PDA

View Full Version : F35 Mmmmmm



WTE_Ibis
10-16-2008, 05:29 PM
I can hear the howls of protest before I post this but it

seems as though we've bought another dud along with the Super Hornet.

http://premium1.uploadit.org/Ibissix//cap140.jpg

Body of report:

http://premium1.uploadit.org/Ibissix//F35-PART-1.mp3


http://premium1.uploadit.org/Ibissix//F35-PART-2.mp3


http://premium1.uploadit.org/Ibissix//-F35-PART-3.mp3



.

berg417448
10-16-2008, 06:36 PM
I remember similar types of negative comments being made just before the F-14 came into service with the USN.

WTE_Galway
10-16-2008, 06:52 PM
Reminds me of the debacle in the mid 30's when the RAF was trying to explain just why it was that their new fighters were slower than their new bombers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FlatSpinMan
10-16-2008, 07:39 PM
Interesting to listen to. I'd like to hear more about this, especially the detailed reasons for the inferiority and the accounts of the pilots in the exercise (classified though).

ElAurens
10-16-2008, 07:51 PM
The JSF was a stupid idea from the beginning.

One airframe can not be made suitable for every branch of service, much less multiple country's services.

Every time the accountants have tried this the resultant aircraft has been a failure. Plus adding the mill stone of naval capability doomed the thing from the start.

Naval aircraft are simply too compromised to be fully competitive against dedicated, state of the art land based aircraft.

The Navy should have their own aircraft, period.

Let the Air force have all the F22s they want, and start development of a true F16 replacement.

LEXX_Luthor
10-16-2008, 08:13 PM
F-4 Phantom is one example how one airframe can be made suitable for every branch of service, including multiple countrys' services.

As for JSF, I don't know anything about it and never will. I have so totally lost ANY and ALL interest in post-modern all digital SuperHUDjets made by the post Cold War corporate merger of McDonellMiGrummanSukhoi....and the copypaste SuperHUDJetsims that model them.

VW-IceFire
10-16-2008, 08:20 PM
Its starting to look bad for the F-35. It has some really good points but I'm wondering if they mucked it up...

Everything is going to be replaced by UCAV's until those turn on their masters and then we'll have to build manned aircraft again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

huggy87
10-16-2008, 09:36 PM
Their "source" isn't even a pilot. It's an engineer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif What next, is a plane captain going to give his opinion.

K_Freddie
10-17-2008, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by huggy87:
Their "source" isn't even a pilot. It's an engineer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif What next, is a plane captain going to give his opinion.
I'd imagine the real pilot's info is classified.
This could be a ruse of course.. to play down the planes capabilities, After all you would want your potential enemies knowing too much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WTE_Ibis
10-17-2008, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by huggy87:
Their "source" isn't even a pilot. It's an engineer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif What next, is a plane captain going to give his opinion.

------------------------------------------------

As far as I'm aware The RAND corporation is a respected US organisation and with access to more than an engineer.
Still I hope they're wrong as it looks as though we own'em. bugger!


.

Jex_TE
10-17-2008, 03:11 AM
Could you imagine what airshows would be like if this thing replaced ALL aircraft?

"And here comes the F35...again..."

Deedsundone
10-17-2008, 04:43 AM
Anyone who has played Battlefield 2 knew that.Take off,bomb,bail out,repeat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
10-17-2008, 06:10 AM
F-4 Phantom is one example how one airframe can be made suitable for every branch of service, including multiple countrys' services.


The F-4 wasn't made suitable for anyone.
It was a carrier-aircraft right from the start.

It's performance eclipsed some of the USAF's fighters, thatswhy they wanted to get them.

The only "compromise" made was the Phantom FG Mk.1 and FG Mk.2 which were powered by RR Spey engines and had some other british stuff up their fuselage.

The decision to put in british stuff was purely political.


The JSF is gonna be a bombtruck. It doesn't need to dance around.
If you wanna have fighters, buy more F-22s or (sorta fighters...) Super Bugs.

JarheadEd
10-17-2008, 10:10 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/JarheadEd/CopyofJSF.jpg

Sure it was ugly, but IMHO it should of won.

b2spirita
10-17-2008, 10:48 AM
why?

SterlingX
10-17-2008, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by JarheadEd:

Sure it was ugly, but IMHO it should of won.

It couldn't have won. Wing constuction didn't work as planned, tail needed redesign to make it maneuverable enough, VTOL didn't work.
If you fix all those you get something that is quite like the F35.

biggs222
10-17-2008, 11:10 AM
they said that the test used the F22 and super hornet as well... so they got owned as well?

"clubbing baby seals"? ... i thought the F-22 was vastly superior to any Russian/Chinese fighter.

Xiolablu3
10-17-2008, 11:23 AM
This is supposed to be a cheap multirole aircraft, not a fighter.

Its a fighter-bomber cpaable of massive loads, as Brems said 'its not supposed to dance around the skies with F22's or Typhoons.

Remember the Harrier? That was slow, heavy yet its had a highly succesful career. It soundly beat some much faster fighters in its service life.

Bremspropeller
10-17-2008, 11:38 AM
"Cheap" and "F-35" in one sentence? lol


BTW: the Harrier never was a great fighter.
The AIM-9L was a great missile, though, and Mirages never had a great range. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

K_Freddie
10-17-2008, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The decision to put in british stuff was purely political.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The first step to your 'recovery' is admitting, that the USA does not always make the best stuff.
A small step but a very significant one, will reduce recovery time, by half.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

omega_max
10-17-2008, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by biggs222:
they said that the test used the F22 and super hornet as well... so they got owned as well?

"clubbing baby seals"? ... i thought the F-22 was vastly superior to any Russian/Chinese fighter.

Without having read the actual report, only about the report, the entire study seems to have been mostly of logistical and strategic issues.
Appearently the Chinese overwhelmed the technically more advanced American forces by sheer numbers. One assumption in the study was that the US forces never could have more than 6 F-22:s in the air simultaneously in the Taiwan straits which isn't enough to stop 70+ Su30 to break through and kill the American tankers thereby preventing the F-22:s to reach their home base. So basically the 22:s weren't owned by they still lost the battle.

I do not know how realistic such a scenario is though.

Regards

omega_max

PhantomKira
10-17-2008, 01:12 PM
JarheadEd, one of the major concerns with the XF-32 was the large single intake on carrier operations. It was known as the "Sailor Inhaler", for good reason. Think of how much more dangerous the flight deck environment would be for the deck guys with that thing around!

Secondly, per the competition, the aircraft (both) had to perform three roles: Carrier, Land, and STO/VL operations, if I recall correctly. The XF-35 did so okay, but the XF-32 had to be torn apart and "re-wired" for each separate demonstration. I think that's why the XF-35 won. But then again, if there are three separate airframes for three separate roles, why would they have need for one to do all three in the trials? I don't know.

Finally, and this is critical of both aircraft, look at all that junk hanging off the wings in your picture! So much for even remote stealthyness - why bother? That's one of the major problems with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. It's supposed to be bigger-better-faster and more stealthy (F/A-18s? Stealthy? HA!), but they added another two external hardpoints = more drag, and resulting cruddy performance. The F/A-18C chaseplanes were outperforming the XF/A-18E/Fs! Not real surprising to me.

Jaws2002
10-17-2008, 01:57 PM
A bit more good reading about this :

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Ai...y-Controversy-05089/ (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/)


With F-35 the wories over close combat are real due to the very limited air to air payload, specially when carrying ground attack ordnance. As Maj. Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command's advanced air dominance branch, stated: "I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons."

With room inside for only four weapons, and only two for air to air if the plane has to carry ag weapons, there are a lot more chances to end up in close combat with more agile fighters.

Jaws2002
10-17-2008, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
This is supposed to be a cheap multirole aircraft, not a fighter.

Its a fighter-bomber cpaable of massive loads,

No actually in stealth configuration it CAN'T carry massive loads. 2000lbs air to ground ord is all it can take. that's average for a ww2 jabo and really limited for next generation do it all combat aircraft.

Xiolablu3
10-17-2008, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
"Cheap" and "F-35" in one sentence? lol


BTW: the Harrier never was a great fighter.
The AIM-9L was a great missile, though, and Mirages never had a great range. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yet the Harriers stregth was that it could operate where other fighters/fighter bombers could not. This is what made it a great aircraft.

My point is that same could be said for the F35.

Xiolablu3
10-17-2008, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
This is supposed to be a cheap multirole aircraft, not a fighter.

Its a fighter-bomber cpaable of massive loads,

No actually in stealth configuration it CAN'T carry massive loads. 2000lbs air to ground ord is all it can take. that's average for a ww2 jabo and really limited for next generation do it all combat aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it doesnt NEED to use stealth. Obivously there is a small amount of room inside, but it is capable of large loads when not using stealth.

The point is it can do either. Small load with stealth, or large load and versitile without.

Jaws2002
10-17-2008, 02:33 PM
Using something like the F35 in non stealth configuration is like buying a ferrari to do the a 30 miles per hour, rush hour, daily comute.

without the stealth, F-35 is not even on par with the fourth generation fighters that are so cheap today. A long range bolt action, sniper rifle is not the best weapon to use in block by block close combat.

VW-IceFire
10-17-2008, 03:15 PM
Well....

The issue is a bit more complicated than that. And I just did a long search for the indepth article that I read (covered comparisons between range, weight, power, wingloading, etc.) and I just can't find it. But here's the problem...the F-35A and B are fairly different aircraft. The detractors of the F-35 often quote the F-35B's weight instead of the F-35A's weight and quote the B payload figures instead of the A and then the F-35 suddenly comes in behind the F-16 in nearly all respects. And thats not surprising because the F-35B with its lift fan and short take off vertical landing capabilities mean that its heavier and has a smaller internal bay. The F-35A has none of that. So right there there is allot of confusion.

The report I read (if I'm remembering and paraphrasing properly) suggested that the F-35's payload, range, and maneuverability were all greater than the F-16. But not all at the same time. So the F-35A is indeed more capable than a 4th gen fighter, has stealth, and datalink capability, and advanced sensors that put the F-16 to shame...but all at the same time is difficult. I believe the greatest problems are wingloading. Even more of a problem is that the F-16 isn't good enough against the latest Su-27/30/35 variants of the Flankers. So the F-35 is allot of money for a new jet that has "greater" capability but with some serious reservations about when that capability can be unleashed and its just not far enough ahead against the latest Russian equipment. That Russian equipment is cheaper and employed in greater numbers.

Its not enough for the F-35 or the F-22 to be competitive...they have to be significantly better so that they can take on huge odds. The F-22 everyone seems to have confidence in...but the F-35 is allot of compromises to make it a strike fighter.

But here's one other thing...say the F-35 gets canceled. The F-16 isn't the solution really as its not stealth and unless you start the production line again its getting old just like everything else in the US inventory and everyone who bought them as well. Eventually they need to be replaced.

biggs222
10-17-2008, 03:18 PM
corrct me if im wrong here but, the stealth that the F22 and 35 share means that fighters going up against them with radar missiles wouldnt be able to lock on to them (or have a very hard time trying) right?

and the 22 has a cooler exhaust than other fighters becuase of the exhaust fins design so heat seeking missiles would also have a harder time to lock on right?

VW-IceFire
10-17-2008, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by biggs222:
corrct me if im wrong here but, the stealth that the F22 and 35 share means that fighters going up against them with radar missiles wouldnt be able to lock on to them (or have a very hard time trying) right?

and the 22 has a cooler exhaust than other fighters becuase of the exhaust fins design so heat seeking missiles would also have a harder time to lock on right?
Sort of...but the F-22 is much more stealth than everything but the B-2. The F-35 has a lower level of stealth and is focused around being stealthy from the front rather than back.

Also...I just found another article...not the one I was looking for but it really characterizes all of the back and forth on the F-35. I think it contradicts what I said on a couple of details...have a look:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Ai...y-Controversy-05089/ (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/)

berg417448
10-17-2008, 03:35 PM
Is there any up to date information on the directed energy weapon that was being developed for the F-35? As I recall they were looking at something with a range of about 10km that was supposed to be used to destroy incoming SAMs and air to air missiles.

I have not read anything recently about this.

Bremspropeller
10-17-2008, 03:42 PM
My point is that same could be said for the F35.

For the F-35B, yes (with a reduced payload), but not for the A or C version.


It's supposed to be bigger-better-faster and more stealthy (F/A-18s? Stealthy? HA!), but they added another two external hardpoints = more drag, and resulting cruddy performance. The F/A-18C chaseplanes were outperforming the XF/A-18E/Fs! Not real surprising to me.

Many of the Super Bug's issues have been fixed.
And it's a better multirole fighter than the legacy Hornet.
With all-aspect T/V-heaters, there is not much of a difference between a Super Bug and a Bug in A-A. The better radar and the soon to be introduced AIM-120D is also gonna close the range-gap somewhat between the AMRAAM and the Phoenix.

A question out of curiosity on the intake-issue:
Were the F-8 and A-7 more prone to "human fod" than other aircraft?
I mean, there's a couple of other a/c around that also look like suction-traps to me. The S-3 is one of them.


The first step to your 'recovery' is admitting, that the USA does not always make the best stuff.
A small step but a very significant one, will reduce recovery time, by half.

Well, the RAF got some F-4J(UK)s in the late eighties and the RAF-crews found it to outperform their own Rhinos by quite a bit.

The british-powered Rhinos had a better low-level accel, low-level climb and maybe a better endurance, but that was pretty much it.
The J79-GE-10 and -17 powered Rhinos had the better range, climb and speed.

HuninMunin
10-17-2008, 04:38 PM
I wonder how it can possibly surprise anyone that the F-35 wich was critizised for years and years for beeing a misslead design efford does not exactly shine in areas that were willingly sacrificed for other criteria.

JarheadEd
10-17-2008, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
JarheadEd, one of the major concerns with the XF-32 was the large single intake on carrier operations. It was known as the "Sailor Inhaler", for good reason.

<span class="ev_code_RED">None of us ever called it "the sailor inhaler". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I think she lived in Asia somewhere. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif I did call it the loudest single aircraft I have ever heard in my life. 1 X-32< 2 EA-6B's</span>

Think of how much more dangerous the flight deck environment would be for the deck guys with that thing around!

<span class="ev_code_RED">No more so than the A-7 or F-8. Far less than the E-2. That intake is close to 6 feet off the deck.</span>

Secondly, per the competition, the aircraft (both) had to perform three roles: Carrier, Land, and STO/VL operations, if I recall correctly. The XF-35 did so okay, but the XF-32 had to be torn apart and "re-wired" for each separate demonstration. I think that's why the XF-35 won.

<span class="ev_code_RED">The X-32B, when hovering, had to have the lower leading edge of the intake removed to allow additional airflow. (similar to the Harrier scarf vents in action) They went back on in a jiffy. This was done because the moveable intake was deemed a bit of a risk for the test flights. The initial intakes you saw on the X-32 were not to be the final iteration. There was no requirement to bring a production representative airframe to the show. </span>


Finally, and this is critical of both aircraft, look at all that junk hanging off the wings in your picture! So much for even remote stealthyness - why bother?

<span class="ev_code_RED">Weapons bays have a limited space, Pylons can actually be removed or added as the mission dictates. The USAF was big into stealth, USN not so much, and the USMC was pretty much "We're never taking the pylons off".</span>

The F/A-18C chase planes were outperforming the XF/A-18E/Fs! Not real surprising to me.


<span class="ev_code_RED">What book are you reading that from? Close it and never open again. In reality, anything can be spun. A "C" model with a 330 Gallon external tank will out race a "E/F" that's toting 8 mk-83's, a 480 Gallon External tank and 9 cameras. Even with all that carp on the wings, we still had more range than a "C". </span>

Xiolablu3
10-17-2008, 11:43 PM
What I found pretty crzy about the F22 is the combat range - About the same as a Spitfire, and less than a Spitfire MkVIII on internal fuel.

Bremspropeller
10-18-2008, 05:47 AM
You're propably talking of combat-radius.

Then again, could a Spit be refulled in the air?

LEXX_Luthor
10-18-2008, 05:28 PM
"USMC: We never take the pylons off." ~Jarhead

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-18-2008, 05:30 PM
Not only was the F-4 Phantom made suitable for every Ussian service and multiple countrys' services, the proliferation of widely used F-4 specialized versions shows the same thing will happen to this F-35 if it becomes as useful as the F-4 was in its day.

Bremspropeller
10-18-2008, 05:48 PM
Specialized Versions?

Now let's see:

F-4K + F-4M - RAF
F-4F - Luftwaffe

That's it. Unless you'd call a RF-4 a "specialized" version http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


It's called "evolution" of an airframe.

LEXX_Luthor
10-18-2008, 06:51 PM
Exactly. Made into specialized versions for specific uses, including Wild Weasels. All useful.

http://s35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Smileys/th_thumbs.gif

Bo_Nidle
10-19-2008, 06:35 AM
History repeating itself. They tried the Joint Forces concept with the F-111. They tried it with the Tornado. It's usually as a result of penny-pinching political interference.

"One-size fits all" combat aircraft rarely work due to the compromises that have to be made and the end result is invariably a "Jack of all trades but master of none".

They are doing it again with the Eurofighter. A very capable dogfighter but now they are hanging bombs on it. The UK idiots even tried to have the cannon removed to save cost using the old and ignorant argument that "in this age of missiles why do you need a gun?".

The fact is you need a fighter, a bomber, a CAS capable fighter bomber, etc. It's expensive but it works.

The full report when it gets declassified looks like it's going to be a bit embarrassing for the US government, military not to mention Lockheed Martin !... and the UK idiots who have decided to replace all our Harriers with the F-35!!!

Bremspropeller
10-19-2008, 07:02 AM
Well, most fighters that can carry precision-ordnance could be used for CAS rather well.

It's the more specialized roles like SEAD that require a bit more than a software-update.

Xiolablu3
10-19-2008, 08:20 AM
The F35 will be a far far superior aircraft to the Harrier, Bonidle.

Bremspropeller
10-19-2008, 08:22 AM
It will be hampered by it's technological complexity.

It's actually pretty much the opposite of what was the goal when developing the Harrier.

KISS.

WTE_Galway
10-19-2008, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
You're propably talking of combat-radius.

Then again, could a Spit be refulled in the air?

no but they had ferrying tanks as part of the original design

LEXX_Luthor
10-20-2008, 01:18 AM
Bo::
...ignorant argument that "in this age of missiles why do you need a gun?"
When was the last post-Cold War gun kill?

Events have proven guns are not needed. Missiles today are not our grandfather's missiles.

Of course, once you remove the never used gun, it will be needed. Lexx's Law.

On the other hand, the Ussian Air Guard F-16 needed a gun to conduct a strafing run against a high school a few years back. School had to close resulting in instant Hero status for the pilot at least for the liberated students.

Bremspropeller
10-20-2008, 05:03 AM
Last year, a Fulcrum gunned down a georgian UAV.

Fighters need guns, be it for strafing only.

WOLFMondo
10-20-2008, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
A bit more good reading about this :

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Ai...y-Controversy-05089/ (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/)


With F-35 the wories over close combat are real due to the very limited air to air payload, specially when carrying ground attack ordnance. As Maj. Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command's advanced air dominance branch, stated: "I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons."

With room inside for only four weapons, and only two for air to air if the plane has to carry ag weapons, there are a lot more chances to end up in close combat with more agile fighters.

Then again, what weapon system do you need to go up against a 3rd world country with an insergency? F22's? No, a bomb truck with good protection systems against 2nd hand stingers.

Unless suddenly WW3 erupts and to be honest no plane will be much use if were all glassed on an industrial scale, all these planes are going to be used for is fighting guys in caves in 3rd world nations or imposing Nato's will on unruly nations like the problem in Serbia/Kosovo. Even then Harriers and A10's were the main work horse and there was little chance of any air to air combat.

I don't see the point in spending billions on an aircraft thats not needed and never will be needed. They just need an A10 with a VTOL ability. Problem solved.

HellToupee
10-20-2008, 06:36 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

is why http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its not current conflicts these planes are for, its potential future ones with powers like china or russia which is not too far fetched when you consider the declining natural resources and constant population growth.

WTE_Galway
10-20-2008, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

is why http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its not current conflicts these planes are for, its potential future ones with powers like china or russia which is not too far fetched when you consider the declining natural resources and constant population growth.

Well that and supposedly the deterrent value to discourage lesser powers from getting too cocky about there large air forces of slightly older technology.

Not a particular good argument in my mind.

if you actually look at the implementation of the advanced technologies very few operational B1's or F22's ever made it to actual squadrons compared with original proposals. Presumably the logic in the small numbers is "if we at least have some now we can always build more if the need arises " .

VW-IceFire
10-20-2008, 07:49 PM
Indeed its not the current military situation but one ten or twenty years from now. With Russia regaining its power its possible that countries will be fighting proxy wars again or say if one of the Australian scenarios comes to fruition where Indonesia or another neighboring nation with updated Russian technology goes up against them in one way or another....they want to be able to more than just compete but dominate their own airspace if not that of the theoretical aggressor.

WWII came as a surprise to some military planners who weren't prepared for the reality of WWII. Some were on the right track and were prepared...fortunately several people and organizations got it right and were prepared with the projects and resources needed to fight back.

So being prepared is the best choice...does the F-35 give NATO the strike fighter it needs. Is it good enough as a air superiority aircraft in a pinch? Not sure.

AWL_Spinner
10-20-2008, 11:54 PM
When was the last post-Cold War gun kill?

1982?

More than one I believe.

Oh, sorry, that's still Cold War era I guess.

Erm. Well, anyway. Rather have the capability than not.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OD_
10-21-2008, 04:44 AM
1991 in the Gulf, sure there was a gun kill there.

What about the F-117 shot down over Kosovo? Supposed to have been shot down by a Serbian Mig-29. The most likely way, I can see, for that to have been done is guns.

You can't really ask that question anyway. When has a Western air force come up against a fully prepared, well equipped and well trained air force since 1982?

There were complaints from troops in Afghanistan that the Harriers could not support them fully because they had had their cannon removed...to save money. They could not conduct strafing runs. Guns will always be essential on an aircraft and politicians should stop trying to save money on them if they don't want to face further criticism later on and the added costs of retrofitting them.

Darth_Reagan
10-21-2008, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Last year, a Fulcrum gunned down a georgian UAV.

Fighters need guns, be it for strafing only.

If this is the event you are talking about it looks like a missile to me.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U49n1JuWAmc

I understand you might be talking about a different incident of course.

Schwarz.13
10-21-2008, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Indeed its not the current military situation but one ten or twenty years from now. With Russia regaining its power its possible that countries will be fighting proxy wars again or say if one of the Australian scenarios comes to fruition where Indonesia or another neighboring nation with updated Russian technology goes up against them in one way or another....they want to be able to more than just compete but dominate their own airspace if not that of the theoretical aggressor.

Very well put. This is precisely the reason Super Flankers are being used as the current yardstick when talking about air-to-air capability.

With regards to Australia - they are fast becoming surrounded by potential aggressors equipped with the latest Flanker variants and it is hardly surprising that the Aussies are a little disconcerted by the perceived major disadvantge of being equipped with Super Hornets/F-35s.

This site has some very good reading:

http://www.ausairpower.net/

Furhtermore, many people seem to think the US has some sort of monopoly on stealth technology. The Russians have closed this gap considerably over the last few years and it is Russia who supplies many of these nations who are seen as potential future adversaries of the West (including Russia herself).

Finally, as has always been the case - any fighter being developed/put into production nowadays is probably still going to be frontline hardware in 20-30 years time and there is no way of knowing what the future of global conflict will bring. Therefore any arguments over what is/is not required (be it guns, stealth technology etc.) currently, sounds just like the arguments of those short-sighted, penny-pinching politicians many are deriding!

Xiolablu3
10-21-2008, 07:00 AM
I dont think that the F35 was ever supposed to be an air-superiority fighter, was it?

Both of the lead countries involved already have excellent Air superiority fighters just entered servive.

What they needed (and what I gather the brief wass) was a lower cost multi-role aircraft capable of carrying the multitude of bombs,rockets,missiles,guns needed for ground attack, and also a plane to replace the Harrier as a multirole support aircraft for the Navys..

Think modern day T34 or Sherman which can be built in larger numbers and perform many roles. AT least thats what I gathered from watching the TV Doc on the F32/F35 competition between Boeing and Lockheed.


*The JSF requirement*


The JSF program was created to replace various aircraft while keeping development, production, and operating costs down. This was pursued by building three variants of one aircraft, sharing 80% of their parts:

F-35A, conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant.
F-35B, short-takeoff and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant.
F-35C, carrier-based (CV) variant.
The F-35 is being designed to be the world's premier strike aircraft through 2040. It is intended that its close and long-range air-to-air capability will be second only to that of the F-22 Raptor.[7] Specifically the F-35's requirements are that it be: four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground battle combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses. These capabilities are to be achieved while still having significantly better range and require less logistics support than legacy aircraft

**I gather that the 'Air superiority 2nd only to the F22 raptor' is including only US aircraft.

It is quite obvious from the brief that ground attack is the most important requirement.

blairgowrie
10-21-2008, 07:29 AM
After reading most of threads on the F35 and several of the studies, I have to say your post Xiolablu3 finally gave me a understanding of what the F35 is all about. Good job m8.

Bremspropeller
10-21-2008, 07:45 AM
What does JSF mean again?

Joint STRIKE Fighter.


The F-35 is gonna be eaten alive when faced with any of the Eurocanards in a DF.

Xiolablu3
10-21-2008, 08:47 AM
I think the JSF will mostly be seen in service with its pylons on in most its roles. Like we see Harriers today absolutely laden with all kinds of heavy loads.

BUT it has the option of removing them for stealth purposes when striking AAA defences or SAM sites as in the first stages of the gulf wars.

This is the whole point, it can do so many roles. It is meant to be a 'jack of all trades' and 'master of fighter-bomber' rather than 'master of none'.

Think this kind of thing :-

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_Harrier_GR7A_Afghanistan_Frontal_Flares_lg.jpg

http://www.talkingproud.us/ImagesMilitary/Fallujah/HarrierRefuel.jpg

If there is a enemy airspace full of Su's and Mig's then they will not send in F35's, they will send F22's and Typhoon's.

Xiolablu3
10-21-2008, 12:55 PM
This pic shows very well just what the F35 is cabale of carrying...

http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/jsf/f35_payload.jpg

Thats a lot internally and a massive load for a fighter bomber when using pylons as well. The F35 is gonna be a wicked bomb truck which is very, very, fast and manouverable FOR A FIGHTER BOMBER/ATTACK AIRCRAFT of 2010-2020.


Who says Multi-role planes dont work?


http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/images/Fw190g.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bo_Nidle
10-21-2008, 02:04 PM
I did say "rarely work", there will always be exceptions, although how effective was the ground-pounding 190 compared to a dedicated mudmover like the IL2? (Opens entirely new discussion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif).

CAS aircraft require more than precision munitions, the ability to loiter on station for extended periods being a high priority. It was this ability that made the venerable Skyraider so effective in Vietnam in comparison to the "fast-movers", and lead to the development of the A-10.

As for guns being obsolete. I do not know of any post-cold war gun kills. But then again there have been no large scale air battles of the type seen over Vietnam in that period either. It is then that the engagement ranges close rapidly and the ability to engage targets at "too close" for missiles range becomes a very useful option. Lets face it, eventually electronic based weapons can be counter-measured whereas good old fashioned "hot lead" is good old back to basics combat. (see: "Knife fight in a phone booth and you have only a spear")

I really do hope that they iron out the alleged deficiencies in the F-35 as a LOT of money has been invested in this program and, besides, it is a nice looking kite.

Mr_Zooly
10-21-2008, 04:00 PM
Surely by now we should all understand the tactics of air warfare, the first stage is to gain air superiority by the use of fighter aircraft (F22/Rafale/Typhoon/Su37/etc....). once the enemy is locked up tight in their hanger the ground pounders are sent in to remove ground to air threats (which maybe a part of the F35's mission profile), then the ground threat of tanks/troops/or other military tagets are 'taken out' (again mission profile?).
By the way, the Harrier was a jack of all trades as it could handle both mission profiles (and quite possibly still can).

VW-IceFire
10-21-2008, 05:18 PM
Xiola has indeed hit the mark with the F-35s original mission requirement. Its a "cheap" by modern US military hardware standards multi-role strike fighter with exportable stealth capability and a wide array of sensors.

The problem is that some nations are going to rely on the F-35 as first line fighter superiority. Australia is the chief discussion right now because they are hoping the F-35 will be their ticket to a replacement for their F-18s. The worry is that the F-35 isn't going to be "superior" enough against the Flankers that their neighbors are buying for allot cheaper.

For the US and the UK the F-35 is perfect because its backed by the F-22 and the Typhoon in virtually all orders of battle. If the enemy has substantial air defense then the F-35 can operate in stealthy precision strike raids. If the enemy doesn't have significant capability in terms of air defense then the F-35 becomes a well equipped fast moving mud mover. I think Afghanistan has once again proven the need for an A-10 like aircraft. I think the A-10 will be around for a while yet with its new upgrades to A-10C level...it'll eventually need to be replaced by either a UCAV or another similar aircraft. Faster isn't always better. But you also need a fast mover strike fighter that can more rapidly respond to a threat.

The F-35B is unique in being the first supersonic aircraft that can take off in very short distances and land vertically. The USMC is going to love this plane I think.

Also nobody has mentioned that the AIM-9X should give the F-35 better in close capability than it can achieve by airframe alone. Being able to fire above and below or to the side is significant.

VMF-214_HaVoK
10-21-2008, 05:19 PM
So many experts. Im surprised you waste your talents playing video games and chatting it up in forums.

S!

M_Gunz
10-21-2008, 05:23 PM
Diplomacy should be the first line of defense but instead....

Schwarz.13
10-21-2008, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think Afghanistan has once again proven the need for an A-10 like aircraft.

indeed (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5Iz5MwPsfyo) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WTE_Galway
10-21-2008, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
I did say "rarely work", there will always be exceptions, although how effective was the ground-pounding 190 compared to a dedicated mudmover like the IL2? (Opens entirely new discussion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif).


I read an amusing first hand account a few years back of witnessing a fw190 strafing for the first time by a US infantryman.

They were driving down a road near a large multistorey abandoned meatworks when they spotted a single plane starting a strafe run.

They had seen mg strafing before and were not too worried, they decided to stop the jeep and load up the 0.50 cal ready to try and shoot at the approaching plane.

At this point the entire side of the building collapses from the strafing.

Followed immediately by everyone abandoning the jeep and taking cover in a nearby ditch.

SlowBurn68
10-21-2008, 07:18 PM
The only reason this plane was built was to keep advancing technology. The cost justification isn't there and it's not necessary in today's environment.

mortoma
10-21-2008, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by biggs222:
they said that the test used the F22 and super hornet as well... so they got owned as well?

"clubbing baby seals"? ... i thought the F-22 was vastly superior to any Russian/Chinese fighter. Possibly my listening skills and understanding of air warfare are better than yours are. They didn't say that the F-22s got beat, only the Hornets and F-35s. But of course all the F-22s would then be terribly outnumbered with the F-35s and Hornets dead. So they would have gotten beat but only because of sheer numbers problem. No matter how good the F-22 is, it's going to have a problem if it's extremely outnumbered and swarmed by enemy fighters.

Had the test used only F-22s for "Blue Team", they would have probably won easily.

Bremspropeller
10-22-2008, 06:24 AM
The F-35B is unique in being the first supersonic aircraft that can take off in very short distances and land vertically.

Nope:

http://www.geschichte.aero/geschichte/zivile_luftfahrt/bilder/Vj101c.jpg
German VJ-101
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/F-35/Yak-141.jpg
Soviet Yak-141

Both didn't go operational, though.

Xiolablu3
10-22-2008, 08:58 AM
No doubt if anyone looked at purely performance specs like top speed and climb rate only for a fighter bomber, then the Harrier would have been ditched in its first incarnation.

The F35B WILL succeed purely becasue it can do something that only the Harrier could do before it.

If nothing else, noone can argue that the F35 is at least a heavily updated, faster, better armed Harrier. A plane that is almost indespensible to todays Navys. Not every convoy can be eqquipped with a massive Aircraft carrier, and the Harrier allows smaller fleets to utilise potent Air support.

It can also operate from forward bases that no other aircraft can.

Does anyone else think that the Falklands War could have been won without the Harrier?

Bremspropeller
10-22-2008, 09:06 AM
Yes.
A squadron of Rhinos would have done as well or better.

b2spirita
10-22-2008, 09:54 AM
Not if they were not there.

Xiolablu3
10-22-2008, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by b2spirita:
Not if they were not there.

Exactly

HuninMunin
10-22-2008, 01:36 PM
Your argument doesn't make sense.
If you ask if the Harrier was so vital to success in the Falklands in a discussion about air plane performance you automatically ask for a comparison to other naval combat aircraft.
And the Harrier is nothing special at all in comparison to other naval fighters in terms of combat availability.
It got made because of the vessels that are carrying it and because back then the cold war and the fear of not so operational airstrips still existed.

Besides that, all other modern swing role combat aircraft have one very important feature in comparison to the F-35: They don't loose air to air potential when on air to ground service.
The EF for example is still able to carry up to 4 BVRAAMs / AMRAAMs and two SRMs when loaded up with 6 LGBs.
Similar case for the later Suchois and Superbugs.
The F-35 simply offers no room in the performance envelope for that kind of true multyrole.

It's a step back to ground pounders that need protection against air threats instead of the highly flexible designs that are able to adapt to highly complex and asymmetrical threat environments.
And that's exactly why it's criticized by the various governments that pay for it.

Xiolablu3
10-22-2008, 02:15 PM
I'm not arguing about anything.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

However obviously there was no point in building the F35 at all and its a complete failure. If only one of you guys could have told the experts in the US and UK that they were wasting their time and that they should stick with the 30 year old designs like the Harrier and F16.

Schwarz.13
10-22-2008, 02:29 PM
If only schools and hospitals had all the money they needed, and the military had to hold jumble sales to pay for new weapons.

- a postcard i once saw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

HuninMunin
10-22-2008, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I'm not arguing about anything.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

However obviously there was no point in building the F35 at all and its a complete failure. If only one of you guys could have told the experts in the US and UK that they were wasting their time and that they should stick with the 30 year old designs like the Harrier and F16.


Well I guess you would have said the same to the people that criticised the absence of any guns on early cold war British and American designs.
You have to realise that the F-35 is first and foremost an economical venture for most of the buyers.
And what you hear right now is the sceptical voice of costumers who think that the guaranteed features are not going to be delivered as advertised.

But of course you hear the "what do you know, you are just a poster on the internet"- point very often.
Suits perfectly, doesn't it?

And how you want to deny that you are presenting an argument when you post your opinion in a place with the sole purpose of discussion is beyond me.

VW-IceFire
10-22-2008, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Your argument doesn't make sense.
If you ask if the Harrier was so vital to success in the Falklands in a discussion about air plane performance you automatically ask for a comparison to other naval combat aircraft.
And the Harrier is nothing special at all in comparison to other naval fighters in terms of combat availability.
It got made because of the vessels that are carrying it and because back then the cold war and the fear of not so operational airstrips still existed.

Besides that, all other modern swing role combat aircraft have one very important feature in comparison to the F-35: They don't loose air to air potential when on air to ground service.
The EF for example is still able to carry up to 4 BVRAAMs / AMRAAMs and two SRMs when loaded up with 6 LGBs.
Similar case for the later Suchois and Superbugs.
The F-35 simply offers no room in the performance envelope for that kind of true multyrole.

It's a step back to ground pounders that need protection against air threats instead of the highly flexible designs that are able to adapt to highly complex and asymmetrical threat environments.
And that's exactly why it's criticized by the various governments that pay for it.
Wait...ok...so what about the F-35 means that it can't do both air to air and air to ground just as capably as a similarly configured F-16? You said no room in the performance envelope? I'm just not clear on that. Otherwise you've made some good points.

HuninMunin
10-22-2008, 04:28 PM
First of all I have to say that I by no means argue that the F-35 is not a good replacement for most of the planes it is build to replace.
It's avionics and first strike capabilities alone will put all the mainstays to shame obviously.
But the comparison should be about the designs that possible enemies will field against it.
The later off springs of the Su-27 offer quite impressive capabilities for their cost ( in exchange for lousy airframe lifespan )and with the upcoming Su-35 ( which had it's maiden flight just recently btw ) there actually is strong competition.

What I'm really talking about is the aerodynamical concept.
Obviously you sacrifice performance by choosing stealth over lift to weight and low drag.
You also end up with a less then stellar T/W - even when you choose a very very powerful engine ( the F-35's being a truly impressing example ).

As a consequence you get mediocre BVR and WVR performance even with a completely clean ( internal ) payload.
If you send them with a payload even remotely similar to other top notch fighters you have to use external pylons and will sacrifice both stealth and even more performance.

I absolutely agree with you about it's first strike capability ( although stealth is not a miracle and first rate modern equipment will still allow BVR engagements against it ) and of course I can also see the benefits of the B variant.
But if you ask if that's enough for a combat aircraft that is planed to be the backbone of many many air forces, you'll probably hear a "yeah....but..".
Seeing the price tag added to all this and I understand the critical voices.

Bremspropeller
10-22-2008, 05:20 PM
The funny thing about stealth is that modern russian SAM-systems (such as the SA-10 and SA-20) already have a pretty good detection-range on the past generation of stealth-fighters.

The so-called "edge" is not gonna last that long.
And when this occurs, "stealth" is just money, worth a couple of billions in cash, spent for nothing.


Not if they were not there.

Oh well, it wasn't MY idea to get rid of the FAA's conventional fixed-wing a/c carriers.
It was the politicians'.
The FAA could have had the Ark Royal deployed to the South Atlantic, but they preferred to exchange aircraft of real worth (for a carrier group) with aircraft that weren't worth their money.

So what did the Rhinos have, the Sea Harriers lacked? Let's see:

- range
- speed
- a powerful radar
- BVR capability
- two-crew concept
- considerable bombload
- limited "swing-role" capabilities
- it actually HAD a chance of intercepting a soviet aerial attack on a FAA carrier-group

Today's Harriers are somewhat different.
The Harrier II PLUS features an APG-65 radar and offers BVR-capability.
They have a higher bomb-load and can deliver precision-ammo.
That's it.

A Harrier is a nice toy for Marines and CAS-operations - but as a fleet defender and sole reason to employ a blue-water ops carrier during Cold War...tanks.

VF-17_Jolly
10-22-2008, 05:40 PM
What really stuffed the RN in the south atlantic was not having an AEW platform . Ships radar just did not cut it.
Worst ever idea scapping the Ark Royal
through deck cruisers my arse

Im not proud "got a spare carrier guv"

Bremspropeller
10-22-2008, 06:39 PM
Yeah, forgot mentioning that.

They lost the Gannets and Buccaneers, too.

WTE_Galway
10-22-2008, 07:25 PM
Although it was not a huge issue in the Falklands conflict because the enemy came to visit them, the fact that the harrier is subsonic is quite a tactical disadvantage.

AWL_Spinner
10-22-2008, 08:45 PM
Although it was not a huge issue in the Falklands conflict because the enemy came to visit them, the fact that the harrier is subsonic is quite a tactical disadvantage.

I recall reading recently on "another forum" (probably PPRuNe) some comments on the early retirement of the SHAR - apparently plans where afoot at some point to give the SHAR a rotation as homeland defender whilst the F3s were off somewhere hot and sandy (or maybe it was during the capability gap when the F3 was carrying concrete around in its nose rather than a radar, I forget).

Anyways, point being, this was scoffed at in RAF circles as the SHAR wasn't supersonic and wouldn't have a hope of intercepting the incoming Russian hoards.

Some investigation was done on behalf of the SHAR and, given it's superior scramble and time-to-height-or-indeed-anywhere-downrange numbers, the conclusion was that by the time the F3 was supersonic the SHAR would already be an awful lot closer to the Russians (with a better BVR capability) and, given the average (limited) warning given by long range Radar anyway, likely already in the fight.

So supersonic isn't everything in all circumstances; of course, the F3 is rubbish, but still.

I'm not a bring-back-the-SHAR advocate, it shouldn't have been axed with no replacement available, but that boat has sadly sailed.

I do think the F35 is an enormous white elephant with dubious air superiority credentials; for sure a good stealthy bombtruck for the US as part of a combined package with the F22, but not exactly what the RN needs as a solo fleet defender.

Then again, there's not much of the RN left to defend these days - what's left is going to be largely tied up in making sure the new carriers don't get sunk.

Not as if we're awash with destroyers and frigates these days, even if Type-45 is a world beater.

Sigh.