Forum: F-35 Lightning II

"What has it delivered?"
Sounded like you were referring to the lack of use in Iraq or Afghanistan. The standard counter-argument is that a weapon doesn't have to be being used right this second to be worthwhile.

I think you're over-connecting Stealth and cancellation. Look at FCS, Crusader, EFV, or the ABL. We kind of suck at buying/developing things on-time and on-budget regardless of whether they are stealthy or not.

Even so, we have 20 of the best bombers on the face of the Earth, with no even near-equivalents in existence. We will have 187 of the best fighters in world, whose near peers (to be somewhat forgiving to them) each have only one flying prototype. And then we have what will be a very good multi-role aircraft that will be procured in much greater numbers than any other aircraft with even vaguely similar capability. Oh, and the X-47B flew the other day, so then we'll probably have the first operational strike UCAV too.

F-16.net Sponsor

I have no problem with the F-35 in its intended role as "mud-mover." All variants have a valid purpose even though the price has gone through the roof. I just think it's ridiculous that to assume that the JSF can in any way substitute for the F-22, which should have been produced until it could fully replace the F-15C/D airframes. The idea that F-35s will one day go into battle with an escort of 30-40 year old F-15s is doubtlessly a great comfort to any nation dependent on Chinese or Russian hardware.

The New Sheriff Is In Town by Bill Sweetman at Feb/16/2011

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

"JSF briefings in the past were often a bit like listening to Hollywood publicists. After missing all the milestones they'd talked about a year before, the briefers would assure us that everything was in good shape, that they were on track to complete development and that by golly, Charlie was serious about rehab this time.

If only for the absence of that sort of thing, Tuesday's long awaited appearance of VAdm Dave Venlet, at a National Aeronautics Association lunch in Washington, was refreshing. It was also the first public appearance of anyone from the JSF Program Office anywhere, since the Defence IQ Fighter Conference Athens in October 2009.

Venlet opened by comparing the situation of the JSF to a pilot with the fire warning lights going off: "What you do is aviate, navigate, communicate." In program management terms, Venlet outlined three principles: "commitment to fundamentals" in terms of systems engineering, the "need to keep a firm grasp on realism" and the need for "transparency and communication". With that, he said, "we can build a record of performance, and build and sustain trust."

There were a few news points as Venlet outlined details of a plan that, he says, measures up to the commission that he has been given by Secretary Gates: "To come up with a plan that will not continue to disappoint."

One goal to watch will be whether the program can make 20 deliveries this year against a revised schedule adopted in September (four SDD aircraft, one already delivered, and 16 LRIP jets). STOVL sea trials are still planned for this year, as are the first landbased ship suitability tests for the F-35C. So far, Venlet says, the program "has not lost a day", despite spotty parts deliveries and engine delays, because it has management reserves built in.

The helmet mounted display is clearly an issue - the Defense Acquisition Board, in its review of the program in November, concluded that the technology readiness level of the wide-field-of-view, binocular display was not yet adequate. Problems include jitter and image clarity.

"We don't want to give up the requirement" for panoramic night vision on the pilot's visor, "but we're not going to drive the program into the ditch because of it," Venlet says. A review in the next couple of weeks is going to look at whether the program needs to look at an alternate display system, possibly moving imagery to the fixed flat-panel display.

Also due in the next few weeks is the resolution of a long-standing issue within the Navy: the division of the 680 Navy Department F-35s between B and C models. Roughly speaking, it has always been accepted that about one-third will be Bs and one-third Cs, but the middle third has been in dispute. The Navy would prefer them to be Marine-badged F-35Cs but the Marines have aspired to as many as 420 Bs - but that would imply flying Bs off carriers, an idea that has met resistance from the big-deck Navy.

Finally, another issue under study is whether intial operational test and evaluation can partially overlap with the final stages of development testing. DT for the F-35A and F-35C flight sciences program, and for the Block 3 mission systems, is due to be completed in the first quarter of 2016 (with the B following in the last quarter). Normally a nine-month IOT&E phase would follow that, putting initial operational capability (IOC) out in 2017, but the JPO is looking at ways to compress the gap."

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I have no problem with the F-35 in its intended role as "mud-mover." All variants have a valid purpose even though the price has gone through the roof. I just think it's ridiculous that to assume that the JSF can in any way substitute for the F-22, which should have been produced until it could fully replace the F-15C/D airframes. The idea that F-35s will one day go into battle with an escort of 30-40 year old F-15s is doubtlessly a great comfort to any nation dependent on Chinese or Russian hardware.

The intended role is a multi-role, strike fighter, just like F-16s and F-18s. This means A2A and A2G missions. The F-35 is perfectly capable of self escort, as some aircraft will have strictly A2A loadouts, while others will have their self defense loadout, along with A2G munitions. The F-22s and F-15 Golden Eagles will have other missions, aside from flying along with F-35s, and F-15Es.

wrightwing wrote:

The intended role is a multi-role, strike fighter, just like F-16s and F-18s. This means A2A and A2G missions. The F-35 is perfectly capable of self escort, as some aircraft will have strictly A2A loadouts, while others will have their self defense loadout, along with A2G munitions. The F-22s and F-15 Golden Eagles will have other missions, aside from flying along with F-35s, and F-15Es.

The U.S. has tried the doctrine of self-escort before. Without the F-22, they may as well call it the F-35 Thud II.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

The intended role is a multi-role, strike fighter, just like F-16s and F-18s. This means A2A and A2G missions. The F-35 is perfectly capable of self escort, as some aircraft will have strictly A2A loadouts, while others will have their self defense loadout, along with A2G munitions. The F-22s and F-15 Golden Eagles will have other missions, aside from flying along with F-35s, and F-15Es.

The U.S. has tried the doctrine of self-escort before. Without the F-22, they may as well call it the F-35 Thud II.

But the Thud was never a true "fighter" (although it did get more MiG kills than people realize). F-4s loaded for air-to-air did a pretty good job of escorting F-4s loaded with bombs.

aaam wrote:

But the Thud was never a true "fighter" (although it did get more MiG kills than people realize). F-4s loaded for air-to-air did a pretty good job of escorting F-4s loaded with bombs.

As long as the F-35 can't carry more that 4 missiles internally, it can't be considered a true fighter either.

The chicken is approaching the road.

OL

When in recent history has a US fighter ever used more than 4 BVR missiles in combat? The F-22, a dedicated Air-Dominance fighter, only has six BVR missiles internally. While the F-35 can initialy only carry 4, it has the ability to carry 10 more AAM externally if it desires.

btw, 4 internal AAMs is only the initial capability based on what the customers (both US and international) wanted. The program has already begun the process of developing a 6xAAM internal layout that is scheduled to be part of the Blk 5 upgrade.

The F-22 carries 8 AAM internally and fires it's missiles with far greater energy due to a higher cruising speed at higher altitude. There's no question the F-35 is very good air to air but it's a strike fighter not a purpose designed air superiority fighter. Just because the most torpedoes used by any submarine since WWII is two doesn't mean we don't put a dozen or more aboard. In a world when we have less number of more capable aircraft were we to engage in a conflict with a near peer competitor then numbers of AAM will matter. We plan to deal with worst case scenarios and thankfully one hasn't come up since WWII. The air forces of Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, etc., do not provide guidelines for what we potentially require.

It's not any secret what the F-22 super cruising at high altitude means in terms of imparted energy to air to air missiles. The potential problem for the F-35 is not an aircraft with near F-22 capability but an aircraft optimized for air to air that incorporates some aspects including high speed and altitude. It's still an aircraft optimized as a strike fighter. The USN is planning an aircraft more optimized air to air than the F-35C in the NGAD/F/A-XX program and the USAF has it's F-22 follow on. The F-35 being very good air to air does equate to a strike fighter that will never require fighter escort nor that it can be expected to readily deal with any potential threat.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

aaam wrote:

But the Thud was never a true "fighter" (although it did get more MiG kills than people realize). F-4s loaded for air-to-air did a pretty good job of escorting F-4s loaded with bombs.

As long as the F-35 can't carry more that 4 missiles internally, it can't be considered a true fighter either.

Later blocks will carry 6 internal AIM-120Ds, and even more JDRADMs. Don't get hung up with Block III's capability. Look how long it took for the F-16 to get BVR capability at all. If the F-35 gets stealthy pods like those proposed for the Superhornet, then the number will go up even more.

lb wrote:

It's not any secret what the F-22 super cruising at high altitude means in terms of imparted energy to air to air missiles. The potential problem for the F-35 is not an aircraft with near F-22 capability but an aircraft optimized for air to air that incorporates some aspects including high speed and altitude. It's still an aircraft optimized as a strike fighter. The USN is planning an aircraft more optimized air to air than the F-35C in the NGAD/F/A-XX program and the USAF has it's F-22 follow on. The F-35 being very good air to air does equate to a strike fighter that will never require fighter escort nor that it can be expected to readily deal with any potential threat.

When performing A2A missions, what makes you think the F-35 will be a low altitudes, or staying subsonic prior to launch? The F-22 will have kinematic advantages, but the F-35 is no slouch. It's designed for rapid acceleration to combat speed. As for the F/A-XX, that's not to address deficiencies, so much as the threats that will be evolving in the 2030-2040 timeframe.

Quote:

Look how long it took for the F-16 to get BVR capability at all.

How long was it? 14 years?
How can it be that the F-16 Pure-Fighter for the first ~14 years didn’t have any BVR capabilities?

Those 2 sidewinders in the F-22 cannot be used BVR, which is where any VLO aircraft wants to stay. With most present and future adversarial aircraft having IRST, the VLO aspects of the F-22 (or any other VLO aircraft) will not keep it from being detected on an IRST.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 build woes