Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

I found this at another board, the World Affairs Board which I find to be well moderated with trolls smacked down and idiocy deleted.

It was in a thread about the F-15 which can be found here:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/milita ... -ever.html

How this relates to the F-35: The F-35 delivers what the F-15 pilot says is needed.

Here is a quote:

"The best gun analogy I have ever come up with is this: A turning fight in modern jets is like two WW1 soldiers leaving their trenches and meeting in no-man's land for a bayonet fight. One will kill the other... and the victor will likely be killed in a hail of fire from the downed man's friends.

The need to turn is gone. All that is needed now is to slew a seeker towards a target. At most, one's nose may need to be moved through 90 to 120 degrees, but other than that, all those cool yo-yo's are simply dated."

The pilot also said that A2A UCAV's are a log ways off.

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by avxva on Apr 22, 2012 - 07:11 PM; edited 5 times in total

shingen wrote:

Here is a quote:"A turning fight in modern jets is like... [...] The need to turn is gone. All that is needed now is to slew a seeker towards a target. At most, one's nose may need to be moved through 90 to 120 degrees, but other than that, all those cool yo-yo's are simply dated. The pilot also said that A2A UCAV's are a log ways off."

Yeah...right. I'm not an expert in these matters, but even I can call 'bulls-it' on this.

(1) Remember how the EXACT same nonsense was spoken prior to the Vietnam war and how the Mig-17 and Mig-21 called B.S. on all of it?

(2) On the other hand, if the need to turn is really gone, then the F-35 is obsolete before it comes out of the box. When you don't need to turn, then something the size of a B-2 (or larger) is MUCH more effective, efficient and economical. The day, "all those cool yo-yo's are simply dated," is the day we need to cancel the F-35 and move towards the Next Gen Bomber that can move through 90 to 120 degrees. (Why build a Strike Fighter when all you need is the Strike?)

(3) A2A UCAV's will be ready sooner rather than later when all you got to do is move through 90 to 120 degrees.

In all honesty, if that F-15 pilot is correct, we need to cancel the F-35 on Monday and go in another direction. On the other hand, what happens if the need to turn is a fundamental constant, and the F-35 turns like a pig flying a bathtub?

Al

avxva wrote:

shingen wrote:

Here is a quote:"A turning fight in modern jets is like... [...] The need to turn is gone. All that is needed now is to slew a seeker towards a target. At most, one's nose may need to be moved through 90 to 120 degrees, but other than that, all those cool yo-yo's are simply dated. The pilot also said that A2A UCAV's are a log ways off."

Yeah...right. I'm not an expert in these matters, but even I can call 'bulls-it' on this.

(1) Remember how the EXACT same nonsense was spoken prior to the Vietnam war and how the Mig-17 and Mig-21 called B.S. on all of it?

(2) On the other hand, if the need to turn is really gone, then the F-35 is obsolete before it comes out of the box. When you don't need to turn, then something the size of a B-2 (or larger) is MUCH more effective, efficient and economical. The day, "all those cool yo-yo's are simply dated," is the day we need to cancel the F-35 and move towards the Next Gen Bomber that can move through 90 to 120 degrees. (Why build a Strike Fighter when all you need is the Strike?)

(3) A2A UCAV's will be ready sooner rather than later.

Al

(1) was a combination of ROE and training problems
(2) speed, price, basing, and you still need high speed turning, just not high speed nose pointing.
(3) can we get a quantification of these "long way off" and "sooner rather than later"?

I think what he meant was that the ability to out turn your opponent was no longer the deciding factor.

He also said you would still have to do some serious turning:

Quote:

At most, one's nose may need to be moved through 90 to 120 degrees, but other than that, all those cool yo-yo's are simply dated."

avxva wrote:

shingen wrote:

Here is a quote:"A turning fight in modern jets is like... [...] The need to turn is gone. All that is needed now is to slew a seeker towards a target. At most, one's nose may need to be moved through 90 to 120 degrees, but other than that, all those cool yo-yo's are simply dated. The pilot also said that A2A UCAV's are a log ways off."

Yeah...right. I'm not an expert in these matters, but even I can call 'bulls-it' on this.

No, apparently you cant.

(1) Remember how the EXACT same nonsense was spoken prior to the Vietnam war and how the Mig-17 and Mig-21 called B.S. on all of it?

Right, so you're saying that technical conditions from 50 years ago are still valid? I'm guessing you are still using a rotary phone, listening to the latest single on a 45 lp and calculate your taxes using an abacus?

Of all the things you said in your post the first was the most accurate: you aren't an expert on this.

Last edited by avxva on Apr 22, 2012 - 09:29 PM; edited 1 time in total

hb_pencil wrote:

Right, so you're saying that technical conditions from 50 years ago are still valid?

No, I'm saying you can't have it both ways. Ever notice how when someone points out that the F-35 will not be much of a fighter, the "experts" say, "that's okay, it's supposed to be more of a bomber," but when someone points out that the F-35 will not be much of a bomber, the "experts" say, "that's okay, it's supposed to be more of a fighter," and when someone points out that the F-35 will not be much of a fighter bomber, the "experts" say, "that's okay, it's supposed to be more of a "strike fighter?" Ever notice that? (Like the 'strike' in the title changes everything.)

Question? If the technical conditions from 50 years ago are not still valid, WHY are we building a "strike fighter" to fill those conditions!?! Conceptually, the F-35 is nothing more than a stealthy F-105, or at best, an A-7.

And if the above is not 100% correct, then we don't need the F-35 at all. Seems to me that--if we are being honest about this--the F-35 can't have it both ways. LOL!

Al

Al, what are you talking about?

So the F-105 and A-7 could gather data and distribute it to the other systems in the battlespace? They had A2A superiority over every previous aircraft save 1? I must have missed something when I read about those 2 platforms.

avxva wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

Right, so you're saying that technical conditions from 50 years ago are still valid?

No, I'm saying you can't have it both ways. Ever notice how when someone points out that the F-35 will not be much of a fighter, the "experts" say, "that's okay, it's supposed to be more of a bomber," but when someone points out that the F-35 will not be much of a bomber, the "experts" say, "that's okay, it's supposed to be more of a fighter," and when someone points out that the F-35 will not be much of a fighter bomber, the "experts" say, "that's okay, it's supposed to be more of a "strike fighter?" Ever notice that? (Like the 'strike' in the title changes everything.)

Question? If the technical conditions from 50 years ago are not still valid, WHY are we building a "strike fighter" to fill those conditions!?! Conceptually, the F-35 is nothing more than a stealthy F-105, or at best, an A-7.

And if the above is not 100% correct, then we don't need the F-35 at all. Seems to me that--if we are being honest about this--the F-35 can't have it both ways. LOL!

Al

Actually the "experts," at least the ones who know what they are talking about, will say that the F-35 should have very good maneuverability. It was supposed to measure well to the F-16, which remains the gold standard in this area. Nevertheless the need for extreme maneuverability has decreased due to advances in missile accuracy.

And while missions and roles might be same, the technology to prosecute them have changed immensely. We don't fight wars using swords and pointy sticks, but we still try to occupy other countries. We don't carpet bomb jungles, because we have targeting systems that allow us to only use one or two bombs with a GPS receiver attached to it.

My suggestion for you is to read a bit more about this area before posting ridiculous statements like above.

I'd suggest this book to start. You can get a copy for under two dollars and you'd be much more informed for it.

http://www.amazon.com/Transformation-Am ... 0801438160

Last edited by avxva on Apr 22, 2012 - 10:33 PM; edited 2 times in total

count_to_10 wrote:

Al, what are you talking about?

Is there an old post (or a listing) somewhere that discloses who in this forum works for Lockheed Martin and the F-35 program (or one of the F-35's major sub-contractors?) When I read the threads, I get the distinct sensation that there is a concerted corporate/program public relations campaign going on in about 99.5% of them. Have those cards ever been laid out on the table for everyone to see???

(1) Someone wrote, "Actually ... the F-35 should have very good maneuverability. It was supposed to measure well to the F-16, which remains the gold standard in this area. ... Well, after read the F-35 Concurrency QLR, we already know that's a laugh.

(2) Somebody wrote, "So the F-105 and A-7 could gather data and distribute it to the other systems in the battlespace?" Aircraft have been doing that since 1915 and balloons were doing it during the Civil War. The technology has improved, the concepts are EXACTLY THE SAME.

(3) Somebody wrote, "They had A2A superiority over every previous aircraft save 1?" Again, no matter how many times the, "F-35 bomb truck is better in an A2A fight than every other dedicated air superiority fighter" is trotted out, this simple question will be asked: Why is an F-15 pilot making excuses for the F-35's lack of agility by trying to sell: Difficult aerial manuevers are not needed in aerial combat anymore. Shoot, we could park those F-22s.

LOL!

Al

avxva wrote:

Someone wrote, "Actually ... the F-35 should have very good maneuverability. It was supposed to measure well to the F-16, which remains the gold standard in this area. ... Well, after read the F-35 Concurrency QLR, we already know that's a laugh.

Al

Did you actually read the Ahern report? Can you point me to where it talks about maneuverability?

[quote="hb_pencil"]

avxva wrote:

Did you actually read the Ahern report? Can you point me to where it talks about maneuverability?

Well... The part about not being able to get the aircraft into even moderate levels AoA because of shocking and alarming amounts of design inherent buffeting comes to mind, oh, and the part about the F-35 A/B/C being too fat to fight, AND, the part about the structural weaknesses, the hotspots and cracks that happen when you put a load on the aircraft. Did you have additional details beyond those??

Al

Forget it Al, you don't have a chance here. The F-35 will be the greatest fighter/attack/bomber/ISR aircraft in the history of aviation. Able to perform every mission equally well. It will replace the F-16, F-15E, A-10, and F-18. If you don't subscribe to that opinion you haven't been "saved" by the experts at Lockheed and the various other contractors. Funny part is I believe the F-35 will be a great weapons system. The problem is it won't be combat ready in significant numbers for ____ years (you fill in the number). And, just like the Raptor, it will be a difficult to maintain, labor intensive jet. We'll need to build enough of them to be able to generate and sustain the number of sorties required to defeat a near peer foe.

avxva wrote:

Well... The part about not being able to get the aircraft into even moderate levels AoA because of shocking and alarming amounts of design inherent buffeting comes to mind, oh, and the part about the F-35 A/B/C being too fat to fight, AND, the part about the structural weaknesses, the hotspots and cracks that happen when you put a load on the aircraft. Did you have additional details beyond those??

Al

Oh man, there are some problems with a new aircraft design? We better cancel that sucker right now!

Just imagine the savings if we cancelled this lemon when we had the chance!:

http://www.gao.gov/products/PSAD-77-41

Fantastic example Prinz_eugn!!! As per your link:

"Under a multinational commitment, the United States, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Norway plan to purchase at least 998 F-16 fighter aircraft--650 for the United States and 348 for the European countries. Ultimately the U.S. Air Force plans call for procuring 1,388 aircraft. The European countries will participate in co-producing the first 650 U.S. Air Force F-16's, the 348 European aircraft, and a share of sales to other countries. The participation of the four NATO countries has great influence on the program. Program decisions could be affected by European industrial production capability, mission requirements, ability of Europeans to meet funding requirements, and the need to obtain European approval of modifications to the aircraft.

In its evaluation of the F-16 development and procurement program, GAO found that the Air Force is concerned with several potential F-16 problems: F100 engine stalls, demonstration of an improved aerial restart capability, and excessive taxi speed. Tactical Air Command Officials believe that the F-16 needs additional equipment; and that it doesn't have sufficient available space for all desired new capabilities. There is some controversy concerning the combat vulnerability of the aircraft; the inclusion of more air-to-surface operations in the F-16 mission does make it more vulnerable. The program has shown a $7.7 billion cost increase in 1976 due to the 738 aircraft quantity increase and the new capabilities and program estimate revisions. The Air Force contends that the increase in aircraft procurement quantities as a result of European participation will lower the cost of domestic production enough to offset the increased cost of co-production. Schedule delays could threaten the test schedule."

Hahaha!

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

An F-15 pilot's view of A2A (F-35 has what is needed)