F-35: Most Popular Myths

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II

What's your favorite F-35 myth?

The F-35 is too slow!!!
6
14%
The F-35 does not stealth... good.
2
5%
Is Multirole and therefore sucks. Because... just because.
7
17%
The f/a22 is teh better than f35 baby seal in every way ever
4
10%
Will be crush by MIGHTY T-50 PAK FA!!!!1~ also J-20
11
26%
Legacy aircraft are better since they can carry stuff on the outside for some reason.
5
12%
The F-35 is unique in being behind schedule and over budget. (Definitely never happened before)
7
17%
 
Total votes : 42

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 927
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post30 May 2011, 06:14

So I was thinking since we deal with the same F-35 questions every few months, we should talk about some of the really common misconceptions. So, what did I miss in the poll?

The speed thing is my current favorite.

Riddle me this: If the Air Force defines supercruise as cruising above Mach 1.5 without afterburner, and states that the F-35 cannot supercruise, can the F-35 cruise above Mach 1 without afterburner?
Last edited by Prinz_Eugn on 30 May 2011, 19:56, edited 1 time in total.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

svenphantom

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 87
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010, 02:43

Unread post30 May 2011, 07:27

The Stealth and the PAK-FA and J-20 ones are my favorite

Riddle me this:If Sukhoi has admitted it's stealth is worse than F-35's, who do you think will detect first? Sukhoi or F-35?
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 589
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post30 May 2011, 09:55

Nooooooooo!!! You forgot the most common one. 50yo Sa-2's shot down an F-117, so stealth in general does not work....at all. Russia allowed Ufimtsev to give his research to the US because they knew it would result in US trying to build useless fighters which they could not maintain.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post30 May 2011, 13:48

Prinz_Eugn wrote:Riddle me this: If the Air Force defines supercruise as cruising above Mach 1.5 without afterburner, and states that the F-35 cannot supercruise, can the F-35 cruise above Mach 1 without afterburner?


Highly likely. Most the modern Gen IV aircraft can hold MACH 1 without 'burner clean. Even if the need to tap the 'burner briefly to exceed MACH 1 (breaking through it) then pulling the throttle(s) back to cruise above MACH 1. Of course an Eagle or Viper cruising around at MIL without weapons or additional fuel are soft of useless for combat operations....

With the amount of MIL thrust the F135 produces, the exhaust velocity that I'd expect from a PW engine @ that MIL thrust level, and the lack of tanks/stores on the outside of the F-35; I'd expect the F-35 to be able to cruise above MACH 1 at MIL power.

I'd say yes ~ TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1643
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post30 May 2011, 15:47

If TEG says >1.0 is possible, I am inclined to think it is. My favorite Myth it that it wont have First Look capability.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-Project Engineer
Offline

sferrin

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1901
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post30 May 2011, 16:10

Can we only pick one?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

Pecker

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: 03 May 2008, 00:23
  • Location: USA

Unread post30 May 2011, 16:12

There's no 'All of the above' option.....they are all favourites with me!
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post30 May 2011, 17:04

The myth that needs to be debunked is the myth of cost effectiveness. The idea that there is some way to avoid the historical trend of cost increases in weapons is absurd. The F-35 follows the trend from F-104 to F-5 to F-16 to successor. If anything the F-35 is under the curve for costs.

What makes no sense to me about the anti-F-35 thing is that the haters post about the costs one minute, then the next minute they compare its kinematics to an F-22. So which is it? Is it too expensive or not expensive enough? My guess for F-35 range, F-22 VLO, F-35 weapons carriage and F-22 kinematics is something over 30 tons and $200 million each. Then it gets compared to some clean 4th gen or some 4th gen with stores that we have no numbers on.

The whole idea that the DOD applied what used to be called operations research to build something good is foreign to these guys. Anyone could see Mach 2+ was a joke because of lack of fuel and the drag of stores. The F-16 settled for Mach 2 and the F-15 carries a lot of weight to do something it can't do which is exceed Mach 2 in combat. That trend was continued with the F-35.

The other thing about the F-35 debate that I can't understand is something I've posted before. The haters propose situations that are highly unlikely and try to use them to build a case against the aircraft. You see moronic stuff like:
"An F-35 full of fuel has to go WVR against a Typhoon, so it gets shot down."
The problem with that is that some less intelligent F-35 supporter gets sucked in and gets into a debate over how fast ans F-35 can dump fuel etc.

The whole thing revolves around understanding the value of networking which includes sensing the enemy and preventing them from sensing you. Either people understand that or they don't.
Offline

Vipernice

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 21:06

Unread post30 May 2011, 17:06

The maturity and sensibility of this forum is really showing here today. This thread smells of desperation tbh.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post30 May 2011, 19:44

By members of this forum learned a lot, as for instance about speed (Thanks)
So speed has become a myth.


Multirole; don`t understand why this sucks?

The capability, changing from defense to offense, or otherwise, during a same mission,
became highly important during for instance Kosovo, Iraq etc.
The F16, in the right configuration, is one of the best examples showing the importance
of a multi role jet.


Another myth, does the F35 really became that expensive?

- You can’t compare a jet in development with jets already 30 or 40 years in production.
- Compare the prize of a F16, F18 and F15 in 2000 and what they cost in 2011.
- Also a tank in 2000 and 2011, suppose you will pay now twice as much, or more, for a tank.
- Besides, how many do we pay now for a house, or a car, and 11 years ago?


The F-35 is unique in being behind schedule?

- The NH90: First studies: 1980. Start project: 1985. First flight: 1995
- Tigre helicopter: no German Tigre still is operational
- The South African Rooivalk: First operational one? This year, after 25 years
- The Gripen NG? Not a single one has been build yet, only a demonstrator is flying (a rebuild Gripen)
- The Typhoon? In ±2016 they hope to have the Thyphoon flying as a kind of multirole jet.
Last edited by m on 30 May 2011, 20:34, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post30 May 2011, 20:22

Aviation has always been evolution.
The F22 is seen as a revolutionary jet.
Why not in case of the F35 and still favoring older generation jets?

Buying a F15, first ones flying in 2020
Basically one is flying a jet based on a 50 year old jet.
Flying this jet 40 years, means at the end, a jet based on a design 90 years old

That’s like flying a jet in 2000, still based on a design from the Wright brothers.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post30 May 2011, 20:50

svenphantom wrote:Riddle me this:If Sukhoi has admitted it's stealth is worse than F-35's, who do you think will detect first? Sukhoi or F-35?


When more than a dozen PAK-FA aircraft are flying a comprehensive flight test program, and start initial production, then we can try to answer this. To date there are what 2 PAK-FA (T-50s) Flying?

It's like asking if the single SU-47 built could out maneuver an F-16 in combat. Mute point unless you're flying aerobatics at an air show? A single prototype without weapons against a production fighter?

Until the T-50s get weapons and actually have production contracts in place; i find this a mute riddle.

Doesn't matter (at this point) ~ TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

Atle

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 14:04

Unread post31 May 2011, 00:18

Prinz_Eugn wrote:Riddle me this: If the Air Force defines supercruise as cruising above Mach 1.5 without afterburner, and states that the F-35 cannot supercruise, can the F-35 cruise above Mach 1 without afterburner?


As flying at over Mach 1 without AB isn't a threshold or even an objective I see that as very unlikely.
Offline

geogen

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2940
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post31 May 2011, 00:52

Alternatively, this sort of thread does set itself up, I'm sorry...

Myths:
#1 There will be 2,440 F-35s procured by US, 3,000+ world wide.

#2 No need for major legacy upgrade investments, as USAF's F-35A will be FRP in FY16 @ 70+ per yr.

#3 Game changing IOC by 2014, no 2016, no 2018... with anticipated baseline block IV IOC by 2016-2018, no...

#4 No need to maneuver during WVR engagements.

#5 Any potential emerging tactical threats to airspace will simply be handled by the 270-360 F-22 mix..

#6 700nm combat radius on internal fuel.

#7 An F-16-priced aircraft, thus allies around the world will be able to afford it as well as the cheaper sustainment.

#8 Because allies and partners will be able to afford it, 3,000+ will be produced to the benefit of allied industry.

#9 Because 3,000+ F-35s will be produced at the benefit of allied industry, it will be a cheap jet based on scale.

God speed to the recap.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3297
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post31 May 2011, 01:08

It's wingloading is worse than the F-105.
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
- Christopher Hitchens
Next

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest