Its worth noting that Adm. Venlet was quoted as being ".. very, very pleased.." upon learning the results of the F-35 RCS testing earlier this year. Other accounts in the media have been consistent with this view. Who knows what it is but it would seem that RCS signature management isn't it.
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Wired? You seriously quoted "defence reporting" from Wired? Ignoring the fact that the article quotes Bill Sweetman as an aviation 'guru' when he is professionally a journalist reporting on defence & aviation issues, Wired is not known for being a news source which is particularly deep on defence issues. Which is probably why the person who wrote the article is going to someone else who writes articles seeking a quote from them.
It is also worth paying attention that Sweetman, who is known for having issues with the F-35 programme and due to biased reporting and commentary from him regarding the same programme has caused his professional reputation and that of Aviation Weekly to slip... Sweetman actually quoted as saying;
In reality the term "stealth" is not used except by the masses and those journalists who are either lazy and/or have little understanding of the term Low Observable/LO and what that entails. At this point, dredging this article up from this particular source does indeed look more like the intent is to just have a go at the F-35 programme instead of actually add to the discussion.
Now if the article discussing some of the flaws/potential flaws did not reference Sweetman, and was sourced by something more noted for general (WSJ, NYT, AP, Reuters, BBC, etc) and/or specifically defence related (Janes, DID, not AW&ST) news, the situation would be a bit different. As it would also be if the author had also stuck to aviation/defence sources, instead of using a fellow journalist as a source. Doing so IMO demonstrates ignorance of the topic the author is reporting on.
-Cheers
No they aren’t and if they did I’m sure you could point them out. Everything is recorded in text here so go back and quote us the “blind defence” of Lockheed that you claim? Either put up or shut up.
It’s clear that you either don’t read the posts or judge things by some rough tone which you alone interpret. If people aren’t declaring the project dead or in major trouble or unable to defeat an su-27 does that qualify as “blind defence” by your standards?
So what makes you think these are the only reasons the project has gone awry? Because that’s what someone else said? Or a simplistic interpretation. If either of these points were actually true then what would be happening is the aircraft couldn’t fly (simulation being broke) or there was a massive system wide break down between the three variants. Rather what has happened is the very high complexity, engineering tolerances required and massive budgetary cost cutting efforts meaning there was little or no back up or give in case anything went wrong which has resulted in those relatively minor faults resulting in huge delays in schedule.
You actually aren’t bettering anything. You are just making throw away statements with no support for them. The entire weapons system of the aircraft is classified including all the sensors, effectors and survivability systems. “Stealth” is just the biggest so of course the biggest critics muddy the waters by declaring with nothing to support or refute them that this may be the case.
What computer simulations would that be ? Guessing you mean the RAND simulation ? Tell you what you can do, obtain from RAND all the specific information on the simulation, programs used, paramaters, what computing systems was used, the exact information put into said system on evey capabilitiy, function, action, weapons, tactics, RCS data (stealth) etc etc etc and then we can discuss ?
Oh wait a minute, does RAND have access to both F35 and Sukhoi tactical data ? Ah no, sorry moot point
^wow, I can't believe the level of group think on this forum. For anyone to even suggest that the F35 project hasn't been perfect, or as good as it possibly could be, even if they site a valid source (and yes, I made a mistake in unwittingly not realizing most posters would not be capable of going to the source document that the article quotes from) - in this case a study saying it hasn't been perfect, makes them a troll. I.e.
F-35 Concurrency Quick Look Review
This is exactly on the point of computer simulations, page 1 executive summary (it must be lies, lol):
F-35 Concurrency Quick Look Review
This is exactly on the point of computer simulations, page 1 executive summary (it must be lies, lol):
Heck, its all roses though, which couldn't have been done better, this must be false, its a bad source is it?
I find it interesting that after your critisism of the journalist and the news outlet you seem to ignore the fact that the report that forms the basis for all these articles is available, can be read, and discussed.
You could have ignored the article and commented on the contents of the report; instead it seems to me you did the exactly opposite.
It is always better to go to the source whenever available. Even a journalist from Janes can twist and turn a story to a remarkable degree, I have seen it done.
What a load of crap. See you're trolling right now. No one is disputing that the QLR is another blemish on the F-35. But put it into context. Like that used by its authors and the project manager: none of the problems are significant enought to effect production!
Is this group think? Or is refusing to acknowledge the lack of significance of the QLR and focus entirely on the sensational aspects of it the real crime against common sense?
Then of course rather than address my criticisms of your opinions you latch onto someone else's misunderstanding of your post about the failure of computer modelling to avoid test hiccups. And rather than just doing the decent thing and point out their misunderstanding you launch into an attack.
Moa you're a troll and not even a good one.
Okay, that's the line and you crossed it. The amount of times it has been explained to you why people feel differently to you about the project is countless, and yet you see fit to discount it all as group think and wheel out the classics like "if you don't think the F-35 project has been perfect you must be a troll" - so what's the story then? It's perfectly reasonable for you to have a differing point of view to everyone else, but if they have a differing point of view it must be because of group think or because of some bullshit agenda you ascribe to strangers on the internet? Can't you see how bloody hypocritical that is?
You're done, mate. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt for a long time but if you're going to flat out take the piss like you are above, then you can find somewhere else to do it.
While the hot spots are a bit worrisome, I can't understand the logic of the cynics. Instead of praising discovering the hot spots before hundreds of aircraft are built, they point it out as a means to kill the program. They complain about the delays, yet want to really delay the program, if not kill it, by suspending assembly. They complained testing is taking forever and there should be more test aircraft, but then criticize building more aircraft before the testing is completed. Do they really believe we don't see their not so hidden agenda and their lack of sound reasoning? :splat
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
You managed to completely miss what I took issue with, and why.
The now banned poster had an established pattern of posting links and articles to sources which are negative of, or disparaging to the F-35 programme and the poster and often the links and articles themselves fail the appreciate the context of the information which they contain. The accusation of 'groupthink' illustrated that failure to appreciate context, as well as illuminated who the poster apparently felt was an accurate type of source and what the poster's issue with the F-35 was.
In order for this poster to apparently have another go at the F-35, the poster went to Wired for a new source reporting flaws with the F-35. That would be sort of like quoting an article in Popular Mechanics reporting some issues with a particular model car instead of looking at articles on the same from Car & Driver or another more specialized automotive magazine. Or in the IT industry, quoting articles about server farms and robust networks from Macworld instead of from CACM.
In the specific case of the article from Wired, yes the article is reporting on the 'leaked' findings of the Quick Review Panel which is something of interest, but needs to be understood in context. Unfortunately the Wired journalist is not apparently someone which much experience reporting on defence matters, since that accurate context is blatantly with the opening line of the article;
which as people should know by now is the projected cost estimate over a 50 year service life out until ~2065. Again keeping it within context, the projected cost estimate for a legacy fighter fleet over the same time is somewhere in the neighborhood of ~$4 trillion dollars. What this indicates to me, is that the Wired journo should not be counted on to provide important or accurate information within the article, the appearance of commentary from Sweetman just reinforces that perception.
In short, links to a garbage article were posted by someone who had a pattern of looking for commentary critical or negative of the F-35, and it appears that the article selected was chosen solely because it appeared to cast the F-35 in a bad light.
I think that much of the arguments that say that the F-35 will not go in to production, have to all real extent, been put to rest and we should put that issue behind us when there are so many more other interesting things that can be discussed. Yes the jet is not perfect and it is not all things to all people but it is too far enough down the road now that we all know that it will be bought and deployed. Exactly how many of each kind, when they will be bought, and how many are still up in the air and a few of the current participants program might drop out and a few new one might enter into the buy.
What interests me is its long term viability. How long will it be in production and how many upgraded new models will be produced after the first three? The AH-1 super cobra as one example, went operational in 1986 and the newest version the Z variant is just now going into service. Will the F-35 have as long legs as well? Will it be the last major state of the art attack-fighter-bomber to be developed before this type all goes unmanned? If they continue development as other programs have been known to do, will the basic F-35 design be able to be stretched to meet the challenges of the future, like the incorporation of directed energy weapons or will stealth become unimportant, if future detection system someday in the future, become so powerful that that quality loses its decisive military advantage?
What interests me is its long term viability. How long will it be in production and how many upgraded new models will be produced after the first three? The AH-1 super cobra as one example, went operational in 1986 and the newest version the Z variant is just now going into service. Will the F-35 have as long legs as well? Will it be the last major state of the art attack-fighter-bomber to be developed before this type all goes unmanned? If they continue development as other programs have been known to do, will the basic F-35 design be able to be stretched to meet the challenges of the future, like the incorporation of directed energy weapons or will stealth become unimportant, if future detection system someday in the future, become so powerful that that quality loses its decisive military advantage?
Exactly. The Sweetman's of the world who want to burn this program at any conceivable opportunity, highlighted the "issues" in this report, but they are "issues" that we have known about for a long time.
We knew the HMS was having problems. Hence why a NEW helmet is ordered from BAE to allow the program to continue whilst VSI received a development contract tlo fix the original design. VSI states that their helmet will be fixed well before 2018 IOC date for the USAF.
We knew the aircraft had cracking "hotspots". So far back in time that the redesigns have mostly already been done. From LRIP 5 onwards those flaws will have been eliminated from the aircraft. L-M says as few as 88 aircraft will then have to be "fixed" and as those are test and development aircraft, they are not ever intended to make it to the operational fleet anyway.
We know about problems with the IPP. Anyone suddenly forget the fleet wide grounding that was such a huge deal 6 months ago when an IPP exploded whilst running?
I haven't and Bill certainly made a huge deal out of it at the time. Funny now it's brought up again as a "new" issue...
Wind buffeting, ooh what a massive problem. I'd like to see the aircraft that doesn't have a buffeting issue. This is a huge problem apparently based on the report, except that same report bluntly states this, "so far it is no worse than on other fighters..."
This is a developmental aircraft people. It is NOT an operational aircraft identifying these issues. Even that report states none of them are "show stoppers".
This project isn't perfect. I'd like to see the one that is though. Must be awesome. Can anyone show me which one it is?
Air Force Brat
Member
Watching the developement of the JSF over the years, I suppose that most of us do hope the F-35 becomes like the F-16 or F-18 and proves her critics wrong. My concern is that we seem to have shorted the Hi in favor of the Lo in the Hi-Lo mix. The other players on the field seem to have found that an encouragement to press ahead on the Hi mix as we may be selling ours a little short. The aviation community has a history, of having to pick up the pieces and make it work. The Pak Fa is looking very capable especially after her display at Maks 2011, where the flying display was very outstanding, the J-20 is also showing a great deal of promise and although not on the level of Pak Fa looks good. The Fourth generation fighters have matured nicely an remain quite capable. With as many partners working on the F-35, I'm sure we will come up with solutions that result in a fine airplane, that will serve all the partners well. I would be a lot more comfortable if we had the originally planned for contingent of F-22s.
Why do people persist with this idea that the F-35 is at the ‘lo’ end of the mix? It is a stealthly, highly networked air combat platform. It is more lethal and survivable than any other TACAIR platform ever fielded.
There is very little evidence that the J-20 or PAK-FA have anything like the capability the F-35 has in lethality and survivability. They may look great and be very fast, agile and long legged but unless they are going back in time to the 1980s via a Hot Tub Time Machine they will not cut it in contemporary and future air combat. What matters is your ability to understand the battlespace and confound your enemies understanding. Even the biggest toughest MMA expert will lose a fight against a stereotypical nerd if the former is blindfolded and the later has a baseball bat.
It would be even better if the original contingent of B-2s and A-12s (that worked) were all built. With the original F-22 plan that would be 2040 stealth aircraft. How could anyone resist that? But wait the US Forces and Allies are about to acquire 3,000 stealth aircraft (F-35). Not bad, and we don’t even need to rewrite history to achieve it.The Fourth generation fighters have matured nicely an remain quite capable. With as many partners working on the F-35, I'm sure we will come up with solutions that result in a fine airplane, that will serve all the partners well. I would be a lot more comfortable if we had the originally planned for contingent of F-22s.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I think where people are the notion that the F-35 is a 'lo' aircraft in a Hi-Lo capability mix is from what the USAF plans appear to be. By this I mean the F-33 being the 'Hi' end and the F-35 being the 'Lo' end.
The F-35 is only a 'Lo' platform when compared with the F-22 in certain systems (overall RCS reductions and Sig mgmt, and speed), against all other aircraft in service and likely to be in service in the near future, the F-35 comes out as a 'Hi' system. Except of course if looking at certain kinematic performance parameters (i.e. max top speed...) in which case older designs like the F-15, MiG-31, and MiG-25 would come out on top.
The amount of information being fed to the pilot by the aircraft, and the type and distribution of onboard sensors are expected to provide the pilot a level of awareness beyond what has been possible, even for the F-22. And as has been learned, it is much better to know where ones enemies are so one can set the terms of an engagement, rather than being faster so close or escape an engagement, simply because a fighter cannot realistically out run or out maneuver a Mach 3+ 60g in bound missile if it is fired from within it's NEZ. The F-35 has the potential to do just that, before an opposing aircraft might even be aware that an F-35 was present.
With the statement of the F-35 being the most survivable TACAIR platform fielded, not sure I quite agree with that, my preference would be for the F-22, with the F-35 being a close second, but that is really just a bit of nitpicking.
-Cheers
I think nobody that has had a serious look at the F-35 is questioning her capabilities.
Perhaps the discussion after this leaked report should about the delays, and the overall structure of the program (yes, the program not the aircraft!)
Also note highlighted text. To me it seems to be "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Anyway I am crossing my fingers and hope that no further major issues are uncovered in the large number of test flights that remains to be done. I am worried however, that this program becomes too expensive and that, in combination with delays and external factors like the economic crisis in Europe and US, could lead to huge cuts in the number of a/c ordered, which would drive up units costs even further.
Perhaps the discussion after this leaked report should about the delays, and the overall structure of the program (yes, the program not the aircraft!)
IN FOCUS: F-35 concurrency reaches turning point
Also note highlighted text. To me it seems to be "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Anyway I am crossing my fingers and hope that no further major issues are uncovered in the large number of test flights that remains to be done. I am worried however, that this program becomes too expensive and that, in combination with delays and external factors like the economic crisis in Europe and US, could lead to huge cuts in the number of a/c ordered, which would drive up units costs even further.
F35 is almost a generation ahead of the F22 in terms of electronics - EODAS and various other bits and bobs means that the pilot can thread around threats much more easily and deal with emerging situations more rapidly. Add in the DIRCM system that the Australians were talking about integrating plus various other things, it's a useful package and well ahead of anything else that's been deployed for SEAD etc.
For Tacair, I'd take the F35 every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Ian
Given that it is now performing like most fighter programs, In the parametric analysis based on historical data, they expect another 22 major and 43 minor faults before the fatigue test is finished, as per QLR
There isnt any talk of an increase in URF/unit price, there is another $13b left to spend on SDD which may go up and the cost of LRIP's won't go down as quickly
The high low mix debate is one that will be with us forever. The pilots always want the hottest iron that can be made (who can blame them) and the bean counters always want the cheapest. F-22 is an air superiority fighter and no matter the level of technology it has or does not have, it will never be a very good attack aircraft because it was not designed for that role. A true air superiority fighter may be able to do other tasks, some of them quite well, but no destine compromises were made in its building to do them. So if it can do them, it doses them less efficiently than an aircraft that was designed to do them. To compare the two is unfair to both designs.Watching the developement of the JSF over the years, I suppose that most of us do hope the F-35 becomes like the F-16 or F-18 and proves her critics wrong. My concern is that we seem to have shorted the Hi in favor of the Lo in the Hi-Lo mix. The other players on the field seem to have found that an encouragement to press ahead on the Hi mix as we may be selling ours a little short. The aviation community has a history, of having to pick up the pieces and make it work. The Pak Fa is looking very capable especially after her display at Maks 2011, where the flying display was very outstanding, the J-20 is also showing a great deal of promise and although not on the level of Pak Fa looks good. The Fourth generation fighters have matured nicely an remain quite capable. With as many partners working on the F-35, I'm sure we will come up with solutions that result in a fine airplane, that will serve all the partners well. I would be a lot more comfortable if we had the originally planned for contingent of F-22s.
In the arena of air combat there are two phases. The first phase, one we haven’t seen for a while, is always to achieve the control of the air space, first over your territory then if you can over your enemies’ buy “whatever means” possible. Whatever means includes having the hottest aircraft but also includes many other capacities, some of which are not so glamorous as are fighter jets or as visible to the public, nor even normally closely associated directly air power itself in most people’s eyes.
The second phase after achieving air dominance is the ability to fully exploit the use of that air space you have gained control of. While the first phase can be achieved with a relatively small number of highly advanced aircraft, properly fought, and carefully supported. The second phase requires numbers. No matter how wonderful the platform may be it can only be at one place at one time. To fully exploit the achievement of air dominance requires three times as many aircraft than the first phase. But they can be simpler, more specialized, and far cheaper to build, maintain and to train up.
Most air forces in the world are not powerful enough to do both tasks and so they properly concentrate most of their resources in denying the air space over their own territory to any potential enemy (where they can be hurt the most). Hence the perception that the high end is the only one that counts. Most air forces are mainly defensive in nature because that is all that most countries can afford to own and operate. It has been a long time since there has been a peer to peer long drawn out air campaign to determine air dominance. I think Korea was the last one where there was a real fight over who would dominate. Not even Vietnam was ever in doubt so there has been three generations of air force people who have never fought such a campaign and do not know how to think in those terms. But the US must be prepared for that possibility.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As I mentioned, it is a bit of nitpicking, with a health dose of opinion thrown in as well. I agree there is little question that the SA of the F-35 should be top notch, beyond even that of the F-22, however the F-22 should still have a greater amount of sig mgmt and therefore be harder to detect than the F-35.
It then becomes a question of which is more valueable, being harder to find, or more likely to see the hostile first?
Give that the platforms are both parts of an overall air force/system, with significant amounts of offboard support available, then it would seem that while the individual onboard avionics and sensors are important, they would not be the primary sensors to provide airborne SA to the aircraft and pilots. Unless the mission profile were to be a long-ranged ingress/egress, the fighters would both be getting track data from aircraft like the E-2 or E-3, or perhaps large-scale ground-based systems or shipboard systems like SPY-1 & Aegis.
If bother aircraft were to be getting volumes of track data from the same offboard assets, that suggests to me that the onboard sensors while certainly still useful, can become less needed Again, just my opinion.
-Cheers
- Status