Forum: F-35 Variants and Missions

alloycowboy wrote:

@redbird..... I think the point that is being made regarding the F-15 is that it spends 99% of its flying life below mach one and less then 1% supersonic. So with that being the case doesn't it not make sense to optimize the aircraft for the 99% rather the 1%?

Well of course, but we are not talking about that 99%, we are talking about that 1/10th of one percent when it is engaging aircraft - the moment of truth if you will. I also realize the fight illustrated in the video was BVR, but I'm just pointing out that on at least three instances on this forum in the last few months, members have stated (or quoted) that the F-15 virtually never fights at above Mach 1. One post I recall even said it had no "functional" speed over Mach 1.2 or 1.3. Contrary to this, the USAF recently published a report on the plane's performance on bio fuel that stated: "The F-15 took off for a full functional check flight" lasting about 55 minutes. During this flight, it achieved Mach 2.2 - about 1,450 miles per hour." Obviously the 2.2 figure was a dash for as few minutes, but this example still clearly demonstrates that the F-15 has functional dash speed in combat of over Mach 1.5. 1.7 with a full compliment of missiles is the max you typically hear.

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by spazsinbad on Aug 01, 2012 - 06:43 AM; edited 1 time in total

'redbird87' the older fighters need their speed because they will not have the good things described in this thread. A fighter pilot wants to win with the best tools available. DACT is for training - for winning it is use all means available including the sneaky bits - to win and go home.

Probably my most agonising experiences in training with the A4G was dogfighting with another A4G (the RAAF in those early years in early 1970s did not like to play as they did later that decade for DACT). Our remit was 'poor mans fleet defence' with AIM-9Bs (later at end of the 1970s upgraded to AIM-9L I'm told). Our training did not include EW so 'Mk.1 eyeball from 'combat spread' as it is called I believe in the States, was the way to go. Otherwise over the fleet we had powerful ship radars for 'fighter direction'.

Anyway pulling 6Gs for long bursts (usually going downhill rapidly) is no joy against a similar opponent. It was hammered into us to 'get it over quick'. No point to dogfight for 'hours on end' except in training for illustrative purposes. Once the aircraft split to then merge it was 'open slather'. If your opponent could not sight you then it was to your own advantage (unless training dictated that the newbie needed contact also) to do whatever sneaky advantageous thing possible to get into a firing position and call it a day - knock it off.

My fondest memory is of one 'old and bold' NOT splitting but staying on my tail to obviously be behind me all the way - the bastidge. Having that 'look behind HMDS II' would be NEATO eh? Very Happy

[addition] This was a 'teaching moment' and I had many of them on VF-805. Very Happy

I hear you Spaz, and we definitely got off topic a bit with the F-15. Well.......maybe not in a way since is a dog-fighting thread. Anyway, it just seems like the longer I read this forum, the slower the F-15 gets! I'm thinking in a month or two, I'll get on here and someone will be claiming that a P-47 in a dive was faster than a F-15;-)

wrightwing wrote:

jeffb wrote:

Yeah, but you were trying to claim that the F-35 is agile, plainly it isn’t.

Cite your source for this, or stop making the claim. It is contrary to what pilots who've actually flown the plane have said.

Let's try it the other way, what evidence do you have, given that the aircraft is still in the early stages of testing, that it can be considered agile?

wrightwing wrote:

Quote:

The flight envelope has not been cleared beyond 20 degrees, thus, it cannot currently be flown at AOA greater than 20 degrees. It’s simple stuff Wrightwing I don’t get why you can’t see it.

The flight envelope wasn't cleared to 9+G or M1.6+ initially either. You've got the greater burden of proof, because you're making the claim of what it won't be able to, without a shred of evidence.

Well that’s just rubbish. My whole point is that the LM team have yet to provide us with the burden of proof that the aircraft‘s capabilities match the companies claims. Yet for some reason, according to you, I have "a burden of proof" to show that it cannot? What? Wake up.

Your point of view seems to be that LM will achieve anything and everything that they claim they will right up to the point where they don’t. You maintain this (loyal but stoopid) stance despite LM’s track record of unrealistic testing regimes and schedules, idiotic production schedules, missed revised testing schedules, missed cost targets, missed weight targets, poor designs which nevertheless pass critical design reviews and other missed KPP targets.

I’m beginning to think that if you ever wandered onto a used car lot the salesman would think all his Christmas’ had come at once because, as long as he can jam a Cadillac badge on the front of whatever piece of crap he’s trying to sell you, you’ll will believe it’s a brand new cadillac and buy it!

wrightwing wrote:

Quote:

Me too but if a Raptor pilot says that the F-35 can (can mind you not will) pull 20 Gs backwards while unloading its entire ordinance load would you believe him?

If you can find such a quote, then I'll join you in scoffing.

So how many raptor pilots have flown the aircraft in its current configuration at 55 degrees AoA? Has Mr Beasley flown a representative test article of the aircraft to all points of its theoretical envelope? If Mr Beasley claims he has or that ‘he knows’ that it will successfully achieve those milestones despite not having actually done it himself, how much credence should you give that opinion?

As an aside I’ve always been slightly bemused by the idea of a company test pilot speaking about the aircraft’s performance with anyone who wasn’t one of company’s engineers. Talking to the media about the aircraft’s flight performance just struck me as bizarre. Lucky for him the performance he was describing was so stellar isn’t it? Otherwise the guy would have been looking for a new job in about three seconds flat.

wrightwing wrote:

Quote:

I think you missed my point. The F-35 will enjoy an advantage over other aircraft as long as those other aircraft use what are effectively legacy x-band radars to try to detect and track him. Obviously the opposition is rapidly addressing this issue as evidenced by the innovation in newer SAM radars and bolt on solutions for existing combat aircraft.

I understand your point. My point is that any foe will be limited by physical laws, in the means that they use to detect the F-35. Against most targets, X band radar is the preferred method of detection. It has the accuracy to detect, and provide fire control to weapons. IR is limited in range, FOV, and by climactic conditions. Other radar frequencies lack accuracy for Fire control guidance, etc.. The F-35 has factored in reductions in visibility against multiple radar frequencies, and IR, and has an extensive ESM suite. What this means is that if a foe is actively searching with X, S, L, etc... radar, then the F-35 will know his location, prior to being detected. Only passive means will prevent a foe from giving his position away, but.....the F-35's sensors will enjoy a first look advantage. This is why an aircraft with a large RCS is always going to be at a disadvantage against one with a small RCS, even with equivalent(or even superior avionics). BLUF- The conventional plane would need sensors that could detect the stealthy plane first, to offset.

So you understand my point but you believe any opposition will continue to use legacy x-band radar technology which they know will be completely ineffective because…well you’re not very clear on why they would do that, stupid I guess? As I’ve already pointed out, surface to air and combat aircraft radar developments over the last couple of years have already shown that that isn’t the case and they are developing new sensor technologies.

wrightwing wrote:

The full envelope hasn't been explored yet. These charts don't represent what hasn't been tested yet.

Exactly what I was pointing out above.

Then how can you possibly claim to know what the F-35 can't do?[/quote]Because as you point out, the chart above doesn’t show what hasn’t been tested yet… You’re just not getting it are you? Until the testing demonstrates that it can indeed achieve some capability it is just a claim made by the manufacturer. You know, like a combat radius of 700nmi, oh wait 600nmi, no? Would you believe 590nmi?

wrightwing wrote:

Quote:

This was just a bit of silliness to illustrate what would happen if you were trying to issue commands while the aircraft is experiencing severe buffeting. Under those conditions it’s questionable if you’d be able to keep your eye on an aircraft, the instruments or anything with the whole plane shaking under you like that. Playing with the HOTOL under those conditions could have interesting results and even voice commands might be iffy as I attempted to illustrate

.
.
.
All that was said, was that under certain conditions there was mild buffeting. There's mild buffeting when the sound barrier is broken for that matter.

Now severe buffeting (no that’s ok, go back and check the chart, I’ll wait) is just mild buffeting? Gee that was easy, no wonder you fans think the plane will do anything (just cross your fingers kiddies and *believe*). Go check the definitions of what severe buffeting is.

This officially just got old. If you can't accept the reasons why we have testing in the first place then there's not much point in going on.

redbird87 wrote:

I hear you Spaz, and we definitely got off topic a bit with the F-15. Well.......maybe not in a way since is a dog-fighting thread. Anyway, it just seems like the longer I read this forum, the slower the F-15 gets! I'm thinking in a month or two, I'll get on here and someone will be claiming that a P-47 in a dive was faster than a F-15;-)

where has the F-15's speed gradually gotten slower? Everyone has maintained that in actual combat, the fastest speed an F-15 has flown is M1.4. Could it fly faster, in theory- yes. The question is, does it have time to accelerate to faster speeds, and maintain them for a useful period. In real life, you're not going to needlessly burn fuel, as that severely limits your persistence. It also takes time to get up to speed, once you decide that you need to. M1.7 to M1.8 is about the practical limit for an armed F-15, and it's never been utilized in real world conditions for the reasons that I mentioned. This is why when the specifications/requirements were written for the F-35, a high practical combat speed was given priority over a high theoretical speed.

[quote="jeffbLet's try it the other way, what evidence do you have, given that the aircraft is still in the early stages of testing, that it can be considered agile?[/quote] Well, given that pilots that have flown it have said that its similar to superior to clean F-16s/18s in handling, and has been flown to 9.9Gs. The area of the flight envelope that hasn't been explored as much is the high AOA/post stall regime, and the >M1.6. One can declare an aircraft agile without those test points.

Quote:

Well that’s just rubbish. My whole point is that the LM team have yet to provide us with the burden of proof that the aircraft‘s capabilities match the companies claims. Yet for some reason, according to you, I have "a burden of proof" to show that it cannot? What? Wake up.

You have the greater burden of proof, when you make a claim that the F-35 can't do something, that was part of the requirements. I have no reason to assume that the plane will fail to meet its requirements. The timeline has changed, but it hasn't been failing to meet one KPP after another. Were that the case, then I might share your skepticism. The fact that the F-22 was also designed by LM, gives me a reasonable confidence level in their technical ability to design an agile aircraft.

Quote:

So how many raptor pilots have flown the aircraft in its current configuration at 55 degrees AoA? Has Mr Beasley flown a representative test article of the aircraft to all points of its theoretical envelope? If Mr Beasley claims he has or that ‘he knows’ that it will successfully achieve those milestones despite not having actually done it himself, how much credence should you give that opinion?

Mr. Beesley had access to a far greater amount of information than you or I. He's given me no reason to doubt what he has gone on record, and said.

Quote:

So you understand my point but you believe any opposition will continue to use legacy x-band radar technology which they know will be completely ineffective because…well you’re not very clear on why they would do that, stupid I guess? As I’ve already pointed out, surface to air and combat aircraft radar developments over the last couple of years have already shown that that isn’t the case and they are developing new sensor technologies.

The enemy will use X band, L band, other bands, IR, etc... My point is that your point doesn't invalidate the premise behind the F-35's signature reduction advantages. There is no new technology right around the corner, that will negate stealth in other words.

Quote:

This officially just got old. If you can't accept the reasons why we have testing in the first place then there's not much point in going on.

What gets old is people talking out of their a$$ about things that they have no idea about. The fact that not everyone believes the sky is falling, doesn't mean that we're Kool aid drinkers. It's just that we have a realistic understanding of what all is involved, when new systems are coming on line(especially those with numerous advancements). Or in other words, it's not shocking when something takes longer, costs more, or needs some modifications. These things happen in every program. The foolish view is to expect that things would be any otherwise.

Quote:

count_to_10
I wonder when this kind of thing will become cheap enough to incorporate into console gaming systems.

They're working on it - it's coming! Very Happy

See http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/152 ... ref=search

AMaZing stuff. I recall 20-25? years ago wearing a very clumsy, clunky, lorez graphics VR helmet at a computer show. VR for games was going to the the next big thing but it took awhile. Much like some aircraft I know. Very Happy

The video on the page looks good.

I was just hoping for a helmet mounted heads up display that tracked you head movements to go with an on-screen image.
That is, of course, if the @#%@ gaming companies stop turning perfectly good air-combat simulation series into airborne FPS's.

Eeeewww 640x480 resolution .... they're still way off.

Quote:

Or in other words, it's not shocking when something takes longer, costs more, or needs some modifications. These things happen in every program. The foolish view is to expect that things would be any otherwise.

"Foolish", is the only word in the above statement that holds water. Programs do not under-perform at the magnitude this one has. Not even close. Not even REMOTELY close. Not in the universe we live in.

In March, the DoD projected that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50 years. That new estimate is up from $1 trillion the previous year. I understand things change, but HOW IN THE F&*% can you tell the bill payers, that the previous information you gave them was off by.......oh.........just........450 billion dollars? "Minor oversight?" "We missed a decimal place?" "Oh.......it's that damn inflation, we forgot and left it out of last year's estimate?"

Good Lord! If our leaders had any backbone or business horse sense what-so-ever, they would have canceled the entire program 10 minutes after that new figure was made public and allocated the money to other weapons systems.

On a unit basis, LM's initial IOC promise was 2008 at $69 million per unit. Ah...........yeah.............what squadron are those planes flying with now? "Oh, well we ACTUALLY meant 2018 for $169 million a unit. Sorry about that, it was just a typographical error on the original power point. We let the guy that put that estimate together go. He works for GM now."

Seriously, name another weapon system that has EVER increased in cost on a magnitude comparable to this one.

On second thought, never mind, because you can't. The customers have become slaves to the producers, exactly as Eisenhower predicted. Smart man Dwight was.

How about sticking to the thread topic 'redbird87'. This overblown 50-55 year projection of costs has been dealt with in plenty of other threads on this forum. Just to be sarcastic: why not bring up all the negative criticisms of the F-35 on this thread since development of the F-35 started. There you go - have at it. And I'll stop reading the thread. Is that cool?

IOC was NEVER in 2008 and the $69 million (in CY way back) is average REC flyaway, not APUC, and certainly not the first batch of IOC jets. btw, The APUC cost of a FY2016 jet is only TY$135, so I am not sure what bodily orifice you pulled that $169 from. Try to keep the comparisons at least talking about the same thing.

The earliest IOC date given was 2010, and that was before SWAT. Since then the economy has taken a dive and the decision was made to stretch SDD instead of investing the money required to complete the post SWAT timeline.

Maybe this will help you understand the difference in costs.

Your right Spud, $169 million is probably low when you factor in all the R&D and life cycle upgrade costs. I just used it for symmetry. And has quoted from those same hearings: "The new baseline forecasts the average cost of the F-35 fighter, including research and development and inflation, at $135 million per plane, plus an additional $26 million for the F135 engine built by Pratt & Whitney." That's getting pretty close to $169.

And Spaz I'm sorry to get off topic, but it was YOUR comment about it being natural for a program to go over budget and it being foolish to expect better, was more than I could take. I do expect better. I guess I missed the other threads that would have allowed proper venting. It's not your fault or mine. I'm just amazed at how amateurish congress, the Whitehouse, and the DoD is when it comes to conducting business. It's precisely why I love LM stock. That 4.5% dividend is clearly safe because the fix is in. That doesn't mean I can't criticize the government though.

'redbird87' I think you are mixing up quotes - try 'wrightwing' for a quote that you object to perhaps. I have not made a comment that: "...about it being natural for a program to go over budget and it being foolish to expect better, was more than I could take. I do expect better....". Thanks. Why not start your own topic thread on items about the F-35 that you want to vent about?

Forum: F-35 Variants and Missions

JSF WVR Air to Air Combat