Favorite F-35 Quotes

[element1loop]

Good point steve. Having a pyramid shaped high-cover would be really useful. Plus for extending sensors and comms footprint and triangulation. Plus getting a longer spear throw. Don't know that different fuel burns would be a problem as such, more an advantage to have one guy with more alt and gas remaining to accelerate fast to a loft launch, plus more potential energy, plus adds a hi-lo flanking option to left and right. Would this arrangement be more useful for EA use or cover on SAMs? Better SAR mapping? Better EOTS search scan, while the other guys focus on particulars? Better for negating precipitation/obscurants or clutter and terrain shadow? Better multi-angle sensor-fusing sensor inputs? Seems like a lot of potential benefits to exploit.

[madrat]

Asymmetrical formations may prove useful with stealth whereas being predictable with multiple assets tends to promise diminishing returns.

[element1loop]

Thing is, even if you encountered an F-35, which is known to use a 5-ship diamond wide-open formation, you still don't know what part of the diamond you've stumbled into, so you still don't know what directions the other F-35s are in.

But even if you had a magic sensor, which could see them all, but not target them directly, that combat loiter/cruise formation distribution would still be very difficult one to crack, and it can deform to flank and engage you as required, then resume its shape.

i.e. it's a tactical starting-point in a fight, not a proscriptive or restrictive shape to maintain into a fight. It's essentially a 'ready' stance to default to, before and after a fight.

[spazsinbad]

This is perhaps 'the quote' that I Have MISREMEMBERED - by adding ONE to the number - but good replies to THE FIVE!

Counting the JSF cost is tricky business viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=315303&hilit=growler#p315303
Feb 2016 ADM Julian Kerr

"[AVM Deeble] ...the RAAF's JSF fighting methodology would probably start with a three-ship formation flying tens of miles apart but operating in concert, exchanging and fusing data from each other over a much larger area of airspace.

"But the real power of this aircraft will be once you start utilising a four ship formation and integrating it as envisaged in Plan Jericho with other capabilities like Wedgetail, Poseidon, Triton, Growler, Super Hornet and the Air Warfare Destroyer."..."

Source: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/home/adm-editions

[energo]

"...Norwegian Air Force Major Morten Hanche, who piloted one of the Norwegian F-35s, said the mock fight with the F-22s was great practice, especially since the F-35s generally surprise and overpower other non-stealthy aircraft...." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1L01YX

Great Scott! Those darn stealth contraptions. Went completely under the radar.

Official story:
https://forsvaret.no/aktuelt/f-35-og-f- ... te-i-norge (Translated link)

U.S. F-22 Raptors Fly With Norwegian F-35 Lightning II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dl2sOWOvrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViVg7o3htaU

[spazsinbad]

All we need is radio GooGoo Radio GahGAh: https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

Here meets the world's best combat aircraft across Norway [anodyne stuff indeed]
15 Aug 2018 Anders Fjellestad

"...- ****** well [true dat]
The two American F-22s are temporarily stationed at the Spangdahlem Air Base, west of Germany, and belong to the American Air Force's 95th Squadron in Florida. For two weeks, the planes will train in Europe as part of the American European Deterrence Initiative. The initiative will strengthen cooperation between the United States and the country's European Allies. Both F-22 and F-35 are five-generation combat fighters, and together they form a formidable combat force.

"There is no doubt that it's a very fast airplane that kicks off well. This was also the first time my American colleague got training on an F-35, so it was a good intro for us to fly and work out, "Hanche says...."

Source: https://forsvaret.no/aktuelt/f-35-og-f- ... te-i-norge

[steve2267]

Another "eye watering" quote, but not from Gen. Pleus. Rather this one by a patch wearer, a USAF Fighter Weapons School grad, which, IMO, makes it that much more impressive.

Operational Assessment of the F-35A Argues for Full Program Procurement and Concurrent Development Process
by John Venable August 4, 2016, The Heritage Foundation

...

The F-35A was not designed to be an air superiority fighter, but the pilots interviewed conveyed the picture of a jet that will more than hold its own in that environment—even with its current G and maneuver restrictions. In the words of an F-16C Weapons School Graduate and instructor pilot now flying the F-35A, “Even pre-IOC,[26] this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns[27] are incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second. When they open up the CLAW, and remove the (7) G-restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.”[28]

...

[28] Personal interview with former F-16C pilot currently flying the F-35A, April 18, 2016.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/operational-assessment-the-f-35a-argues-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent

[sferrin]

When is the 7G restriction going away?

[steve2267]

It went away with the rolling out to the fleet of the 3F software, didn't it?

[Dragon029]

Yep, went away back in February.

[steve2267]

In addition to being a great quote, the reason I posted that last quote is because you have an F-16 patch wearer stating the F-35A maneuvering performance will be (now, is) eye watering.

[operaaperta]

A couple of interesting quotes from Lt Col Christine Mau who has over 2000hrs in F15E and was first female F35A Pilot. Both quotes from presentation to Smithsonian.

At 1.04.33 when quizzed about CAS role and comparison to A10:

...as far as endurance goes...we’ve got a lot of gas, in fact the legs on the F35 are longer than the legs on an F15E, based on my experience. Internally we carry 18,000lbs of gas on the A model, and we’ve got one engine, it’s pretty impressive.

At 57.40 when asked about M1.6 top speed of F35 compared to faster fighters:

...[in my whole flying career] let me just tell you this, I’ve never flown faster than M1.5, and the Strike Eagle can go faster than M2, so I just don’t know if there is a whole...I know there’s tactical implications for that, but it’s not something we’re typically relying on, on a daily basis.

Source- [YouTube]https://youtu.be/BmPAUdVNmXE[/YouTube]

[spazsinbad]

Take this text string from YouTube URL: BmPAUdVNmXE & mash it into the youtoob brackets:

[youtube]BmPAUdVNmXE[/youtube (however the last closing bracket left out so youse can see the niceties then close it...

[doge]

...as far as endurance goes...we’ve got a lot of gas, in fact the legs on the F35 are longer than the legs on an F15E, based on my experience. Internally we carry 18,000lbs of gas on the A model, and we’ve got one engine, it’s pretty impressive.

Wow! Longer leg than F-15E...F-35's long leg...! Amazing...!!

[element1loop]

...as far as endurance goes...we’ve got a lot of gas, in fact the legs on the F35 are longer than the legs on an F15E, based on my experience. Internally we carry 18,000lbs of gas on the A model, and we’ve got one engine, it’s pretty impressive.

Wow! Longer leg than F-15E...F-35's long leg...! Amazing...!!

I'm not surprised doge. Clean short wing and large lift body means much higher "economical" cruise speed, plus much better altitude for that cruise, combined with designed-in engine optimisations for a burn at that typical best upper altitude cruise speed band--this all adds up to a predictably outstanding best specific-consumption speed and altitude at ISA and weight.

As I pointed out two days ago, that understated range can be extended much further yet. Increasing it by another ~40% to 50% within 10 years should be possible from here. And once you do that the realisable tactical options rise, even as the support aircraft and crewing costs fall further.

viewtopic.php?p=400617#p400617

i.e.

Add a variable cycle engine = 20% range growth
Add conformal tanks = 10% range growth
Use C wing & supercruise @ 》60K ft engine optimisation = 15% range growth.

(the thin air actually means much lower drag for a given IAS on the longer C wing and its larger area, and the higher mach at that alt will equare to lower consumption per knot, which means a vast improvement in specific consumption will be achieved)

Combined, it means the net specific-consumption changes can be expected to fall between 40% to 50%, which translates to a directly proportionate range increase of 40% to 50% higher than present at the resulting (much higher) best speed-altitude bands. The aircraft radius growth potential is quite staggering for such a small jet--and it should be fully exploited as it can make an F-15E look very pedestrian.