The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sferrin]

I was really trying to ignore you, TT, but...

The Japanese understand the opportunity to leverage the F-35 combat systems enterprise

"Speak English!' said the Eaglet. 'I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and I don't believe you do either!" - Lewis Carroll

Look, networking is fine and very important. Ask the Swedes, they have done more than most of the world has put on a PowerPoint. (By the way, it is noteworthy that JSF is the first major program conceived in the era of large-scale PowerPoint use.)

However, if you wanted to design a very, very cr@p AEW platform, you would incorporate the following features:

- Unrefueled endurance <2 hours in standard mission
- Radar with 120 degree scan limit
- Radar aperture constrained by SWaP (size, weight and power) and over-the-nose visibility for CV ops
- Long-haul connectivity limited to Link 16
- No provision whatsoever for CEC, which is the key to the Aegis capability.

Oddly, the Marines could get a VTOL AEW platform quite easily, on an almost completely non-developmental basis that does not add a platform to the fleet, that would also offer proven surface surveillance in the littorals, and could probably be made CEC-compatible (a very important improvement in capability for a non-CV operation). They have shown no interest in it whatsoever.

The F-16, Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen don't exactly have huge noses. : (However at least the F-16 and F-35 have AESAs available today. )

 

[sferrin]

I believe Kate Moss was the poster child for scheletric anorexia, back in the day.

Always glad to show off my gossip/pop culture knowledge on this forum.

Hmmm. . .what was missing from the X-35. . .oh yes, internal weapons bays.

 

[sferrin]

Almost anything with two F119s will go supersonic, and almost anything with as much wing and tail as an F-22, and thrust vectoring, will get around corners pretty well.

Nor was there much time for any doubters about maneuver (I don't recall many in public) because the F-22 started high-alpha testing less than two years after first flight.

Which, of course, changes nothing regarding how off the mark the F-22's detractors were.

 

[Arjen]

The F-16, Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen don't exactly have huge noses. :

Some obvious disadvantages in using fighter-like aircraft as an AEW-platform have just been presented. LO definitely is not advocating using them that way. Are you?

 

[LowObservable]

Er, nobody's tried to promote the Rafale or Typhoon as the system for a combat enterprise lever.

Actually, I don't remember any F-22 detractors criticizing the aircraft as slow or unmaneuverable. Citation please.

I do remember people saying that its speed and maneuverability (and other capes) were more than was required against the threat, as it was seen at the time, and that the jet would be too costly to be acquired and used in the planned numbers.

Arjen - F-35 detractors think that the B will melt holes in carrier decks, are motivated only by the desire to preserve Eurocanards, want to scrap JSF completely and then reissue the same requirement, and fluoridate the water supply to destroy our essence.

 

[Arjen]

Arjen - F-35 detractors think that the B will melt holes in carrier decks, are motivated only by the desire to preserve Eurocanards, want to scrap JSF completely and then reissue the same requirement, and fluoridate the water supply to destroy our essence.

The fluoridating bit is true, you know. I run around all day, fluoridating everywhere I go.

 

[sferrin]

Arjen - F-35 detractors think that the B will melt holes in carrier decks

Are you denying that you implied the F-35Bs deck impingment would be "clusterbomb-like"?

are motivated only by the desire to preserve Eurocanards,

Are you denying that you've indicated in the past that you felt the success of the F-35 would mean the end of European fighter development? Are you denying that you constantly bray about perceived F-35 shortcomings (or insinuate they exist if facts are lacking) over on Ares while positively gushing about any paper Eurocanard advancement? "It's not bragging if you can do it." in response to the Gripen maybe -finally- getting an AESA. You're a sad joke, destined for a future like Sprey, Ricionni, and Wheeler, only to be rolled out of the old-folks home when POGO or some liberal rag needs someone to bash the latest US fighter. Bravo. [/quote][/quote]

 

[Arjen]

Almost anything with two F119s will go supersonic, and almost anything with as much wing and tail as an F-22, and thrust vectoring, will get around corners pretty well.

Nor was there much time for any doubters about maneuver (I don't recall many in public) because the F-22 started high-alpha testing less than two years after first flight.

Which, of course, changes nothing regarding how off the mark the F-22's detractors were.

First tell your opponent what he's thinking, then attack that position. If that fails, question his motives.

By the way, are you in favour of fighter-like aircraft as an AEW platform? I'm guessing no, but that would make your 'huge noses' entry pointless.

 

[LowObservable]

Are you denying that you implied the F-35Bs deck impingment would be "clusterbomb-like"?

Yes, Mr Angry, because neither I nor anyone else that I know of suggested anything of the kind. It has been reported, correctly, that Navy engineers predict that the F-35 jet efflux would cause spalling - explosive breakup - of standard concrete surfaces, and there isn't a lot of dispute as to what happens to spalled fragments in the high-speed radial outflow. It has also been reported, correctly, that the Navy has continued to contract for landing pads made of specialized heat-resistant concrete, long after LockMart and the Manly Corps asserted that there is no difference between an F-35 landing environment and a Harrier's.

Your question is another example of a myth based on inaccurate reading.

Are you denying that you've indicated in the past that you felt the success of the F-35 would mean the end of European fighter development?

Well, that's the business plan (see below) so that is hardly an indicator of bias. It also means the end of US fighter development - or do you have a theory as to where the F-35's replacement comes from, if the US has no need to develop a new fighter before 2035? There will be no engineers or companies with the experience to do it. Unlike you, I am not advocating for a one-supplier, corporate-socialist future. Hell, China has a more competitive fighter-development plan than the Pentagon does today.

Neither do I bray about anything. Face facts, Toots. The critics (including GAO, CAPE and NavAir) have been consistently right about cost and schedule since 2006, and the salesmen and the shills and the fankiddies have been wrong. Moreover, testing has barely started to demonstrate operational effectiveness (the jet flies in a straight line and drops bombs after nearly six years of flight-test, hip-hip-freaking-hooray) which is why abuse is all you have left.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I was really trying to ignore you, TT, but...

I do appreciate that you at least officially acknowledged your desire to ignore my posts, unlike GTX who has been getting that unofficially for some time.

The Japanese understand the opportunity to leverage the F-35 combat systems enterprise

"Speak English!' said the Eaglet. 'I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and I don't believe you do either!" - Lewis Carroll

Japan- An Island nation in Asia

Understand- The ability to comprehend an idea, lesson, or concept

Opportunity- a favorable set of circumstances or occasion or combination of both

Leverage- Power to act, or positional advantage

Enterprise- initiative, systematic activity or industriousness.

So paraphrased it is:

"The island nation comprehends the favorable chances to take advantage of scary warplane's systems"

That's how I interpreted it anyway. HTH.

Look, networking is fine and very important. Ask the Swedes, they have done more than most of the world has put on a PowerPoint. (By the way, it is noteworthy that JSF is the first major program conceived in the era of large-scale PowerPoint use.)

However, if you wanted to design a very, very cr@p AEW platform, you would incorporate the following features:

- Unrefueled endurance <2 hours in standard mission
- Radar with 120 degree scan limit
- Radar aperture constrained by SWaP (size, weight and power) and over-the-nose visibility for CV ops
- Long-haul connectivity limited to Link 16
- No provision whatsoever for CEC, which is the key to the Aegis capability.

So are you saying the AEGIS Could not be used in coordination with the JSF?

Oddly, the Marines could get a VTOL AEW platform quite easily, on an almost completely non-developmental basis that does not add a platform to the fleet, that would also offer proven surface surveillance in the littorals, and could probably be made CEC-compatible (a very important improvement in capability for a non-CV operation). They have shown no interest in it whatsoever.

one step at a time.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Neither do I bray about anything. Face facts, Toots. The critics (including GAO, CAPE and NavAir) have been consistently right about cost and schedule since 2006, and the salesmen and the shills and the fankiddies have been wrong. Moreover, testing has barely started to demonstrate operational effectiveness (the jet flies in a straight line and drops bombs after nearly six years of flight-test, hip-hip-freaking-hooray) which is why abuse is all you have left.

And can be shot off a catapult, and can land vertically, and has already done shipboard trials and in a crosswind to boot, And is routinely carrying weapons, And has had its first night flights, and has completed flights in the hundreds, and has been taken off probation, and is already wearing UK and Netherlands markings, and has a cadre of people being trained and the first USMC squadron will stand up by the end of the year.

Other than that, nothing to show in six years.

Thats just off the top of my head. If you would like me to link to F-35.com they have more good news everyday

Abuse is all we have left? You probably feel that way since you are as the phrase goes "on the wrong side of history" Seeing as the F-35 won the JSF competition and is everyday getting closer to service, you seem to be the one who has nothing but negative comments and abuse, mixed in with some very selective facts and arguments that ignore the very needs of the services that the F-35 was created for. The onus is on you to prove the JSF wrong since it was selected already by multiple governments. Believe it or not the JSF doesn't have to prove a thing to you in order to continue its march into service. It can be in service for decades with you still not conceding that it was ever any good, and no one will care. So the reason you may feel abused is because it is, like it or not-- beating you. And will continue to beat you no matter how much you blog from the periphery, while counting yourself an insider.

BTW this deck melting thing is a joke. Once upon a time Carriers had wooden decks, aircraft advances saw that wood replaced with more modern surfaces. The solution was to build a better deck, not to retard the evolution of the carrier aircraft.

 

[Arjen]

Found this over at JSFnieuws (my translation):

After new financial information from the USA became available in 2011 on the JSF regarding price, additional charges and costs for maintenance, modifications over time, for use and support the conclusion was internally at PV F-16 and later, well, a level higher: we need to count.

Various scenarios were commissioned to be drawn up with 2 Main Operating Bases (MOB), Volkel and Leeuwarden, with 1 MOB (Volkel or Leeuwarden) or 1 MOB with a reserve base; all kinds of data are contemplated, such as numbers, flight hours, training scenarios, modes of cooperation, numbers of people, basic maintenance, savings from closing base, noise and environmental effects, etc.

The final scenario with greatest potential for savings and within given financial parameters optimal operational capabilities:
- Reduction of the number of fighter aircraft F-16 to 42 from 68
- Assuming one airbase, Leeuwarden can close
- This must commence between 2014 and 2016

Numerous other scenarios are rejected. Too little savings potential.

Cause: the arrival of the F-35
It is remarkable that precisely the F-35, which should ensure the future of our Air Force for the coming decades, is presented as the main reason for this huge reduction.
Calculations show that the € 4.5 billion budget (revised in spring 2011) for replacement of the F-16 is only sufficient to purchase a number of 42 F-35A fighter aircraft. Therefore it is better and cheaper to anticipate on this, as soon as possible, with the reduction of the number of F-16s to 42. Because of this one airbase will be sufficient, one airbase can be closed.
A quote: "The replacement of the F-16 is a major fiscal risk to the budget of Defense if the Lockheed F-35A is selected. This is not only due to rising investment costs but also by the high operating costs. "
But be clear: because of the investments already made abandoning the JSF is not an option. There are therefore no actual calculations done.

The original:

Na het beschikbaar komen in 2011 uit de V.S. van nieuwe financiële gegevens inzake de JSF omtrent prijs, bijkomende kosten en kosten voor onderhoud, modificaties op termijn, voor gebruik en support was de conclusie intern bij PV F-16 en later zeg maar een ‘niveautje’ hoger: we moeten aan het rekenen.
Er werd opdracht gegeven voor het opstellen van diverse scenario’s met 2 Main Operating Bases (MOB), Volkel en Leeuwarden; met 1 MOB (Volkel of Leeuwarden); of 1 MOB met een reservebasis; allerlei data is hierin betrokken, zoals aantallen, vlieguren, trainingsscenario’s, samenwerkingsvormen, aantallen mensen, instandhouding basis, terugverdieneffecten opheffen basis, geluids- en milieu effecten, enz.
Het uiteindelijke scenario met grootste besparingspotentieel en binnen gegeven financiële parameters meest optimale operationele mogelijkheden:
- Vermindering van het aantal jachtvliegtuigen F¬16 van 68 naar 42
- Uitgaan van 1 vliegbasis, Leeuwarden kan dicht
- Dit moet ingaan tussen 2014 en 2016
Tal van andere scenario’s vallen af. Te weinig besparingspotentieel.
Oorzaak: de komst van de F-35
Opmerkelijk is dat juist de F-35, waarmee de toekomst van onze KLu zou moeten zijn gewaarborgd voor de komende decennia, aangevoerd wordt als belangrijkste reden voor deze enorme reductie:
Berekeningen zijn gemaakt dat vanwege het (in voorjaar 2011 bijgestelde) budget van € 4,5 miljard voor vervanging van de F-16 slechts voldoende is om een aantal van 42 F-35A jachtvliegtuigen aan te schaffen. Om die reden is het beter en het voordeligste hierop nu reeds te anticiperen en het aantal F-16’s zo snel mogelijk te verminderen tot 42. Doordat hiervoor 1 vliegbasis voldoende is, kan 1 vliegbasis worden gesloten.
Een citaat: “De vervanging van de F-16 vormt een groot budgettair risico voor de begroting van Defensie indien gekozen wordt voor de Lockheed F-35A. Dit niet alleen door de stijgende investeringskosten maar ook door de hoge exploitatiekosten.”
Maar wordt duidelijk gesteld: vanwege de reeds gedane investeringen is afzien van de JSF geen optie. Hier zijn dan ook geen werkelijke berekeningen op gedaan.

Publishing date: May 30th, 2012.

Note that in 2002, the original, lower, budget was deemed to be sufficient for purchasing 85 F-35s.

 

[sferrin]

Are you denying that you implied the F-35Bs deck impingment would be "clusterbomb-like"?

Yes, Mr Angry, because neither I nor anyone else that I know of suggested anything of the kind. It has been reported, correctly, that Navy engineers predict that the F-35 jet efflux would cause spalling - explosive breakup - of standard concrete surfaces, and there isn't a lot of dispute as to what happens to spalled fragments in the high-speed radial outflow.

And in your blog entry on Ares you parenthetically referred to clusterbombs in your description.

 

[sferrin]

By the way, are you in favour of fighter-like aircraft as an AEW platform? I'm guessing no, but that would make your 'huge noses' entry pointless.

I gather you've never heard of CEC or fighters networking?

 

[Arjen]

Thank you for your concern, I have, SAAB did it with their JA37 Viggen. That's Gripen's predecessor.

F-35:
- Unrefueled endurance <2 hours in standard mission
- Radar with 120 degree scan limit
- Radar aperture constrained by SWaP (size, weight and power) and over-the-nose visibility for CV ops
- Long-haul connectivity limited to Link 16
- No provision whatsoever for CEC, which is the key to the Aegis capability.

Discuss.

 

[LowObservable]

Sferrin - You said, quite specifically, "decks".

Ships are not made of concrete, although apparently some people's heads are.

I certainly wouldn't want to be standing too close to concrete spall in the outflow from a 15,700 pound thrust exhaust.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Sferrin - You said, quite specifically, "decks".

He misspoke so sue him. 10 percent off

I certainly wouldn't want to be standing too close to concrete spall in the outflow from a 15,700 pound thrust exhaust.

smartest thing I have ever heard you say-- Don't stand too close to powerful aircraft.

I don't think the F-35B will ever be able to land on a ship or anywhere for that matter

Upcoming Aegis tests will support a launch/engage-on-remote concept that links the Aegis ship to remote sensor data, increasing the coverage area and responsiveness. Once this capability is fully developed, SM-3 missiles––no longer constrained by the range of Aegis radar to detect an incoming missile––can be launched sooner and therefore fly farther to defeat the threat.

Imagine this capability linked to an F-35, which can see more than 800 miles throughout a 360-degree approach. U.S. allies are excited about the linkage prospects and the joint evolution of two highly upgradeable weapon systems.

Combining Aegis with F-35 means joining their sensors for wide-area coverage. Because of a new generation of weapons on the F-35 and the ability to operate a broad wolfpack of air and sea capabilities, the Joint Strike Fighter can perform as the directing point for combat action. With the Aegis and its new SM-3 missiles, the F-35 can leverage a sea-based missile to expand its area of strike. Together, the F-35 and Aegis significantly expand the defense of land and sea bases.

The commonality across the combat systems of the F-35’s three variants provides a notable advantage. Aegis is a pilot’s wingman, whether he or she is flying an F-35A, B, or C. Eighty percent of the F-35s in the Pacific are likely to be As, many of them coalition aircraft. Therefore, building an F-35 and Aegis global enterprise provides coverage and capability

http://www.sldforum.com/2011/12/the-japanese-f-35-decision-a-building-block-in-a-new-pacific-strategy/

read it!

 

[GTX]

Not official just yet, but it looks like the issue with the arrestor wire/hook is solved with in excess of 70 successful wire catches now undertaken.

 

[LowObservable]

GTX - Well maybe he did. Mis-speaking is a common symptom of not knowing what you're taking about, like when someone delivers a long lecture about costs, but does not pause to wonder how come a cost number dropped by $17 million year-to-year.

And if he meant to say "concrete" he was wrong anyway, because the NAVFAC specs are fully documented.

So now we're talking missile tracking at 800 miles - or rather, very huge rocket tracking. Now that I have two F-35s flying missile launch picket - it's IR, so I need two to triangulate and give me targeting-quality data, which I need for launch-on-engage - another idea occurs to me. If I can do this with pretty basic low-rez sensors, why don't I save a lot of gas and trouble and put those sensors on a pair of Insitu-type UAVs that can stay on station for 12 hours or more?

BTW, if the jet did pass roll-in tests at full landing speeds, it is good news, but it's "you don't have cancer" good news. That is, it simply points to the fact that one of the points in the QLR may not be a show-stopper.

 

[GTX]

GTX - Well maybe he did. Mis-speaking is a common symptom of not knowing what you're taking about, like when someone delivers a long lecture about costs, but does not pause to wonder how come a cost number dropped by $17 million year-to-year.

So once again my 'crime' is trying to ensure that everyone has a complete understanding of a potentially complicated topic? Oh dear, can't have that can we? So much nicer when one can simply rely on some confusion and ignorance... :
As for the leaving out of some of the costs, you will note that back at Reply # 1500 I covered this. Mind you, if you want to keep trying to go over old points, by all means keep trying. It amuses me to no end.

BTW, if the jet did pass roll-in tests at full landing speeds, it is good news, but it's "you don't have cancer" good news. That is, it simply points to the fact that one of the points in the QLR may not be a show-stopper.

Keep trying to downplay good news....it seems to me that it is all you will have soon...oh, along with name calling.

BTW, here's some other good news for you to downplay:

A little while back Norway confirmed its first orders for the F-35. However, what was not really highlighted by many was that it looks like Norway will not only order more than originally planned (52 vs 48..small increase I know) but in fact will order earlier in the program (LRIP7). Now, I will fully admit that these might seem minor points, but surely this sort of vote of confidence wouldn't occur if the F-35 program was such a complete and utter failure that some would like to imply...

 

[LowObservable]

We're talking about rolling arrestment tests. As far as I can see, those didn't even rate a press release in earlier carrier-aircraft programs. (But then, this is the program that issues a press release for flying in the dark.)

So pardon me if I'm not handing out Colliers left and right for passing, several years late, a single test on the path to first carrier landing - which, by the way, the SH accomplished within 14 months of first flight, not 3+ years.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Mis-speaking is a common symptom of not knowing what you're taking about,

Thanks for the honesty:

(I admit I was 10 per cent off on the F414 weight. So sue me.)

43000 < 2 x 17900

Airplanes are not mass-production.

Unless I have totally forgotten something obvious, the highest-rate aircraft production lines in the world today are the A320 and 737 family lines, which are at or approaching numbers close to 500 per year.

So, what military programs have been managed well recently?

C-17.

The C-17 is a good example of a program turned around after a gun was pointed at its head.

I have real life things to do and probably won't be able to address most of your writings for another few days.

...Still waiting

So now we're talking missile tracking at 800 miles - or rather, very huge rocket tracking. Now that I have two F-35s flying missile launch picket - it's IR, so I need two to triangulate and give me targeting-quality data, which I need for launch-on-engage - another idea occurs to me. If I can do this with pretty basic low-rez sensors, why don't I save a lot of gas and trouble and put those sensors on a pair of Insitu-type UAVs that can stay on station for 12 hours or more?

You can do that as well. The big point for me (and you didn't refute it) is that the F-35 can see 360 degrees for 800 miles, Yet still needs a full CVN battle group W/ AEW.

BTW, if the jet did pass roll-in tests at full landing speeds, it is good news, but it's "you don't have cancer" good news. That is, it simply points to the fact that one of the points in the QLR may not be a show-stopper.

Is this part were you play the victim and say we are "abusing" you as the F-35 hits yet another milestone and chips away at your dwindling reputation?

A little while back Norway confirmed its first orders for the F-35. However, what was not really highlighted by many was that it looks like Norway will not only order more than originally planned (52 vs 48..small increase I know) but in fact will order earlier in the program (LRIP7). Now, I will fully admit that these might seem minor points, but surely this sort of vote of confidence wouldn't occur if the F-35 program was such a complete and utter failure that some would like to imply...

That means nothing GTX! Of course if Norway was ordering fewer aircraft and at a later date it would confirm that the F-35 is fail. In LO's book the F-35 has two speeds --Reverse and stop. There is no forward.

which, by the way, the SH accomplished within 14 months of first flight, not 3+ years.

Coming from the same guy who praised the Super Hornet because it was based off an already proven design!!! Its almost like the Super Hornet had a head start...

 

[SOC]

Hey I can think of another Navy project that took three years to get from first flight to carrier landing...the F-111B! ;D

 

[airfan1]

http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/td/td1604/APLteam.pdf

Coordinated, Cooperative Engagements
With the combination of precision gridlock, very
low time delay, and very high update rate, a combatant
may fire a missile and guide it to intercept a target, even
a maneuvering one, using radar data from another CEC
unit even if it never acquires the target with its own
radars. This capability is known as engagement on
remote data, and, with the Navy’s Standard Missile-2
(SM-2) series, allows midcourse guidance and pointing
of the terminal homing illuminator using offboard data
(Fig. 2c). The remote engagement operation is essentially
transparent to the combat system operators.
Engagements can be coordinated, whether conventional
or cooperative, via real-time knowledge of the detailed
status of every missile engagement within the
CEC network. Moreover, a coordination doctrine may
be activated by the designated NCU for automated
engagement recommendations at each unit based on
force-level engagement calculations.

 

[LowObservable]

The F-35 can indeed see things at 800 miles.

GIGANTIC FREAKING ROCKETS.

I can see 93 million miles right now and much farther than that when it is dark.

BTW it can be good management to recognize that a program is in deep ****, face the pain and turn it around. But a JSF fankiddy is the last person to realize that, n'est-ce pas mon chou?

 

[GTX]

which, by the way, the SH accomplished within 14 months of first flight, not 3+ years.

So are you trying to say that the F-35C has taken 3+ years to go from first flight to first carrier landing? Hmm, interesting...given the F-35C first flew 6 Jun 2010 and it is today either the 24th or 25th Aug 2012 (depending upon which side of the IDL you are) which is only around 2 years, 2 months, 19 days... : Can I borrow your time machine to quickly drop into the future where it is 3+ years from first flight please? ;D

Oh and by the way, when comparing programs please do try to compare apples with apples. The F/A-18E/F was only a single configuration (a carrier platform) not three diverse ones (CTOL, STOVL & CV). Therefore, the test programs between the two are kind of different in scale... :

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The F-35 can indeed see things at 800 miles.

GIGANTIC FREAKING ROCKETS.

But not aircraft?

I can see 93 million miles right now and much farther than that when it is dark.

Press release about your night flying?

BTW it can be good management to recognize that a program is in deep ****, face the pain and turn it around. But a JSF fankiddy is the last person to realize that, n'est-ce pas mon chou?

Seeing as your turn around plan is to gut it all, disband the USMC, scrap the Naval Variant and buy five different types of aircraft of both foreign and not yet invented designs, I think we will keep making progress for you to downplay instead

 

[AeroFranz]

The F-35 can indeed see things at 800 miles.

GIGANTIC FREAKING ROCKETS.

But not aircraft?

I think the point was the existence of a significant difference in IR signature between the exhaust of a low-bypass ratio engine at cruise setting, potentially from the front sector (thus masked by the aircraft), and an ascending rocket engine in plain view, busy turning massive quantities of high heating-value fuel into noise and heat.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The F-35 can indeed see things at 800 miles.

GIGANTIC FREAKING ROCKETS.

But not aircraft?

I think the point was the existence of a significant difference in IR signature between the exhaust of a low-bypass ratio engine at cruise setting, potentially from the front sector (thus masked by the aircraft), and an ascending rocket engine in plain view, busy turning massive quantities of high heating-value fuel into noise and heat.

Gotcha

 

[LowObservable]

AF is correct. I find this tendency to cite the 800 mile range of the sensors puzzling, since nobody seems to know what the pilot would do with this information. If I am over Fort Worth and my target is New Orleans, my interest in activity over Minneapolis is academic.

So are you trying to say that the F-35C has taken 3+ years to go from first flight to first carrier landing? Hmm, interesting...given the F-35C first flew 6 Jun 2010 and it is today either the 24th or 25th Aug 2012 (depending upon which side of the IDL you are) which is only around 2 years, 2 months, 19 days... Can I borrow your time machine to quickly drop into the future where it is 3+ years from first flight please?

The Olympics are over and the gold in Failing To Get The Point has been taken. Carrier landings have not taken place, and the last I heard. had slipped from summer 2013 into 2014.

Oh and by the way, when comparing programs please do try to compare apples with apples. The F/A-18E/F was only a single configuration (a carrier platform) not three diverse ones (CTOL, STOVL & CV). Therefore, the test programs between the two are kind of different in scale...

Indeed they are, with 12 test aircraft rather than 7, and two separate flight test establishments.

In other news:

Two Nations With Smaller Populations Than Mid-Sized US States To Operate Supercruising, Net-Enabled, Sensor Fused Fighter Before JSF IOC

http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/15743/a/197759

 

[GTX]

The Olympics are over and the gold in Failing To Get The Point has been taken.

Ah, but didn't you follow the Olympics ...this year the Australians were well and truly beaten to the gold by those of UK origin...


FYI, the point I was trying to make is that you seem to have a tendency to make almost throw away comments as though they are facts (e.g. implying the F-35C has taken 3+ years to go from first flight to first carrier landing), however it needs to be often pointed out that they are not actually facts at all. I also suspect this is part of the reason why you find my long post explaining the different costs so annoying - it might make people question just what is actually being referred to when one refers to a cost of the F-35. So much easier when one can just throw down a price with minimum qualification or explanation... :

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

AF is correct. I find this tendency to cite the 800 mile range of the sensors puzzling, since nobody seems to know what the pilot would do with this information. If I am over Fort Worth and my target is New Orleans, my interest in activity over Minneapolis is academic.

Not if whats happening over Minneapolis is of strategic consequence. In which case it may not help you that much, but it may be very helpful to other people. Like a chance to get to shelters for a missile attack, or don gas masks, or maybe the Patriot unit nearby would like to know there has been a launch. The possibilities are endless. War is unpredictable.

I know it sounds crazy but no matter what they tell you, there are other people besides pilots. Whats the pilot supposed to do? Pass on the info through the network and let others decide its importance.

I know the Gripen is so Gripen to you Bill. Nothing Gripens like a Gripen. The Gripen costs less because it does less, Its a much prettier F-20 (it is replacing F-5s afterall). If I was Neutral I would buy the Gripen too. But I wouldn't recommend it if you plan on going beyond your own borders.

In early 2012, a confidential evaluation report of the Swiss Air Force's tests of the three contenders in 2009, was leaked to the press. It rated the Gripen as performing substantially worse than the Rafale and the Eurofighter. The Gripen was assessed as satisfactory for reconnaissance missions, but unsatisfactory for air policing or air-to-air and strike missions.[112][113] The evaluation was of the JAS 39C/D, while the more advanced Gripen NG was bid.[114] The parliamentary security commission found that the Gripen offered the most risks, but voted to go ahead with the fighter because it was the cheapest option

That one is from Wiki so YMMV

The mention of IOC dates and population are typically you too. (is there anyway I can throw a couple of inconsequential measures in there to make it sound better/worse?) . Seeing as the NG version didn't first fly until 2008 as well it becomes even more deceptive. Even if the Gripen was on Par with the F-35 Re AESA and Avionics/sensors (and it isn't) It is still a full 11 years after the Gripen first entered service. The JSF Contacts to Boeing and Lockheed wasn't even awarded until 1996!

Maybe the Gripen NG will enter service faster on account of the years head start? I'm not trying to pick on the Gripen. Its cute. and this NG thing is relatively new, so its improving with time.

Let me try my hand:

Desert Nation 1/8 the size of Florida gets twin engine air superiority fighter decades before F-22 IOC.

That was fun! Again:

Tri-Service, Multi-Role Fighter sees service with 11 nations Half century before JSF IOC!

 

[GTX]

I find this tendency to cite the 800 mile range of the sensors puzzling, since nobody seems to know what the pilot would do with this information. If I am over Fort Worth and my target is New Orleans, my interest in activity over Minneapolis is academic.

Well, in a network enabled environment such as is envisioned for the F-35 and other modern weapon systems, it is quite relevant. Just because a single F-35 may sense the activity, does not necessarily mean that it has to be the system that responds...

 

[LowObservable]

OK. So now the jet is trundling along, blorting out coordinates and metadata of every contact it sees in a two-million-square-mile area. LPI, LPD - what do those mean again?

The F-35C CV date is not a fact, because it hasn't happened yet, so I used what the team currently estimates to be the schedule.

TT - If you can find me another example of a combat aircraft that was planned to have lower operating costs than its predecessor and has delivered on those promises, out with it, man!

Pardon me if I am favorably impressed by an industry, civil government and military that consistently ran at least third in developing and fielding technology in the Cold War (that is, behind the superpowers), that ran the Gripen A/B/C/D program on fixed-price R&D contracts, and that closed out the initial phase of C/D with the contractor returning cash to the government.

Mind you, I can see how a LockMart shill and an advocate for monopoly corporate socialism would regard this concept as subversive and dangerous.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

TT - If you can find me another example of a combat aircraft that was planned to have lower operating costs than its predecessor and has delivered on those promises, out with it, man!

I would say that the Gripen is the exception to the rule, Good for the Gripen! and since no one else has done that, maybe we can stop acting like the F-35 is such a bizarre anomaly when it is pretty much the worldwide norm? Even you admit that no one else has done that, and that it is truly exceptional and that given the way the US Government/industry/military are run, it probably never will happen.

So lets concede that the Gripen is and will always be the only fighter that does that, and move on shall we?

Pardon me if I am favorably impressed by an industry, civil government and military that consistently ran at least third in developing and fielding technology in the Cold War (that is, behind the superpowers), that ran the Gripen A/B/C/D program on fixed-price R&D contracts, and that closed out the initial phase of C/D with the contractor returning cash to the government.

And good onto the Gripen. If only the rest of the world were Swedens but they aren't. Sweden also has different military priorities along with different economics, populations, traditions, territorial size, climates, etc.

If only the most economical aircraft was the best, but money is not the only measure of an aircraft. The F-22 is terrifyingly expensive, but I dare say it would annihilate any Gripens it encountered. Gripens would be Cheap though... very economical bulls eyes.

You pay in other areas, like what the Swiss were saying about it, and the fact that again, its a LIGHT fighter, the range isn't much to brag about either. If the US wanted the Gripen, it would have bought the F-20. But we decided that it really wasn't for us, and stuck with the F-16. Pretty happy with that, too.

So you could say

"Two Nations With Smaller Populations Than Mid-Sized US States To Operate Supercruising, Net-Enabled, Sensor Fused Fighter Before JSF IOC"

I take it as:

"After 14 years in service 90's era Gripen finally approaches 21 century requirements, sells NG to a two small Neutral countries that can't afford actual 21st century stealth aircraft"

Two sides to every story I guess. Remember when the Gripen had to hover, land on a carrier, be stealthy, and be developed internationally too with order requirements in the thousands? Me either

The USMC alone will be using more F-35s than all the Gripens of any mark produced or ordered combined. So apples and bowling ball comparison again. So the might Gripen can't even out do the Manly Corps in exports. (Still very good for a second-tier defensive fighter.)

What I took exception to, is you and a lot of other people complaining that the JSF still hasn't reached IOC when other aircraft have, and for some reason people can't comprehend that an aircraft that was developed decades earlier got into service before the aircraft being developed now. Its called a "head start" here in the States, apparently its unknown everywhere else.

Moreover, the JSF standards are higher, the highest in aviation history I believe and even you admit that it is an exceptionally different challenge (you would say near impossible in fact) than developing a light F404 equipped fighter (we did that way back in 1982), and jamming an AESA into it 11 years later. Hooray Sweden!! Good for you! welcome to the 80's!!

And Finally, and this is important the NG isn't supposed to be available until 2020!!

So this:

"Two Nations With Smaller Populations Than Mid-Sized US States To Operate Supercruising, Net-Enabled, Sensor Fused Fighter Before JSF IOC"

could be absolutely untrue as it is.

Mind you, I can see how a LockMart shill and an advocate for monopoly corporate socialism would regard this concept as subversive and dangerous.

oh such abuse. You covered that already BTW. Can we stop beating that horse? We get it. You don't like lockmart, whole sections of the US military, and the way the US runs fighter programs because they disagree with your personal preferences.

 

[Sundog]

If the US wanted the Gripen, it would have bought the F-20. But we decided that it really wasn't for us, and stuck with the F-16. Pretty happy with that, too.

Actually, that's not what happened at all. The F-20 exceeded the performance of the F-16 in many areas. It wasn't that we decided it wasn't for us, it's that the USAF decided we could have any plane for the ADF mission as long as it was an F-16. Then when the F-20 was cancelled they got rid of that variant of the F-16. It had everything to do with politics and little to do with the mission. And they were happy with it, because it was all about a program territorial pissing match and not what was best for the nation. It was much like the F-35 program in that regard.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

If the US wanted the Gripen, it would have bought the F-20. But we decided that it really wasn't for us, and stuck with the F-16. Pretty happy with that, too.

Actually, that's not what happened at all. The F-20 exceeded the performance of the F-16 in many areas. It wasn't that we decided it wasn't for us, it's that the USAF decided we could have any plane for the ADF mission as long as it was an F-16. Then when the F-20 was cancelled they got rid of that variant of the F-16. It had everything to do with politics and little to do with the mission. And they were happy with it, because it was all about a program territorial pissing match and not what was best for the nation. It was much like the F-35 program in that regard.

Yeah I don't know how we ever got by without the F-20. It was primarily built export anyway with the Carter administration anyway.

If only it were around today, we could be replacing yet one more aircraft with JSF.

 

[SOC]

Then when the F-20 was cancelled they got rid of that variant of the F-16.

Eh what? There were almost 300 F-16 ADF conversions. They didn't necessarily stay in service for too long thanks to the USSR self-destructing (although I think some were still around until about 2007), but they certainly existed.

 

[GTX]

OK. So now the jet is trundling along, blorting out coordinates and metadata of every contact it sees in a two-million-square-mile area. LPI, LPD - what do those mean again?

Oh no!!! Nobody thought of that... :-[ Oh how embarrassing... :

The F-35C CV date is not a fact, because it hasn't happened yet, so I used what the team currently estimates to be the schedule.

Still doesn't change the point I was making.

 

[LowObservable]

The F-20 never got over its basic problem, which is that it was designed as the F-5G as a Carter-era "export fighter", but the Reagan policy was to equip allies with US-common equipment. Consequently it had to compete head-on with the F-16, which benefited from an aggressive and well-funded upgrade program.

By the way, equating even the Gripen A/B with the F-20 is simplistic. It's like saying that the MX-5/Miata is equivalent to a Honda S2K because they're both roadsters with 4cyl engines of around 2 liters. As for the E/F, it's a different animal.

Since no one else has done that, maybe we can stop acting like the F-35 is such a bizarre anomaly when it is pretty much the worldwide norm?

Sure! Nothing to see here, folks, move along. Just put your money and credit cards in the collection box labeled Support Your Local Impoverished MICC. No reasonable person can ever expect a corporation to deliver something for less than 80 per cent more time and money than they signed up for.

its a LIGHT fighter, the range isn't much to brag about either.

I don't know, people around here seem to be able to brag about an F-4-sized jet that can haul 2 x 1k bombs 450 nm (see below).

And the last I heard, the Swiss/Swedish IOC date was 2018. Is that before IOC for the JSF? We don't know, because everyone's avoiding that nuclear question until after the smoke and dust settle on November 6. Somehow the idea that the completion of Block 3 IOT&E, which was five and a half years off when Obama got elected, is now about seven years away, is something nobody wants to stress.