F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths video

[Dragon029]

I don't post here often, but I help "fight the battle" on Reddit.com. I also moderate for it's /r/F35Lightning subreddit. Anyway; what I've found is that a lot of misconceptions tend to spring up from things like Sprey's interviews and other rubbish videos on YouTube.

So, taking inspiration from geforcerfx's "Give me your Copy Pasta" thread, I decided to go and create a video (which may or may not be the first episode of a continuing series).

It's 9 minutes long, is narrated by a digital voice and covers 4 'myths':

It can't turn, can't climb, can't run
It can't fly at night, or in the rain [near storms]
The F-35B melts through decks
It can't do CAS

Something I learned whilst doing this video is that videos are a very inefficient means of communicating in-depth information, meaning that some of the arguments I use to 'dispel' the myths seem slightly hollow or could easily be countered or at least "yeah, but what about ____?"ed

It'd be much appreciated if you could provide feedback.

Without further ado:

[spazsinbad]

I have not watched the video yet. It would be helpful if you can paste the script here. Having amateurishly edited videos over the years it gets really tedious to play replay videos for dialogue comprehension. Thanks.

[popcorn]

Good job and thanks for sharing. Looking forward to future episodes.

[Dragon029]

I have not watched the video yet. It would be helpful if you can paste the script here. Having amateurishly edited videos over the years it gets really tedious to play replay videos for dialogue comprehension. Thanks.

Sure; note that what I've written below is a modified version of what I fed to the speech-to-text engine, so if there's an incorrect designation, etc it was just something I had to do to make it pronounce it correctly, and I've overlooked it. Be aware too that there's a few layman explanations, as the target audience is the kind that don't have the attention span to educate themselves on the topic properly:

The F 35 lightning II, was born from the joint strike fighter competition, which pit the X-32 and X-35 against one another. The Lockheed X-35 was the victor, but today exists as the most infamous military project of the 21st century. In this video, we aim to dispell some of the myths that comprise this criticism.

Myth 1: It can't turn, can't climb, can't run

The F-35 was designed to compare in maneuvering performance to two aircraft, the F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F/A-18 Hornet. Specifically, the F-35 takes the two best aspects of each aircraft, the acceleration performance of the F-16 and the high-alpha performance of the F/A-18, with recent testing showing that it is capable of reaching angles of attack of 110 degrees. These capabilities exist due to the use of the most powerful fighter engine ever built, combined with the use of lifting body design, vortex generators and chines. Together, they allow the F-35 to lift 6% more mass than the Super Hornet, with a 15% shorter wingspan.

When it comes to speed, an F-35 is limited to Mach 1.6. However, because most aircraft need to carry weapons, targeting pods and external fuel tanks to and from combat, they are rarely capable of reaching their top speed. So whereas an F-16 might struggle to break a speed such as Mach 1.4 with weapons and fuel tanks, an F-35 with an equal internal load can still reach its top speed of Mach 1 point 6. What this altogether means is that in kinematic performance, the F 35 is no slouch and has advantages over prior fighters

In addition, it is important to note that the F-35's primary fighting advantage is not in it's ability to turn, but rather, in it's stealth and it's advanced sensors and systems, including: the AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar, which tracks air, land and sea targets, and provides advanced electronic warfare capabilities; the Electro Optical Targeting System, which provides air to ground and air to air infrared tracking and laser designation; the Electro Optical Distributed Aperture Sensor system, which gives the F-35 and its pilot a 360 degree infrared view around them; the Helmet Mounted Display System, which projects that imagery and data onto the pilot's visor, allowing them to see through their aircraft; the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda electronic warfare system, which allows for long range 360 degree, broadband-radar-emissions detection and tracking; and the CNI Communications Navigation and Identification avionics, that features long range, extremely high bandwidth communications, automatic friend and foe identification and a wealth of additional data fusion to enhance the pilot's situational awareness. It is together, that these systems make the F-35, so lethal to it's enemies.

Myth 2: It can't fly at night, or in the rain

During the testing of an aircraft, certain restrictions will be placed on the aircraft. These types of restrictions are routine and typical for new aircraft, and exist primarily as a regulatory, risk-mitigating measure and do not accurately represent an aircraft's actual capabilities or limitations. Rather, they serve to assist in problem solving during testing and complying with modern safety standards.

As of April 2015, the F-35 is capable of flying at night and has demonstrated this on multiple occasions. There is still a restriction on the F-35 flying in close proximity to lightning storms for safety purposes, however, this restriction will be lifted later this year. This is because only recently have aircraft begun being fitted with the current certified ohbigs, or on board inert gas generator system. With the OBIGGS, the F-35 is completely protected against lightning, with one test from 2014 showing that even after 865 lightning strikes an F-35 will continue to operate without any issue or damage. In addition, whereas early stealth aircraft had very fragile stealth coatings, the F-35s radar absorbent materials are baked into the skin of the aircraft.

Myth 3: The F-35B melts through decks

The F-35B uses a powerful engine, lift-fan and two roll post nozzles to hover. While the lift-fan and roll posts use cold compressed or fan blown air, the main engine uses hot exhaust gases. These exhaust gases are hotter than those produced by the AV-8B Harrier and have been thought to damage and wear out aircraft carrier decks. It has also been believed that vertical landings on concrete may cause spalling.

Testing however has found that while the F-35 will cause accelerated wearing of a deck over a carrier's lifespan, it does not cause immediate or instantaneous damage. To protect decks, new cost-effective coatings like Ther-mi-on have been tested, while next-generation carrier structures are being designed to accommodate the long term stresses. Testing also found that the F-35s exhaust does not cause spalling.

It is because of the mild nature of these issues, that the United States Marine Corps are continuing to put the jet into service, with IOC later this year

Myth 4, the F-35 can't do CAS

To begin with, close air support is defined as being the use of air assets to deliver munitions in close proximity to friendly forces. What this means is that there is no requirement for an aircraft to fly at low altitude to perform close air support.

While the F-35 can fly low and slow, it has been designed to take advantage of technology to provide it's pilot enhanced situational awareness from higher altitudes, by using it's infrared sensors to see through the floor of the aircraft day or night, using synthetic aperture radar imaging to see through vegetation, and using onboard computers and communications with the ground to mark friends and foes in the pilot's augmented reality visor.

Once the pilot knows where the enemy is, they can engage their targets precisely using small diameter bombs, the aim-assisted GOW 22 A cannon, or other weapons, without having to expose the aircraft to small arms fire, triple A and man portable air-defense systems.

Contrary to popular belief, the GOW 22 A cannon is currently undergoing live fire testing, and will be available to frontline squadrons by 2017, firing 180 or 220, 25 millimeter APEX, Armour Piercing Explosive Rounds, the F-35 may not carry as much ammunition as an A-10 Warthog, however it does carry more gun ammunition than any European or Russian fighter, and it does carry up to 2000lb more bomb and missile payload than the A-10.

In addition, while the F-35 carries a large amount of fuel, uses the fuel for cooling and certain actuators, and does not have a dedicated titanium bathtub for the pilot, the F-35's flight controls are completely independent of one another, with each control surface using closed loop electro-hydraulic actuators, which are in turn powered by a redundant electrical distribution system. This means that unlike older aircraft, the F-35 cannot have it's hydraulics bled dry.

In addition, the aircraft's skeleton is built mainly from titanium and carbon composites, and is built to last more flight hours than previous fighters.

What this means is that, so long as the engine can continue to run and electricity can continue to flow, the F-35 would be just as, if not more capable of making it back to base with a wing missing as an F-15 or F-16.

This has been an episode of F-35: Busting Myths, for more information, view the video description.

[eloise]

I

Something I learned whilst doing this video is that videos are a very inefficient means of communicating in-depth information, meaning that some of the arguments I use to 'dispel' the myths seem slightly hollow or could easily be countered or at least "yeah, but what about ____?"ed

well you can solve that by provide some link in the description
For example : if anyone want additional information about maneuver, turning, you can link to this viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735
, if they want to discuss stealth, avionics of F-35, you could linked to them this

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=16457&start=240

there are many valuable information in both thread that will change people's misconception about F-35, i believe

[Dragon029]

I

Something I learned whilst doing this video is that videos are a very inefficient means of communicating in-depth information, meaning that some of the arguments I use to 'dispel' the myths seem slightly hollow or could easily be countered or at least "yeah, but what about ____?"ed

well you can solve that by provide some link in the description
For example : in the part talking about maneuver, turning, you can link to this viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735 thread if anyone want additional information

That's partly my plan. Specifically, I was looking at directing commenters to a thread on a subreddit (sub-forum) I moderate, where I can then either answer them there, or redirect them here. That's in turn because in my experience, you can get a lot of comments / questions about videos several months or even years after you post them, and whereas that'd bump an old thread here back out of the grave, on Reddit, I get notified about the comment / question, but the thread remains buried (or can be optionally bumped by a moderator if desired). And again, due to the target audience, it would be more likely that they would have a Reddit account than an F-16.net account, and limit the amount of posters that begin posting here.

[eloise]

That's partly my plan. Specifically, I was looking at directing commenters to a thread on a subreddit (sub-forum) I moderate, where I can then either answer them there, or redirect them here. That's in turn because in my experience, you can get a lot of comments / questions about videos several months or even years after you post them, and whereas that'd bump an old thread here back out of the grave, on Reddit, I get notified about the comment / question, but the thread remains buried (or can be optionally bumped by a moderator if desired). And again, due to the target audience, it would be more likely that they would have a Reddit account than an F-16.net account, and limit the amount of posters that begin posting here.

I think what you said are true, but there are also advantage in redirect them to thread in F-16.net, For example : there are many knowledgeable members that either work in military or involved in aviation that can answer their questions in more details , furthermore anti-f-35 group often have very similar misconception, so instead of having to answer an old questions every time a new person ask it, you can redirect them to old thread and they can read for themselves

[archeman]

Sorry I don't have the reference, but didn't I just hear that the F-35A over the Gulf of Mexico was actually struck by lightning. So, not a test or simulation, actual lightning strike and the plane didn't blow up as predicted in the 2013 piece by BusinessInsider. It continued to base, no system failures landed code 1 on all systems. Entry and exit points were identified on the ground, no reported problems.

[spazsinbad]

A story about HORNET lightning strikes which looks boring so don't bother.

http://fightersweep.com/1509/struck-lightning/

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Seems it was an -18, not a -35.

[archeman]

Seems it was an -18, not a -35.

No. It was F-35 called CF 8 by Gen Bogden himself, struck by lightning.

Watch at about the 51 min mark here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G6knYbFoAk

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

I only read the article Spaz put up, sorry.

[archeman]

Perhaps the Aircraft Database is missing something because it reports that CF-08 is in Edwards, not Eglin:

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F ... file/6914/

[spazsinbad]

I'll make an audio of the section from 51min 35sec until the hook mentioned so fuel dumping will be in it as well. There is also just a bit earlier Bogdan bit about HMDS so that will be included. The LIGHTNING STRIKE on CF-8 he says starts here:

https://youtu.be/8G6knYbFoAk?t=3095

Not long after this segment MsDuckworth says USS Hornet or Hornet 3 times and the very gentlemanly BOGDAN says nothing about her mistake. She is referring to ALIS deployed so then BOGGEDdown goes to explain how deployability will be improved upon - from: (I'll include it in audio) [The whole file at good quality is over 0.5 Gbs so just view it at the lowest quality to save on your bandwidth - only talking heads.)

https://youtu.be/8G6knYbFoAk?t=3556

[spazsinbad]

AUDIO only of some of BoggedDown comments as indicated above attached below. 14 Apr 2015 Somewhere in LaLaLand.