable STOVL aircraft in the world.

OK so would that be the point in difference, that it was the X in 2001, but the latest was a true F variant. Don't personally see the difference but I suppose you take the media op when you can ?

 

[SpudmanWP]

What the "X" flight did that was record breaking was, in one flight, do a STOVL takeoff, supersonic dash, and VTOL landing.

While the Yak-41 was the first supersonic "capable" aircraft, it did not go supersonic in the same flight in which it did both a STOVL takeoff and a VTOL landing.

 

[Todjaeger]

Fair point GF. Without measuring/calculating the impact on RCS of those features mentioned and without any knowledge about the materials it's still guesswork which is at best indicative, but not accurate. People do even take the 0.5 sqm RCS figure reported by Indian media for face value.

True, an exact RCS for the PAK-FA as it is currently configured is not known. However, as GF pointed out, when certain shaping/layout features are considered, it is not difficult to make an educated guess on what the approximate RCS would be. In the case of the PAK-FA (again, as it is currently configured for the prototypes) it may very well have an RCS of ~0.5 sq. m. For Russian/Soviet fighters, this is a significant improvement from the 10-20 sq. m. RCS of the Flankers, etc. However, an RCS of roughly that (0.5 sq. m) is where many estimates are made regarding the RCS of the current EF Typhoon and F/A-18 E/F SHornets, which have LO and RCS reduction features, but are not considered LO nevermind VLO aircraft.

Where APA has repeatedly either caused or run into problems, is when they make pronoucements on specific capabilities (either for or against) when they lack the access to know the specifics of what they are stating. Compounding this is that they ignore material which either does not support, or in many cases is actually counter to whatever point they have been expounding on. Further exacerbating this situation is that APA does not seem to understand where certain capabilities can/would fit into a force overall, or what the concept of operations would be.

Without digressing too far, many of the APA posts regarding which fighter aircraft would be suitable for the RAAF make use of direct 1:1 dogfight scenarios. Situations where the kinematic aircraft performance in terms of turning and roll speed, as well as general maneuverability could (emphasis *could*) be a factor in surviving/winning the engagement. Such situations are entirely counter to the conops western fighters use currently and for the foreseable future. This conops makes use of systemic improvements in locating/tracking enemy forces, as well as platform and system improvements to reduce an enemy's ability to locate & track ones own forces. By making use of dogfight scenarios, APA completely avoids any discussion of what can/would occur during BVR fighter combat like it does not even exist.

Such behavior, plus the fundamental inaccuracies and/or assumptions made in many of the submissions, causes those with knowledge of defence matters to question pretty much everything coming out from APA.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

just to add. discussions around threats need to be articulated against issues such as near peer threats, likely threats, systems competency of the opposing force etc,,,,

the biggles type scenarios have no place in serious debate and are intellectually indolent at best, and disingenuine if being gracious.

a good example of intellectual indolence is the APA indonesian/chinese flanker threat where all the red fleet can vector at will and with no apparent need to rely on force support getting to the fight - let alone sustaining the fight at range and maintaining force and effect momentum.

the biggles scenarios might keep kids and fanbois happy, but force planners will roll their collective eyes at the deliberately geared simplicity of the solution.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Funny enough that other people do the same with the PAK FA now, people who criticise APA for doing such things...

Except, APA do NOT hold the PAK-FA nor indeed any OTHER fighter, bar the legacy Hornet or the Super Hornet to the same exacting standards of "critical analysis" that they hold the JSF.

They accept on face value ANY claim by a manufacturer, so long as it does NOT pertain to the F-35, F/A-18A/B Hornet or the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

The reason for this is plain as day. They are failed, wannabe contractors to the Australian defence force and their entire "raison d'etre" is to promote their own commercial interests.

RAAF's Hornet upgrade program and the acquisition by Australia of the Super Hornet and JSF directly compete with their own, perceived, commercial interests...

Hence their rather bizarre "analysis" of Australia's air combat capability requirements...

 

[Falstaff]

The X-35B have demonstrated it back in 2001. But I think the Russian YAK-41 was in fact the first aircraft to do so, though I could be wrong on the latter one. Fact is the YAK-41 which never went beyond prototype status was the first supersonic capable STOVL aircraft in the world.

Nope, it was the German VJ-101 that achieved this.
Note that around the same time, several other supersonic STOVL aircraft were designed and tested, such as the Mirage IIIV.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWR_VJ_101[/ame]

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_IIIV[/ame]

 

[Scorpion82]

@AD & TJ,
I fully agree with what you guys say here. My point is that some of the APA criticers behave in a similar way, meaning they have no access to relevant information, apply different standards and "work out" best case scenario for their perception. Though this is fortunately a place with people who think beyond the usual kids thinking.

@Falstaff,
thanks for reminding me, didn't thought that far back. You are right there were in fact a lot of supersonic capable STOVL designs back in the 60s, though most of them where demonstrators converted from existing airframes and never made it into service. It's interesting that only the subsonic designs such as the Harrier or Yak-38 really made it into service.

 

[aussienscale]

F35 V Typhoon

Has no doubt been discussed before can someone point me in the right direction as to why the F35 was chosen over aircraft such as the Typhoon ? I understand what TJ and AD are talking about in that outright performance, better turning circle etc does not make either plane better than the other, and that is comes down to the right fit for the intended use. Any reading material or a quick run down would be appreciated

 

[exec]

point me in the right direction as to why the F35 was chosen over aircraft such as the Typhoon ?

Hmm... stealth?

 

[Grand Danois]

Integration into US conops, logistics, etc.

 

[Scorpion82]

Has no doubt been discussed before can someone point me in the right direction as to why the F35 was chosen over aircraft such as the Typhoon ? I understand what TJ and AD are talking about in that outright performance, better turning circle etc does not make either plane better than the other, and that is comes down to the right fit for the intended use. Any reading material or a quick run down would be appreciated

You mean in the Australian context? It would be necessary to know the detailed requirements of the RAAF to elaborate on the reasons or even better reasons being explained by the RAAF or politicians. The JSF programme offered a greater scope of participation for the Australian industry, as the Eurofighter programme was largely split between the 4 core nations. The Aussies opted for the F-35 on base of paper data and conducted no real evaluation. But it's rumoured that the Australian analysts came to the conclusion that the Eurofighter and other contenders for that matter didn't represent a great enough leap forward for them over the current F/A-18A/B. On which base they came to the conclusion is something only they know. The requirements (F-111 replacement) may have favoured the more strike optimised F-35 as well, due range & survivability.

 

[jack412]

Has no doubt been discussed before can someone point me in the right direction as to why the F35 was chosen over aircraft such as the Typhoon ? I understand what TJ and AD are talking about in that outright performance, better turning circle etc does not make either plane better than the other, and that is comes down to the right fit for the intended use. Any reading material or a quick run down would be appreciated

how much reading do you want to do ?
originally uk aus had a joint plan to asses future fighter needs, that i cant find the link to at the moment
air 6000
http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/bitstream/1947/3408/1/DSTO-CR-0155.pdf
conclusion fa-18 and f-35
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/cacc.pdf

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Aussies opted for the F-35 on base of paper data and conducted no real evaluation.

actually all evaluations are initially based on presented and available data - once the platforms start meeting the assessment and evaluation criteria, then we decide as to whether we need to start hardware assessments against the requirements. these can be literally in the thousands and literally weigh tonnes in physical paperwork.

like other countries, we will maKe a decision based on data where its apparent that the material is fundamentally unimpeachable.


having been in quite a few tender processes (on the vendor side and on the assessment/procurement evaluation side of the shop) I can tell you that its not unusual.

in the case of the other platforms, there was sufficient material available as the vendors had been submitting data and material for some time even outside of the formal procurement process.

other companies had a spit because they thought they had a chance - its commercial reality. reading anything more into it based on public material is a hard row to hoe, but the difference between the JSF and others based on our reqs was chalk and cheese.

companies need to suck it up or learn the hard way on future participation issues (like Atlas did)

 

[Aussie Digger]

You mean in the Australian context? It would be necessary to know the detailed requirements of the RAAF to elaborate on the reasons or even better reasons being explained by the RAAF or politicians. The JSF programme offered a greater scope of participation for the Australian industry, as the Eurofighter programme was largely split between the 4 core nations. The Aussies opted for the F-35 on base of paper data and conducted no real evaluation. But it's rumoured that the Australian analysts came to the conclusion that the Eurofighter and other contenders for that matter didn't represent a great enough leap forward for them over the current F/A-18A/B. On which base they came to the conclusion is something only they know. The requirements (F-111 replacement) may have favoured the more strike optimised F-35 as well, due range & survivability.

Sorry, but RAAF completed 70% of it's formal evaluation before deciding not to proceed further on evaluating fighters. It didn't conduct a formal flyoff, this is true, but that hardly means due diligence wasn't performed. To the best of my knowledge, RAAF never conducted a flyoff with the F-111, either...

The decision to discontinue this fighter evaluation in the expectation that JSF would, in future meet RAAF's requirements, was made in 2002. Since that time it has been evaluating the F-35 and you'll note that approval to acquire the F-35 was only given to ADF by Government in November 2009.

I hardly think ADF's capability submission to Government was based on a powerpoint presentation delivered to them 7 years before and they've simply rested on their laurels ever since without investigating whether or not the Lightning II actually meets the requirements we have for a multi-role fighter...

 

[Scorpion82]

@AD,
it was certainly not a single powerpoint presentation, but the F-35 did not exist at that time and Australia had to rely on promises from LM. IIRC the planned in ISD was 2012, this date has considerably slipped now and the assessment of the other contenders was largely based on what they offered in the earlier time frame.
I'm aware that evaluations start with paper work as GF explained and that further evaluation is decided upon the results of the paper work.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm aware that evaluations start with paper work as GF explained and that further evaluation is decided upon the results of the paper work.

One of the other things that most people are unfamiliar with is that platform selection is not just about what the platform can do, but how it fits into future force structure and development.

In the case of 5th gen planes, the selection is also heavily inclusive of other force development issues, other future force integration issues, co-operative weapons and sensor management etc...

eg its a hell of a lot easier to do a Link22 integration into a theatre force involving Fatships (C3 assets), AWD (force protection), Wedgetail AWACs, JSF and ground force elements.

The force construct is modeled on what we want to have in a uniform capability on in 2020-2030. Picking a non US platform where elements such as Link22 are less easily integrated into a theatre construct, and where we have a requirement to interoperate at specific levels just does not make sense.

As someone who has actually been involved in preparing tender docs for selection overseas and as someone who has been involved with weapons development progs both overseas and in Aust and on a variety of solutions I can personally understand why a choice would have been made for JSF over other platforms. I don't see any sense and logic in picking other platforms when our overall force construct is heading into a deliberate direction. Other countries also make choices based on similar future force development principles.

those who know of me from years and years ago know that I was initially hostile to JSF for a variety of reasons. I've obviously changed my mind - and its got nothing to do with my current employment as I'd changed my mind probably 4 years ago.

again, selection criteria on modern platforms literally runs into the thousands - on one of our winged platforms the criteria was in the order of 11000 individual critical performance points - so when you see people making comments about how fast a jet is, whether it can carry a specific weapons set etc etc... and they base their view on common publicly available criteria - then it can get a tad frustrating as its apparent that they don't know how complex the selection process is.

we don't pick platforms based on powerpoint presentations, and it does a disservice to those uniforms who are often the creme of our airforce (combat trainers and in excess of 5000 hrs on type - let alone various types) who were part of the decision making process.

the above is not aimed at you, but is a broad attributive comment to those who make simple comparisons and try to assume a mantle of technical relevance if not engineering reverence re their own abilities to select a combat platform due to their own insight.



/frustration off

 

[Scorpion82]

@GF,
I agree with what you say and perfectly understand your frustration about the oversimplified assessment due lack of understanding the complex nature of the topic. Albeit I don't think that integrating LINK22 would be to difficult for other western platforms than the F-35. But there is certainly much more than that only. I see the F-35 as a viable choice for the RAAF given the expected operational environment and the missions to be performed.

 

[Aussie Digger]

@AD,
it was certainly not a single powerpoint presentation, but the F-35 did not exist at that time and Australia had to rely on promises from LM. IIRC the planned in ISD was 2012, this date has considerably slipped now and the assessment of the other contenders was largely based on what they offered in the earlier time frame.
I'm aware that evaluations start with paper work as GF explained and that further evaluation is decided upon the results of the paper work.

Information supplied from a vendor is a starting point. Professional organisations test the veracity of the information supplied. Warfighting simulations and modelling are a massive part of it, that usually include hideously lop-sided events on the extreme side of likely events to see just how far a capability might go.

Getting in and flying a plane is a very small part of the assessment of a combat capability and one that I fear is grossly over-valued.

You can hardly acquire Typhoon for instance and fly it for real against an SU-30 or similar threat, "just to make sure", so the only way to test this IS "on paper"...

As to the other contenders, they do not and will not ever offer what an F-35 offers. In fact most AIR-6000 contenders still do not offer what the F/A-18F Super Hornet does for RAAF right now.

Lots of promises about "tomorrow's" capability though...