Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 13:26
by sferrin
(EDITOR’S NOTE: US Air Force F-35A fighters waited two weeks after landing at Al Dhafra air base, in the United Arab Emirates, before they carried out their first combat mission, dropping a single JDAM bomb against a cave – 32 months after reaching their Initial Operational Capabiity.
A two-week wait to hit a target that isn’t going anywhere is a bit of an anti-climax to the first US Air Force air strike using the F-35A, almost 20 years after the aircraft was selected for development.
Absent an explanation, and a rationale, the two-week wait before the air strike – whose result has not been released – suggests that it was unforeseen, which prompts speculation that it may have caused by a maintenance issue.
Sending two aircraft to drop a single bomb isn’t an impressive feat to recount, especially as in the absence of any opposition requiring the aircraft’s claimed “stealth,” any aircraft could have dropped the same bomb at a far lesser cost.
In fact, the Air Force went out of its way to demonstrate that stealth was not needed for the mission by fitting Luneburg reflectors to each wing, and by carrying Sidewinder missiles on the outboard weapon stations, which multiply their radar cross-section and thus make the aircraft very visible on radar.)


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -cave.html

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 15:51
by SpudmanWP
Is anyone surprised that he took May 1st off?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 18:00
by viper12
Giovanni de Briganti as editor. 'Nuff said.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 19:32
by quicksilver
viper12 wrote:Giovanni de Briganti as editor. 'Nuff said.


Yep. One who is dead set on finding problems will usually find some — often, in spite of the reality.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 20:17
by citanon
That's almost as stupid as this one:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... martin/amp

Or is it more stupid? I can't tell.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 21:27
by viper12
Is it me or the Express' article tries to complete a bingo card of falsehoods ? I think they got an average of at least one falsehood/misleading statement per sentence...

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 21:43
by juretrn
They literally went to this question
https://www.quora.com/Is-an-F-22-Raptor ... n-the-F-35
and took the top three answers. That's it. Quality reporting!

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 22:08
by SpudmanWP
This is golden

At Red Flag the F-22 has a roughly 100:1 kill ratio against F-16s, while the F-35 so far has about 20:1 against F-16 opponents. This suggests a big superiority for air-to-air combat for the F-22, which is what you would expect.


Someone should let them know that the 100:1 is across multiple exercises and the 20:1 is just a single one.

But hey, the maths is hard....

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 22:28
by marsavian
It is quite sad that in the internet age with more data at everyone's disposal the quality of professional journalism had actually gone down significantly. Perhaps they lack the intelligence to filter the signal from all the noise out there.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 04:32
by krieger22
marsavian wrote:It is quite sad that in the internet age with more data at everyone's disposal the quality of professional journalism had actually gone down significantly. Perhaps they lack the intelligence to filter the signal from all the noise out there.


The people running the financial side of newsrooms don't want to spend on hiring people who know what they're talking about, and those who do know what they're talking about tend to get headhunted by organizations other than news sites.

Or it's there, but it's paywalled. All the Wall Street Journal articles about the latest revelations regarding the 737 MAX are all paywalled. A dumpster fire of an IEEE Spectrum article on it? Free access! Guess what people are going to read.

viper12 wrote:Is it me or the Express' article tries to complete a bingo card of falsehoods ? I think they got an average of at least one falsehood/misleading statement per sentence...


It's not called the Daily Sexpress for nothing. The British tabloid press is to be trusted under literally no circumstances.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 05:03
by spazsinbad
"...It's not called the Daily Sexpress for nothing. The British tabloid press is to be trusted under literally no circumstances."
It is truly awful. Sadly the formerly Oz Newstrash Typoon MurderDoc has a lot to answer for the wrapper rubbish <sigh>.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 13:35
by sferrin
Flight Data Recorder from Japan's Crashed F-35A Retrieved, But Key Data Still Missing (excerpt)

The Defense Ministry has retrieved part of the flight data recorder from a F-35A stealth fighter that went missing last month, but it was heavily damaged and did not include a storage device to record speed and altitude data, Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya told reporters Tuesday.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: This article mentions, just in passing, that the F-35’s flight recorder “did not include a storage device to record speed and altitude data,” a stunning omission on an aircraft that has been hailed for 20 years as the most sophisticated fighter ever built.
Conveniently for its backers, this means that the causes of the unexplained incident will probably never be ascertained, and therefore will not further degrade the aircraft’s reputation.)


Of course it's Giovanni de Briganti.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 16:42
by SpudmanWP
lol.. like "speed and altitude" would tell it "why" it crashed as opposed to the speed it was going when it crashed... :doh:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 19:22
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'sferrin' "part of" indeed. :devil: When will Briganti discover his loose screws? Under the nearest lamppost I guess. :doh:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 19:52
by SpudmanWP
Is it just me or did the original news post say that it was the recording media that was not found and not that the data was not recorded. But hey, I'm just the kind of guy that wants to get down to the facts of the case rather than just reading headline :roll:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 04:10
by Dragon029
Correct, what they found was a very badly damaged flight data recorder with the storage medium (the solid state drives or whatever) missing.

This will make investigator's life a lot harder, but (if I'm not misunderstanding an F-35 maintainer I've spoken with) the F-35A's black box is apparently stored in the base of the left vertical stabiliser (presumably in the avionics bay back there, near the rear-lower MADL arrays), so the fact that it's basically been destroyed would suggest that this might have been a rather high speed crash.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 04:23
by optimist
spazsinbad wrote:
"...It's not called the Daily Sexpress for nothing. The British tabloid press is to be trusted under literally no circumstances."
It is truly awful. Sadly the formerly Oz Newstrash Typoon MurderDoc has a lot to answer for the wrapper rubbish <sigh>.

What is really funny, is the little boy from Adelaide. Helping his dad's small volume, daily rag. Has gone on to be the puppet master of the right wing, in an influential country. He is in effect, the most powerful man in the world.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 07:20
by XanderCrews
krieger22 wrote:
marsavian wrote:It is quite sad that in the internet age with more data at everyone's disposal the quality of professional journalism had actually gone down significantly. Perhaps they lack the intelligence to filter the signal from all the noise out there.


The people running the financial side of newsrooms don't want to spend on hiring people who know what they're talking about, and those who do know what they're talking about tend to get headhunted by organizations other than news sites.

Or it's there, but it's paywalled. All the Wall Street Journal articles about the latest revelations regarding the 737 MAX are all paywalled. A dumpster fire of an IEEE Spectrum article on it? Free access! Guess what people are going to read.

viper12 wrote:Is it me or the Express' article tries to complete a bingo card of falsehoods ? I think they got an average of at least one falsehood/misleading statement per sentence...


It's not called the Daily Sexpress for nothing. The British tabloid press is to be trusted under literally no circumstances.



“Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
Ben Rhodes, Obama advisor.

The don't have the money to have foreign bureaus anymore.

before the phrase "fake news" took off I was trying to articulate the click bait dunning krueger examples I saw everywhere. Tyler Rogoaway being one of them, but david axe is another prime example.

People may not like Trump, but hes 100 percent right on the sorry state of the media. And they're completely clueless that they're clueless. Thats how they blew one of the biggest stories of the 21st century:

Image

And the irony of that, is no one should be more mad than the left.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 15:42
by krieger22
Funny you mention Ben Rhodes, since he's also been a pretty spectacular symptom of that ever since leaving the White House. Still, there's got to be something inspiring about someone with a creative writing degree of all things directing government policy...

Anyway, back on topic

Image

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 15:48
by optimist
Bring it on. I want to see TOP GUN II

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 16:44
by XanderCrews
krieger22 wrote:Funny you mention Ben Rhodes, since he's also been a pretty spectacular symptom of that ever since leaving the White House. Still, there's got to be something inspiring about someone with a creative writing degree of all things directing government policy...

Anyway, back on topic

Image



Why didn't the navy just invest in 300 million dollar a piece hybrids of F-14/F-22?! If it only it had don'e that we could have 12 carriers sharing about 200 fighters right now!!!

Looks like that "f-14" has had a lot more than a FBW upgrade too...

Image

Why navy so dumb?!

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 17:43
by sferrin
Dragon029 wrote:Correct, what they found was a very badly damaged flight data recorder with the storage medium (the solid state drives or whatever) missing.


I take it the storage medium is not actually part of the data recorder? Is that normal? :|

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 19:22
by SpudmanWP
Crash analysis is not the primary reason for the military data recorders.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 21:45
by Dragon029
sferrin wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:Correct, what they found was a very badly damaged flight data recorder with the storage medium (the solid state drives or whatever) missing.


I take it the storage medium is not actually part of the data recorder? Is that normal? :|

I'm under the understanding that it is (what is a flight data recorder if not something that records data); the thing was just that badly damaged.

This is what we're apparently talking about; the F-35's "Crash Survivable Memory Unit" (CSMU):

Image

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 22:11
by SpudmanWP
So.. maybe they found the "data collector" but not the CSMU that it used to store the data?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 22:38
by Dragon029
It's being reported / described as the "flight data recorder" with descriptions like:

Takeshi Iwaya, Japan’s defence minister, said that the search has found some components of the crashed jet at the bottom of the ocean. However, the flight data recorder was damaged and memory chips that could contain a record of the accident have not yet been located.


https://www.ft.com/content/5a263c2c-709 ... 68069fbd15

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 01:18
by spazsinbad
Dragon029 wrote:It's being reported / described as the "flight data recorder" with descriptions like:

Takeshi Iwaya, Japan’s defence minister, said that the search has found some components of the crashed jet at the bottom of the ocean. However, the flight data recorder was damaged and memory chips that could contain a record of the accident have not yet been located.


https://www.ft.com/content/5a263c2c-709 ... 68069fbd15

Any chance of getting most of the appropriate text excerpted here please - otherwise non-subscribers see nothing. TIA.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 08:25
by marsavian
More from that FT article

Japan has recovered part of the flight data recorder from an F-35 stealth fighter that crashed almost a month ago, but the fuselage with its highly sensitive technology is still missing. Mr Iwaya said that the Kaimei, a marine survey ship operated by Japan’s education ministry, and the deep sea diving ship Van Gogh, chartered by the US Navy, have joined Japanese minesweepers in the search.

“Based on information collected by Kaimei and after confirmation on the seabed by the Van Gogh, we’ve identified components of the F-35A including part of the flight data recorder,” said Mr Iwaya. “This portion of the flight data recorder has been raised by the Van Gogh, and the ministry and self-defence forces are now examining it, but thus far the crucial memory — the recording media — has not been discovered.”

The search continues, said Mr Iwaya. “The ministry and self-defence forces, working closely with these various vessels, will carry on searching for the missing pilot and fuselage, in order to recover them and establish the cause of the accident,” he said.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 22:24
by SpudmanWP
Convenient how he has completely ignored the $1.3 Billion that Canada has already secured and that ONLY Partners and NOT FMS customers can bid on Partner purchased F-35s, not to mention the FMS fees that FMS customers pay. I would love to debate him, but my parents taught me not to beat up the mentally retarded.

So, the Canadian government has backed down, and is changing the rules of its new fighter competition to allow Lockheed Martin to compete with the F-35 – the only aircraft that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised that Canada would never buy.
This Canadian about-turn also confirms one of the anomalies of the F-45 Joint Strike Fighter program: partner countries -- which have paid a share of the aircraft’s $66.2 billion development – cannot benefit from the offsets that are available to countries that buy the aircraft off-the-shelf, through the Foreign Military Sales program.

In other words, Canada has accepted the risk of obtaining no offsets on its largest-ever defense purchase, so writing off a potential economic gain of C$ 15 billion to C$19 billion.)

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... 5-bid.html

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2019, 15:10
by krieger22
The Canadian-Swedish Joint Cope Project

Image

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2019, 16:04
by sferrin
krieger22 wrote:The Canadian-Swedish Joint Cope Project

Image


Ye Gods. Who's this, "Erik Elmgren" imbecile?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2019, 16:33
by SpudmanWP
Once again proving that denial ain't just a river in Egypt :doh:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2019, 19:27
by magitsu
Just another Swede brought up with a generous helping of Saab kool aid. Bio says that he's sailing, currently in the Caribbean.

His father(?) Bosse Elmgren (over 85 years old anyway) seems to have been a newspaper editor, social democrat, and once served as Sweden's ombudsman (body of complaint which protects individuals against abuses of power). http://nordics.info/show/artikel/preview-ombudsman-1/

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 14:17
by sferrin
(EDITOR’S NOTE: Interesting to see that, 19 years into its development program and 13 years after its first flight, the F-35 is still unable – or unwilling – to fly through bad weather.
These aircraft, which left Hill AFB on Wednesday, spent two nights (Wednesday and Thursday) at Burlington Airport, in Vermont, although the Associated Press reported, “The airport expects the jets to remain in Burlington for a day.”
They finally took off from Burlington on Friday morning, May 31, on their way to Switzerland, but they only arrived at Payerne air base at dusk on Saturday night – over 30 hours later.
In other words, they disappeared from the public eye for 24 hours.
Did they stop somewhere? Why?
The four F-35s are to be evaluated in Payerne by the Swiss Air Force as candidates for its Air 2030 next-generation fighter competition.)


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... rland.html

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 16:57
by blindpilot
sferrin wrote:(EDITOR’S NOTE: Interesting to see that, 19 years into its development program and 13 years after its first flight, the F-35 is still unable – or unwilling – to fly through bad weather.
...)


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... rland.html


I sometimes would like to tie some of these "editors" to a stake in Oklahoma this month and see if they are unable ... or is it unwilling ... to face the driving rains of floods, tornados, just good old midwest thunderstorms ...

I recall many times I was "able" to challenge the weather, in what turned out to be idiotic foolish efforts. Some I had no choice, others were just plain poor judgement for which I probably should have been grounded. I took a T-38 "above FL 400" to get over a building thunderstorm, flew out of Texas in storms from hell and dragged 4 F-4's through a wall of hell in the Pacific ... etc. etc.

I was technically "able." The T-38 climbed like a bat out of hell, (still slower than a thunderstorm though). The old 707 airframe was overbuilt like a brick sh... F-4s were bricks :D

However even those flying hurricane hunters are often "unwilling" to test mother nature. That's esecially true of simple peace time deployments. Take a day at the O Club bar, take in a movie ... try again tomorrow. Mother Nature is NOT to be fooled with.

FWIW
BP

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 17:05
by quicksilver
X2

I’m having a Pavlovian reaction as I recall same... (the ‘challenging the wx’ part with or without better judgment)

It’s not good to mess w Mother Nature. :wink:

Wasn’t it Scott Crossfield who morted in a t-storm down south somewhere?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 17:10
by SpudmanWP
It was an issue with the tanker not wanting to fly in bad weather (or was just not available), not the F-35.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 17:14
by quicksilver
SpudmanWP wrote:It was an issue with the tanker not wanting to fly in bad weather (or was just not available), not the F-35.



My guess is it was about wx divert requirements for the translant; the ‘rules’ are typically conservative and there is no/little latitude to waiver from the requirements specified in the instruction.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 18:16
by outlaw162
...tie some of these "editors" to a stake in Oklahoma this month...


In one respect, the Okie Wx is a good thing. It tends to discourage relocation to OK. Very little unwelcome 'overcrowding' here. And a natural population leveler (offset by teen pregnancy rate to some extent).

Just about the time of year to reposition the 'stake' to the Gulf Coast. :shock:

Compliments, good post.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 18:30
by kimjongnumbaun
In regards to weather, as my IP said, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s smart.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 21:33
by viper12
Oh my. What is Briganti smoking ?

And yes, Scott Crossfield died because of thunderstorms : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Sc ... ield#Death

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 15:55
by SpudmanWP
(EDITOR’S NOTE: So the pilot of what is claimed to be the most advanced combat aircraft in the world crashes into the sea because of “spatial disorientation,” but it “doesn’t count as pilot error” and there also was “no problem with the aircraft.”
Yet it crashed, killing its pilot, Maj. Akinori Hosomi, 41.
It is now for the manufacturer to explain how an aircraft claimed to have the world’s most advanced situation awareness capabilities could disorient its pilot – a veteran pilot of jet fighters, with over 3,200 flight hours, about 60 of them on the F-35 – to the point of diving into the water at “683 mph.”
The JASDF doesn’t explain how it determined the impact speed since the flight data recorder it recovered “was heavily damaged and the storage medium was missing.”.)


$5 says he never read the English translation of the report or even bothers to ready an analysis of the report.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2019, 18:43
by mixelflick
SpudmanWP wrote:Once again proving that denial ain't just a river in Egypt :doh:



"F-35, a good light bomber...".

Do these guys know about its 15-1 or 20-1 kill ratios at Red Flag? Or do you think they just dismiss such things? The 2019 demo is a great start, but I fear the general public is going to need more to change their opinion.

Unfortunately, Congressmen can sometimes be included among those who think like this...

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2019, 20:11
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Once again proving that denial ain't just a river in Egypt :doh:



Or do you think they just dismiss such things?


Yes, that's exactly what I think :wink:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 02:09
by spazsinbad
Does Turkey really want the F-35 fighter jets?
12 Jun 2019 Nedret Ersanel

“The F-35 fighter jets are not as strategic as the S-400s. Their performance in aerial operations is 60 percent, their rate of meeting the performance expected of them for all tasks is 27 percent. Also, they are under U.S. control and can easily be manipulated. Furthermore, these aircraft are very expensive. Their maintenance and operation are quite difficult. Their useful load, bomb-missile carry capacity is inadequate. We met with the air forces personnel as well. I also think they are bulky aircraft. F-35 will not add anything to Turkey, but it is extremely important for the U.S.” [“Hakurk ile Kandil bağı kesilecek” (Hakurk’s Qandil ties will be severed), June 10, Hürriyet.]


"Former General Staff Chief of Intelligence and retired Lt. Gen. İsmail Hakkı Pekin’s “bolded” words require extra attention.... [can oath]

Source: https://www.yenisafak.com/en/columns/ne ... ts-2047065

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 03:47
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
krieger22 wrote:The Canadian-Swedish Joint Cope Project

Image


Ye Gods. Who's this, "Erik Elmgren" imbecile?


How many fighter producers does Sweden have again? Wouldn't want a monopoly...

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 08:24
by energo
sferrin wrote: In other words, they disappeared from the public eye for 24 hours.
l


Rouge cloud?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 01:54
by white_lightning35
https://futurism.com/the-byte/us-milita ... -unflyable
Posted 1 day ago

https://www.thedailybeast.com/america-i ... cant-fight
Posted 2 hours ago

Is no one else amazed the Lockheed has managed to drop the price of each f-35 by 600 billion dollars in one day? That's incredible! Thanks for reporting on this, trustworthy and accurate news media!

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 21:16
by SpudmanWP
Yahoo news is quickly approaching NI's level of ClickBait. It does not help that they keep republishing NI's articles, even the ones that say that they are over a year old. :doh:

https://news.yahoo.com/f-35-trouble-dis ... 00940.html

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 21:37
by spazsinbad
BUTT ITS NEWS! Yahoo must define news as in RIP VAN WINKLE news definition or perhaps ZOMBIE NEWS - it RISE UP! :devil:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2019, 04:12
by SpudmanWP
This problem extends to new and old platforms alike. The air readiness of the Air Force’s version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a platform already hampered by massive cost overruns and delays, dropped by five percent in FY 2018 compared to FY 2017. Less than 50 percent of the service’s 148 JSFs achieved a mission-capable rating in FY 2018.

https://www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/ai ... -continues

In the article, they only cite FY2017 and FY2018 numbers. Gee, I wonder why?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2019, 04:25
by spazsinbad
Interesting AFtimes article from which buttyHurty came: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... o-improve/

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 13:30
by sferrin
"(EDITOR’S NOTE: Contrary to what is stated above, there is nothing ‘curious’ about the fact that the F-35 was designed without chaff or IR flare launchers.

Since its stealthy design was claimed to make the F-35 invisible to radar, there was clearly no need for active countermeasures like chaff to protect it from radar. This same reasoning explains why no other US Air Force ‘stealth’ aircraft, from the F-117 to the F-22 and B-2, are not fitted with any.

By the same logic, the fact that chaff is now planned to be retrofitted to the F-35A merely confirms that, a quarter-century since it was designed, ‘stealth’ is no longer a sufficient guarantee of the F-35A’s survival in combat – if it ever was.

And this clearly poses a major problem, since ‘stealth’ is the promise that justified the aircraft’s many design limitations in terms of speed, range and weapon payload.

If ‘stealth’ is no longer the combat asset its manufacturer has long claimed to justify these limitations, the F-35A becomes just another aircraft with mediocre performance – but with a high sticker price and huge operating costs.) "


Because the F-35 is getting chaff dispensers. :roll: (Like the F-22 has had since day one. )

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... nough.html

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 15:05
by ricnunes
Jesus Christ!! That guy above (the "editor" of the article above) is a walking brain fart!! :doh: :bang: :roll:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 15:50
by quicksilver
The F-35 (all variants) have always had expendable RF/IR countermeasures (chaff and flares). The recent announcement was about the planned addition of advanced versions thereof; ‘upgrades’ if you will, as part of c2d2.

From 2006...

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2006/04/0 ... rotection/

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 15:55
by ricnunes
So "brain fart" squared.
No, make it better: "brain fart" cubed! :roll:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 16:53
by spazsinbad
ricnunes wrote:So "brain fart" squared.
No, make it better: "brain fart" cubed! :roll:

That clown Giovanni de Briganti at DEFaero is a real fake "NEWSmaker".

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 17:50
by garrya
ricnunes wrote:Jesus Christ!! That guy above (the "editor" of the article above) is a walking brain fart!! :doh: :bang: :roll:

Not a big surprise
D66414C8-E28E-4B6F-B542-663E80A63F18.jpeg

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 20:41
by ricnunes
Ok, it's explained - Giovanni de Briganti!

So and actually that's a "brain fart" elevated by a factor of four (4) or more :roll:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 21:34
by hythelday
What are the chances that the new chaff is not actually "chaff"but something more akin to "Gremlin" drones?



I mean those are not terribly large.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 17:50
by notkent
All the F-35 critics don't seem like they have much to say lately.
Some of them must have gotten caught up in that "death spiral" they were always warning about.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 18:10
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:"(EDITOR’S NOTE: Contrary to what is stated above, there is nothing ‘curious’ about the fact that the F-35 was designed without chaff or IR flare launchers.

Since its stealthy design was claimed to make the F-35 invisible to radar, there was clearly no need for active countermeasures like chaff to protect it from radar. This same reasoning explains why no other US Air Force ‘stealth’ aircraft, from the F-117 to the F-22 and B-2, are not fitted with any.

By the same logic, the fact that chaff is now planned to be retrofitted to the F-35A merely confirms that, a quarter-century since it was designed, ‘stealth’ is no longer a sufficient guarantee of the F-35A’s survival in combat – if it ever was.

And this clearly poses a major problem, since ‘stealth’ is the promise that justified the aircraft’s many design limitations in terms of speed, range and weapon payload.

If ‘stealth’ is no longer the combat asset its manufacturer has long claimed to justify these limitations, the F-35A becomes just another aircraft with mediocre performance – but with a high sticker price and huge operating costs.) "


Because the F-35 is getting chaff dispensers. :roll: (Like the F-22 has had since day one. )

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... nough.html


Image

Image

me write airplane things!!

Image

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 18:22
by ricnunes
Actually, I have a sort of a request for the community here:
Please, let's not waste any time and bytes giving Giovanni "Brain Fart" de Briganti any kind of notoriety from now on. :wink:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2019, 00:44
by boogieman
Isn't he on the Dassault payroll? Thought I heard that somewhere. Would explain a lot...

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2019, 01:31
by Corsair1963
With so much "disinformation" spread over the web everyday. This has to be a concerted effort by the Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, and Russians. In order to weaken the F-35 Program and the Western Defense Establishment in General.


Even the French are suspect in my opinion. Especially, as it relates to the F-35! :shock:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2019, 14:40
by ricnunes
Corsair1963 wrote:With so much "disinformation" spread over the web everyday. This has to be a concerted effort by the Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, and Russians. In order to weaken the F-35 Program and the Western Defense Establishment in General.


Even the French are suspect in my opinion. Especially, as it relates to the F-35! :shock:



Yes, I would say that the European military aerospace in general (namely Dassault/French government, Airbus and Saab) have their share of responsibility regarding the "disinformation" spread about the F-35 program. They (European military aerospace) probably see this as a means to be able to keep/continue "in service" when it comes to fighter aircraft since probably for the first time in the history of military aviation the Europeans don't have anything that can rivalize with US fighter aircraft - this case the F-35 - this either by technical specs/capability or by price cost (or both).

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 11:26
by krieger22
Image

"Look, we have to spend more effort on ECM than an F-22 or F-35, and here's why it's a good thing."

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 12:46
by notkent
Now I am getting confused, was told by the F-35 critics that;

Speed is the new stealth
Small low cost fighters are the new 6th generation
Maneuverability is the new stealth when everyone has stealth fighters
Now its ECM is the new stealth - they do know that the F-35 has ECM capabilities?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 20:49
by ricnunes
Oh no, not this "Active Stealth" BS again! :doh:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 06:43
by boilermaker
ricnunes wrote:Oh no, not this "Active Stealth" BS again! :doh:


Looking at the history of the efforts to scramble the signals of IEDs from mere goat humpers armed with walky talkies, and the difficulties they had to deal with, any sort of active stealth to me needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I think a dedicated team aircraft equiped with a suite like the EA-6 Prowler would be what is needed. A pod wont cut it.

It probably works in some configurations but it probably limits the craft's own communication and radar picture, and it probably is limited in scope and can be detectable via passive means.

It is an intersting research but still in its infancy, imo, in terms of fielding and provability. I would be hard pressed to see this pod tested at Red Flag and hear F35 pilots say they were caught unawares by a Grippen...

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 20:13
by ricnunes
boilermaker wrote:It is an intersting research but still in its infancy, imo, in terms of fielding and provability. I would be hard pressed to see this pod tested at Red Flag and hear F35 pilots say they were caught unawares by a Grippen...


There's nothing fancy and in its infancy regarding this. There's no such thing as Active Stealth. There's ECM/Jamming pods and that's all this is -> A more powerful defensive jamming pod with probably/likely some Electronic Attack capabilities.
As such there's nothing special about this being a technology in its infancy and in need to prove any new capabilities.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 20:18
by sprstdlyscottsmn
A Barracuda suite can hide blue F-16s from red F-16s without being detected itself. That is as operationally close to "active stealth" as you can get. It's here now, and it is not in a pod.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 20:36
by ricnunes
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:A Barracuda suite can hide blue F-16s from red F-16s without being detected itself. That is as operationally close to "active stealth" as you can get. It's here now, and it is not in a pod.


Yes, and aircraft like the Growler can do similar things, although the F-35 is likely more effective since it can get closer to the enemy radar sources (due to stealth).

But something tells me that since "Jamming" is "Active" that it can be counter-detected (as opposed to "passive"/real stealth).

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 21:06
by sprstdlyscottsmn
ricnunes wrote:But something tells me that since "Jamming" is "Active" that it can be counter-detected (as opposed to "passive"/real stealth).

Absolutely. That becomes a battle of "how discreetly can my jammer work to not trigger the other guys EW?" which I would think is a function of the RCS being hidden and range. Hiding an F-35 is childs play, hiding an F-16 isn't too hard, but hiding a B-52 might well be impossible for a Barracuda.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 20:48
by lbk000
Just waiting for when they'll be calling the F-35 out for not having a 1:1 KDR.

Image
Losing is the new winning -- how can your enemy ever defeat you if you beat them to it?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2019, 05:05
by kimjongnumbaun
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2019, 09:29
by hornetfinn
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
ricnunes wrote:But something tells me that since "Jamming" is "Active" that it can be counter-detected (as opposed to "passive"/real stealth).

Absolutely. That becomes a battle of "how discreetly can my jammer work to not trigger the other guys EW?" which I would think is a function of the RCS being hidden and range. Hiding an F-35 is childs play, hiding an F-16 isn't too hard, but hiding a B-52 might well be impossible for a Barracuda.


You are correct that jamming effectiveness (required jamming power) is a function of RCS and range. Naturally there are other things that affect jamming effectiveness like jamming type and techical capabilties of jammer and radar.

I don't think that hiding even a B-52 would be impossible for Barracuda depending on radar, but it would require jammer to be closer and/or B-52 being further away from the radar than when protecting F-16. If we assume that B-52 has 100 times higher RCS than F-16 and F-35 doing stand-off jamming from 100 km away from the radar and let's say it can mask the F-16 until it gets 50 km away from the radar. Then B-52 would be masked further than about 160 km away from the radar if my quick calculation is correct. Or in other words the F-35 doing jamming would need to be about 15 km away from the radar to mask a B-52 50 km away from the radar.

The importance of low RCS is clear when F-35 could get to something like 5 km from the radar in the above example. We have to remember than frontal RCS of F-16 is actually a lot closer to B-52 than it is to F-35.

Of course putting more wattage in jammer system can also give added effectiveness but B-52 would require 100 times more power than F-16 for the same performance. Or possibly something like million times more power than F-35! :shock:

I can easily see why F-35 is said to be so very powerful jamming system. VLO stealth means it can get a lot closer to threat radars than almost any other aircraft with significant jamming capabilities. That directly multiplies the effects of jamming. Naturally the sensor system and excellent SA gives ability to position the aircraft to advantageous position without revealing itself.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2019, 15:41
by ricnunes
kimjongnumbaun wrote:Active stealthis what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.


DITTO!

P.S - Can I use your post/sentence as my new signature?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 05:10
by kimjongnumbaun
ricnunes wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:Active stealthis what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.


DITTO!

P.S - Can I use your post/sentence as my new signature?



Please do.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 11:25
by ricnunes
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:Active stealthis what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.


DITTO!

P.S - Can I use your post/sentence as my new signature?



Please do.


Thanks :thumb:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 12:08
by hornetfinn
ricnunes wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:A Barracuda suite can hide blue F-16s from red F-16s without being detected itself. That is as operationally close to "active stealth" as you can get. It's here now, and it is not in a pod.


Yes, and aircraft like the Growler can do similar things, although the F-35 is likely more effective since it can get closer to the enemy radar sources (due to stealth).

But something tells me that since "Jamming" is "Active" that it can be counter-detected (as opposed to "passive"/real stealth).


Yes it is and larger output power and nondirectional transmissions make it easier to detect. Of course jamming techniques used also affect this.

Required output power is basically directly proportional to RCS of the object to be protected by the jammer. To "hide" a VLO aircraft like F-35 which is said to have RCS of something like -40 dB or better, required jamming power is at least 4 orders of magnitude lower than what is required to hide a non-VLO fighter aircraft. Very likely the difference is even larger especially considering that radars have trouble detecting and tracking so low RCS targets even without any EW effects. This is because it requires extreme sensitivity and signal purity to filter out such targets.

Actually F-35 likely has easily the best "active stealth" of all aircraft due to having excellent passive stealth properties (so only very low power is required) and highly directional jamming system making it very difficult for ESM systems to pick up the jamming signals. They can definitely use slowly increasing noise jamming at very, very low power levels when they go closer to threat radar. It would be difficult to detect the jamming signals and radar system would start compensating for the increased background noise. Background noise levels fluctuate a lot from natural phenomena and it would be very difficult to tell that kind of jamming from natural sources. When the radar compensates for the background noise levels, it becomes less sensitive as it has to have large enough Signal to Noise ratio to work effectively.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 12:52
by ricnunes
Thanks for the heads up and detailed explanation hornetfinn :thumb:

So basically, not only "Active Stealth" is BS since in fact it's ECM/EW (but this I already knew for ages) but the fact is that even in the "Active Stealth department" the F-35 is still stealthier and much better! Someone should forward this to all the "brilliant minds" claiming "Active Stealth" lurking out there, specially those "living" on the planets Saab and Dassault...

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 13:08
by hornetfinn
You're welcome! :D

Yes, for "Active Stealth" (ECM/EW) to work well, having Passive Stealth is extremely beneficial. I think nobody really even understands just how powerful combo the VLO passive stealth with high powered and very directional EW system (especially in fire control radar frequencies) is. We are talking about several orders of magnitude difference. Not forgetting Situational Awareness which helps to maximize the effects of both passive stealth and EW. No wonder F-35 pilots describe the EW capabilties the way they do like that quote in Combat Aircraft magazine October 2015:

‘This jet isn’t just about the weapons — it’s a game-changing capability. The Tornado GR4 can’t just stroll into a
double-digit SAM MEZ [missile engagement zone] In the F-35 I can generate a ‘worm-hole’ in the airspace and lead everyone through it. There isn’t another platform around that can do that. This isn’t all about height and supercruise speed — it’s the ability to not be seen.’


I'd say that description fits perfectly what "Active Stealth" proponents are telling us. Basically F-35s can "stealthify" 4th gen jets using "Active Stealth" i.e. sophisticated electronic warfare. That must be both very strange and comforting to 4th gen aircraft pilots.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 13:26
by ricnunes
hornetfinn wrote:
‘This jet isn’t just about the weapons — it’s a game-changing capability. The Tornado GR4 can’t just stroll into a
double-digit SAM MEZ [missile engagement zone] In the F-35 I can generate a ‘worm-hole’ in the airspace and lead everyone through it. There isn’t another platform around that can do that. This isn’t all about height and supercruise speed — it’s the ability to not be seen.’


I'd say that description fits perfectly what "Active Stealth" proponents are telling us. Basically F-35s can "stealthify" 4th gen jets using "Active Stealth" i.e. sophisticated electronic warfare. That must be both very strange and comforting to 4th gen aircraft pilots.


Yes indeed. The problem 4th gen-fighter proponents/F-35 naysayers and "Active Stealth" proponents is that they claim that a 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft could create such 'worm-hole' as an alternative to the F-35.
But the problem is like you and sprstdlyscottsmn correctly said, in order for one of those 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft to have the same/similar effect/defectiveness as the F-35 it's ECM/EW suite (pod or whatever) must be transmitting at much higher power output which means that it is much likely to be counter-detected and thus all the concept of "Active Stealth" with 4th gen emitter aircraft goes "bananas"...

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 13:34
by steve2267
hornetfinn wrote: No wonder F-35 pilots describe the EW capabilties the way they do like that quote in Combat Aircraft magazine October 2015:

‘This jet isn’t just about the weapons — it’s a game-changing capability. The Tornado GR4 can’t just stroll into a
double-digit SAM MEZ [missile engagement zone] In the F-35 I can generate a ‘worm-hole’ in the airspace and lead everyone through it. There isn’t another platform around that can do that. This isn’t all about height and supercruise speed — it’s the ability to not be seen.’




Then why spend $$ on Growler?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 13:44
by steve2267
The only thing that makes sense is either
  • USA won't sell me F-35 (but then will then sell me Growler?

--OR--

  • To artificially increase the noise floor

Yeah, the enema knows someone is out there because they KNOW there's a sh*t ton of jamming, but because the noise floor is (artificially) raised so high, it makes it so much more easier for VLO aircraft (i.e. F-35) to slip through.

But again... "game changing" and "worm holes"... why spend the $$ on Growler if you can get it all (and more) with the F-35?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 13:55
by hornetfinn
steve2267 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: No wonder F-35 pilots describe the EW capabilties the way they do like that quote in Combat Aircraft magazine October 2015:

‘This jet isn’t just about the weapons — it’s a game-changing capability. The Tornado GR4 can’t just stroll into a
double-digit SAM MEZ [missile engagement zone] In the F-35 I can generate a ‘worm-hole’ in the airspace and lead everyone through it. There isn’t another platform around that can do that. This isn’t all about height and supercruise speed — it’s the ability to not be seen.’




Then why spend $$ on Growler?


Well, Growler can do things even F-35 can't at the moment. It can jam lower frequency radars effectively and also has communications jamming and EA against communications systems. They also need that capability now and number of naval F-35s will remain rather small in the near future. F-35 might get those capabilties in the future, with NGJ.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 17:00
by notkent
hornetfinn wrote: They can definitely use slowly increasing noise jamming at very, very low power levels when they go closer to threat radar. It would be difficult to detect the jamming signals and radar system would start compensating for the increased background noise. Background noise levels fluctuate a lot from natural phenomena and it would be very difficult to tell that kind of jamming from natural sources. When the radar compensates for the background noise levels, it becomes less sensitive as it has to have large enough Signal to Noise ratio to work effectively.


The return signal from the target back to the radar will go up in magnitude as a function of range to the 4th power so the jamming power would have to increase by the same to match it.

When radars are setup and calibrated clutter maps and baseline S/N measurements are made.
The ECCM function of the Radar would probably not be fooled by an ever increasing noise floor.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 22:48
by kimjongnumbaun
This is the issue and why 5th gens are difficult to deal with.

591A79F6-6D03-4F70-9A2A-119C754B2311.gif


This is what a radar scope looks like. A plane will appear as a spike. In this case, a 4th gen will show up as letter A. A stealth fighter has a lower RCS so it’s “spike” will be below the dashed line and discounted as background radiation. It gets lost in the clutter. A non stealth plane can hide itself using ECM. One method is barrage jamming which fills the air with EM radiation and raises the noise floor to hide its spike. Radars have ways of dealing with this using ECCM. One method is using missiles with home on jam capability. They also can just “burn through”, which is increasing the radar power and causing a stronger return and thus getting a larger spike on the non stealthy aircraft. That’s why you need multiple jammers to hide 4th gens because they need to over power the enemy ground radar, which is typically larger and has more energy to utilize.

For these reasons, that’s why 5th gets have a tremendous advantage. It takes less power to hide them in the noise floor. Typically, they aren’t even detected. If they are detected by long wave radar, a FC radar still needs to use X-band to target them. 5th gens are designed specifically to defeat high frequency radar and bounce the energy away to specific angles. So trying to increase the radar energy and burn through jamming is not effective either. Even if there is a receiver located at the specific angle where the energy is being deflected to, because the plane is moving in a 3D space, any spike will be temporary and not long enough to get a track or firing solution. The F-35 has a very comprehensive EM management suite which shows the pilot where the energy is being directed away to, and can thus manage their EM profile and stay in the enemy’s blind spots. This is part of the sensor fusion which is a major evolution to 4th gen fighters.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2019, 04:01
by boogieman
steve2267 wrote:Then why spend $$ on Growler?

Growler will be important going forward (and I'm kind of surprised USAF doesn't have an equivalent... maybe Compass Call?). One likely red team tactic is to use VHF band surveillance radars (eg. Nebo M) to direct and cue shorter wavelength tracking/fire control radars that have been spatially displaced in a way that allows them to paint F35 et al from suboptimal RCS angles (eg side-on). This would improve the range at which they could obtain a viable firing solution, albeit one that could be interrupted by F35 defensive maneuvering & aspect optimisation.

Image

Bear in mind that J20/Su57/red air would likely be datalinked to the local surveillance radars and using that to cue their own sensors/weapons & generally coordinate themselves. Growler and NGJ should provide the important ability to jam these radars prior to their direct destruction.

I think it's worth pointing out that newer radars like Nebo M are mobile and correspondingly more difficult to pin down and kill. Against a peer adversary they would be protected by a layered IADS so there could well be a protracted period of IADS rollback before they are gone. I think it would be wise to expect the F35 to have to operate in their presence for some time - even more reason to have friendly wide-band standoff jamming (eg. Growler) in the mix.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2019, 13:09
by hornetfinn
notkent wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: They can definitely use slowly increasing noise jamming at very, very low power levels when they go closer to threat radar. It would be difficult to detect the jamming signals and radar system would start compensating for the increased background noise. Background noise levels fluctuate a lot from natural phenomena and it would be very difficult to tell that kind of jamming from natural sources. When the radar compensates for the background noise levels, it becomes less sensitive as it has to have large enough Signal to Noise ratio to work effectively.


The return signal from the target back to the radar will go up in magnitude as a function of range to the 4th power so the jamming power would have to increase by the same to match it.


Basically yes, but jamming signal needs only go one way which means the jamming power is a function of range to the 2nd power. So when range doubles, 16 times more powerful (ERP) radar is needed for detecting similar target. However only 4 times more powerful jammer is needed to counter that 16 times more powerful radar.

notkent wrote:When radars are setup and calibrated clutter maps and baseline S/N measurements are made.
The ECCM function of the Radar would probably not be fooled by an ever increasing noise floor.


Yes they are and those definitely improve radar detection performance. However there is always some small fluctuations in the background noise, so small increases in noise floor will not be easily detectable and thus very difficult to counter with anything. This is where very low RCS helps as only very low powered signals need to be transmitted. It's much harder to do that with non-VLO aircraft as they will need a lot more jamming power. Another helpful thing is having highly directional jamming systems so large and very sensitive ESM receivers have a lot less powerful signals to work with. Having combination of both is priceless as F-35 can do real stand-in jamming and only jam selected radars with narrow beams. Of course there are limitations as the jamming capability is focused in higher radar frequencies.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2019, 15:19
by notkent
I was looking at it from the point of view of the target flying towards the radar system and the return from the target increasing exponentially as it gets closer. The jamming signal will also have to increase exponentially.

But even without jamming the distance that existing Radars can detect VLO is so small that they are easily avoided.

Being VLO and aware of how to minimize its signature will make it very hard to complete the kill chain against the F-35. Its funny how the detractors try to bring up things like DRFM jammers that actually will work much better against 4th generation aircraft than 5th generation ones.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2019, 15:40
by marsavian
steve2267 wrote:The only thing that makes sense is either
  • USA won't sell me F-35 (but then will then sell me Growler?

--OR--

  • To artificially increase the noise floor

Yeah, the enema knows someone is out there because they KNOW there's a sh*t ton of jamming, but because the noise floor is (artificially) raised so high, it makes it so much more easier for VLO aircraft (i.e. F-35) to slip through.

But again... "game changing" and "worm holes"... why spend the $$ on Growler if you can get it all (and more) with the F-35?


Growler can provide wideband jamming for an area as the jamming pods also jam in the rear quadrant. F-35 jams through its APG-81 so is limited to the frontal antenna cone.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2019, 16:54
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marsavian wrote:Growler can provide wideband jamming for an area as the jamming pods also jam in the rear quadrant. F-35 jams through its APG-81 so is limited to the frontal antenna cone.

I wouldn't put money on the last statement. Even 4th Gen aircraft have self protection jamming that covers all quadrants. The APG-81 is just the largest and most powerful of the antennas available.

Growler can do a much wider frequency range of jamming. That is it's big advantage.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2019, 23:28
by boogieman
This individual is... "interesting" (and rather prolific). Claims a lot of things including that he is a former Russian SAM operator, that F35 is a Yak-141 clone, that its RCS is ~0.5m2 and that stealth/VLO is a myth.

https://disqus.com/by/disqus_2KOS8eIsu5/

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2019, 00:19
by juretrn
Meh. Block and move on. 22000 comments, all either poo-pooing everything American or boosting Russian. Just another troll brigadeer.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2019, 06:52
by boogieman
:lmao:

To his credit he did make mention of photonic radar, which I found interesting. I always wondered what might come next after the "AESA revolution" was done.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2019, 18:45
by wrightwing
marsavian wrote:
steve2267 wrote:The only thing that makes sense is either
  • USA won't sell me F-35 (but then will then sell me Growler?

--OR--

  • To artificially increase the noise floor

Yeah, the enema knows someone is out there because they KNOW there's a sh*t ton of jamming, but because the noise floor is (artificially) raised so high, it makes it so much more easier for VLO aircraft (i.e. F-35) to slip through.

But again... "game changing" and "worm holes"... why spend the $$ on Growler if you can get it all (and more) with the F-35?


Growler can provide wideband jamming for an area as the jamming pods also jam in the rear quadrant. F-35 jams through its APG-81 so is limited to the frontal antenna cone.


Jamming from the APG-81 is limited to the frontal hemisphere, but that's not the only jamming capability the F-35 has. The ASQ-239 can protect all quadrants.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 07:56
by hornetfinn
wrightwing wrote:
marsavian wrote:Growler can provide wideband jamming for an area as the jamming pods also jam in the rear quadrant. F-35 jams through its APG-81 so is limited to the frontal antenna cone.


Jamming from the APG-81 is limited to the frontal hemisphere, but that's not the only jamming capability the F-35 has. The ASQ-239 can protect all quadrants.


Pretty sure that Growler can put helluva lot more power than F-35 can outside APG-81 coverage. But naturally a group of F-35s can do jamming to multiple directions simultaneously, so I don't think this is much of an issue. And Growler needs a lot more power as it has to stay way further away from threat radars than F-35.

Of course Growler can jam much wider frequency band, including COMMS jamming. I think it might make sense in the future for Growlers to do support jamming only against lower frequency systems and let F-35s jam the fire control radar frequencies.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 08:25
by boogieman
hornetfinn wrote:Pretty sure that Growler can put helluva lot more power than F-35 can outside APG-81 coverage...

...of course Growler can jam much wider frequency band, including COMMS jamming. I think it might make sense in the future for Growlers to do support jamming only against lower frequency systems and let F-35s jam the fire control radar frequencies.

I imagine this discrepancy will grow with the arrival of NGJ - something that can't come soon enough given the proliferation of modern AESA radars in red team countries (both surface and airborne). I've heard whispers about integrating NGJ onto the F35 some day but nothing concrete. Would seem like a no-brainer to me.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 08:45
by spazsinbad
A hint about NGJ on F-35s: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=396537&hilit=Generation+Jammer#p396537
"...On F-35, while it’s still early days, it has been envisaged that NGJ could integrate directly with that aircraft’s onboard systems and not require a specialised aircraft configured for EW...." Source: Australian Aviation Mag'n Jul 2018 No.361

Article PDF: download/file.php?id=27630 Grrrr GROWLER A_A_2018_07 pp6.pdf (0.5Mb)

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 09:07
by boogieman
Yep that sounds familiar. The main hurdle I can see is the lack of a backseater in the Lightning. Workload could be an issue trying to run it as a dedicated EW platform...

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 09:41
by hornetfinn
boogieman wrote:Yep that sounds familiar. The main hurdle I can see is the lack of a backseater in the Lightning. Workload could be an issue trying to run it as a dedicated EW platform...


That's where sensor fusion engine, artificial intelligence and machine learning comes to play. Just like in F-14 there was real need to have dedicated radar intercept operator and no need in F-22 or F-35 despite the latter having much more capable radars. I think the same will happen with EW systems as I think computers can operate the systems much better than a human can in modern environments. Human has the role of tactician and supervisor and I think a single pilot can do that. AFAIK, that's how Growler is also being developed and upgraded right now. I mean developing artificial intelligence and automation for the EW system.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 10:22
by boogieman
Here's hoping you're right. I think there is a gap in the USAF inventory where the EF111 used to be. Compass Call is fine and all but it can't do the same things as a tactical fast mover. Pairing F35 and NGJ could make for a solid interim capability until a PCA based solution (perhaps) could be fielded.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 10:31
by spazsinbad
Likely to be found in the WAYback Machina so anyway a long ago post about NGJ designed also for the F-35 from AvWEAK.
U.S. Navy Identifies Network Invasion Tool
07 Jan 2011 David A. Fulghum

"A top U.S. Navy official acknowledges that the service’s Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) — designed for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler and F-35 — will feature a network invasion capability...." [beware brokeback URL]

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... adline=U.S. Navy Identifies Network Invasion Tool

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 10:32
by hornetfinn
I could also see a solution where the actual jammers are carried by drones/UCAVs and controlled from a good distance by some human operator(s). There the actual operation of the jammers is done by computers using AI. The tactical employment would be done by humans. This might be good solution for USAF for example, but I doubt it would work as well in USN due to limited number of aircraft onboard carriers. It will take a lot of time before we are there though and Growler and likely F-35 with NGJ will be used before that.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 10:52
by boogieman
Good point, I totally neglected to think of how a UAS based solution might be able to contribute. Whatever the capability ends up being I expect we'll start to hear more about it over the coming years.

This is one area where I think our (RAAF) force planners exercised some solid foresight - electing to field F35 with a supporting Growler force. Our air force be small but mighty haha :wink:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 11:18
by spazsinbad
ASLO (yes I know) the RAAFie CHAPPies selected the SKYguardian MQ-9B (same as UK) for some conflict from above.

See attached 2 page PDF from ADM 28 Nov 2019 no.567 with story from Ewen Levick about the above.
"...“MQ-9 is more about support to the land force and the littoral,” AIRCDRE Goldie told ADM. “So more customizable payloads, which are all about going after close electro-optic IR and signals intelligence.”..."

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 14:50
by notkent
The LO and SA of the F-35 will also allow it to loiter in the side lobes of a radar and perform jamming that will be harder to detect and counter

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2019, 16:07
by ricnunes
hornetfinn wrote:That's where sensor fusion engine, artificial intelligence and machine learning comes to play. Just like in F-14 there was real need to have dedicated radar intercept operator and no need in F-22 or F-35 despite the latter having much more capable radars. I think the same will happen with EW systems as I think computers can operate the systems much better than a human can in modern environments. Human has the role of tactician and supervisor and I think a single pilot can do that. AFAIK, that's how Growler is also being developed and upgraded right now. I mean developing artificial intelligence and automation for the EW system.


Exactly.
Also remember that the above also happened with the Growler itself. Note that the EA-18G Growler replaced the EA-6B Prowler which had a crew of four (4) while the Growler has only a crew of two (2). I also believe that sensor fusion together with NGJ will/could allow a one-man crew F-35 to fill the same roles as (or even eventually replace) the Growler.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 07:06
by magitsu
F-35 user base is such a lucrative business opportunity that it's hard to see NGJ not making it there in one form or another.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2020, 09:59
by doge
Heritage's John Venable has posted on the infamous National Interest! :doh: (Brave, or Reckless)
https://www.heritage.org/defense/commen ... th-fighter
This piece originally appeared in The National Interest
Why the F-35 Is Now the World’s Most Dominant Stealth Fighter
Feb 26th, 2020 John Venable
The F-35 Lightning II is now the world’s most dominant multi-role fighter. Its detection range, geolocation, threat identification, and system response capabilities allow the jet to precisely fix and destroy the most advanced threats in the world including every layer of Russia’s latest SA-20 surface-to-air missile (SAM) system.
While it still has several rough edges, the F-35 has now crossed several thresholds that make it the most lethal and cost-effective fighter in or nearing production within the NATO Alliance. Here are 10 updates you need to know about this stealth fighter.
    1. The first U.S. F-35A wing is fully equipped and already executing combat deployments. The maneuvering restrictions the jet had when first introduced are now completely removed. Even with a complete internal weapons load-out and full internal fuel, pilots can fight without limitation. Last year, I interviewed 30 pilots at Hill Air Force Base, and all 20 with previous experience in fourth-generation fighters said they would rather fly the F-35 in combat than their previous rides. That preference held for almost every dogfight scenario they could imagine.
    2.The price of the Lightning has fallen below even the most optimistic government targets. In 2018, the Congressional Research Service estimated that an F-35A produced in 2020 would cost $77.5 million using constant 2012 dollars. Translating that cost estimate to current year dollars makes the price of each F-35A $87.1M. The actual cost of an F-35A in fiscal year 2021 is $79.2M, and it is expected to fall to $77.9M in 2022 – $9.2M cheaper than the government’s best estimate using current year dollars.
    3. The F-35A now costs less than any other ally-produced fourth-plus generation fighter. A fully combat-equipped F-35A is the same price of an F/A-18 E/F, $9.8 million below the $87.7 million base price of an F-15EX, and $40 million less than the Eurofighter—and all three of those competitors require additional equipment like multi-million dollar targeting pods before they can employ weapons in medium threat combat environments. The F-15EX self-protection system is estimated to cost $7.5 million, and the Sniper Targeting pod costs more than $1.7 million per jet, making the total cost for a combat configured F-15EX $19 million more than a fully combat configured F-35A. And none of those other jets would last for a day in a modern-day high-threat environment.
    4. Competition has increased performance and driven down costs. The total price of an F-35 is comprised of the aircraft, assembled and produced by Lockheed Martin, and the F135 engine produced by Pratt and Whitney—plus profit. When a Northrup Grumman-produced aircraft subcomponent called the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) failed to meet reliability thresholds, that system was replaced with a DAS produced by Raytheon that delivers twice the performance and five times the reliability at a per-unit cost 45 percent lower than the Northrup Grumman model. This switch alone will save the government $3 billion over the life of the program.
    5. Not all manufacturers who help build the F-35 have moved aggressively to reduce costs. Assuming it has stayed on track with Pentagon acquisition estimates, Pratt and Whitney is now delivering F-35 engines for $11.8 million a copy. With production efficiencies, that price was expected to fall to $10.7 million by FY 2025 (FY12 dollars), saving the taxpayer another million dollars per fighter. Unfortunately, without a competitive motor available, Pratt and Whitney has made it clear that further savings are no longer in the cards. The ability to competitively reduce engine cost and improve performance was lost when Congress killed funding for the F-35 alternative engine contract in 2011, leaving Pratt and Whitney as a sole-source supplier with no incentive to reduce its profits.
    6. The F-35A cost per flying hour (CPFH) is falling, but one must wade through Mark Twain’s “lies, damned lies and statistics” to find out how the jet is doing with this often misconstrued metric. CPFH calculations vary significantly between evaluating agencies, but all of them add costs for the F-35 that they do not include for the fourth-generation fighters they compare it to. Electronic countermeasures (ECM) and a precision infra-red targeting system are built into the F-35, elevating its maintenance requirements and ultimately its CPFH. Fighters like the F-15E and E(X), F-16C and FA-18E require additional equipment like external pods to give them similar capabilities but, because they are not “built in,” the pod’s acquisition price is not factored into those fourth-generation jets’ purchase price, nor are maintenance costs for those systems included in their CPFH calculations.
    CPFH calculations by the Defense Department Selective Acquisition Reports (SARs) still benefit fourth generation systems. They show the F-35A CPFH has dropped from $32,554 an hour in 2014 to $30,137 in 2018 (FY 2012 dollars). When you consider maintenance for the F-35’s targeting and ECM systems are included in that price, it begins to compare much more favorably with the F-16 CPFH of $25,541 (FY12 dollars) as well as the elusive CPFH for the F-15E and its sibling the F-15E(X). Time will tell if the F-35 CPFH make it down to the target of $25,000, but if Lockheed-Martin’s work reducing the F-35A’s cost can be used as a guide, the jet’s CPFH may very well fall below the historic cost for the F-15E (and F-15EX) and compete favorably with the F-16C—even with CPFH calculations that favor those jets.
    7. Mission capable (MC) rates for the F-35 rose considerably over the last year, but they are still below the 80 percent mission capable threshold set for the fleet by Secretary of Defense in 2018. According to Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, director of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), the MC rate rose to 73.2 percent in 2019—up 18.5 percentage points from the previous year. With priority for parts, forward-deployed F-35 combat squadrons were able to sustain an 89% MC rate, which means parts availability for the fleet is still an issue.
    8. Depots limit F-35 mission capability. When an F-35 component fails, it is replaced with an available spare, and the failed part is shipped to a depot for repair. A total of 68 depots are required to effectively sustain the F-35 weapons system, but just 30 are up and running and only 11 of those are fully operational. Parts availability for the F-35 will continue to hold down MC rates until all depots are operating at capacity. Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office have accelerated their efforts to get depots up and running and now project that 64 depots will be operational by 2024—five years earlier than the estimated 2029. Assuming funding for parts remains consistent, the parts shortfall will end, allowing fleet-wide F-35 MC rates to meet or exceed 80%.
    9. The Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) for the F-35A is still having problems. The HMDS gives pilots an unparalleled level of situational awareness in combat as it displays all critical flight and weapons systems data on the inside of the pilot’s visor. The image from the system’s built-in night vision camera is also projected onto the visor, as is the image from the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) that automatically tracks and provides vivid cues directly to the pilot on the location of friendly and enemy aircraft. The HMDS is a game-changer in combat, but interface issues with its display have caused pilots to become disoriented when refueling, or while landing the jet at night. Lockheed Martin went to work fixing this system just as soon as pilots flagged it as an urgent operational need, and that fix is currently being fielded for Navy F-35Cs. It may take several years before the HMDS fix makes its way to the Air Force.
    10. The Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) is still too big, slow and suffering too many problems. Every aspect of the F-35A’s maintenance, supply, and operations are managed through the F-35A ALIS. Much like an Apple iPhone Operating System (iOS), ALIS is a computer operating system that holds a conglomeration of 65 applications, sub-programs, or modules. Some were built exclusively for the F-35A; others are commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) programs. The problems arise when digital inputs from either the jet or a more modern ALIS application meet analog inputs or processing from another module. The Department of Defense has elected to replace ALIS with a cloud-based operational data integrated network (ODIN). The new system is designed to decrease workload and increase mission capability rates for all F-35 variants and should begin fielding later this year.
Overall, the F-35A fighter is flying exceptionally well. It now provides the United States with a significant competitive advantage against a peer competitor threat. Shortfalls in repair parts and other smaller issues need to be fixed as soon as possible, but the capabilities that the F-35 provides the nation today along with the dramatic drop in price make Air Force decisions to procure the F-15EX and to not ramp up F-35A procurement very puzzling indeed. The aircraft provides a capability America needs to engage in strategic competition.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2020, 03:50
by Corsair1963
This plus ever and ever tighter US Defense Budgets. Is going to make the case for acquiring the F-15EX harder and harder with time...


"IMHO"

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2020, 14:46
by count_to_10
As good a place to put this as any, I guess:
https://issuesinsights.com/2020/03/18/t ... onception/
It’s a weak rehash of outdated and ignorant complaints that ends with “buy new F-15’s”.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2020, 22:57
by archeman
count_to_10 wrote:As good a place to put this as any, I guess:
https://issuesinsights.com/2020/03/18/t ... onception/
It’s a weak rehash of outdated and ignorant complaints that ends with “buy new F-15’s”.


This guys summary at the end explains why we don't let these people make decisions:

Each branch of the military would best offer its own, next generation, high-tech fighter plane. That can include fully updated F-15X fighter jets, and other new jets supplementing the capabilities of any F-35s that make it into the force. That would best ensure Reagan’s Peace Through Strength, discouraging all potential enemies from even trying to mess with the most advanced, high-tech, modern American military. (655 words).

Peter Ferrara is the Dunn Liberty Fellow in Economics at the King’s College in New York, and a senior fellow at the National Tax Limitation Foundation


    * I thought this Peter J. Ferrara guy was a "Fellow in Economics" -- Why would you think we could afford for each branch of the US military to develop it's own Next Generation Fighter R&D then Production contracts AND continue some level of F-35 production? That is not well thought through. What about all the other countries that are buying the F-35? Do they and their military services get tossed out with the trash?
    * Why does he think that F-15X is a Next Generation Fighter? It's the same F-15 we are selling to the Gulf states right now.
    * Invoking Reagan's name does not give you instant respectability from defense minded folks. Good ideas will.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2020, 23:39
by zhangmdev
That would best include the Pentagon’s high-tech Maginot Line, the F-35,


Acturally the Maginot Line worked as expected. (Far more wasteful was the French Navy.) This guy just repeated the usual trope.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 02:52
by weasel1962
I wouldn't have bothered to post the Ferrara hack-job. Its literally inaccurate from the first sentence to the very last, taking quotes out of context. In the days of joint ops, here is someone advocating the exact opposite without any understanding of how warfare has evolved. Pure waste of time reading it.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 08:05
by hornetfinn
zhangmdev wrote:
That would best include the Pentagon’s high-tech Maginot Line, the F-35,


Acturally the Maginot Line worked as expected. (Far more wasteful was the French Navy.) This guy just repeated the usual trope.


Exactly. It worked extremely well but the problem was that it wasn't as extensive as it should have and also had weak spots that the Germans exploited. So F-35 program should rather be enlarged rather than anything else.

Of course I totally fail to see any resemblance or connection between F-35 program and Maginot Line.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 10:17
by lbk000
hornetfinn wrote:I totally fail to see any resemblance or connection between F-35 program and Maginot Line.

Canada and Belgium are both northern points of failure? :wink:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 11:02
by weasel1962
The author basically advocates an F-15 Schwerpunkt that hits the self-perceived "soft" underbelly of the F-35 program. Not going to happen though. "Northern" failures (pre-empting a Canadian U-turn which may or may not happen) aren't important enough to kill the program.

The only line that counts is the production line that will keep going and going like an energizer battery.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 11:57
by hornetfinn
lbk000 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I totally fail to see any resemblance or connection between F-35 program and Maginot Line.

Canada and Belgium are both northern points of failure? :wink:


LOL, good point! :P

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 13:12
by boogieman
Was over at the F35 and Airshows thread and had a look at this video:

https://youtu.be/G0hWzaKEeZo

Scrolled down to the comments and saw that Kurt Plummer was up to his old tricks:

You're all missing several points.

1. The F-16 can be beaten by the Typhoon, Rafale and Su-27/30/35 and F-22. On a good day, at or below 15K, it can be beaten by either Hornet. To say that the F-16 is matched by the F-35 is not a point of pride. It's performance should never have been the threshold bar for a 21st century replacement.

2. One of the several KPPs the F-35 failed was a promise that the jet would AT LEAST MATCH both the sustained turn capability of the F-16 and the instantaneous (alpha pointing) capability of the F/A-18. It does neither. In a situation where OPEVAL is pass/fail and IOT&E is pass/fix, the F-35 never met a key kinematic KPP.

3. Missiles and sensors drive air combat performance, much like bullets and optics drive the metrics of rifles, far more than physical performance.

Without the AIM-9X, which is fitted SOLELY to an outboard pylon because it cannot be bay launched (rail weapon, not ejector) the F-35 loses it's VLO. Without a close-in weapon, the F-35's superior DAS is pointless as indeed, IMO, the Falcon Knight or Falcon Eye could do 90% of what the DAS does, in air combat, (SAIRST and night time thermal visionics) back in the early 90s and would be vastly more reliable, in the present tense where they are effectively stripping the entire system for an untested alternate in the near term.

4. The true measure of an air combat platform's utility lies in it's energy addition because fights are expected to be won, BVR and the outcome of BVR is determined in the intercept phase whereby you control the geometry of the fight by being supersonic, cold, and warping around to an advantaged shot position whereby you are beyond the threat jet's radar cone and contrail expectation band. Whether the final shot is taken BVR or WVR, properly accomplished air combat is a murder, not a duel and the F-35 simply lacks the ability get supersonic, quickly, hold it outside of burner, or get high enough to avoid drawing cons which will increasingly be visible themselves, to modern optronics, even at night.

The F-16C.50, clean at about 30K, has a 29 second acceleration from Mach .85 to 1.2. The F/A-18C with GE-402 engines does the same in about 34 seconds. Again, this is nothing special, today, but formed the KPP range of sprint performances that it was expected the F-35A would fall between. And yet the Lightning is about 8 seconds lagged. The F-35B is 16 seconds slower to accelerate and the F-35C is some 43 seconds longer accelerating than either of the aircraft they are expected to replace.

This is a crucial difference in a jet which is bay-limited to the number and size (depth as well as length) of any BVR weapons it carries and whose 110lb/sqft wingloading prevents it from fighting in the 35-40,000ft regime where the F-22, J-20 and Su-57 are quite comfortable and have a 50% missile pole leverage, at Mach 1.4.

Perhaps most importantly, as the global standard for QWIP staring focal plane array IRST continues to become more and more normed around multi and even hyperspectral pixel densities in excess of 1,500X1,500 detectors, the ability to use burner to achieve and hold supersonic speeds will become less and less tactically relevant. You will be detected in excess of 50nm FQ and 80nm RQ and a high heat signature jet with no RCS return is as good as an IFF tag.

Where having a supersonic shock, prebuilt on the missile as it exits the airframe is equal to about 20% greater missile range in the 1.2 @ FL250 height band, having NO supersonics performance makes the fighter highly questionable in it's effectiveness, especially if it's operating on the wrong side of a 900nm combat radius and has no fuel to spare for dogfighting.

5. Fuel burn and flat-plating the airframe are also problems with dogfighting in a radar controlled threat airspace but when the shot goes wrong and you are nose on committed, sometimes there is no choice. In this, it is true that the F-16 is alpha limited (27.5, clean) and that this number drops a fair bit when cheek and belly stations are loaded. While the F-35 had a nominal ~60` capability and can combine this with helicopter yaw turns and the like. Does this matter? No.

First because, to put significant lateral loads on the pilot is unwise in either case and to be sufficiently slow to do what is shown by the F-35 is to have ZERO energy to defeat a Pyrrhic return shot from either the intended target or an outsider shooter threat. While HOBS capable missiles increasingly don't need the pointed-on sweetening of the shot.

You will notice that the F-35 loses altitude, significantly, in it's pedal turn and realizing that the majority of a stealth assets flight time is going to be at or above 25,000ft, to extend range, remain outside of SHORADS threat bubbles and provide best sensor slant, this becomes a significant vulnerability.

At FL250, the air is half as dense as it is at sea level. Just to maintain MINIMUM beyond-stall lift on the jet requires it to be a third again as fast. This rapidly develops into a situation where there is too much entrance G for the pilot or airframe (note, lateral loads are dangerous for heavy A2G munitions, whether they are freestream or in a weapons bay).

Secondly, the F-35 is going to be fighting at night, under conditions where it is likely carrying only 2 AIM-120 and even if those AMRAAMs are Deltas (with significantly more close-in dogfight performance), it will be foolish to withhold shots until after the radar merge at 10-15nm. If it misses with those shots, at these distances, it should separate and extend. Something which is made easy if the section wingman is providing midcourse guidance updates and the parent fighter can roll and displace, massively, to leave the fight plane.

Fighting at night pushes spatial disorientation and rapid target loss and while DAS can compensate for the latter, it is unwise to get into falling leaf, spinning horizon, conditions 'on purpose', in the primary advantaged condition F-35s can be expected to be fighting an air war with an active DCA threat component: stealth in low visibility.

Third, while some unfortunately equate high alpha with 'agility' as the ability to shoot your own a$$ off under complete control, the reality is that agile is to maneuverable as quick is to fast.

And this is particularly crucial in evaluating the F-16 vs. F-35 comparison in that the F-16 always has roll authority with which to reverse it's loaded turn. And always has speed of entry and sustained energy within the turn to not bleed everything when it does cut back.

This is largely because of the way the RSS design condition sets CofL and CofG harmoniously, allowing a nominally 300ft2 wing area to add another 150ft2 of stab lift as the wing LEF deflect upwards and the tails trim neutral, to supply added lift.


On the F-35, the need to maintain a neutral CL trim displacement in supporting a large weapons bay and STOVL meant small, straight, wings, near the CG.

And for this airframe configuration to not completely ruin transonics performance meant using the intake trunking and belly as 1G neutral lift augments, similar to fat LEX and pushing the heavy engine as far back as possible so that the wings may be similarly aft set and not totally screw up the area ruling.

Unfortunately, this then means that as the alpha comes up the tails immediately have to dig to keep it that way while the intakes and weapons bay area rapidly transition from thick airfoil to speed brake as the variance in effective AOA between the aft set wing and the forebody is considerable.

So that, instead of a complimentary lift curve in which the stabs are free to add roll authority as needed, you have a divergent set of curves which effects additive alpha capability as the authority inherent to the aft controls has to be bled off, more and more, just to keep the nose going up and the glowie bit pointed aft.

The result, as reported by F-35 TPs, is that the jet has a low-transitional-high (blended) AOA limit on the order of 18-20`, 23-25`, 27-30` whereas most modern jets don't begin to seriously self-limit maneuver authority in the high regime now until 35` or more.

While the F-35 can get there as a function of absolute alpha rates, by the time it does so, it's a monorail with the roll and pitch authority to rapidly un-point and recover the jet very slow. This is unacceptable as the standard defensive tactic is to simply roll under, tuck and reverse to spit the other jet out and the F-35 is going to lag on this, so badly that it cannot maintain a dominant position as everything is dedicated to stabilizing the achieved alpha.

Which is why the F-35 shown in the video, while it has similar or even greater total alpha range (square turn) for a given speed, shows an overall less fluid and more sluggish ability to change it's axis of maneuver in a fashion that can best be described as plodding.

Again, the F-35 Test Pilot report which highlights these shortcomings is quite explicit: In the simplest of BFM maneuvering, he not only could not prosecute an F-16D with a GE-100 engine and two wing bubbles but he could not prevent the subsequent threat reversal into his own six.

Where his fancy helmet sight and DAS were useless, due to the tight confines of the canopy and the bulky headrest which kept him from even SEEING the threat to maneuvering, defensively, against the Viper.

Subsequent OFPs have supposedly been released which open out the F-35's performance envelope from an F-101 level 4.5G sustained to something nearer 7Gs, at primary fight heights (the JSF also has severe low level performance limits, thanks to thermal issues).

This is about right for a 470sqft wing maneuvering in the 20-25K region, subsonic.

The F-22 does better, only because it is supercruise capable of generating four or five times the lift off an 840sqft wing area while exploiting TVC to max pitch rates.

The fact remains that the F-35 is not really competitive with ANY fourth gen fighter (excepting, perhaps, the Super Hornet) in the primary regime where it can be expected to fight, as nearly every other jet has the same or similar alpha limits, equal or better thrust to weight and vastly superior, canard-delta, aerodynamics for the transonic fight.

With appropriate munitions development (Peregrine/CUDA, AARGM-ER, JAGM-F, SPEAR 3) the F-35 will likely make a pretty good weasel airframe it has the ELS and global thermals to do so. It will never be, even with sidekick and LREW/JATM, more than an adequate air to air fighter.

And people who try to sell a long range multisensor interdiction platform as a DCA fighter because that is what their country needs are doing themselves and their nation's defense no honest benefit, whatsoever. The F-35 will remain exceptionally costly to maintain, throughout it's service life. Partially do to the added systems requirements for stealth and partially because hey, it's Lockheed and they have been screwing customers since the F-104 days.

But in terms of aerodynamic performance, what counts is the ability to overcome inertia in rapidly transitioning between maneuver modes across a wide speed band (thrust loading) and altitude regime (wing loading) to be able to rapidly change-state so as to drag the fight to a point on the EM globals where you can achieve dominance over the enemy airframe.

The F-35 doesn't have this and, as far as I can tell, it does not have a lot of the systems it needs (dense kinematic EXCM/MSDM and TADIRCM steerable dazzlers plus multishot missile loads with full 2-way datalinks and MEMS seekers) to be able to compensate for it's innate, kinematic, shortcomings.

I simply don't have the expertise to respond to the claims on kinematics but I am sure there are members on here that do. Have at it folks!

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 14:01
by juretrn
Yeah, yeah, the F-35 is the worst thing since the bubonic plague, we've all heard it before :roll:
While it may not be the best dogfighter out there, it's more than good enough to bring its advantage in sensors and stealth to bear on unsuspecting opponents. Gotta love how the author (as always with F-35 haters) just brushes that off as irrelevant.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 16:12
by quicksilver
...and the fan boy flame wars go on and on and on and on — like one of those gag birthday candles you can never blow out. Ya just gotta let them burn themselves out. And stop slipping them TV dinners under the door.

Many are masters of the old saying, “...if you can’t blind them with your brilliance, baffle ‘em with your bs.” Throw in some technical or pseudo-technical jargon and some semantic excess and you can live for an internet eternity.

And then we have non sequitur — in this case the writer contradicts himself in successive paragraphs —

“3. Missiles and sensors drive air combat performance, much like bullets and optics drive the metrics of rifles, far more than physical performance...
4. The true measure of an air combat platform's utility lies in it's energy addition...”

Bottom line? Don’t waste your time w ‘em.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 17:06
by mixelflick
Now I don't know what to believe about the F-35. It's not just this guys points.... it was the F-35 pilot interview on TFPP a few weeks back. It didn't sound like either that the F-35 could "rate like a Viper, and radius like a SH". Nor did I hear anything about its superior acceleration. That stand in stark contrast to what many F-35 supporters contend here. So which is it?

"Super maneuverable strike fighter with power to spare" or...
"Sort of maneuverable strike fighter, that's somewhat sluggish (that was the word used in TFPP)

NOTE: I don't doubt the bottom line - The F-35 will kill almost everything long before it knows its there.

I just want to know the truth as to its kinematic performance..

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 17:46
by quicksilver
You’ve been around here for years, mix. If you haven’t figured it out by now, nothing is going to convince you.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 18:20
by wrightwing
When you have countless pilots with 1000s of hours in F-15/16/18/22, Typhoon, etc... say how impressed they are by how the F-35 flies, you should probably listen to them, and not lone anecdotes.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 18:39
by charlielima223
mixelflick wrote:Now I don't know what to believe about the F-35. It's not just this guys points.... it was the F-35 pilot interview on TFPP a few weeks back. It didn't sound like either that the F-35 could "rate like a Viper, and radius like a SH". Nor did I hear anything about its superior acceleration. That stand in stark contrast to what many F-35 supporters contend here. So which is it?

"Super maneuverable strike fighter with power to spare" or...
"Sort of maneuverable strike fighter, that's somewhat sluggish (that was the word used in TFPP)

NOTE: I don't doubt the bottom line - The F-35 will kill almost everything long before it knows its there.

I just want to know the truth as to its kinematic performance..


I think the better way to answer your question is how will the pilot use their aircraft. You will always hear and read about F-22 pilots extolling the kinematic capabilities of the Raptor. When compared to other western fighter aircraft the F-22 is second to none. Yet there has been instances where the F-22 in ACM when the F-22 got defeated. Much like in the TFPP F-22 ep where the guest speaker talked about how anViper got the better of him because of the way he initially tried to fight the Viper.

The guest speaker of on TFPP F-35 ep did mention briefly about other pilots experience doing BFM and ACM in the F-35. He remarked that initially the veteran Viper pilots flew the F-35 like it was their old Viper. Then they gradually started to use more pedal input and greater AoA abilities to their advantage.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 19:49
by quicksilver
charlielima223 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Now I don't know what to believe about the F-35. It's not just this guys points.... it was the F-35 pilot interview on TFPP a few weeks back. It didn't sound like either that the F-35 could "rate like a Viper, and radius like a SH". Nor did I hear anything about its superior acceleration. That stand in stark contrast to what many F-35 supporters contend here. So which is it?

"Super maneuverable strike fighter with power to spare" or...
"Sort of maneuverable strike fighter, that's somewhat sluggish (that was the word used in TFPP)

NOTE: I don't doubt the bottom line - The F-35 will kill almost everything long before it knows its there.

I just want to know the truth as to its kinematic performance..


I think the better way to answer your question is how will the pilot use their aircraft. You will always hear and read about F-22 pilots extolling the kinematic capabilities of the Raptor. When compared to other western fighter aircraft the F-22 is second to none. Yet there has been instances where the F-22 in ACM when the F-22 got defeated. Much like in the TFPP F-22 ep where the guest speaker talked about how anViper got the better of him because of the way he initially tried to fight the Viper.

The guest speaker of on TFPP F-35 ep did mention briefly about other pilots experience doing BFM and ACM in the F-35. He remarked that initially the veteran Viper pilots flew the F-35 like it was their old Viper. Then they gradually started to use more pedal input and greater AoA abilities to their advantage.


These kind of thoughts have all been explained many, many times before. It is a well-trafficked rabbit hole.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 20:07
by mixelflick
quicksilver wrote:You’ve been around here for years, mix. If you haven’t figured it out by now, nothing is going to convince you.


Well from what I've seen, you can find anecdotes from different places/people to support either view. I have heard from F-16 pilots though, who could not "see" it on radar from 12 miles, and that was AFTER ground control told them where to look! That and the other pilots surveyed who almost unanimously picked it to go to war in.

Still, I'd love to really stick it to guys like this who painted it otherwise with a broad brush. Will be nice when it gets a more powerful engine, sidekick, Perigrine etc. or even better, when it's combat record reflects what was seen during Red Flag. I wouldn't want to be flying against it, that's for sure.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 20:11
by quicksilver
There has been more than enough discussion here for anyone to come to their own conclusion(s) about the jet. Ultimately, you have to decide what you want to believe and form your own opinion accordingly.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2020, 22:36
by boogieman
mixelflick wrote:Now I don't know what to believe about the F-35. It's not just this guys points.... it was the F-35 pilot interview on TFPP a few weeks back. It didn't sound like either that the F-35 could "rate like a Viper, and radius like a SH". Nor did I hear anything about its superior acceleration. That stand in stark contrast to what many F-35 supporters contend here. So which is it?

"Super maneuverable strike fighter with power to spare" or...
"Sort of maneuverable strike fighter, that's somewhat sluggish (that was the word used in TFPP)

NOTE: I don't doubt the bottom line - The F-35 will kill almost everything long before it knows its there.

I just want to know the truth as to its kinematic performance..

Yes I noticed that as well. I found his input puzzling, as he described the F35's high alpha performance as more comparable to that of a Strike Eagle than a Hornet. This is despite the fact that we have seen the F35 perform some of the Hornet's best tricks in the high alpha/low speed regime (pirouette, square loop, power slides, low speed/high alpha pass). These are all things that the Mud Hen simply can't do. My hunch is that he was being particularly conservative in his input, but why that was the case is hard to know. IIRC he was involved as a test pilot, not in an operational squadron, so maybe he didn't get much time exploring everything the 3F+ jets can do.

As for Kurt's trademark diatribe, my take away is that it is very entrenched in 4th gen thinking. That is to view BVR/ACM as a race for high energy state to both impart said energy into missile shots (maximise pK via added missile speed and range), while also using it to conduct defensive and subsequent offensive maneuvers. This is all well and good when all else is equal (eg. detection and engagement range), but with the F35 it isn't (by design).

The reality is that for the next ~20 years the OPFOR air threat will overwhelmingly consist of evolved Flanker derivatives, followed by J10, J20, Foxhound and Fulcrum with Su57 likely somewhere off in the distance. The vast majority of these will have parasitic drag issues in combat. On top of this you are also looking at threat aircraft that probably don't have the sensors to independently complete a reliable/viable kill chain on the F35 until somewhere in the neighbourhood of ~10nm. Even if it is double that (generous) you have still turned the BVR fight on its head, because zooming up to Mach1.5+ at 50k feet won't mean squat if the F35 sitting at M0.9 and 40k feet still has you locked and inside its AIM120/260 NEZ before you can shoot at it. On top of this, at such high altitude and speed OPFOR are stuck on a high speed train track with few available options for defensive maneuver (turn circle the size of Texas) while the F35 can crank away at a moment's notice. The fight becomes less about who can get/stay more energetic (4th gen) and more about who can take their high pK/NEZ missile shot first, using the combination of VLO and co-operative EW rather than raw kinematics to get there (5th gen).

The main point Kurt may have here is that the F35 does need to use AB to break the Mach barrier & stay above it for prolonged periods. It would certainly be handy for the F35 to be able to launch its missiles at or around Mach 1.2 without risking detection from enemy IRST due to AB use but alas, nobody's perfect! :wink: Even so, I suspect there is a tactical workaround if a supersonic AAM shot is desired. Simply speed up to desired Mach using AB from outside OPFOR IRST range, then back off to mil power to coast into the missile shot(s). The jet will undoubtedly bleed some of the additional speed once AB is extinguished, but with an airframe as slick as the F35's, I suspect it should hold much of it for the last few dozen nm until missile launch. Kind of reminiscent of the way Indian Fulcrum pilots would back off the throttle as they approached the merge to reduce the visual signature of their smokey engines. Now couple the above with an off-axis approach vector to place the F35(s) outside the threat IRST FOV altogether and you have yourself a routinely bad day for red air.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2020, 06:04
by eloise
boogieman wrote:Was over at the F35 and Airshows thread and had a look at this video:

https://youtu.be/G0hWzaKEeZo

Scrolled down to the comments and saw that Kurt Plummer was up to his old tricks:

You're all missing several points.

1. The F-16 can be beaten by the Typhoon, Rafale and Su-27/30/35 and F-22. On a good day, at or below 15K, it can be beaten by either Hornet. To say that the F-16 is matched by the F-35 is not a point of pride. It's performance should never have been the threshold bar for a 21st century replacement.

2. One of the several KPPs the F-35 failed was a promise that the jet would AT LEAST MATCH both the sustained turn capability of the F-16 and the instantaneous (alpha pointing) capability of the F/A-18. It does neither. In a situation where OPEVAL is pass/fail and IOT&E is pass/fix, the F-35 never met a key kinematic KPP.

3. Missiles and sensors drive air combat performance, much like bullets and optics drive the metrics of rifles, far more than physical performance.

Without the AIM-9X, which is fitted SOLELY to an outboard pylon because it cannot be bay launched (rail weapon, not ejector) the F-35 loses it's VLO. Without a close-in weapon, the F-35's superior DAS is pointless as indeed, IMO, the Falcon Knight or Falcon Eye could do 90% of what the DAS does, in air combat, (SAIRST and night time thermal visionics) back in the early 90s and would be vastly more reliable, in the present tense where they are effectively stripping the entire system for an untested alternate in the near term.

4. The true measure of an air combat platform's utility lies in it's energy addition because fights are expected to be won, BVR and the outcome of BVR is determined in the intercept phase whereby you control the geometry of the fight by being supersonic, cold, and warping around to an advantaged shot position whereby you are beyond the threat jet's radar cone and contrail expectation band. Whether the final shot is taken BVR or WVR, properly accomplished air combat is a murder, not a duel and the F-35 simply lacks the ability get supersonic, quickly, hold it outside of burner, or get high enough to avoid drawing cons which will increasingly be visible themselves, to modern optronics, even at night.

The F-16C.50, clean at about 30K, has a 29 second acceleration from Mach .85 to 1.2. The F/A-18C with GE-402 engines does the same in about 34 seconds. Again, this is nothing special, today, but formed the KPP range of sprint performances that it was expected the F-35A would fall between. And yet the Lightning is about 8 seconds lagged. The F-35B is 16 seconds slower to accelerate and the F-35C is some 43 seconds longer accelerating than either of the aircraft they are expected to replace.

This is a crucial difference in a jet which is bay-limited to the number and size (depth as well as length) of any BVR weapons it carries and whose 110lb/sqft wingloading prevents it from fighting in the 35-40,000ft regime where the F-22, J-20 and Su-57 are quite comfortable and have a 50% missile pole leverage, at Mach 1.4.

Perhaps most importantly, as the global standard for QWIP staring focal plane array IRST continues to become more and more normed around multi and even hyperspectral pixel densities in excess of 1,500X1,500 detectors, the ability to use burner to achieve and hold supersonic speeds will become less and less tactically relevant. You will be detected in excess of 50nm FQ and 80nm RQ and a high heat signature jet with no RCS return is as good as an IFF tag.

Where having a supersonic shock, prebuilt on the missile as it exits the airframe is equal to about 20% greater missile range in the 1.2 @ FL250 height band, having NO supersonics performance makes the fighter highly questionable in it's effectiveness, especially if it's operating on the wrong side of a 900nm combat radius and has no fuel to spare for dogfighting.

5. Fuel burn and flat-plating the airframe are also problems with dogfighting in a radar controlled threat airspace but when the shot goes wrong and you are nose on committed, sometimes there is no choice. In this, it is true that the F-16 is alpha limited (27.5, clean) and that this number drops a fair bit when cheek and belly stations are loaded. While the F-35 had a nominal ~60` capability and can combine this with helicopter yaw turns and the like. Does this matter? No.

First because, to put significant lateral loads on the pilot is unwise in either case and to be sufficiently slow to do what is shown by the F-35 is to have ZERO energy to defeat a Pyrrhic return shot from either the intended target or an outsider shooter threat. While HOBS capable missiles increasingly don't need the pointed-on sweetening of the shot.

You will notice that the F-35 loses altitude, significantly, in it's pedal turn and realizing that the majority of a stealth assets flight time is going to be at or above 25,000ft, to extend range, remain outside of SHORADS threat bubbles and provide best sensor slant, this becomes a significant vulnerability.

At FL250, the air is half as dense as it is at sea level. Just to maintain MINIMUM beyond-stall lift on the jet requires it to be a third again as fast. This rapidly develops into a situation where there is too much entrance G for the pilot or airframe (note, lateral loads are dangerous for heavy A2G munitions, whether they are freestream or in a weapons bay).

Secondly, the F-35 is going to be fighting at night, under conditions where it is likely carrying only 2 AIM-120 and even if those AMRAAMs are Deltas (with significantly more close-in dogfight performance), it will be foolish to withhold shots until after the radar merge at 10-15nm. If it misses with those shots, at these distances, it should separate and extend. Something which is made easy if the section wingman is providing midcourse guidance updates and the parent fighter can roll and displace, massively, to leave the fight plane.

Fighting at night pushes spatial disorientation and rapid target loss and while DAS can compensate for the latter, it is unwise to get into falling leaf, spinning horizon, conditions 'on purpose', in the primary advantaged condition F-35s can be expected to be fighting an air war with an active DCA threat component: stealth in low visibility.

Third, while some unfortunately equate high alpha with 'agility' as the ability to shoot your own a$$ off under complete control, the reality is that agile is to maneuverable as quick is to fast.

And this is particularly crucial in evaluating the F-16 vs. F-35 comparison in that the F-16 always has roll authority with which to reverse it's loaded turn. And always has speed of entry and sustained energy within the turn to not bleed everything when it does cut back.

This is largely because of the way the RSS design condition sets CofL and CofG harmoniously, allowing a nominally 300ft2 wing area to add another 150ft2 of stab lift as the wing LEF deflect upwards and the tails trim neutral, to supply added lift.


On the F-35, the need to maintain a neutral CL trim displacement in supporting a large weapons bay and STOVL meant small, straight, wings, near the CG.

And for this airframe configuration to not completely ruin transonics performance meant using the intake trunking and belly as 1G neutral lift augments, similar to fat LEX and pushing the heavy engine as far back as possible so that the wings may be similarly aft set and not totally screw up the area ruling.

Unfortunately, this then means that as the alpha comes up the tails immediately have to dig to keep it that way while the intakes and weapons bay area rapidly transition from thick airfoil to speed brake as the variance in effective AOA between the aft set wing and the forebody is considerable.

So that, instead of a complimentary lift curve in which the stabs are free to add roll authority as needed, you have a divergent set of curves which effects additive alpha capability as the authority inherent to the aft controls has to be bled off, more and more, just to keep the nose going up and the glowie bit pointed aft.

The result, as reported by F-35 TPs, is that the jet has a low-transitional-high (blended) AOA limit on the order of 18-20`, 23-25`, 27-30` whereas most modern jets don't begin to seriously self-limit maneuver authority in the high regime now until 35` or more.

While the F-35 can get there as a function of absolute alpha rates, by the time it does so, it's a monorail with the roll and pitch authority to rapidly un-point and recover the jet very slow. This is unacceptable as the standard defensive tactic is to simply roll under, tuck and reverse to spit the other jet out and the F-35 is going to lag on this, so badly that it cannot maintain a dominant position as everything is dedicated to stabilizing the achieved alpha.

Which is why the F-35 shown in the video, while it has similar or even greater total alpha range (square turn) for a given speed, shows an overall less fluid and more sluggish ability to change it's axis of maneuver in a fashion that can best be described as plodding.

Again, the F-35 Test Pilot report which highlights these shortcomings is quite explicit: In the simplest of BFM maneuvering, he not only could not prosecute an F-16D with a GE-100 engine and two wing bubbles but he could not prevent the subsequent threat reversal into his own six.

Where his fancy helmet sight and DAS were useless, due to the tight confines of the canopy and the bulky headrest which kept him from even SEEING the threat to maneuvering, defensively, against the Viper.

Subsequent OFPs have supposedly been released which open out the F-35's performance envelope from an F-101 level 4.5G sustained to something nearer 7Gs, at primary fight heights (the JSF also has severe low level performance limits, thanks to thermal issues).

This is about right for a 470sqft wing maneuvering in the 20-25K region, subsonic.

The F-22 does better, only because it is supercruise capable of generating four or five times the lift off an 840sqft wing area while exploiting TVC to max pitch rates.

The fact remains that the F-35 is not really competitive with ANY fourth gen fighter (excepting, perhaps, the Super Hornet) in the primary regime where it can be expected to fight, as nearly every other jet has the same or similar alpha limits, equal or better thrust to weight and vastly superior, canard-delta, aerodynamics for the transonic fight.

With appropriate munitions development (Peregrine/CUDA, AARGM-ER, JAGM-F, SPEAR 3) the F-35 will likely make a pretty good weasel airframe it has the ELS and global thermals to do so. It will never be, even with sidekick and LREW/JATM, more than an adequate air to air fighter.

And people who try to sell a long range multisensor interdiction platform as a DCA fighter because that is what their country needs are doing themselves and their nation's defense no honest benefit, whatsoever. The F-35 will remain exceptionally costly to maintain, throughout it's service life. Partially do to the added systems requirements for stealth and partially because hey, it's Lockheed and they have been screwing customers since the F-104 days.

But in terms of aerodynamic performance, what counts is the ability to overcome inertia in rapidly transitioning between maneuver modes across a wide speed band (thrust loading) and altitude regime (wing loading) to be able to rapidly change-state so as to drag the fight to a point on the EM globals where you can achieve dominance over the enemy airframe.

The F-35 doesn't have this and, as far as I can tell, it does not have a lot of the systems it needs (dense kinematic EXCM/MSDM and TADIRCM steerable dazzlers plus multishot missile loads with full 2-way datalinks and MEMS seekers) to be able to compensate for it's innate, kinematic, shortcomings.

I simply don't have the expertise to respond to the claims on kinematics but I am sure there are members on here that do. Have at it folks!

1) Typhoon, Rafale, Su-27/30/35 can also be beaten by F-16 though, so they are on equal footing. F-16 acceleration in dogfight regime is in fact better than all but the typhoon and its roll rate are likely the best among those.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/0 ... en_by_f16/

2) F-35 can't match the sustain turn rate of a clean F-16, unfortunately, a clean F-16 is quite useless as it has nothing to defend itself. F-35 has better nose pointing than F-18 though. Nevertheless, F-35 has better ITR than F-16 and better STR than F-18 and better acceleration than both at dogfighting speed.

3) F-35 doesn't lose VLO with external AIM-9, the weapon certainly increase the total RCS, however the RCS is still hundred times smaller than a clean 4 generation aircraft, the launched were designed to have lower RCS than conventional launcher as well:
Image
Secondly, Falcon eye doesn't do 90 % the task of DAS, not even remotely close in fact. Falcon eye is a nose low-resolution IIR sensor without LRF, with the only role of helping the pilot get rid of the Night navigation binocular while DAS is a group of 6 high resolution IIR sensor with automatic target tracking and classification capability. Compare them is basically the same as comparing an Iphone X and Nokia 1120
s-l1600.jpg



4) The outcome of BVR combat is dictated by the information available to the pilot. This has been shown plenty of time in history, Mig-25 can fly far higher, far faster, than any F-16 and F-15, so how many time have Mig-25 shot down F-15 or F-16? zero time. While F-15, F-16 have shot down Mig-25 a few times. The main advantage of F-35 are stealth, sensor and networking.
F-16 acceleration isn't normal, even now, it is considered as one of the fastest in acceleration, better than Rafale and Su-27/30/35. And there is no such thing as he F/A-18C with GE-402 in production so it is irrelevant.
And wing loading value can't be directly compared like that because these aircraft don't have the same wing shape and wing thickness, F-35 while have higher wing loading, it also has lower wing sweep, so at any AoA, the CL is higher so flying at decently high altitude isn't a very hard task, fighting at 35-45k ft regime should be normal for F-35.
Flying at supersonic speed will give your missile more length, but at the same time will increase your own IR signature and that give enemy chance to detect and attack you from a greater distance.
QWIP isn't all that popular but even if it is, it doesn't get rid of the biggest weak point of IRST, that is they can't measure range without LRF or triangulation and infrared radiation can't go through cloud. LRF range are very short, on the order of 15-20 km for OLS-35. While triangulation requires datalink, without a stealth directional datalink like MADL, you pretty much let everyone know where you are when you use it, good luck turn and burn with Mach 6 SAM.

5) that just a bunch of techno sounding words group together but little fact.
HOBS missile increasing the value of nose pointing ability because sustain turn no longer enough to create enough angle separation to stay outside of missile's FoV. And no pilot start the fight with a post stall maneuver. His condition doesn't make any sense either, why does F-35 carry 2 heavy AG mution and only 2 AMRAAMs ? even if it is doing an air to ground mission, why not an asymmetric load of 2 AIM-132 /AIM-9X on wing tip, 4 AIM-120D and 4 SDB/SPEAR?. If he entered dogfight why not eject the bombs?
Secondly, talking about dogfighting at night? which aircraft can really dogfight at night? Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, F-16, F-15, Su-57 all can't dogfight at night. Because they don't have anything that gives them 360 degrees view like DAS. Don't tell me about DDM-NG, the distorted fish eye view is the last thing you want in a dogfight. So that leaves F-35 and J-20 with night dogfighting ability.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2020, 23:13
by boogieman
Subsequent OFPs have supposedly been released which open out the F-35's performance envelope from an F-101 level 4.5G sustained to something nearer 7Gs, at primary fight heights (the JSF also has severe low level performance limits, thanks to thermal issues).

Can anyone shed any light on this? I vaguely remember there being some heat management issues with the weapons bays at low altitude years ago but haven't heard any updates on if/how it has been addressed.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2020, 23:30
by spazsinbad
Depending upon F-35 Variant the MAX G is 9 for A; 7 for B & 7.5 for C from LM F-35 Fast Facts April 2020: [full int load]

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... l_2020.pdf (2Mb)

IIRC when taxiing in high temps there was a time limit for doors closed due to overheating however AFAIK the issue fixed by wiring changes in bomb bay a long time ago. The F-35A & B variants operate in high temp desert environments today.

Discussion about it here: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=52580 Weapons bay thermal environment 11 Dec 2016

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 00:19
by boogieman
^Thanks Spaz, will have a good look at those.
eloise wrote:3) F-35 doesn't lose VLO with external AIM-9, the weapon certainly increase the total RCS, however the RCS is still hundred times smaller than a clean 4 generation aircraft, the launched were designed to have lower RCS than conventional launcher as well:
Image

TBH I think the AIM9X-ruins-RCS thing is a moot point, because AIM120D is a more than capable HOBS missile until the next generation of AAMs comes along. If it was up to me I wouldn't bother with the AIM9X if enemy airpower was expected - the advantage provided by a slick F35's RCS is just that great.

The conversation becomes even more redundant if a missile like Peregrine comes online, and/or if JATM turns out to have VTS Active Nozzle-esque TVC. Imagine a missile with agility as good or better than AIM9X and an NEZ as good or better than Meteor. Now pair that with DAS and CEC via MADL on the F35. What you have there is by far the most dangerous WVR machine on the planet.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 03:38
by spazsinbad
spazsinbad wrote:Depending upon F-35 Variant the MAX G is 9 for A; 7 for B & 7.5 for C from LM F-35 Fast Facts April 2020: [full int load]

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... l_2020.pdf (2Mb)

IIRC when taxiing in high temps there was a time limit for doors closed due to overheating however AFAIK the issue fixed by wiring changes in bomb bay a long time ago. The F-35A & B variants operate in high temp desert environments today.

Discussion about it here: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=52580 Weapons bay thermal environment 11 Dec 2016

Another post to ponder: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25623&p=316585&hilit=skirts#p316585
leads to: Currently there are 12+ pages of articles so this quote is on page 12 (with many more HTML pages subsequently).
Some comments on new claims about the F-35
25 Feb 2016 Morten Klever [Norsk F-35 pilote]

"...It is true that a weapon room so close to the engine places strict demands on the weapons to be carried inside the F-35. However, Berg's discussion of the problem DOT & E describes is misleading. What the report is talking about has nothing to do with the weapons or overheating of the weapons room . The reason is that to facilitate the maintenance of the aircraft, the designers have put in place a number of systems, such as cables, pipes and electronics along the walls of the weapon room. This makes them easier to access for the technicians who no longer have to open a variety of hatches in the hull each time they have access. The test program has now revealed that some of these, which belong to the electronic systems on board, have not been tested and qualified for the temperatures that will occur in the weapon room at high speed at low altitude, or when the aircraft are on the ground with the engine running at ambient temperatures above 32 degrees Celsius. Therefore, the program cannot document that the parts in question will withstand these temperatures. Until such documentation is in place, routines have been introduced in accordance with the "precautionary" principle to ensure that the temperature in the weapon room does not exceed the known and documented maximum temperature. This is therefore not a problem with the aircraft as such, but with the specifications of a single type of parts.

When this new documentation is ready, one of three things will happen. Either it shows that the parts actually withstand the temperatures in the weapon room, and then the current routines will be removed. If they do not, the parts will either be improved to meet the requirements or they will be replaced. If improvements or modifications have to be made, and it turns out that Lockheed Martin has ordered parts that do not meet the requirements, then they will probably also have to cover the cost of this. However, neither Lockheed Martin nor the program can facilitate the requirements of the aircraft without being approved by the partner countries, including Norway.

As long as these routines apply it will affect the use of the aircraft, but the Norwegian F-35 pilots at Luke Air Force Base report that they have so far not experienced that this has placed any restrictions on their training. The reason is that contrary to what Berg claims, these are not moderate conditions, but very high speeds at relatively low altitudes. At these altitudes, it takes a lot of fuel to fly at such a high speed, which is something that is rarely done for extended periods of time, either with the F-35 or today's aircraft. The training with the Norwegian planes therefore continues to the full!"

Source: https://translate.google.com/translate? ... &sandbox=1

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 11:29
by aussiebloke
Now pair that with DAS and CEC via MADL on the F35.


CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) is a specific set of hardware and software used by the USN to share a common radar picture fused from the radar on surface ships and from suitably CEC equipped aircraft. The E-2 Hawkeye is currently the only aircraft so equipped. There are no plans that I am aware of to make the F-35 a CEC platform.

F-35s using MADL to share and fuse sensor data isn’t CEC.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 12:11
by boogieman
aussiebloke wrote:
Now pair that with DAS and CEC via MADL on the F35.


CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) is a specific set of hardware and software used by the USN to share a common radar picture fused from the radar on surface ships and from suitably CEC equipped aircraft. The E-2 Hawkeye is currently the only aircraft so equipped. There are no plans that I am aware of to make the F-35 a CEC platform.

F-35s using MADL to share and fuse sensor data isn’t CEC.

Silly me, I mistook it for a generic term. That said I'm fairly sure they tested pairing an SM6 launch to F35 sensor data not too long ago so perhaps there is some wiggle room there. Thanks for the correction!

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 14:29
by aussiebloke
boogieman wrote:
I'm fairly sure they tested pairing an SM6 launch to F35 sensor data not too long ago so perhaps there is some wiggle room there. Thanks for the correction!


That SM-6 test fell under the umbrella title of NIFC-CA (Naval Integrated Fire Control - Counter Air). The original NIFC-CA kill chain comprised E-2, CEC, Aegis, SM-6. Since then NIFC-CA has evolved to sometimes use elements not possessing CEC and/or not requiring the E-2 Hawkeye.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 14:35
by boogieman
aussiebloke wrote:
boogieman wrote:
I'm fairly sure they tested pairing an SM6 launch to F35 sensor data not too long ago so perhaps there is some wiggle room there. Thanks for the correction!


That SM-6 test fell under the umbrella title of NIFC-CA (Naval Integrated Fire Control - Counter Air). The original NIFC-CA kill chain comprised E-2, CEC, Aegis, SM-6. Since then NIFC-CA has evolved to sometimes use elements not possessing CEC and/or not requiring the E-2 Hawkeye.

Interesting, thanks for the clarification :thumb:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 18:27
by spazsinbad
'eloise' said somewhere in this thread responding to the b/s by 'plummer': viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55446&p=439053&hilit=distorted#p439053
[The very last sentence so scroll down] "...So that leaves F-35 and J-20 with night dogfighting ability."

Leaving aside 'the problem of anyone dogfighting at night' what technology does a J-20 use to dogfight at night please? TIA.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 20:48
by XanderCrews
Don't lose sleep over Kurt Plummer. The guy has good points sometimes and sometimes he doesn't. I've enjoyed a few of his ideas even we differ on the details but you need to understand he is a bit "eccentric"?

I once received a PM from him on a forum he had joined just to message me that I was wrong.

Posts:0

a message in my inbox that was nearly a novel.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

fun ideas sometimes, others he's off his rocker. For as crazy as I have ever been I've never joined a forum to drop into someones message box with how wrong they are in about 2000 words.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 21:33
by spazsinbad
Yeah I've read a few of those thousands of words over the years - mostly on other forums - now probably long gone or I'm long gone. That is one heck of a crack hookah he's asmokin'. SMOKIN' Somebody STOP ME! - THE MASK....

Smokin'! Somebody Stop Me - The MASK-The Great Jim Carrey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAKKqZ6ayEA


Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2020, 22:35
by optimist
You mean sopmething like this from 2006
https://www.defencetalk.com/military/fo ... ents.5580/

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2020, 00:06
by boogieman
optimist wrote:You mean sopmething like this from 2006
https://www.defencetalk.com/military/fo ... ents.5580/

That thread is gold. I particularly liked swerve's character assessment:
He doesn't like F-35. He likes F-22 & UAVs.

I started trying to follow his detailed arguments, but I was put off by his preference for obscure language (acronyms, jargon, circumlocutions, emotionally-charged nicknames, very long sentences ended in mid-flow, & apparently random use of upper case & assorted methods of highlighting), digressions, & determination never to use one word when ten would do. The ratio of information to effort was too low for me to bother with most of his posts. His reaction (hostility & aggression) to an attempt to engage in debate over some of what he'd posted also put me off.

He does the same on other fora. Same message, same style.

The main highlight was watching Kurt get taken to school by gf0012-aust who I believe is a defence pro with experience working on our Collins (and I suspect now Attack/Shortfin Barracuda) class subs. In what capacity I have no idea, I imagine it is all a bit hush-hush. As for Kurt, it is remarkable that he has not budged an inch in 14 years wrt his view that supercruising UCAVs ought to be used instead of JSF - EW/SA/security vulnerabilities be damned. Not unlike Pierre Sprey and his fixation with fielding squillions of radarless, wingtip-sidewinder-toting Vipers in that regard.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2020, 06:43
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Yeah I've read a few of those thousands of words over the years - mostly on other forums - now probably long gone or I'm long gone. That is one heck of a crack hookah he's asmokin'. SMOKIN' Somebody STOP ME! - THE MASK....

Smokin'! Somebody Stop Me - The MASK-The Great Jim Carrey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAKKqZ6ayEA




I took it as a compliment, you havn't really aviation interneted until old Kurt has gone out of his way to tell you "pilot bad!" in a few thousand words or more.

I don't wholly dismiss him. But I about 90 percent dismiss him. I wish he wasn't so painful to read. some of his ideas are at least thought provoking, other times he seems to dig everywhere except where the X is on the treasure map.

optimist wrote:You mean sopmething like this from 2006
<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://www.defencetalk.com/military/forums/t/f-35-first-flight-comments.5580</span>/



Oh man I miss the "classic" JSF days. :mrgreen:

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2020, 16:00
by magitsu
Good tweet thread. David Axe comes clean about how it was to work for shitrag the National Interest.
https://twitter.com/daxe/status/1258159838225465346

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2020, 21:31
by spazsinbad
What a wonderful TWITTER thread, many thanks for this 'eye-opener'. I like that headlines could contradict the story. :doh:
The National Interest Complaint
David Axe 06 May 2020

"As a journalist with nearly 20 years on the military news beat, I've worked for scores of publications and news outlets, big and small. I even created my own news website and ran it for years. I rarely complain in public about my employers. That's about to change. A thread.

In early 2019 I was coming off a bad few years running War Is Boring for a chain of shitty owners. I needed work and The National Interest offered it. A blogging job. The offer was ... fine. But @TheNatlInterest soon proved to be one of the worst outlets I've worked for.

Early on, they wronged others more than they wronged me. @TheNatlInterest routinely stole copyrighted photographs and ran them, without paying, atop blog posts. The folks at @thewarzonewire were major victims of this. I frequently complained and often got shrugs in reply.

@TheNationalInterest also urged its writers to churn out more and more stories without offering more money, effectively turning many of us into laborers in a content sweatshop. Every tried writing four news stories in a single day? It's hard.

And then there were the headlines. @TheNationalInterest editors insisted on writing heds. That's normal. What's not normal is to introduce factual errors into stories by way of sloppy heds. Worse, many of the heds directly contradicted the stories below them.

The headline problem caused me levels of stress I hadn't experienced in a long time. And to be clear: I've been to war. A lot. Daily, I was terrified my name would hang on a story with an untrue hed. I spent hours explaining to readers that heds aren't the fault of the writer.

@TheNatlInterest refused to give me paid time off, even a single day, when my dad died, even though I warned them weeks in advance he was dying and they said they'd have my back. This broke my heart. I filed stories a few hours after my dad's funeral. I'm crying as I type this.

@TheNatlInterest in February 2020 asked me to refer them to writers who could handle the pop-culture beat. I said I could do it. I offered to do an extra two stories per week. After some back and forth, we agreed they'd be at the same pay rate as the military stories.

I had told @TheNatlInterest early on that the most important thing to me was getting paid on time. That builds trust. Trust girds a newsroom. In 2019 @TheNatlInterest was late paying me one time. They apologized and made right.

In mid-April reminded @TheNatlInterest that the end of the month was coming. That's when I would expect pay for work I did in March. April 30 came and went ... no pay.

I quit on the spot, citing the headline problem, the photo theft and the trust issue. A week later, I still haven't been paid. Maybe a check is in the mail and I get it in five minutes. Maybe it's not. That's why trust is important.

@TheNatlInterest told me they would not pay for the pop culture stories I wrote, claiming despite our conversation on the topic that I volunteered, in February, to write those for free. I did not. I have the emails to prove it.

Today I gave up negotiating with my former supervisors and called @TheNatlInterest, asking to speak to someone higher in the organization. I was told I'd receive a call shortly. The call never came.

I have informed @TheNatlInterest I will be filing a small claims in D.C. and registering my complaint with the district consumer department. No response from @TheNatlInterest. I am prepared to spend more money that I recoup if that's what it takes to get them to honor their word.

If they doubt my resolve, then they don't know who I am. The Taliban tried several times to kill me and failed. I got kidnapped by child soldiers in Chad. Fighting @TheNatlInterest is the right thing to do and I'll do it happily.

Here's the kicker. @TheNatlInterest could settle this whole mess by simply mailing my paychecks. And tacking on the roughly $1,800 they owe me for the pop-culture stories.

In other words, I now know the price of @TheNatlInterest's integrity and my own rage. It's about $1,800.

I have accepted a new job at Forbes.

I urge everyone not to read @TheNatlInterest.

Since this thread is such a success, I'll add a few more details. 1. It is policy at @TheNatlInterest to write about the "threat" from Iran even if Iran isn't doing anything threatening. 2. @TheNatlInterest thinks adding "deadly" to the headline guarantees a story will succeed.

End of conversation"

Source: https://twitter.com/daxe/status/1258159838225465346

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2020, 22:06
by boogieman
Explains a lot doesn't it? Then again it doesn't excuse some of the drivel he trotted out at War Is Boring. His click bait anti-F35 crusade being a good example. Just goes to show that ascertaining the truth is of secondary (perhaps tertiary/ancillary) importance to these guys.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2020, 23:33
by magitsu
It leaves out that the The Center for the National Interest's CEO Dimitri Simes is a known as the Russian spy Maria Butina's handler. It might affect how one sees Axe's statement about Iran: "It is policy at @TheNatlInterest to write about the "threat" from Iran even if Iran isn't doing anything threatening."

boogieman wrote:Explains a lot doesn't it? Then again it doesn't excuse some of the drivel he trotted out at War Is Boring. His click bait anti-F35 crusade being a good example. Just goes to show that ascertaining the truth is of secondary (perhaps tertiary/ancillary) importance to these guys.

True, he seems to have been pretty much money not morals driven. Even the dad's death but no free time wasn't enough until he was out of 1800 bucks.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2020, 23:45
by boogieman
magitsu wrote:It leaves out that the The Center for the National Interest's CEO Dimitri Simes is a known as the Russian spy Maria Butina's handler. It might affect how one sees Axe's statement about Iran: "It is policy at @TheNatlInterest to write about the "threat" from Iran even if Iran isn't doing anything threatening."

Amazing (and hardly surprising). You do have to wonder about Axe's own motives in this context.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2020, 23:53
by magitsu
boogieman wrote:Amazing (and hardly surprising). You do have to wonder about Axe's own motives in this context.

Yeah, he's getting too much blind sympathy in the [twitter] thread. Bullshit peddler who finally got hurt enough by his own medium to act. Hope he actually changes course.

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2020, 06:54
by kimjongnumbaun
Can't say I have sympathy for him. I continued to print wrong information even though he knew it was wrong just trying to get money. It hurt his credibility and no major news source would hire him. Gee, a journalist with questionable credibility can't get hired anyone? He continued to destroy his credibility over the years, so why is it a surprise to anyone that he can't land a well paying job, have a large amount of subscribers, or a good interview for a story?

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2020, 22:42
by spazsinbad
This deserves an honorary mention for mainstream BUTTHURTeth MIGHTily quote from supposedly MainstimWhopperValve.
USAF abandons 80% mission capability rate goal after F-22, F-35 and F-16 fail to hit target
12 May 2020 Garrett Reim

"...F-35s and F-22s are notoriously difficult to maintain because of complex designs and stealth body coatings, [not F-35s <sarc on> they go to sea/salt environments just to corrode <sarc off> ] which must be periodically preserved by hand [how much hand labour is required to preserve ALL AIRCRAFT? Do machines do it for others? FUD]. In particular, the relatively new F-35 remains plagued with design and production problems resulting in some 873 deficiencies, according to the DoD’s most-recent Office of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation report, released to the US Congress on 30 January."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 18.article

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2020, 14:57
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:What a wonderful TWITTER thread, many thanks for this 'eye-opener'. I like that headlines could contradict the story. :doh:
The National Interest Complaint
David Axe 06 May 2020

"As a journalist with nearly 20 years on the military news beat


So he's writing comedy now?

Journalism is tough racket these days. it turns out theres plenty of people who just write on the internet for free, and with more accurate information and knowledge as well

Axe and Rogoaway are both lying sensationalist clickbait types.


back in the old days of the chain smoking editor, the demands for proof were much higher, and they relied on sources.

There was a certain hitpiece on the F-35 and I just picked up the phone and called a buddy out in Yuma. in 5 seconds he said "we don't do that! LOL where did you hear that?" So an entire story could have been written truthfully if they had a source.

These guys aren't doing journalism. Theyre taking a series of things they read and twisting it to fit a narrative. at almost no point do they actually talk to anyone with knowledge beyond the regular PR people and flag ranks-- and thats often not direct but taken from someone else story.

not surprisingly copy paste journalism doesn't pay well

look at little old me without any training in journalism touching 2 buttons on my phone and having a more accurate picture than 2 "journalists" combined.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

they can screw themselves with a cactus. theres a reason Fake News is a very real phrase. Fred Reed has written extensively about how journalist have never been that great at covering the military, but the 21st century version is even worse, and thats absolutely terrible because accuracy has never been more important. Thats why I hate them so badly. They've tainted an entire generation with clickbait substituting for reality. misinformation travels and spreads at rates unprecedented in human history. Theyre contribution is "hot fuel trucks!" and "can't dogfight!"

and lastly Axe should know better than to call out an ex employer like that and over 1800? he must be hurting if they never pay him a dime, he's earned it.


Image

the reason Global Trumpism has taken hold is people figured out they were being lied to. Trump was smart enough to point this out and go to war with them. They blew the biggest story of 2016. Which subsequently meant they blew the biggest stories from 2008-2016. Several scandals that would have absolutely rocked the previous administration were set quietly by the wayside and not given any airtime or actively covered up. the irony is the press further gaslighting the public and calling Trump Divisive and cynical, for pointing out they were partisan and biased liars.

Rather cynical to point out how i lie to people

Re: Basement Dweller Butthurt.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2020, 11:25
by optimist
At last a man of honour. David Axe it seems was happy enough for years to write clickbait. As long as they paid him. It seems writing clickbait for free is what done him in. A step too far and brought on moral outrage. He wants what he thinks is due. $1,800 for writing shite. Thank god he has a new clickbait job. I was getting concerned half way through the rant. I wonder if he submitted it to his new boss? He might get paid for it, if he just changed the hed [sic].