F-35 Makes Paris Airshow Debut and Is Talk of the Airshow

[miketx]

Pretty impressive. I went to an air show at Carswell one time and they were demonstrating the F-18. It was pretty impressive. I thought the slow flying demo was really spectacular. The plane had its nose pitched up way high almost like it was standing up as it moved down the field at around 125 mph. I recall the exact speed but it was slow. Then about mid field the plane went ballistic. Really impressive.

 

[Weatherman2020]

What they did not touch on in the demo is the ability for the F-35 to hover and provide close air support. Then head out at Mach speed.

 

[DrainBamage]

Now you're making stuff up and asking me to back it up.

Sorry I must have misinterpreted your post, it sure seemed like you were implying expertise in an entire multi-decade span of air to air warfare by countering facts with a resume.

So back on topic... the single most important weapon in air-to-air combat today is the modern BVR missile. References to F-4s without guns performing poorly 50 years ago isn't applicable because their sensors and missiles cannot be compared to what planes fly with today. You need look no further for evidence than statistics on what has shot down aircraft since the 90s. The last gun kill by a US plane against an opposing fighter was probably in the early 70s.

 

[miketx]

What they did not touch on in the demo is the ability for the F-35 to hover and provide close air support. Then head out at Mach speed.

Maybe they don't want everyone to know all that.

 

[williepete]

Pretty impressive. I went to an air show at Carswell one time and they were demonstrating the F-18. It was pretty impressive. I thought the slow flying demo was really spectacular. The plane had its nose pitched up way high almost like it was standing up as it moved down the field at around 125 mph. I recall the exact speed but it was slow. Then about mid field the plane went ballistic. Really impressive.

The 2:15 point in the video really got my attention. The pedal turn demonstration at the end of the slow speed pass showed an incredible ability to position the nose quickly. Nose position coupled with its off boresight capability is going to produce an impressive engagement ability.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Soon to Be Armed with AIM-9X Missile and JDAM

My earliest lesson in nose position came to me as a young and dumb 2nd Lt. I thought it would be fun to jump a pair of A-10s I spotted below me in South Korea. They were passing below me from left to right and nearly perpendicular to my route. I rolled in and no sooner had I traversed about 30 degrees in turn and 20 degrees in dive, the A-10 wingman swung his nose more than 90 degrees and was pointing that huge gun at me. I came off him right quick. He was back in formation in seconds as if nothing happened. It was frigging impressive. Never forgot that lesson.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The price of the F-35 is over $600 million per aircraft. The total cost for the entire fleet of F-35's plus maintenance costs during its operational life span, is expected to be 1.5 trillion dollars. .....

600 mil each? Now where did I put that ignore list at?

 

[Sunni Man]

"In 2012, the total life-cycle cost for the entire U.S. fleet was estimated at US$1.51 trillion over a 50-year life, or $618 million per plane".

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"In 2012, the total life-cycle cost for the entire U.S. fleet was estimated at US$1.51 trillion over a 50-year life, or $618 million per plane".

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia

The first 2 (AF- and 2) did cost that much. Meanwhile, when the B went into production, the cost of the B models first runs was 143mil. The second runs will be 110Mil. Meanwhile, the first run of the A model was 110 mil. The second run will be 85 mil. 2012 for test birds versus 2017 for a large production run are two different things.

Plus the 2012 figures have gone down for the life of the F-35 drastically. The figures are for the life of the F-35 for the first production run. That price goes down on the second production run which will be in the thousands. Even so, it's the total cost including parts, ammo, purchase of AC and other things. You cherry picked from something that may or may not be accurate. I don't really question it but I do question it for 2017.

 

[HenryBHough]

Nice they were able to get one to fly!

 

[DrainBamage]

Nice they were able to get one to fly!

Yeah 90,000 hours so far, I remember you were the dumbfuck in here wondering if they actually flew.

 

[Divine Wind]

40,000 pounds of thrust. Oh baby.

Dogfights are a thing of the past because the US has total domination in air warfare.

Agreed. USA! USA! USA!

Syria conflict: Why are air combat kills so rare? - BBC News
The shooting-down of a Syrian jet by the United States is believed to be the first air-to-air kill by a manned US aircraft since 1999.

Despite Hollywood blockbusters showcasing aerial dogfights, they have almost vanished from modern warfare.

In the 20th Century, skilled pilots who clocked up kills were often referred to as aces.

The US considers a pilot with at least five confirmed kills to be an ace - but no serving pilot holds the title.

What was the lesson of the Gulf wars?
A report published by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) in 2015 found just 59 kills since the 1990s - the large majority of which were in the First Gulf War.

Later that year, when Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24 plane along the Syrian border in a rare conflict, it sparked an international diplomatic row.


Media captionThis video shows a plane falling to the ground on the Syrian border with Turkey
"The era of dogfighting is largely over," says Justin Bronk, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, specialising in combat airpower.

"After the totally lopsided kill-to-loss ratio attained by the US Air Force and US Navy during the First Gulf War, it is a very rare thing for regimes under attack by the US and its allies to send fighters up in defence - since they know how it will end."

In that war in early 1991, Iraq lost 33 planes to coalition forces in air-to-air combat. In return, its planes shot down just one coalition F-18, according to the CSBA database.

That lesson led many countries to abandon competition with the US and its allies.

"Even in the latter stages of the First Gulf War, many Iraqi pilots chose to fly their aircraft to Iran to escape certain destruction - no light decision, soon after the brutal Iran-Iraq war," Bronk says.

During the Second Gulf War, Saddam Hussein "had most of his remaining air force buried underground to escape destruction rather than send fighters up".

And when Nato intervened in Libya in 2011 to aid the rebellion against Col Muammar Gaddafi, the country's air force did nothing to defend its airspace.

Why is the US so dominant?
Early air combat during World War One involved lining up an enemy aircraft in the plane's sights and firing machine guns at propeller-powered aircraft flying at relatively low speeds.

Despite technological advancements, the basic principle remained the same for half a century.

But in the modern era, the human eye was quickly replaced. From 1965-1969, guns accounted for 65% of air-to-air kills, the CSBA says.

But between 1990 and 2002, they accounted for just 5% of kills - with the rest carried out by some kind of missile.

"Modern air combat is almost entirely decided by situational awareness [from radar and other sensors] and missile technology," Bronk says. "All recent air-to-air kills between fast jets were one-sided, quick affairs."


Media captionBBC reporter Sharanjit Leyl aboard aircraft carrier USS George Washington
Most kills in the last two decades have been against enemy planes too far away to see with the human eye - which means technology often trumps pilot skill.

That gives the US a clear advantage.

It spends more on military technology than any other nation, has more aircraft carriers and deploys specialist ships with sensor arrays to aid its aerial fleet.

Faced with such a prospect, many air forces choose not to engage a technologically superior force - and leave their planes to conduct patrols or attacks on ground targets.

 

[Divine Wind]

"In 2012, the total life-cycle cost for the entire U.S. fleet was estimated at US$1.51 trillion over a 50-year life, or $618 million per plane".

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia

That's over 50 years. You're used $6000 car, if you had it for 20 years, would cost a lot more than $6000.

From your link:
F-35A: $94.6M (low rate initial production lot 10 (LRIP 10) including F135 engine, full production in 2018 to be $85M)[9]
F-35B: US$122.8M (LRIP 10 including engine)[9]
F-35C: US$121.8M (LRIP 10 including engine)[9]

 

[whitehall]

I don't get it, what's the point of the "Paris Air Show"? Is it about entertainment or does the U.S. feel the need to show off it's technological superiority in an unstable arena of spies and jihadists? Or is it about the ait industry recruiting potential customers?

 

[Sunni Man]

I don't get it, what's the point of the "Paris Air Show"? Is it about entertainment or does the U.S. feel the need to show off it's technological superiority in an unstable arena of spies and jihadists? Or is it about the ait industry recruiting potential customers?

^^^^^ All of the above ....

 

[Iceweasel]

Seems to me like fighter drones flown from remote locations would be in the near future. Humans can only take so much G force.

 

[williepete]

Seems to me like fighter drones flown from remote locations would be in the near future. Humans can only take so much G force.

Make sure your data link can't be jammed and is in real time. No delay from remote locations. And your drone "pilots" maintain perfect SA as they enter the fight. What could go wrong?

Not knocking your idea but there are a lot of things to solve before Skippy starts playing war games.

 

[Iceweasel]

Seems to me like fighter drones flown from remote locations would be in the near future. Humans can only take so much G force.

Make sure your data link can't be jammed and is in real time. No delay from remote locations. And your drone "pilots" maintain perfect SA as they enter the fight. What could go wrong?

Not knocking your idea but there are a lot of things to solve before Skippy starts playing war games.

Seems like it could be done from a high flying plane but anything sophisicated enough could jam the electronics on the jet too. At least no life is lost.

 

[williepete]

At least no life is lost.

I hear you. But did the job get done? How many assets were lost? How much capability did we loose by failing.

We'll get there. But for now, we need a blend until technology catches up.

 

[Sunni Man]

Seems to me like fighter drones flown from remote locations would be in the near future. Humans can only take so much G force.

Fighter pilots will be a thing of the past within another generation. ....

 

[williepete]

Fighter pilots will be a thing of the past within another generation.

I remember a shoe clerk standing up at Squadron Officers School in 1988 and saying that. He was soundly ridiculed. I'm surprised at how close his prediction has come to pass in 2017 but it's still a long way from being complete. Some jobs require a man to have eyes on the situation in real time. A man at the controls of a fighter that he is the master of.