Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

What most people fail to realize is that the QLR describes risks of concurrency costs going up, not of a goal failing to be met.

F-16.net Sponsor

I read that statement from the QLR as saying they need to qualify high AOA turns before they can start gathering data on buffeting in that regime. I don't think they need to eliminate the buffeting to start the AOA testing (as its not a stability problem). I think it was Burbage or maybe one of the RAAF guys who said that high AOA testing commences late this year.

As far as the envelope of an airliner exceeding the F-35's ... pretty sure jumbo's can't pull 9.5+ G's like the F-35 has already.

The severe buffeting issues only occur at 12 degrees AOA at mach 0.9'ish according to the graph in the QLR, above that its moderate/non-existent.

bumtish wrote:

.....

Guess it shoulda been cancelled...

In the end, it was, and replaced by the cheaper Super Hornet.

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?

Missiles/avionics have come a long way both in capability, and in reliability since Vietnam.

Quote:

(2) On the other hand, if the need to turn is really gone, then the F-35 is obsolete before it comes out of the box.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?)

You still need something that can turn its nose those 90-120 degrees fast enough, and a B-2 size aircraft won't be doing that any time soon. Additionally, it'd be way to expensive to replace F-15s/F-16s with a B-2 size aircraft. The Navy/USMC would be completely left out of recapitalization with your plan, as well.

Quote:

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

There's a lot more involved than just being able to turn. The bandwidth to control maneuvering UCAVs isn't there, and the artificial intelligence needed to operate autonomously, is even further off.

Quote:

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

The F-35 has already demonstrated, that this isn't the case(9.9G turns have been flown).

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,"

Who says that aside from Kopp, Goon, ELP, etc... Aside from the critics, everyone typically acknowledges that the F-35 will have agility comparable or superior to the F-16/F-18.

Quote:

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.

The F-35 is replacing the F-16/F-18, not the A-7. It's a stealthy F-16/F-18.

avxva wrote:

(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

You might want to reread the F-15 pilot's comments. He's not making excuses about the lack of agility in the F-35. He's pointing out that in modern aerial warfare, agility isn't the deciding factor. Those are pretty distinct comments. The most important thing is that the F-35 has agility, AND systems which allow it to not rely on that.

wrightwing wrote:

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,"

Who says that aside from Kopp, Goon, ELP, etc... Aside from the critics, everyone typically acknowledges that the F-35 will have agility comparable or superior to the F-16/F-18.

Quote:

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.

The F-35 is replacing the F-16/F-18, not the A-7. It's a stealthy F-16/F-18.

I actually see it as a Super Hornet with LO qualities. I would have made a Thud comparison, except its max gross is 9 tons heavier...
Shocked

It sure looks like a Lead Sled on paper, but the flight tests thankfully prove otherwise. A similar service record would be extremely embarrassing.

avxva wrote:

(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?

That's long gone. It's pretty hard to compare Vietnam fighters and modern ones. Are you trying to say that it is impossible to conduct air combat in any other way besides close in dogfights? Technology has moved on, and even back then the technology wasn't that bad. It just was not being used correctly.

Quote:

(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?)

The quote refers to short ranged combat, not BVR. Being high and fast, and being able to remain high and fast even when reacting to a changing situation is important in BVR, and it's one of the things that makes the F-22 so dominant. You also need to consider cost and numbers; you can have more small fighters than large missile trucks (especially if you're the Navy), as someone has already said.

maus92 wrote:

bumtish wrote:

.....

Guess it shoulda been cancelled...

In the end, it was, and replaced by the cheaper Super Hornet.

After 30 years in service.

hb_pencil wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Transformation-American-Cornell-Studies-Security/dp/0801438160

Thanks for the recommendation. I just ordered it (used @ $4.24 delivered).

count_to_10 wrote:

maus92 wrote:

bumtish wrote:

.....

Guess it shoulda been cancelled...

In the end, it was, and replaced by the cheaper Super Hornet.

After 30 years in service.

And an ever spiraling price tag (and MX cost.)

wrightwing wrote:

Quote:

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.

The F-35 is replacing the F-16/F-18, not the A-7. It's a stealthy F-16/F-18.

Actually, IIRC, the F-35 was originally conceived as an aircraft that could fight and maneuver like an F-16 and carry and deliver a bomb load like an A-7, all while being stealthy.

Granted, there have been serious cost and schedule overruns, and all the problems aren't all ironed out yet, but for the most part Lockheed/Northrop/BAE/P&W seem to have pulled it off. (Especially when you consider they had to meld three aircraft into one. No one has EVER done that before.) I think if the Chinese or the Russians were building these and we were still flying 4th gen aircraft, we'd all be sweating bullets.

Maybe if we all take a breather, we might step back and appreciate what an amazing piece of technology the F-35 system of systems actually is.

Just imagine avxva's reaction if the X-32 had won the JSF competition..

Last edited by madrat on Apr 24, 2012 - 12:56 PM; edited 1 time in total

Last edited by madrat on Apr 24, 2012 - 12:54 PM; edited 1 time in total

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

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