F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[ADMk2]

I got to add, there have certainly been concerns regarding the air-to-air capability of the F-35, but they seem to have been adressed. Regardless of that, this will be a controversial topic until the F-35 actually proves itself in air-to-air combat in a real battle, non-testing environment.

Of all the modern Western 4th Gen aircraft which have seen actual air to air combat?

Off the top of my head only F-15, F-16, M2K and F/A-18 have done so.

Yet few have doubts about the Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon's abilities in these areas. What capability of these is there that the F-35 won't have? The answer is none but the F-35 certainly has capabilities these don't have and indeed are unlikely to ever have. So what gives?

What gives is that the doubts about F-35 are not based on it's lack of actual combat experience and most certainly not an objective look at it, but rather a lack of objectivity about it motivated by some other factor...

 

[Marc 1]

...
The F-15E? It lacks the agility of the F-16 in the air to air mode and can't even begin to compare to the close air support capability of the A-10.

The A-10? It lacks the range, payload and performance of the F-15E in the bombing mode and can't even begin to compare to the F-16 in the air to air role.

See what I did there? It is the stupidest most puerile argument there is to compare horses for courses or apples to oranges.

Of course the F-35 can't compare to those particular aircraft in their particular roles. .

But aparently the F-35 does make an excellent flying piano (a real live fighter pilot told me so it must be true), so all is not lost. Quite apart from from shooting 4th gen a/c from the skies, it can also play the funeral march as the twisted smoking wreckage of its victims augers in.

Damn smart that.

 

[Eeshaan]

I agree with you guys.

By the way, any idea about how much and what kind of Data did RAND have to run it's simulations ? Their Data collection must not have been adequate, like Volkodav mentioned, to be able to provide an accurate result.

Also, I'm not very knowledgable about this, but since when did SIMULATIONS accurately depict the outcome of a soldier's, pilot's or sailor's performance in combat versus another of his type who is armed with similar hardware ? There are so many human factors and other variables, IMHO you're better off consulting an Astrologer than a computer program for any sort of prediction LOL.

Here's a video of a simulation that I found :

H3 MilSim - F-35A v Su-35S - YouTube

 

[Eeshaan]

Here's a transcript of the Australian Parliament's Joint Committee hearing on the capabilities of the F-35. Held on Feb.7 this year. Released on March 6. Interesting read IMO :

Australian Committee Hearing Reveals Details of F-35 Performance in Wargame

The Australian government is confident about the aircraft's capabilities :

Joint Strike Fighter jets were 'comprehensively beaten' in simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft

The war games, conducted at Hawaii's Hickam airbase last month, were witnessed by at least four RAAF personnel and a member of Australia's peak military spy agency, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, The West Australian said.

Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said he was taking "with a grain of salt" the validity of the report. "This is based on a computer game, computer modelling of the aircraft," he told Sky News.

"This is not real life".

 

[SpudmanWP]

Per the RAND study:

Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.

Statement Regarding Media Coverage of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter | RAND
The F-35’s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy

 

[ADMk2]

I agree with you guys.

By the way, any idea about how much and what kind of Data did RAND have to run it's simulations ? Their Data collection must not have been adequate, like Volkodav mentioned, to be able to provide an accurate result.

Also, I'm not very knowledgable about this, but since when did SIMULATIONS accurately depict the outcome of a soldier's, pilot's or sailor's performance in combat versus another of his type who is armed with similar hardware ? There are so many human factors and other variables, IMHO you're better off consulting an Astrologer than a computer program for any sort of prediction LOL.

Here's a video of a simulation that I found :

H3 MilSim - F-35A v Su-35S - YouTube

Yep, that is the REPSIM simulation put together by Mr Goon and Mr Mills, that I referred to earlier. Mr Mills who was sacked by the RAAF in the early 2000's and has held a grudge against them ever since...

It's directly linked to the acronym - garbage in and garbage out - GIGO.

AVM Kym Osley obliquely referred to this when he testifed as to these guys lack of insight and access into the necessary data that would allow such simulations to have any degree of relevance.

That they lack this relevant data for either the F-35 or the SU-35 shows the worth (and lack thereof) of this effort...

A part of RAND does have relevant access, but their former employee Dr Stillion did not. On top of which his simulation wasn't about how well the F-35 might fare in an air war, but rather about basing issues in the Asia Pacific theatre. Dr Stillion never worked in the part of RAND that was cleared to use USAF data, but that doesn't matter to some...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A part of RAND does have relevant access, but their former employee Dr Stillion did not. On top of which his simulation wasn't about how well the F-35 might fare in an air war, but rather about basing issues in the Asia Pacific theatre. Dr Stillion never worked in the part of RAND that was cleared to use USAF data, but that doesn't matter to some...

If I recall correctly and it was what four years ago? But I seem to recall that the stuff in this report about F-35s vs Su-35s was all APA stuff quoted by the RAND author. So it wasn't actually a RAND analysis just used to support this guy's arguments for heavy base protection (HAS, etc).

 

[gf0012-aust]

If I recall correctly and it was what four years ago? But I seem to recall that the stuff in this report about F-35s vs Su-35s was all APA stuff quoted by the RAND author. So it wasn't actually a RAND analysis just used to support this guy's arguments for heavy base protection (HAS, etc).

On top of which it was not a tactical warfighting sim. it was a Falconview scenario. ie logistics centric modelling. Falconview has NO tactical component

what was hysterical was watching APA and their ilk screaming for blue blood and they didn't even comprehend the nature of the program used. (apart from the fact that Falconview isn't sim software anyway)

they're halfwits

 

[rand0m]

I agree with you guys.

By the way, any idea about how much and what kind of Data did RAND have to run it's simulations ? Their Data collection must not have been adequate, like Volkodav mentioned, to be able to provide an accurate result.

Also, I'm not very knowledgable about this, but since when did SIMULATIONS accurately depict the outcome of a soldier's, pilot's or sailor's performance in combat versus another of his type who is armed with similar hardware ? There are so many human factors and other variables, IMHO you're better off consulting an Astrologer than a computer program for any sort of prediction LOL.

Here's a video of a simulation that I found :

H3 MilSim - F-35A v Su-35S - YouTube

What the hell kind of simulation is that??? Did somebody spend too much time playing Janes Fleet combat sim?? The new naval warfare game makes more sense than that! How embarrassing!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Also, I'm not very knowledgable about this, but since when did SIMULATIONS accurately depict the outcome of a soldier's, pilot's or sailor's performance in combat versus another of his type who is armed with similar hardware ? There are so many human factors and other variables, IMHO you're better off consulting an Astrologer than a computer program for any sort of prediction LOL.

Which is why the advanced simulations used by the defence forces include physics based simulations (where every radar beam is replicated) and real world tactics and actions by subject matter experts (actual current FCIs and the like). Some simulations will use multiple levels like flight simulators used to establish tactics for new aircraft like the F-35 which is then inputted into the high end super computer based stuff. Red force capability is based on intelligence and replication via Aggressor type units who fly their aircraft keyed into the actual flight performance of adversary aircraft.

The level of fidelity of these simulations is hugely different to odds based chess boards like Harpoon. Games like Harpoon require someone to determine what the odds (%) of any likely outcome is. Obviously if the guy who entered this data thinks a Su-35 will defeat an F-35 80% of the time they come within 20km of each other (or whatever) then the results of any simulation will be determined by these assumptions. Hence: GIGO.

 

[jack412]

Further to GIGO is when you give the Russian missile more than twice the range than even the Russians do, then there is the silly PK rates

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18089.html

RepSim/ APA clown club and Co work out that the r-77 [aa-12] has a 60nm zone
the Russians say the R-77/RVV-AE has a 27nm zone

the R-77/RVV-AE [aa-12]
http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/air_craft/aircraft_118-121.pdf
Max launch range, km:
against fighter-type targets 50km / 27nm
against bomber-type targets 80km
Fighter-type target hit probability 0.6-0.7

 

[ADMk2]

What the hell kind of simulation is that??? Did somebody spend too much time playing Janes Fleet combat sim?? The new naval warfare game makes more sense than that! How embarrassing!

That's the result of the fantasy world the APA guys live in, when they try and apply the figments of their imagination to the real world. It works for them...

Apparently the best way to simulate real combat is to take data you found on a Rosoboronexport pamphlet, compare it against data you found in publicly released Lockheed Martin power-point, change the figures around to suit your own argument and then input this data into a computer game.

That is what these guys presented to the Australian Senate and they wonder why they aren't taken seriously?

:lol3

 

[aussienscale]

That is what these guys presented to the Australian Senate and they wonder why they aren't taken seriously?

:lol3

It was the best "Crash & Burn" I have seen in a very very long time, and I hate to admit it ! But I actually felt embarrased for them :frown

 

[Eeshaan]

Further to GIGO is when you give the Russian missile more than twice the range than even the Russians do, then there is the silly PK rates

The level of fidelity of these simulations is hugely different to odds based chess boards like Harpoon. Games like Harpoon require someone to determine what the odds (%) of any likely outcome is. Obviously if the guy who entered this data thinks a Su-35 will defeat an F-35 80% of the time they come within 20km of each other (or whatever) then the results of any simulation will be determined by these assumptions. Hence: GIGO.

Ahh I see now. This seems like it was deliberately calculated to ensure failure of the F-35 in the simulated wargames. Made to undermine the program, but why would they do that ?

Is it a political move against the government by the opposition party, or are the people at APA simply not confident about an increase in dependance on advanced technology ? If so, then why not put forward a case for a 4.5 gen fighter like Typhoon or Gripen ? Yeah I know it won't go through, but at least makes more sense than not wanting to replace the Hornets at all.

I was under the impression that the F-35 controversy began due to actual design and performance issues that were highlighted during tests & simulations like this. Had no idea that the anti-F35 campaign had a political agenda.

 

[aussienscale]

Ahh I see now. This seems like it was deliberately calculated to ensure failure of the F-35 in the simulated wargames. Made to undermine the program, but why would they do that ?

Is it a political move against the government by the opposition party, or are the people at APA simply not confident about an increase in dependance on advanced technology ? If so, then why not put forward a case for a 4.5 gen fighter like Typhoon or Gripen ?

I was under the impression that the F-35 controversy began due to actual design and performance issues that were highlighted during tests & simulations like this. Had no idea that the anti-F35 campaign had a political agenda.

There is no denying that the program has had issues, they all do, it is how these people portray these issues and make noise about them for their own gain. The whole crux of the APA rhetoric is that they had (note I mention "had") a potential financial interest in the AIR Project with proposals they put forward, they were rejected and now to put it bluntly Goon & Kopp are very bitter about the whole thing and have made it personal, this is why you see ever increasing desperate and pathetic attempts to de-rail the program

 

[B3LA]

B3LA Bites The Dust

Goodbye.

 

[Eeshaan]

Does the F-35 controversy remind anyone of the V-22 Osprey progam ?

Of course, it's definitely not as expensive in terms of money, but cost alot in terms of manpower. The program itself was deemed too advanced and ahead of it's time. Was very clse to being shut down on several occasions, but in the end it did turn out to be successful.

IMHO the same might be said for the F-35 in the next 5-10 years...

 

[ADMk2]

Does the F-35 controversy remind anyone of the V-22 Osprey progam ?

Of course, it's definitely not as expensive in terms of money, but cost alot in terms of manpower. The program itself was deemed too advanced and ahead of it's time. Was very clse to being shut down on several occasions, but in the end it did turn out to be successful.

IMHO the same might be said for the F-35 in the next 5-10 years...

It does a tad, the problem with that comparison is that V-22 whilst an amzing capability wasn't the only realistic solution. The F model Chinook program was there to keep it somewhat honest.

F-35 doesn't have that luxury. Either the USAF is right in that legacy aircraft aren't survivable in future years in which case we must have F-35 and anything less won't do, or the naysayers are right and even the F-35 isn't sufficient, in which case anything less, most definitely isn't sufficient...

Either way paints a bleak picture for any strike fighter capability less than that which the F-35 has. As F-35 is the only game in town now for US fighter recapitalisation for at least 20 years, I guess the USAF must be pretty confident of it's opinion...

 

[weegee]

Australia Delays F35 purchase

I see that Australia has delayed the purchase of its first 12 F35 for 2 years! I think this falls in line with what the USAF is doing.
Budget cuts will affect RAAF plans - Local News - News - General - Newcastle Herald

 

[colay]

Here's a new training technology that combines simulation with actual flying hours to hone pilots' combat skills in the BVR arena.
Live Virtual Constructive technology set to revolutionize air combat training

Live Virtual Constructive technology set to revolutionize air combat training
By: DAVE MAJUMDAR WASHINGTON DC

The US Air Force and Lockheed Martin are getting ready to demonstrate the first operational use of live virtual constructive (LVC) training technology on 26 April at Luke Air Force Base (AFB), Arizona.

The technology has the potential to revolutionize the way air forces train-particularly for aviators who will fly 5th generation machines like Lockheed's F-22 Raptor and F-35.