Forum: F-35 milestones

Cola,
It's not a valiant attempt at anything. I'm not in the F-35 camp, my friend, simply pointing out the most relevant way to evaluate performance of the F-35 relative to a legacy platform. I've only flown legacy jets, with external stores, so I know what you mean about "modular" design. However, the difference between the 2 theories is much more involved than that. The legacy jet at the merge can jettison fuel and stores to optimize its turning/energy management abilities for the immediate problem of winning the knife fight. The stealth jet always has its fuel and drag, before and after the merge, so it's not able to optimize itself for the close-in fight...at least no more than it was to begin with (you got what you got). The flip side of that coin is, before the merge, that jet with external stores is more visible to radar. With equal sensors, the stealthy jet will see the legacy jet first and shoot first. As important, the early SA can allow the pilot of a stealthy jet to position himself for the most advantageous merge, should that become necessary. So, cola, it's plusses and minuses. It all depends on what happens on that particular day. That viper may blow up bvr with a smile on his face, or he might get an early lock, early tally and merge with an advantage...it all depends. But, either way, if you want to get a real assesment of the 5th gen jets, I contend it should be loaded v. Loaded. My 2 pennies.

F-16.net Sponsor

TTS,
What I meant is a valiant attempt on your part to argue flight performance point, since its been argued for at least 3 years here (as long as I know) and it's been systematically rejected, so I believe it's pointless.
One note though...I wasn't quite clear before and I didn't mean 5th gen vs. legacy, but an F35 vs F16 (0.4 vs 0.3 FF, to be precise) and F22 (0.3) has that extra tank structure way less pronounced than the F35, in spite of being 5th gen fighter.

Cola,
I know what you mean. I, for one, think that the F-35 will have significant issues with maneuverability. It is a big, heavy jet. It weighs (loaded) about what an F-15C weighs loaded, but has less thrust and less wing than the 15C. True, it probably (almost certainly) has less drag than a loaded Eagle, but I think it will still not be able to maintain energy like a loaded Eagle. Will it be able to maintain energy like a loaded Block 50? I think so. I haven't flown the jet, though, so I won't say that it stinks, I just think that it has put all of its eggs in the stealth and sensor basket and neglected the maneuver portion of the envelope, to a large extent. Now, in modern combat, if I had to choose stealth and sensors or maneuver, I'd choose the stealth and sensors, so I'm not saying the guys at LM got it wrong. I may just be sentimental, but I like it when a jet, a pilot, a fan club does not have to make excuses about ANYTHING. I grew up in a jet (A-10) that I could say was the best at everything it did...I didn't have to make excuses about anything. My buddies in the 15C could say they were the best at what they did...period. The Viper for decades could say it was the best all-around multi-role jet in the world...period. The Raptor, today, can be compared against any jet in the world at its mission set, at any load-out, in any flight regime and the pilot can say "I'm the best...Everywhere". When that Raptor guy says that in the bar on Friday night, we might not like him very much but we know he's right and we don't argue. We might ask how he can hold his breath for a 1.5 hour flight and how his cough's doing, but we don't argue! I like that. New jets should be able to pound their chest and say"I'm number one...period, dot, end of sentence!". I think it's a bad sign that the F-35 hasn't even fielded yet and we're talking about where it's good and where it's bad and how it's bad at this, but that doesn't matter because it won't have to do that very often, etc..

I think the F-35's sensors will be world class and that its LO will be world class. I think its all-around performance will be good. I do not, however, think that it is a world-beater or a jaw dropper like the Raptor is. I also know that this will generate a ton of "but, but...you're forgetting about the fuselage lift or JDRADM or Block 2 AIM-9X or AIM-120D or (insert un-proven system here)" No...I'm not. That stuff will be good (someday), but the nations fielding the F-35 needed a jet that was great, now...not in 10 years. That was the contract LM was awarded, that is the contract they have failed to meet. Too many compromises, too much delay and too much money. If the F-35 would have fielded in the mid-late 2000's, it would have been impressive. In the mid-late teens it will be nice (and great at some things) but it won't be a game changer like the Eagle was or the Viper was or the Raptor is...it'll be a good jet, not a great one. Again, I haven't flown it...I could be wrong and, honestly, I hope I am.

twintwinsingle wrote:

Conan/Rat,
I think most folks are making an apples-to-apples comparison, they're just making the wrong one. Most folks that I hear talking, compare the jets clean v. clean. That's a valid apples-to-apples comparison. However, in that case, the F-35 camp (and I think most do a good job of this) must alibi right up front that a clean F-35, if fully fueled, will NOT be able to hang with a clean Block 50/52 or Big Mouth Block 30. It does have a massive engine, but not when compared to how heavy the jet is, even with no weapons. It has a tremendous internal fuel volume...an asset to be sure, but it hurts the jet in this clean-v-clean comparison. With full internal fuel and no stores, it still does not have a 1:1. 50/52/BM 30 are all well over a 1:1. Induced drag is induced drag, regardless of type, and a jet with more thrust relative to its weight can sustain its energy better (i.e. out perform) a jet with less thrust. Also, the F-35 always has its increased frontal area, carry stores or not, due to the weapons bays. This is deliberate, but it again hurts the jet in a clean-v-clean comparison. So, clean-v-clean is a valid comparison, that the F-35 loses in most cases, it just isn't a very relevant comparison.

However, as LtCol Kloos alluded to, a more RELEVANT comparison is loaded v. loaded. The Viper now begins to gain weight for fuel and stores. The F-35 gains weight for stores only...it already had all of its fuel. The real killer for the hot rods is the drag. Drag will increase by a factor of many for the Viper and (aside from some induced drag due to the higher weight) not at all for the F-35. Now, like Lt Col Kloos said above, the jets are very comparable, performance wise, and the F-35 brings better sensors and surviveability to the fight. I know that this is repetition of basic performance talk that has been repeated hundreds of times on here.

I think the problem lies with the select few on this (and other) forums who insist on touting the F-35's benefits against legacy jets in ALL flight regimes and configurations. I'd have to dig to provide quotes, but I know I've posted in response to folks in the past that have argued that the F-35 with 2x 2000lb bombs could hang with a clean Block 50. I think some guys...dare I say fan boys...look at the jet and the massive engine and the sleek shape and think "that has just got to be better than anything else out there...at EVERYTHING". That's the issue...because it just isn't true...drag is drag, thrust is thrust...regardless of type. And the quotes from test pilots that it accelerates faster than the Viper are true...but that's referring to straight line or low-g acceleration. The F-105 and the F-111 accelerated like a raped-ape in a straight line, but their turn performance was terrible. Simplistic comparison, but you get the point. Thrust to weight really becomes a factor (in my experience) as the g is increased and the motor can no-longer compensate for the increased induced drag...now you have energy bleed. The F-35 was designed for combat and is optimized for comparison with other types in a COMBAT configuration. In that case, it stacks up very well. But the fan boys on here must stop touting the F-35's "massive engine" and "faster than Viper acceleration" because that is precisely what drives other folks to start doing these clean-v-clean comparisons.

Except it's not apples to apples it never can be, because as you pointed out, we're comparing a jet with 18,000lbs of fuel versus a jet with 7,000lbs of fuel in clean airframe scenarios.

And as for Cola (and the general 4th gen legacy jet proponents) argument that you can "just jettison fuel and stores" how realistic is that?

Sure it can be done, but how many EFT's can one drop before your airforce doesn't HAVE enough any more? If this is your sole advantage in combat, how many EFT's are you going to have to have in storage, before your range drops? Before your tankers stop flying as frequently and so on?

That idea seems to me a tactic for a single sortie. Imagining it's a strategic option, that it's a formal part of ones TTP's seems just a tad wrong to me...

Conan,
It is apples to apples. The F-35's empty weight is also almost double that of the Viper. It's the same thing as saying "The F-35 has 50% more thrust than a Viper!"...yeah it does, but it weighs more. Comparisons of fighters is done in a similar configuration...there is no alibi for how much fuel one carries vs. the other or how much one weighs vs. the other. An Eagle can be compared to a Viper, despite the fact that it weighs twice what a Viper weighs and carries almost double the fuel. It can be (and is) done that way. Clean v. clean is a valid apples to apples comparison.

Jetting EFT's on a regular basis is a course of action that can be (and has been) executed. In WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm, EFT's were dropped any time an engagement was imminent. F-15C's dropped their EFT's any time they engaged an Iraqi jet, in preparation for a merge, should it be required, which wasn't a "single sortie"...it happened frequently. We drop bombs on every sortie and don't get those back. It is a realistic scenario, in a conflict with frequent engagements, that EFT's would be jetted on a regular basis.

twintwinsingle wrote:

Cola,
I know what you mean. I, for one, think that the F-35 will have significant issues with maneuverability. It is a big, heavy jet. It weighs (loaded) about what an F-15C weighs loaded, but has less thrust and less wing than the 15C. True, it probably (almost certainly) has less drag than a loaded Eagle, but I think it will still not be able to maintain energy like a loaded Eagle. Will it be able to maintain energy like a loaded Block 50? I think so. I haven't flown the jet, though, so I won't say that it stinks, I just think that it has put all of its eggs in the stealth and sensor basket and neglected the maneuver portion of the envelope, to a large extent. Now, in modern combat, if I had to choose stealth and sensors or maneuver, I'd choose the stealth and sensors, so I'm not saying the guys at LM got it wrong. I may just be sentimental, but I like it when a jet, a pilot, a fan club does not have to make excuses about ANYTHING. I grew up in a jet (A-10) that I could say was the best at everything it did...I didn't have to make excuses about anything. My buddies in the 15C could say they were the best at what they did...period. The Viper for decades could say it was the best all-around multi-role jet in the world...period. The Raptor, today, can be compared against any jet in the world at its mission set, at any load-out, in any flight regime and the pilot can say "I'm the best...Everywhere". When that Raptor guy says that in the bar on Friday night, we might not like him very much but we know he's right and we don't argue. We might ask how he can hold his breath for a 1.5 hour flight and how his cough's doing, but we don't argue! I like that. New jets should be able to pound their chest and say"I'm number one...period, dot, end of sentence!". I think it's a bad sign that the F-35 hasn't even fielded yet and we're talking about where it's good and where it's bad and how it's bad at this, but that doesn't matter because it won't have to do that very often, etc..

I think the F-35's sensors will be world class and that its LO will be world class. I think its all-around performance will be good. I do not, however, think that it is a world-beater or a jaw dropper like the Raptor is. I also know that this will generate a ton of "but, but...you're forgetting about the fuselage lift or JDRADM or Block 2 AIM-9X or AIM-120D or (insert un-proven system here)" No...I'm not. That stuff will be good (someday), but the nations fielding the F-35 needed a jet that was great, now...not in 10 years. That was the contract LM was awarded, that is the contract they have failed to meet. Too many compromises, too much delay and too much money. If the F-35 would have fielded in the mid-late 2000's, it would have been impressive. In the mid-late teens it will be nice (and great at some things) but it won't be a game changer like the Eagle was or the Viper was or the Raptor is...it'll be a good jet, not a great one. Again, I haven't flown it...I could be wrong and, honestly, I hope I am.

Hmm. This was a sobering read. I worry that you know all to well what you are talking about, but like you are saying yourself I hope that you are wrong Confused

Twintwinsingle,

I don't think you are factually inaccurate, but I disagree with some of how you characterize the F-35.

The original concept for the F-35 was largely a reaction to what had happened with the F-22 and other late Cold War super programs. (B-2, Crusader, Comanche, Sea Wolf, etc) These programs produced technological marvels that were cripplingly expensive and/or too impractical to fully take over the role they were intended for.

The F-35 program was conceived with the lessons of the F-22 in mind, one of those being that while the US was capable of producing an aircraft that would outperform its competition in virtually every conceivable situation, it could not afford to procure enough of those aircraft to fill out its force structure. (A very similar situation to what happened with the Sea Wolf and Virginia class subs.)

The F-35 design team was tasked with creating an affordable aircraft with a design optimized for the missions that have worn out thousands of F-16s, F-18s, Harriers, etc. With that in mind they deliberately did not seek to achieve a new level of aerodynamic performance that would have required major increases in costs. Rather than asking themselves how much aerodynamic performance could possibly be squeezed out of the F-35, they asked how much performance was genuinely needed and then directed their major efforts at areas where greater real world utility was available. The F-35 puts a relatively heavy emphasis on its strike role and ability to survive in hostile air space, and a relatively light emphasis on pure air to air maneuverability. This is a reflection of the fact that over the life of the aircraft the F-35 is slated to replace those aircraft spent a great deal of time worrying about the proliferation of modern aid defense threats while air to air engagements proved extremely rare.

Only time will tell whether they got the mix correct, and I know it is essentially impossible to defend a "slow" fighter jet on an internet forum, but I think the F-35 will ultimately prove to be exactly what the US needs to replace the bulk of its current inventory. When I look at the US's potential adversaries, Syria, Iran, N Korea, Venezuela, Russia, China, and so forth I see a bunch of countries that have modern air defense equipment, but only two states that would present much in the way of an air-to-air threat, both of which are nuclear powers with which a large scale conventional war is very unlikely.

The F-35 is very much a fighter jet, and I don't mean an F-105 or an F-111. It will be quite competitive with 4th generation aircraft from a raw performance standpoint and will handily out-perform them in real world mission performance. In the air-to-air arena the F-35 will have areas of weakness compared to some potential threats, but if F-35 pilots fly their aircraft to exploit its strengths it will be an extremely deadly and survivable aircraft.

I know you said you didn't want to hear about potential future upgrades, but those will also play a major role in the F-35's life. There will be thrust increases down the road as well as other improvements relevant to air-to-air performance.

With the rapid progress of technology, "upgradablility" is probably going to be one of the most important features of any military vehicle.

Hobo,
I don't disagree with you, in fact, you're exactly right about the design objectives of the F-35. If the F-35 had turned out to be an affordable jet, like the Viper was in its day, it would be easy to defend its "tailored" performance. A stealthy jet, with good range and good sensors that can defend itself against a credible air threat...all for 50 Mil or so. That'd be a different story, my friend. BUT, when you're paying 2 or 3 times that price AND waiting an extra 10 years to get it, it's hard to justify anything less than superior performance at everything. It has become the jet that's too expensive to buy in large quantities! Does the issue lie with the design or with LM's inability to meet (perhaps) the most critical part of the contract...cost, I don't know. But, when the jet stopped being affordable, its tailored performance stopped being acceptable.

I'm also not denying the benefits of upgrading the jet. I'm just tired of hearing that it will be good WHEN we get this or that. I fundamentally disagree with that philosphy with military hardware...especially big ticket items like fighters. The F-15 or F-16 are not great because of what's hung on them, they are great airframes that become even better with the addition of AMRAAMs and 9X's and JHMCS. The F-35 is consistantly argued (even by the factory and its biggest fans) to be great not due to its inherant airframe abilities, but its missiles or DAS or EOTS or HMD. Those things can and will fail, in training and in combat, and if they are the only reason that jet is good then that pilot is in big trouble.

Lastly, when your "affordable" jet comes in at 250% of the agreed to price your ability to pursue the jets "upgradability" is markedly reduced.

twintwinsingle wrote:

Cola,
I know what you mean. I, for one, think that the F-35 will have significant issues with maneuverability. It is a big, heavy jet. It weighs (loaded) about what an F-15C weighs loaded, but has less thrust and less wing than the 15C. True, it probably (almost certainly) has less drag than a loaded Eagle, but I think it will still not be able to maintain energy like a loaded Eagle. Will it be able to maintain energy like a loaded Block 50? I think so. I haven't flown the jet, though, so I won't say that it stinks, I just think that it has put all of its eggs in the stealth and sensor basket and neglected the maneuver portion of the envelope, to a large extent. Now, in modern combat, if I had to choose stealth and sensors or maneuver, I'd choose the stealth and sensors, so I'm not saying the guys at LM got it wrong. I may just be sentimental, but I like it when a jet, a pilot, a fan club does not have to make excuses about ANYTHING. I grew up in a jet (A-10) that I could say was the best at everything it did...I didn't have to make excuses about anything. My buddies in the 15C could say they were the best at what they did...period. The Viper for decades could say it was the best all-around multi-role jet in the world...period. The Raptor, today, can be compared against any jet in the world at its mission set, at any load-out, in any flight regime and the pilot can say "I'm the best...Everywhere". When that Raptor guy says that in the bar on Friday night, we might not like him very much but we know he's right and we don't argue. We might ask how he can hold his breath for a 1.5 hour flight and how his cough's doing, but we don't argue! I like that. New jets should be able to pound their chest and say"I'm number one...period, dot, end of sentence!". I think it's a bad sign that the F-35 hasn't even fielded yet and we're talking about where it's good and where it's bad and how it's bad at this, but that doesn't matter because it won't have to do that very often, etc..

I think the F-35's sensors will be world class and that its LO will be world class. I think its all-around performance will be good. I do not, however, think that it is a world-beater or a jaw dropper like the Raptor is. I also know that this will generate a ton of "but, but...you're forgetting about the fuselage lift or JDRADM or Block 2 AIM-9X or AIM-120D or (insert un-proven system here)" No...I'm not. That stuff will be good (someday), but the nations fielding the F-35 needed a jet that was great, now...not in 10 years. That was the contract LM was awarded, that is the contract they have failed to meet. Too many compromises, too much delay and too much money. If the F-35 would have fielded in the mid-late 2000's, it would have been impressive. In the mid-late teens it will be nice (and great at some things) but it won't be a game changer like the Eagle was or the Viper was or the Raptor is...it'll be a good jet, not a great one. Again, I haven't flown it...I could be wrong and, honestly, I hope I am.

Interesting post. I appreciate it.

I'd differ on a few points, or at least place different emphasis on others. I'm a big systems guy, so I guess I'm concerned about all the different features and systems possessed by the F-35, beyond maneuverability... but I think you would agree with that based on your post.

I agree with you that the F-35's maneuverability will not exceed the F-16's, and might be deficient in some areas. However I think its critical to look at the future state of air warfare. Where I would disagree with you is your analysis of the F-35's capabilities relative to other fighters. If anything there has been a real stagnation in push towards higher performance. I think if you look at our possible competitors, on the whole the fighters performance has actually decreased in the past two decades as the "supersonic agile" revolution has been succeeded by the stealth revolution. Certainly the J-20 and to a less extent the T-50 do not seem to have the performance of their predecessors. There are some exceptions (Gripen NG and Su-35) but on the whole there has been a decided push towards more mediocre performance and greater ancillary capabilities. Furthermore, as Hobo states, Ground base AD is where the real threat will come from.

Next, I shudder to think what sort of trade-offs or even cost would be involved with enhancing its performance in the ways you want. I think trying to include all of these capabilities as-is has brought the price to the level it is at. Greater range, speed or whatever would increase costs in an geometric rather than arithmetic fashion. Its possess performance the equal to other fighters in its generation... looking around at what other nations are doing, and what the AF/Navy are saying; its good enough.

Finally I think the real wiz-bang capability is the sensor fusion/networking systems. Having watched the Army integrate greater network capabilities nearly a decade ago, I can imagine the sea change this will bring to various AF over the next 15 years. I think this system, beyond all others will allow pilots to beat their chest and say I'm number one.

Again, thank you for your post... I appreciate its argument and I think its a concern, I just think there are other factors in play.

The F-35's development has been one mess after another, some of them self inflicted, others the inevitable glitches that arise in any large program. With hindsight it is clear the US could have done a lot better managing the F-35 program in several ways.

That said, I still expect the F-35 to prove to be relatively affordable. It won't reach the goals the program set at its outset, but I don't believe those goals were ever possible. When you look at the results the Rafale, Eurofighter, etc have achieved from an affordability standpoint the F-35 is actually in pretty good shape. Nobody today has a high-end aircraft available in the $50million range. (before somebody jumps on me, neither a Super Hornet nor a Block-60 or F-16V hit that price)

I think where we stand right now with the F-35 is just past the F-35's programmatic nadir. The bugs are getting worked out of the system and in another couple years I expect to see the F-35 disappear from the hit-lists of the various media critics. A couple years after that the F-35 will be the established program while whatever is next will be starting to promise too much and will ultimately suffer problems...

twintwinsingle wrote:

Conan,
It is apples to apples. The F-35's empty weight is also almost double that of the Viper. It's the same thing as saying "The F-35 has 50% more thrust than a Viper!"...yeah it does, but it weighs more. Comparisons of fighters is done in a similar configuration...there is no alibi for how much fuel one carries vs. the other or how much one weighs vs. the other. An Eagle can be compared to a Viper, despite the fact that it weighs twice what a Viper weighs and carries almost double the fuel. It can be (and is) done that way. Clean v. clean is a valid apples to apples comparison.

And this merge of yours where the F-35 can't keep up? How many nm from your airbase do you envisage this happening?

That's why you can't compare a clean F-16 and a clean F-35 and call it an apple v apple comparison. The F-35 by design is intended to enormously exceed the range if not EFT equipped fighters...

Quote:

Jetting EFT's on a regular basis is a course of action that can be (and has been) executed. In WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm, EFT's were dropped any time an engagement was imminent. F-15C's dropped their EFT's any time they engaged an Iraqi jet, in preparation for a merge, should it be required, which wasn't a "single sortie"...it happened frequently. We drop bombs on every sortie and don't get those back. It is a realistic scenario, in a conflict with frequent engagements, that EFT's would be jetted on a regular basis.

I wonder about this, but in any case I presume you are talking about the USAF. I am not and I'm certain Cola is not either. Does the Royal Nertherlands Air Force have the logistical capacity tojettison storesfor every air to air encounter it may have to face, for instance?

As to dropping bombs, again I doubt they are dropped every sortie, but we're not talking about using them to engage the targets they are meant for, we're talking about the requirement to jettison stores to ensure your aircraft has the agility to survive in combat...

twintwinsingle wrote:

I'm also not denying the benefits of upgrading the jet. I'm just tired of hearing that it will be good WHEN we get this or that. I fundamentally disagree with that philosphy with military hardware...especially big ticket items like fighters. The F-15 or F-16 are not great because of what's hung on them, they are great airframes that become even better with the addition of AMRAAMs and 9X's and JHMCS. The F-35 is consistantly argued (even by the factory and its biggest fans) to be great not due to its inherant airframe abilities, but its missiles or DAS or EOTS or HMD. Those things can and will fail, in training and in combat, and if they are the only reason that jet is good then that pilot is in big trouble.

Lastly, when your "affordable" jet comes in at 250% of the agreed to price your ability to pursue the jets "upgradability" is markedly reduced.

Sorry man, but this is ludicrous. By this rationale, the F-16 and F-15C would be competitive in the current environment with AIM-9B and AIM-7A's hanging off them and no JHMCS... Why did we waste all that money on AMRAAM, AIM-9X, JHMCS, Link 16 and so on? These aircraft's maneuver performance should be enough, shouldn't it?

As to F-35's "systems" failing in combat, what would you be doing if your APG-68, Sniper XR pod and JHMCS failed? You'd be high-tailing it home, assuming you were still able to.

The F-35A is at least not demonstrably "worse" than the F/A-18C and F-16C in maneuver performance and it brings better range, LO, far better SA and so on.

I'll be interested to hear what you have to say about them, at Red Flag some day. Until they start doing these type of activities, let alone real combat, this is all speculation and opinion.

When the Air Forces that are investing in it say it's what they need for the next generation fighter, that's a pretty solid reason to believe this thing can do what it promises.

HB,
I agree with you on the importance of sensors and systems in modern combat. That is where the fight has moved and where it is likely to stay. I also agree that, with the advent of the F-16 and F-15 in the '70's, there really isn't much room for performance to increase dramatically. I always tell the story of an old DO I had as a LT. He was flying F-4's in USAFE in '77 when an LRIP Viper did a "European Tour" before one of the Euro airshows (Farnboro or Paris...not sure). They tried to get as many guys in the squadron as possible to fly, in their F-4, with the Viper and do a maneuvering comparison. He said it was literally unbelievable what they were seeing that Viper do. Turn at almost double their rate and half their radius, all while maintaining his energy, climbing at 90 deg NH, slowing down to 150 kts or less and powering out of it into the vertical...these are things that fighters COULD NOT DO! Well...fighters have been able to do that for 35 years now...so not a lot of room to move up, is there? I totally agree that it was smart to pick and choose where to spend the development time and money to advance F-35 capabilities beyond legacy (sensors) and where to go with comparable performance with legacy jets (maneuver)...no argument. Having said that, the result of that design philosophy is an airframe that is, honestly, good but not great. The inherent capabilities of the airplane to maneuver, maintain energy, etc. are at or below the state of the art from the 1970's...but I agree that it is good enough. The big problem I forsee, and perhaps I haven't articulated well enough, is the systems complexity and commonality requirements driving the field date further right and the cost up. The delays in fielding have already resulted in many of the F-35's "game changing" systems being surpassed by similar systems fielded on legacy jets. EOTS is a perfect example. In 2001, that system was eye watering...in 2011 it's below average, in 2019 it will be poor. This always happens with new systems, to an extent, but the excessive slip of the F-35 program has allowed the 4th gen jets to "close the gap" to a large extent. They will never be stealthy, agreed, and they'll never have the level of systems integration of the F-35, no doubt, but they will have an AESA radar, new sniper pod, AIM-120D, JHMCS, AIM-9XB2, etc (all for 50% less money per copy)...so the F-35 is no longer leaps and bounds better, it's just a bit better for a lot more money and a longer wait. The cost increase, while maybe not as disasterous as the Raptor, EuroFighter or Rafale, is significant and has taken the jet from being viewed as a very capable "fighter for the masses" to getting the "superfighter" tag placed on it...and again, a "superfighter" should be great at things, not good enough.

That raises the argument about generations 4.0 vs. 4.5 vs. 5.0. I think this is frequently misconstrued as people wanting the 4th gen jets to "hang around" longer or having it out for the 5th gen jets...pure vendetta stuff. I would say that is not the case (for most folks). There are, to be sure, some folks who hate the idea of spending billions on any military tech, no matter how good the product or how great a value it is to national defense. There are also a few guys who truly love the Eagle or Viper and don't want to see it be the 2nd class citizen and so they argue about how the F-35 can't hang with the older jets, so lets just keep 'em around longer. But, I contend that the majority of folks, especially operators of this equipment, are just looking at numbers. I know that's the case for me. Do you honestly think I'd rather fly a jet designed 40 years ago into combat if I could fly something state of the art? That's crazy! Having said that, though, the cost creep and schedule slip of the Raptor and F-35 have made it inevitable that fewer and fewer tails will eventually be purchased. That means more squadrons will close and less power projection capability for the US and its allies. I've grown up in a military that has been continuously deployed (usually in multiple locations) for 22 years! When you cut squadrons and pilots and maintainers you increase the frequency of deployments, increase the use of the equipment an hasten the retirement date of that equipment...which means you need new. The new costs even more and so you buy even less and the cycle continues. This always happens, but the F-35's cost increase will make it much worse.

Would I, as a pilot rather fly 5th gen? Yes I would, everyday and twice on Sunday. But, if it means taking my fighter force from the 3000-ish of the early 2000's down to 1500-ish (I think a reality we'll soon have to face) or maybe even 1000-ish...Well I'd rather buy 2000 more F-16V's and scrap the F-35. The F-35 isn't THAT much better to justify replacing 1 for every 3 legacy jets. I know...howling with laughter at that one, I bet. But, the Raptor replaced not quite 1 for every 3 F-15C's and the F-35 is following a remarkably similar path (schedule and cost-wise) to its big brother. That is eroding our capability and that, my friend, is not good enough.

Conan wrote:

.

Sorry man, but this is ludicrous. By this rationale, the F-16 and F-15C would be competitive in the current environment with AIM-9B and AIM-7A's hanging off them and no JHMCS... Why did we waste all that money on AMRAAM, AIM-9X, JHMCS, Link 16 and so on? These aircraft's maneuver performance should be enough, shouldn't it?

As to F-35's "systems" failing in combat, what would you be doing if your APG-68, Sniper XR pod and JHMCS failed? You'd be high-tailing it home, assuming you were still able to.

The F-35A is at least not demonstrably "worse" than the F/A-18C and F-16C in maneuver performance and it brings better range, LO, far better SA and so on.

I'll be interested to hear what you have to say about them, at Red Flag some day. Until they start doing these type of activities, let alone real combat, this is all speculation and opinion.

When the Air Forces that are investing in it say it's what they need for thenext generation fighter, that's a pretty solid reason to believe this thing can do what it promises.

Conan,
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the systems strapped to a jet don't make it a great jet. They take a great jet and make it even better. The Eagle and Viper were better than everything when they fielded. The airframe was better. As they years passed, their technology updates allowed them to stay ahead of the new jets. They weren't just an F-4 witha better radar and better missiles, they were better jets. Technology has a funny way of being available to everyone. If my Eagle gets a new radar, soon enough your Ef-2000 will have the ability to "kit up" as well. A hypothetical Tornado F-3 with a JHMCS, AESA, and AIM-9X is still worse than an Eagle with those same systems because it is not as good of an AIRPLANE. The F-35 does not exist in a vacuum, Conan, and these systems that "make the jet great" will find their way to other jets as well. What you have then is a jet that is really expensive, with a systems advantage (but not a dramatic one) and LO ability.

I know you and other techies don't want to hear it, but sytems break...often. I have flown ACTUAL COMBAT missions where my TGP failed, NVG's failed, radio failed...it happens. It will continue to happen. I did not "high tail it home" for any of those, by the way, nor did any of my mates when they had similar failures. And yes, before you ask, it was in opposed scenarios...not a no-threat battlespace. Will there be things whose failure will drive an abort...sure, but there will be things that will not.

As for the jetting of EFT's, I'll guarantee that every nation that flies a jet with jettisonable stores has a plan for the jettison of those, logistically. They may not want to do it, may avoid it to the max extent, but they have a plan for that and, in the end, it's a small price to pay for saving a multi-million dollar airplane. It is part of an Air Force's (any Air Force) combat planning, I'd be willing to bet you.

I'll let you know how it does at Red Flag in 7-years, but I'll probably be retired by then and the guys that replace me will still (largely) be flying ancient 4th Gen jets because the F-35 is wicked late and way expensive...That's my problem, Conan. Me and my buddies have to use this stuff and we're getting a jet that's good when it could be, should be, great. The commonality, the compromises, the cost the delays...it all stinks and the warfighter suffers. I'm telling you. You can choose not to believe me, but I'm telling you.

Forum: F-35 milestones

Finally ... First F-35B Flight out of Eglin