F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[Kilo 2-3]

I haven't heard that, interesting. Did the A-7 (based on the F-8) have the same problems since it had the same fuselage length and pilot position?

I don't recall the Corsair having similar problems,although I think this may have simply been because it was designed as a subsonic attack aircraft and simply handled better and landed at lower speeds.

http://www.blueridgejournal.com/navy/rampstrike.jpg (A F-8 hitting the spud locker).

 

[OpinionNoted]

That study has already been dismissed by:

1. USN.

2. USAF.

3. L-M.

I'm sure Peter Goon will react all hysterically to it, as per usual and fill his comments with the usual "dark hints" but I very much doubt anyone will care...

At best it might garner him an extra 50-60 cents worth of hits on his propaganda page...

Could you provide a link regarding where you read that the USN as dismissing this ...thanks

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Could you provide a link regarding USN dismissing this ...thanks

The Navy isn't a homogeneous body and a study from one part of it does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the entire Navy. While there probably are internal documents regarding/ refuting/addressing this study, they'd be classified Pentagon and Navy files, we wouldn't be privy to.

 

[OpinionNoted]

The Navy isn't a homogeneous body and a study from one part of it does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the entire Navy. While there probably are internal documents regarding/ refuting/addressing this study, they'd be classified Pentagon and Navy files, we wouldn't be privy to.

irrelevant to my post requesting a link to article,if article,in which aussie digger read a statement by USN in dismissing this.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Could you provide a link regarding where you read that the USN as dismissing this ...thanks

CNO: JSF projections will not affect budget - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

Only the CNO...

 

[B3LA]

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the JSF.

It has finally become clear to me that the JSF is a project above criticism and suspicion.
Mods and knowledgeables here behave like flyboys and pushes back at the slightest
negative comment regarding the delays and the rise of costs.
I have drawn the conclusion that the reason for this behaviour is that the JSF simply HAS
to succeed, there are no other alternatives.
Maybe the Navy have other options but the Air Force and NATO have none.
Just pay up and be happy.

 

[Grand Danois]

It has finally become clear to me that the JSF is a project above criticism and suspicion.
Mods and knowledgeables here behave like flyboys and pushes back at the slightest
negative comment regarding the delays and the rise of costs.
I have drawn the conclusion that the reason for this behaviour is that the JSF simply HAS
to succeed, there are no other alternatives.
Maybe the Navy have other options but the Air Force and NATO have none.
Just pay up and be happy.

Love that post title.

Oh, re criticism. The JSF project receives so much attention (criticism) from so many who seeks its demise, that there are two or three new subjects every week. There are many misunderstandings, manipulations and it's almost impossible to have robust debate when the environment is polluted/filibustered to such a degree that even the Mods behave like fanboys (I'm talking about myself).

I have always said that it would overrun on cost - but even with a massive overrun it would still be cheaper than EF or Rafale. It's relative.

Anyhow, the reason I am defensive about the JSF and post about it, is because of the immense amount of FUD attacks it gets and that are simply not warranted.

 

[Bonza]

It has finally become clear to me that the JSF is a project above criticism and suspicion.
Mods and knowledgeables here behave like flyboys and pushes back at the slightest
negative comment regarding the delays and the rise of costs.
I have drawn the conclusion that the reason for this behaviour is that the JSF simply HAS
to succeed, there are no other alternatives.
Maybe the Navy have other options but the Air Force and NATO have none.
Just pay up and be happy.

It certainly is a polarising topic. Personally speaking I don't think anything's above criticism - if only there were more logical criticisms of the JSF, rather than the ill-informed sentimental claptrap that gets thrown around so often.

Naturally, such criticisms must be criticised.

It's not so much that the program can't possibly fail, it's just that it must be viewed logically. With the amount of funding, international interest, and research and development that's gone in to the thing, and with the largest defence spending nation and owner of the most advanced air force on earth at the helm, can people honestly say it's going to turn out to be a lemon?

It just doesn't add up for me. And the sometimes-mentioned notion that L-M is "pulling the wool over our eyes" - the implication being that they're willingly compromising the capability of US air power for the sake of making money - reeks of desperate conspiracy theory to me. Of course they want to make money - but the sheer number of people who would have to be "in on it" boggles the mind, and impugns the integrity and professionalism of those service personnel whose responsibility it is to ensure capability is maintained and delivered upon.

Most of the criticisms I see seem to centre on the idea that it's not the biggest/fastest/stealthiest/most bristling with missiles fighter out there. Which is fine, it's not. But while comparing stats might be fun for its own sake and might give people an idea of individual aircraft performance parameters, it's not a good indicator of capability nor is it a road to understanding how air combat works (I say that as someone who is very much still learning myself, mind you).

It's a shame too how difficult it is for people to discuss the topic without some kind of freak out. If you like the JSF, you're a Lockheed-Martin stooge, if you don't like the JSF, you're an APA fanboy, etc etc...

We need to find the ugliest fighter ever built, so we can unite and all hate that together. Thus there will be harmony in the forums.

 

[Pyongyang]

If using billions of dollars on passive stealth features will pay off in ten years, is at best uncertain. In the years there will be with great certainty systems which can track and target these planes. It all comes down to who can afford such systems. If the anti-stealth answer is passive antennas using FM or GSM signals, most poor nations could afford it.
Stealth planes could then lose some of their advantages, I guess...but the F-35 will probably be an ok airplane anyway.
But we have to look at the price of the whole system, including maintenance. And so far the reports are not as good as expected. But it's still kind of early.

I'm more interested in the status of the British F-35B's to be honest.

 

[Bonza]

If using billions of dollars on passive stealth features will pay off in ten years, is at best uncertain. In the years there will be with great certainty systems which can track and target these planes. It all comes down to who can afford such systems. If the anti-stealth answer is passive antennas using FM or GSM signals, most poor nations could afford it.
Stealth planes could then lose some of their advantages, I guess...but the F-35 will probably be an ok airplane anyway.
But we have to look at the price of the whole system, including maintenance. And so far the reports are not as good as expected. But it's still kind of early.

I'm more interested in the status of the British F-35B's to be honest.

Well, every country involved in the project, along with Russia, India, China and several European nations working on unmanned systems seem to think that LO aircraft are worth developing, what does that tell you about the relevance of LO systems in the next 10-20 years?

If there was a cheap countermeasure just over the horizon, would we be seeing developments like PAK FA, nEUROn, X-47b, etc? Remember that RCS reduction is only a single aspect of low observability.

There have been a few "stealth countermeasures" talked up through the years, and yet organisations with far more data than the average person persist in developing LO aircraft. That is very telling as far as the practicality of proposed countermeasures and the continued relevance of LO aircraft.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Well, every country involved in the project, along with Russia, India, China and several European nations working on unmanned systems seem to think that LO aircraft are worth developing, what does that tell you about the relevance of LO systems in the next 10-20 years?

If there was a cheap countermeasure just over the horizon, would we be seeing developments like PAK FA, nEUROn, X-47b, etc? Remember that RCS reduction is only a single aspect of low observability.

There have been a few "stealth countermeasures" talked up through the years, and yet organisations with far more data than the average person persist in developing LO aircraft. That is very telling as far as the practicality of proposed countermeasures and the continued relevance of LO aircraft.

Very true Bonza. You make an excellent point about the fact that the increase in LO designs around the world does indicate that LO is competitive against the much-vaunted proposed countermeasures

There's also the fact that future air forces are simply going to have to jump on the stealth bandwagon to stay competitive. Modern SAMs, 5th generation fighters, etc. are going to make life very dangerous for any future non-LO aircraft, so stealth is going to be key for mission effectiveness in the 21st century battlespace.

 

[Pyongyang]

Well, every country involved in the project, along with Russia, India, China and several European nations working on unmanned systems seem to think that LO aircraft are worth developing, what does that tell you about the relevance of LO systems in the next 10-20 years?

If there was a cheap countermeasure just over the horizon, would we be seeing developments like PAK FA, nEUROn, X-47b, etc? Remember that RCS reduction is only a single aspect of low observability.

There have been a few "stealth countermeasures" talked up through the years, and yet organisations with far more data than the average person persist in developing LO aircraft. That is very telling as far as the practicality of proposed countermeasures and the continued relevance of LO aircraft.

Thats a good point, what I can tell you is that allot of these projects like Saab/Dassault stealth ucavs are pushed to sell Gripens. Just look at the offer they gave Norway.

And when this is said, compared to the first protoypes, todays generation of F-35 has taken a step away from the first extremly stealthy design, why?

It's kind of open. I'm a stronger believer in jamming and a new generation anti-radiation missiles.

But what do you think about the number of F-22s in service? Kind of low compared to the F-35? Will basically end up with the same pricetag???

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Thats a good point, what I can tell you is that allot of these projects like Saab/Dassault stealth ucavs are pushed to sell Gripens. Just look at the offer they gave Norway.

And when this is said, compared to the first protoypes, todays generation of F-35 has taken a step away from the first extremly stealthy design, why?

It's kind of open. I'm a stronger believer in jamming and a new generation anti-radiation missiles.

But what do you think about the number of F-22s in service? Kind of low compared to the F-35? Will basically end up with the same pricetag???

Anti-radiation missiles are great if you want to mission kill a radar by forcing it to shut off, but they don't always get the job done. Besides, the launch platform has to get within in the range of the IADS to engage the radar.

The planned F-22/F-35 ratio is roughly similar to the current F-15/F-16 ratio (about half (appx. 1,200) of all the fighters in the USAF today are F-16s while only about 600 F-15s are operated).

 

[Pyongyang]

Anti-radiation missiles are great if you want to mission kill a radar by forcing it to shut off, but they don't always get the job done. Besides, the launch platform has to get within in the range of the IADS to engage the radar.

The planned F-22/F-35 ratio is roughly similar to the current F-15/F-16 ratio (about half (appx. 1,200) of all the fighters in the USAF today are F-16s while only about 600 F-15s are operated).

Theres no need for launch platform to be in the range of enemy radar to launch an anti-radiation missile. There would be issues regarding identification...

 

[Todjaeger]

Theres no need for launch platform to be in the range of enemy radar to launch an anti-radiation missile. There would be issues regarding identification...

Actually this is incorrect. ARMs (currrent ones anyway) are configured for use against ground-based radar emitters and are of limited utility against airborne radars. Some of the potential future ARMs are planned for dual-use as in both ARM and air-to-air roles, with some ability to operate at standoff ranges. However, the currently expected ranges (100+ km IIRC) still falls well short of the detection and tracking ranges of AEW systems (200+ km, generally).

Given the increased usage of AEW systems throughout the world, with both the numbers of AEW platforms and users growing, the sensor coverage of IADS will increase. With that increase, the ability to negative impact the sensors will decrease without a corresponding increase in LO and/or standoff attack capabilities. Given the difficulties in carrying out a successful long-range standoff attack vs. a highly mobile sensing platform, I expect that both methods will continue to be required to penetrate current and near-term IADS.

-Cheers

 

[Pyongyang]

Actually this is incorrect. ARMs (currrent ones anyway) are configured for use against ground-based radar emitters and are of limited utility against airborne radars. Some of the potential future ARMs are planned for dual-use as in both ARM and air-to-air roles, with some ability to operate at standoff ranges. However, the currently expected ranges (100+ km IIRC) still falls well short of the detection and tracking ranges of AEW systems (200+ km, generally).

Given the increased usage of AEW systems throughout the world, with both the numbers of AEW platforms and users growing, the sensor coverage of IADS will increase. With that increase, the ability to negative impact the sensors will decrease without a corresponding increase in LO and/or standoff attack capabilities. Given the difficulties in carrying out a successful long-range standoff attack vs. a highly mobile sensing platform, I expect that both methods will continue to be required to penetrate current and near-term IADS.

-Cheers

As you know I was talking about a possible new generation. And I disagree with your opinion.

 

[Todjaeger]

As you know I was talking about a possible new generation. And I disagree with your opinion.

You are of course free to disagree. The point of the forum is to discuss and debate, and then agree or disagree based upon ones interpretation of the information and evidence.

As for a new generation... A new generation what? ARM, LO aircraft, radar system, standoff weapon?

If you mean a new generation ARM, as I mentioned, work is underway for an ARM which can be used against BVR airborne targets upto ~100 km away. However, the launching aircraft would still be within the detection range of an AEW for some time prior to launch, unless the aircraft was a LO platform.

If you mean a standoff weapon, some of the upcoming weapons (JASSM/JASSM-ER comes to mind immediately) have both standoff ranges and are including LO features to reduce the likelihood of detection/interception/destruction of the munition prior to striking its target. That was a issue noted with TacToms used during and after GWI. While TacToms have long range, therefore keeping the launch platform relatively safe from counterattack, they are not particularly hard to intercept once detected, and the only thing making detection difficult is the fact that they have a terrain skimming flightpath.

If instead you mean something entirely different, please explain. As things stand now, ARMs are appropriate for SEAD/DEAD mission roles, but do not provide the same mission/role functionality that LO aircraft provide. The two (ARM and LO) are certainly complimentary, but neither can really take the place of the other.

-Cheers

 

[Bonza]

Thats a good point, what I can tell you is that allot of these projects like Saab/Dassault stealth ucavs are pushed to sell Gripens. Just look at the offer they gave Norway.

And when this is said, compared to the first protoypes, todays generation of F-35 has taken a step away from the first extremly stealthy design, why?

It's kind of open. I'm a stronger believer in jamming and a new generation anti-radiation missiles.

But what do you think about the number of F-22s in service? Kind of low compared to the F-35? Will basically end up with the same pricetag???

I'm not sure what you mean when you say today's generation of F-35 is a step backwards (presumably you mean as compared to the X-35)? Certainly features like the engine nozzle are actually more stealthy on the current model as opposed to on the x-plane.

I'm not sure why you think Saab is pushing UCAVs in order to sell Gripens. Certainly that doesn't explain all the other UCAV projects out there. Could you explain a bit more?

The number of F-22s is quite low, but I don't have the data to say whether it will turn out to be a good or a bad decision. Certainly from the information I have seen I can understand why they'd discontinue such a plane, based on avionics sustainment issues, mission set and price tag. Why do you say the F-22 and F-35 will end up being the same price?

 

[djpav]

Here's the latest on the actual price of the F35 from today's New York Times:

"But while delays and overruns pushed the cost of the F-22 so high that only 187 are being built, the projected costs of the F-35 program have also risen to $298.8 billion from an early estimate of about $200 billion.

Counting all the development costs, each F-35 is now projected to cost about $122 million compared with about $350 million for each F-22. Another concern is that additional problems often appear in flight testing. And a recent Navy study concluded that the F-35 could be significantly more expensive to operate than older fighters."

So here it is folks. It's $122 million a piece so far...

Gates Pushing to Get F-35 Fighter Program Back on Course - NYTimes.com

 

[Todjaeger]

Here's the latest on the actual price of the F35 from today's New York Times:

"But while delays and overruns pushed the cost of the F-22 so high that only 187 are being built, the projected costs of the F-35 program have also risen to $298.8 billion from an early estimate of about $200 billion.

Counting all the development costs, each F-35 is now projected to cost about $122 million compared with about $350 million for each F-22. Another concern is that additional problems often appear in flight testing. And a recent Navy study concluded that the F-35 could be significantly more expensive to operate than older fighters."

So here it is folks. It's $122 million a piece so far...

Gates Pushing to Get F-35 Fighter Program Back on Course - NYTimes.com

Not sure if the $122 million figure is entirely accurate, as the figure seems to be drawn from total programme cost estimates of ~$298 billion if 2,456 F-35s are ordered for the US, divided by the number of aircraft the US orders. The number neglects to include the impact potentially hundreds of non-US aircraft orders would have on the total programme cost, as well as cost per aircraft.

One thing I find curious about the story, is that the article seems to suggest that there has been a parts shortage, effecting the delivery of LRIP aircraft. In other sections, it mentions that the aircraft is going to be more expensive to operate than previous aircraft... but it fails to clarify how/why that is. I can certainly understand the aircraft costing more to operate than some prior designs due to inflation (i.e. a FY2000 $1 has greater purchasing power than a FY2020 $1) but other than that, why?

I do believe that the F-35/JSF programme has some problems, but nothing reported so far sounds insurmountable, particularly when compared to other recent military programmes.

-Cheers