[Piano Red]

[youtube]NkNZfu3EdvA[/youtube]

Pretty impressive. Judging by the video some of the LockMart insiders who've dished some details on the program weren't joking when they said the F-35C blows the F-18's rate of climb out of the water. That's got to be around the 60,000 ft/min range at full afterburner if I hazarded a guess.

[Rilzik]

Once we lit a fire under their ass they seem to be making all kinds of progress. Even the 35B is making steady progress. One of the few things good about the recession, it's making the defense industry much more efficient. Hopefully it will last for a while.

[NYYS]

Relevant? Yes.

[youtube]9C5_-VWU6ks[/youtube]

[Typhoon]

^ I can think of a more relevant film to sum up the F-35 program...

[youtube]E1YyWDtAU-4[/youtube]

The F-35 is still a big program with a lot of problems.

[Piano Red]

Typhoon

^ I can think of a more relevant film to sum up the F-35 program...

Riight...and this is supposed to summarize the development of PAK-FA am-I-right?
[youtube]4yySrcLlSmc[/youtube]

...because surely it won't run into any problems.

The F-35 is still a big program with a lot of problems.

Big program? Yes. Lot of problems? Yes.

Most of them concentrated in getting the F-35B variant to work properly.

[Xbow]

Piano Red I think (as I believe you do) that the F-35 will end up being just fine.

I rather like the F-35's in helmet avionics displays that combine with dozens of external SHD cameras located at various points around the air frame that give the pilot completely seamless visibility in any direction and the advantage of never having to put his attention inside the cockpit.

But fear not the PAK-FA / Sukhoi T-50 (or F-22 knock off) and the Chinese J-20 (PAK-FA) are just prototypes but thus far have proven to be superior to the F-35 or F-22 in every possible way And it goes without saying that neither the J-20 or PAK-FA will have any problems (not 1) during their development cycles (I am sure Igor Atunov would agree).

Clearly the J-20's current problems of peeling RAM and the poor stealth characteristics of both the J-20 & PAK-FA are actually just clever tricks to lull the USA into a false sense of security. Gosh darn it! Those dang stealthy Russian super cruise capable Saturn AL-41 just wont be ready until 2016 at the earliest so the superior Chinese and Russian products will have to get by on tried and true SU-27 engines for now.

Here are some films that I feel are a bit more informative and fact based than Typhoon's

Inside the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (BBC
Nova: Battle Of The X Planes
F-35 Criticism (Part 1)
F-35 Criticism (Part 2)
F-35 Criticism (Part 3)
F-35 Criticism (Part 4)
F-35 Criticism (Part 5)

The only things that bug me are that the costs are spiraling up and making a one size fits all plane is
a tough problem (remember the F-111?). The big complaint seems to be is its low speed maneuverability and its
its 92lb/ft² wing loading data is a bit high compared to its contemporaries (F16 = 88lb/ft²). I guess we will see
what we will see. But then again I remember when the F-15 and F-14 got dragged through the mud
so I always consider the source of criticism. And the experts love comparing apples and oranges the F-35 is
not primarily an air superiority fighter so why compare it only with those?

And if lower wing loading would be an overall plus the addition 35 sqft to the F-35's 460 sq foot wings would drop
its wing loading below that of an F-16's. Visually it would be hard to see the change. Not a big deal.

Visual representation of a 35sqft change

There is one bit of criticism that I found hilarious and that is that the F-35 is so weak that a .22 cal bullet can
punch a hole through its skin. But, I don't know of a plane who's skin can't be penetrated by a .22

[edit] The fact is the quality and capability of a nations equipment is almost as dependent on training as it is on technology (if they are similar in generation). As an example during the Korean war the Mig-15 was slightly superior to the F-86F Saber in a number of areas:
It could climb faster,
turn tighter,
had a slight speed and level flight acceleration advantage,
And the Mig's 37mm cannon and two 23mm guns were superior to the F-86's 6 .50 cal Mgs.

But the F-86 knocked the Mig's out of the sky at a rate of just about 10 to 1 vs Asian pilots, the reason Pilot skill and tactics. However against Russian Pilots the gap was about 2 to 1 in favor of the F86F again pilot skill and tactics.(but what a difference)

I however I am of the opinion that the high wing loading of 92lbs/in^2 for the F-35 puts it at a disadvantage in a dog fight with an SU-27 with its 76lbs/in^2 wing loading at high subsonic speeds. That should be corrected. The hope for the F-35 is that the JDRADM or Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile will be able to pop enemy aircraft at over the horizon ranges before the launch platform has been detected...the holy grail of the missile guys.

And then there is the issue of how much a high degree of stealth vs radar is worth? Is it worth making an aircraft four or five times as expensive as a somewhat less stealthy design that you can afford more of? It must also be remembered that Radar isn't the only method of detecting or locking on to a target, IR and UV(shadow) signature detection are improving as we speak. I guess it comes down to what you think is best, 100 very stealthy fighters or 500 reasonably stealthy aircraft with superior flight characteristics like the Super Hornet Block III. They say that the cost of the F-35 might reach 200 million a copy and I'm not sure anyone can afford that price tag. The Superior F-22 had its numbers cut because of its cost of 150 million/copy and now the F-35 is approaching that number. However all in all I think the F-35 will turn out to be an effective aircraft but in the end will its performance justify its price?

Note: In light of Typhoon's comment I think we just might see an exodus from the F-35 program. With the UK's new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers having been designed around 50 to 60 million a copy F-35's not 150 to 200 million a copy birds I can only imagine what the Brits are thinking... I'll bet it is very close to breech of contract and Fuck You! and they would be correct in feeling that way.

[Typhoon]

Riight...and this is supposed to summarize the development of PAK-FA am-I-right?

Though I dont see what the PAK-FA has to do with it, as a UK taxpayer im very concerned about the ability of the F-35 to meet the UK's defence needs. Especially in the period of austerity and falling defence spending that we see today. Over the last few decades the UK has found it difficult to sustain the number of squadrons despite our needs if anything increasing, increasingly capable aircraft can only cover so much of a reduction if the F-35 costs too much its only going to exasserbate the current decline.

Even if the F-35 turns out to be a lame in the sky as some suggest its the cost of it that in the end is going kill the program, the F-22 is a fantastic jet but its program was a faliure because it was unable to control costs to meet the demands of the USAF.

Unfortunately the last 40 years of conflict do not support any of that ignorant shit.

Nice post but why end it like this? Its just as bad a view point but from the opposing angle.

[Xbow]

Nice post but why end it like this? Its just as bad a view point but from the opposing angle.

Actually you are correct...so I have amputated the comment.

[Typhoon]

Actually you are correct...so I have amputated the comment.

It is a very good post and the last point is the very concerning one. As the aircrafts price grows higher as we continue down the path towards full operating capability (perhaps another 8-10 years for some models) so nations have to scale back numbers in orders as defence budgets cannot adsorb that 100%+ inflation in price. Spreading the costs over multiple aircraft is one way in which the manufacturer controls the costs and as fewer jets are produced this has a knock on effect on the price which results in further revisions in aircraft numbers. This is in part what doomed the F-22 and I fear we are very close to seeing that happen with the F-35 as considering the aircraft was supposed to be an economy fighter to complement the high end F-22 and replace the F-16 (a very economical jet) at its current cost the US is just not going to be able to afford the number of jets envisaged, poorer nations like the UK cannot at the moment even confirm a quantity they would like to purchaseand this is all very worrying...

In some ways the low maneuverability of the F-35 can be excused because of the opportunity in its distributed apeture sensor to target 360° around the aircraft without maneuver, letting the missiles do the hard work which they are very good at. The Shchel and R-73 combo on Soviet jets (despite being very agile themselves) was a winning combination and in many ways a better technological route than the thrust vectoring. I think it is the aircrafts ability to perform at high speed that will be decisive, being able to maneuver to set up shots and operate in such a way as to maximise missile performance and mimimise enemy opportunities as opposed to dogfighting, unfortunately high speed performance is somthing the F-35 is not designed to do very well.

Question is how to fix the program, cutting the F-35C would probably be a good start its a lead weight for the program and converting to the F-35B/A as with the UK.

[Xbow]

In some ways the low maneuverability of the F-35 can be excused because of the opportunity in its distributed apeture sensor to target 360° around the aircraft without maneuver, letting the missiles do the hard work which they are very good at.

That may be true but that makes it imperative that targets are picked up at long range and that enemy doesn't have effective countermeasures against radar guided missiles. History has show than things all to often get down and dirty and when that happens something like a cheap old F-16 might just eat the F-35 alive with its 20mm Vulcan and AIM-9L all aspect AA missiles.


Whenever they try to make a one size fits all aircraft they fail miserably...its just not possible. Strike aircraft and Air superiority fighters are very different animals one is a sports car and the other a delivery truck with a big engine. Making that kind of plane is a bit like trying to get a Cat and a Bulldog to screw and produce viable offspring that have the best capabilities of both but none of the bad and...it aint gonna happen not at a high price or a low price. The result of such technological adventures is invariably a plane that is a so-so Air Superiority fighter and a so-so Attack Aircraft.

The problem with the F-35 is going to be the same as the problems with the Harrier (complexity) except it's not going to be as good. The AV8b (or any Harrier) could use IFTV (in Flight Thrust Vectoring) to make itself radically more maneuverable (Check the air actions over the Falklands). The F35B might be able to vector its thrust a little bit (I don't know if its really capable of that) but a VIF-ing the Harrier can RAM its way through a turn hard enough to knock the pilot out. So even with the Harriers high wing loading 94lb/in^2 I would bet that it can fly rings around an F-35 in a close in dogfight.

The USMC wants a super sonic VTOL bird (F-35B) to replace the Harriers that fetish should be denied! VTOL is a really cool notion but in my 24 years in the USMC I've never seen the AV8b or a V-22 Osprey do the one thing that they were absolutely supposed to do, and that is to operate from unprepared facilities seamlessly. They don't because of the dirt and sand dust and junk that's gets sucked into the turbines or in the case of the V-22 rocks that ding up those propellers. So now that USMC has some 70 million dollar crash and malfunction prone VTOL aircraft that are too expensive and delicate to be taken into hot LZ's ...what a waste! We should have purchased twice as many UH-60's. And then there is the fact that when a Harrier takes off vertically it has to do so with 10,000 lbs less fuel and weapons on board. Hence, the capability used most often is its STOL characteristics.

In my mind a better approach would have been to go for a very hot (wing loading of 75 to 80) STOL bird that has as its primary duty air superiority and a secondary role as a ground attack aircraft. And designing some stealth into the bird should not be enormously expensive. Look at the performance of the F-15 Silent Eagle as far as stealth is concerned (not bad). It was redsigned a bit with stealth in mind with such things as conformal fuel tanks, and weapons bays and lots of hard points for bombs and missiles when stealth isn't a primary requirement (I.E. after you have air superiority) You could even just stealth up something like an F-16 with a set of low observable vertical stabilizers, a RAM paint job, conformal fuel tanks, a stealthy AA weapons pod on the cheap. We shouldn't even think of paying more than ~80 million for a bird. Hell, the F-18 Super Hornet is almost there at 55 million. these wouldnt be as sweet as true 5th gen fighters but you could buy plenty of them and if you added Helmet Mounted Display System like the F-35's (when they get it working) with the associated SHD thermal and Optical cameras/sensors distributed around the air frame you'd have something even closer.

Radar Dirty configuration (ground attack and close air support)....Radar Clean (cleaner that is) Air superiority.

Dollars and Pounds are an important design feature these.

[Typhoon]

Long time to reply but here I go...

The F-35 is certainly not doing itself any favours by purely relying on its next generation sensors for air supremacy rather than an all round strong performance.

I agree most definately in terms of the three varients of the aircraft, the phrase 'jack of all trades and master of none' springs to mind. The trend for having swing role aircraft is a modern one (I doubt that much specialisation could be afforded these days) but the F-35 is trying to be too many things to too many people. At the very least the F-35C should be cut, its the most troubled and its only the USMC really now in terms of demand which I do not think justifies the cost of the program.

The problem with the F-18, F-15 and F-16 is that they are just not competitive against the aircraft that were designed to defeat them, the Su-27 and MiG-29, even with modernisation they are a generation out so the Su-35 and MiG-35 have an advantage (PAK-FA non-withstanding). With the F-22 out of the running the F-35 has been a eggs in one basket approach (other than Eurofighter and Rafale for Europe) and the west will be giving ground if it falls back to the teens.