The F35 saga is continuing on

User avatar
jonas165
Brigadier
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sun 13 Oct 2013 06:01
Contact:

Re: The F35 saga is continuing on

Postby jonas165 » Sat 5 Jul 2014 15:33

Early F-16 variants were on a similar level and it is one of the most widespread multirole planes in the world. Eurofighters can currently only use unguided air-to-ground weapons, that´s correct, but the integration of a laser-designator pod is allready in progress and will probably be completed earlier (for German EFs) than the F-35 will enter service in the USAF :lol:

Of course the Eurofighter is not as good for ground-attack as the Rafale, it was not built for that. It suffers kind of the same fate as the F-35, having a wrong conception for the 21st century. the only difference is that the Eurofighter programm was allready too advanced at the end of the cold war to just shut it down, while the F-35 was concepted wrongly in the first place.
Image
Alpha release. Click signature for more

User avatar
katt
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4060
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 20:42
Contact:

Re: The F35 saga is continuing on

Postby katt » Sat 5 Jul 2014 15:36

The F-35 was made explicitly for dropping bombs. It's a job it does exceptionally well.

That's infinitely more relevant in the 21st century than shooting down Su-27S, given the state of third world air forces and Western need for dropping bombs on brown people.
Image
人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人

User avatar
nWODT_Niack
Captain
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu 7 Jun 2012 01:42
Contact:

Re: The F35 saga is continuing on

Postby nWODT_Niack » Sat 5 Jul 2014 16:23

Guggy wrote:What is unique to the F35 that makes it such a target for criticism? Is it just the amount of nations hoping to purchase the airframe?

Allow me to come back to that question.

The fact that it is such a target is due to a host of problems.

The plane is the product of an extremely challenging requirement of having a multi-role plane from a common platform that includes a STOVL capability. This requirement would have been much less challenging if it was separated in two, with one multirole plane with classical take-off and landing (some other modern planes being very successful at this), and one STOVL plane for the Marines and other STOBAR countries.

On top of that, Lockheed-Martin played sorcerer's apprentice with the thing, and completely botched the design process with "concurrency". From an engineering standpoint, it's pure arrogance to think you can integrate so many new technologies without extended physical testing.

But all of this is unimportant, the main problem lies elsewhere. I wouldn't be personally so vocal against the plane if it was not exported to other countries. Some countries will be entirely dependent on this faulty plane, and most countries will be completely dependent on the US for their air capabilities. With no access to the source code or capacity to independently adapt the plane, those countries have surrendered their sovereignty. As well as a good chunk of their very limited defense budget. All of this for a hangar queen.

I weep for Canada (and all the other, but especially Canada).
Image
Croche et Tient

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6550
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: The F35 saga is continuing on

Postby molnibalage » Sat 5 Jul 2014 16:51

With no access to the source code or capacity to independently adapt the plane, those countries have surrendered their sovereignty.


No offense but I cannot recall any other 4 gen fighter operator who ever extended the capabilites by their own seriously except one country. F-16, F-15, F-18, whatever except Israel, but their F-16I is different - as well as F-15I and later variant of these - because they have very advanced aviation industry and it is a tradition that they made specialized and Israeli made military avionics their jets... This statement is simply false and except Israel so far nobody requested the full soruce code because it has no use for them...

The sovereignty part is simply funny because for ex. how many countires or companies are able to supply for ex. engine for any AC...? Oh wait, there is no substituion for any AC... They have to fly engines which is designed into the airframe. During the last 40 years were no major engine change for any AC except some cases but they are very far from called be major.

1. Later F-14s got GE engine instead the the week and unreliable (at high AoA) TF-30 familiy. Only problem that engine was not designed for F-14 therefore the engine had to be extended and the thrust increase was smaller if this step had not be neccessary...

2. Az F-16C Block 42 instead F100-PW-200 got the -229- variant but the -200 variant could be used for F-15A/B/C/D fleet.

3. A part of Saudi F-15s got GE F110 engine instead PW F100 series but they were ordered very likely just because the possible corruption of Saudi Kingdom... They mentioned such "reasons" for replace which could be strongly argued... The swap required rebuild the tail section of AC but was not new because F-15E legacy jets existed that time.

So depending on software support is not less serious than depending on a single engine supplier... You simply cannot change the engine into another in an fighter. So you can have the source code but if you do not hav engines....
Last edited by molnibalage on Sat 5 Jul 2014 16:58, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6550
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: The F35 saga is continuing on

Postby molnibalage » Sat 5 Jul 2014 16:53

Eurofighters can currently only use unguided air-to-ground weapons, that´s correct, but the integration of a laser-designator pod is allready in progress and will probably be completed earlier (for German EFs) than the F-35 will enter service in the USAF :lol:


Not exactly. Druing Operation Odessey Down EF carried LGBs but they were able to use only in cooperation with Tornado GR.4s because of lack of enogh training. As I can remember today technically the airframe is capable to carry out precision strike with limited type of odrnance. Of course the current state of EF fleet is very far from that imagined 10+ years ago...

User avatar
Mikeboy
General
Posts: 5352
Joined: Sat 27 Apr 2013 21:59
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The F35 saga is continuing on

Postby Mikeboy » Sat 5 Jul 2014 17:01

jonas165 wrote:Early F-16 variants were on a similar level and it is one of the most widespread multirole planes in the world. Eurofighters can currently only use unguided air-to-ground weapons, that´s correct, but the integration of a laser-designator pod is allready in progress and will probably be completed earlier (for German EFs) than the F-35 will enter service in the USAF :lol:


Actually British Eurofighters were able to self designate with the LITENING pod since 2008.

User avatar
jonas165
Brigadier
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sun 13 Oct 2013 06:01
Contact:

Re: The F35 saga is continuing on

Postby jonas165 » Sat 5 Jul 2014 17:04

molnibalage wrote:
Eurofighters can currently only use unguided air-to-ground weapons, that´s correct, but the integration of a laser-designator pod is allready in progress and will probably be completed earlier (for German EFs) than the F-35 will enter service in the USAF :lol:


Not exactly. Druing Operation Odessey Down EF carried LGBs but they were able to use only in cooperation with Tornado GR.4s because of lack of enogh training. As I can remember today technically the airframe is capable to carry out precision strike with limited type of odrnance. Of course the current state of EF fleet is very far from that imagined 10+ years ago...


The British Version is allready capable of carrying "Litening" pods as far as I know and might have used them during Odessy Dawn, I was however referring to the German Version, which doesn´t have it yet.
Image
Alpha release. Click signature for more

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6368
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: The F35 saga is continuing on

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Sat 5 Jul 2014 18:46

nWODT_Niack wrote:I weep for Canada (and all the other, but especially Canada).



I weep for Australia, they just gave L-M another 2 billion for it, because they got a telegraph with "Great success, gib moar monies pls" on it. :roll:
Image

DrRansom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 18:22
Contact:

Re: The F35 saga is continuing on

Postby DrRansom » Sat 5 Jul 2014 22:44

I enjoy how after a decade of development and billions of dollars, the plane can't fly across the Atlantic to make the christening of the new British Carrier! I'm sorry, this is pathetically embarrassing for the British and the JSF program.

More on point, the F-35 has been extremely expensive and still is not anywhere near completion. We are looking at 4 - 6 more years to get to the IOC configuration for the USAF and USN.

Why I don't like the F-35? It is fundamentally aerodynamically flawed. The USAF and USN are going to use a V/STOL airplane without the V/STOL capabilities. The F-35's aerodynamics are so bad that it requires the most powerful (and consequently most expensive and complicated) single fighter engine to recover acceptable performance. The F-35C with its presumably + 50 second transonic acceleration time is all but a subsonic bomber.

Electronics will improve, stealth is useful even though its advantages weaken over time, but aerodynamics cannot be fixed. F-35 will always be limited.

User avatar
Darth-Lampshade
Captain
Posts: 1680
Joined: Thu 10 May 2012 20:12
Location: CT, USA
Contact:

Re: The F35 saga is continuing on

Postby Darth-Lampshade » Sun 6 Jul 2014 00:33

katt wrote:The USAF should actually procure a twentieth what it ordered, about 60-70 airframes. The rest can be filled by T-50s or M-346s or some other super trainer aircraft. Given that the West is only going to be conducting COIN operations in the foreseeable future, this would be an exceptional fiscal decision. It gives the USAF a stealth capability without sacrificing current inventory of aircraft.

60-70 F-35s? The number of airframes already delivered to the USAF will probably soon hit that mark. I'd agree that the USAF could have done with less F-35 if they had gotten a larger number of F-22s but they did not.

Now the T-50 or M-346 (aka T-100 for their shot at the T-X contract) could be more than a trainer to the USAF, it could certainly do a lot of tasks like air sovereignty enforcement in the CONUS. In fact using it in such a role could make a lot of financial sense. But we need more aircraft than just that.

The F-16 was designed as a light, low-cost, air-superiority day fighter intended to help offset the numbers of MiG-21s and such the Soviets had, yet it soon became more than that. Most of its service in the real world has not been dogfighting hordes of MiGs but rather hauling bombs and hitting ground targets. Doing strike missions while providing its own degree of escort support. The F-35 is largely going to be doing the same thing, but designed with more modern threats in mind. Compared to the F-16 in this role the T-50 has less thrust (thus less payload) to work with and range limitations.

Strike radius compared to an F-15E with drop tanks, which is what F-35 is replacing. Don't forget that the F-35 has no drop tanks, which will limit its range when it is required to carry an external payload.

The F-35 wasn't designed to replace the F-15E. I'd guess that most in the USAF would want the F-15E to get its own replacement but considering the financial state/stupidity of the moment I have my doubts about that. Either way the F-15E is intended to be upgraded and could serve up until 2030 or so.

The F-15E is quite a costly machine to buy and operate. Hence the USAF only has 200 of them or so versus 2,000+ F-16s. If the Canadians couldn't afford the F-15 back during the Cold War what makes you think they'll pay for new variants of the F-15 today when their military has an even smaller % of the budget to work with. Even Boeing knows they won't pay for it hence why all of their marketing in Canada has been focused on the selling the Super Hornet to the RCAF.

What the F-35 was primarily designed to replace was the F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8 and it is a major improvement over these aircraft. The issue over replacing the A-10 has less to do with the F-35 and more with the USAF's belief that such a method of CAS will not work against an opponent with modern air defense systems. They tried to do the same thing with the F-16.

External fuel tanks are in the works for the F-35. It may be awhile before we see them but the hardpoints are plumbed for them.

Do you know F-35's intended role? It doesn't sound like you do.

I know it was not intended as a long range interdiction aircraft like the F-15E. Nor was it intended to be killing tanks with guns and rockets at tree-top level like the A-10. But it does meet the criteria to replace the F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8.


The USN is currently on track to order 36 F-35Cs, if any. It intends to use USMC squadrons on the super carriers (much like it has for several decades now, shocking!) instead of naval squadrons. It would prefer to not have to buy any F-35s and instead acquire large quantities of (comparatively) cheap F/A-18E/Fs, EA-18s, and X-47s.

"So low", hardly. It was a deliberate decision. It's called O-S and weapon system cost. F-35 isn't so great as to replace F-15 and F-16 on a 3:1 basis. It's 2:1 at best, and even then there's something to be said about actual inventory numbers when assuming attrition rates. The USN has taken the latter to heart, and given that it will be at the forefront in any Pacific war with the PRC it has chosen to not acquire F-35 in favour of larger numbers of legacy aircraft.

It's not a deliberate decision. The USAF doesn't want to get a mere 500 or so F-35s. That would be yet another failure in the past two decades or so. The Navy could have 5,000 aircraft but it wouldn't help them at all when they have a limited (and decreasing) number of carriers to work with. A carrier battle group needs superior aircraft and can't expect to rely on sheer numbers. The Super Hornet has done good work but we need better.

This is, again, a very sound decision. F-35's passive stealth will likely be significant compromised as future very low band radar systems are developed by the former Eastern Bloc, and in that case it will be no superior in RCS than Stuper Hornet and other current carrier aircraft.

There is nothing sound about it. Going into the next decade the Navy will need something more capable than the F/A-18 and beyond that perhaps something even more capable than the F-35C. Low band radar systems have their limitations (size and mobility) and by narrowing down the number of radar bands used by an opponent we can better focus on countering those with ECM and jamming. Even when dealing with low-band radar systems an aircraft with a large RCS will be detected and tracked before one with a small RCS.

F-15Es will be retired ten years later to be replaced by F-35s, unfortunately.

Ten years later than what? The remaining F-15Cs and F-15Ds which should have been replaced by the F-22?

This is a very good article about the whole thing. While I disagree with the author's assertion that F-35 should be canceled (such a move would leave the West without a highly modern aircraft for some time as the current fleets age), there are still exceptional alternatives especially for replacing F-16 and T-38, which forms the bulk of the Western air forces.

The F-35 program can still be completed in a way that provides a large number of aircraft although it will never match the totals of the F-16 program. Now there is some sound thinking behind the idea of using a more advanced trainer in a secondary light fighter/attack role but the idea that we could only buy a mere 70 F-35s because of it is absurd.

T-50 would be cheaper than current late model F-16s, provide a similar capability in terms of range, reliability, and weapons payload, and more importantly could perform functions across a broad spectrum of operations. COIN, LIFT, and air superiority are all roles that T-50 can do quite well. Since the USAF is not interested in acquiring modernised F-16s, this is the best option for them if they wish to retain a sizable air fleet.

I disagree about the range and payload part. COIN yes, LIFT yes, air-superiority? Not if the enemy is flying anything relatively modern and more capable. Like any one of the upgraded MiG-29s or Su-27s out there. Modernized F-16s aren't exactly dirt-cheap either. Not enough so to justify cutting the planned F-35 buy for them.

While an all F-35 air force is appealing from the standpoint of sheer capability, it comes at a significant cost (figuratively and literally) that will reduce the USAF's capability for global operations in the future. The most realistic outcome is that many of the aircraft will never see combat in high intensity operations and be used simply for police operations like Irak and Afghanistan, where something like T-X might perform equally well.

I don't like the notion of an "all" F-35 air force but it will represent the backbone of our tactical airpower. I disagree about the capability reduction to if we are willing to stand by the program.

When the threat air defence is MANPADS and machine guns, it doesn't really matter if you're flying a $160m stealth jet or a $30m trainer.

And now many more "nation-building" exercises in 3rd world hellholes do we want to get involved in? Yes we need the capability to fight there but we also need to be able to fight the enemy with the latest and greatest equipment too.

DrRansom wrote:Why I don't like the F-35? It is fundamentally aerodynamically flawed. The USAF and USN are going to use a V/STOL airplane without the V/STOL capabilities. The F-35's aerodynamics are so bad that it requires the most powerful (and consequently most expensive and complicated) single fighter engine to recover acceptable performance. The F-35C with its presumably + 50 second transonic acceleration time is all but a subsonic bomber.

Aerodynamically flawed compared to what? The F-35C has performance "comparable to an F/A-18 Super Hornet slick, no pylons, no tanks".
When in doubt blame UGBEAR.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests