Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10429
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:29 am

Well F-18 Super Hronet, with all it problems, at least stayed reasonably within time and budget. P-8 does look okay as well.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 4198
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:49 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 50):
Well F-18 Super Hronet, with all it problems, at least stayed reasonably within time and budget. P-8 does look okay as well.

There is a reason for that; both programs were low cost, low risk derivatives of existing platforms. There was a report that showed the learning curve between a number of fighter jet programs, and it was pointed out that since the Super Hornet re-used or used derivatives of existing hardware, the learning and development curve for that platform was fairly flat compared to something like F-22.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:01 pm

Sustained turning performance for the F-35B is being reduced from 5G to 4.5G while the F-35A sinks from 5.3G to 4.6G according to the report.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...owers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/

I wonder what a typical airliner can do in this regard. I suspect an airliner should be able to sustain at least 2Gs. Does anyone know?

Limited to 4.6Gs, the F-35A (USAF) is not going to outmaneuver anyone. For comparison, the F-16 can sustain 9Gs If I am not mistaken.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6618
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:33 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
the Boeing X-32 could not demonstrate vertical flight in a satisfactory format or demonstrate that the design has sufficient growth potential,

Yep, growth potential was part of it's down fall. Also, the hot wing tip jets , , ,

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
Essentially, there was no major development required for the P-8, only system integration.

Ah, but it was system integration that waylaid the Wedgetail program.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
not to mention that Boeing proposal required substantial redesign.

The re-design would have been primarily form factor of the airframe that would have improved LO, aerodynamics, structural integrity and producibility. All of which they know how to do.

bt
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5126
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:29 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
not to mention that Boeing proposal required substantial redesign.

Considering neither the F-35 nor the F-22 share *any* commonality at all with their demonstrators, I'm not entirely sure thats a valid point.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6618
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:47 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 54):
Considering neither the F-35 nor the F-22 share *any* commonality at all with their demonstrators, I'm not entirely sure thats a valid point.

This is particular true when you look at the inner structure of the tech demonstrators. Because they are only tech demonstrators, much of the internal spars and frames are often made from materials and processes that are easy to do and only have to meet the load and life requirement of a demonstrator program.

Much of the structure are often re-designed when a full up production aircraft are built . . . if not with different materials and processes, at least with different gauges to meet the full life time requirement of a production aircraft.

For example: A demonstrator aircraft may have aluminum frames, where as a full production aircraft may have composite or titanium frames.

bt
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4131
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:02 pm

I hope no one is implying that there is no difference between the F-35 and the prototype used to win the competition... since we know there were many differences, this whole line of discussion is merely a deflection from the real issues at hand.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:09 am

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ificant-operational-impact-381683/

Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

Most egregious is the F-35C-model's drastically reduced transonic acceleration capabilities. "That [43 seconds] is a massive amount of time, and assuming you are in afterburner for acceleration, it's going to cost you even more gas," the pilot says. "This will directly impact tactical execution, and not in a good way."
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 4198
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:55 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 57):
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ificant-operational-impact-381683/

Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

Two problems:

1. There is no single "sustained turn rate" or sustained g for an airplane. Every speed, altitude, gross weight, power setting, and store load has a different sustained g level. Until the specific conditions are listed, there is no way to compare sustained g levels.

2. That's not an apples to apples comparison. The sustained turn rates, that they're referring to, are at different speeds/conditions, than the Max G sustained turn rate would be at. That's not to say that these issues aren't worthy of note, but they need proper context.

FYI, the comparison is made for a like configuration of a F-16 armed with 2 AIM-120's and 4 Mk-84 JDAM's, 2 x external 370 gallon fuel tanks, 150 rounds of cannon ammo, enough fuel for 540nm, at 15,000ft and speed of Mach 0.0. Something tells me a F-16 loaded like that won't maneuver all that well...
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6431
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:03 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 58):
150 rounds of cannon ammo

Only 150? How good is the hit rate?  Wow!


David
 
Max Q
Posts: 9428
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:13 am

Need to stop making excuses for this thing and ditch it.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6618
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 59):
Only 150? How good is the hit rate?

LOL . . . good enough to shoot and scoot . . .   

bt
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:46 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 58):
. That's not an apples to apples comparison. The sustained turn rates, that they're referring to, are at different speeds/conditions, than the Max G sustained turn rate would be at.

Even empty, the F-35 has a max sustained G limitation of under 5G. Loaded like you describe, I would assume even less. With these structural limitations, it is clear that this is a big step backward, no matter which apples to apples loads you compare. The F-35 just can't turn tightly, even empty. And it can't accelerate well either, even using gobs of afterburner.

In the future, IR sensors and IR aircraft signatures will be very important, just as radar and radar stealth were 10 years ago. If an enemy fighter can see the F-35 IR signature from 60 miles away without using any radar and shoot a long range IR and data linked A2A missile, it's limited maneuverability will make it a much easier target to hit than say an F-16. The F-35 will also go in mostly with it's radar off, for stealth reasons. So it becomes an IR detection issue, not radar - as to who is detected first.

Radar stealth does the F-35 little good when IR is the main sensor. And the slow acceleration of the F-35 only makes it's IR signature worse. At 43,000lbs of thrust, the F-35 already has the biggest, hottest engine on any USAF fighter. But it's still slow and can't turn. That's not progress and not good.

The French MICA A2A missile for instance already has a version that is IR guided but also data linked to the aircraft, so it can be guided by the aircraft's IR senors initially, until the MICA gets an IR lock on. At MACH 4. By 2020, I am sure more such missiles will be out there with better and better IR suites and sensors, including on the F-35. That's the one thing they predicted well and planned for.

I then comes down to low IR signatures and better IR sensors. The F-35, flying at 25,000 feet at subsonic speeds with that huge power plant, is going to be visible from a long ways away through it's IR heavy signature, IMHO. Once it's been detected by enemy fighters or AA batteries this way, it's survival chances are less than today's fighters, because:

1. It can't maneuver
2. It has a huge IR signature
3. It can't outrun anything
4. It's weapons load is very limited in an attempt to remain radar stealthy

In my view, the F-35 is a unilateral disarmament program, where money disappears and military capability is reduced. The only viable alternative is to sustain Gen 4.5 aircraft with incremental improvements as the F-16 and F-15 upgrade programs are doing - until the drones are more capable. And that's happening even faster than F-35 development, with the X-47B UCAV scheduled to land a trap on a carrier before even the F-35. These stealth UCAVS also have a low IR signature for various reasons. The F-22 also has a low IR signature, because it was designed from the start with that in mind, unlike the F-35.

The a gradual assimilation of the UCAVS can take place into the fleets. The money saved by cancelling the F-35 can be used to speed up this process. But even so, UCAVS are far cheaper that manned frames anyway, saving even more money.

[Edited 2013-01-31 08:51:18]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:24 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
What a joke this thing is.


Time to kill the program.

        

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
We all know how Boeing failed miserably vs. LM in the 5th gen JSF competition. To think that the whale would've done better is a joke at best.

No, Boeing was set up to fail the JSF Compitition by the DOD. Just four months before the JSF contract was awarded, the Navy changed its specs for the Marine and Navy versions of the jet. The X-32 could not be rebuilt in time, so it flew in its original delta wing configueration, even though by the time of the contract award Boeing had completely redisigned the X-32. The Navy did not want another chin mounted intake airplane.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 23):
Quoting moo (Reply 7):Do we really need to be discovering issues like these 12 years in?
Six (6) years in...not twelve.

Contract awarded in October 2001.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 16):And they should have penalised at that point. Moving the goalposts when you find out your product can't do what you publicly said it would do is just lying by another name. I will say in Boeing's defense that, w.r.t. the 787 delays, they did go way out of their way to offer compensation to the customers. In that, at least, they were honourable. And they used their own $$ to do this, they didn't put a hand out to JAL, ANA, AC, etc., and say "We need more $$". But that's exactly what happens with defense programs.

Or the goal posts weren't realistic; for example, the design spec of the F-35 for all variants would have meant that the the F-35 would have better transonic maneuverability than anything other than F-22, and be more maneuverable than any US-developed fighter available.

Oh don't give us that crap now. For years you have been telling us (many of us have real world experience in military aircraft operations) just how wonderful the F-35 is, when in reality it is and always has been a worhtless piece of junk. Now you say the original 'goal posts' weren't realistic? Well, which is it? The 'goal posts' are very real and achievable, the F-22 has done it, and that is a LM product, too. The F-15 reached all of its goals, then surpassed them. So did the F-14, F-16, and F/A-18.

Selling the F-35 to any country is no more than a post retirement job guarantee for retiring Flag Officers. That is why so many Generals and Admirals are on board with it.

If the F-35 (ever) gets deployed, it will face real world opposition in the form of the latest and greatest Chinese and Russian fighters who will be trained to stop it at all costs, even if they have to collide with it.

Maybe there is still time to dust off the old redisigned (2000) X-32 drawings?

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...elease/photo_release_000725_2o.htm
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 4198
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:48 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 62):
Even empty, the F-35 has a max sustained G limitation of under 5G. Loaded like you describe, I would assume even less. With these structural limitations, it is clear that this is a big step backward, no matter which apples to apples loads you compare. The F-35 just can't turn tightly, even empty. And it can't accelerate well either, even using gobs of afterburner.

Incorrect. The maximum sustained G limitation structurally of the F-35A and C are 9G's. B is 7G. What is being described is the loaded limit with weapons. If a turning fight is unavoidable, the F-35 has good instantaneous turn performance and good high angle of attack (50°AOA limit) performance comparable to a F/A-18, which means a similar strategy could be adopted if one finds him or herself in such a situation.

F-16 can sustain 9g under some conditions. I will tell you, under other conditions, it can sustain less than 5g. So the numbers presented for the F-35 mean absolutely nothing without the conditions being stated.

However, with the current crop of HOBS missiles, getting into a turning fight is kind of pointless. What will be more important is information; the ability to collect, analyze, and act on information gather by sensors and other platforms in the theatre.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
The 'goal posts' are very real and achievable, the F-22 has done it, and that is a LM product, too. The F-15 reached all of its goals, then surpassed them. So did the F-14, F-16, and F/A-18.

Incorrect. F-15, F-14, F-16 and F/A-18 all failed to meet initial goals. The F-15 failed to hit a threshold maximum speed requirement while armed. The F-14 had major handling issues at higher angles of attack. The F-16 had deep stall issues at high angles of attack, and they were still making major structural changes to fix this issue right up until Block 15. The F/A-18 completely failed to meet a number of goals, was in serious trouble, and was in danger of cancellation because of the inability to hit targets right past IOC.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
No, Boeing was set up to fail the JSF Compitition by the DOD. Just four months before the JSF contract was awarded, the Navy changed its specs for the Marine and Navy versions of the jet. The X-32 could not be rebuilt in time, so it flew in its original delta wing configueration, even though by the time of the contract award Boeing had completely redisigned the X-32. The Navy did not want another chin mounted intake airplane.

Incorrect. Three factors were at play here;
1. Boeing lack of experience developing a fighter aircraft (the last fighter they developed was the P-26 Peashooter), despite the acquisition of McDD, and thus was very conservative with many elements of the design
2. Boeing discovered a major flaw with the entire delta wing design as it wasn't as maneuverable as expected, forcing a late redesign which could not be demonstrated in the competition. It hinted that the Boeing design wasn't as adaptable as the Lockheed Martin design. Furthermore, during the demonstrations, the X-32 demonstrated various software glitches which affected key systems.
3. Lockheed Martin was willing to bet the farm on the lift fan concept, which the Navy and Marine Corps saw as having more potential.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6618
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:47 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
1. Boeing lack of experience developing a fighter aircraft (the last fighter they developed was the P-26 Peashooter), despite the acquisition of McDD, and thus was very conservative with many elements of the design

This is very true with minor technicalities:

At that time "Boeing" included the former North American which built the P-51 etc . . .

Boeing have some experience with the F-22 wing design.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
the X-32 demonstrated various software glitches which affected key systems.

Software seems not be be Boeing's strong point ever since they got rid of that part of their business.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
bet the farm on the lift fan concept,

And I guess this is the crux of the decision. If the lift fan works, then the right decision is made. They just will be paying a lot more money because of that risk.

bt
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:01 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 60):
Need to stop making excuses for this thing and ditch it.

You need to stop whining with one-line statements on F35 threads. It's childish and doesn't help the discussion.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
The Navy did not want another chin mounted intake airplane.

I'm glad. I wouldn't choose that thing on aesthetics alone. It would make for an excellent FOD cleaner however.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
when in reality it is and always has been a worhtless piece of junk.

The reality is the people who run things don't think so, including the Military pilots who will be putting their life on the line. If everyone listened to people's opinions on the internet we'd still be flying around in P51's. The Super Hornet is technically a piece of junk, put together quickly based on an old design. Can you imagine the hoopla that would surround the program if the F-35 was just an improved F-15 or F-16 with the same shape? Every program was over-budget and late with its own technical programs, its only because of the internet has the F35 faced such media scrutiny. It's pieces of junk like this that will protect the freedoms and rights for western democracy for the next 50 years.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
If the F-35 (ever) gets deployed, it will face real world opposition in the form of the latest and greatest Chinese and Russian fighters

You have that backwards. If the Chinese or Russians ever figure out how to build a valid adversary to the F-35 in the next 100 years, it is THEY who will have to face highly trained and equipped pilots from western forces.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
Maybe there is still time to dust off the old redisigned (2000) X-32 drawings?

Why not bring back the F-4? Give it internal weapons bays, new engines and a stealth coating. Just for nostalgia sake.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 4198
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:30 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 65):
And I guess this is the crux of the decision. If the lift fan works, then the right decision is made. They just will be paying a lot more money because of that risk.

And the lift fan DOES work; it performed better during the JSF testing than expected, and ultimately, it was a more sound approach to STOVL than the Harrier approach. Remember that during the JSF testing, the X-32 had major issues with hot gas ingestion, while with X-35, they didn't have the issue at all.

One of the biggest deciding factors in the JSF competition in many views was that Boeing never managed to make a vertical landing with the aircraft in complete configuration; Boeing was forced to shed many pieces of equipment to demonstrate STOVL flight, while Lockheed Martin was able to demonstrate STOVL flight with the aircraft in the same trim and configuration that it could go to supersonic speed in. Coupled with the requirement that the X-32 needed a major reconfiguration and redesign that was not demonstrated or tested, Boeing's approach was more riskier.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2756
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:22 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
If the F-35 (ever) gets deployed, it will face real world opposition in the form of the latest and greatest Chinese and Russian fighters who will be trained to stop it at all costs, even if they have to collide with it.

At this rate the A-10 will be a better interceptor than the F-35. The rate at which range, payload, and manuverablity keep dropping off the F-35 means that in 10 years it will be worse than a F16 in all catagories in "operational" configuration. You know, despite being a heavier aircraft than a F15. oh wait, maybe its because they packed the wieght of a F15 into the size of a F16 is why its doing badly.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:11 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):The Navy did not want another chin mounted intake airplane.
I'm glad. I wouldn't choose that thing on aesthetics alone. It would make for an excellent FOD cleaner however.

The USN had a lot of succes with the F-8 and A-7.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):If the F-35 (ever) gets deployed, it will face real world opposition in the form of the latest and greatest Chinese and Russian fighters
You have that backwards. If the Chinese or Russians ever figure out how to build a valid adversary to the F-35 in the next 100 years, it is THEY who will have to face highly trained and equipped pilots from western forces.

Get real. The Chinese and Russian tactics are to swam the incoming package with lots of cheap fighters, knowing the will loose most of them, then when the US package is about out of missiles and cannon fire, they attack with their front line fighters.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):when in reality it is and always has been a worhtless piece of junk.
The reality is the people who run things don't think so, including the Military pilots who will be putting their life on the line. If everyone listened to people's opinions on the internet we'd still be flying around in P51's. The Super Hornet is technically a piece of junk, put together quickly based on an old design. Can you imagine the hoopla that would surround the program if the F-35 was just an improved F-15 or F-16 with the same shape? Every program was over-budget and late with its own technical programs, its only because of the internet has the F35 faced such media scrutiny. It's pieces of junk like this that will protect the freedoms and rights for western democracy for the next 50 years.

The P-51 went from first drawing to first flight in about 4 months, as did many fine aircraft of the WWII era. The designers used slide rules and T-squares, pencils and paper. The same company that built the P-51, NA also built the F-86, and MDD built many fighters, including many of the century series. The F-15 came from MDD, and all of that is now Boeing.

The RAAF is about to order more F-18Fs, are they ordering a piece of junk? BTW, they may use monies they have set aside for the F-35.

The F-35 isn't the only weapons system facing tight scrutiny, the LCS and DD-1000 are too. The F-35 can be dropped like the Commance attack helio, excaliber gun, YAL-1A, SDI, as was the MCLWG, and other systems.

I am all for weapons that will defend us for the next 50 years. ut everything has a price to pay, and with the F-35 we will pay the most ever for a fighter type airplane, for less capability, a system that is good at a lot of missions, but master of none of them. An airplane that is only good at the missions it will fly is not good enough to base our future defense on.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:31 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
Incorrect. The maximum sustained G limitation structurally of the F-35A and C are 9G's. B is 7G. What is being described is the loaded limit with weapons.

Not true. You need to read what the baseline is, not sales brochures from 1 year ago.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
the F-35 has good instantaneous turn performance and good high angle of attack (50°AOA limit) performance comparable to a F/A-18

I don't even think you know what that means. Going to a high AoA at slow speeds doesn't mean you can turn tighter with the G load limitation. Once again you proved to me you don't get AoA at all and for what it is useful. I bet you don't even know there is a high speed and a low speed critical AoA.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
F-16 can sustain 9g under some conditions. I will tell you, under other conditions, it can sustain less than 5g. So the numbers presented for the F-35 mean absolutely nothing without the conditions being stated.

No, the F-35 can do no such thing anymore. The baseline standard used for the comparison was a clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Practically empty. This is the baseline for the F-35 and F-16, carrying just two A2A missiles. And even there, the F-35 is limited to under 5Gs. Good God. A fighter it isn't.



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
What will be more important is information; the ability to collect, analyze, and act on information gather by sensors and other platforms in the theatre.

- and most importantly, to remain as undetectable as possible. While the F-35 has some Radar low observability, it practically melts it's own tail feathers with heat. The F-35s IR signature must be massive and thus much more easily detectable than say an F-16 or F-15 in this spectrum.

All the extreme costs and development troubles aside, the entire concept of the F-35 is not cost effective in my opinion. Radar will simply play a lesser role going forward, with everyone using it less and IR and other sensors becoming more important. The Russians, French with Rafale and USAF with the F-22 are employing this, as is the F-35 itself. But the F-35 has no defenses, because it signals it's IR presence stronger than even an F-15 in this regard. And that can never be fixed on the F-35.

That's how the F-22 can sneak up on others undetected - not using radar, as that would expose it - but by using other sensors and radar from other sources and having a low IR signature. All this will certainly be incorporated, if not already done, in many other fighters and even AA batteries.

That F-35's huge heat signature is a pure giveaway and it can't even run or fight itself out of there once detected - if it even knows it's detected. Trying to outflank a incoming AA missile will be so much the less possible, with the G limitations.

[Edited 2013-01-31 17:37:23]
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:50 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 59):
Only 150? How good is the hit rate?

I'm not sure where the 150 rounds came from, but the F-16's 20mm cannon carries some 510 rounds, the F-35's 25mm cannon has 182 rounds in the internal cannon on the -A, and 220 rounds in the podded cannon on the -B and -C.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 4198
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:50 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):

Not true. You need to read what the baseline is, not sales brochures from 1 year ago.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):
I don't even think you know what that means. Going to a high AoA at slow speeds doesn't mean you can turn tighter with the G load limitation. Once again you proved to me you don't get AoA at all and for what it is useful. I bet you don't even know there is a high speed and a low speed critical AoA.

I have read the baseline, and it is clear to me what the baseline is:
http://2011.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2011/05/18/36290792.pdf

See page 9, Figure 3.

It appears you don't understand what the numbers actually mean, or have bothered to look up what they mean in the first place.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):
No, the F-35 can do no such thing anymore. The baseline standard used for the comparison was a clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Practically empty. This is the baseline for the F-35 and F-16, carrying just two A2A missiles. And even there, the F-35 is limited to under 5Gs. Good God. A fighter it isn't.

Incorrect, please review the Bowman document. The KPP is listed there.

In addition, you are cherry picking quotes to suit your aims and purposes; in the same Flightglobal article, it also states this:

Quote:
While there is no disputing that the reduced performance specifications are a negative development, there may be ways to make up for some of the F-35's less than stellar kinematic performance.

Pilots will have to make extensive use of the F-35's stealth characteristics and sensors to compensate for performance areas where the jet has weaknesses, sources familiar with the aircraft say....

...In an air-to-air engagement, for example, tactics would have to be developed to emphasize stealth and beyond visual range (BVR) combat. If a visual range engagement is unavoidable, every effort would have to be taken to enter the "merge" from a position of advantage, which should be possible, given the F-35's stealth characteristics.

Once engaged within visual range, given the F-35's limitations and relative strengths, turning should be minimized in favor of using the jet's Northrop Grumman AAQ-37 distributed aperture system of infrared cameras, helmet-mounted display and high off-boresight missiles to engage the enemy aircraft. If a turning fight is unavoidable, the F-35 has good instantaneous turn performance and good high angle of attack (50°AOA limit) performance comparable to a Boeing F/A-18 Hornet, which means a similar strategy could be adopted if one finds him or herself in such a situation.

Lockheed, for its part, maintains that the F-35 has performance superior to that of any "legacy" fighter at high altitudes. "Having flown over 4000 hours in fighter jets, I will tell you the F-35's capability at altitude, mostly driven by the internal carriage of those weapons, as a combat airplane, this airplane exceeds the capabilities of just any legacy fighter that I'm familiar with in this kind of regime," says Steve O'Bryan, the company's business development director for the F-35 during a January interview.
But much of the discussion is theoretical at this point, the F-35 has not been operationally tested, nor have tactics been developed for the aircraft's usage. How the aircraft will eventually fare once fully developed and fielded is an open question.


Do we have to re-write the book on tactics? Yes, we do. We can't take the book for air combat developed for a F-86 Sabre and apply it to a F-15 Eagle. The F-35 will be employed differently compared to other existing combat aircraft in service. Some tactics that were valid with previous aircraft won't be valid with F-35; likewise, any tactics developed for F-35 probably won't be applicable to its eventual replacement.
 
Max Q
Posts: 9428
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:52 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):

Reply 69, posted Thu Jan 31 2013 20:11:44 your local time (2 hours 27 minutes 39 secs ago) and read 46 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):The Navy did not want another chin mounted intake airplane.
I'm glad. I wouldn't choose that thing on aesthetics alone. It would make for an excellent FOD cleaner however.

The USN had a lot of succes with the F-8 and A-7.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):If the F-35 (ever) gets deployed, it will face real world opposition in the form of the latest and greatest Chinese and Russian fighters
You have that backwards. If the Chinese or Russians ever figure out how to build a valid adversary to the F-35 in the next 100 years, it is THEY who will have to face highly trained and equipped pilots from western forces.

Get real. The Chinese and Russian tactics are to swam the incoming package with lots of cheap fighters, knowing the will loose most of them, then when the US package is about out of missiles and cannon fire, they attack with their front line fighters.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):when in reality it is and always has been a worhtless piece of junk.
The reality is the people who run things don't think so, including the Military pilots who will be putting their life on the line. If everyone listened to people's opinions on the internet we'd still be flying around in P51's. The Super Hornet is technically a piece of junk, put together quickly based on an old design. Can you imagine the hoopla that would surround the program if the F-35 was just an improved F-15 or F-16 with the same shape? Every program was over-budget and late with its own technical programs, its only because of the internet has the F35 faced such media scrutiny. It's pieces of junk like this that will protect the freedoms and rights for western democracy for the next 50 years.

The P-51 went from first drawing to first flight in about 4 months, as did many fine aircraft of the WWII era. The designers used slide rules and T-squares, pencils and paper. The same company that built the P-51, NA also built the F-86, and MDD built many fighters, including many of the century series. The F-15 came from MDD, and all of that is now Boeing.

The RAAF is about to order more F-18Fs, are they ordering a piece of junk? BTW, they may use monies they have set aside for the F-35.

The F-35 isn't the only weapons system facing tight scrutiny, the LCS and DD-1000 are too. The F-35 can be dropped like the Commance attack helio, excaliber gun, YAL-1A, SDI, as was the MCLWG, and other systems.

I am all for weapons that will defend us for the next 50 years. ut everything has a price to pay, and with the F-35 we will pay the most ever for a fighter type airplane, for less capability, a system that is good at a lot of missions, but master of none of them. An airplane that is only good at the missions it will fly is not good enough to base our future defense on.

Very well said, if ever there was a case to ditch a weapons system this is it.



Buy a few hundred more F22's and keep ugrading and building the superb F16, you would still save money.



The F35 is the epitome of the defense system gone wrong.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:07 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):
lots of cheap fighters

No one knows how many fighters Russia and China will deploy, but it sure as hell won't be the amount of allied F35's, F22's, F-16's and F-15 that will be available. You over estimate Russia, much like the US did during the cold war. Russia is a decrepit, corrupt country with a few toys called "fighters". They won't be much of a threat. China has potential for fighters but they lack technology, hell they can't even get a decent jet engine for their transports or fighters.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):
The P-51 went from first drawing to first flight in about 4 months, as did many fine aircraft of the WWII era. The designers used slide rules and T-squares, pencils and paper.

Fighters are a little more complex than they were in WWII.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):
The RAAF is about to order more F-18Fs, are they ordering a piece of junk?

Yes. The F18 SH is the epitome of the defense system gone wrong. Fat, slow and underpowered. I heard, from the horses mouth, that a pilot who was qualified on both the legacy and Fat Hornets that he'd take a C/D model to war any day.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):
The F-35 can be dropped like the Commance attack helio, excaliber gun, YAL-1A, SDI, as was the MCLWG, and other systems.

No, it can't and won't. The F-35 is set to replace a number of old aircraft in the US and allied fleets. There is nothing else in the pipeline that comes close to matching its capability.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):
for less capability, a system that is good at a lot of missions, but master of none of them.

That's not what pilots flying them have to say. I'd take their word over anyone else's, this includes politicians, internet air-chair generals and journalists.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 73):

Very well said, if ever there was a case to ditch a weapons system this is it.



Buy a few hundred more F22's and keep ugrading and building the superb F16, you would still save money.



The F35 is the epitome of the defense system gone wrong.

 
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4131
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:35 am

dang here we go again.. pages of rehash.. trouble is while both sides swear to be the only truth around, both have lost creditably to the point nobody cares what is written.
why don't you just add you contact info to your profile and have your rants in private.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6618
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:43 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
It would make for an excellent FOD cleaner however.

No more than an F-18 considering the nose gear is behind the inlet as opposed to being in front of the inlet.
I'll be interested to know how high off the ground is the inlet of the F-32 vs the F-37 (the other factor with respect to FOD)

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 67):
Boeing was forced to shed many pieces of equipment to demonstrate STOVL flight,

This was a cost/trade decision. With limited budget allowed, they had to decide where to put the demonstration money. It was felt that it was unnecessary to design and built a moveable inlet to demonstrate the STOVL capabilities knowing the mechanism is pretty straight forward and lower risk. All the cost that would have involve in building that inlet was placed somewhere else, area like efficient design and manufacturing of the wing box (with technology acquired when Boeing merged with NA). If Boeing won the contract, the wing would have been structurally awesome and very affordable.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 74):
No, it can't and won't. The F-35 is set to replace a number of old aircraft in the US and allied fleets.

They said the same about the Comanche. Then real life happens, and the Little Bird carry on . . .

The thing about the F-35 vs. the other programs is that it has entered production stage, which makes its very difficult to cancel. Cut back, maybe . . . but canceled? Unlikely

bt
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:49 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 72):
I have read the baseline, and it is clear to me what the baseline is:
http://2011.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2011/05/18/36290792.pdf

See page 9, Figure 3.

It appears you don't understand what the numbers actually mean, or have bothered to look up what they mean in the first place.

That is a college paper from five years ago (April, 2008), Figure 3 is full of old sales brochure figures from back then, including acceleration figures, which we know know is bunk. And it clearly sates:

The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US government or the Department of Defense.

It also says:

Avionics and stealth technology are inherently defeatable; in the end it will always be important to outperform your opponent.

The published article in Flighglobal, which has the reputation of the entire publication behind it, is only a few days old and clearly states what the baseline is and quotes experienced USAF pilots, saying the F-35 is no better than an F-4 or F-5 in sustained Gs. If you are saying the Flighglobal article is wrong. OK.

I am not going to debate this any further. It is what it is.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:26 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
If everyone listened to people's opinions on the internet we'd still be flying around in P51's.

And we should be listening to your opinion, then ?

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 74):
I heard, from the horses mouth, that a pilot who was qualified on both the legacy and Fat Hornets that he'd take a C/D model to war any day.
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 74):

Sure it was the mouth ?  

My uncle, ex-RCAF, ex-fighter pilot (Voodoo, F-16 {on exchange}) is dead set against the F-35 for many of the reasons stated in this thread. Perhaps good at some things, but excelling at none, his opinion. At least he has real world experience, unlike some.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:37 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 78):
My uncle, ex-RCAF, ex-fighter pilot (Voodoo, F-16 {on exchange}) is dead set against the F-35 for many of the reasons stated in this thread. Perhaps good at some things, but excelling at none, his opinion. At least he has real world experience, unlike some.

Has he flown the F-35? If not, then his opinion is just as good (pointless) as anyone else's.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:19 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 79):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 78):
My uncle, ex-RCAF, ex-fighter pilot (Voodoo, F-16 {on exchange}) is dead set against the F-35 for many of the reasons stated in this thread. Perhaps good at some things, but excelling at none, his opinion. At least he has real world experience, unlike some.

Has he flown the F-35? If not, then his opinion is just as good (pointless) as anyone else's.

How charitable of you to comment on someone who wore the uniform for which you claim to have so much respect. You know, in life you get the respect you show and earn. In this thread, that isn't much.

Have you ever actually been in combat ? Have you actually been shot at as a part of your job ? Have you ever actually taken a life in combat ? Tony did all of those things, lived to tell the story, to regret the blood he had shed, and to make peace with his former adversaries. That qualifies his opinion far more than anything you might ever have to offer this thread, sir.

Your inability or unwillingness to qualify yourself in any respect regarding the F-35 but your instant ability to disparage others speaks volumes. How sad.

Pointless ? That would be you and your ilk.

By the way, have you flown the F-35 ?
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:06 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
Have you ever actually been in combat ? Have you actually been shot at as a part of your job ? Have you ever actually taken a life in combat ? Tony did all of those things, lived to tell the story, to regret the blood he had shed, and to make peace with his former adversaries. That qualifies his opinion far more than anything you might ever have to offer this thread, sir.

That is nice however it doesn't qualify him on this F35 matter.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
You know, in life you get the respect you show and earn. In this thread, that isn't much.

I don't care for respect on internet forums. Who cares. Really.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
Your inability or unwillingness to qualify yourself in any respect regarding the F-35 but your instant ability to disparage others speaks volumes. How sad.

I disparage others' opinions when they are clearly backed by personal dislike of the program. Never mind how many times they have to be disproved they still come back with stuff like "The F35 is the epitome of the defense system gone wrong."

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
By the way, have you flown the F-35 ?

No I haven't, but I believe the word of those that have. You keep believing your sources from journalists that have never stepped foot in a fighter let alone flew one.
 
Max Q
Posts: 9428
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:17 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 81):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
By the way, have you flown the F-35 ?

No I haven't, but I believe the word of those that have

Who, at this point mostly comprise test Pilots and may be just a little biased..
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:15 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 82):
Who, at this point mostly comprise test Pilots and may be just a little biased..

You are right......active military pilots are paid by Lockheed Martin to lie. All the capabilities that the F35 has over the legacy jets doesn't exist. Please, the personal vendetta's against the JSF are getting old. You can complain all you want over the internet but it doesn't change a thing in the real world.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2756
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:34 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 83):
You are right......active military pilots are paid by Lockheed Martin to lie

You know, they do have to keep thier mouths shut BECAUSE they are active military pilots right?

Thanks for playing this episode of "random internet dude mouthing off about something he doesn't actualy know"
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 3592
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:47 am

This thread has gotten a little heated and in order to not gut the thread it will be locked to further posts.
Thanks
Blue

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos