The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

Just in regards to stealth, there has been more than one claim:

During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx
 
SpudmanWP said:
JeffB said:
Similarly, neither the T-50 or the J-20 are 'multi-role' fighters either. They're pretty obviously designed to be high altitude, high speed penetrators and interceptors specifically intended to attack tankers and AWACs aircraft.

There are two things that show that both the T-50 and J-20 are multi-role fighters.
The bay size of the T-50 shows that the it is designed for weapons that are larger than AAMs that a LO fighter would need to carry.
The location of the IRST/FLIR under the nose shows that will be used to look for surface targets.

Or that the bay size of the T-50 is designed to carry long range AAM like the R-37/izdeliye 810.

IRST/FLIR under the nose? Wha?
278677.jpg


Oh, you mean on the J-20.

HxEaWuM.jpg
 
Dragon029 said:
Just in regards to stealth, there has been more than one claim:

During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

Ok, thanks for that. I'm going to have to process that one for a bit.
 
Or that the bay size of the T-50 is designed to carry long range AAM like the R-37/izdeliye 810.

Izd. 810, Anti Radiation, anti ship, and Ground attack stand off weapons.

http://su-27flanker.com/2015/08/08/pak-fa-t-50-armament-graphic/#
 
donnage99 said:
In the absence of any human intellect, I might do that for you.

You mean if it weren't for the fact you don't actually have them.

donnage99 said:
But I assume you're so emotionally attached to this thing, you forgot the 20 something years of the JSF development, in which ALL reports and articles point to its stealth specs being lower than that of the f-22.

Emotionally attached? No. I'd have rather had more F-22s and less F-35s, and said so repeatedly during the online pogrom against the F-22. The same crowd said we needed to kill the "single-mission Cold War relic in favor of the multirole F-35". I tried to point out to those buying that nonsense that as soon as the F-22 was safely dead they'd start coming after the F-35. And here we are. Many, if not most, of those attacking the F-35 have ulterior motives, and couldn't care less about the facts. One only need read the "quality" of the articles being written about it. One test in which they used the F-16 (because it was there) to test one small aspect the flight control system of the F-35 becomes "F-35 loses to F-16 during dogfight trials". How does one even take that seriously and why would anybody spend the time attempting to educate someone who would swallow that nonsense hook, line, and sinker? As for "all reports and articles point to. . ." did ANY of them have actual numbers or was it mainly supposition? (Rhetorical question.) I know for years we heard about how the F-35 did not have all-aspect stealth and had a "5-degree cone of vulnerability at the rear", and then low and behold, we find out the F-35 has the same type of radar blocker in it's nozzle that the F-22 does. So much for the "5-degree cone of vulnerability" and "lacks all aspect stealth". The fact of the matter is the F-35 is the best way to meet the requirements. End of story. So yeah, when I see one of the usual crowd spouting pure bulls--t because their only aim is to get the F-35 cancelled so we can buy more 4th gen jets, it's gets annoying.
 
Triton said:
sferrin said:
Did you read it? It's difficult to even take it seriously.

You don't believe any of the following are issues?

How does the Harrier obviate any of that? It doesn't. What the good general was saying is that the F-35B gives them options they never had before. It's not about six aircraft being able to end WWIII (if it were we'd have to scrap every weapon system on the planet because there isn't six of anything that could single-handedly end a large scale war. That's what I mean about not being able to take the article seriously.)
 
Dragon029 said:
Just in regards to stealth, there has been more than one claim:

During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

Now ya done it. ;)
 
Triton said:
sferrin said:
How does the Harrier obviate any of that? It doesn't.

Hasn't LowObservable also been attacking the way the Marine Corps use Harrier II?

Probably. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the USMC knows better than LO about how Harriers should be used. He seems to be under the impression that a gator is the same thing as a QE2 and therefore should have the same air wing. Different missions entirely. LO is trying to make the argument that you need a CVN in the area and if you have a CVN in the area you don't need F-35Bs. (That would explain all the hours the Harriers have on them. Because they aren't needed and don't do anything.)
 
"Pentagon Denies F-35 Numbers Review"
By Aaron Mehta 6:03 p.m. EDT August 25, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/08/25/pentagon-denies-f-35-numbers-review/32354831/

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is not conducting a formal review of F-35 planned procurement numbers, a spokesman said Tuesday, despite comments by the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that indicate otherwise.

In written testimony for his nomination hearing last month, Gen. Joe Dunford seemed to signal that a review of the total projected buy of the F-35 — 2,443 in total, spread across three models for the Air Force, Marines and Navy — was underway.

"Given the evolving defense strategy and the latest Defense Planning Guidance, we are presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number," Dunford wrote then.

Those comments seemed to be echoed by Adm. John Richardson, the new Chief of Naval Operations, in his written testimony. Richardson pledged that if confirmed, he "will work with the chairman and other service chiefs to re-validate the appropriate number of aircraft the Navy requires to meet the mission."

On Tuesday, however, Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook stated that no major review of the numbers is underway.

"We're not making any formal evaluation or revisit to those objectives at this particular moment in time," Cook said.

However, Cook indicated it doesn't mean that the number is not up for debate.

"With all programs going forward, the [fiscal year 2017] budget process, every program is going to be reviewed," he said. "Obviously, the budget situation here in Washington will have a big impact on that, but there is nothing at this point to indicate any formal review of this number. But there will be the standard budget review of all programs going forward to FY 17."

In other words, a formal, Pentagon-wide review of the 2,443 figure is not underway. But with the Pentagon looking for ways to keep costs down in the face of lower-than-desired budget levels going forward, all programs are at least being looked at. That situation will likely escalate if Congress looks towards a long-term continuing resolution.

"Every program is going to be under review, F-35 or otherwise, but I wouldn't suggest to you there has been any change in the outlook for the F-35," Cook added.

After almost a decade of struggles with cost and technology, the F-35 program hit a major milestone last month when the Marines reached Initial Operational Capability on the jet.

Speaking ahead of that announcement, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for Marine aviation, explained that one of his great concerns is keeping the F-35 production line firing at top speed.

"Right now, I can't imagine wanting to cut back on the buy, because right now I'm replacing a greater number of F-18s, Harriers and Prowlers," Davis said in a July 27 conference call. "Obviously I'll defer to the commandant and do what he says. He and I have not talked about reducing the number of F-35s, so I'd have to go back and talk to him about that."
 
"Air Force: F-35 Helmet is a ‘Workspace,’ Not a Helmet"
Tue, 08/25/2015 - 11:39am
Brendan McGarry, Defense Tech

Source:
http://www.ecnmag.com/news/2015/08/air-force-f-35-helmet-workspace-not-helmet

The U.S. Air Force wants to use another word to describe the expensive, high-tech helmet that can “see through” windowless parts of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

When asked about the price tag for the pilot gear — which has ranged from $400,000 to $800,000 apiece — Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said he didn’t know its unit cost and that it won’t be finalized until the hardware enters production.

But he did have this to say about the technology:

“The helmet is much more than a helmet, the helmet is a work space,” he said. “It’s an interpretation of the battle space, it’s situational awareness. This is a — calling this thing a helmet is really — we’ve got to come up with a new word.”

Cue chuckles in the Pentagon briefing room.

The Helmet Mounted Display System made by Rockwell Collins Inc. was previously estimated to cost about $500,000 apiece. It’s designed to provide pilots with 360-degree situational awareness in any kind of weather, day or night.

The jet’s distributed aperture system streams real-time imagery from cameras and sensors mounted around the aircraft to the helmet, allowing pilot’s to “see through” windowless parts of the cockpit.

While development of the technology has posed significant challenges, the Pentagon has worked with the aircraft’s main contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp., in recent years to identify fixes. It apparently felt good enough about the improvements that it canceled development of an alternative product made by BAE Systems Plc.

But the helmet has still had bugs. When a news team from the CBS News program, “60 Minutes,” visited the Marine Corps station last year in Yuma, Arizona, a helmet malfunction caused a scheduled flight to be scrubbed.

Welsh said he hasn’t heard concerns from pilots that the helmet is distracting or too complicated.

“All the people flying the airplane, from the time I came into this job three years ago and started asking about the problems I kept hearing about with the helmet, not a single one of them has said yeah, I don’t want to use it,” he said. “It’s pretty — it’s a pretty incredibly capability, and they adapt very quickly to it.”
 
"Rockwell Collins Delivers F-35 Generation III Helmet; Aircraft's Gatling Gun Tested"

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=1926

The first batch of Generation III F-35 helmet mounted display systems was delivered Aug. 11 at a ceremony in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

The new system — built by Rockwell Collins — includes a number of upgrades, including improved night vision, optics and liquid-crystal displays which “really help increase the accuracy and clarity of the system,” said Rob McKillip, Rockwell Collins’ senior director for the helmet.

Improvements to the night vision capability were accomplished by the inclusion of an upgraded sensor known as ISIE 11, which includes a higher resolution camera.

“We now have the ISIE 11 available and that’s a significant improvement in performance” compared to the ISIE 10, he said. “It has got higher sensitivity, higher resolution and [a] faster update rate.”

Other upgrades include automated alignment and software improvements, he noted.

The helmets will be introduced to the F-35 fleet in low-rate initial production Lot 7 in 2016, a Rockwell Collins press release said.

The helmet is one of the most complex parts of the joint strike fighter. Each helmet must be custom fitted to a pilot’s eyes. Mission information is displayed on the visor of the helmet. Six infrared cameras on the aircraft stream to the system, which allows pilots to look through the airframe.
The Government Accountability Office in a 2013 report on the aircraft called the helmet mounted display "integral to the mission systems architecture, to reduce pilot workload, and to achieve the F-35's concept of operations." The first-generation helmets had significant technical deficiencies causing the program to go back to the drawing board, the report said.

The new version resolves a number of issues that were present in past iterations of the helmet, McKillip said.

Previously, pilots had complained about a “green glow” that obstructed their view. McKillip said that issue has largely been fixed in the Generation III system.

The problem arises from the contrast ratio in the helmet’s display system, he said.

“Contrast ratio is the ratio between the part of the display you want and then the background luminous,” he said. “There’s always some amount of background light that comes through the display, so you can never quite eliminate that.”

Although the green glow can never go away completely, “we made it significantly better,” he said.

For now, the company doesn’t know of any major issues with the system, McKillip said. “The testing looks good. We may learn more as it is fielded, and not only just initial fielding but as it goes out across different services and flies at different places around the world,” he said.

The Generation III system is a touch heavier than its predecessor, weighing approximately 5 pounds. Rockwell Collins is researching ways to reduce the helmet’s weight by about 10 percent, McKillip said.

Going forward, Rockwell Collins will make small tweaks to the system. “We’ve already resolved many of the big issues so now we’re working on smaller things,” he said.

It has been reported by some news organizations that the helmet system alone costs more than $400,000 on the already immensely expensive Lockheed Martin-built aircraft, but McKillip disputed that number. He would not disclose the cost of the helmet, but said it was “dramatically” less expensive than previous versions.

Meanwhile, the F-35 joint program office announced Aug. 20 that the F-35A had fired 181 rounds from its 25mm Gatling gun at Edwards Air Force Base earlier in in the month. The gun gives pilots the ability to hit air-to-ground or air-to-air targets, the JPO press release said.

“The F-35 joint strike fighter integrated test force aims to complete ground testing this month and start airborne gun testing in the fall. At the end of the program’s system development and demonstration phase in 2017, the F-35 will have an operational gun,” the press release said.

The gun is embedded in the aircraft’s left wing to preserve the F-35’s stealth capability by reducing its radar cross section. The gun must be hidden until the trigger is engaged, the press release said.

Gun testing began on June 9, with JPO officials using a modified F-35 flight sciences aircraft, known as AF-2, and a production version of the GAU-22/A gun. Next year, the gun will be tested on a line production F-35A. “Test pilots will then observe qualitative effects, such as muzzle flash, human factors, and flying qualities,” the press release said.
 
"F-35 to Face Off Against A-10 During IOT&E"
By Valerie Insinna

Source:
http://www.defensedaily.com/eletters/defense-daily-friday-august-21-2015-vol-267-issue-37/

The Pentagon’s independent testing office wants to pit the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter and the A-10 Warthog against each other for comparative tests that will gauge the new jet’s ability to take on close air support (CAS) missions—as well as any limitations it might have in that environment, an official from the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) said Aug. 20.

The benefits of comparing the F-35 to the A-10 are clear, said Curt Cook, an air warfare specialist at DOT&E. Cook is helping to design the tests the F-35 will face during initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E), currently slated for late 2017 or early 2018.

“You figure out really quickly what the new capabilities are that you’re fielding and how well they perform in comparison to your existing capability, but you also understand if there are any gaps that are being left open by the new system,” he said during a panel on close air support at the 32nd Annual International Test and Evaluation Symposium in Arlington, Va.

DOT&E has designed about half of the mission sets that the F-35 will fly in IOT&E. Under the current test plan, the office first will evaluate how the jet performs in a close air support (CAS) mission.

"The two main things we wanted to make sure that we have were a realistic airspace management control system that included the ground component, but also a dynamic problem on the ground that had to be solved,” he said. “We wanted that problem to have several tiers of urgency.” The longer the mission takes, the more serious the situation on the ground becomes.

DOTE wants to evaluate the effectiveness of the plane through proportional measures—such as what fraction of weapons hit the desired target—and continuous measures, like how long it takes the forward air controller to pass information to ground troops, and how long it takes troops to act after receiving that direction, Cook said.

The F-35 will then face off in comparative tests against the A-10 Warthog, a Vietnam War-era plane developed specifically for CAS missions.

The Air Force’s test community has pushed back on the comparative tests, mostly because those officials had little experience with them, Cook said. The services have also pushed for more functional testing—which would evaluate whether its weapons and systems are working properly—rather than testing the jet’s performance in an operational environment.

"The problem with that is pretty clear. There's a lot more going on in this problem that has to be solved on the ground than just whether the functions can be executed by the aircraft,” he said. "If you're not trained to work in this environment, you can't work in this environment. You might deliver weapons, the functionality might be there, but you're not going to be effective."

Comparative tests aren’t new, pointed out Tom Christie, a former director of operational test and evaluation. After the A-10 was selected by the Air Force, Congress directed the service to fly it against the A-7. The Warthog dominated the A-7 during the 1974 fly-off.

The A-10’s design includes several characteristics that that give it unequaled capability in CAS missions, he said. It is maneuverable at most speeds and altitudes and has large wings that allow for short takeoffs and landings. It can loiter for an extended periods of time and operates under a low ceiling. And because it flies at a slow speed—only 300 knots— it’s easier for the pilot to conduct ground attacks.

But although the A-10 is much loved by the ground troops that have depended on it, Air Force leadership’s support of the plane has always been lukewarm, Christie said.

Over the past two years, the Air Force has unsuccessfully attempted to divest the A-10 to free up funding for other priorities. However, Congress—backed by former joint terminal attack controllers and other veterans groups—have blocked its retirement.

“The Air Force would like you to believe, right or wrong, that the F-35 is the solution,” Christie said. “There is a question about whether the F-35 will be sufficient.”

Comparative tests will help illustrate the need for the Air Force to procure a single-mission, A-10 replacement, Christie said, but he’s doubtful the service will start a new program of record to do so.

The F-35 joint program office continues to work with DOT&E, a JPO spokesman said in a statement provided to Defense Daily.

“The F-35 is a multirole fighter designed with the entire battlespace in mind. It is equipped with advanced stealth, integrated avionics, and a powerful, integrated sensor package. The F-35 will be able to conduct the close air support mission effectively. The aircraft has exercised CAS missions on military ranges at night and in day, was able to receive targets from terminal air controllers on the ground, and able to attack and prosecute targets within acceptable battlefield timelines. The capability exists today and it will continue to evolve and get better in the future," it said.

The statement echoes comments Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the program executive officer for F-35, made to reporters after an April House Armed Services Committee hearing on the platform.

“When you have an airplane that does a single mission…it's going to be able to do that mission very, very well, and the A-10 does its mission very, very well,” he said. “But the F-35 was not designed just to do that mission. It was designed to do a whole host of missions. Therefore, you can expect that, because it’s going to do a whole host of things, maybe that one thing is not as good today as that airplane that has the single mission."

The F-35 will be a very capable CAS plane once it gets its final 3F software in 2017, but it will be able to do many missions beyond that, he added.
 
Shall we see what they appear to have left out. . .


"According to Cook, the comparison tests will pair the F-35 against an easy and medium threat and then most likely only test the F-35 against a more advanced threat."



http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&start=1562

Hmmm, I wonder what motivation they could possibly have for leaving that little tidbit out. Surely they would want to show the A-10s superiority in a heavily defended environment right? Watch for the flood of reposts to make the circuit and you can be sure few of them will mention that detail. ;)
 
F-35A High Angle Of Attack Testing - Steven Baer, Lockheed Martin, Edwards Air Force Base California (2014)
 

Attachments

  • F-35_AOA_Testing_AIAA-3.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 12
Triton said:
"Pentagon Denies F-35 Numbers Review"
By Aaron Mehta 6:03 p.m. EDT August 25, 2015

At this point in the program any number that would come out of that would be meaningless. The USAF originally planned on 650 F-16s, then 1388, and ended up with 2256 of them. So much can happen over the span of an aircraft program that circumstances can change plans drastically. I would not be at all surprised to see both Japan and South Korea operating F-35Bs off warships for example.
 
sferrin said:
Shall we see what they appear to have left out. . .


"According to Cook, the comparison tests will pair the F-35 against an easy and medium threat and then most likely only test the F-35 against a more advanced threat."



http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&start=1562

Hmmm, I wonder what motivation they could possibly have for leaving that little tidbit out. Surely they would want to show the A-10s superiority in a heavily defended environment right? Watch for the flood of reposts to make the circuit and you can be sure few of them will mention that detail. ;)

Nice that Cook introduced the possibility of test bias in the IOT&E. :eek:

It also didn't help things to have Cook speak alongside former Deputy Chief of Staff (G-1) for the Army Lt. Gen. Franklin Hagenbeck:

Speaking alongside Cook, former Deputy Chief of Staff (G-1) for the Army Lt. Gen. Franklin Hagenbeck, a self-proclaimed advocate for A-10 and F-16 CAS, said he was open-minded, but skeptical about the F-35's CAS capabilities.

Hmmm... "open-minded, but skeptical"? :eek:

Not that I was expecting that the IOT&E was going to solve the A-10 versus F-35 debate.
 
sferrin said:
Triton said:
"Pentagon Denies F-35 Numbers Review"
By Aaron Mehta 6:03 p.m. EDT August 25, 2015

At this point in the program any number that would come out of that would be meaningless. The USAF originally planned on 650 F-16s, then 1388, and ended up with 2256 of them. So much can happen over the span of an aircraft program that circumstances can change plans drastically. I would not be at all surprised to see both Japan and South Korea operating F-35Bs off warships for example.

I presumed that this news was related to the Navy saying that it may order as few as 12 of the F-35C variants each year vs. the current plan to order 20 of the stealth jets annually during the 2020s.

We also know that Saudi Arabia is interested in purchasing the F-35. Perhaps other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council as well.
 
It's amazing that F35 discussions are so polarized, with honorable exceptions.

For example sferrin, Triton, I don't necessarily agree with everything you post but I respect that you are trying to make honest, reasoned and informed points.

It is amazing that the F35 gets such venom flowing among some posters.
I would hope we could all stay civil and refrain from troll-branding.

I would have thought that most reasonable respondents would more or less agree with the following common ground;
- The F35 is (overall) a significant but expensive improvement on virtually all the aircraft it will replace.
- That the F35 program has not been well managed and has suffered from over-promising and under-delivering. Hopefully for everyone (apart from rapid anti-F-35 individuals and/or people who like to see a lot of money wasted) the worst is over in this regard.
- That there is no really viable alternative for the majority of F-35s that will be built/bought.

Specifically re: alternatives (views perhaps not as universally held);

- F-15: Superior kinetics but otherwise significantly inferior from a survivable perspective (stealth etc.), some endurance/ range superiority, virtually just as expensive

- Super Hornet: Cheaper than the F35 but re: its presented strengths (systems, radar cross section, etc) significantly worse than the F35 and weaker than the F35 re: the F35s presented weaknesses (kinetics, air-to air performance, too air to ground focused etc.). Also notably inferior to F35 re: endurance/ range.

If you just want cheap but inferior buy more F16s; unsurprisingly Boeing would rather have you buy their inferior fighters :)

- EuroFighter Typhoon: Superior kinetics, otherwise inferior from a survivable perspective (stealth etc.), inferior in air-to-ground, with necessary air-to-ground added just as expensive, inferior endurance/ range in any real-word scenario (which would also eat into kinetic superiority).

- Rafale: Apart from slightly inferior systems and clearly inferior stealth/ survivable features well matched in role and price (just as expensive unless French government significantly subsidizes)

- Gripen F/G: Apart from superior kinetics in some scenarios (low drag air-to-air) otherwise inferior, cheaper (but lower cost not yet realized).

In summary no other alternatives to most F35s are currently viable; Russian & Chinese developments not at all proven, Korean & Turkish developments going to be a long time in the works, F/A-XX still little more than a pipe-dream. Realistically F22 production dead for ever and even if it wasn't the money better spent on what comes next.

Can we please deal with the real world when discussing the F35!

The F35 is what the US armed forces made it, based on their post-Cold War use of fast jets and what they see coming re: advances in ground to air defenses.
They wanted a fighter-bomber to survive against more advanced SAMs, they got that fighter-bomber.

People need to let go of the cheap, stealthy, supercruising, jack-of-all-trades, dedicated A-10 replacement, super-close in dogfighter, long range striker, perfect ideal they have in their heads. It could never have been, nor could numerous specialized types to do these roles.
 
From July, but interesting.

"Davis: F-35Bs, Aviation Combat Elements Have ‘Tremendous Capability for Growth’"
By: Megan Eckstein
July 16, 2015 12:16 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/07/16/davis-f-35bs-aviation-combat-elements-have-tremendous-capability-for-growth

PENTAGON – When the time comes for the Marines’ first F-35B Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) to deploy on an amphibious assault ship, the six aircraft on the float will bring more strike, sensing and communications capabilities than the three platforms they replace, the deputy commandant for aviation said.

But Lt. Gen. Jon Davis envisions future operations where a ship deploys with three times as many F-35Bs, where the aircraft have longer-range weapons and dominate in electronic warfare.

Davis told USNI News on July 8 that Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121 will move to Japan in January 2017, in a permanent change of station from Yuma, Ariz., to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni. The squadron, which will have 16 jets prior to the move, will only bring 10 to Japan and only put six on a big-deck amphib when it goes on its first float.

“But we can also see already, hey, maybe we want to put more than that on there,” Davis said.
“This is a fifth-generation capability; can we get more capability by putting 10 on?”

During operational testing aboard USS Wasp (LHD-1) in May, Marines only looked at whether the ship could handle six jets taking off, landing, refueling, reloading weapons, undergoing maintenance and more. But Davis, a former Harrier pilot, said he’s thinking much bigger and believes, based on the operational test, that the ship could handle many more jets.

“Could we go out with 16 and four tiltrotors?” he said, noting that the Marines would soon be adding a roll-on/roll-off package onto the MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft so they could act as a tanker.

“So I could actually now take 16 F-35s on that ship, more on an America-class ship, plus some V-22 tankers, and I have a fifth-generation strike capability in numbers if we needed to do that,” he said.

“We haven’t assessed that – we’ve looked at six, and we’d probably want to look at it again, how would we do with more. And I think we leave that up to our Marine Corps leadership and Navy leadership and national leadership to say, how do we maximize the capability of this particular machine and this particular capability for the nation.”

Putting that many fighters on an amphib has precedent, though. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Marines had four or five big-decks sitting off the coast with 60 to 65 Harriers operating from the seabase, Davis said. The Marine Expeditionary Units sailed to the Middle East with their usual aviation combat element, but the helicopters left the big-deck to operate from the smaller ships and from ground bases, and additional Harriers were brought in for operations.

Doing so wouldn’t be easy, Davis said, with the higher number of aircraft stressing the spare parts inventory and creating challenges in ordnance, refueling and flight deck operations management. The Navy and Marine Corps are still learning how to manage the flow of information between the new jets and the ship, which would be more complex with additional aircraft, but he said the area is “ripe for experimentation and ripe for us to learn and do.”

Davis stressed that his current priority is reaching initial operational capability – potentially by the end of this month – and building up the next few F-35B squadrons, but he said the possibilities for future operations are exciting.

Those future operations also include significantly greater capabilities than the aircraft currently has with its software block 2B.

Davis said that everything the Marines put in the sky ought to be a shooter, a sensor and a sharer, and that philosophy has guided the Marines’ thinking in what will be included in future software configurations as well as outside development efforts the service may pursue.

“The airplane can do a lot, but what can the weapons we put in the airplane, what can they do? It’s an airplane that sees an incredibly long way. … You want to kill what you can see, so we want to be able to kill at longer rangers if we can. So we’re working on that,” Davis said.

“We’ve been doing a lot to multimissionize everything we own, whether it’s our H-1s, putting Link 16 in there, our Harriers, our F-18s, our V-22s, our C-130s – we have a thing called Harvest Hawk (to facilitate firing guided munitions). Every platform is a sensor, sharer, shooter. So if you think about that, what are the other things that we’d want this to do? How do you make an airplane that’s already a multimission airplane even more of a multimission airplane? So it’s, I think, a natural progression for the things they’d want to really extract the maximum utility out of everything on that airplane.”

“The big thing that we’re working on inside the United States Marine Corps is, if this airplane sees and knows so much – it’s really, really smart – how do I get the information that the lance corporal at the pointy end of the spear needs to that Marine, he or she, where they need it, when they need it?” he continued.

“Can they pull that data down? If it’s a big server in the sky, or if it’s a big cloud, how do I pull information from that cloud in the bandwidth that I need to do my job better?”

The F-35B can currently share information with Marines on the ground, “but it’s not in the bandwidth that we want, not the fidelity we want.” Streaming video will not be available until software block 4.1, based on current plans.

The aircraft can already see through the weather better than its predecessors with its synthetic aperture radar (SAR), making close air support more effective in poor visibility scenarios. Software block 3F will bring additional weapons, and 4.1 or 4.2 will bring the small diameter bomb, which Davis said is also an effective all-weather weapon.

As more foreign partners bring the F-35 into their fleets, Davis said there’s a potential to bring in foreign weapons as well.

“We talk about common logistics for the airplane, but also too down the road I think you’re going to think about common weapons and things like that as well,” he said, noting that if an American F-35B needed to land on a British ship, it would be nice if the two countries had common weapons so they could reload the American aircraft.

Davis also mentioned electronic warfare as a “real growth area for this airplane,” though there are not immediate plans to add more capability to the platform.

“It’s a tremendous capability, it sees a lot, so that’s something we’d want to grow into and we’re advocating for,” he said.
“We’ve been advocating for that for about the last six years, but we’ll advocate even more strongly for it in the 2020 timeframe.”

For all the growth potential the F-35 has, both in the capability of an individual jet as well as the configuration of an aviation combat element, Davis said everyone needs to remember this is a long game. Much like today’s Super Hornet is vastly different from the first Hornet to hit the fleet, and today’s AV-8B Harrier hardly resembles the AV-8A from the 1980s, “the F-35 is, I think, a 50-year platform for the Department of the Navy and U.S., and it’s going to be a vastly different airplane as we develop that airplane and bring new capabilities into it. I really think it has tremendous capability for growth. I think we’ve got a winner, I’m really excited.”
 
First Norwegian F-35 Close to Completion

8/28/2015

The first F-35 for Norway is in the final stages of production, Lockheed Martin said in a press release. The fighter, known as AM-1, left the main F-35 production facility on Aug. 19 and moved to the aircraft final finishes facility for its stealth coating. It will go through a series of functional fuel system checks and operational ground checks before its first flight, and is slated to be assigned to Luke AFB, Ariz., later this year, as part of the Air Force’s pilot training program for US and international pilots. AM-1 is the first of four Norwegian F-35s in production at the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth, Texas. The country first authorized the purchase of a Joint Strike Fighter in 2012, marking the first time in three decades Norway ordered new combat aircraft for its armed forces
 
JeffB said:
Dragon029 said:
Just in regards to stealth, there has been more than one claim:

During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

Ok, thanks for that. I'm going to have to process that one for a bit.


What stuck out to me was the term "predecessors." I'm not sure I'd call the F-22 a predecessor to the F-35; the F-35 isn't replacing the F-22. Same applies to "other airplanes"...it's just vague enough.
 
Jeb said:
JeffB said:
Dragon029 said:
Just in regards to stealth, there has been more than one claim:

During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

Ok, thanks for that. I'm going to have to process that one for a bit.


What stuck out to me was the term "predecessors." I'm not sure I'd call the F-22 a predecessor to the F-35; the F-35 isn't replacing the F-22. Same applies to "other airplanes"...it's just vague enough.

You should probably loosen the straps on your tinfoil hat.

“Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors."

He's clearly including the F-22 in his statement.
 
sferrin said:
“Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors."

He's clearly including the F-22 in his statement.

The F-35 does not have a lower RCS than the F-22. Does it have surfaces that are MUCH easier to maintain? Yes.
 
sublight is back said:
The F-35 does not have a lower RCS than the F-22.

Do you have anything official stating so? Given that we've got a pilot that's flown both seeming to indicate that I'd hope you have something better than supposition.
 
I wish the statements were better qualified. I don't doubt that better RCS reduction techniques have been evolved since the F-22 and applied to the F-35, but i have always been under the impression that the JSF program was sold as trying to strike a balance between cost and observability.
Things like leading edge sweep, edge length, inlet duct length, etc. are less favorable on the -35, not to mention the axisymmetric exhaust. Does this mean that the F-35 has a lower signature from the aft quadrant, for example? i doubt that. You can take this very generic statement to mean anything without putting it in the right context.
Like i said, the intervening years between the F-22 and F-35 can explain improvements, but this is the first time i hear these broad claims.
 
sferrin said:
sublight is back said:
The F-35 does not have a lower RCS than the F-22.

Do you have anything official stating so? Given that we've got a pilot that's flown both seeming to indicate that I'd hope you have something better than supposition.

This has been mentioned many times before, the F-35 is an "export safe" variant of stealth technology and does not use the same materials as the F-22. It was referenced in one of the F-35 talks where they said the stealth materials on the 35 would actually become a little more stealthy over time because natural wear would "smooth out" the surfaces.
 
"F-35 Stealthier Than F-22?"
by Bill Sweetman in Ares
Jun 9, 2014

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22

"...the idea that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 contradicts pretty much everything that has been said about the program for the past 20 years, including the reporting of my former colleague, the usually well-informed Dave Fulghum.

The statement is curious for other reasons. Nobody ever suggested in the program’s formative years that the goal was to beat the F-22's stealth - and indeed that would be extremely unlikely since the JSF was designed for export. Stealth, along with other requirements, was also subject to trades in the development of the final JSF requirement, and less important than life-cycle cost.

The geometrical basics of stealth -- sweep and cant angles, minimized small-radius curves and nozzle design -- favor the F-22, and everything anyone has said about radar absorbent materials for years has been about life-cycle cost rather than performance.

Which makes us surprised by the claim that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22.
 
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
sublight is back said:
The F-35 does not have a lower RCS than the F-22.

Do you have anything official stating so? Given that we've got a pilot that's flown both seeming to indicate that I'd hope you have something better than supposition.

This has been mentioned many times before, the F-35 is an "export safe" variant of stealth technology and does not use the same materials as the F-22. It was referenced in one of the F-35 talks where they said the stealth materials on the 35 would actually become a little more stealthy over time because natural wear would "smooth out" the surfaces.

"Export safe" could mean almost anything. Maybe the materials are more difficult to reverse engineer. Maybe it's because, due to the more durable nature of the F-35s materials, a user wouldn't have to have a bunch of sensitive materials, knowledge, facilities, etc. on hand to maintain the RCS. Certainly I wouldn't dismiss the statement of a pilot who has experience in both the F-22 and F-35 out of hand with no actual evidence to support doing so.
 
Triton said:
"F-35 Stealthier Than F-22?"
by Bill Sweetman in Ares
Jun 9, 2014

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22

"...the idea that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 contradicts pretty much everything that has been said about the program for the past 20 years, including the reporting of my former colleague, the usually well-informed Dave Fulghum.

The statement is curious for other reasons. Nobody ever suggested in the program’s formative years that the goal was to beat the F-22's stealth - and indeed that would be extremely unlikely since the JSF was designed for export. Stealth, along with other requirements, was also subject to trades in the development of the final JSF requirement, and less important than life-cycle cost.

The geometrical basics of stealth -- sweep and cant angles, minimized small-radius curves and nozzle design -- favor the F-22, and everything anyone has said about radar absorbent materials for years has been about life-cycle cost rather than performance.

Which makes us surprised by the claim that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22.

The article you quoted doesn't have any actual statements from anybody who would know as to which has the smaller RCS. It's all supposition. Well, aside from this anyway:

"Hostage makes another, very interesting comparison between the F-22 and the F-35. The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s.

“The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”"
 
sferrin said:
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
sublight is back said:
The F-35 does not have a lower RCS than the F-22.

Do you have anything official stating so? Given that we've got a pilot that's flown both seeming to indicate that I'd hope you have something better than supposition.

This has been mentioned many times before, the F-35 is an "export safe" variant of stealth technology and does not use the same materials as the F-22. It was referenced in one of the F-35 talks where they said the stealth materials on the 35 would actually become a little more stealthy over time because natural wear would "smooth out" the surfaces.

"Export safe" could mean almost anything. Maybe the materials are more difficult to reverse engineer. Maybe it's because, due to the more durable nature of the F-35s materials, a user wouldn't have to have a bunch of sensitive materials, knowledge, facilities, etc. on hand to maintain the RCS. Certainly I wouldn't dismiss the statement of a pilot who has experience in both the F-22 and F-35 out of hand with no actual evidence to support doing so.

Do you not remember discussing this before? They mentioned "cure times" in many speeches. Though more "durable" they still have to have cans of special coatings and tape on carriers, as well as portable RCS test guns for constant upkeep. One of the main points in each discussion has always been F22 has better RCS.
 
Personally I don't buy the idea that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22. I wouldn't be surprised if it had the same frontal radar cross section of the F-22 but smaller than that? Doubtful. However I'd wager that the F-35's superior ESM systems enable to the aircraft to operate "off-the-radar" for longer. So perhaps the statement is somewhat true.
 
The "Export Safe" aspects of the F-35 are in relation to it's avionics and not it's materials.


This is the reason why it would cost so much to make the F-22 "Export Safe", it's avionics would need a complete redesign.
 
sublight is back said:

Do you not remember discussing this before?
They mentioned "cure times" in many speeches. Though more "durable" they still have to have cans of special coatings and tape on carriers, as well as portable RCS test guns for constant upkeep. One of the main points in each discussion has always been F22 has better RCS.

To be honest, I don't. On the one hand the F-22 was designed for the lowest RCS they could get and still attempt to meet all the other requirements. On the other hand it's unlikely that RCS reduction technology at LM didn't advance during the time between the F-22's design being frozen and the F-35's. I could see it going either way but I'd prefer numbers by those who actually know rather than speculation to settle it. (Though it's unlikely they'd be so kind as to give us the hard numbers. ;D )
 
Looks like DOT&E will also perform comparison tests between the F-35 and F/A-18.


"The F-35 vs. the A-10 Warthog, head-to-head in close-air support. It’s on."
by Christian Davenport August 27

Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/08/27/as-it-fights-for-its-life-the-a-10-will-face-off-against-the-f-35-in-close-air-support-test/
 
sferrin said:
You mean if it weren't for the fact you don't actually have them.


Please stop for a moment, self-reflect and END this parade. You don't have to sink this low to fend off the f-35 haters.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=f-35+rcs

because their only aim is to get the F-35 cancelled so we can buy more 4th gen jets, it's gets annoying.
Accept that there are plenty of folks who can reasonably criticize the plane and the program without suggesting anywhere remotely as cancelling it. Face it, you're lumping them together with the haters and put words in their mouth so you can make your argument. This reminds of how the Left lumps all of the Right in with Sarah Palin just so they don't have to answer tough questions. It's easier to argue against the argument for canceling this aircraft than arguing against those who seek to hold the program accountable.
 
sferrin said:
On the one hand the F-22 was designed for the lowest RCS they could get and still attempt to meet all the other requirements. On the other hand it's unlikely that RCS reduction technology at LM didn't advance during the time between the F-22's design being frozen and the F-35's. I could see it going either way but I'd prefer numbers by those who actually know rather than speculation to settle it. (Though it's unlikely they'd be so kind as to give us the hard numbers. ;D )

If only we could find recent reports that compare the RCS of the F-35 to the F-22 like the following:

According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2.

Source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-design.htm
 
From Globalsecurity:
(I doubt some figures, and keep in mind the SR-71 was often tracked and at times intercepted):


RCS (m2)RCS (dB)
automobile10020
B-52100
B-1(A/B)10
F-1525
Su-2715
cabin cruiser1010
Su-MKI4
Mig-213
F-165
F-16C1.2
man10
F-181
Rafale1
B-20.75 ?
Typhoon0.5
Tomahawk SLCM0.5
B-20.1 ?
A-12/SR-710.01 (22 in2)
bird0.01-20
F-35 / JSF0.005-30
F-1170.003
insect0.001-30
F-220.0001-40
B-20.0001-40
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom