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

[perfume]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Perfume I agree wit the First part of your statement and partially with the second but the third part well...

I am Reminded of the 1959 Kitchen Debate. in Which a American company showed off to the Russian leadership the standard of living for the Average American household of the time. General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev and then Vice President of the United States of America Richard M. Nixon broke out into a debate. Khrushchev made a statement along the same lines stating that in 42 years Russia would surpass the Us. well the debate was 1959 and 42 years after that would have been 2001, I think the results speak for themselves.

So lets hold back on the predictions. unless of course you have a pebble in your shoe.

Notice I said 'if' not 'when', perhaps you have a pebble in your shoe (I don't know what that expression means btw.)

I guess we'll wait and see.

 

[Brumby]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

That's because the F35 isn't designed with current combat philosophies in mind. It is designed to fight in network-centric warfare where the planes will work together as a unit including other F35s/AWACS/Radar systems to engage enemies from a position with superior sensor capabilities - the AN/APG-81 in itself is a monster of a radar. The whole point of this type of warfare is to avoid getting into a turning and climbing fight with its opponents - the US has the F22 for that (albeit in smaller numbers); I cannot see a case where the US would feel completely unchallenged engaging peer air forces without the F22 in a future conflict scenario. The F35 with the HOBS AIM-9X is certainly not 'bad' in WVR combat, it's just not as good as the F22.

My concern with the F 35 is not that it is a poor design but that it is a compromised design. The result of such a path is sub optimal performance; forced complexity; enhanced cost and most likely increased maintenance issues and extended down time to operate. The J-31 in contrast is probably not saddle with such issues because of a simpler developmental path. Potentially in any conflict, the resolution may be decided on performance and quantity vs. force multiplier as in network centric (in which the F 35 was sold). There is the 2008 RAND study but obviously this has to be read in context. We can only speculate on likely outcomes.

Central to any network centric warfare is the ability to communicate and act as one but what we do know is that as is, the F 35 cannot talk to any other assets outside its own without giving away its position. I would be interested in a concept of operation on how this is meant to work successfully in a A2AD environment.

Now of course there are inherent risks involved in introducing a new school of combat philosophy; we saw back in Vietnam the ineffectiveness of the solely missile-armed F4s going up against overall inferior Russian Migs; but these are problems that are ironed out as experience develops and technology advances. In fact after the Vietnam War, BVR missile engagement has become the norm in modern air warfare. I can go on to list some the other major concerns with the F35 but I think you get my point.

These new strategies are being developed by those who are more qualified than any of us - people with the most amount of experience in modern air-combat and access to the most recent technological advances; we can question some of their assumptions, but would be foolish to deny what they have come up with. And these are not just theories, the US is backing this up with over a thousand F35s planned for their armed forces. The US is saying: let the haters hate, we'll do what we know is right for us (which incidentally is what China has been doing for the past few decades).

In the past, all the major programs like F-14, F-16 and F-18 took about 4 years from first flight to introduction. At best we are looking at 10 years for the A model and 12 years for the C model. If we take into account conception, the timeline is even much longer. In that time, the world has changed significantly and air warfare is subject to greater detection threats and at longer distances. The recent CSBA report (page 31) best sums up the current state of play "standoff distances exceeds the unrefueled radii of the F/A-18 E/F, F-22, and F-35A/B/C and thus effectively preclude an offensive strike role of the entire U.S. fighter force. I acknowledge the reasoning that regardless of a compromised or dedicated design in the F-35, the same constraint of standoff distances still exist. Nevertheless you will have a more capable and optimal aircraft at a lower cost so that funds can be divested to invest in longer and deeper penetration strike assets.

 

[perfume]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

My concern with the F 35 is not that it is a poor design but that it is a compromised design. The result of such a path is sub optimal performance; forced complexity; enhanced cost and most likely increased maintenance issues and extended down time to operate. The J-31 in contrast is probably not saddle with such issues because of a simpler developmental path. Potentially in any conflict, the resolution may be decided on performance and quantity vs. force multiplier as in network centric (in which the F 35 was sold). There is the 2008 RAND study but obviously this has to be read in context. We can only speculate on likely outcomes.

Central to any network centric warfare is the ability to communicate and act as one but what we do know is that as is, the F 35 cannot talk to any other assets outside its own without giving away its position. I would be interested in a concept of operation on how this is meant to work successfully in a A2AD environment.


In the past, all the major programs like F-14, F-16 and F-18 took about 4 years from first flight to introduction. At best we are looking at 10 years for the A model and 12 years for the C model. If we take into account conception, the timeline is even much longer. In that time, the world has changed significantly and air warfare is subject to greater detection threats and at longer distances. The recent CSBA report (page 31) best sums up the current state of play "standoff distances exceeds the unrefueled radii of the F/A-18 E/F, F-22, and F-35A/B/C and thus effectively preclude an offensive strike role of the entire U.S. fighter force. I acknowledge the reasoning that regardless of a compromised or dedicated design in the F-35, the same constraint of standoff distances still exist. Nevertheless you will have a more capable and optimal aircraft at a lower cost so that funds can be divested to invest in longer and deeper penetration strike assets.

Then it all boils down to the original problem: a debate surrounding the cost/benefits of developing a 'one fits all' platform vs three separate platforms for Air-Superiority, VTOL and Catapult launch; of which we may never get a definitive answer.

Looking back in hindsight it's easy for us to say: 'Oh it's a bad idea! The design was compromised because we tried to do everything at once!' but it would have been very difficult to predict these outcomes beforehand. And can anyone honestly say with certainty that the alternative of three separate platforms would be overall better in terms of value for money and that no one would have attempted a similar project had they had the same resources and know-how that the US had?

Others should be thankful the US has pioneered this space so they may avoid similar mistakes and learn lessons with much reduced costs.

At the end of the day, it is what it is - the F35, compromised? open to argument. Bad? Certainly not!

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Brumby]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Then it all boils down to the original problem: a debate surrounding the cost/benefits of developing a 'one fits all' platform vs three separate platforms for Air-Superiority, VTOL and Catapult launch; of which we may never get a definitive answer.

Looking back in hindsight it's easy for us to say: 'Oh it's a bad idea! The design was compromised because we tried to do everything at once!' but it would have been very difficult to predict these outcomes beforehand. And can anyone honestly say with certainty that the alternative of three separate platforms would be overall better in terms of value for money and that no one would have attempted a similar project had they had the same resources and know-how that the US had?

Others should be thankful the US has pioneered this space so they may avoid similar mistakes and learn lessons with much reduced costs.

At the end of the day, it is what it is - the F35, compromised? open to argument. Bad? Certainly not!

That's my take on it anyway.

Vertical lift and supersonic by nature and design are conflicting and unfortunately one school prevailed and we ended up with a program that we have today. A RAND study and a key finding on joint aircraft development is that historically there is no savings on life-cycle cost.

The Third Offset strategy that is currently being explored I suspect may have an impact on the F 35 program in terms of eventual numbers.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

actually T, you are looking to engage the 3 wire,,,, it may seem counter-intuitive, but that's the way it is on election night Nov 4, 2014.... I believe the Ford class will just have 3 wires??? now wheres the old man?

Awesome pictures Astute, thanks for posting,,,, missing our old Pappy, wish you were here big daddy?

Yes, the Ford class will have only 3 but spread further apart I believe. Also you're right about snagging the 3rd wire during traps. If you consistently missed the 3rd, it will also affect your promotion! the LSO will be saying something about your momma if you snag the 1st or 4th on a regular basis.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Okay the time of first flight vs the Time of production.
There is Joke in Star trek fandom that goes like this. "If you could flip a switch and build a starship, then you wouldn't need to..."
The Platform that First flew in 2000 was the X35 not the F35, There are a number of fundamental changes that were made. the first F35 took to the wing in 2008. if you follow that timeline what you find is 7 years form introduction to service A/B and 10 years for F35C assuming no delays. YF22 is the same the X plane that is considered it's predecessor first flew in 1990 the first F22A first flew in 1997 and introduction into service was 2005.
The older programs you mention seem short but thats because we often forget the prototypes and the changes and technologies were at a more mature level. the Teen series started with the F14 which leveraged tech form the F111, the F15 used ideas from the F14, F16 used Ideas form F15 and F18 was a outgrowth of F5. there were refinements along the way Early versions of the teens that entered service were often troubled along the way. Engines and electronics of F14, stability of F16 Engines on F15.

When it came time for Raptor and Lightning it went beyond just engines and Aerodynamcs

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

The US and its allies are going to be very happy to have the F-35...whichever versions we or they get.

It will have good enough flight characteristics in connection with its other capabilities to go up against and prevail against any other aircraft it may run up against in the performance of its duties.. It will have very good stealth. It's sensor fusion will be next to none. It is going to be able to carry a boat load of advanced weapons.

It will be, before all is said and done, the F-16 of 5th generation aircraft.

Has it had growing pains? Absolutely. Will there be more? Absolutely.

That's the nature of bringing advanced systems to the fore.

Yes, it has taken years. A big part of that is the nature of the design and manufacturing industry we have developed in the US with respect to Unions, Safety, wages, regulations and over site. We simply cannot do a F-8 Crusader or F-4 Phantom type design cycle any more.

Just the same, IMHO, it has taken longer than I feel it should have, Having said that...it is coming along nicely now and pricing is dropping as we forecast it would. And it is going to be into IOC years ahead of any peer competition.

No one else has been able to do what the US has done in terms of bringing forward 5th generation stealth designs. In the end...despite whatever compromises and failings we may now point to...it will be the benchmark in terms of a strike aircraft that others will have to measure up to, just as the F-22 is the benchmark in air superiority.

 

[Brumby]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Okay the time of first flight vs the Time of production.
There is Joke in Star trek fandom that goes like this. "If you could flip a switch and build a starship, then you wouldn't need to..."
The Platform that First flew in 2000 was the X35 not the F35, There are a number of fundamental changes that were made. the first F35 took to the wing in 2008. if you follow that timeline what you find is 7 years form introduction to service A/B and 10 years for F35C assuming no delays. YF22 is the same the X plane that is considered it's predecessor first flew in 1990 the first F22A first flew in 1997 and introduction into service was 2005.
The older programs you mention seem short but thats because we often forget the prototypes and the changes and technologies were at a more mature level. the Teen series started with the F14 which leveraged tech form the F111, the F15 used ideas from the F14, F16 used Ideas form F15 and F18 was a outgrowth of F5. there were refinements along the way Early versions of the teens that entered service were often troubled along the way. Engines and electronics of F14, stability of F16 Engines on F15.

When it came time for Raptor and Lightning it went beyond just engines and Aerodynamcs

The F-35 first flew on 15/12/2006 - not sure of your source as 2008. The F-22 took 8 tears from first flight to intro and to me would be the baseline for measuring the F 35 program. Logically some of the adopted technology would be piggy offed the F-22 and the F-117 program and hence we should see an acceleration in the program and not what we have today. Even the F-35 engine was developed off the F-22. My point is because it is a compromised design, it inevitably added complexity, scope and issues onto the program and the fact that the program slipped affirms this point.

 

[Brumby]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

It will have good enough flight characteristics in connection with its other capabilities to go up against and prevail against any other aircraft it may run up against in the performance of its duties.. It will have very good stealth. It's sensor fusion will be next to none. It is going to be able to carry a boat load of advanced weapons.

It will be, before all is said and done, the F-16 of 5th generation aircraft.

Unfortunately I cannot draw the same conclusion because the technical data that I have seen makes me apprehensive as to its advertised capabilities relating to penetration, combat and stealth. I wish I can be more optimistic as Australia will spend a truck load of money on the F-35 program.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

That's because the F35 isn't designed with current combat philosophies in mind. It is designed to fight in network-centric warfare where the planes will work together as a unit including other F35s/AWACS/Radar systems to engage enemies from a position with superior sensor capabilities - the AN/APG-81 in itself is a monster of a radar. The whole point of this type of warfare is to avoid getting into a turning and climbing fight with its opponents - the US has the F22 for that (albeit in smaller numbers); I cannot see a case where the US would feel completely unchallenged engaging peer air forces without the F22 in a future conflict scenario. The F35 with the HOBS AIM-9X is certainly not 'bad' in WVR combat, it's just not as good as the F22.

Now of course there are inherent risks involved in introducing a new school of combat philosophy; we saw back in Vietnam the ineffectiveness of the solely missile-armed F4s going up against overall inferior Russian Migs; but these are problems that are ironed out as experience develops and technology advances. In fact after the Vietnam War, BVR missile engagement has become the norm in modern air warfare. I can go on to list some the other major concerns with the F35 but I think you get my point.

These new strategies are being developed by those who are more qualified than any of us - people with the most amount of experience in modern air-combat and access to the most recent technological advances; we can question some of their assumptions, but would be foolish to deny what they have come up with. And these are not just theories, the US is backing this up with over a thousand F35s planned for their armed forces. The US is saying: let the haters hate, we'll do what we know is right for us (which incidentally is what China has been doing for the past few decades).

The J31 AS A PLATFORM does have the POTENTIAL to be superior to the F35, but that would require on-par avionics, engines and relevant supporting systems, which are yet to been seen. By the time we mature our systems to F35 levels, the US will be well on its way in developing next-gen systems.

Now if in 30-50 years China catches up to the US and we become the ones to be at the forefront of military aviation, our innovative efforts will have their naysayers too; being young I hope I will have the privilege to live to see that day.

Actually the F-35 has been designed with past, present, and future combat philosophies in mind, but you should recall that the F-35 is the JSF or Joint "Strike" Fighter,,, the F-35s supposed weaknesses are "overblown", and often exaggerated by those hoping to appear, as "experts", we could call it "expertitus. In truth, the F-35 is a very fine airplane, it will perform the mission it was conceived/designed/built to perform, now could you change things to make each aircraft more mission specific, sure, but you would lose the "commonality" that was behind this whole project.. this aircraft is being "developed" at present, the bugs, cracks, glitches are being "worked" and there will be workable solutions.... The main "problem" with the F-35 will be that the Hi in the Hi/Lo system approach has had its production capped at 187 aircraft, so the F-35 has been asked to "step up", and like any other good soldier, it is "stepping up". For our partners, the synchronism with our own, and others forces is in fact a huge "force multiplier" and well worth the "change" to get in the game in a meaningful way to provide for all of our "collective" security, and that friends is a lot of "value added" to our own dime??