F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Daryl Hunt]

Do we need it as a Air Superiority Fighter? No

If it isn't superior to enemy aircraft, will it make it to targets if visually detected?

Since it can fire the Aim-9X just get the nose within about 120 degees of you bad guy for a good kill. 180 degrees for a probable. If the pilot can visually see the enemy then he can shoot them down. Guns are important only to keep the other guy honest. Even ground attacking, the gun keeps the bad guys head down and the bomb does the real killing. Or the Rockets. Or the ........ The guns is just part of your bag.

So if you think the F-35B is helpless visual, you had better hope like hell he doesn't see you at all. He will but you can hope. Then you had better hope you closed without him seeing you. Not going to happen. And you are coming in on his blind spot. He doesn't have one. The F-35B will want to do a head to head fight. The Bad guy won't want to do this.

Case in point. During WWII, the P-38G could not turn with the Zero. Yet the G and H model mowed down the Zero. The P-38 always picked head to head. It's 20mm had a longer range than the cannons on the Zero. Plus, there was no divergence of aiming. By the time the P-38J-25 hit the scene in late 1943, the Zero was just another target. It could now out turn the zero using it's fowler flaps. And it could out climb and out dive the Zero as well. From the front, the P-38 had very little to see. It looked smaller than the zero and even the P-51 so it could begin shooting even before the enemy could see it.

The F-35B also will see the other guy first and begin his tactics. Once they merge, the F-35 is still aware of exactly where the bad guy is. Meaning, the F-35B drives the tactics. And he makes sure you don't fly your own game as well. I used the P-38G as an example. Even though he couldn't dive or turn with the Zero, if you didn't allow the Zero to use his bag of tricks then the bird with the longest range almost always wins.

Closing, the P-38G would begin lighting up around your cockpit causing you to jinx and weave. This enabled him to get within his 4 50 caliber MG range. One huge fireball since the Zero didn't have armor or self sealing tanks. The only way to get a F-35 to play your game is to require only stupid pilots fly them. And that ain't gonna happen either.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-35B can handle CAS better than the A-10

As far as A10 goes, I think we have to look at the reasons the hog was developed, then ask if those reasons are still valid today, moving on to ask if the F35 can be used in that role.

The fast jets of the Vietnam era were incapable of attacking ground targets, and were too prone to battle damage anyway, even if they could loiter for long enough in the area.
Has tech improvements invalidated these reasons, or are the F35's customers about to find out they've been sold a pup, at least as far as CAS goes?

The A-10 was not developed as a CAS bird. It was designed to go head to head with acres of Russian T-72/T-90 tanks. A war that never came. Even when it did in Desert Storm, it was the heavy bombers hitting the armor from the air with the Abrams hitting them on the ground. The A-10 was searching for a mission. What they used the A-10 for was to send it out to suspected SAM sites and have it hit them. Most of those sites were decoys and not operational. But it was capable for the mission regardless.

The CAS mission was done because it didn't really have a mission up to that point. It found a home. But it's not been the most successful CAS bird due to range. Yah, I know, the figures used are Fairy Range. That figure is no weapons, full fuel loads and it's best cruise speed and altitude for range. Now, look at the combat range. It's quite a bit different. About the same as an Apache AH-64. During Desert Storm, the A-10 had to wait for runways to be established closer to the action. This is why other types of 'AC do the bulk of the CAS missions. Yes, having a A-10 visual to the good guys makes the good guys feel more secure. But I use an acronym regarding the enemy, ICUUCMe. And if the enemy is equipped right, the A-10 becomes a target when the enemy shoots back. The B-1 won't be heard or seen. The Bad Guy just starts dying.

BTW, the A-1E and Cobra didn't have much of a problem in hitting ground targets. And so did the A-7 and A-6 and F-4 and anything with a gun or a bomb rack. I lived through that little dustup. did you?

 

[Indofred]

F-35 fighter jet development hampered by many flaws - BBC News

A list of serious flaws has been found in a jet fighter in development for 15 years.

The F-35's ejector seat "failed to meet neck-injury criteria" and the jet had a "limited ability to respond to threats", the US defence department has said.

The jet's development, by Lockheed Martin, has already cost $1 trillion (£0.7tn), partly funded by the UK.

Previously, its UK planned deployment date was put back from 2012 to 2023.

By 2023 the thing will be way out of date anyway.
Is it time to cut the losses and scrap it, along with the silly buggers who set the project in motion?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

F-35 fighter jet development hampered by many flaws - BBC News

A list of serious flaws has been found in a jet fighter in development for 15 years.

The F-35's ejector seat "failed to meet neck-injury criteria" and the jet had a "limited ability to respond to threats", the US defence department has said.

The jet's development, by Lockheed Martin, has already cost $1 trillion (£0.7tn), partly funded by the UK.

Previously, its UK planned deployment date was put back from 2012 to 2023.

By 2023 the thing will be way out of date anyway.
Is it time to cut the losses and scrap it, along with the silly buggers who set the project in motion?

What's the matter, you want to bring back the greatness that Britain once had in Fighter Production? Hate to break it to you, it's been over 60 years since that has happened. Not going to happen here either.

 

[Indofred]

Ah, the fool's argument.
I think the idea of debate is to offer reasons why an expected extra 11 year delay isn't a serious problem.
Then we come to value for money.
The idea behind the aircraft is clearly excellent, but it looks like reality is an epic fail.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Ah, the fool's argument.
I think the idea of debate is to offer reasons why an expected extra 11 year delay isn't a serious problem.
Then we come to value for money.
The idea behind the aircraft is clearly excellent, but it looks like reality is an epic fail.

Oh, I agree. Too many just go by the sheeple reasoning. Just because someone that may or may not be qualified said something always makes it true. I am finding that these "Experts" aren't any expert than me.

The delay of 11 years is because the buyers keep changing their minds as new things come available. It's gotten heavier and heavier in the process and has lost it's nimbleness. It could have been out years ago without all that.

Value for the money. When it's the only thing value is when it goes to war. And that has yet to happen. It should do real well since it's the first of it's kind and the Russians and Chinese are having to play catchup with their ground to air. If for every dollar spent, it costs the other side a dollar to try and keep up with it then it's well valued. Shades of Raygun and Starwars.

A huge mistake was already made in the onset. Taking one airframe and making it do 3 completely different things. The biggest mistake was not to design a VTOL from the ground up separate from the A and C model. That ran up the cost. Way up. And the A could have been out long ago and it's much more agile than either the B or the C.

The problem with discussing it is the fact that each one has shortcomings. To include all shortcomings and say ALL are like that is rediculous. For instance, the A and C share 70% between them. But the B only shares about 35% with the other two. Not what they planned. But the very nature of the B, it has to be that way. They hadn't planned that in but learned, in order to produce them all, that is just the way it has to be. Making the B a completely different Aircraft that just looks like the other two.

 

[HenryBHough]

This could properly come under a "will she/won't she" sort of title but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I as there at the last show 2 years back and have already bought my ticket for the coming one.

Anyone else planning to be there......to see if the F35 is sufficiently airworthy to actually appear this time?

Farnborough International Airshow Public 2016 - FARNBOROUGH INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW COULD WELCOME UP TO FIVE F-35s AT SUMMER SHOWCASE

 

[Manonthestreet]

I wish....... let us know if it wallows thru the sky like a pig compared to the others. Better have some crazy dance moves to make up for its low and slow profile

 

[HenryBHough]

If it flies I will take photos and will post them here.

Having seen The Typhoon maneuver it will take a great deal to convince me the F35 approaches it.

Mission creep has a way of turning good planes into hanger queens.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.

The F-4 was a serious contender all the way up till it was retired. In the hands of a capable pilot it could match nearly aircraft out there. I watched one wax TWO F-18s in a fight over Owens Valley back in the day.

But it's days were numbered. Waxing 2 F-18s isn't the same as waxing one F-16 or F-15. Whenever you navalize a bird, you add weight and do quite a few compramizes. The F-17 (non navalized F-18) was offered but it had no buyers since the F-16 cost about the same and ran circles around it. Boeing has never gotten the thrust to weight ratio above 1 to 1 on either the F-17 or the F-18.

Now, why does the Navy need the F-35? Easy answer. The C (navalized version) doesn't have any advantages of speed, payload. It does have almost twice the range of the F-18 and comes with all the neat toys. The C carries over 20,000 pounds of fuel internally and can take off heavier than the F-18. The combat range of the F-18E/F is 390 miles. Meanwhile, the C has a longer range than the USAF A version that has a 610 mile combat range. The Enemy is just getting too close to the carrier group at 390 miles. The F-18 has to take off light as it is by changing his fuel load and weapons load.

 

[I amso IR]

Hey Daryl! Back at it with Manonthestreet (MOTS) I see. Keep up the good work, Bud, I have to chuckle every time he try's to say something he knows nothing about. He proves that with all of his citations and links. At least HenryBHough (HBH) asks some decent questions. I am looking forward to the pictures he will post. And yes, should the 35 mix it up with the Typhoon I expect it to be tight. Since the 35 will not have the option of using all of it's wares, it will be difficult to show superiority as killing an allied pilot in peace time is not the name of the game. Farnborough takes away from the true F35 mission somewhat. After all, the Typhoon supplements the F35, not the other way around. MOTS & HBH need to understand that, MOTS in particular. Faster than fast is not the complete answer. Every minute the faster than fast wastes trying to catch the F35, to get within kill distance, the less fuel he preserves to get him home. And to get around the F22/F15/F16, he is going to need every ounce of fuel he has on board. To bad, bad guy, you lose! Keep on preaching to the choir MOTS, keep on preaching.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Hey Daryl! Back at it with Manonthestreet (MOTS) I see. Keep up the good work, Bud, I have to chuckle every time he try's to say something he knows nothing about. He proves that with all of his citations and links. At least HenryBHough (HBH) asks some decent questions. I am looking forward to the pictures he will post. And yes, should the 35 mix it up with the Typhoon I expect it to be tight. Since the 35 will not have the option of using all of it's wares, it will be difficult to show superiority as killing an allied pilot in peace time is not the name of the game. Farnborough takes away from the true F35 mission somewhat. After all, the Typhoon supplements the F35, not the other way around. MOTS & HBH need to understand that, MOTS in particular. Faster than fast is not the complete answer. Every minute the faster than fast wastes trying to catch the F35, to get within kill distance, the less fuel he preserves to get him home. And to get around the F22/F15/F16, he is going to need every ounce of fuel he has on board. To bad, bad guy, you lose! Keep on preaching to the choir MOTS, keep on preaching.

That is, IF:

1: The F-35 has a hung door or another malfunction that takes away his stealth
2: All the other Fighters look the other way while you close or they self destruct
3: The Navy cooperates with you
4: The F-35 doesn't catch on and sends a package or two your way
5: The Laws of Physics gets resended. Should happen right after Obamacare is appealed.

It's going to look like a class reunion for Amraams and Aim-9Xs. The Aim-9Xs have to bring the beer and pizza.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Hey Daryl! Back at it with Manonthestreet (MOTS) I see. Keep up the good work, Bud, I have to chuckle every time he try's to say something he knows nothing about. He proves that with all of his citations and links. At least HenryBHough (HBH) asks some decent questions. I am looking forward to the pictures he will post. And yes, should the 35 mix it up with the Typhoon I expect it to be tight. Since the 35 will not have the option of using all of it's wares, it will be difficult to show superiority as killing an allied pilot in peace time is not the name of the game. Farnborough takes away from the true F35 mission somewhat. After all, the Typhoon supplements the F35, not the other way around. MOTS & HBH need to understand that, MOTS in particular. Faster than fast is not the complete answer. Every minute the faster than fast wastes trying to catch the F35, to get within kill distance, the less fuel he preserves to get him home. And to get around the F22/F15/F16, he is going to need every ounce of fuel he has on board. To bad, bad guy, you lose! Keep on preaching to the choir MOTS, keep on preaching.

unless of course he has supercruise he will chase your ass down and fly away before you have time to do anything.....oooops.......F-35 will be tasked with air supe in the Navy and Marine version.....ooooops

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Hey Daryl! Back at it with Manonthestreet (MOTS) I see. Keep up the good work, Bud, I have to chuckle every time he try's to say something he knows nothing about. He proves that with all of his citations and links. At least HenryBHough (HBH) asks some decent questions. I am looking forward to the pictures he will post. And yes, should the 35 mix it up with the Typhoon I expect it to be tight. Since the 35 will not have the option of using all of it's wares, it will be difficult to show superiority as killing an allied pilot in peace time is not the name of the game. Farnborough takes away from the true F35 mission somewhat. After all, the Typhoon supplements the F35, not the other way around. MOTS & HBH need to understand that, MOTS in particular. Faster than fast is not the complete answer. Every minute the faster than fast wastes trying to catch the F35, to get within kill distance, the less fuel he preserves to get him home. And to get around the F22/F15/F16, he is going to need every ounce of fuel he has on board. To bad, bad guy, you lose! Keep on preaching to the choir MOTS, keep on preaching.

unless of course he has supercruise he will chase your ass down and fly away before you have time to do anything.....oooops.......F-35 will be tasked with air supe in the Navy and Marine version.....ooooops

And he will find out what a Mach 4 super enema feels like.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Unlikely......you have no ability to to outmaneuver anything....you have short legs.....stealth is alrdy going the way of the DODO and by the time yu get fully functional it'll be obsolete..

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Unlikely......you have no ability to to outmaneuver anything....you have short legs.....stealth is alrdy going the way of the DODO and by the time yu get fully functional it'll be obsolete..

Newsflash, the A model comes into service by the end of this year. Stealth is still the new kid on the block. The closer you get, the less stealth works so you fire from your maximum range. The Ruskies claim they can do 300 KM but in reality, it's less than 90. Not real impressive. But the F-35, F-22, F-15, F-18 and F-16 will be opening fire at about 100 miles. For those of you that wonder about the conversion, that's about 160km.

As for range, let me guess. You still claim 390 miles combat radius. Sure if it's the B model. But the A is 610 miles and the C carries even more gas. In fact, the C carries up to about 20,000 lbs since it uses what the B uses for it's liftfan for fuel storage. Making the Navy bird the longest legged. Since the F-18E/F has only a 390 mile combat radius that makes the F-35 very important and something the Navy lost when it retired the F-4 and F-14. Plus when it retired the A-7, A-4 and A-6. The Navy has needed longer legs for quite some time. The bad guys are just getting too close these days.

I look for the Navy to start replacement of the older F-18C/D next year and to be done in 2019. The AF is starting this year and should be done in 2018 where they pull a unit off line, train it and equip it and then put that unit back online with the F-35A.

Look at it this way, the A-10 only has a 150 mile combat radius. Our units are operating constantly beyond that so something has to take over the job. Only 19% of all CAS was done by the A-10 in 2014. In 2014, the F-16 did 39% of them. In 2015, there were almost no A-10 operation for CAS but almost all of them was done by the B-1. The B-1 has currently been pulled from the Middle East for upgrades. The Buff has already had those mods and has taken over that job. I suspect that next year, the B-1 will be back in the Middle East raising hell once again.

The F-35 isn't replacing newer AC, it's replacing older ones. Yes, there are some 40 year old F-15Cs and F-16s as well as many F-18C/Ds in service that badly needs to be taken out of the inventory. Remember, the A-10 is 40 years old and has it's wings flown off. It's mission is hard on the equipment. It's not like a Cargo/Tanker/Bomber that flies in straight lines. You can replace the wings, tails, avionics, landing gear but you can't replace the Airframe. The A-10 is nearing where they start limiting the g forces like they did with the F-4. The F-4 was a 12 G airframe. But in the end, it was limited to 4.5Gs. The Airframe could no longer handle the hard Gs.

So you can keep doing this nonsense but in the end, the birds that the F-35 will be replacing all have to come out of inventory in the next couple of years anyway. It won't be until 2025 that the F-22 and the F-35 start to lose it's edge. The Russians are learning fast that just because it looks like a stealth aircraft doesn't make it stealthy. India is livid that the Russians haven't kept up with what they promised even after India put 5 billion into the project.

Air Wars have changed. It started changing the day the F-117 hit the first target.

 

[xband]

The F-35 is fly by wire that I think is unsafe.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-35 is fly by wire that I think is unsafe.

So is the F-16, the original electric lawn dart. The difference is, the F-16 can over gee quite easily. The F-22 is a fly by wire with built in limits. The Mods being done on the newer F-15s are all fly by wire. The Russians are just now catching on to this method. Fly by wire is dangerous but to the other guy usually.

Where do you get your information? The same argument was used on trying to destroy the F-16 before it began production. There are no new areguments. They have all been used on previous aircraft that have become legends.

 

[I amso IR]

The F-35 is fly by wire that I think is unsafe.

History[edit]

F-8C Crusader digital fly-by-wire testbed
Electronic signalling of the control surfaces was first tested in the 1930s, on the Soviet Tupolev ANT-20.[3] This replaced long runs of mechanical and hydraulic connections with electrical ones.

The first pure electronic fly-by-wire aircraft with no mechanical or hydraulic backup was the Apollo Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV), first flown in 1964.[4]

The first non-experimental aircraft that was designed and flown (in 1958) with a fly-by-wire flight control system was the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow,[5][6] a feat not repeated with a production aircraft until Concorde in 1969. This system also included solid-state components and system redundancy, was designed to be integrated with a computerised navigation and automatic search and track radar, was flyable from ground control with data uplink and downlink, and provided artificial feel (feedback) to the pilot.[6]

In the UK the two seater Avro 707B was flown with a Fairey system with mechanical backup[7] in the early to mid-60s. The programme was curtailed when the airframe ran out of flight time.[8]

The first digital fly-by-wire fixed-wing aircraft without a mechanical backup[9] to take to the air (in 1972) was an F-8 Crusader, which had been modified electronically by NASA of the United States as a test aircraft.[10] This was preceded in 1964 by the LLRV which pioneered fly-by-wire flight with no mechanical backup.[11] Control was through a digital computer with three analogue backup channels. In the USSR the Sukhoi T-4 also flew. At about the same time in the United Kingdom a trainer variant of the British Hawker Hunter fighter was modified at the British Royal Aircraft Establishment with fly-by-wire flight controls[8] for the right-seat pilot. This was test-flown, with the left-seat pilot having conventional flight controls for safety reasons, and with the capability for him to override and turn off the fly-by-wire system.[citation needed] It flew in April 1972.

This article from Wikipedia, I know, that drated Wikipedia, offers some insight into fly by wire. As you will note, "fly by wire was considered safe enough to go to the moon. The Sov's were testing it back in 1930. Using that date, it means a form of fly by wire has been considered for 86 years or so. That should be long enough to make it user friendly and dependable. If it is considered safe for commercial use I have to think the troops will find it acceptable. Probably not much of use in the Piper J3 "Cub" however. As a side note, where I hung out as a kid in the early 1950's we had two J3's on floats in south Florida. We would fly the coast along side US Highway #1. The Greyhound buses on US1 would outrun us on a good day. Them wuz the good old days.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-35 is fly by wire that I think is unsafe.

History[edit]

F-8C Crusader digital fly-by-wire testbed
Electronic signalling of the control surfaces was first tested in the 1930s, on the Soviet Tupolev ANT-20.[3] This replaced long runs of mechanical and hydraulic connections with electrical ones.

The first pure electronic fly-by-wire aircraft with no mechanical or hydraulic backup was the Apollo Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV), first flown in 1964.[4]

The first non-experimental aircraft that was designed and flown (in 1958) with a fly-by-wire flight control system was the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow,[5][6] a feat not repeated with a production aircraft until Concorde in 1969. This system also included solid-state components and system redundancy, was designed to be integrated with a computerised navigation and automatic search and track radar, was flyable from ground control with data uplink and downlink, and provided artificial feel (feedback) to the pilot.[6]

In the UK the two seater Avro 707B was flown with a Fairey system with mechanical backup[7] in the early to mid-60s. The programme was curtailed when the airframe ran out of flight time.[8]

The first digital fly-by-wire fixed-wing aircraft without a mechanical backup[9] to take to the air (in 1972) was an F-8 Crusader, which had been modified electronically by NASA of the United States as a test aircraft.[10] This was preceded in 1964 by the LLRV which pioneered fly-by-wire flight with no mechanical backup.[11] Control was through a digital computer with three analogue backup channels. In the USSR the Sukhoi T-4 also flew. At about the same time in the United Kingdom a trainer variant of the British Hawker Hunter fighter was modified at the British Royal Aircraft Establishment with fly-by-wire flight controls[8] for the right-seat pilot. This was test-flown, with the left-seat pilot having conventional flight controls for safety reasons, and with the capability for him to override and turn off the fly-by-wire system.[citation needed] It flew in April 1972.

This article from Wikipedia, I know, that drated Wikipedia, offers some insight into fly by wire. As you will note, "fly by wire was considered safe enough to go to the moon. The Sov's were testing it back in 1930. Using that date, it means a form of fly by wire has been considered for 86 years or so. That should be long enough to make it user friendly and dependable. If it is considered safe for commercial use I have to think the troops will find it acceptable. Probably not much of use in the Piper J3 "Cub" however. As a side note, where I hung out as a kid in the early 1950's we had two J3's on floats in south Florida. We would fly the coast along side US Highway #1. The Greyhound buses on US1 would outrun us on a good day. Them wuz the good old days.

Yes, it's been around as long as RC Aircraft. I saw a demonstration where the RC PIlot took the plane off flew it around for a bit then shut his radio transmitter off. The electronics detected this and brought the bird in for a landing. The RCer did have to taxi it in.

The F-16 does get the nod for the first fly by wire fighter in production though.