Forum: General F-35 Forum

Hi all, having recently read this [url][Link pending approval][/url]
and not really knowing what to think of it, I thought I'd bring it here and see what you guys thought. Is it something to be worried about or more media hyperbole?

I apologise if this has already been brought to your attention, I had a bit of a look before posting and couldn't find anything.

F-16.net Sponsor

See this thread, page 17....http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-21926-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-240.html

Quote:

Is it something to be worried about or more media hyperbole?

Yes, it is something to worry about.
How much to worry is relative. Those who were already worried before this are very worried.
The biggest customers are still lined up for full buys.

gid -

If it is true, then any tactical advantages the F-35 would enjoy by an hypothetical block III-mature IOC date of perhaps around 2018 would be lessened that much more, in relative terms. Increased dependency on stealthy characteristics will reduce the tactical flexibility and margin of error allowed to maintain a tactical advantage.

Potentially one problem however, is that in any hypothetical future large-scale air combat or an engagement with a near-peer -- with all the significant leaps in technology and advanced capabilities of next-gen platforms and weapon systems -- there will be exponentially that much more that can AND WILL 'go wrong' in an air engagement (or engagement vs IADS, etc). SNAFU's dealing with reliance on technology will of course always have the potential to bite into margin of error and can rapidly chip into perceived advantages on a dime, especially when such advantages are relative to begin with.

It could be further argued and considered that in theory at least... the more one is (lopsided) relying on complex, revolutionary and untested technologies working in optimal performance and in concert (putting all one's eggs in one basket) to achieve an advantage, the more risk one can face when technical glitches come up.

What a load of old cobblers that applies to all things - not just the F-35. And thanks for your prediction - you must be vying for the GREAT ORACLE position of BS hisself.

It's good that you are taking that into consideration personally, Spazs, as part of the overall assessment. Thus, it's perfectly valid to bring up and to emphasize this reminder and factor said performance spec downgrade into the overall equation, whereas sometimes things such as theoretical technological capability and function tend be assumed by some parties. Moreover, it's easy to say one will simply need to enhance and develop new tactics to offset such reduced performance characteristics, but that's much more complex and uncertain than it sounds. Besides, the other side will probably be continuously developing tactics and capabilities to counter any new enhanced tactics being relied upon too, to possibly offset and negate any new unilateral advantage and maintain a balance in the tactical situation?

It's a perfectly relevant and sound discussion and issue to evaluate when talking about the overall reliability, potency and capacity per dollar of LCC investment (as a complete package) such a revolutionary future Tactical fighter is going to bring to the arena for the next 40 years, starting in 5 years or so...and then further evaluating how large the ultimate size of the 'mix' should be constructed of any one platform, accordingly.

'geogen' you have a habit of saying little with a lot of words. Apply your logic to all things and it remains the same. Everyone has these issues. Not only will the other side be developing tactics but so will our side and developing new, better technology and so and so on ad infinitum. The development of the F-35 does not stop for the foreseeable future which has been made clear many times on this forum. Yes the other side is developing but how much do we know about them and I may add, how much do we really know about the F-35? No one has actually given that much away specifically about the actual numbers but - that does not stop ill informed speculation eh. So be it. Practice saying what you mean in short sentences. Then you may be much more credible.

All the eggs are in one basket partially to make damn sure congress doesn't drop the thing. It's a lot harder to cancel a tri-service program.

EDIT: And Spaz, I've tried to encourage Geogen to speak vernacular english enough over the years to know that he's not going to. I think he was raised by GAO reports.

Wasn't it the DOD's requirement to make the F-35 a Tri-service plane in the first place that got us to where we are?

It also makes the program harder to eliminate since we've already invested so much time / $ into it.

kamenriderblade wrote:

Wasn't it the DOD's requirement to make the F-35 a Tri-service plane in the first place that got us to where we are?

It also makes the program harder to eliminate since we've already invested so much time / $ into it.

Somewhat, yes. But not exactly what you wanted is better than nothing at all... which is what the Navy and Marines in particular were looking at given the context of the 90's defense draw-down.

I think "geogen" was raised by thesis writers on the top of Mount English.. Could be wrong of course!! Kerry's 51 minute speech comes to mind...... Maybe distant relatives??? The mind ponders....

People thought I was trolling when I referenced 3rd gen WVR manoevrability in another thread. Well there it is in black and white from the experts:

Quote:

Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

archeman wrote:

Quote:

Is it something to be worried about or more media hyperbole?

Yes, it is something to worry about.
How much to worry is relative. Those who were already worried before this are very worried.
The biggest customers are still lined up for full buys.

Customers aren't worried. They know what flying F/A-18's and F-16's with external tanks, sensor pods and weapons is like.

For some reason in the minds of those worried, the F-35 has to match or exceed the clean airframe specs of aircraft it's replacing or it's somehow a failure.

L-M has said for years it's not going to match clean airframe F/A-18 and F-16 performance measures, however it WILL exceed their combat configuration capability when comparably loaded up.

Which is the point that many REALLY need to get into their heads. This is a combat aircraft. Not an airshow aircraft.

mcraptor wrote:

People thought I was trolling when I referenced 3rd gen WVR manoevrability in another thread. Well there it is in black and white from the experts:

Quote:

Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

A guy who never flew it and is reading reports? In the same article where its says F/A-18 performance? People slayed the Super Hornet on its numbers before it hit the fleet

What happens when other experts who fly the thing say otherwise? hmm something to ponder. Even among the F-35 variants the have different flying characteristics.

Here is a fun game. The Body Mass Index is what takes arbitrary height and weight numbers and applies them to an individual to determine if they are "Fat". According to the BMI 99% of American Football players are overweight, even though they are payed millions of dollars for their athletic prowess. How odd. So if I were to show the numbers to a doctor he would declare them "fat" based on the numbers. However, if he were to come and watch a game and see that they are in fact exceptional athletes he would change his mind.

If you believe everything you read, I have a brother in Nigeria who is a prince and could use some money, we will pay you back...

Last edited by marksengineer on Feb 01, 2013 - 05:36 PM; edited 1 time in total

The facts are that the F-35 has not met the original specification. So one question is whether or not the original specification was valid? Another question is can it perform its mission with the performance it is capable of? Think people are concerned because most can understand the kinetic performance of aircraft. The software/avionics and stealth attributes are more difficult to get your hands around.

The argument has always been that the performance of the F-35 with internal ordnance is equivalent or better then the legacy aircraft with external stores. My question is what will it's performance be like when it carries external weapons? Wars last longer than days and adversaries have held back assets that cause nasty surprises when they aren't expected. It doesn't need to be aircraft and could be SAM's. If the aircraft is limited to internal carry only won't it drive up sortie requirements when it is used to prep the battlefield before a ground offensive as we have seen in the last wars?

Another aspect of the debate is how will it's performance (kinectic, avionics/software, stealth) compare to the adversaries it will meet at mid to late life of the system. Seems to me that of all of the above kinetic performance takes the most to change and would require bending metal to fix. The other systems , largely software and coatings would be a lot easier to change. It may be that the learning curve on software and stealth may be such that it will drive detection ranges down to near WVR. Since the adversaries now know it's kinetic performance and their own aircraft are in an earlier stage of development will this give them an advantage? The caveat is that there ability to develop software and stealth coatings can approximate ours.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 is the bar lowering?