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

[Air Force Brat]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Fair enough. Open competitions and exercises may reveal a bit more about the F-35's capabilities.

The F-35 for all the marketing and hype is still a very classified weapon, if the F-22 and the F-35 do go head to head, it is highly unlikely that you nor I will know much about it???

 

[Air Force Brat]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

This was my point too, with the exception that the F-22 is a better strike fighter compared to the F-35.



We should be since he is the guy who is going to run most of the F-35s for the USAF. I thought everybody already knew.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sorry, but the F-35 is also all aspect stealth. And I don't think we should dismiss RCS reduction from any particular side. And if you want to get out of harm's way what matters more is supercruise.



The best we know is the Mig-21 was reduced from its original figure of 3m2 to 0.25m2 on a treated airframe, and this was in the early 2000s.



You will find his quotes very interesting.

Yes indeed, particularly about the F-35 being stealthier than the F-22, as Bill Sweetman (yes the F-35 critic), points out, that is contrary to everything we all think we know about the F-22 vs F-35 capabilities, but the coatings of the F-35 are much easier to maintain at an optimum level, no doubt a factor in his statement?

 

[Air Force Brat]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

So what you are saying is a F-35 will beat the Raptor? Or are you saying nobody can match up to the US?

Maybe you will be in for a surprise. Possibly pretty soon; and soon is at least a year away.

Simply that there is only one F-22, and no one else has an aircraft in that same league now, nor do I believe that J-20, nor PAK-FA are attempting to meet the Raptor Head to Head in capability??? (for instance, we know the PAK-FA has compromised stealth shaping)? I really see the F-35 , J-20, PAK-FA, and J-31 in the same neighborhood, I believe even the US has decided that the F-22 is more expensive, sophisticated, and capable than it needed to be. TO GOOD.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

if you believe in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

then, qualitatively:

Actually I don't believe these mathematical models,,,,,,, its like looking at a "sunset" and attempting to describe it in words, you're never going to "completely encompass" the "sunset" in a literary description, nor are your going to be able to "mathematically" encompass aerodynamic lift or drag, you are going to be missing a lot of somethings???

Just to look at the F-35 and its computer modeling,,,, how did vertical stabilizer buffeting get overlooked in all that computer modeling and 50 million dollars worth of wind-tunnel testing?, or aft main bulkhead cracking in the F-35B, or even the wing root rib cracking?????

It is equally misleading to assume that mathematical modeling will give you an accurate picture of real life attrition in any air engagement,,,,

I stand by my F-22 vs F-35 numbers,,,,, I'm sure they're not entirely accurate, but I'm even more sure that the mathematical prediction is "missing a lot" more. AFB

 

[Brumby]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I wasn't talking about 32 F-35s duking it out with 8 F-22s. I was talking about an enemy commander being given 8 F-22s in his theater of operations and the USAF commander matching that with 32 F-35s in his theater of operations. The differences are more into economics and logistics. How much would 8 F-22s cost to maintain and operate versus 32 F-35s. How easy is it to transport and deploy 8 F-22s compared to 32 F-35s. What if the enemy commander is also given 32 F-22s. And so on.

Hostage has only spoken about 8 F-35s and 2 F-22s when it comes to SEAD/DEAD, not other roles.

Having tried to address this issue from one perspective, maybe we should take a converse position and assume that Hostages know what he is talking about and that Sweetman is linking two unrelated comments as if it is one case to support a certain narrative that he is trying to project. The words in bold are supposedly Hostages comments. I think the problem here maybe is an attempt to take 1 + 1 to make it equal to twenty two when Sweetman tried to link Hostages comments to the RAND study as if somehow there is a nexus.

“I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two (F-22) Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”
The words “that site” imply that Hostage is talking about destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD) rather than air superiority alone – where the F-22’s speed and larger missile load could be expected to yield an advantage over the F-35. But a four-to-one advantage for the F-22 in DEAD, which is one of the JSF’s prime design missions, is unfavourable in terms of cost-effectiveness: according to a 2008 RAND study of continuing production of the F-22 (at 30 or fewer per year) and the most optimistic F-35 numbers from Lockheed Martin (at 150-plus per year), the F-22 at worst costs twice as much as the F-35.

If I overlay Hostages comments of "synergistic effects" into the concept of cooperative engagement and the F-35 acting as nodes in the 21st century battlefield concept of network centric warfare then it makes sense as to the F-22 vs F-35 comparison being made. In a world without the F-35, the F-22 would first go in to take out the high threat targets to be followed by progressive degration of other adversary targets by less capable air assets. In the F-35 world, they would go in as the eyes and ears and operate cooperatively with other air assets operating from safe standoff distances. The DEAD/SEAD activities will be simultaneous and comprehensive and would be measured in days as opposed to weeks. In that sense it would be synergistic in nature and execution.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I'm going to keep it very simple. Countries purchasing F-35s will be ok as long as their potential adversaries do not have the likes of j20s and PAK-FAs.
US will be ok because we have that ace up our sleeve in the form of Raptor for escort duties in high threat theater and use them for A2A engagements with stealthy fighters.

 

[HMS Astute]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I've realised that when people make the comparisons they tend to forget the fact that the support units, communication systems, satellite networks, interoperability, also the skills, professionalism, experience, and tactics of the pilots who actually operate and control the machines are very important as well. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Having tried to address this issue from one perspective, maybe we should take a converse position and assume that Hostages know what he is talking about and that Sweetman is linking two unrelated comments as if it is one case to support a certain narrative that he is trying to project. The words in bold are supposedly Hostages comments. I think the problem here maybe is an attempt to take 1 + 1 to make it equal to twenty two when Sweetman tried to link Hostages comments to the RAND study as if somehow there is a nexus.

“I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two (F-22) Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”
The words “that site” imply that Hostage is talking about destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD) rather than air superiority alone – where the F-22’s speed and larger missile load could be expected to yield an advantage over the F-35. But a four-to-one advantage for the F-22 in DEAD, which is one of the JSF’s prime design missions, is unfavourable in terms of cost-effectiveness: according to a 2008 RAND study of continuing production of the F-22 (at 30 or fewer per year) and the most optimistic F-35 numbers from Lockheed Martin (at 150-plus per year), the F-22 at worst costs twice as much as the F-35.

If I overlay Hostages comments of "synergistic effects" into the concept of cooperative engagement and the F-35 acting as nodes in the 21st century battlefield concept of network centric warfare then it makes sense as to the F-22 vs F-35 comparison being made. In a world without the F-35, the F-22 would first go in to take out the high threat targets to be followed by progressive degration of other adversary targets by less capable air assets. In the F-35 world, they would go in as the eyes and ears and operate cooperatively with other air assets operating from safe standoff distances. The DEAD/SEAD activities will be simultaneous and comprehensive and would be measured in days as opposed to weeks. In that sense it would be synergistic in nature and execution.

You get an A+ on this paper, as you have successfully put the pieces of the puzzle together, the F-35s will be very good, but not as good at a single/two ship like the Raptor operates, and that is all General Hostage is saying, in order to be as effective as the Raptor, the F-35 needs the synergistic effect, that those layers provide to fulfill the whole mission, where-as the F-22 is high, Mach 1.8 supercruise, Very stealthy, and if it would happen to get jumped by anything on the planet, it has the tools to win, it is still The One and Only Alien Bird! the F-35 needs a few team mates!

 

[Air Force Brat]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I'm going to keep it very simple. Countries purchasing F-35s will be ok as long as their potential adversaries do not have the likes of j20s and PAK-FAs.
US will be ok because we have that ace up our sleeve in the form of Raptor for escort duties in high threat theater and use them for A2A engagements with stealthy fighters.

Kwai here is a real US Navy veteran, and he has spent lots of time in Pri Fly on an aircraft carrier, and he knows where-of he speaks, so in the big picture I am 100% in agreement. Since I am the "Brat" however, I must add two or three of my own "personal beliefs",,,

1. I am rather firmly convinced that while not nearly as fast as the J-20, nor as agile as the PAK-FA, General Hostage believes the F-35 will be more stealthy, and have much more situational awareness, and with sufficient numbers will be able to "stand and fight", and do very well against these peers.

2. Any of the partners who buy/operate the F-35 very likely have a mutual defense agreement of some sort with the US, hence they would also benefit from the "Raptor Factor".

3. With a Republican controlled house and senate, much of the "squishiness" has already begun to fall away from the DOD, and that a more firm resolve will come of some of our "friends" "pressing us" a little,,,, for example the recent Russian activity in and around Europe, is drawing our allies into our inner circle once again, and they will be expressing their desire for a little "back up"??

 

[Jura The idiot]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Actually I don't believe these mathematical models,,,,,,,

It is equally misleading to assume that mathematical modeling will give you an accurate picture of real life attrition in any air engagement,,,,

OK, this http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/wor...trike-fighter-thread-117-5796.html#post313661 was just to check my Matlab scripts still worked yesterday