Forum: General F-35 Forum

twintwinsingle wrote:

svenphantom wrote:

[There's a thing called fuel dumping. They purposely put out fuel to lighten their load. Considering aircraft will drop their extra weight before the merge, that seems very likely the F-35 will do that.

Sven...I fly a jet than can dump fuel, I'm well aware of its existence. Not an option in combat, my friend. It's about 1000 PPM. That isn't going to help you on an intercept. For combat gross weight reduction, you need to be able to hit a button and shed weight. In the F-16's case, 5000lb in about a second. Not to mention, on an intercept you'll be using quite a bit of AB. Aussie F-111's aside, that's less than ideal when you're dumping fuel.

The F-35 can dump 3k lb in ~6 seconds.

F-16.net Sponsor

wrightwing wrote:

jeffb wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

For example having a common aircraft not only across your 3 services, but with your allies, ensures that people will know what is coming …

…especially your enemies.

Name another airframe that keeps one's enemies more off balance, seeing as how this is "such a problem."

Typical answer for a non combat personnel.
You see Ww, if the war worked that way, a typical medieval army wouldn't consist of spearmen, swordsmen, axemen, archers, skirmishers, light cavalry, cavalry archers, heavy cavalry, warmachines (catapults, ballistas, etc...) and other types of troops.
The point is all those units have EXPLOITABLE shortcomings and each is being designed to overlap the other one and to complement each other.
If you ever planned a single sortie (not necessarily a combat one), you'd have a pretty good idea of what's going on here...

Now, there isn't a point in arguing of the quality of a certain type of troops (planes), because, just like Welsh longbowmen cut down French knights (the most fearsome AND UNDEFEATED war machine of the age), F35 WILL be cut to pieces by the opponent and the only question is, what will the USAF be able to field to overlap the F35?
This is a serious tactical and strategical issue and ppl who dismiss it, don't have very much clue of what they are talking about...

...it's astonishing that in the age of Inet and unprecedented knowledge accessibility, we still have comments like this.

popcorn wrote:

Is the unified display you refer to the large flat panel display or the HMD or both?

The F-35's main display (20*8 LCD) can be adapted for many modes and one of them is the main threat display "Tactical Situation Display" (2:49 on the vid). Notice that the TSD is circular, not the traditional cone-shape of a radar-only tracking system. In the attached vid, the TDS shows the location of the wingman, even though they cannot be tracked via radar (not in the forward cone) and thereby need to be tracked by the EODAS.

Here is a good vid showing the F-35's display and it's modes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lPZDc8mzsY

cola wrote:

Typical answer for a non combat personnel.

Believe that if you wish.

Quote:

You see Ww, if the war worked that way, a typical medieval army wouldn't consist of spearmen, swordsmen, axemen, archers, skirmishers, light cavalry, cavalry archers, heavy cavalry, warmachines (catapults, ballistas, etc...) and other types of troops.

It's a serious question. The assertion was made that there was a disadvantage due to the similarities between the 3 models. I'd love to know how aircraft that don't have 3 models are any less disadvantaged with regard to the enemy's knowledge of systems.

Quote:

Now, there isn't a point in arguing of the quality of a certain type of troops (planes), because, just like Welsh longbowmen cut down French knights (the most fearsome AND UNDEFEATED war machine of the age), F35 WILL be cut to pieces by the opponent and the only question is, what will the USAF be able to field to overlap the F35?

F-22?

SpudmanWP wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Is the unified display you refer to the large flat panel display or the HMD or both?

The F-35's main display (20*8 LCD) can be adapted for many modes and one of them is the main threat display "Tactical Situation Display" (2:49 on the vid). Notice that the TSD is circular, not the traditional cone-shape of a radar-only tracking system. In the attached vid, the TDS shows the location of the wingman, even though they cannot be tracked via radar (not in the forward cone) and thereby need to be tracked by the EODAS.

Here is a good vid showing the F-35's display and it's modes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lPZDc8mzsY

Thanks SWP.. nice video.

cola wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

jeffb wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

For example having a common aircraft not only across your 3 services, but with your allies, ensures that people will know what is coming …

…especially your enemies.

Name another airframe that keeps one's enemies more off balance, seeing as how this is "such a problem."

Typical answer for a non combat personnel.
You see Ww, if the war worked that way, a typical medieval army wouldn't consist of spearmen, swordsmen, axemen, archers, skirmishers, light cavalry, cavalry archers, heavy cavalry, warmachines (catapults, ballistas, etc...) and other types of troops.
The point is all those units have EXPLOITABLE shortcomings and each is being designed to overlap the other one and to complement each other.
If you ever planned a single sortie (not necessarily a combat one), you'd have a pretty good idea of what's going on here...

Now, there isn't a point in arguing of the quality of a certain type of troops (planes), because, just like Welsh longbowmen cut down French knights (the most fearsome AND UNDEFEATED war machine of the age), F35 WILL be cut to pieces by the opponent and the only question is, what will the USAF be able to field to overlap the F35?
This is a serious tactical and strategical issue and ppl who dismiss it, don't have very much clue of what they are talking about...

...it's astonishing that in the age of Inet and unprecedented knowledge accessibility, we still have comments like this.

The above is one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on any board, and that's saying a lot, since I read SP and I used to read Key.

How many types of ground unit were fielded in Medieval times and why? Well, how many types were fielded in the US civil war? How many in WW1? How many in WW2? How many today in the US army? Why is it that the diversity of units has been decreasing in every force for centuries? Could it be because the ideal is approached? Or is it because the budget will only support a relatively homogeneous force? Or is it because the march of technology means the diversity is found in the munitions used and the interactions between platforms allowed by NCW?

Why did the pike disappear from the battlefield? Because technological innovation allowed a musket to become a pike when needed. As tech gets better one item can do more.

More examples:
US Navy in WW2: CV, CVL, CVE, BB, CB, CA, CL, DD, DE, many assorted amphibs, escorts, etc
US Navy today: CV, CG, DDG. FF, assorted amphibs etc.

Look at USAF Tacair in Vietnam. At the beginning there's a plethora of fighter and attack types, by the end it's mostly F-4's.

"F35 WILL be cut to pieces by the opponent ..."
Wishful thinking by a hater.

So far we've seen that any limitations of the F-35 in turning and kinematics result in a smaller WEZ for its weapons as pointed out by TTS. In exchange for that, the F-35 offers VLO and unprecedented SA. It would have been nice to have it all but that would have made it as big as an F-22 and killed the program.

wrightwing wrote:

It's a serious question. The assertion was made that there was a disadvantage due to the similarities between the 3 models. I'd love to know how aircraft that don't have 3 models are any less disadvantaged with regard to the enemy's knowledge of systems.

JeffB made a very interesting (and valid) argument, which you obviously dismissed since I guess the closest thing you came to the war, is a video game...
Ww, the point is, in a force of mixed assets, you can't defeat the entire army using a single method/tactic/weapon/you name it, while the monocultural system, is in danger of being annihilated, once its weak spots get discovered and exploited by the enemy.

Quote:

F-22?

What, 180 F22s with combat readiness of ~70% will provide air cover for hypothetical ~1800 F35's and that's only considering AA missions??
You can't be serious...
Moreover, what about CAS, AG, whatever?

cola wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

It's a serious question. The assertion was made that there was a disadvantage due to the similarities between the 3 models. I'd love to know how aircraft that don't have 3 models are any less disadvantaged with regard to the enemy's knowledge of systems.

JeffB made a very interesting (and valid) argument, which you obviously dismissed since I guess the closest thing you came to the war, is a video game...
Ww, the point is, in a force of mixed assets, you can't defeat the entire army using a single method/tactic/weapon/you name it, while the monocultural system, is in danger of being annihilated, once its weak spots get discovered and exploited by the enemy.

Quote:

F-22?

What, 180 F22s with combat readiness of ~70% will provide air cover for hypothetical ~1800 F35's and that's only considering AA missions??
You can't be serious...
Moreover, what about CAS, AG, whatever?

So because there's only one type in service in numbers, it's "monocultural"? Look at the F-4 and F-16 in US service and the Rafale in French service.

Which nonnuclear countries are fielding a force that requires more than 100 F-22's? When is the US going to fight China or Russia and if they do, how many Russian planes are serviceable, and how effective is the whole Chinese military with no experience since invading Vietnam? Which type is going to go up and defeat F-35's? I think the Typhoon and T-50 are the best rivals and neither is in service in numbers with an F-35 adversary.

It should be noted of the highly choreographed scenario portrayed in that vid, Spud (vs a 2nd-3rd tier opponent?). And I'm sorry, but how proper; 4x AMRAAMs fired, 4 opponents downed before they knew what hit em.

Unfortunately, by the time the first USAF F-35A block III squadrons are IOC, much will have likely evolved and changed in the world of air combat... and no, F-35 will not have some easy, magical monopoly in air combat dominance as depicted (let alone acquired at anywhere close to the currently anticipated numbers of jets, due to the estimated budgets being unaffordable). If anything, it's highly dramatized for obvious marketing purposes, but border line on being irresponsible in the level of certainty placed on an unsustainable gamble on this not yet mature, unproven platform. I truly wish I could perceive this more positively, but staying the course it's the cold reality, I'm afraid.

Come on Geogen. I was not trying to use the video as proof that the F-35 or AMRAAM is the end all be all.

It was clearly being used to demonstrate the adaptability of the display.

btw, they were Mig-29s, hardly top of the line adversaries (4:05 to 4:55). Do Mig-29s even have RwR or MLDs?

I'm actually wondering why more of the operations are not voice activated as it did in all fairness seem to be making a ton of pilot work load. No question though, 6 mil lines of code should produce some impressive capacity for 'adaptabilities' - that part I don't think many would debate.

The other point, M35 should as probably might the latest upgraded M29 variants but unfortunately, by 2016-2017 IOC, we can be confident that many modern a/c of the world operationally deployed (and those upgraded, life-extended legacy platforms) will have digital RwR and MLDs in addition to improved passive e/o, digital/AEA ew and avionics/computers upgrades. Not to mention the latest proliferated aam capabilities on the market. It likely not a picture envisioned back in the post-cold war mid-late 90s when building up the lucrative, game-changing JSF plan. With all due respect to those involved in the Program side today.

shingen wrote:

The above is one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on any board, and that's saying a lot, since I read SP and I used to read Key.

What do you expect, it comes from the same chap who claims the Typhoon to be stealthier than the F-35, post 118:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showth ... amp;page=4

Laughing

Last edited by cola on Dec 27, 2010 - 06:04 PM; edited 1 time in total

shingen wrote:

"F35 WILL be cut to pieces by the opponent ..."
Wishful thinking by a hater.

Oh, but it will...I'm not a hater, but this is how war works.

shingen wrote:

So because there's only one type in service in numbers, it's "monocultural"? Look at the F-4 and F-16 in US service and the Rafale in French service.

Even French use 2 types on their single carrier and the AF operates both M2000 and Rafale...but then, if you go comparing USAF to Armee de l'Air, good for you. Very Happy

Anyway, a colleague of mine completed the West Point, so he could verify that US doesn't teach the "knowledge" you're spreading around??
Where do you get these ideas??

Quote:

Which nonnuclear countries are fielding a force that requires more than 100 F-22's?

If that's the argument, then you don't need F22's and F35's at all, do you?
USAF is perfectly capable of doing today's/tomorrow's job, as it is right now.

wrightwing wrote:

twintwinsingle wrote:

svenphantom wrote:

[There's a thing called fuel dumping. They purposely put out fuel to lighten their load. Considering aircraft will drop their extra weight before the merge, that seems very likely the F-35 will do that.

Sven...I fly a jet than can dump fuel, I'm well aware of its existence. Not an option in combat, my friend. It's about 1000 PPM. That isn't going to help you on an intercept. For combat gross weight reduction, you need to be able to hit a button and shed weight. In the F-16's case, 5000lb in about a second. Not to mention, on an intercept you'll be using quite a bit of AB. Aussie F-111's aside, that's less than ideal when you're dumping fuel.

The F-35 can dump 3k lb in ~6 seconds.

REALLY man?...500lbs per second? come on...

F-35A = 18k internal...dump that whole amount in 36 seconds? wow!!

We need pumps like that in New Orleans for the next Katrina...4385 gallons per minute pumped might have saved the day!

You might want to do a little more reading on the F-35's ability to rapidly dump fuel, before making asinine comments.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 Lightning II Documentary (Criticisms)