The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[kcran567]

There are some valid points in the article, its not all bluster. The Russian pilot stated the f-35 is a very "hot" fighter and can be picked up 40 miles out (possibly more) IR detection. And the advances in L band radar that is on the Pakfa and installed on later Flankers. If the F-35 loses its stealth advantage, doesnt that make it a very expensive first shot aircraft that doesnt stand a chance in close combat with a Flanker? If the F-35 will be detected by L band and IR sensors, why not buy Flankers? If the F-35 is able to jam the Flankers long range shot, the Russians are spending money also in defeating American long range missiles, so that makes the fight a closer range fight that would favor a Flanker.

 

[sferrin]

There are some valid points in the article, its not all bluster. The Russian pilot stated the f-35 is a very "hot" fighter and can be picked up 40 miles out (possibly more) IR detection. And the advances in L band radar that is on the Pakfa and installed on later Flankers. If the F-35 loses its stealth advantage, doesnt that make it a very expensive first shot aircraft that doesnt stand a chance in close combat with a Flanker? If the F-35 will be detected by L band and IR sensors, why not buy Flankers?

How the hell would a Russian pilot know how far away he could detect an F-35?

 

[kcran567]

There are some valid points in the article, its not all bluster. The Russian pilot stated the f-35 is a very "hot" fighter and can be picked up 40 miles out (possibly more) IR detection. And the advances in L band radar that is on the Pakfa and installed on later Flankers. If the F-35 loses its stealth advantage, doesn't that make it a very expensive first shot aircraft that doesnt stand a chance in close combat with a Flanker? If the F-35 will be detected by L band and IR sensors, why not buy Flankers?

How the hell would a Russian pilot know how far away he could detect an F-35?

Its heat signature, data on the F-35 available to Russian engineers, and is the F-35 that different from other fighters in the IR spectrum? Probably much worse than an F-16 because it is carrying a much larger engine and is having heat sync/dissipation problems as we speak. A very bright IR target. As far as L-band detection, I'm just hearing what the article has to say. How would the Russian know technical data like the F-35 engine core is 160 degrees hotter than a standard fighter engine, did he just make it up? I'm sure they are going off some known data source.

 

[SpudmanWP]

data on the F-35 available to Russian engineers

Which would be as much non-public data as I have... that being ZERO.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There are some valid points in the article, its not all bluster. The Russian pilot stated the f-35 is a very "hot" fighter and can be picked up 40 miles out (possibly more) IR detection. And the advances in L band radar that is on the Pakfa and installed on later Flankers. If the F-35 loses its stealth advantage, doesnt that make it a very expensive first shot aircraft that doesnt stand a chance in close combat with a Flanker? If the F-35 will be detected by L band and IR sensors, why not buy Flankers? If the F-35 is able to jam the Flankers long range shot, the Russians are spending money also in defeating American long range missiles, so that makes the fight a closer range fight that would favor a Flanker.

LOL. The Russian pilot is a fictional creation by Air Power Australia. This article just refers to a bunch of sources all citing APA reports. It’s just a second and third degree rehash of Air Power Australia. Combined with a one person political movement (New Australia) that says we should build Sukhoi fighters in Australia. Jenny McCarthy espousing against vaccinations has more credibility.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

There are some valid points in the article, its not all bluster. The Russian pilot stated the f-35 is a very "hot" fighter and can be picked up 40 miles out (possibly more) IR detection. And the advances in L band radar that is on the Pakfa and installed on later Flankers. If the F-35 loses its stealth advantage, doesn't that make it a very expensive first shot aircraft that doesnt stand a chance in close combat with a Flanker? If the F-35 will be detected by L band and IR sensors, why not buy Flankers?

How the hell would a Russian pilot know how far away he could detect an F-35?

Its heat signature, data on the F-35 available to Russian engineers, and is the F-35 that different from other fighters in the IR spectrum? Probably much worse than an F-16 because it is carrying a much larger engine and is having heat sync/dissipation problems as we speak. A very bright IR target. As far as L-band detection, I'm just hearing what the article has to say. How would the Russian know technical data like the F-35 engine core is 160 degrees hotter than a standard fighter engine, did he just make it up? I'm sure they are going off some known data source.

He got it from APA so thats quoting made up stuff, does that count? moreover, lets say APA called five russian colonels and 4 of them talked about how they had no idea, or even that yes the F-35 will have will have less or equal IR signature than its predecessors, and is indeed hard to detect --would APA print that? What I'm implying here is that APA cherry-picks what fits to its story and ignores any differing opinions. shocking I know, but true. as Abraham points out "A russian pilot" is extremely dubious even if he exists. an American pilot wrote about how the US Marines should buy F-22s. Another American pilot wrote about how the F-22 was too expensive for its own good, but APA loves the F-22 so that would never make it to print. I've also watched an American pilot scramble up into a harrier and attempt to start it---with no engine installed. So in my mind even if this russian pilot exists its not hard to find one person in an entire air force who has an opinion and is willing to talk about it.

Rear Admiral Gilchrist an F-14 pilot, suggested American Su-33s to replace F-14s in lieu of Super Hornets in 2002...

The heat doesn't matter so much as the countermeasures that been built in to counter it. All jet engines are hot, even the ones we have been putting into stealth aircraft since the 1970s. the differences are in how that heat is concealed.

In case you had not figured out APA is not above just making things up to sell what they are pushing, and at no point does the author or APA, explain how a twin engine flanker will have less of an IR signature than the F-35 they are bashing. WE are talking about engines running hot, and then talking about Russian alternatives? That is irony. And just so we are clear "the russians know how to defeat the F-35, so buy Flankers which Russians don't know how to defeat" is some serious irony.

If the F-35 will be detected by L band and IR sensors, why not buy Flankers?

Because Flankers are even more easily detected? all this talk about how the F-35 being easily detected doesn't make the Flanker more stealthy somehow. : It also doesn't explain how if Indonesia gets 160 Flankers, and AU gets 100 Flankers, Australia is somehow superior now. Is that the rub? Will Australia have to build 160 Flankers just be competitive?

Or is this like the Canadain Super Arrow? Where people go on and on about what a known/safe project it would be and then the next breath its all about new engines, avionics, and airframe changes? Its totally the same until we make it completely different? I promise any talk of AU Flankers will instantly be followed by "installing western avionics/engines/ etc"

If you want a big twin engine fighter of 1970s vintage that is already compatible with western weapons and avionics, you can buy an AU version of an F-15E. The west has its version of the Flanker, its had it longer in fact...

 

[aam641]

businessspectator.com.au

For example, the JSF can operate effectively only to a maximum of around 40,000 feet (it can fly higher but loses operation impact at higher levels). By contrast the Sukhois can operate at full capacity at much higher levels and with that advantage they have systems and weapons that could blast an Australia JSF and its pilot out of the sky before they had a chance to 'first look, first shoot, first kill'.

I am at a loss here. Any idea what they are talking about? How does Su-35 flying 10,000 feet higher than JSF in any way impair JSF's BVR capability?

indus.ir

Also, because the F-35 represents the latest in American defence tech, many of its parts will be off limits to Australians and will have to be flown to US bases or serviced by Americans flown in especially for the task. This will not only add to costs, it will increase down time.

Any truth in this?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I am at a loss here. Any idea what they are talking about? How does Su-35 flying 10,000 feet higher than JSF in any way impair JSF's BVR capability?

another noteworthy question

Any truth in this?

Australia is going to be the repair depot for all pacific based F-35s including the US ones, so i would guess No.

 

[GTX]

Also, because the F-35 represents the latest in American defence tech, many of its parts will be off limits to Australians and will have to be flown to US bases or serviced by Americans flown in especially for the task. This will not only add to costs, it will increase down time.

Any truth in this?

No - that is complete hogwash!

 

[Triton]

Perhaps the previously mentioned Sukhoi fighters will be offered to Australia by U.S. Aerospace?

 

[GTX]

Australia is going to be the repair depot for all pacific based F-35s including the US ones, so i would guess No.

Actually that is not yet confirmed. It has been something proposed for a while and there are many of us in Australia working to make it the case, but unfortunately at this stage nothing is confirmed.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Australia is going to be the repair depot for all pacific based F-35s including the US ones, so i would guess No.

Actually that is not yet confirmed. It has been something proposed for a while and there are many of us in Australia working to make it the case, but unfortunately at this stage nothing is confirmed.

My mistake, heres hoping

The article is a joke, full of the kind of half truth inverted with a twist and immelman at the end that we have come to expect.

Remember people, Me calling your girlfriend, a stupid ugly slut doesn't make my girlfriend any prettier, smarter, or more chaste. :-X If the VLO F-35 is detectable at 40 KM I can only imagine how much worse the Flanker is.

 

[chuck4]

For the coming military clash with Indonesia?

Not as unlikely as you may think.

 

[GTX]

For the coming military clash with Indonesia?

Not as unlikely as you may think.

Based upon what???

 

[Abraham Gubler]

For the coming military clash with Indonesia?

Not as unlikely as you may think.

Based upon what???

Sounds like LSD:

 

[Triton]

What of the threat of the K-FX/I-FX to the Lockheed Martin F-35?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

What of the threat of the K-FX/I-FX to the Lockheed Martin F-35?

Well we really don't know anything about the K-FX and what it will eventually be, but I can tell you definitely that Flankers, if properly Built in Australia will 105% of the time against it

 

[lantinian]

For all the Thunderbirds fans out there ;D


http://www.listofimages.com/lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii-1080i-1080p-air-show-f-35-lightning-ii-lockheed-martin-thunderbirds.html


The link above has the image bellow in all sorts of sizes.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:a79d72bd-a149-4eff-b700-996d0cd57fe0

There was an immediate circling of the wagons late last week after Lt Gen Chris Bogdan, Joint Strike Fighter program director, took a shot at his contractors’ security measures in a Senate hearing. The government side of the program, Bogdan said, had “implemented robust security measures over the past five years” and together with international government partners “recognized the huge responsibility” of protecting the project’s technology.

But then Bogdan added "I'm a little less confident about industry partners to be quite honest with you ... I would tell you I'm not that confident outside the department."

Industry spokesmen were quick to dispute Bogdan’s statement, and even JSF program office media representative Joe DellaVedova seemed to be walking them back, telling Reuters: "The F-35 is no more or less vulnerable to known cyber threats than legacy aircraft were during their initial development and early production.”

As I believe the kids say on the Intertubez these days: LOL WUT?

What JSF-world calls legacy aircraft – F-16s and F-15s – went through initial development and early production in the 1970s when we didn’t know what cyber-anything was (apart from villains on Dr Who), technical data was stored on sheets of Mylar, and Boris Badenov had a Minox tucked in his sock. Perhaps there was some GRU project to insert radio transmitters and keystroke monitors into IBM Selectrics that we didn’t know about. DellaVedova did not respond to a request to clarify this comment.

But as a government official familiar with cyber threats and Air Force programs points out, “for the program manager to reach a threshold of worry where he'll say that to Congress, no less, he's got serious issues on his hands.”

Bogdan also knows what anyone listening who has studied security and cyberespionage to any degree understands: Industry has far more people and a consequently larger “attack surface” than government in the JSF program, so it is of little use if government security is strong, if industry’s is lacking. This also sounds like a wider issue than the security vulnerabilities that forced a redesign of the JSF’s massive Autonomic Logistics Information System over the last couple of years.

It’s also a matter of concern that there is still a JSF security issue on this scale, four years after the program was reportedly hacked and the Advanced Persistent Threat – basically, Chinese-based computer network exploitation – was first identified. But as some experts noted at the time, the JSF program’s information system is huge and spread among thousands of stakeholders, and it was designed long before the APT emerged as the menace it is.

Moreover, the recognition of the APT happened at a point in time when the JSF program was – by most recent accounts – in very poor shape. Shutting down the information system and replacing it with something more hacker-resistant was not an option.

It’s not so much technology as culture and training, as I reported a few months ago. I don’t think, for example, that any enterprise is likely to be very secure as long as people claiming to be inside it brag about their access on public message boards. (You know who you are.) Maybe if the contractors fired some of their Astroturf consultants, they could free some resources to fix the problem.

I have been accused of both being both an insider and a astroturf consultant, so I don't know which one of these is for me.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Astroturf consultants is a political campaign term for people who create fake grassroots campaigns. Which in this context must clearly imply the various people on the internet who support the F-35 and oppose the anti F-35 campaign. That is unless there is a large campaign in the US from local communities with F-35 work in favour of the F-35. Not being clued into the US political system I have no idea if the later exists. But I have seen absolutely no evidence of the former existing.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Exactly. I've seen no evidence of it either. Just people who disagree with the anti-F35 religion. There are some people who may or may not have a connection to the project who share non-classified info on forums like this.....one or more of those gentlemen are probably being slandered here, but without direct attribution it's difficult to say for certain who.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

...What JSF-world calls legacy aircraft – F-16s and F-15s – went through initial development and early production in the 1970s when we didn’t know what cyber-anything was (apart from villains on Dr Who)...

In his endless devotion to snotty-faced, pedantic snark about the program that cost him a job, BS seems to have forgotten that development of *legacy* fighters didn't stop in the 1970s... or 1980s... or 1990s... or even in the early 2000s. For those still dense enough to need Bogdan's intent Barney-style, the F-35 is no more vulnerable to cyberespionage than any other type in use today. Sorry, I don't really have a source to back myself up, but I'm just gonna assume that Boeing and LM aren't breaking out the paper blueprints and slide-rules every time they want to tweak "what JSF-world calls legacy aircraft."

Not to mention SAAB, Dassault and EADS. Or is it all on abacus?

Full disclosure: Sweetman is a personal friend and former co-worker at Jane's. As a military technology journalist, I have great respect for his vast and detailed knowledge of weapon systems of all kinds.

But Sweetman himself would tell you he approaches F-35 coverage unlike other journalists. I see my role as simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing my readers to draw their own conclusions. Sweetman approaches F-35 coverage from the standpoint of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/aviation-week-suspends-bill-sw.html

Interesting stuff at Red Flag:


U.K. Thinks 5th Generation
by Tony Osborne:

The U.K. Royal Air Force (RAF) used its first deployment of Eurofighter Typhoons to Red Flag to conceptualize how it might use the fighter in conjunction with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

At the end of this decade, the RAF will start settling towards a two-type front-line fast jet force with the planned retirement of the Panavia Tornado GR4 in 2019, and the introduction of the F-35 from land-bases and carrier operations at around the same time, both the Typhoon and F-35 are likely to be working together for at least a decade and perhaps out to 2040, so commanders are keen to figure out how the two aircraft will be able to complement each other.

And

In an ideal world you would have all fifth generation fighters, but that’s not a very realistic and a very expensive option, in which case, what we have tried to maximize is a flexible approach and some of those aspects have been warmly received,” added Wells.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aa04297ca-c9d7-488c-b316-9cb1282d1bc9&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

 

[sferrin]

...What JSF-world calls legacy aircraft – F-16s and F-15s – went through initial development and early production in the 1970s when we didn’t know what cyber-anything was (apart from villains on Dr Who)...

In his endless devotion to snotty-faced, pedantic snark about the program that cost him a job, BS seems to have forgotten that development of *legacy* fighters didn't stop in the 1970s... or 1980s... or 1990s... or even in the early 2000s. For those still dense enough to need Bogdan's intent Barney-style, the F-35 is no more vulnerable to cyberespionage than any other type in use today. Sorry, I don't really have a source to back myself up, but I'm just gonna assume that Boeing and LM aren't breaking out the paper blueprints and slide-rules every time they want to tweak "what JSF-world calls legacy aircraft."

Not to mention SAAB, Dassault and EADS. Or is it all on abacus?

Full disclosure: Sweetman is a personal friend and former co-worker at Jane's. As a military technology journalist, I have great respect for his vast and detailed knowledge of weapon systems of all kinds.

But Sweetman himself would tell you he approaches F-35 coverage unlike other journalists. I see my role as simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing my readers to draw their own conclusions. Sweetman approaches F-35 coverage from the standpoint of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/aviation-week-suspends-bill-sw.html

Interesting stuff at Red Flag:


U.K. Thinks 5th Generation
by Tony Osborne:

The U.K. Royal Air Force (RAF) used its first deployment of Eurofighter Typhoons to Red Flag to conceptualize how it might use the fighter in conjunction with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

At the end of this decade, the RAF will start settling towards a two-type front-line fast jet force with the planned retirement of the Panavia Tornado GR4 in 2019, and the introduction of the F-35 from land-bases and carrier operations at around the same time, both the Typhoon and F-35 are likely to be working together for at least a decade and perhaps out to 2040, so commanders are keen to figure out how the two aircraft will be able to complement each other.

And

In an ideal world you would have all fifth generation fighters, but that’s not a very realistic and a very expensive option, in which case, what we have tried to maximize is a flexible approach and some of those aspects have been warmly received,” added Wells.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aa04297ca-c9d7-488c-b316-9cb1282d1bc9&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

They'd probably operate very similar to how F-22s and F-15s team up.

 

[2IDSGT]

Any ideas about who he's personally insulting towards the end? I've got my own strong suspicions on exactly who that is.

Astroturf consultants is a political campaign term for people who create fake grassroots campaigns. Which in this context must clearly imply the various people on the internet who support the F-35 and oppose the anti F-35 campaign.

Perhaps he hasn't heard of another term that also has its origins in politics... "concern-troll." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_troll

 

[Thorvic]

https://www.f35.com/support

So how many of you are signed up members of this LM officially sanctioned group ?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Removed a couple of posts I found objectionable.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

https://www.f35.com/support

So how many of you are signed up members of this LM officially sanctioned group ?

I'm not personally, and for the record even if I was, what difference would it make? Does everyone who thinks the F-35 might actually be worthwhile, or at the every least, doubt the likes of APA, have to be a part of an easily identified group?

I wonder the same thing about "independent" journalists that quote SAAB promises over and over again, and yet suddenly become "investigative" journalists full of inferences and hinting at things that may or may not be true (so long as their negative, and other aircraft with the same potential problems go unmentioned) with the JSF. probably just coincidence.

Faith triumphing over evidence, Slavish belief in pronouncements by authorities....

The F-35 is not without issues. It merits some bad press. JSF opponents have an interesting case, but they have the worst attorneys. It became a "religion" when the aircraft could seemingly do no right, based on the flimsiest of "evidence" A lot the critics seem to fling poo at the wall and see what sticks. When something sticks its "we were right all along!" completely forgetting the many many times previously when they were outright wrong.

The newly released document, hosted on a government building-design resource site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that the F-35B's exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an area-denial weapon. And it's not trivial. Vertical-landing "pads will be exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust," the report says. The exhaust will melt asphalt and "is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL." (The report leaves to the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a supersonic blast field.)....

...But the F135's overall pressure ratio is almost twice as high, which would point to a much higher jet velocity (which LockMart doesn't mention), the JSF nozzle is much closer to the ground, and the Harrier has two nozzles, several feet apart.

So maybe the F-35B is not shaping up to be the best anti-runway weapon since the RAF retired the JP233. However, it may still not be what the Marines got when they first acquired the Harrier in the early 1970s.

from the same article:

Lockheed Martin pooh-poohs the report, saying that it was based on "worst-case" data and that "extensive tests" conducted with prototype BF-3 in January (after the report was completed) showed that "the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B."

Gee I wonder why LM "pooh pooh the report"? I have yet to be treated to an exploding concrete show. That's ok apology accepted, when you are looking for molehills to make into mountains, you are bound to lock onto something already long accounted for by people who know what they are doing. Onto the next molehill!

When these critics all band together, and then begin a "firestorm" most of which is completely inferred amongst themselves. All of this is "peer reviewed" by people of dubious quantification who made up their minds years ago. Aus Airpower says it, Eric Palmer parrots it, journalists quote it, "anonymous sources say" Bill Sweetman hints, Pierre Sprey says the same thing he has said the last 40 years while changing the aircraft in question to F-15/F-22/F-35, Yeager tweets, Wheeler, I mention wheeler last because he is actually last to adjust, and continues to post old critiques that have already been debunked and other critics gave up on a long time ago. and regular people who have:

A. Never been involved in or payed attention to procurement the last fifty years and
B. Have no idea how the military/government/industry actually fights/works/produces modern military aircraft buy it hook line and sinker

In short its a lot of peoples "first BBQ" and so a lot of things that are "ZOMG!!" are not pretty routine for people who have been watching and or researching procurement the last 50 years. In fact the F-35 stands apart for (most amazingly) not crashing yet. The Gripen had 5 crashes in development for example (and never had to hover). The YF-22 had a crash, The Osprey had multiple crashes that killed 30 people. But the F-35 is delayed and overbudget, unlike the YF-22, Gripen, and Osprey of course.

There is not one critique that could not be leveled against the F-35, that couldn't also be leveled against the F-22. And yet we see a clear preference for the F-22. On APA/eric palmer in fact you can click on any number of pages and links that declare without doubt, that the American government funded, Lockheed Martin Produced, US Military approved F-22 is the greatest fighter produced in human history. You can then click on another page that declares without doubt, that the American government funded, Lockheed Martin Produced, US Military approved F-35 is the worst fighter produced in human history. Which is a tad odd if you ask me. Things really fall apart in there somewhere, which is even more suspicious when you consider the two fighters were actually being produced at the same time. Maybe LM develops amnesia intermittently? I guess the mighty really fell between the period of zero minutes and zero minutes.

With all this bashing, these guys must be advocating a non US aircraft right? Where does the Eurofighter fall into all this? APA says its worthless of course and can't compete with the Flanker, an aircraft it was purposely designed to defeat. why? because they say so, of course. Did that powerpoint built on unconfirmed claims not convince you? Its the F-22 or bust, of course. The narrative continues despite the F-22 no longer being produced at all, even for the Americans.

Allow me to give an example:

Many Canadians are upset that the F-35A will use the boom refueling method, And that the in the future the RCAF will contract tankers to refuel their CF-18 replacements who use probe and drogue. This upsets many Canadians, who feel that they are outsourcing their sovereignty and that the proud nation of Canada should NEVER "outsource its national sovereignty." However:

With only two CC-​150T in service, it is impractical to permanently assign them to NORAD operations. Canada has never had more than two such tankers and not one between 1997 and 2009. This is partly why the Polaris fleet does not currently possess the avionics necessary to operate in the north, and will not until an upgrade scheduled to start later this year

.

So who was refueling CF-18s all those years? the USAF of course, who use boom method:

on a NORAD mission, USAF KC-​135s must be reequipped with a drogue basket and crewed with qualified personnel. Unfortunately, the latter is not always available, because only a few crews are capable of undertaking probe and drogue refueling compared to the nominal boom system.

http://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/issues-analysis-aerial-refueling-northern-defence-and-the-f-35

So we have Canadians upset aboot something that basic research by ANYONE of those "journalists" (especially the Canadian ones) or experts could easily debunk, I mean I know its not as sexy as studying youtube videos or analyzing pictures to definitively determine RCS, or sending another thank you card to SAAB, but the lack of a probe and drogue on the F-35 really upsets Canadians who have no idea how things actually work on the NORAD missions they say the F-35 can't do, because it can't be refueled by the refueling tankers they don't have. Thus its a strike against the JSF, of course. Nevermind that the CC-150 will be retired by 2025, along with the CF-18. I'm outraged, outraged i say, the F-35A uses a boom? Canada won't stand for such a thing! who cares if it makes things easier on a joint NORAD partner and increases capability on said missions, along with the additional benefit of helping with the C-17s?

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

TTomcat, that's exactly what I meant. Pressed for time at the moment, but to be concise, the high priests of the F35 sucks movement are people like APA. The tenets of the faith include, "can't run, can't climb, can't turn", "transonic buffeting will kill the F35", "stealth will be defeated, but 4th gen fighters won't be equally or even more disadvantaged by these advances" etc etc. That's the holy writ.

 

[Triton]

Published on May 13, 2013

F-35 Test Pilot Dave Nelson talks about intentional departure and recovering from stalls during F-35A high angle of attack testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Flight Test Engineer Lea Haubelt explains how the tests help define the F-35 flight control software.

http://youtu.be/aWji8AcOYGA

 

[bobbymike]

No ring on hot flight engineer Lea's finger time to take a tour of Edwards (OK probably not)

On a separate note I think the critics of this airplane will be eating crow I think it will be a world beater. B)

 

[Rafael]

I liked it very much.
I'm not an engineer, aerodynamicist or pilot but watching this plane perform these intentional departures (a small-wing A version), even equipped with a spin-chute is just plain awesome. And I liked to watch it do it with underwing pylons (I believe only the external ones were loaded) and even do it while opening the weapons bays.
Interesting maneuvering capability while partially "dirtied up" with apparent total authority which I had only seen in VISTA and HARV, just for not mentioning X-31. All in a non-experimental bird. Ok, I'm not counting the Flankers, Fulcrums and others which already made it there. Now they have company.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

https://www.f35.com/support

So how many of you are signed up members of this LM officially sanctioned group ?

Until you posted it here I've never heard of it. That is I've never heard of there being a "/support" webpage at F35.com whatever it happens to be.

Of course these rather ridiculous claims of there being an astroturf campaign in favour of the F-35 on the internet kinds of misses out on the real F-35 support group that has an actual real dog in this fight. And that is the armed forces that have selected this weapon system and are training to bring it into service.

 

[Triton]

Published on May 13, 2013

Hear from Canadians who have a hand in building the F-35. More than 200 Industrial Participation production projects for Canadian Industry have been identified with more than $450M contracted. Companies featured in this video include AVCORP, Composites Atlantic, GasTOPS, Heroux-Devtek, Magellan Aerospace and NGRAIN.

http://youtu.be/9UJ1E8Tya94

 

[GTX]

Similar for Australia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26AP45VGeP8

I know many of the people in this.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

In an ideal world you would have all fifth generation fighters, but that’s not a very realistic and a very expensive option, in which case, what we have tried to maximize is a flexible approach and some of those aspects have been warmly received,” added Wells.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aa04297ca-c9d7-488c-b316-9cb1282d1bc9&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

They'd probably operate very similar to how F-22s and F-15s team up.



Typhoon has height/speed/supersonic manouvering advantages over the F-35 which could be useful in certain situations. Of course, having Typhoons hanging off their six is likely to ruin the F-35's stealth.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

So how many of you are signed up members of this LM officially sanctioned group ?

Do we think Airpower Australia is a LM officially sanctioned group?

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

Quite the advertisement there. Astro-turfing?

Too subtle?

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Collapsing in laughter from that image! ;D

 

[sferrin]

So how many of you are signed up members of this LM officially sanctioned group ?

Do we think Airpower Australia is a LM officially sanctioned group?

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

Quite the advertisement there. Astro-turfing?

Too subtle?

See, if the US rebuilds the production line Carlo thinks Australia will get some. ;D

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

So how many of you are signed up members of this LM officially sanctioned group ?

Do we think Airpower Australia is a LM officially sanctioned group?

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

Quite the advertisement there. Astro-turfing?

Too subtle?

See, if the US rebuilds the production line Carlo thinks Australia will get some. ;D

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffin:

MACGUFFIN

MacGuffin (a.k.a. McGuffin or maguffin) is a term for a motivating element in a story that is used to drive the plot. It actually serves no further purpose. It won't pop up again later, it won't explain the ending, it won't actually do anything except possibly distract you while you try to figure out its significance. In some cases, it won't even be shown. It is usually a mysterious package/artifact/superweapon that everyone in the story is chasing.

I do enjoy them pimping Lockheed Martin though. If the F-35 was canceled tomorrow we would instantly see Kopp and Kompany forget the JSF collapse , go completely 180, and start with LM "being the world's premier and most honest aircraft manufacturer, with an illustrious history, excellent marketing, and brilliant craftsmanship that is without parallel in the global techno strategic aerial weapons harmonious vectorsphere. And they are not at all the thieving, lying, monsters we have been portraying without remorse the last 5 years"

Oh and of course they will need a new disclaimer:

APA Notice

This article predates the mid December, 2006, announcement by Defence that Super Hornets may be sought as gap fillers for the RAAF, and subsequent decision to acquire these aircraft. The article does not constitute an endorsement of that proposal in any fashion and should not be interpreted to be such by any parties. It concentrates primarily on the history and flying qualities of the aircraft. Any attempt to present this article as an endorsement of the Super Hornet decision will be considered to be intentional and mischievous misrepresentation.

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

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/2013/05/three-claims-about-the-f-35-price-tag.html?page=all

There is a standard phrase that I and other reporters use to describe Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in some form: the costliest program in the Pentagon's portfolio. Accurate? Yes. But not all together fair either, company executives would argue.
At Bethesda-based Lockheed's media day Tuesday, I spoke to a few executives about this — all grimaced when the topic of cost and the F-35 was brought up. That's not because they felt the company overspent, they'll tell you, but because the media has painted program costs to be out of control.

"We're not getting our due credit for cost reductions we've had," Greg Dahlberg, senior vice president of Washington operations said in an interview with Washington Business Journal. "It's hard to break through the media. It's a hard program to describe simply."
Some clarification may be in order, argued Dahlberg and Steve O'Brien, vice president of F-35 business development for Lockheed (NYSE: LMT). So here it is.

Claim: The cost of the program is averaging about 11 percent above what was promised.

More specifically, the total cost of the first four contracts for 63 planes was $12.28 billion — 10.9 percent more than the amount awarded under the original contracts, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office.

"In any development program, the unit costs change year to year," Dahlberg said. "It better come down — and it is. People pick a point in time and extend a straight line [for the duration of the program], but it's a curve."

Indeed, that same GAO report noted that production costs seem to be steadying.The lowest cost overrun came from the last and largest contract for 32 aircraft — 6.5 percent. Aircraft labor hours to build the F-35 are decreasing with more experience, according to the report, and "the program is moving down the learning curve as projected."

Claim: Unit costs are about 20 percent more than for predecessor fighter jets.

As noted in a July 2011 article from Air Force magazine — yes, this debate has been going on for quite some time — older aircraft do not have the stealth, advanced avionics or other fifth-generation features of the F-35.

"We won't put out numbers to poke, because the government needs to do that," O'Brien said. "But this is much more multimission capable. How do you quantify that? Hence the problem."

He also noted that costs not tied directly to plane production are built into the F-35 cost estimates — despite not being included in cost estimates for prior generations.

"You need to understand what's in the cost," he said. "When you include the guy who cuts the grass at the base, it's not apples to apples. ... How do you get an apples to apples comparison when you did accounting in a different way?"

Claim: The operating cost for the F-35 is estimated to be $1 trillion.

This point has gotten a lot of headlines since it emerged during a May 2011 hearing. But worth noting, O'Brien said, is that 40 percent of cost estimates are inflation.

Additionally, the estimate is for an expected 50-year life span, based on the assumption that each airplane will be around for a couple of decade after its produced and the final planes will go into operation 30 years from now.

Typically, the Defense Department does not estimate weapons costs as far out as 50 years, like it did with the F-35, Dahlberg said. "You take an aircraft carrier, include cost for refueling and such, and over 50 years you might get a big number too."

So then — even as the big numbers shock the general public and members of the media, is the message of the big picture getting through to those that matter?

"We're plowing through. The discussion has been more good than bad, but it's a big department," Dahlberg said. "What Deputy Secretary Ash Carter has told us is that affordability is the mantra, and 'if you deliver, we'll reward you.' We're taking them at their word."