Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Its a dog even though it accelerates like a beast and chase planes need afterburners to keep up...

F-16.net Sponsor

avxva wrote:

The airframe--trying to merge a carrier, a conventional, and a STOVL variant into the same basic airframe--is, and should be, a cause for HUGE concern however. What a stupid idea. There must several million compromises in the design and construction of the F-35 because of the A, B and C mandate. Several million compromises from what it could and should be. I keep thinking our country is getting a Toyota crossover when the Navy and Air Force deserves something much, much better. (The Marine Corp has never used STOVL in combat, not a single time, give them a Navy version.)

Psst, avxa, just quietly, EVERY tactical fighter design has a ton of compromises in it. There is no "perfect" design.

(Don't tell anyone else this and we may be able to get you out of this without looking foolish).

Wink

avxva wrote:

I'm afraid the F-35 is going to be the biggest dog since the F7U Cutlass (Gutless) for the Navy, and the F-84F Thunderstreak for the Air Force. And nothing I see or read is soothing that fear.

Al

You might want to read what the pilots, that have flown it are saying, rather than APA, and their ilk.

southernphantom wrote:

I actually see it as a Super Hornet with LO qualities.

VLO qualities, improved aerodynamic performance, and greatly improved avionic performance.

Quote:

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

it doesn't look like a lead sled in the air, which is more important than your expert analysis about what it looks like on paper.

Super Hornet is crap compared to F-35 considering the things the F-35 has done both in maneuvering and in the sophistication of the avionics. Super Hornet is quite the draggy airframe from what I've heard with regards to the canted pylons and such. I'd trust the F-35 to intercept enemy fighters and outmaneuver them more than the Super hornet as I'd imagine time to altitude and speed are vastly superior.

wrightwing wrote:

You might want to read what the pilots that have flown it are saying...

I am, and this is what they are saying: “The report also expressed significant concerns with aircraft performance characteristics, particularly transonic roll-off and buffet, as well as maneuvering performance." Not to mention: “Air Warfare: The operational testers cited unsatisfactory progress and the likelihood of severe operational impacts for survivability, lethality, air vehicle performance, and employment,”

As to listening to the Lockheed Martin company pilots and program pilots, I never listen to vinyl siding salesmen, used car salesmen, or pilot salesmen--and neither should anyone else.

I think if we could get to the bottom of how much Lockheed Martin PR/sales propaganda is being distributed on this forum (and other forums) we could finally get some clarity on some of these issues. In my opinion, 99% of the threads on this forum are influenced by--no, that's not quite strong enough-- 99% of the threads on this forum are dominated by Lockheed Martin PR/sales propaganda and salesmen, and that's not a good thing.

Getting information on the program is great, but quite frankly, if you can't see the product placement and endorsement that's happening on this forum: You Are Not Paying Attention.

Al

As many others have already pointed out, lots of successful fighter aircraft had concerning issues during testing, but thats what testing is for, to find these things and fix them. Having talked to a few active duty(ie. not on Lockheed's payroll) F-35 pilots out at Edwards, and the general consensus is that there are problems, but nothing showstopping that they havent seen before in legacy aircraft.

Like that report that you like to cherry pick lines from said, "In the team's review of F-35 data and analyses, no fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production were identified." The sky is not falling...

Also, despite all the wonderful opinions on this site, to think that Lockheed's PR department really cares about what online forums are saying is probably giving yourself a bit more credit than is due...

avxva wrote:

if you can't see the product placement and endorsement that's happening on this forum: You Are Not Paying Attention.

Tsk, awwwwe. Wink

Most of us here have long since vented our spleens about the F-35 and its problems, but the fact that you haven't bothered to mention what you would do (or would have done) differently regarding fighter recapitalization tells me that you are less a concerned citizen and more... something else. You wouldn't happen to get $0.50 for each of your posts would you?

APA pay SQUAT Very Happy

CDI (Wheeler) wouldn't spend the money either. What about China realizing what a world beater the F-35 is and influencing opinion by FUD'ing the interwebs in order to stall it? $0.50 a post is a tactic! [/tinfoil hat]

Very Happy

Avxva, get a grip before you embarrass yourself. The OT reports are assessments conducted by those who will fly the aircraft later in OT. It is essentially a tabletop exercise where they look at the current performance of the current DT article and project the consequences of making no further progress on the current issues before OT (and obtw we are four years away from OT).

DT and OT are two separate evolutions and the pilots who conduct both have distinctly different world-views based on the work they have to do. DT guys are going to tell us about every little critical nuance of a jet's performance down to the proverbial gnat's a$$. Right now, OT (DOT&E) guys are going to tell us what the consequences of those issues MIGHT be for effectiveness and suitability if not resolved before OT. One group is concerned about whether something meets a given spec or performance criteria; the other, whether it meets mission requirements as given in the ORD.

bumtish wrote:

CDI (Wheeler) wouldn't spend the money either. What about China realizing what a world beater the F-35 is and influencing opinion by FUD'ing the interwebs in order to stall it? $0.50 a post is a tactic! [/tinfoil hat]

Very Happy

Naw man, the real plan would be to piss off someone who actually knew something enough that they would break OPSEC to prove them wrong.

Whoa.

avxva wrote:

As to listening to the Lockheed Martin company pilots and program pilots, I never listen to vinyl siding salesmen, used car salesmen, or pilot salesmen--and neither should anyone else.

I'd hope you wouldn't listen to pilot salesmen. First off, buying people has been illegal for about 150 years in the US. Second, even if the food and vet bills aren't too much for you, you have to buy expensive airplanes for him or the pilot you paid good money for devolves into a cheap pedestrian.

Quote:

99% of the threads on this forum are dominated by Lockheed Martin PR/sales propaganda and salesmen

o/~ *soothing ad music* o/~ When you have no argument, o/~ ... o/~ try Ad Hominem (tm)! o/~ Ad Hominem. Available wherever facts aren't.

Personally, what I see in this forum are arguments dominated by actual engineers, ground crew, and pilots, some of the latter of whom may wind up with their lives actually depending on the F-35 doing what it's supposed to. They seem not to be worried. The UK, having already been burned by the cancellation of the Rolls-Royce/GE alternative engine, found themselves unwilling to pay to convert their carriers to CATOBAR and discussed cancelling their F-35C purchase...but are discussing no replacement option other than the F-35B! They don't seem to be worried about the performance of even the shortest-ranged, lowest payload, lowest g-rated of the three variants. Japan, no slouch in high tech, have added themselves to the customer list. They don't seem to be worried about anything but the possibility of cost overruns. Israel, probably more dependent on their air forces for their very survival than any other nation on earth, doesn't seem worried. I will state categorically I don't work for LM, for any of their subcontractors or suppliers or partners. I own no shares of LM stock or bonds. When the US buys F-35s, it comes out of my tax money. None of that money returns to me from LM's coffers. I am however an engineer with advanced degrees and a CV with many peer-reviewed publications in fluid mechanics. I look at the F-35 with eyes that understand more than the salespeople even know how to say. And I'm not worried about its performance. In fact, my only worry as a citizen who depends on the US Armed Forces for my nation's security is that some elected dunces will cancel or sharply cut the F-35 program for political reasons.

Of course, the governments of every nation on Earth but Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela are totally mesmerized by Lockheed Martin salespeople. While avxva is so brilliant he knows more than the entire defense establishments of many nations who are actually buying the F-35, and sees through the statements of actual experts, every one of whom must be on LM's payroll. It's the only possible explanation.

Quote:

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

"The operational testers cited unsatisfactory progress and the likelihood of severe operational impacts for survivability, lethality, air vehicle performance, and employment."

Can you tell us all what they mean by "AIR VEHICLE PERFORMANCE". Surely that includes maneuverability?
It also says "operational impacts". If there was an easy fix why use the word "operational". The concurrent production was not cut back to just a trickle if they were only minor issues.

avxva wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

You might want to read what the pilots that have flown it are saying...

I am, and this is what they are saying: “The report also expressed significant concerns with aircraft performance characteristics, particularly transonic roll-off and buffet, as well as [b]maneuvering performance."

That's not what pilots have been saying about the flying characteristics. You're as guilty of selectively reporting data, as those you accuse of being fanboys. You also have to look at the time that the report was written. The flight envelope has been opening up quite a bit since then. They've made some changes in the flight control software to counter the roll off, and no physical changes were needed. The A model has been flown to 9.9Gs, which is hardly indicative of a manuevering performance issue.

Quote:

As to listening to the Lockheed Martin company pilots and program pilots, I never listen to vinyl siding salesmen, used car salesmen, or pilot salesmen--and neither should anyone else.

I'm referring to Air Force, Marine, and foreign pilots.

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

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