F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I found this in The Daily Telegraph:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What is the reputation of "Air and Space Power Journal"?

It is outstanding, just by the fact that you are able to read a dissenting opionion, I believe fair and balanced is applicable, do I agree with the article??? absolutely not, but the Col has a right to his opinion, and while it goes against the more numerous, and more qualified F-35 proponents, it is an opinion, and does have merit as far as it goes, but his solutions are really not solutions, the F-35 will survive where fourth gen platforms will not, theres not a shadow of a doubt that the course he outlines is a loser. period!

 

[delft]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

It is outstanding, just by the fact that you are able to read a dissenting opionion, I believe fair and balanced is applicable, do I agree with the article??? absolutely not, but the Col has a right to his opinion, and while it goes against the more numerous, and more qualified F-35 proponents, it is an opinion, and does have merit as far as it goes, but his solutions are really not solutions, the F-35 will survive where fourth gen platforms will not, theres not a shadow of a doubt that the course he outlines is a loser. period!

Of course it will survive. But for that "industrial policy" or "lobbying" will be enough without regard for the merits of the three versions. I still think the B version is idiotic and an irresponsible tax on the two other versions.

 

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Of course it will survive. But for that "industrial policy" or "lobbying" will be enough without regard for the merits of the three versions. I still think the B version is idiotic and an irresponsible tax on the two other versions.

I was talking about the reputation and reliability of Air & Space Power Master Delft, and it is a very reliable and accurate source, that it allows dissent makes it more so...........................

As to your assessment of the F-35 from an engineering and aerodynamic perspective, I concur completely, personally the idea of a STOVL aircraft is ignorant, but it is Kool, and they have done a very magnificent job of making a fine airplane out of all three variants, but you are of course correct. To handicap the A and C with the single engine necessary for the B is ignorant! Happy Now Delft, I Do agree with you.

Now, going forward, the F-35 will be mission capable, it does have very credible agility on the order of the F-16 +.

 

[Jeff Head]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

personally the idea of a STOVL aircraft is ignorant...

Well, I would take issue with that single statement in your post, my friend..

Perhaps in the context of making all three aircraft the same in the sense that they have one engine and are constrained as a result could be construed to be so.

But have a STOVL fighter/bomber capable of taking off from and operating from LHA/LHD vessels is a very smart idea. It allows for good air support, including air superiority, over a distant battlefield, without having to commit a fleet carrier to it.

In addition, if they add a decent AEW platform to it that is also STOVL (like the Osprey) it allows for credible Air Defense of convoys...also without committing a fleet carrier.

All of that is a smart, and a good thing.

Finally, I might add that a single engine is not necessarily in and of itself a bad thing either. The redundancy of two engines is a good thing, and can provide more power too...but we have had VERY successful single engine aircraft of all types in the modern era since the mid-1950s. Let me just name a few to make my point.

F-100 Super Sabre (2,300) Final Retirement 1988
F-102 Delta Dagger (1,000) Final Retirement 1979
F-104 Star Fighter (2,550) Final Retirement 2004
F-106 Delta Dart (350) Final Retirement 1988
F-8 Crusader (1,220) Final Retirement 2000
A-4 Skyhawk (2,960) Still in service
A-7 Corsair II (1,570) Still in service
F-16 Falcon (4,500) Still in service

The most widely produced military aircraft for the US (and many allies) have always been single engine aircraft, and most of them have performed very, very well.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

i dont say something about the cruise missile of kongsberg, but yes sorry, i meant the JAGM, but this can be carried i read...
so back on topic

Valpak, here is what you said,

but the range of targets is not very big, because the F-35 cant carry mavericks or the joint strike missile (when im wrong with the JSM pls correct) for tanks

Valapak, the Joint Strike Missile is developed by Kongsburg. So, yes, when speaking of the Joint Strike Missile, you did say something about the "cruise missile of Kongsberg," and it is a long range missile that fits into what you were speaking of.

JAGM is something entirely different. It is a short range missile being designed by the US to replace the BGM-71 TOW, the AGM-114 Hellfire and the AGM-65 Maverick missiles. It will be a relatively short range missile and, as I said, does not really apply to long range considerations for the F-35.

That is why I indicated that you should do a little more research before you post such things and make sure of what you are talking about.

 

[valapak]

Re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

Valpak, here is what you said,



Valapak, the Joint Strike Missile is developed by Kongsburg. So, yes, when speaking of the Joint Strike Missile, you did say something about the "cruise missile of Kongsberg," and it is a long range missile that fits into what you were speaking of.

JAGM is something entirely different. It is a short range missile being designed by the US to replace the BGM-71 TOW, the AGM-114 Hellfire and the AGM-65 Maverick missiles. It will be a relatively short range missile and, as I said, does not really apply to long range considerations for the F-35.

That is why I indicated that you should do a little more research before you post such things and make sure of what you are talking about.

I falsly wrote JSM, which is the version of the Naval Strike Missile for the use on F-35 and F-18 plattforms...
I talk about the JAGM, which can carried. Its a short range anti surface missile (anti tank).

For long range strikes, the US F-35 uses JASSM cruisse missile and JSOW precision guided glide bomb.
Also a series of cluster bombs (for example MK.20 Rockeye II) and JDAMS/Paveways guided bombs and freefall bombs like the Mark 80 series. Also the F-35 is able to carry the new SMD glide bomb. A version of the anti radiation air to surface missile HARM can also carried.

The JSM can carried in the internal weapon stations, but the JASSM and the Storm Shadow can only carried at the external weapon stations under the wings. I researched very well, but i think some people don't read my posts very well.

 

[thunderchief]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Maverick is one of the Three systems intended for replacement by the Joint Air to ground missile system the other two being Hellfire, and Tow. However the range of that system is only listed as 5 miles. but only from a rotary wing.

Biggest problem for F-35 is not Maverick, but inability to carry AGM-88 HARM in internal bay. That way, F-35s attempting deep penetration in enemy air space would have to choose between stealth and self defense. With new generation of SAMs that could be very hazardous, especially if they need to turn less stealthy side profile to enemy radar.

 

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Well, I would take issue with that single statement in your post, my friend..

Perhaps in the context of making all three aircraft the same in the sense that they have one engine and are constrained as a result could be construed to be so.

But have a STOVL fighter/bomber capable of taking off from and operating from LHA/LHD vessels is a very smart idea. It allows for good air support, including air superiority, over a distant battlefield, without having to commit a fleet carrier to it.

In addition, if they add a decent AEW platform to it that is also STOVL (like the Osprey) it allows for credible Air Defense of convoys...also without committing a fleet carrier.

All of that is a smart, and a good thing.

.

I think it is wise to concede to Master Delft that one of his primary concerns with the F-35 from an engineering standpoint is not only valid, but smart as well. His contention is that by making the A and C share the same platform as the B, that we are handi-capping not only the A and C, but the B as well. Each one will be more complex than it need be, each one will be more maintenance intensive than it need be, each one will be more expensive than it need be, and each face some design compromise in its performance that it need not be saddled with????

I do understand commonality, I do understand economy of scale, and I do understand from a maintainers perspective only having to learn one platform as opposed to three,,,,,,, but, like stereo's from the 70s, the high end components were all modular for many good reasons, the low end all combined am/fm tuner, turntable, eight-track player into one unit... all well and good until something got hot and burned out, or broken due to the complexity.........then you likely pitched it, because it wasn't worth fixing, and even new, it compromised on many areas of performance...................... go on ebay and see what a clean used Marantz 2270 will set you back, they are still a "thing" that audiophiles search for and pay good money.

Now using the two extremes, look at the A-10, a very fine example of an aircraft designed to perform a very specific job very well, on the other end of the spectrum the F-22 remains to this day the air-superiority platform that the bad guys "fear the most".. The A-10 is being "booted out" of the Air Force, the F-22 was produced in a fraction of the numbers needed for "air superiority", the question is will the F-35 do either job as well as its predecessor??? and the answer from an end user stand-point is NO, but they have both been "sacrificed" in order to "save" the F-35, which will likely be a fine airplane, but it will be heavy, complex, and expensive, and maintaining it will be fun, just listen to the boys at the "depot" level who will be bringing these LRIP birds up to "spec".

If you would like a specific component to look at, just look at the center fuse bulkhead that "had to be aluminum", in the B to save weight, but in the uncompromised A and C its titanium, these are failing in the B, and will require a "fix" to reach the "design life" they were intended for?????? yes it will be interesting to see how this all plays out as this airplane is brought up to speed... respectfully a little skeptical as always. brat

 

[SampanViking]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I know the F35 is a divisive aircraft that generates strong opinions on both sides and I have avoided getting involved in any discussions on it to date.

I would however like to put myself in the chair of the man picking up the bills and ask some pertinent questions.

First off, I do "get" this aircraft, I understand the concept of building an advanced multi role aircraft that replaces the roles of three? four? five?? dedicated aircraft operating today and combining them into one series (if not necessarily one model) of aircraft. I further understand that while the individual cost of a single new aircraft will be higher than any of the individual aircraft types it replaces, the logic is that it will cost less than the combined costs of each of all the models being replaced. I also get, that by having one plane that incorporates the mission capabilities of several other aircraft, you can drastically reduce aircraft numbers without reducing operational capability and you can reduce numbers significantly and actually increase operational capability.

So far so good, the theory is fine.

I also am aware that there is a lot of dispute about the technical performance and whether or not the F35 can do as is advertised. Well, this is not an argument I am qualified to engage in, so I will assume that the engineers are competent and honest and that the plane does exactly what it says on the tin. I will only add that anybody who knowingly tried to sell me a very expensive aircraft that did not work, should not be surprised to find themselves at the wrong end of a firing squad.

So; as the man that pays the bills, the first question to determine is how true is the assumption of cost for the F35 being significantly below the cost of the existing generation of aircraft it is replacing or the cost of producing capable but economic new generation dedicated replacements?
I have no doubt that the figures stacked up at the beginning, but as the costs have soared, that argument must have been significantly weakened if not fully broken.

This matters in consideration of the second question.
The F35 is considered a very capable aircraft, because it can undertake a very wide range of roles, far wider than that of any other aircraft currently flying or possibly even conceived. Such capability achieved through cost.
This claim of being the worlds most capable aircraft can however be misleading as it refers primarily to the breadth of its capabilities.
When however, undertaking any of its specific mission tasks, is the F35 any more capable than any of the dedicated enemy aircraft or indeed air defence systems, it will be in combat against, in that specific role?

In other words, while the F35 is designed (at cost) to undertake a wider range of roles than any other aircraft and assuming that it is technically capable of performing as advertised, is it any less likely to be shot down, whilst undertaking an individual role, than any far cheaper dedicated aircraft in each and every instance?

 

[Jeff Head]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I think it is wise to concede to Master Delft that one of his primary concerns with the F-35 from an engineering standpoint is not only valid, but smart as well. His contention is that by making the A and C share the same platform as the B, that we are handi-capping not only the A and C, but the B as well. Each one will be more complex than it need be, each one will be more maintenance intensive than it need be, each one will be more expensive than it need be, and each face some design compromise in its performance that it need not be saddled with????

...will the F-35 do either job as well as its predecessor??? and the answer from an end user stand-point is NO, but they have both been "sacrificed" in order to "save" the F-35, which will likely be a fine airplane, but it will be heavy, complex, and expensive, and maintaining it will be fun, just listen to the boys at the "depot" level who will be bringing these LRIP birds up to "spec".

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out as this airplane is brought up to speed... respectfully a little skeptical as always. brat

No problem with any of that my friend.

My comment was simply that STOVL aircraft are worthwhile. 2nd, that single engine aircraft can and have performed very well.

Clearly, forcing the JSF to have the Bravo while trying to maintain Alpha and Charlie commonality has forced compromises into the design...and I take no issue with that.

In the end, I believe it will work out fine...but it is clear that a separate design for each would have produced better aircraft in each individual role.