Being realistic about F-35 performance claims

Far less? How about "marginally less"?
Or "depends on configuration"?

ct wrote:Hi Underpaid, as far as I know, there have been only 2 DoD bar lowering occurences so far. I pointed out that there are a lot of structural (early stress cracks) and damage protection (fire suppresion/lightning protection/valves) issues still left to be addressed = the planes weight will only increase from here (to argue otherwise is just ignorant!).

As per your request, here are a couple of links about last years F-35 range decrease (increased drag due to cooling issues) and the latest second general spec decrease.
*I believe that all this is common knowledge though.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... redictions

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ar-381031/

Joost gets what I am saying here. I totally agree that manueverability/speed are of far lesser importance for the F-35 (read my intro to this topic). With proper support and teamwork this aircraft will be fine at performing its role (this is what counts!!!). My problem is how fanboys and LockMart push the (completely false) idea that the F-35 is a '5th generation super duper uber' performance king.

As for you 'm', your rebuttle to my topic claim doesn't even talk about the F-35s speed and manueverability. I assume that this means you agree with me?

I don't understand why you pretended I bashed the planes helmet, software, unit cost and something about the tail catching fire?

To be fair, my intro did mention a concern over performance/operation costs, but that wasn't the point of this topic (which is fanboys/Lockmart pushing the idea that the F-35 has the best performance in the world).

Since you brought it up, the VAST majority of an aircrafts cost is tied to its operating costs....I really don't have a problem with the F-35 even if it costs 160 million (with an engine).....as long as its operating costs are at near parity with the competition.

The problem here is that LockMart is HOPING to get down to about $32,000 an hour operating cost. For reference, the F-18SH can range from 16,000-24,000 an hour. The Gripen C costs $4,700 an hour....would love to know what it is for the Gripen E. Of course, we still don't know if LockMart will ever actually reach their $32,000 an hour target.

As for the tail scorching at high speeds, this is a known reported fact.....people can deny facts all they want. This is why they presently don't allow the F-35 to go fast.

"All three variants are having problems with their horizontal tails. "Horizontal tail surfaces are experiencing higher than expected temperatures during sustained high?speed / high?altitude flight, resulting in delamination and scorching of the surface coatings and structure," the report reads. "All variants were restricted from operations outside of a reduced envelope until the test team added instrumentation to the tailbooms to monitor temperatures on the tail surfaces."

Notice that I didn't bash the plane for being unable to be stored unheated overnight, or its software, or its helmet, and so on....that's because they'll fix these problems (at taxpayer expense). Some people who bash the F-35 don't understand that these aircraft are still in development.

What can't be fixed is the actual aerodynamics and physical characteristics of this plane....its a pig!

Stobiewan, the F-35 Mach1.2 'supercruise' for 100 miles with empty load was pathetically short. Factor in the future structural fixes and protection equipment = doubt it. Add on weapons and you get 'no way!'. Keep in mind that the latest batch of F-35s can't supercruise at all because they aren't allowed to go fast (again with the scorching damage).

Again, my main point in this whole topic is that the F-35 is a PIG (speed/manueverability) and that I dislike how fanboys can't face this FACT.

You may want to read up, on how many of the issues you're complaining about have either been solved, or there is a solution already in progress.

ct wrote:
All I am saying is that the F-35 performance is lacking.

No you didn't say that. You pointed out specifics then applied your spin on them "(can't dodge)"

In my intro, I point out that its lack of performance is no big deal!

..."(can't run, can't dodge)"

The F-35 will be able to do its mission as advertised!

So whats the problem?

I am just saying that its performance is lacking and fanboys seem to have a hard time aknowledging this.

Maybe the fan boys get upset when morons try to tie those performance stats with bullshit leaps like "can't dodge" and "can't run" or "slap a 5th gen sticker on it"...oh wait.

not to mention the "the stats are going to get downgraded again" based on????

Are you guys really telling me that there isn't one of you that can at least admit the f-35s speed/aerodynamics are FAR less than say the F-22/Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen/Su-34/Pak??????

Here lets do these in order:

F-22: No brainer best kinematics in the world. concerned at the lack of HMQS though.

Typhoon: Don't let me tell you, let Canadain EF and F-35 pilot Billie Flynn tell you

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... et-382078/:

Rafale: I have no idea, but I also know when you load a Rafale with a comparable fuel load and comparable weapons it handles more like a bus than a Rafale. Plus you need the extra guy in the backseat to handle the work load, whereas the F-35 has that automated, and has lots of internal fuel and internal weapons, so it handles better for COMBAT, but I admit it suffers heavily in the "performance in pretty brochures" category. lack of "5th generation" stickers on the brochures is a problem too.

Gripen is the same deal as the above and don't look now but they are spending massive amounts of money trying to improve it and compete with the F-35, it doesn't super cruise in its current form in any way. (and its failing to win orders) operational in ten years hopefully

SU-34? Well yes I am willing to say it performs better than a twin side by side seat strike aircraft. I have no idea what kind of G's a duckbilled flanker can pull, but I wouldn't take it against anything serious (love the Su-34 though, sexy plane--not a fighter)

Pak? we know f*ck all about the PAKFA at this point, other than the Russian's already plan on putting new and improved engines that are ten years away on it (so in your book its dismissed since a fan boy will blah blah about putting new engines in it) in the mean time its not the performer it is destined to be.


Test pilots say F-35 flies like a CLEAN (big letters because that makes a difference) F-16 or F-18 while loaded with fuel and weapons. That is one of the big caveats for the F-35 fanboys. It also has excellent high AOA performance that is indeed superior to many of the aircaft you listed.

A warplane that flies ready for war, like its on a training sortie is a huge deal performance wise. and will outperform other "better performing aircraft" with a similiar load out. No word on how slapping 5th gen stickers on the the aircraft above will help them with heavy loads though. I'll do some research.

sferrin wrote:
The Gripen is slower than an F-104. Therefore the F-104 is a better plane.

Don't get me started on this. I have been reading up on the performance specs of this one plane, the F-117-- I don't think it will last a day in combat. worst 20th century plane ever built, as far as I can see.

Well, we are all here because we find interest in the F-35. Some of us are die hard fans, some of us are moderates and some of us are die hard hatters.

Thing is, at the end of the day, governments are going to purchase/reject this jet based on purchase/operating costs and performance/capabilities. The reality of this jet (whatever we say now) will be whatever it will be. Due to the high costs of purchasing/operating a fleet of F-35s (or any modern fighter jet), LockMart and US government pressure can only go so far in pressuring allies to pay up. This means that the jet will mostly have to sell itself.

I personally believe that LockMart can potentially iron out all the bugs, but further weight and cost will be required to do so.

IF all the bugs can be fixed and purchase/operating costs made reasonably competitive, then I think the aircraft will be quite capable at its role (supported team based coordinated strike/air defence).

Since we should see no 1v1 red baron type dogfights, manueverability and speed is less important for the F-35. Also, while its stealth was downgraded, it is still good enough to extend detection range = a very nice advantage to have.

I still personally think it can't be anything but a dog in regards to performance (based on DoD downgrade and drag characteristics). But fans are free to believe in anything they want (we live in the free world, after all!)

ct wrote: Due to the high costs of purchasing/operating a fleet of F-35s (or any modern fighter jet),

LOL wut? So the F-35 is super expensive like everything else?

LockMart and US government pressure can only go so far in pressuring allies to pay up. This means that the jet will mostly have to sell itself.

I agree, I mean only Isreal, Japan, and Singapore have signed on in the last couple years, its been really slow. I admit 3,000+ planned aircraft isn't much really, probably just more than all the eurocanards, Su-34s and F-22s ever built combined.

I personally believe that LockMart can potentially iron out all the bugs, but further weight and cost will be required to do so.

Its basically come to the point where we not only have most of the weight and performance bugs worked, and that the piggy bank is closed so its going through.

I still personally think it can't be anything but a dog in regards to performance (based on DoD downgrade and drag characteristics). But fans are free to believe in anything they want (we live in the free world, after all!)

I believe its performance is what it is, and what it is, is more than enough. No its not a Raptor, and it doesn't need to be. for me a clean F-16/F-18 is plenty, and of course those were the goals of the contract laid out. I don't think that makes me a fan boy, I think it means that people are hung up on the old way of doing things, and think that airplanes probably do strafing attacks using pig iron and the radar is the old mark-1 eyeball in "squint mode"

They essentially pick one thing, ignore all the rest and declare the entire thing a disaster because it fails to live up to their personal quirk. Frankly I find the F-22s lack of .50 caliber machine guns in the wings very disturbing, and thus I don't think it can hang with the P-51s of old.

The bottom line is we see more and more conflicts where electronics and factors "other than performance" are playing bigger roles, and its not just with airplanes. Its no longer about "higher, faster, tighter," the limits are being reached not just in cost of aircraft (there is a reason there are not a whole lot of EFs and F-22s) but in the limits of humans to endure what the aircraft can do (F-22 maybe an example of this)

trying "maximize profits" you can make more money to offset expenses or reduce expenses. The profits are about as high as they are going to go so its about making the most of the money you have made now. We aren't looking for mach 3 superfighters, we are looking for sub/transonic networked, electron fighters. Its not just happening in airplanes. Artillery, tanks, and ships are doing the same things, its about using what you have better, rather than making up for wasted coordination with more performance. especially as western militaries discover that they rarely if ever go "full throttle" on any of the above, as they try to husband fuel and ammo and not waste it. GPS artillery has made it so 2 shells can do the what used to take 6. which eases logistics. The calibers and ranges aren't getting better and bigger, the guns are getting far more useful though. and if you can hit something accurately with a 155MM shell, you don't need a 300MM super canon. another reason why ISR (the ability to find and fix a target) is much more important, than being able to fly really fast over it and not see it.

We have enough brawn, its time for the brain now. "synergy" AKA Teamwork is far more helpful, than another G or .3 mach.

Allow me to demonstrate what I mean with the help of the Royal Marines:



"The Brochure"



"In service"



Actual Combat load out

so, if you can make the bottom picture feel like the middle picture its quiet a feat in itself. Now I know there are people who are stronger, better, faster than the Royal Marines, but they aren't usually carry RM combat loads either. So yes Usian Bolt is faster than anyone else in the world, but not while carrying the combat load.

So as long as we are "being realistic about F-35 performance" lets be realistic about other aircraft too.



EF Typhoon on the way to Libya via Italy, 2011.



Rafale , strikes in Mali 2013.



Gripen NG concept, via SAAB



F-35A, combat configuration-18,000 lbs of fuel, 2X2000lb bombs, 2XAMRAAM, built in targeting pod. (note: picture for training F-35 and brochure F-35s look extremely similar)

With all due respect, you appear incapable of presenting a rational and honest argument for further discussion.

ct wrote:With a decent level of stealth, superior sensors, and advanced data linked group coordination + combined with support (ie AWACS, Tankers, jammers, A2A jets like F-22 and Typhoon) = the F-35 will be able to what it is supposed to do. This is good!.

Your first unsupported deception/misdirection. You present a "damning with faint praise" statement whereby your argument "attacks" the F-35 LO capabilities by appearing to compliment the F-35's LO capabilities, but the compliment is unenthusiastic, suggesting that relevant, enthusiastic praise would be undeserved.

Supported Counter Argument:
Released government documentation exists in the public domain that the F-35 is Very Low Observable and has All Aspect LO. See: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30563_20110426.pdf and http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Tem ... I-svar.pdf.
In addition, it has been acknowledge in program official discussions with the media: http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Tem ... I-svar.pdf

ct wrote: But I get so sick of reading how this jet gets talked up by fanboys and LockMart.

As to your illness: Develop better coping skills. Or perhaps a change in your diet is warranted.

As to referencing 'Lockmart' and 'fanboys', your implication that the F-35 is 'talked up' only because those talking are 'Lockmart' or 'Fanboys'. This is an example of the logical fallacy 'Circumstantial Ad Hominem', whereby you attempt to counter or subvert a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. This is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. If you wish to counter a specific claim concerning the F-35 that you've read here, by all means present a specific argument against it. I, for one, would enjoy such a departure from the norm.

ct wrote: Somehow, Lockmart keeps a straight face while trumpeting the F-35's awsome performance, all while DoD simultaneously downgrades its performance potential rating.

Abstract allegation. Without specificity, unworthy of a response.

ct wrote:Apparently, by putting a '5th Generation' sticker on the jet, it is suddenly the best at everything. And if we don't buy a '5th Generation' jet like the F-35, we will be completely defenceless in any/all future conflicts.....marketing psychology at its finest!

You've committed another logical fallacy by creating a 'Strawman' argument. By simply ignoring the F-35's advanced capabilities and substituting a distorted, perverted misrepresentation of those capabilities in terms of "putting a '5th Generation' sticker" on the F-35.

ct wrote:By that logic, if I put a '6th Generation' sticker on a WWI bi-plane, then talk up it's superior manuverability (while also pushing unlikely theoretical scenerios benefiting the bi-plane), I would end up with a plane that trumps any fighter jet in operation.

And in the grand tradition of the ‘Strawman’, you then knock it down. Like all ‘Strawmen’, it was presented it in the hope that someone would respond to your perverse representation of the F-35. You did it because it's easier for you to create a false argument than explicitly challenging any of the claims made for the F-35.

ct wrote:The F-35 is going to be a dog in terms of performance! Period!

Another abstract allegation. Without ANY specificity, and not supported by rational argument. Not worthy of a response.

ct wrote:The aircraft suffers from high drag.

A belief, unsupported by fact. But it was important for you to express this belief to then state...

ct wrote: The latest 'lowering of the bar' by DoD aknowledges that the F-35 (in most ways) has poor manuverability (can't dodge) and poor acceleration to supersonic (can't run).

...Apparently an allusion to the recent changes to the F-35 performance metrics in committing one of three possible logical fallacies: Hasty Generalization, Post Hoc (It does not follow) or Appeal to Consequences. Appeal to Consequences in this case, is audience-specific. If this was a DT or DoDBuzz, or Ares blog, where fellow JSF-haters school, then your Appeal to Consequences would be an ‘Appeal to Belief’. I can't narrow it down any more than this because you, once again, carefully avoided specificity. Whether you commit these fallacies willfully, or are lacking in understanding of aerodynamics isn't clear, though your oblique parenthetical references to cartoon captions on E-M schematics tells me it is probably the latter.

ct wrote:Since the F-35 will have to burn even more fuel now chugging past transonic, the quoted Mach 1.6 speed is a joke (as is any suggestion of supercruise).

Looks like you ran off the rails here. As written, you apparently believe the F-35 will run out of fuel getting past transonic and therefore will never get to m1.6, in any case, not worthy of a response.

ct wrote: This is assuming that they can fix the problem of afterburner destroying the stealth coating on the planes tail.

Logical fallacy: “Misleading Vividness”. Addressed by others already.

ct wrote:Even worse, the test airframes are suffering extremely early stress fractures = parts will need reinforcing = more weight.

Wow. Misleading Vividness AND flawed deductive thought. At least you were more specific, though you could have been more so. First, "suffering extremely early stress fractures". To date, I can think of only one problem that developed earlier than anyone predicted and that fix is already being rolled out. All other stress test fracture events appear to be occurring as predicted on the test specimens and those are happening much later in the life cycle than previous aircraft. Quite frankly, the F-35's test record in this regard is better than any other fighter/attack type within my recollection over the last 40 years. The only added weight that usually comes from correcting the stress load is on the aircraft already built because it is easier to retrofit doublers, braces, etc than replace whole frames. Later aircraft will have the design change built into the original which tends to move weight around more than add weight. The added weight concern is unwarranted at this time anyway (more in a second).

ct wrote:LockMart will also eventually have to address the problem of the F-35's lack of fire suppresion/protection (those valves and extras will have to go back in).

Hey! More specificity! There are a number of ways to address fire suppression concerns that do not involve DOT&E's simplistic recommendations to do so, but one of the recommendations is already an option the program is pursuing. but you haven't got to your 'point' yet so...

ct wrote:My point is that this aircraft is only going to get heavier, slower and more sluggish. DoD will have to release another performance downgrade before long.

If your critical reading skills were put to use in analyzing past and current DOT&E (Who have elevated 'damning with faint praise' to a high art) Reports you would have noticed the variants haven't been gaining weight lately. We can conclude the B model has lost weight in fact. This should hardly be a surprise given the mature state of the airframe and systems, so my response to the 'weight' concern is: so what?

ct wrote:And before you say something like 'future engine development will give an extra 10% thrust blah blah', the real world benefit will be negligible because the aircraft is a peformance dog. Drag is a real killer on this aircraft....that's why in spite of its massive internal fuel capacity advantage, it's range is far less than what you'd expect.

Drag Drag Drag Drag. Allegations unsupported by fact. No matter how many times you say ‘drag’... it STILL isn't true. There is significant evidence, much that has been shared in these forums, that the airplane is NOT particularly 'draggy' (Pilots raving about the acceleration for instance). What you seem to have missed (it's been in the aero news for over a year) is that the combat-configured "Day 1" F-35 is no more 'draggy' than in the daily training configuration, and that the original transonic spec was written based on legacy aircraft in 'slick' mode. It is also quite apparent you have no idea how much drag is added when you add external stores to an aircraft.

ct wrote:Now, as I said in the first paragraph, the aircraft's strength's aren't based on performance. If they can iron out the bugs and make the purchase/operation costs actually affordable (anothe area I have serious doubts), then all will be well.
But lets call a Pig a Pig.

And you close with repeated allegations unsupported by fact.
My. It certainly is important to you to deny the F-35's apparent aerodynamic performance. I know of only one other person who frequents these boards, who also seems to feel the same way. Perhaps you and 'Cola' should start a forum to have your own little chats?

Or would you just be talking to yourself?

Odd. Double post. Sorry all.

Here’s a FACT

http://action.usaction.org/p/dia/action ... 653&Email=

The F-35 is doing much better now than when the NM Breach happened and there was more risk to the program back then.

The results will be the same now as it was then, continues funding for the F-35.

Thanks 'XanderCrews' you have made my year!

"...No word on how slapping 5th gen stickers on the the aircraft above will help them with heavy loads though. I'll do some research...."

The research is an absolute KILLER!

BTW the initial URL works better without the ':' or any punctuation at end but a common habit when typing etc.... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... et-382078/
&
Thanks 'smsgtmac' for dropping in. 'PPRuNe' would be another smartRS 'haters' forum but YMMV.

ct wrote:Well, we are all here because we find interest in the F-35. Some of us are die hard fans, some of us are moderates and some of us are die hard hatters.

Thing is, at the end of the day, governments are going to purchase/reject this jet based on purchase/operating costs and performance/capabilities. The reality of this jet (whatever we say now) will be whatever it will be. Due to the high costs of purchasing/operating a fleet of F-35s (or any modern fighter jet), LockMart and US government pressure can only go so far in pressuring allies to pay up. This means that the jet will mostly have to sell itself.

I personally believe that LockMart can potentially iron out all the bugs, but further weight and cost will be required to do so.

IF all the bugs can be fixed and purchase/operating costs made reasonably competitive, then I think the aircraft will be quite capable at its role (supported team based coordinated strike/air defence).

Since we should see no 1v1 red baron type dogfights, manueverability and speed is less important for the F-35. Also, while its stealth was downgraded, it is still good enough to extend detection range = a very nice advantage to have.

I still personally think it can't be anything but a dog in regards to performance (based on DoD downgrade and drag characteristics). But fans are free to believe in anything they want (we live in the free world, after all!)

could you provide a source for the stealth downgrade. by all accounts, it has a lower signature, than was originally anticipated.

The Grippen, Typhoon and Grippen are beautiful planes but they are not in the same league as the F-35

JAS-39
MTOW: 14000
Mach: 2.0

Typhoon
MTOW: 23,500
Mach: 2.0

Rafale
MTOW: 22,200
Mach: 1.8

F-35A
MTOW: 37,000
Mach: 1.6

The key word here though is INTERNAL. Originally done for stealth reasons but staying clean in combat configuration is something that can't be added as an upgrade. Sure there's nothing scarier than something covered in spike coming at you but the F-35, its like the Samurai of fighter planes.

Samurai.... NINJA?

Koga-ryu

Koga-ryu ("School of Koga"; occasionally spelled "Koka" in English) is an ancient school of ninjutsu. It originated from the region of Koga (modern Koga City in Shiga Prefecture). Members of the Koga school of shinobi (ninja) are trained in disguise, escape, concealment, explosives, medicines and poison; moreover, they are experts in techniques of unarmed combat (Taijutsu) and in the use of various weapons....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dga-ry%C5%AB

kiwidingo wrote:The key word here though is INTERNAL. Originally done for stealth reasons but staying clean in combat configuration is something that can't be added as an upgrade.

External stores allow one to take things out of the airframe that can be added only as needed/desired. This configuration/concept (which owes much to Ed Heinemann and his A-4 design) makes for a lighter, cheaper, more-adaptable platform. Unfortunately, future realities of survivability are forcing everyone (not just the US) to rethink the fundamentals of fighter design, moving everything back inside the skin to reduce signature. A modern fighter designed without any RCS considerations would be a kinematic animal given advances in materials, engines, and computing-power over the past 30 years or so.

That said, the F-35 gave up remarkably little in the name of signature-control.