F-35 Program - General Discussion

V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Ranger25 said:
I agree, I was simply a little underwhelmed at its air to air load out but it sounds as though we're working to increase the internal AMRAAM load up to 6 if needed. Will also be able to internal,y carry the LRASM when fielded

I'm not a critic of the system, but always working to be better informed. I'm impressed by its RCR and ECM power. Combined it will be hard to match
Click to expand...
Also ASRAAM on outer wing pylons for the RAF / RN and I imagine two AMRAAM per pylon for the others for a total 2 ASRAAM and 8 AMRAAM external, plus the 4 (hopefully 6) internal. That is more missiles than an F/A-18 (Classic or Super), F-14, F-15, F-22 or any MIG / Sukhoi I can think of.

Try thinking of the weapons bay as equivalent to the fuselage stations on a Phantom, Eagle, Tomcat, Hornet, Tornado, Rafale or Eurofighter. Where they could in theory fly just with weapons semi-recessed in the fuselage and the wings clean you would never ever list that as their only possible war load, the stuff they can carry under the wings is what counts. The F-35 has replaced the fuselage stations with a weapons bay as well as replacing the equivalent of podded sensors and a centreline drop tank with internal arrangements, while retaining the ability to hang just about anything from six under wing hard points, this is equivalent or superior to the load out of just about any other combat aircraft (short of a strategic bomber) in existence or planned.

What is the problem?
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ranger25 said:
I agree, I was simply a little underwhelmed at its air to air load out but it sounds as though we're working to increase the internal AMRAAM load up to 6 if needed. Will also be able to internal,y carry the LRASM when fielded

I'm not a critic of the system, but always working to be better informed. I'm impressed by its RCR and ECM power. Combined it will be hard to match
Click to expand...
Yeah for some reason F-35A doesn't get the free ride that Typhoon etc got in the press for their capability at entry to service.

Typhoon didn't have a cannon available at all at Tranche 1, no helmet mounted sight, no air to ground targetting capability (no radar modes and no EO/IR or IRST capability whatsoever) and no abiility to carry air to ground ordnance at ALL and a limited EWSP capability and while this carried some criticism in some quarters that was a mere pittance compared to the negativity directed towards F-35.

What has to be remembered is that the F-35 is funded to have a certain level of capability at entry to service. People are complaining about its development time, but what do people want? An F-35 that can immediately take over the majority of roles performed by F-16 and F/A-18 legacy aircraft from day one, with full replacement in all roles (and more obviously due to the increased capability of F-35, particularly in ISR and EW missions) that is presently funded to deliver, along with the same sort spiral development for overall capability development, or a fully developed F-35 that takes forever to deliver?

One can't have both. You can have 'x' amount of capability delivered at a certain time (which F-35 is struggling with, but that is the plan) or you can have more capability, but you'll spend a heap more, take longer to deliver it and have to rely more heavily on legacy aircraft in the meantime.

From 2017 onwards we'll see Block 3F, F-35 aircraft hitting the various squadrons around the world and its real capability will be quickly identified. It is fortunate enough to have a funded and committed spiral upgrade path that already plans to address most of capability 'gaps' that many 'experts' continually harp on about.

The reality is however that only so much capability can be introduced at any one time to an operational force and it takes a significant amount of time for various forces to develop professional mastery of the capability they have. That is the difference between 'flying' the capability and 'fighting' it.

Its also why it is perfectly legitimate to adopt the crawl, walk, run philosophy in terms of spiral capability development. They could probably put all manner of kit on the F-35 more quickly if they threw enough resources at it and that might satisfy the fankiddies in terms of (odious) empirical 'comparisons'.

But does that mean any user could actually develop that capability into an operational system as part of an overall combat force any quicker? Obviousy not. The same goes with ANY system by ANY user. Sure an SU-35 might have a manufacturer advertised capability to carry 14 weapons of various types and this spec or that spec, but given no-one has this in operational service what difference is there in reality to the promised (and as previously mentioned, funded...) capability of F-35 down the road?

Neither is operational...
 
Blackshoe

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
ADMk2 said:
What has to be remembered is that the F-35 is funded to have a certain level of capability at entry to service. People are complaining about its development time, but what do people want? An F-35 that can immediately take over the majority of roles performed by F-16 and F/A-18 legacy aircraft from day one, with full replacement in all roles (and more obviously due to the increased capability of F-35, particularly in ISR and EW missions) that is presently funded to deliver, along with the same sort spiral development for overall capability development, or a fully developed F-35 that takes forever to deliver?

One can't have both. You can have 'x' amount of capability delivered at a certain time (which F-35 is struggling with, but that is the plan) or you can have more capability, but you'll spend a heap more, take longer to deliver it and have to rely more heavily on legacy aircraft in the meantime.
Click to expand...
As the acquisition types always say...

-good
-fast
-cheap

In government contracting, you can have two of the above, but not all three(and I would argue that even that's somewhat optimistic).
 
Ranger25

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
"From 2017 onwards we'll see Block 3F, F-35 aircraft hitting the various squadrons around the world and its real capability will be quickly identified. It is fortunate enough to have a funded and committed spiral upgrade path that already plans to address most of capability 'gaps' that many 'experts' continually harp on about."



Agreed. I can't think of many systems that haven't evolved significantly from their originally fielded model. From the M16, to the M1, the Burkes, and on and on and on. We build leading systems and then have the ability to learn and upgrade them from experience and make them great systems.
 
RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
ADMk2 said:
Yeah for some reason F-35A doesn't get the free ride that Typhoon etc got in the press for their capability at entry to service.
Click to expand...
Agree, as much as I love the Typhoon I can't help but turn a little green when I look at the Rafale.

A few days ago, Squadron Leader Andy Edgell dropped a pair of 500lb Paveway IV guided bomb in BF-03. It reportedly marks the first weapons separation by the team at Pax river and I think the first time a UK pilot conducted a weapon seperation in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJh2gtqc2Zk
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/167123/f-35b-aces-first-release-uk-paveway-iv-bomb#
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Cadredave said:
The old anonymous pilot said routine wouldnt surprise me if it was SNAFU or ELP
Click to expand...
Possibly, Or could be true.

For the time being it has stealth to help it out but going into the future there is no guarantee that stealth will be be all end all that it has been in the past and today.

Im hoping it's not the case because except for a hand full of SH's Australia is putting it all on the line with the F-35.

Really shouldn't be hard to prove/disprove either way, Take various air frames and do a set list of maneuver's such as turning circle, best speed in turning, climb rate etc etc
 
aussienscale

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
My god people !! with the limited number of JSF pilots does anyone really think they would talk about this ? seriously get a grip !! The rubbish being touted on the numerous forum pages here of late is getting very tiresome !! please
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
vonnoobie said:
Possibly, Or could be true.

For the time being it has stealth to help it out but going into the future there is no guarantee that stealth will be be all end all that it has been in the past and today.

Im hoping it's not the case because except for a hand full of SH's Australia is putting it all on the line with the F-35.

Really shouldn't be hard to prove/disprove either way, Take various air frames and do a set list of maneuver's such as turning circle, best speed in turning, climb rate etc etc
Click to expand...
I'll help with one quote from the article:

"And to add insult to injury, the JSF flier discovered he couldn’t even comfortably move his head inside the radar-evading jet’s cramped cockpit. “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him."

That's a clue right there - the first flights with F35 were made without the full EODAS and helmet system. The later flights were made with the full helmet system and that's some other beast.

It's a crock and David Axe wouldn't write a kind word about the F35 if it had a button that could change pepsi into coke.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Cadredave said:
The old anonymous pilot said routine wouldnt surprise me if it was SNAFU or ELP
Click to expand...
This.

David Axe claims he received a '5 page' flight test report.

He won't reveal how, from who and he won't put the 'report' up, he is only revealing the parts he alleges are of import...
 
A

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
B

barney41

Member
Putting everything in context.


https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog?sf10503378=1
Joint Program Office Response to “War is Boring” Blog
July 01, 2015
The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.

Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target...

More at the jump.
 
RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
I've read elsewhere that the F-35 pilot had done something like 100 hours on the type (previous F-15 experience) whereas the F-16 pilot had something around 1,500+.

Essentially, the critics point to it saying 'Aha!' but there's plenty of context which is either misconstrued or not available from this anonymous source.

The funny part is some of the worse media outlets online are using his blog as a source, the source of that is pretty much "I got a guy".
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Can't win against a modern missile in any fighter unless you see your enemy first and fire first which is sort of the whole point of superior sensors and high performance BVR air-to-air missiles along with the delayed detection that stealth offers (for the time being anyway). With over 90% of all kills being done by missiles in the last 25 years, dog-fighting was an obsolete kill technique with 4th Gen fighters let alone 4th+ Gen and 5th Gen fighters.
 
A

Air Force Brat

Member
RobWilliams said:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/re...-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb

Axe has published the report he got hold of, should make interesting reading.
Click to expand...
It is indeed very interesting, but we must point out this is AF-2, a primary flight test bird with NO coatings, HMS just the basics for flight test and elementary "guns up". The flight test was to "stress" the F-35 flight control system and make cogent observations, which of course David has completely taken out of context. The test pointed out several areas where the test pilot felt the aircraft needed some "tweaks" to the FCS to enhance its maneuverability. David has used that as a pretext for his "sky is falling" approach?
 
O

Olaf

New Member
Interview with JSF maintainer

Some interesting perspectives here, on a blog that's usually quite hostile to the JSF program:

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/absolute-youngest-marine-in-the-f-35-test-force-shares-1716981177

____________________________
Coming from the Hornet, which was designed in the 1970s, what was it like working on the state-of-the-art and stealthy F-35, the most advanced fighter in the world?

Next-generation is an understatement when applied to F-35. Keep in mind that this is the perspective of a maintainer, because they never would let me fly the darn thing. There was not a moment when I wasn’t infatuated with some detail of its construction, mission, or engineering. The maintainability factor is absolutely huge in comparison to platforms such as the F/A-18 or the AV-8B. In many cases, the aircraft seems as though it was designed with end-user practicality in mind, as opposed to the Hornet’s “need to replace a hydraulic pump? Great, remove all other things first” and the Harrier’s “engine replacement? That’s two wings coming off, baby!” Gone are the days of awful hi-torque fasteners that strip themselves out every time you look at them wrong. Behold, hex tips!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top