Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Wow, this is ******* hilarious. Everyone, please note that Harpoon is a computer game. A fairly realistic one, but I don't trust it to portray this accurately.

This would be like using Call of Duty or Ace Combat to try and prove the inferiority of the M4 or AIM-120. I used to have some faith in APA, but this is absolutely ridiculous Laughing

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by sewerrat on Feb 08, 2012 - 02:49 PM; edited 3 times in total

disconnectedradical wrote:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/joint-strike-fighter-program-a-failure-think-tank/2448416.aspx

Quote:

Mr Goon said the STOVL F-35B variant imposed weight and performance limits on the other two aircraft.

Um...wow. That simulation is rather hilarious. Laughing

I'll agree to that statement about STOVL placing limitations on the other two variants. But how to quantify those limitations, its anyone's guess. The other thing that placed "limits" on performance (speed/drag) is needing to stuff 2x2000lb bombs plus simultaneously (what -- 2 aim-9 or 2 aim-120) 2 missiles inside such a small single engined fighter. There's only so many ways package that kind of aircraft, but either way, you'll end up with a relatively short overall length, and very wide center section as is found on the -35. But again, how do you quantify those performance penalties *especially* considering that the F-35 is *always* in combat form whereas those other 4th gen fighters have airshow (clean) confuguration performance, and then they have combat loaded performance. Then about the speed restrictions on firing the slammers from the weapons bays........... Officially they're rated for release at M1.6. Sure, a F-15/16 *can* launch at 2.0M, but how often do those aircraft hit such speeds? M1.6 for the F-35 is a walk in the park and it can spend for more time at those speeds than can a 4th gen fighter.

There ain't no such thing in life as a free lunch. You can't have a tiny single engine stealth fighter with over 4000lbs of internal weapons and keep it slim and trim like a clean 4th gen fighter. Clean 4th gen fighters are useless in war. 4th gen fighters are basically giant radar reflectors.

Then there's something else vitally important in war, and that is turn around time. The F-35 is *always* in the same configuration, weather moving mud, or whacking Migs. Ground crews don't need to add and remove sensor/ecm pods like on 4th gen fighters. Without external tanks, there one more line item on the crew chiefs checklist that he/she ain't got to worry about or spend any time on.

You've got to look at the balanced equation, and not just look at the tree and ignore the forrest. The F-35 is a viable solution to balancing the "equation".

disconnectedradical wrote:

On page 16, where did that acceleration (speed vs time) chart come from? Since when was the F-22's transonic to supersonic performance ever released? O_o

Yet another figment of his imagination. Like the one that says anything he has to say to an Australian Senate Enquiry will have the slightest impact on what they decide.

Just like it did the last time he and Kopp tried to influence an Australian Senate Committee around to their rather unusual way of thinking.

We all saw the magnificent effect that achieved:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/j ... report.htm

As far as Goon and Kopp are concerned:

None whatsoever.

Not a single one of those claims is accurate. It's not even worth the effort to try and rebut each of the falsehoods, as it would be exhausting. In summary, you can't fix stupid.

sewerrat wrote:

But again, how do you quantify those performance penalties *especially* considering that the F-35 is *always* in combat form whereas those other 4th gen fighters have airshow (clean) confuguration performance, and then they have combat loaded performance. Then about the speed restrictions on firing the slammers from the weapons bays........... Officially they're rated for release at M1.6. Sure, a F-15/16 *can* launch at 2.0M, but how often do those aircraft hit such speeds? M1.6 for the F-35 is a walk in the park and it can spend for more time at those speeds than can a 4th gen fighter.

Considering the fastest that an F-15 has flown in combat is M1.4, and that the F-35 can fly(and launch weapons) at M1.6, the kinematic advantages just don't exist. Now factor in that the F-35 will have first look/first shoot advantages against a Flanker, I'm just not seeing how the arrive at their numbers. The Flanker isn't going to be flying faster than the F-35 under realistic conditions. Even the F-22/PAK FA will spend the majority of the time at subsonic speeds, till they need the kinematics of supercruise.

southernphantom wrote:

Wow, this is ******* hilarious. Everyone, please note that Harpoon is a computer game. A fairly realistic one, but I don't trust it to portray this accurately.

This would be like using Call of Duty or Ace Combat to try and prove the inferiority of the M4 or AIM-120. I used to have some faith in APA, but this is absolutely ridiculous Laughing

There is a profesional version of the simulation called "H3 MilSim" that is used by various navies and contractors.

maus92 wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

Wow, this is ******* hilarious. Everyone, please note that Harpoon is a computer game. A fairly realistic one, but I don't trust it to portray this accurately.

This would be like using Call of Duty or Ace Combat to try and prove the inferiority of the M4 or AIM-120. I used to have some faith in APA, but this is absolutely ridiculous Laughing

There is a profesional version of the simulation called "H3 MilSim" that is used by various navies and contractors.

Yeah, its a training aid. Nobody uses it to simulate the combat performance of a fighter that is still in development and who's performance figures have never been released publicly. Hell, its not even an optimal air to air combat simulator. I'd actually like to see what they did to stack the deck so badly vs the F-35. Was its emcon on active while the opponents on passive? What performance figures did they assign?

Its patently absurd and shows just how ridiculous this bunch is.

The partners are losing their patience that's for sure !

maus92 wrote:

There is a profesional version of the simulation called "H3 MilSim" that is used by various navies and contractors.

If they used it as such, it would be more representative of actual performance numbers since they could load it with classified info and known performance metrics.

The presented Youtube clip was obviously bias in its setup in several ways that I could see.:
1. SU-35 released all its missiles while the F-35 got off only 2. This means that the SU has first look which is BS.
2. The SU came directly at the F-35s which means that they could see them the whole time.
3. The F-35s did not use any kind of tactics.
4. They spent the whole time at supercruise with 8 missiles, right Wink

SpudmanWP wrote:

maus92 wrote:

There is a profesional version of the simulation called "H3 MilSim" that is used by various navies and contractors.

If they used it as such, it would be more representative of actual performance numbers since they could load it with classified info and known performance metrics.

The presented Youtube clip was obviously bias in its setup in several ways that I could see.:
1. SU-35 released all its missiles while the F-35 got off only 2. This means that the SU has first look which is BS.
2. The SU came directly at the F-35s which means that they could see them the whole time.
3. The F-35s did not use any kind of tactics.
4. They spent the whole time at supercruise with 8 missiles, right Wink

Has the Su-35 even demonstrated the ability to exceed M1 dry, with a realistic weapons load, much less the other ridiculous assumptions.

You'd be lucky to get 30 SU-35s up in the air at the same time, let alone over 200.

Are there even going to be 200 Su-35s?

SpudmanWP wrote:

Are there even going to be 200 Su-35s?

If Russia exports 152 of them.

It was only a year ago that the Su-35S actually went into serial production IIRC. There's no way the Russians can produce a 200 strong fleet of those things in a reasonable amount of time. APA needs to just close up shop while they still have the fake facade of a reputation left.

I'd imagine the Su-35S can exceed mach 1 with a realistic weapons load just like the F-15, but that's where the praise ends.

Even with supercruising abilities there's drag from external stores that will come into play and no flanker is going to be supercruising the whole time. F-35 will get the first look which is good enough to get the kill far earlier than the Flankers will so having a larger payload of medium range missiles means jack.

SpudmanWP wrote:

maus92 wrote:

There is a profesional version of the simulation called "H3 MilSim" that is used by various navies and contractors.

If they used it as such, it would be more representative of actual performance numbers since they could load it with classified info and known performance metrics.

The presented Youtube clip was obviously bias in its setup in several ways that I could see.:
1. SU-35 released all its missiles while the F-35 got off only 2. This means that the SU has first look which is BS.
2. The SU came directly at the F-35s which means that they could see them the whole time.
3. The F-35s did not use any kind of tactics.
4. They spent the whole time at supercruise with 8 missiles, right Wink

I agree. Garbage in - garbage out. I didn't watch the video at all, but it is hard to take that kind of simulation seriously. All I said was that H3 MilSim the professional version purchased by serious end users - as a learning tool.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Joint strike fighter program a 'failure' (from beloved APA)