F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[bonehead]

The AASR system was cancelled a decade ago, before undergoing a hardware test. Incidentally, the system was already brought up and discussed (by myself and others) here on DT some time ago. Again revolving around the relevance of LO/VLO aircraft vs. detection capabilities. From what was brought up about the AASR system, while it was expected to have a comparatively low cost... It also had significant limitiations in terms of capability. Amongst them was that it was intended to detect the radar "shadow" a LO aircraft or cruise missile would cast while within the AASR detection grid. The requirement that the object be within the detection grid would have mean that it was already within Swedish airspace, therefore it would only allow a response to an intrusion, and not prevent an intrusion.

IIRC the examples I gave of methods to eliminate such a system were to start with some of the exterior transceivers and target them to 'cut' corridors through the grid. And/or locate and destroy the data collation point(s) or trunk lines. Heck, given that the system was expected to require 900 nodes to cover Sweden, a number of the nodes could likely have been attacked by infiltrators in the run-up to or the commencement of hostilities. A single person with the correct knowledge and equipment would likely have been able to disable or destroy one, and IMO there would have been no real, practical way that they could all have been defended as that would have required several thousand personnel on guard duty alone, at all times.

What you seem to be projecting is that the developments in terms of detection capabilities are outstripping the developments in sig management and LO/VLO aircraft. Given the operational history of LO/VLO combat aircraft and the fact that the US is on it's third generation of LO/VLO combat aircraft, it does seem that detection capabilities are somewhat behind the curve, not ahead of it.

-Cheers

Tod
Many thanks again yes AASR was cancelled how ever it shows that systems are being looked at to defect so called stealth, but the word strealth is miss leading , i do not think it would be far behind if indead it is behind the curve, but i do belive due to more delays ect then it could well be in front as i said before.

 

[bonehead]

Just to add more in to the discussion

The jet that’s supposed to make up more than 90 percent of America’s combat aviation fleet may have become a lot easier to shoot down.

Lockheed Martin, makers of the Joint Strike Fighter, has been under huge pressure to stabilize the jet’s skyrocketing costs. Production prices have nearly doubled on what was supposed to be an “affordable” fighter. R&D money is up another 40 percent. Some analysts predict the program could run as much as $388 billion for 2,400 jets.

So Lockheed decided “to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems,” according to InsideDefense.com.

But those cuts made it much harder for the Joint Strike Fighter to withstand a hit from an anti-aircraft weapon. “When you have something full of fuel under high pressure, some of it very hot, flowing close to hot metal parts and 270 VDC electrical components, your shutoff and check valves and fire suppression in the dry bays (places fuel will spray into) are your only defense,” a knowledgeable observer notes.

Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s chief weapons tester, recommended in a letter to Congress last month “that these features be reinstated.” The amount saved by trimming these components, he noted, would be more than made up, if just two aircraft were lost. “Live-fire ballistic testing has demonstrated that the JSF is vulnerable.” [CORRECTED: The second half of the quote was originally attributed to Lt. Gen. George Trautman, who favors the change.]

Now, one of the JSF’s now selling points was that it wouldn’t have to worry to much about taking on anti-aircraft fire; the jet would be so stealthy that the ground-to-air guns would never find it. But according to a report published by Air Power Australia, the plane is easier to spot than originally advertised. In fact, it is “demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft.”

Locheed says a recent “technological breakthrough” has fixed all that: a fiber mat that can blend stealthy qualities right into the composite skin of the aircraft.

And in an e-mail to Danger Room, Lockheed spokesman John Kent basically said the Pentagon tester was all wrong about the plane’s vulnerability.

“Rigorous combat analysis revealed that the survivability improvements afforded by the engine fuses and fire extinguishing features were very small,” Kent wrote. “These changes were thoroughly reviewed by the F-35 Operational Advisory Group and approved through the joint JSF Executive Steering Board, which includes membership from all nine JSF partner counties. All agreed that the weight saved by the elimination of these components would be better utilized in maintaining the performance capabilities of the aircraft. The present design meets the JSFPO’s expectations for vulnerability.”

Well, yeah. That’s true. “With the exception of a 30mm high-explosive incendiary round typically associated with light anti-aircraft artillery,” wrote Lt. Gen. George Trautman, the Marines’ deputy commandant for aviation, who favored the trim. Like the kind Russia has, and sells all around the world.

 

[Todjaeger]

Tod
Many thanks again yes AASR was cancelled how ever it shows that systems are being looked at to defect so called stealth, but the word strealth is miss leading , i do not think it would be far behind if indead it is behind the curve, but i do belive due to more delays ect then it could well be in front as i said before.

I suggest checking into some of the inherent limitations of bistatic radar systems for target detection. Such systems require that the area of detection be no greater than the area of coverage of the nodes. This means that such systems cannot detect something approaching the first/exterior nodes, detection is only possible after they have been passed. This means that such systems are already behind the curve in terms of situational awareness. This is of course assuming that if R&D had continued and not encountered a number of potential technical and practical problems which did ultimately prove sufficient to cancel the programme.

And incidentally yes, the word 'stealth' is quite misleading, that is why many of the more informed posters do not make use of it, instead using LO or VLO depending on what is being discussed. As been required, repeatedly, 'stealth' is not a specific thing, capability or technology, it does not make an aircraft invisible or invulerable, rather it is a commonly (mis)used buzzword for a collection of technologies and capabilities employed in certain fashions (conops).

-Cheers

 

[jack412]

Just to add more in to the discussion

The jet that’s supposed to make up more than 90 percent of America’s combat aviation fleet may have become a lot easier to shoot down.

Lockheed Martin, makers of the Joint Strike Fighter, has been under huge pressure to stabilize the jet’s skyrocketing costs. Production prices have nearly doubled on what was supposed to be an “affordable” fighter. R&D money is up another 40 percent. Some analysts predict the program could run as much as $388 billion for 2,400 jets.

how much does australia say it's going to pay for the f-35 ?

So Lockheed decided “to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems,” according to InsideDefense.com.

But those cuts made it much harder for the Joint Strike Fighter to withstand a hit from an anti-aircraft weapon. “When you have something full of fuel under high pressure, some of it very hot, flowing close to hot metal parts and 270 VDC electrical components, your shutoff and check valves and fire suppression in the dry bays (places fuel will spray into) are your only defense,” a knowledgeable observer notes.

Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s chief weapons tester, recommended in a letter to Congress last month “that these features be reinstated.” The amount saved by trimming these components, he noted, would be more than made up, if just two aircraft were lost. “Live-fire ballistic testing has demonstrated that the JSF is vulnerable.” [CORRECTED: The second half of the quote was originally attributed to Lt. Gen. George Trautman, who favors the change.]

Now, one of the JSF’s now selling points was that it wouldn’t have to worry to much about taking on anti-aircraft fire; the jet would be so stealthy that the ground-to-air guns would never find it. But according to a report published by Air Power Australia, the plane is easier to spot than originally advertised. In fact, it is “demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft.”

Locheed says a recent “technological breakthrough” has fixed all that: a fiber mat that can blend stealthy qualities right into the composite skin of the aircraft.

And in an e-mail to Danger Room, Lockheed spokesman John Kent basically said the Pentagon tester was all wrong about the plane’s vulnerability.

“Rigorous combat analysis revealed that the survivability improvements afforded by the engine fuses and fire extinguishing features were very small,”
Kent wrote.
“These changes were thoroughly reviewed by the F-35 Operational Advisory Group and approved through the joint JSF Executive Steering Board, which includes membership from all nine JSF partner counties. All agreed that the weight saved by the elimination of these components would be better utilized in maintaining the performance capabilities of the aircraft. The present design meets the JSFPO’s expectations for vulnerability.

i must be missing something, is there anything to discuss ? it seems self explanatory

 

[Sarkozy]

I suggest checking into some of the inherent limitations of bistatic radar systems for target detection. Such systems require that the area of detection be no greater than the area of coverage of the nodes. This means that such systems cannot detect something approaching the first/exterior nodes, detection is only possible after they have been passed. This means that such systems are already behind the curve in terms of situational awareness. This is of course assuming that if R&D had continued and not encountered a number of potential technical and practical problems which did ultimately prove sufficient to cancel the programme.

-Cheers

Please note that bistatic radars and passive radars work in different ways...

 

[10ringr]

First the F-22 now the F-35

It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10".

Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please

 

[10ringr]

First the F-22 now the F-35

:coffee

It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"

Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please.

Originally the plan for the F-22 was for about 750 units. This was needed to combat current and future air threats. This is a vastly different playing field with very good jets coming from many areas of the world and not all of them friendly. I'm certain that the F-22 is the best up there but there is simply not enough of them and now the F-35 is being put under the microscope as a source for possible cuts and Obama is supposedly the one to decide. With production rates like that Obama even he served two terms (God forbid) he'd still be looking at seeing only about 500 of the 2500 needed. Has anyone figured out what the production rates are on these........ at a max they're talking about producing 60 of these type per year. The amount of F-35's needed are over 2000 units if the navy is going to make good on replacing it's A-10's, 16's and 18's A-C's.... that means that by the time they build 2500 aircraft you're looking at 40 years from now. Does anyone think that's the most idiotic plan in history. I surely expect a few of you to start jumping on the table and talk about upgrades but if that's the case then we should be still flying Phantoms......10ringr
WE MUST BUILD MORE F-22's..............

 

[Aussie Digger]

Originally the plan for the F-22 was for about 750 units. This was needed to combat current and future air threats. This is a vastly different playing field with very good jets coming from many areas of the world and not all of them friendly.

Not enough for whom and what threat scenario? The F-22 is not the sole air defence fighter planned for the US. Over 170 "golden Eagles" are to be maintained for the majority of the life of the Raptor as well.

Suddenly you've got more than 350x dedicated air defence fighters in the USAF alone (not including multi-role F-16, F/A-18 and F-35 here) and if you look at the air combat tactics the USA is developing: LO "sleepers" - F-22/F-35 and unmanned aerial vehicles and 4th gen spear carriers with long ranged weapons and radars - F-15's and Block II Supers in combined operations, you'll see that enemy forces are going to have to fight under the worst of both sets of circumstances (LO fighters and the more traditional fighter aircraft with powerful radars and large numbers of long ranged weapons).

This construct is also supported by an C4ISR, aerial tanking and strategic strike (B-2, B-1B, B-52 and USN strike capabilities) infrastructure that is unmatched even by the next top 10 world powers combined.

Fools like WHEELER can't or won't comprehend the advantages that LO and the supporting infrastructure provides. All he cares about is thrust to weight, fuel fraction, top speed etc in 1 v 1 "Biggles" type scenarios. Such are NOT the predominant factors in victories in air combat nor are the 1 v 1 fighter scenarios relevant to modern warfighting operations.

I'm certain that the F-22 is the best up there but there is simply not enough of them and now the F-35 is being put under the microscope as a source for possible cuts and Obama is supposedly the one to decide.

1. The USAF has unmatched air combat capability even without the Raptor. Stating there is not enough, is like arguing a sledgehammer isn't enough to crack walnuts, we need MORE sledgehammers.

2. There have been NO "announced" cuts to the F-35 program since 2001. I would expect that a Defence Professional could look a bit beyond sensationalist media reporting and perhaps even take a look at US budgetary documents to see what the REAL state of US military funding IS and see exactly what is being spent. The so-called "trouble" you see should be put in the context that it absolutely dwarfs any other defence budget on Earth...

With production rates like that Obama even he served two terms (God forbid) he'd still be looking at seeing only about 500 of the 2500 needed. Has anyone figured out what the production rates are on these........ at a max they're talking about producing 60 of these type per year. The amount of F-35's needed are over 2000 units if the navy is going to make good on replacing it's A-10's, 16's and 18's A-C's.... that means that by the time they build 2500 aircraft you're looking at 40 years from now.

Er no, USAF alone will be taking approximately 80 aircraft per year at full rate production with about 120 airframes per year in total. The plan is STILL for USAF alone to purchase 1763 fighters over a 20 year build. The numbers built per year then speak for themselves...

Does anyone think that's the most idiotic plan in history. I surely expect a few of you to start jumping on the table and talk about upgrades but if that's the case then we should be still flying Phantoms......10ringr
WE MUST BUILD MORE F-22's..............

It would help if you could straighten out your facts before sharing an opinion. The US navy operates NO A-10's. It only operates a small number of F-16's in aggressor roles.

The Navy is expecting around 400 odd F-35C's out to 2030. Factor in partner nation buys, USAF buys and USMC buys and you can work out how many aircraft L-M will need to build per year.

I do like how the anti-JSF crowd uses Mr Wheeler's comments when it suits their own POV. It's a pity they don't possess a shred of intellectual honesty though. Go and research his opinion on the F-22. He hates it even more than the F-35, if possible....

His opinion is that USAF needs nothing more than 5-6000 F-16A's armed with short ranged Sidewinders only and no radar. THAT is the future of air combat according to this "expert"...

 

[t68]

with the recent uproar of how the F35 was a pig of a plane in dogfight, I came across this computer sim on a flight of four F-35Bs going up against four of Sukhoi Su-35S.

I've never played a computer sim so I'll have to leave it to you people to pick over it to see if he is being realistic or not.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/do...-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4

Second warning issued for another attempt at thread derailment.

It is a commercial computer game (for fun), and if you descend to this level of discussion where you blur the line between reality and fantasy, there would have no interest by others in keeping discussions here grounded in reality. Please think about the quality of your posts and what remains of your credibility to other members of the forum.

You can of course discuss this topic in a brand new F-35 fantasy discussion thread (provided it is clearly labelled as a fantasy discussion thread by the thread starter).

Really, the use of the simulation by the author was used as tool to help dispel some of the disinformation brought up in the damming dogfighter report and clearly demonstrating how potentially the F35 would/could perform in as close to real world simulation without access to classified material, and with the simulation used being has been recognised by BAE Systems to start a collaboration with Slitherine as a basis to help for use by professional within the defence arena.

Matrix Games - Slitherine and BAE Systems to start collaboration

The author also placed some caveats on the tool used and stated it used unclassified material, and while the point of this test is to see how the F-35 performs in a more operationally representative arena and he also tries to point out the Red Air perspective.

To the layman like myself I thought it was used as a good way of demonstrating the potential clash between aircraft and how that might occur in the future and give the reader a broader aspect of how system could be used to their own advantage.

 

[barney41]

Really, the use of the simulation by the author was used as tool to help dispel some of the disinformation brought up in the damming dogfighter report and clearly demonstrating how potentially the F35 would/could perform in as close to real world simulation without access to classified material, and with the simulation used being has been recognised by BAE Systems to start a collaboration with Slitherine as a basis to help for use by professional within the defence arena.

Seems to me you have bought in to all that "dogfight" nonsense. They were conducting a development test to evaluate aircraft handling in specific parts of the envelope. The F-16 was there to provide a visual reference. Some have sought to misrepresent and sensationalize the whole thing, knowing that "bad news" travels fast. OTOH, you can opt not to join the circus and some googling will reveal what actual pros with actual credentials doing this sort of testing actually have to say.

 

[OPSSG]

This is a thread for continued F-35 fantasy discussions (or fake F-35 discussions that have been debunked). That way, new members and readers will not be confused.

 

[t68]

Seems to me you have bought in to all that "dogfight" nonsense. They were conducting a development test to evaluate aircraft handling in specific parts of the envelope. The F-16 was there to provide a visual reference. Some have sought to misrepresent and sensationalize the whole thing, knowing that "bad news" travels fast. OTOH, you can opt not to join the circus and some googling will reveal what actual pros with actual credentials doing this sort of testing actually have to say.

Ah no, I don’t profess to be a professional on the subject and try to keep an open mind on all sources of information. The article in question tried to paint a picture on how the F35 would potentially be used in combat with a near peer adversary in a more realistic setting.

If the moderators hear feel they would not like to see competing points of view from differing authors on this thread to points raised and debated previously and remain on technical nature that’s fine with me

 

[RobWilliams]

I'm a massive fan of Command, really cool program to run 'what ifs' though.

 

[fbi098]

To be truthful, Dec 2012 truly means 2013. IOC means different things to diverse services. Full beat capability seriously isn't projected for your USMC till 2024. Regardless the true benchmark stays the trip test plan. There has to be very considerable progress immediately or this program will only be additional delayed.

Originally the actual flight examination program was projected to be delayed by simply JET regarding 30 months that has been later projected at 13 months by DOD based on specific adjustments they plan to implement. On the other hand, 30 months has not been a most severe case estimate by JET plus the current explained 13 calendar month delay is viewed as beneficial by numerous.