Forum: General F-35 Forum

I don't think anyone called it a silver bullet. Everything you said about missiles is true to some extent, but that just means that the non 5th gen has all of those problems on top of the problem of not being stealthy. Missiles don't need to be perfect for the 5th gen fighter to have an advantage. We could go back to guns and the F-35 would still be one of the most lethal fighters in existence.

As for the article it would have been nice if the simulation was explained, instead of just spitting out a questionable sounding result.

F-16.net Sponsor

bumtish wrote:

"The Luxembourg Army Marching Band is still puzzled why they were given an unsolicited brief on the JSF at their seminar."

Very Happy

Freakin hilarious! Laughing

Fair post, vipernice. Worth the consideration. Also interesting, is that AIM-120D reportedly won't be good enough for hypothetical Isreali F-35 buys.

jeffb wrote:

Hey I know your all having fun slagging off APA but didn't Eurofighter have some sort of generic JSF vs Eurofighter simulation at Paris?
Wouldn't they or the swedes be more interested in diverting sales?

Hey that's what I said! No fair...

Usually I get bagged out for "bringing APA" into this, now I get ignored...

geogen wrote:

Fair post, vipernice. Worth the consideration. Also interesting, is that AIM-120D reportedly won't be good enough for hypothetical Isreali F-35 buys.

Well let's wait and see what's exactly contained within the DSCA announcements, eh?

Besides, this wouldn't have anything to do with IAI and Rafael clamouring for more local work?

Israel has already gained the integration of SPICE and Python V air to air missiles onto their F-35's, they couldn't be looking for more work, obviously...

geogen wrote:

Fair post, vipernice. Worth the consideration. Also interesting, is that AIM-120D reportedly won't be good enough for hypothetical Isreali F-35 buys.

Why "hypothetical"? Israeli Ministry of Defense Director General (Maj. Gen. Ret.) Udi Shani signed the F-35A Letter of Offer and Acceptance at a ceremony in New York last October. And 2 Israeli Officers are in the US in connection with Israeli modifications to be done to the jet.

geogen wrote:

Fair post, vipernice. Worth the consideration. Also interesting, is that AIM-120D reportedly won't be good enough for hypothetical Isreali F-35 buys.

It's less a matter of good enough, than not being Israeli made. They tend to like to use their own gear as often as possible.

Has to be Kopp. He generally makes sense but stops short of realistic thought. A Super-Raptor just ain't gonna happen. And Raptors can handle IADS-busting, clearing the airspace for the ultra-F-16s...er, F-35s. Unless the US ends up fighting China, our F-22s should be enough to compensate for the clear weaknesses of the F-35, but not as comfortably as it would have been had Obamunism not put money into stimuli and health care instead of 200 more Raptors.

southernphantom wrote:

Has to be Kopp. He generally makes sense but stops short of realistic thought. A Super-Raptor just ain't gonna happen. And Raptors can handle IADS-busting, clearing the airspace for the ultra-F-16s...er, F-35s. Unless the US ends up fighting China, our F-22s should be enough to compensate for the clear weaknesses of the F-35, but not as comfortably as it would have been had Obamunism not put money into stimuli and health care instead of 200 more Raptors.

Disagree, mostly because I can't see Kopp being invited to give a NATO nation a briefing on ANYTHING, let alone an airpower issue...

On top of which, it was also said to be an expert, which immediately counts him out and then on top of this it was said to be delivered by an industry threat assessment expert.

Well he ain't any part of the defence industry in any capacity at all, which is why I suspect it was Eurofighter or SAAB. Mostly I suspect the "simulation" was this nonsense released by Eurofighter in 2010. (Page 16 onwards).

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/we ... 0b_Low.pdf

Take it from someone who's worked in simulation over half his adult life: any scenario can be rigged to give ya the result ya want. Why hell...we used to make Frogfoots (Frogfeet? Wink

), Fishbeds, and Floggers do things that would make a Hummingbird wet his li'l tiny flight suit. Ya say ya want that Bear-H to have a 15G turn rate and Mach Ludicrous speed? Noooo problemo! Laughing

Unless whoever ran the simulation had first-hand access from LockMart on what the F-35 can REALLY do, what it would carry, and how it would employ it, there's no way, NONE, to know this far out how it would fare.

My Two Cents

wrightwing wrote:

geogen wrote:

Fair post, vipernice. Worth the consideration. Also interesting, is that AIM-120D reportedly won't be good enough for hypothetical Isreali F-35 buys.

It's less a matter of good enough, than not being Israeli made. They tend to like to use their own gear as often as possible.

Agree, Israel's motivation also has a lot to do with future export opportunities in mind.

Flawed logic, I'm sorry. You're not claiming possible gear in question (missile, or missile defense) is inferior in quality?? Nah... (and fwiw, no, I'm not isreali or jew).

Last edited by spazsinbad on Sep 11, 2011 - 04:34 AM; edited 5 times in total

Referencing the original point of this thread: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16077.html
&
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4416.html

Is this a mea culpa (quote below) [about 'fake' news story about F-35 being defeated in some mythical computer simulation. Followed by "evidence" that it might be true Smile

]?

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/2011 ... n-air.html

From URL immediately above. ELP: "...There is this idea that the F-35 is not good enough to face emerging threats. And what about the thing I wrote the other day? I don't know. I wasn't there. It does seem possible though." And pIgs WiLL FreakiNg FLy! (no offence to F-111s intended) Devil

Spazs, it's not about whether or not an eventual block IV F-35A can be 'good enough' to face emerging threats in like 10 yrs out... but whether to spend > 2x as much per unit as was originally estimated, for an originally advertised 'game-changing' aircraft, which would dominate through 2050! Two universally different schematics we're talking about here, c'mon, let's try to bring this discussion down to Earth first, before even going to the next step??

spazsinbad wrote:

Referencing the original point of this thread: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16077.html
&
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4416.html

Is this a mea culpa? http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/2011 ... n-air.html

"...There is this idea that the F-35 is not good enough to face emerging threats. And what about the thing I wrote the other day? I don't know. I wasn't there. It does seem possible though." And pIgs WiLL FreakiNg FLy! (no offence to F-111s intended) Devil

The whole point of his pathetic argument is that the SU-35 is superior because it has the R-73, none of the advantages of the F-35 are taken into account and he assumes the F-35 won't ever have a HOBS missile AND every scenario will boil down to a WVR fight...

Yeah no "indifference to what is real' there! On such specious logic is the claim made that the F-35 is "obsolete to the threat..."

He decides to go further however, to match a strike configured F-35 against an air to air configured SU-35 (because obviously removing 3200lbs or so in weight from the strike weapons and freeing up hardpoints for air to air weapons would help the F-35's agility, performance and measurable firepower...) and also because oranges to oranges type comparison's don't actually work out so well for these guys, even using the ridiculous, non-realistic scenarios that they do...

Then he uses the specious argument devised by Kopp through mathematical trickery that the AMRAAM "only" has a Pk of 50. The math for this is of course designed to include successful BVR launches ONLY, but only those that meet the criteria as defined by Kopp's view of what "counts" (ie: those as best fits his argument, others are purposefully excluded) where only one weapon successfully struck another aircraft in combat - any instance where an AMRAAM has achieved an air to air kill not according to Kopp's "official BVR definition" and instances where 2 missiles have struck the same aircraft, have been specifically excluded from the Pk value scenario, to ensure it's Pk appears lower than is actually the case...

On top of which it's testing is completely invalidated and excluded from the value, as all testing scenarios conducted by the US are only "scripted range events" designed by the marketing people to give their product a shiny appearance.

Despite this however, they decide that the Russians and Chinese are obviously far above such trickery and therefore they not only completely go against their own dodgy mathematical formula they used on AMRAAM in relation to it's alleged combat performance, they decide the test results for R-77 are perfectly valid and therefore award an equivalent COMBAT Pk value to the R-77...

If they were even consistent with their dodgy maths they'd have to award the R-77 a Pk of zero because it doesn't have ANY successful combat launches, BVR or otherwise, however this wouldn't make their pathetic little charts look the way they want them too, so they give the benefit of the doubt to the R-77 because it's "of the same technological generation" as the AMRAAM (which model of course is irrelevant because there hasn't been any improvement in AMRAAM's capability from AIM-120A to AIM-120C7 apparently)...

And then they turn around and get all insulted when people laugh at their "analysis'...

Embarassed

Forum: General F-35 Forum

An industry air combat threat assessment expert