The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sferrin]

TT - I don't think you're going to see single-engine-type Mx bills on the F-35B.

Think of it as a two-engine airplane with two dissimilar engines and three engine cycles per sortie. The only difference is that the turbine for the lift engine is on the back of the main engine, and it has a shaft, clutch and reduction gear rather than its own combustor.

Still better than two combustors, especially from the standpoints of surface erosion and reinjestion. But then you knew that. Ask McDonnell Douglas how well their design with seperate lift engines was recieved by the USMC. Oh, nevermind, they're gone.

 

[LowObservable]

Not necessarily better.

The erosion issue is more to do with the aft nozzle configuration and would probably have been better (perimeter/area ratio and distance from ground/relative to nozzle size) with the MDC design.

MDC had a lot of self-inflicted wounds, but there was a prejudice against LPLC on grounds of "complexity" that (I believe) some of those who held it might revisit today.

 

[shivering]

Not quite sure where to put this one, so Mods place it in the
appropriate thread:


http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/did-cno-just-take-a-big-swipe-at-f35/

 

[GTX]

US, Japan sign deal on first four F-35 fighters
Fri, Jun 29 2012WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Japan on Friday signed a formal agreement with the United States to buy an initial four F-35 fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp and other equipment for 60 billion yen ($756.53 million), a company spokesman said.The letter of offer and acceptance, which was signed in Japan, includes four conventional takeoff variants of the F-35 fighter at a cost of 10.2 billion yen ($128.61 million) each, a slightly higher price than the 9.9 billion yen ($124.83 million) than Japan initially budgeted to spend.But the cost of the two simulators and other equipment dropped to 19.1 billion yen ($240.83 million) from the anticipated level of 20.5 billion yen ($258.48 million) so the overall price remained at 60 billion yen.The signing was good news for Lockheed and the F-35 program, which is looking to orders from Japan and other countries to help maintain economical production rates at Lockheed's main F-35 plant in Fort Worth, Texas, despite cuts in U.S. orders.Japan, which announced in December that it plans to buy a total of 42 F-35 fighters, had warned Washington in February that it might cancel its orders if the price of the new jets rose or deliveries were delayed due to the Pentagon's plan to postpone its own orders for 179 F-35s over the next five years.Japan's continued participation in the program could also be significant for Lockheed's prospects in a competition for 60 F-35 fighters in South Korea, analysts said.The main subcontractors on the program include Northrop Grumman Corp, Britain's BAE Systems and engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp.Lockheed is developing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for the United States and eight partner countries -- Britain, Australia, Canada, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. It is the largest U.S. weapons program, with an estimated development and procurement cost of $396 billion over the next two decades.Lockheed shares were trading over $2.01 or 2.4 percent higher on the New York Stock Exchange early Friday.($1 = 79.3100 Japanese yen)(Reporting By Andrea Shalal-Esa; editing by Sofina Mirza-Reid)[/size]

Source

 

[SDN]

From what I remember reading, the JASDF mainly wants the F-35 as a replacement for their F-4's. It was boiling own to either the Eurofighter Typhoon, JSF or Super Bug. Tthe F-35 is a hell of a replaacement for the Phantom. Engine power twice that of the Phantom II, stealth, substantially higher SA due to DAS, and it's a fighter developed more than 4 decades later. Really any of the 3 aircraft mentioned would have been god replacements BUT the F-35 has the edge with avionics and growth potential.

 

[LowObservable]

43000 < 2 x 17900

 

[Evil Flower]

How?

 

[Sundog]

43000 < 2 x 17900

The last time I checked, 2 x17900 = 35800, which is indeed less than 43000.

Of course, those numbers mean nothing without these numbers;

F-4E

• Empty weight: 30,328 (13,757 kg)
• Loaded weight: 41,500 lb (18,825 kg)
• Max. takeoff weight: 61,795 lb (28,030 kg)

F-35A

• Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)
• Loaded weight: 49,540 lb(22,470 kg)
• Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb(31,800 kg)

 

[sferrin]

How much does the F-4 carry internally?

 

[Sundog]

How much does the F-4 carry internally?

Not only that, also take into consideration that the F-35 has a lower empty weight than the F-4. That's impressive.

 

[SDN]

43000 < 2 x 17900

I stand corrected

 

[starviking]

It's too bad Japan was probably waiting out for either the F-22 being legalized for export, or seeing how the F-35 turned out. For proper air defense, interception, and dogfighting, I'm not that impressed with the F-35 (either A or C) as it was forcibly pushed into having to deal with too many concessions for other roles.

Ideally, the F-22 would be great for Japan.

They think otherwise

Japan was looking to purchase the F-22, until that option was closed off.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/19/f-22-fighters-for-japan/

 

[LowObservable]

On the other hand, there was an F-4 that was 1300 pounds lighter than the F-35A with 41K total thrust. In 1987...

 

[GTX]

On the other hand, there was an F-4 that was 1300 pounds lighter than the F-35A with 41K total thrust. In 1987...

And so... a one off IAI Super Phantom still isn't anywhere near as capable as what the F-35 offers and indeed even if introduced into service would find itself easy prey for it...

 

[sferrin]

On the other hand, there was an F-4 that was 1300 pounds lighter than the F-35A with 41K total thrust. In 1987...

And the P-42 had an almost 2-to-1 thrust to weight when it got the time-to-height records. I guess that means it's better than the F-22. :

 

[LowObservable]

Perish the thought that I would even begin to suggest that the JSF is not the equal of the 'Toom, even in PW1120 + APG-76 (SAR and GMTI interleaved in the 1980s!) form.

With an IOC 56+ years later than the F-4, and a $55 billion and counting development bill, I think one might actually expect some significant improvements in all regimes.

 

[tacitblue]

Perish the thought that I would even begin to suggest that the JSF is not the equal of the 'Toom, even in PW1120 + APG-76 (SAR and GMTI interleaved in the 1980s!) form.

With an IOC 56+ years later than the F-4, and a $55 billion and counting development bill, I think one might actually expect some significant improvements in all regimes.

Your argument is without merit. 56 years later, how much more are automobiles (physically) better? Hiway cruising speeds are about the same. Surface street speeds are about the same. With all things, there is a scientific limit to performance. That wall of performance was reached a long time ago. What we see after hitting the "wall" is refinements... which we're seeing, and in much, much more than just aeronautical engineering. If all you're looking at are published numbers for speed, altitude, and attempting to, in your own mind, determine the value of an aircraft, then not only do you "not know," but you don't know that you even do not know.

Have you ever flown a Phantom? It was a beautiful airplane, but it was a pig, and a hangar queen.

 

[sferrin]

Perish the thought that I would even begin to suggest that the JSF is not the equal of the 'Toom, even in PW1120 + APG-76 (SAR and GMTI interleaved in the 1980s!) form.

With an IOC 56+ years later than the F-4, and a $55 billion and counting development bill, I think one might actually expect some significant improvements in all regimes.

How much faster than the F-104 is the Gripen? How much higher altitude can it cruise?

 

[earlm]

Maybe the Japanese actually analyzed the performance of aircraft in combat configuration. Enough fuel to do the job, which means external fuel for everything but the F-35 and F-22.

How do the competitors with tanks compare to the clean F-35?

What happens to the competitors' performance when they have 2 A2G stores hung under their wings in addition to the tanks?

We'll leave the RCS issue out because LO has assured us that it's not superior to the "more balanced" survivability approach used by the Europeans and Boeing.

 

[LowObservable]

In order:

TBlue: A scientific limit to performance? I don't know how to define that. Certainly, some aspects reach a point of diminishing returns and speed has (it's been argued) been one of those. On the other hand, the performance of tactical fighters has improved markedly since the 1960s in areas such as warload/radius, acceleration, maneuverability and controllability. But there's no such thing as a "scientific limit", just "what we don't want to spend money on today".

Sferrin: We all know the 104 was fast. So what's your point?

Earlm: You're challenging statements I did not make.

By the way, I was merely responding to statements that the F-35 has 2X the power of the F-4, which is incorrect, and that the F-35 is lighter than the F-4, which is correct, but is a comparison that was demonstrably reversed more than 20 years ago, using then-off-the-shelf technology.

 

[tacitblue]

In order:

TBlue: A scientific limit to performance? I don't know how to define that. Certainly, some aspects reach a point of diminishing returns and speed has (it's been argued) been one of those. On the other hand, the performance of tactical fighters has improved markedly since the 1960s in areas such as warload/radius, acceleration, maneuverability and controllability. But there's no such thing as a "scientific limit", just "what we don't want to spend money on today".

Sferrin: We all know the 104 was fast. So what's your point?

Earlm: You're challenging statements I did not make.

By the way, I was merely responding to statements that the F-35 has 2X the power of the F-4, which is incorrect, and that the F-35 is lighter than the F-4, which is correct, but is a comparison that was demonstrably reversed more than 20 years ago, using then-off-the-shelf technology.

There is a scientific limit to all things. The piston driven airplanes of the 30s and 40s reached their limit at the end of WWII. The turbofan/turbojet has it's limitations as well. The fossil fuels with which we generate heat to generate thrust has its limitation; with the energy density of fuel, there is only so much that be extracted per pound, which means more range equates to more fuel, more structural weight, and worse aerodynamics. There is a limit with what can be done aerodynamically... with the properties of flow from subsonic, to transonic, to supersonic, there is no one magic design which can cruise at 2 Mach and 65K for 1200 miles, and then switch gears to defeat an EF or an -16 in a gun fight at 25K at transonic speeds.

I'm a physicist, former aviator, and I've been involved in more engineering projects than I care to discuss. I can tell you for a fact that all things have limitations. The fact that you don't know this only speaks to the conclusion that you simply do not know that you don't even know. That is the definition of ignorance. You are even incorrect in your "beliefs" about the Phantom in comparison to the -35.

 

[sferrin]

Sferrin: We all know the 104 was fast. So what's your point?

"I think one might actually expect some significant improvements in all regimes."

Obviously the Gripen falls short there doesn't it? (As likely does both the Rafale and Typhoon.) I mean, come on. You should take SAAB and Co. to task daily for delivering such inferior aircraft. I mean my God, even the 60 year old F-104 is faster, what's the matter with them? And none of them can even carry weapons internally, which the even more decrepit F-102s did.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

Sferrin: We all know the 104 was fast. So what's your point?

"I think one might actually expect some significant improvements in all regimes."

Obviously the Gripen falls short there doesn't it? (As likely does both the Rafale and Typhoon.) I mean, come on. You should take SAAB and Co. to task daily for delivering such inferior aircraft. I mean my God, even the 60 year old F-104 is faster, what's the matter with them? And none of them can even carry weapons internally, which the even more decrepit F-102s did.

Superior maneuverability, electronics/radar, fuel efficiency, thrust, thrust to weight. Just comparing a later J79 to an RM12/F404 or even F414 is quite interesing, considering the F404 is much smaller, weighs 3/5s what the J79 does, while having less SFC at both dry and wet thrust (which are about the same for either engine). However I would like to see an altitude/speed performance chart, to see how the J79 performs at those higher speeds and altitudes.

The greater thrust and fuel efficiency of today's fighters more or less is "ruined" by their relatively less efficient aerodynamics (in terms of cruise drag) designed around close in air combat performance. And it's a shame that a great design like the F-16XL never made it too production, where the maneuver/cruise/range/weapons load amalgam that I think was the best in a single engine combat aircraft ever designed. Only conceivable change I would've made to that design is a larger radar (if it didn't affect performance too greatly).

Ok I think I was a little harsh on the poor 'ol F-35 but my biggest fear rests with it's less superior kinematic performance. Yes, it's electronics are excellent, but it's not the kind of plane or airframe I would want for air dominance. The F-22's airframe, engine and aerodynamics has that kinematic performance, it has the energy producing capability to supercruise into enemy territory, kill S-300 and S-400 sites.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-131210-1.html

Partly blame ^these^ guys for my lack of faith in the F-35. While I think they are a bit on the sensationalist side, I do think they have a pretty good idea what they are talking about. If the F-22 doesn't go back into production, then electronic tech from the F-35 needs to get to the F-22 fast, along with the Block 20 improvements. Along with that, the Navy can't get their F/A-XX soon enough either. The T-50 has been rolling along quite quickly for Russia and India, and I see it in production in a couple years. Even if the radar and engines are not ready, the airframe can be.

 

[GTX]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-131210-1.html

Partly blame ^these^ guys for my lack of faith in the F-35. While I think they are a bit on the sensationalist side, I do think they have a pretty good idea what they are talking about.

Well there's your problem. You are using as a reference people who are biased beyond belief and DO NOT know what they are talking about. Realistically, avoid that lot at all costs if you want any facts.

The T-50 has been rolling along quite quickly for Russia and India, and I see it in production in a couple years. Even if the radar and engines are not ready, the airframe can be.

A couple of aircraft flying does not necessarily equate to real progress. As for the radar and engines not being ready but the airframe being so...well that just gives you a very advanced, low observable ground target...

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-131210-1.html

Partly blame ^these^ guys for my lack of faith in the F-35. While I think they are a bit on the sensationalist side, I do think they have a pretty good idea what they are talking about. If the F-22 doesn't go back into production, then electronic tech from the F-35 needs to get to the F-22 fast, along with the Block 20 improvements. Along with that, the Navy can't get their F/A-XX soon enough either. The T-50 has been rolling along quite quickly for Russia and India, and I see it in production in a couple years. Even if the radar and engines are not ready, the airframe can be.

The Navy will never get the F/A-XX. They don't have the funds. Not to mention the little fact that no one know what features a "sixth Generation fighter" Actually has!! So the navy want to start development on a sixth generation fighter, before they have even fielded a fifth! Even if they did get the F/A-XX its not going to hit the fleet at best for another 30 years.

Just for future reference, siting Ausairpower as a resource will get you laughed at! That site is unbelievably biased, and terribly inaccurate. They have an axe to grind against F-35 and have been responsible for a lot of the rumors and outright lies that people have now been trying to debunk for years as untrue. Professionals that they are, AusAir continues to reprint the lies, rather than admit fault and correct them, they still have an entire hit page:

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

As for the F-22 AWESOMENESS!!! Here is a story about how they are no longer allowed to fly away from local emergency landing locations in case the oxygen problem rears its ugly head again:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/military-limits-f-22-flights-after-oxygen-issues/?hpt=hp_c2

F-22 Ground crews are also reporting sickness and other issues as well.

Really hope those S-300s, and S-400s are located near Virginia...

 

[Thorvic]

As for the F-22 AWESOMENESS!!! Here is a story about how they are no longer allowed to fly away from local emergency landing locations in case the oxygen problem rears its ugly head again:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/military-limits-f-22-flights-after-oxygen-issues/?hpt=hp_c2

F-22 Ground crews are also reporting sickness and other issues as well.

Really hope those S-300s, and S-400s are located near Virginia...

I wouldn't laugh too hard if i were you, as its the same people that are creating your precious F-35.....

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As for the F-22 AWESOMENESS!!! Here is a story about how they are no longer allowed to fly away from local emergency landing locations in case the oxygen problem rears its ugly head again:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/military-limits-f-22-flights-after-oxygen-issues/?hpt=hp_c2

F-22 Ground crews are also reporting sickness and other issues as well.

Really hope those S-300s, and S-400s are located near Virginia...

I wouldn't laugh too hard if i were you, as its the same people that are creating your precious F-35.....

No way! really?

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-131210-1.html

Partly blame ^these^ guys for my lack of faith in the F-35. While I think they are a bit on the sensationalist side, I do think they have a pretty good idea what they are talking about. If the F-22 doesn't go back into production, then electronic tech from the F-35 needs to get to the F-22 fast, along with the Block 20 improvements. Along with that, the Navy can't get their F/A-XX soon enough either. The T-50 has been rolling along quite quickly for Russia and India, and I see it in production in a couple years. Even if the radar and engines are not ready, the airframe can be.

The Navy will never get the F/A-XX. They don't have the funds. Not to mention the little fact that no one know what features a "sixth Generation fighter" Actually has!! So the navy want to start development on a sixth generation fighter, before they have even fielded a fifth! Even if they did get the F/A-XX its not going to hit the fleet at best for another 30 years.

Just for future reference, siting Ausairpower as a resource will get you laughed at! That site is unbelievably biased, and terribly inaccurate. They have an axe to grind against F-35 and have been responsible for a lot of the rumors and outright lies that people have now been trying to debunk for years as untrue. Professionals that they are, AusAir continues to reprint the lies, rather than admit fault and correct them, they still have an entire hit page:

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

As for the F-22 AWESOMENESS!!! Here is a story about how they are no longer allowed to fly away from local emergency landing locations in case the oxygen problem rears its ugly head again:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/military-limits-f-22-flights-after-oxygen-issues/?hpt=hp_c2

F-22 Ground crews are also reporting sickness and other issues as well.

Really hope those S-300s, and S-400s are located near Virginia...

If anything about them caught my attention it was their treatment of future Flanker upgrades as being existent and in major numbers with major air forces.

But still, what about kinematic performance? Clearly the F-35 is inferior in this aspect. It's acceleration through Mach may make an F-16 look bad, but if the airframe is limited to M 1.7 and requires relight to do it (costing precious fuel, and increasing detectability), you're looking at an aircraft ill prepared for interdiction and penetration in tomorrow's battlesphere unless it gets really low, where it's still susceptible to IR SAMs, visual detection, and chop up the combat radius! Maybe we just need a whole new interdictor, and perhaps the FB-22 or FB-23 could've been our ticket to a true F-111 replacement!

F-22s (assuming no software problems ) would be the first in to kill radar sites (including SAM radars) and achieve air dominance for a reason.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

But still, what about kinematic performance? Clearly the F-35 is inferior in this aspect.

compared to what? remember that the F-22 is the top notch world leading fighter (that again can't be exported) so barring the F-22 what is the F-35 suffering in?

It's acceleration through Mach may make an F-16 look bad, but if the airframe is limited to M 1.7 and requires relight to do it (costing precious fuel, and increasing detectability),

But of course F-16s (which can fly faster but as you noted not accelerate as quickly) have to be in full afterburner to reach similar speeds, as does the Super Hornet which has a similar top speed to the F-35. So other than being able to out accelerate a F-16 and keep with a Super Hornet at top speed where is it lacking again?

you're looking at an aircraft ill prepared for interdiction and penetration in tomorrow's battlesphere unless it gets really low,

That is outright wrong. Sensors and visual detectors will be state of the art and the F-35 will be the ONLY aircraft in the world to have such advanced avionics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY

Maybe we just need a whole new interdictor, and perhaps the FB-22 or FB-23 could've been our ticket to a true F-111 replacement!

LOL that will happen. Do you know of a money tree somewhere that I don't? And even if it did happen, why on earth would those be exported when the F-22 wasn't? and how will these aircraft also replace the Navy and Marine Fighters that the JSF will?

F-22s (assuming no software problems ) would be the first in to kill radar sites (including SAM radars) and achieve air dominance for a reason.

Again the JSF will be a "door kicker" and can fly more missions better than the F-22. F-22s will be airplane hunting--not radar hunting. Thats what the JSF is for.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

I've seen the EODAS videos before, it's quite impressive, though I've heard there have been issues with getting the system properly "fused" and calibrated. Hopefully the F-22 gets it soon.

As for the F-35 being the best in the world at what it does for the most part, it may be so for a short while but for the long term? We just don't know yet. I wouldn't put all my faith into it. At the closer distances where it would be eventually be detected by radar and have a high performance SAM fired on it, would it have the kinematic performance to defeat it or escape altogether? Not sure. Certainly the F-22 would have a better chance.

In terms of pure fighter performance, the F-22 raised the bar. The F-35 succeeds and even exceeds in some areas (total electrical sensors system), but still I stress kinematics. KINEMATICS! Combat aircraft are still subject to the energy game, regardless of the electronic brains. Supercruise makes sense because it gives you most of energy production [speed] capability of afterburning, with much reduced SFC in comparison and no huge IR signature to boot!

Oh and the money? The money would be here if we didn't spend it on a needless war, nation building and bases around the world that only deepen the disdain for American foreign policy from the viewpoint of the rest of the world.

 

[LowObservable]

Nusna - In the world of the F-35 true believers, aircraft kinematics don't count because the stealthy F-35 will have the first look/first shot advantage.

In the rest of the world, aircraft like the Su-35S and J-10B (among recent potential-adversary developments) have reduced nose-on X-band RCS, and onboard jamming, to reduce the first-look advantage; missile launch warning and agility to reduce the range at which an AAM has high kill probability; IRST to increase the range at which both sides can see one another, regardless of RCS; and kinematics to deny a less agile aircraft the option to disengage.

 

[GTX]

In the rest of the world, aircraft like the Su-35S and J-10B (among recent potential-adversary developments) have reduced nose-on X-band RCS, and onboard jamming, to reduce the first-look advantage; missile launch warning and agility to reduce the range at which an AAM has high kill probability; IRST to increase the range at which both sides can see one another, regardless of RCS; and kinematics to deny a less agile aircraft the option to disengage.

And in the real world of real combat operations (as opposed to those who simply read/write books etc), any pilot who finds themselves in a old style dogfight (where WVR weapons/tactics such as the type that people often raise all of this sort of thing with) are required frankly gets what they deserve. Despite what Hollywood (and some so-called experts) might have people believe, most air-to-air combat is not WW1 style dogfighting! With sensors and more so, guided weapons such as they are, no pilot wants to get into such a fight anyway. All their training and all their equipment is designed to avoid just that. Moreover, just read some of the reports of the top aces from history and you will see that most of them (right from WW1) only became the aces they were by avoiding fair fights - it is better to sneak up on your enemy and club him/her over the head from behind rather than to challenge them to a duel.

 

[Arjen]

It's not just in dogfights that kinematics give you an advantage. In BVR engagement, getting out of effective range of your opponent's missiles once you've fired your own load is important. Better kinematics help.

 

[GTX]

where exactly are you people getting the belief that the F-35 is somehow a poor performer on the Kinematics front? Please reference some reliable factual sources.


I also find it interesting how some of the service pilots flying the F-35 aren't complaining about its supposed lack of performance. For example, US Marine Corps Col Arthur Tomassetti, 33 Fighter Wing vice-commander has this to say just recently:

"I continue to be impressed how easy it is to fly the F-35 and how well it performs."

or Lt Col Lee Kloos, the commander of the 58th Fighter Squadron:

"One of the things this aircraft usually takes hit on is the handling because it's not an F-22...an F-22 is unique in its ability to maneuver and we'll never be that...but compared to other aircraft, a combat-configured F-35 probably edges out other existing designs carrying a similar load-out...when I'm downrange in Badguyland that's the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that's where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16...A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons, external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet's performance. "You put all that on, I'll take the F-35 as far as handling characteristic and performance, that's not to mention the tactical capabilities and advancements in stealth," he says. "It's of course way beyond what the F-16 has currently."

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

where exactly are you people getting the belief that the F-35 is somehow a poor performer on the Kinematics front? Please reference some reliable factual sources.


I also find it interesting how some of the service pilots flying the F-35 aren't complaining about its supposed lack of performance. For example, US Marine Corps Col Arthur Tomassetti, 33 Fighter Wing vice-commander has this to say just recently:

"I continue to be impressed how easy it is to fly the F-35 and how well it performs."

or Lt Col Lee Kloos, the commander of the 58th Fighter Squadron:

"One of the things this aircraft usually takes hit on is the handling because it's not an F-22...an F-22 is unique in its ability to maneuver and we'll never be that...but compared to other aircraft, a combat-configured F-35 probably edges out other existing designs carrying a similar load-out...when I'm downrange in Badguyland that's the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that's where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16...A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons, external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet's performance. "You put all that on, I'll take the F-35 as far as handling characteristic and performance, that's not to mention the tactical capabilities and advancements in stealth," he says. "It's of course way beyond what the F-16 has currently."

Essentially he appears to be saying an F-35 with internal fuel and weapons only manouvres better than an F-16 when its loaded with ECM pods, external weapons and fuel tanks. The qualifications put on this sound like "damning with faint praise". This gives some people the impression that the F-35 will be intrinsically less maneuverable than a F-16. Which it might be, in clean config - but I'd take a clean F-35 over a clean F-16 in a fight anyday

I note that this topic has drifted far from the original topic into our normal F-35 slanging match with the usual suspects lined up on all sides. I am locking this topic for surgery.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This topic is for all flamewars, arguments and similar posts regarding F-35. All other F-35 topics should stay strictly factual and polite. I will be progressively moving factual and informative posts to http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14219.0.html

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

New topic for Lockheed F-35 for news and info along with reasoned and polite comment. Due to repeated flamewars over F-35 derailing topics, please post any such posts in the Bar topic here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,537.0.html

 

[sferrin]

Guess it's better to heap all the B.S. in one thread so the rest don't get polluted. Good move.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

If the F-35 is expected to fulfill the role the F-22 was originally intended for (air dominance), I would want it to have the kinematic performance in the same class as the F-22 in order to guarantee it. Considering the addition of stealth technologies reduces the RCS and hence the detection range for theoretically both sides in the fight, BVR combat might actually become quite difficult to perform except for high RCS targets like AWACs. Question is, how sensitive are IRSTs and EODAS now? And how effective was the F-14's TCS camera system at long ranges? I hear aircrews became quite proficient at using the TCS. Wiki (don't know how reliable) mentioned that large aircraft could be detected as far as 60 miles, which really isn't far when two flights are head on.

 

[GTX]

UK Takes Delivery of First Lightning II Fighter Jet

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued July 19, 2012)

L to R: Royal Navy Fleet Commander, Admiral Sir George Zambellas; Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond; Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton and Chief of Materiel Air, Air Marshal Sir Kevin Leeson stand in front the of first F-35 fighter delivered to the UK. (MoD photo)

The first of the UK’s next-generation stealth combat aircraft has today been handed over to the MoD.

At a ceremony in Fort Worth, Texas, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond formally accepted the first jet which will be known as Lightning II.

The aircraft are Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, manufactured by Lockheed Martin.

The UK is the first country outside the US to receive these aircraft and Mr Hammond today announced that the MoD intends to order a fourth Lightning II aircraft next year to add to the three already on contract.

The RAF and Royal Navy will conduct flight trials of the jets which will operate from land bases and from sea.

Lightning II will be operational from land based airfields from 2018, when it will also commence flight trials off the HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier. Mr Hammond announced that the jets are likely to be based at RAF Marham, Norfolk, but that no decision has yet been made.

The UK will benefit from interoperability with the US Marine Corps which operates STOVL aircraft similar to the Lightning II.

The multi-role jet features the latest stealth and Intelligence, Surveillance Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) technology and represents the cutting edge of combat aircraft design. Fifteen per cent of Joint Strike Fighter work is carried out in the UK and over 130 British companies contribute to the supply chain. It is worth over £1Bn to UK industry each year and will support around 25,000 British jobs over the next 25 years.

After the acceptance ceremony, the Defence Secretary toured Lockheed Martin’s production plant with representatives of major UK sub-contractors on the programme, including BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce.

Mr Hammond said:

“This hugely capable combat aircraft is now officially British and in the hands of our expert pilots. Highly skilled British aerospace workers are also playing a vital role in the delivery of Lightning II with UK companies involved in 15 per cent of the production and 25,000 British jobs sustained as a result.

“Having taken decisions on the final designs of our new aircraft carriers and balanced the MoD’s budget we can now proceed confidently to regenerating our carrier strike capability with these cutting edge stealth combat aircraft. “

The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, said:

“The delivery of the United Kingdom’s first Lightning II marks the beginning of a new era in our ability to project Air Power from the land or sea. Alongside our increasingly capable combat-proven multi-role Typhoons, the Lightnings provide an additional complimentary capability to our growing Combat-ISTAR force.”

Royal Navy Fleet Commander, Admiral Sir George Zambellas, said:

“Jets at sea offer unmatched persistence and can guarantee the delivery of airpower around the globe. With the advent of Lightning II, UK Defence has its opportunity to maximise the utility of our carriers and this extraordinarily capable aircraft through a range of sea and land basing options. The result will be a strategic capability which will deliver for many decades to come.”


(ends)

United Kingdom Accepts First International Lockheed Martin F-35

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued July 19, 2012)

FORT WORTH, Texas --- The United Kingdom accepted the first international Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II aircraft in a ceremony today with senior representatives of the U.K. Ministry of Defence and the U.S. Department of Defense.

The Right Honourable Philip Hammond, U.K. Secretary of State for Defence, and Mr. Frank Kendall, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, represented their governments.

"We are here to celebrate an important 'first' among so many milestones associated with the F-35 program," said Bob Stevens, Lockheed Martin chairman and chief executive officer. "It's fitting that our first delivery to an international partner is to the United Kingdom, because without sustained British innovation over many generations, we would not have an event to celebrate today."

The U.K. was the first of eight international partners to join the F-35 program and plans to acquire the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft.

Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Headquartered in the U.K., BAE Systems brings a rich heritage of capabilities to the F-35 program, including short takeoff and vertical landing experience, advanced lean manufacturing, flight testing and air systems sustainment, and is responsible for the F-35's aft fuselage, fuel system, crew escape and life support systems. The U.K. will play a vital role in the F-35's global production, follow-on development and sustainment over the next 40 years, bringing strong economic benefits to the country.

The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th Generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Three distinct variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV8-B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least 10 other countries.


Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 120,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation's net sales for 2011 were $46.5 billion.

-ends-