F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Belesari]

OK i say it this way.

The marines need to ask the question. Was it worth it in the end to field the f-35B. Is there a point that asking for a aircraft to do litteraly everything gets to be to much? It seems that there is a trend. You have 1,000 of X. To full fill mission requirements you need atleast 800 of X. Now you develope the new ultimate X and there is a problem. It is so expensive you can only afford 600 units when you need 800.
So you go ahead and get those 600 and just accept doing a little less. No big deal. Now the next cycle comes you need atleast 600 units of X. So you start the search for the greatest X EVER. 12 years later strapped for cash already after a huge R&D you get super X. But...oh no you can only afford 200.
No problem just do a little less.

THAT is what i'm gettin at. Do i think the F-35 wont work as designed after all the kinks are worked out? No. I think it will it HAS to. This will more than likely be the Last Big fighter project for awhile. So this had better work perfectly.

The Navy wants 480 F-35C's along with 80 more for the marines. I have to wonder if that will only be around 300 or so.

THAT is what i worry about a increasingly smaller amount of capanility over all in the fleet.

Do we want a 300 ship Navy with all the nessesary Aircraft and ships along with the new LCS, New Carriers which are around what now 7-10 bil a copy or so? This is already costing 1 carrier. What else are we going to lose? A 120 ship Navy maybe?

----------------------------------------------------------------

"I thought that the -B model was the Harrier replacement? Silly me, I must be confused... "
That was quite litteraly the point i was making Jack thanks for agreeing. I simply ment if people wish to cut one model of the JSF the B is the worst hit.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"Ahh another stealth expert. Notice that the F-22 and F-35 don’t look anything like the F-117? Yet they are both stealthier than it? This is because there are more than one way to achieve a solution"

Never claimed to be a stealth expert abraham. But the fact remains that it isnt a full on stealth aircraft capable of going toe to toe with a air superiority aircraft like so many claim.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Final question:

Can you tell me faithfully and without blinking that we and the others in the JSF program will buy EVERY SINGLE ONE of the aircraft they said? The RN has already said that they probably wont buy so many. Wait till the others find out the price could be as high as 180-over 200 mil a copy. How many will back out then. They are already cutting forces.

And those Block II and III F-35's how much will they cost?

----------------------------------------------------------------

And ya'll laugh at me for saying why not just have a aircraft with the same mission set as the A-6. Yet Most of what the F-18 and F-35 is supposed to do is BOMB.

Go ahead and laugh.

 

[ADMk2]

No they are. First everything for the F-35 A,B,C are Estimates. The aircraft has so far just hatched. Nothing is really known. Add to that everyone admits there are differences between the models for performance.

F-35B has to match the F-35 A and C models which are not STOVL. So no its not a purpose built aircraft.

First of all you've just contradicted yourself within 2 sentences.

Secondly there is no way the B&C model will match the aerodynamic performance of the A model.

The B model's empty weight is 3000lbs heavier, yet has the same wings and thrust. It has 5000lbs less fuel internally at full fuel true, but that will be offset by far less potential use of reheat and greater fuel burn (due to higher takeoff weight and STO operations) and combined with 7G airframe rating means the B won't accelerate as hard, won't fly as far or as fast and won't stay up as long as the A model, all while carrying an inferior payload.

The C model's empty weight is 5000lbs heavier, carries 1500lbs more fuel, has much larger wings (which equals increased drag, though it also increases slow speed handling capability) yet the same amount of thrust and the latest revised range performance shows that for the extra 1500lbs of fuel the -C model carries, offers only 10nm more range than the -A model has, at an obviously much greater fuel burn rate.

The C model therefore won't accelerate as hard, won't turn as hard, won't fly as fast, offers no payload advantages and virtually no range advantage, for a much more expensive aircraft and much greater "dead weight" for those that don't operate conventional carriers.

This is why the -A model is by far the least likely variant to be dropped. It has the biggest potential customer base, it has the best performance and overall capability and it's the cheapest and easiest to produce out of all the variants.

Pics of the Sterns of both the F-35 and the F-16

An F-16 Fighting Falcon Aggressor soars over the Alaska Range :: Air-Attack.com

Third F-35 Carrier Variant Aircraft Completes First Flight :: Air-Attack.com

A true stealth aircraft like the F-22 has a different build. Plus IR is still the same unlike again a F-22.

Interesting claim to make. Obviously you've looked at the raw data from the RCS and IR visibility testing conducted by L-M and compared them to an F-22 under the same conditions before coming to such a conclusion?

2 missiles and 2 bombs? Hold the phone folks....

It's the type of "2 bombs" that's important. It is the only aircraft in the world today that can carry AMRAAM missiles and 2000lbs JDAM's in it's internal bays. It can carry larger numbers of other weapons in various configurations. How many other aircraft can carry 2x AMRAAM and 8x SDB with full LO? Or 2x AMRAAM, 4x SDB and 1x 2000lbs JDAM?

Or 3x AMRAAM and 4x SDB? Or 2x ASRAAM, 1x AMRAAM and 4x SDB if you like? Or 2x AMRAAM AND 2x JSOW?

None, and therefore it's performance is unequalled.

Feel free to show me the aircraft in flight testing or in-service today that can match this capability:

http://www.ahrtp.com/EG_Images3/Lockheed Martin F-35_flight_weaponsbay_opt600x424_air-attack.jpg

Here is my thing I WANT the F-35 to succeed.

However that said I simply think it would have made more sense for the Airforce to just have its own light fighter maybe a evolved F-16 suplamented with say the F-15SE or something like it.

Relax then, because it is. You may not have noticed, but there were some very successful trials conducted on USS Wasp recently that disproved some major (previously) publicly raised concerns (decks melting and concrete exploding nonsense).

As it works it's way through SDD, the aircraft has been consistently proving it's critics wrong. I see little evidence of this not continuing to be the case.

The Navy to go for either the F-18 as the new models will be getting more powerful engines, conformal fuel tanks, improved avionics and systems, stealth features and more.

In my mind again just my opinion the Navy needs a strike aircraft like the A-6. ALOT of capacity and range. Ability to refuel other aircraft (which the hornet can Do...but not very well.) and conduct other missions. No need for super speed.

The only confirmed current, major enhancements to the USN Super Hornet fleet is the AN/ASQ-42 IRST system and continued weapons upgrades. There is no plan for new engines, stealth features and what not.

You are confusing a company's marketing campaign for what the users actually want and have actually ordered.

I see little need for a dedicated strike aircraft and more particularly little funding for one. The F-35C will be the most capable striker and fighter the US Navy has ever had. It will be well supported by Super Hornet and Growler and in future years UCAV's.

I'd like to see a straight up Fighter in the navy again. Not a master of none which the F-18/F-35 both are.

Well you won't so learn to live with it. Multi-role fighters are the way of the future. Single-role assets will have no place in future inventories,

But like i said the B model is a must nothing exist to replace the Harrier...except the F-35B.

i don't agree with that either I must say. Nothing will take the place directly for the Harrier if the B is cancelled true, but that doesn't mean the Harrier's mission couldn't be filled by other assets, especially with UAV technology coming along In leaps and bounds.

 

[Belesari]

Oh yea forgot to add. There are weapons pods being developed that will fit i know i the underside of the F-18 which would reduce the radar sig for it AND i dont know it it could but mayb they could get something like that for the F-35.

Just a thought.

 

[Belesari]

First of all you've just contradicted yourself within 2 sentences.

Secondly there is no way the B&C model will match the aerodynamic performance of the A model.

The B model's empty weight is 3000lbs heavier, yet has the same wings and thrust. It has 5000lbs less fuel internally at full fuel true, but that will be offset by far less potential use of reheat and greater fuel burn (due to higher takeoff weight and STO operations) and combined with 7G airframe rating means the B won't accelerate as hard, won't fly as far or as fast and won't stay up as long as the A model, all while carrying an inferior payload.

The C model's empty weight is 5000lbs heavier, carries 1500lbs more fuel, has much larger wings (which equals increased drag, though it also increases slow speed handling capability) yet the same amount of thrust and the latest revised range performance shows that for the extra 1500lbs of fuel the -C model carries, offers only 10nm more range than the -A model has, at an obviously much greater fuel burn rate.

The C model therefore won't accelerate as hard, won't turn as hard, won't fly as fast, offers no payload advantages and virtually no range advantage, for a much more expensive aircraft and much greater "dead weight" for those that don't operate conventional carriers.

This is why the -A model is by far the least likely variant to be dropped. It has the biggest potential customer base, it has the best performance and overall capability and it's the cheapest and easiest to produce out of all the variants.



Interesting claim to make. Obviously you've looked at the raw data from the RCS and IR visibility testing conducted by L-M and compared them to an F-22 under the same conditions before coming to such a conclusion?



It's the type of "2 bombs" that's important. It is the only aircraft in the world today that can carry AMRAAM missiles and 2000lbs JDAM's in it's internal bays. It can carry larger numbers of other weapons in various configurations. How many other aircraft can carry 2x AMRAAM and 8x SDB with full LO? Or 2x AMRAAM, 4x SDB and 1x 2000lbs JDAM?

Or 3x AMRAAM and 4x SDB? Or 2x ASRAAM, 1x AMRAAM and 4x SDB if you like? Or 2x AMRAAM AND 2x JSOW?

None, and therefore it's performance is unequalled.

Feel free to show me the aircraft in flight testing or in-service today that can match this capability:

http://www.ahrtp.com/EG_Images3/Lockheed Martin F-35_flight_weaponsbay_opt600x424_air-attack.jpg



Relax then, because it is. You may not have noticed, but there were some very successful trials conducted on USS Wasp recently that disproved some major (previously) publicly raised concerns (decks melting and concrete exploding nonsense).

As it works it's way through SDD, the aircraft has been consistently proving it's critics wrong. I see little evidence of this not continuing to be the case.



The only confirmed current, major enhancements to the USN Super Hornet fleet is the AN/ASQ-42 IRST system and continued weapons upgrades. There is no plan for new engines, stealth features and what not.

You are confusing a company's marketing campaign for what the users actually want and have actually ordered.

I see little need for a dedicated strike aircraft and more particularly little funding for one. The F-35C will be the most capable striker and fighter the US Navy has ever had. It will be well supported by Super Hornet and Growler and in future years UCAV's.



Well you won't so learn to live with it. Multi-role fighters are the way of the future. Single-role assets will have no place in future inventories,



i don't agree with that either I must say. Nothing will take the place directly for the Harrier if the B is cancelled true, but that doesn't mean the Harrier's mission couldn't be filled by other assets, especially with UAV technology coming along In leaps and bounds.

I have read all of that. All you have to do is look at the wiki for gods sake. The question is is it.........not a lie but Blury. Fudged. Plus most of that is the combines conscerns of pilots, soldiers, sailors, marines, etc who have expressed those worries. And yea its not just the F-35 its all over the board.

 

[gf0012-aust]

He's starting to sound more and more desperate the better the aircraft does - now it's routinely flying, demonstrating capability and looking quite good, he's thrashing around like a fish in that last inch of the catch net.

Bless him...

Ian

the best advertisement for jsf is actually letting someone read the stuff that these fools right....

the shrillness and barely veiled hysteria is but a joyful thing for many and the best thing is that they're still completely deluded about their own importance in the debate.

sweetmans inability to engage in rational debate, and his proxy associations with these loonies just diminishes his credibility. in fact a number of serious sections in the professional community no longer subscribe to AW&ST despite the fact that our sub price is a quarter of the public retail price.

even the lazarused Janes/Lloyds from IHS has a better reputation.

 

[ADMk2]

I have read all of that. All you have to do is look at the wiki for gods sake. The question is is it.........not a lie but Blury. Fudged. Plus most of that is the combines conscerns of pilots, soldiers, sailors, marines, etc who have expressed those worries. And yea its not just the F-35 its all over the board.

All the pilots who have flown it and that include L-M test pilots, USAF, USN, USMC and RAF pilots have all been glowing.

Quotes about how it has slow speed handling like the Hornet and greater acceleration than clean Block 52, F-16's with much greater range and payload than either are not 'fudged' or blurry.

Real pilots, performing actual flight testing and envelope expansion. Not power-points or marketing speak.

Funny how it isn't the operators who are complaining about the capabilities of the aircraft, only those whose closest experience with the aircraft will be pictures, airshows or Harpoon 3...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Funny how it isn't the operators who are complaining about the capabilities of the aircraft, only those whose closest experience with the aircraft will be pictures, airshows or Harpoon 3...

now that is worth framing - and its so true....

 

[Todjaeger]

OK i say it this way.

The marines need to ask the question. Was it worth it in the end to field the f-35B. Is there a point that asking for a aircraft to do litteraly everything gets to be to much? It seems that there is a trend. You have 1,000 of X. To full fill mission requirements you need atleast 800 of X. Now you develope the new ultimate X and there is a problem. It is so expensive you can only afford 600 units when you need 800.
So you go ahead and get those 600 and just accept doing a little less. No big deal. Now the next cycle comes you need atleast 600 units of X. So you start the search for the greatest X EVER. 12 years later strapped for cash already after a huge R&D you get super X. But...oh no you can only afford 200.
No problem just do a little less.

THAT is what i'm gettin at. Do i think the F-35 wont work as designed after all the kinks are worked out? No. I think it will it HAS to. This will more than likely be the Last Big fighter project for awhile. So this had better work perfectly.

The Navy wants 480 F-35C's along with 80 more for the marines. I have to wonder if that will only be around 300 or so.

THAT is what i worry about a increasingly smaller amount of capanility over all in the fleet.

Do we want a 300 ship Navy with all the nessesary Aircraft and ships along with the new LCS, New Carriers which are around what now 7-10 bil a copy or so? This is already costing 1 carrier. What else are we going to lose? A 120 ship Navy maybe?

----------------------------------------------------------------

"I thought that the -B model was the Harrier replacement? Silly me, I must be confused... "
That was quite litteraly the point i was making Jack thanks for agreeing. I simply ment if people wish to cut one model of the JSF the B is the worst hit.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"Ahh another stealth expert. Notice that the F-22 and F-35 don’t look anything like the F-117? Yet they are both stealthier than it? This is because there are more than one way to achieve a solution"

Never claimed to be a stealth expert abraham. But the fact remains that it isnt a full on stealth aircraft capable of going toe to toe with a air superiority aircraft like so many claim.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Final question:

Can you tell me faithfully and without blinking that we and the others in the JSF program will buy EVERY SINGLE ONE of the aircraft they said? The RN has already said that they probably wont buy so many. Wait till the others find out the price could be as high as 180-over 200 mil a copy. How many will back out then. They are already cutting forces.

And those Block II and III F-35's how much will they cost?

----------------------------------------------------------------

And ya'll laugh at me for saying why not just have a aircraft with the same mission set as the A-6. Yet Most of what the F-18 and F-35 is supposed to do is BOMB.

Go ahead and laugh.

Okay, there seem to be a few concepts which are flawed, and other notions appear to be factually incorrect.

Lets start with aircraft (or any other project's) costs. At a very basic level, there are the research and development costs, which once this stage is completed are pretty much a "fixed" cost, then there are the production startup costs, and then finally ongoing production costs. Now lets apply that to an aircraft programme, like the B-2 Spirit. One of the figures which gets tossed about is that the B-2 programme cost ~US$2 bil. per aircraft, and there is an element of truth to this, but that can be very deceiving. The USAF ended up purchasing less than two dozen B-2's but not because the aircraft had a pricetag of US$2 bil... The aircraft had that "pricetag" in fact because the USAF only purchased 21, which means that R&D costs, as well as the manufacturing startup costs where spread across only 21 aircraft, instead of the originally planned 132. If there is a significant decrease in the numbers of F-35's ordered, then yes, the total programme cost averaged per aircraft could be quite high. That is not the same thing as saying that the USAF, USN or USMC would need to spend nn dollars to purchase an F-35 at this point.

Again using the B-2 as an example, at the time the B-2 programme was initiated during the late 1970's (Carter administration), a certain level of performance was deemed necessary for successful mission performance, as well as a certain number (132) would be required to meet fleet and mission needs. By the time the B-2 was ready for production (~1992) the Cold War had ended, so the defence budget was greatly scaled back and the projected missions were significantly reduced in terms of numbers required. In the case of the F-35, unless the US (and allied air arms) suddenly decide they no longer need nn aircraft, then those numbers of aircraft will still end up being ordered.

Now, let us deal with the nonsense about the F-35 stealth... First off, drop the term 'stealth' as that is the term used by people with little understand of what they are speaking/posting about. The F-35 is a Low Observable (LO) aircraft. What this means, is that due to design elements the F-35 aircraft is difficult to detect using sensors and systems currently in place. There is not one specific piece of equipment which is used by the F-35 to achieve such a result, nor is there a single specific piece of equipment which the F-35 needs to be able to overcome to make it LO. Instead the F-35 utilizes Signal Management/Signature Reduction to reduce or eliminate signals which a hostile sensor could detect, as well as redirecting and/or reducing signal returns which might come in from a hostile transceiver. While it is true that the level/degree of LO aboard the F-35 is not to the same degree of the F-22, the LO work is comparable to that of the B-2 according to some of the material I have come across, and the B-2 had a significantly smaller Sig than the F-117 which was significantly harder to detect (under the proper circumstances) than a 'conventional' fighter aircraft. So, unless someone suddenly decides that the only 'stealthy' aircraft is the F-22 and anything else is a waste of time, then the F-35 is LO...

Now, all this becomes relevant because of the change in how combat, and air combat in particular, is conducted. The situation at present, and as it has actually been for some time, is that combat aircraft are seeking Information Dominance via improved Situational Awareness (SA) vs. their adversaries. In basic terms, what this means is that fighters are attempting to detect their enemies before their enemies detect them. This is why there has been such movement within combat aviation for Signal Management, alongside improvements in radars and other sensors. The sensor improvements increase the ability of a fighter to detect a target, while the Sig Reduction makes it more difficult for the fighter to be detected.

Short of an F-22, the F-35 will have the least Sig of a (manned) combat aircraft in service. Given the latter design and development of the F-35, the sensors aboard an F-35 should give the pilot better SA than what an F-22 pilot has. What this means is that legacy aircraft, even with improvements to onboard sensors, will not be able to reach the same level of Information Dominance as the F-35 will be able to. In point of fact, unless an aerospace company were willing to significantly alter an existing legacy design, the aircraft itself would not even be able to reach the same level of detection capability, nevermind Signature Reduction.

So, with an F-35 flying in air combat against a hostile force, except if the F-35 is attempting to combat an F-22, the F-35 pilot is most likely going to detect the hostile fighter prior to the hostile fighter detecting the F-35. More importantly, the F-35 is likely to detect the hostile fighter early enough so that the F-35 pilot can set the terms of engagement, i.e. choosing the optimal position for the F-35 to be in to either successfully evade the hostile fighter, or engage in the best position and at the best moment to ensure destruction of the hostile fighter. Put another way, see first, shoot first.

-Cheers

 

[Belesari]

Ok let me be first to admit i am Bad at putting thoughts into a written form so the vaste magority of what you wrote i already knew and understood.

That said i still expect the orders for F-35's from the original buyers to be less than was thought we may be able to make that up with other buyers but.....who knows.

To me Stealth looks more and more like a Super Weapon. Someone says its over we win and then i fear after we have spent more more and more money on it and have come to completely rely on it. Thats when disaster hits.

Its almost become a Unsinkable design priority. And i worry about that as a dependence. Just like i worry (and have heard, soldiers, sailors and marine) about the inability of many servicemen and women to have basic abilities in navigation without a GPS.

Hell come to that i get funny looks if i say the word Map without a GPS included Or say "i dont have a GPS"....takes people a little bit to wrap their minds around that one.

Okay, there seem to be a few concepts which are flawed, and other notions appear to be factually incorrect.

Lets start with aircraft (or any other project's) costs. At a very basic level, there are the research and development costs, which once this stage is completed are pretty much a "fixed" cost, then there are the production startup costs, and then finally ongoing production costs. Now lets apply that to an aircraft programme, like the B-2 Spirit. One of the figures which gets tossed about is that the B-2 programme cost ~US$2 bil. per aircraft, and there is an element of truth to this, but that can be very deceiving. The USAF ended up purchasing less than two dozen B-2's but not because the aircraft had a pricetag of US$2 bil... The aircraft had that "pricetag" in fact because the USAF only purchased 21, which means that R&D costs, as well as the manufacturing startup costs where spread across only 21 aircraft, instead of the originally planned 132. If there is a significant decrease in the numbers of F-35's ordered, then yes, the total programme cost averaged per aircraft could be quite high. That is not the same thing as saying that the USAF, USN or USMC would need to spend nn dollars to purchase an F-35 at this point.

Again using the B-2 as an example, at the time the B-2 programme was initiated during the late 1970's (Carter administration), a certain level of performance was deemed necessary for successful mission performance, as well as a certain number (132) would be required to meet fleet and mission needs. By the time the B-2 was ready for production (~1992) the Cold War had ended, so the defence budget was greatly scaled back and the projected missions were significantly reduced in terms of numbers required. In the case of the F-35, unless the US (and allied air arms) suddenly decide they no longer need nn aircraft, then those numbers of aircraft will still end up being ordered.

Now, let us deal with the nonsense about the F-35 stealth... First off, drop the term 'stealth' as that is the term used by people with little understand of what they are speaking/posting about. The F-35 is a Low Observable (LO) aircraft. What this means, is that due to design elements the F-35 aircraft is difficult to detect using sensors and systems currently in place. There is not one specific piece of equipment which is used by the F-35 to achieve such a result, nor is there a single specific piece of equipment which the F-35 needs to be able to overcome to make it LO. Instead the F-35 utilizes Signal Management/Signature Reduction to reduce or eliminate signals which a hostile sensor could detect, as well as redirecting and/or reducing signal returns which might come in from a hostile transceiver. While it is true that the level/degree of LO aboard the F-35 is not to the same degree of the F-22, the LO work is comparable to that of the B-2 according to some of the material I have come across, and the B-2 had a significantly smaller Sig than the F-117 which was significantly harder to detect (under the proper circumstances) than a 'conventional' fighter aircraft. So, unless someone suddenly decides that the only 'stealthy' aircraft is the F-22 and anything else is a waste of time, then the F-35 is LO...

Now, all this becomes relevant because of the change in how combat, and air combat in particular, is conducted. The situation at present, and as it has actually been for some time, is that combat aircraft are seeking Information Dominance via improved Situational Awareness (SA) vs. their adversaries. In basic terms, what this means is that fighters are attempting to detect their enemies before their enemies detect them. This is why there has been such movement within combat aviation for Signal Management, alongside improvements in radars and other sensors. The sensor improvements increase the ability of a fighter to detect a target, while the Sig Reduction makes it more difficult for the fighter to be detected.

Short of an F-22, the F-35 will have the least Sig of a (manned) combat aircraft in service. Given the latter design and development of the F-35, the sensors aboard an F-35 should give the pilot better SA than what an F-22 pilot has. What this means is that legacy aircraft, even with improvements to onboard sensors, will not be able to reach the same level of Information Dominance as the F-35 will be able to. In point of fact, unless an aerospace company were willing to significantly alter an existing legacy design, the aircraft itself would not even be able to reach the same level of detection capability, nevermind Signature Reduction.

So, with an F-35 flying in air combat against a hostile force, except if the F-35 is attempting to combat an F-22, the F-35 pilot is most likely going to detect the hostile fighter prior to the hostile fighter detecting the F-35. More importantly, the F-35 is likely to detect the hostile fighter early enough so that the F-35 pilot can set the terms of engagement, i.e. choosing the optimal position for the F-35 to be in to either successfully evade the hostile fighter, or engage in the best position and at the best moment to ensure destruction of the hostile fighter. Put another way, see first, shoot first.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Ok let me be first to admit i am Bad at putting thoughts into a written form so the vaste magority of what you wrote i already knew and understood.

That said i still expect the orders for F-35's from the original buyers to be less than was thought we may be able to make that up with other buyers but.....who knows.

To me Stealth looks more and more like a Super Weapon. Someone says its over we win and then i fear after we have spent more more and more money on it and have come to completely rely on it. Thats when disaster hits.

Its almost become a Unsinkable design priority. And i worry about that as a dependence. Just like i worry (and have heard, soldiers, sailors and marine) about the inability of many servicemen and women to have basic abilities in navigation without a GPS.

Hell come to that i get funny looks if i say the word Map without a GPS included Or say "i dont have a GPS"....takes people a little bit to wrap their minds around that one.

The fact that you continue to use the term 'stealth' suggests that you do not really understand the roles of LO or SA, their impacts upon information dominance, or the role information dominance has on air combat.

The concept which you keep referring to as 'stealth' is actually something which some manned US aircraft have used in one form or another for decades. It is most definately NOT a 'super weapon' nor is it an actual thing, piece of equipment or technology. Rather, it is attempting to reduce the information available to an enemy prior to taking ones own actions, therefore only allowing the enemy to react.

Given the state of air to air weapons development, no high performance aircraft can realistically be protected against the sort of ordnance which would be employed against it. However, it is absolutely possible to reduce the signature of an aircraft enough so that a hostile force does not know where to employ their weapons. If ones enemy cannot detect you, they cannot target or shoot you. If, at the same time, you can detect and target the enemy, you are able to shoot them, potentially damaging (or outright destroying) their ability to respond at all.

-Cheers

 

[Belesari]

To me Stealth refers to Both SA and LO and all the other technics that make a aicraft or anything for that matter have less of a signature. That is why i use it because it is a common everyday term that most people understand. And its quicker to type

For me its not so much a question of IF stealth technics work-they do. Its if so much needs to be that way. Its....like i said earlier Capability. Do we sacrifice strategic capability by losing airframes for tactical superiority? I'm not saying the F-35 isnt a good aircraft i believe it is and will be.

What i'm saying is that is 1x150mil F-35 worth the 3x55mil super hornets? Its just seems we keep losing our strategic flexability for teactical superiority. Thats something i worry about. AND its not just a F-35 thing. Thats everywhere. He'll i've talked to guys who worry the same about the APC's in the army. Where you needed 10,000 apc's you got 6,500. Then you get less and less and though they have more armor and Far more firepower you lose the ability to deploy in numbers and have a reduction in the amount of troops that can be carried.

And no im not arguing soviet doctrine its just to me their seems a need for a middle ground.

Anyways i'll stop because its starting to get Way of topic.

The fact that you continue to use the term 'stealth' suggests that you do not really understand the roles of LO or SA, their impacts upon information dominance, or the role information dominance has on air combat.

The concept which you keep referring to as 'stealth' is actually something which some manned US aircraft have used in one form or another for decades. It is most definately NOT a 'super weapon' nor is it an actual thing, piece of equipment or technology. Rather, it is attempting to reduce the information available to an enemy prior to taking ones own actions, therefore only allowing the enemy to react.

Given the state of air to air weapons development, no high performance aircraft can realistically be protected against the sort of ordnance which would be employed against it. However, it is absolutely possible to reduce the signature of an aircraft enough so that a hostile force does not know where to employ their weapons. If ones enemy cannot detect you, they cannot target or shoot you. If, at the same time, you can detect and target the enemy, you are able to shoot them, potentially damaging (or outright destroying) their ability to respond at all.

-Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

Ok let me be first to admit i am Bad at putting thoughts into a written form so the vaste magority of what you wrote i already knew and understood.

That said i still expect the orders for F-35's from the original buyers to be less than was thought we may be able to make that up with other buyers but.....who knows.

To me Stealth looks more and more like a Super Weapon. Someone says its over we win and then i fear after we have spent more more and more money on it and have come to completely rely on it. Thats when disaster hits.

What Tod said... Stealth is no wonder weapon nor is the F-35 soley reliant upon it. It has the straightline performance equal to or exceeding a clean airframed Block 52 F-16 and handling and maneuver performance of the Hornet, plus the most capable sensor, EW and weapons system ever fitted to a strike fighter aircraft.

Neither are any slouches at air combat and both of them are handicapped by the need to carry stores and fuel externally. The F-35 isn't under most scenarios. When carrying a pair of 2000lbs JDAM's under the wings, plus EFT's, AMRAAM's and pods, the F-16 is limited to about M1.2. I don't see many complaining about the F-16's performance under such conditions though...

An F-35A carrying the same load internally is able to hit M1.6 and can still out accelerate a clean F-16 Block 52 and has superior maneuver performance to a Hornet (and buy implication a Super Hornet) but is still considered somehow to have inadequate performance?

Its almost become a Unsinkable design priority. And i worry about that as a dependence. Just like i worry (and have heard, soldiers, sailors and marine) about the inability of many servicemen and women to have basic abilities in navigation without a GPS.

Of course it is a primary design requirement. You may not have noticed but our 'enemies' have massively improved their own air defence capabilities in recent years. Their SAM systems and air defence surveillance systems especially have been much improved and a non-LO aircraft is going to be forced to try and dismantle such systems using EW and standoff weapons. Not a cheap option either...

F-35 adds more tricks to our bag. It has standoff weapons capability. It has EW capability. It has penetrating capable LO too.

Hell come to that i get funny looks if i say the word Map without a GPS included Or say "i dont have a GPS"....takes people a little bit to wrap their minds around that one.

Just looked at my phone and my GPS navigator app was working just fine. I can read a map as can every pilot who will fly the F-35. Not so sure what the point was there.

Do you honestly think we should be designing aircraft where pilots are still looking through paper maps in the cockpit or do you just not trust technology in general and think everyone shouldn't either?

 

[Belesari]

.......The point of the GPS coment was that many people not just me but people of every rank both active and retired from both the US and other militaries worry that with our reliance on Some technologies we may have developed a weakness.
That AND just a random thought about how no one seems to be able to function without being plugged into a ipod, Ipad, cellphone or some other such device.

You just read to much into it.

And wouldnt using active EW from a stealth platform be counter productive in many ways?

Like i said my grip isnt the tactical superiority of the F-35 but the over all idea of getting few and few airframes because of cost (both in development and construction-though now it seems to be mostly R&D) which means less and less flexability.

Same in ships, APC's, and other assets.

What Tod said... Stealth is no wonder weapon nor is the F-35 soley reliant upon it. It has the straightline performance equal to or exceeding a clean airframed Block 52 F-16 and handling and maneuver performance of the Hornet, plus the most capable sensor, EW and weapons system ever fitted to a strike fighter aircraft.

Neither are any slouches at air combat and both of them are handicapped by the need to carry stores and fuel externally. The F-35 isn't under most scenarios. When carrying a pair of 2000lbs JDAM's under the wings, plus EFT's, AMRAAM's and pods, the F-16 is limited to about M1.2. I don't see many complaining about the F-16's performance under such conditions though...

An F-35A carrying the same load internally is able to hit M1.6 and can still out accelerate a clean F-16 Block 52 and has superior maneuver performance to a Hornet (and buy implication a Super Hornet) but is still considered somehow to have inadequate performance?



Of course it is a primary design requirement. You may not have noticed but our 'enemies' have massively improved their own air defence capabilities in recent years. Their SAM systems and air defence surveillance systems especially have been much improved and a non-LO aircraft is going to be forced to try and dismantle such systems using EW and standoff weapons. Not a cheap option either...

F-35 adds more tricks to our bag. It has standoff weapons capability. It has EW capability. It has penetrating capable LO too.



Just looked at my phone and my GPS navigator app was working just fine. I can read a map as can every pilot who will fly the F-35. Not so sure what the point was there.

Do you honestly think we should be designing aircraft where pilots are still looking through paper maps in the cockpit or do you just not trust technology in general and think everyone shouldn't either?

 

[jack412]

What i'm saying is that is 1x150mil F-35 worth the 3x55mil super hornets? .

you are welcome to your opinions, but it's probably time you started putting up supporting links when you start with this kind of stuff, you may find the URF 55m SH price will be URF 65-75m f-35 price and when you add the extras needed to the SH to have its capability which are already included in the f-35 price, it may be even closer

 

[riksavage]

Once the F35 enters full production, how long would it typically take to build an aircraft (say F35A) from confirmed order and have it ready for airforce use?

In a tier one war of attrition (non-nuclear) against a comparable foe, airframes will start to dwindle as a result of attrition, so a country with the ability to speed up the manufacturing process will have a strategic advantage. With the F35 fast becoming the future fighter of choice for the west, production lines once in full swing should allow for the introduction of replacement airframes faster than a potential advisory trying to build a comparable airframe with a less developed manufacturing base.

Looking at a Korean War senario, how long did it take to build and commision F86 Sabre's vs a F35 today?

As air-combat drags on and losses mount, new airframes on both sides of the conflict could end up becoming less complex in the drive to produce more airframes at a faster rate to meet demand.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Modern fighters take about three years to produce, one year of long-lead items and two years of airframe production. This is true of both the F-18 and F-35 (per FY2012 budget).

 

[colay]

you are welcome to your opinions, but it's probably time you started putting up supporting links when you start with this kind of stuff, you may find the URF 55m SH price will be URF 65-75m f-35 price and when you add the extras needed to the SH to have its capability which are already included in the f-35 price, it may be even closer

A SH with all the bells and whistles will jack up its price substantially. It will still be a less capable platform and one penalized kinematically with all sorts of external pods, ordnance and fuel tanks , inferior situational awareness and RCS magnified even more by all the kit it carries. The Navy has stated quite clearly that the SH will not be up to the challenge posed by advanced IADS.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Navy has stated quite clearly that the SH will not be up to the challenge posed by advanced IADS.

thats just nonsense though.

look at the users of the Shornet. Both users embrace modern package and systems concepts. the planes don't deploy or attack like some ancient warfare champion - they are part of a package which includes supporting ewarfare air assets and overarching ISR that maps and clears the way for that package.

if you're going to postulate concepts clearly expunged of real life warfare constraints to maximise the argument, then it doesn't do much to support the honesty of the claim

warfare is a series of systems events.. its not the lone ranger - and I'd be curious to see any current red team able to counter effectively unless the orbat definitions are completely polluted to corrupt the vignettes.

 

[jack412]

I read the USAF uses at a minimum 5 fixed wing platforms against sams, a series of systems is what its all about GF

I think colay may have got mixed up, I seem to recall it was said about the growler's pods and not the SH, the growler needed NGJ because it's part in the system is limited against S300+, so I can understand how colay thought that.

 

[moahunter]

Lockheed, Pentagon at Odds over F35 Costs

Looks like the Pentagon is finally figuring out that these cost plus, endless cash cow projects can't go on. In todays world, its time to let cotractors duke it out for the price and also the risk (and of course, reward if they overachieve in future):

'The government wants to radically change its approach to sharing risk on new weapons programs so that all of the exposure is shifted to industry,' Thompson said.

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Pentagon acquisition officials have been targeting overhead costs and other factors as part of a major drive to reform major weapons contracts after years of cost overruns and schedule delays.

Defense officials have put new focus on acquisition reforms as they search for ways to trim the Defense Department's budget by $489 billion over the next 10 years.

Shay Assad, the Pentagon's director of defense pricing, told Reuters in a recent interview that he was braced for resistance from industry to some reforms. 'We're going to be breaking some glass here,' he said.

Lockheed, Pentagon at odds over F-35 costs - sources - Finance News - London South East