F-35A for Japan

[snafu352]

John Symons,

Please can you expand on this.

"the F-35 will provide a good capability and L-M will deliver the project however long it takes"

Could you please illustrate how the F35 will give a good capability, with particular focus on the opposition at the time the F35 reaches service and also explain why it apparently does not matter how long it takes, again i would expect this part to reference the expected oppostion. It may be germane to make some comment on the costs for the capability and timeframe for both the F35 and opposition.

I'm very interested to see what your response is as this question has been asked several times and has yet to receive a reasoned and intelligent response that purely focuses on the F35 and the opposition.

[snafu352]

Mercurius,
I wouldn't disagree with your last.
The over simplification was merely in the vein of pro F35 "arguments."
I would however be comfortable stating that any non expert view of the report would offer the conclusion that the authorities are blaming the pilot.

[snafu352]

That you insist that people answer yes to questions of this nature

Just registared the implications of this.

Can you show me where i've insisted on a yes answer as you assert here?

The option was there to say no.

That potentially could have resulted in an interesting and hopefully knowledge gaining discussion as one would presume that somebody answering no would have good solid reasons and facts for doing so.

The fact that you are essentially saying there is no other answer but yes rather suggests that it is thus difficult to make an argument that all is good with the F35 program.

Perchance i have identified correctly the reason for your ire and petulance?
You have been forced very near the edge of your beliefs and faith and the safety rail is not as strong as you would wish or perhaps is not there at all?
I can understand how that would be scary and thus precipitate such anger as you have displayed. You have my sympathies.

[kev 99]

The fact that you are essentially saying there is no other answer but yes rather suggests that it is thus difficult to make an argument that all is good with the F35 program.

Or that those questions were deliberately rather heavily loaded, which of course they were.

The posters in this thread on both sides are acting like a bunch of hysterical children.

[John Symons]

John Symons,

Please can you expand on this.

"the F-35 will provide a good capability and L-M will deliver the project however long it takes"

Could you please illustrate how the F35 will give a good capability, with particular focus on the opposition at the time the F35 reaches service and also explain why it apparently does not matter how long it takes, again i would expect this part to reference the expected oppostion. It may be germane to make some comment on the costs for the capability and timeframe for both the F35 and opposition.

I'm very interested to see what your response is as this question has been asked several times and has yet to receive a reasoned and intelligent response that purely focuses on the F35 and the opposition.

Sure thing pal, but before we get started, let me just put on the record that I have no argument with the statement that F-35 is currently over budget and over schedule. I do not dispute that and have not seen anyone else dispute it either, so continuing to repeat the statement is in my opinion akin to including in every post that the sun rises in the east each morning, a rather obvious fact that is not in dispute. That you continue to do so, smacks of someone keen to score cheap shots at a program for a reasons rather more personal than being a "caring chap".

You've accused me and others of being L-M employees in recent times, which in my case at least is untrue and always has been. I do not work in Aviation or Defence Industries. So now it's my turn. Beyond your already given altruistic statement, what is your motivation for having such a beef with the program? The amount of time you spend criticising it (and the amount of venom you put in your posts) here and at Ares Blog suggests there's a bit more to the matter from your end. You demand everyone else answers honestly, so now it's your turn.

So to your question, I believe the F-35 will provide the capability the partner nations (and I'm including the USA with that term, even though technically the term is referring to everyone else beyond the USA in the program) need in their respective fighter recapitalisation projects, especially when compared against the other offerings available within the next decade (when even most critics accept the F-35 will at least have reached IOC).

My belief is based on the fact that it is the ONLY Western fighter aircraft in production that features low observability. Some external to the program have questioned the level of observability the F-35 offers, but none within the program have done so, not even the various external auditors who have examined the aircraft over the years. The LO feature is the greatest advantage F-35 has over every other aircraft it might compete against. I think this advantage is extremely under-rated, most especially by those enamoured of the various "counter-stealth" solutions.

So far, we've seen "stealth" used by small numbers of operational aircraft, B-2A's and F-117's. With F-35 and to a lesser extent F-22A, we'll see it being used by entire force packages. All the "counter stealth" solutions are predicated upon the operational use of "stealth" we've seen so far. Trying to cover the entire battlespace with "counter-stealth" capabilities to defend against EVERY LO threat aircraft coming in will be a completely different story and will be beyond the capability of most, if not all.

It features physical performance equivalent or greater to the aircraft it is most directly designed to replace (F/A-18, F-16 and AV-8B) none of which have any great paper performance benchmarks against their names, yet each of which have excelled in actual combat operations and have proven their performance more that sufficient in actual combat configuration.

The F-35 won't be any astonishing physical performer, but it will be more than good enough. It's sensor capability and LO will more than compensate for the small difference that it's performance will have when compared to some other fighters. In strike configuration, there won't be any appreciable difference in performance anyway in real world operations.

On top of this, the F-35 offers far greater range on internal fuel alone than any other fighter of it's size. I find it extremely interesting that any discussion about fighter range (and in fact in just about every area) only considers the F-35 in it's Block III entry to servce configuration and not the increased capabilities that are planned beyond this. Every other fighter is allowed the benefit of increased capabilities through Block upgrade or other modification programs, but not the F-35.

The F-35 has planned the most comprehensive array of sensor systems fitted to a fighter at it's entry to service. It features a radar system designed by a manufacturer that is recognised by most other manufacturers as the leading AESA fighter radar manufacturer. It's EO/IR targetting system is a developed variant of the Sniper XR targeting system, widely recognised as the best current EO/IR targetting pod in existence, plus it features IRST capability, the extent of which has not been widely discussed, much like it's EW system.

I could go on, but that should be enough for you to formulate your additional questions. In virtually every are of combat capability the F-35 will provide world class capability.

Yes, the program is having trouble executing, yes it's over budget, but the alternatives to just cancelling are worse for so many reasons, that I don't have time to begin to cover.

[snafu352]

Or that those questions were deliberately rather heavily loaded, which of course they were.

The posters in this thread on both sides are acting like a bunch of hysterical children.

If the questions were heavily loaded what questions would you have asked?

[Mercurius]

Yet previous programs weren't "sold" on the promise of such vast leaps in capabilities at a reasonable cost. The ambitions of this program are so far above those of others that it is not unreasonable to query them in that same high light is it not.

You would have to spend a lot of time in archives in order to establish how previous programmes were ‘sold’ – I suspect that everything was a ‘wonderplane’ in its day. As the number of aircraft programmes fell, the more the few that did proceed were ‘hyped’.

The F-35 programme may be ambitious in its goals, but the basic principles of engineering practice are unchanged, and technical risk is always with us. The F-35 is, in the end, another aircraft programme, and potentially as vulnerable to technical problems, performance shortfalls, rising costs, production cutbacks, and slipping schedules as previous ones were.

The only way to avoid technical risk is not to do anything technically risky. The glorious succession of silver-doped biplanes that entered RAF service in the 1920s and 1930s comes to mind. The Siskin begat the Gamecock, which in turn begat the Bulldog, which it its turn begat the Gauntlet. And as a result of all that development work, top speed increased from 126 kts to a dizzying 200 kts.

The over simplification was merely in the vein of pro F35 "arguments."
I would however be comfortable stating that any non expert view of the report would offer the conclusion that the authorities are blaming the pilot.

That’s true – but I’d like to think that collectively we forum members are all trying to become as expert as we can.

It is good to bring faith into the conversation.

Alas, you should not read too much into my quoting from the Bible. After all, Oppenheimer made a now-famous quote from the Bhagavad-Gita following the test of the first atomic bomb, but was not a practicing Hindu.

[kev 99]

If the questions were heavily loaded what questions would you have asked?

Why do you think I have any need to ask these or any other questions regarding this programme? Why do you have the need for that matter? Especially when you already know the answers and many on the pro side had already admitted to the answers you were looking for anyway.

Before you accuse me of being an LM employee (Seriously? WTF? how is that ever a sensible debating response?), or being pro F35 in anyway whatsoever I consider myself fairly neutral on this subject. My only motive in the previous reply is to inform that the conduct of many of the participants of this debate has pretty much ruined this thread. Alas it seems that any chance of a reasoned F35 debate seems lost to the onslaught of hysterical trolls on both sides chucking insults at each other.

[mrmalaya]

Or that those questions were deliberately rather heavily loaded, which of course they were.

The posters in this thread on both sides are acting like a bunch of hysterical children.

+1 (it all seems so personal.....)

[FoxThree]

+1 (it all seems so personal.....)

ELP’s first response to a post I made:

But keep up with the cheerleading.

Here is Horde’s:

Trying to re-invent history is a trait common to those who follow the art of "a total indifference to what is real" - a.k.a. bullsh*t.

Much if not most of what poster Fox Three has claimed falls under this category and, even worse, bears little if any relationship to the truth.

A long way of saying my posts were bull**** and lies. And then repeats himself:

Any claim of otherwise or to the contrary is just more of the same pile of "a total indifference to what is real" that has been the hallmark of the JSF Program ever since LM Corp was selected for the SDD Contract.

Same goes for the claims made by Fox Three in this regard, though others can judge if his go beyond the limits of "a total indifference to what is real" into the realm of that other scourge on our societies that the Emeritus Professor in Philosophy at Princeton University describes so well . . .

Here was snafu352’s first response to a post I made:

Your big man statements and claims to have inside access are simply funny.

PS I made no such claims of inside access.

And:

Blah blah blah. Sadly as predicted. You guys can't help yourselves. I'd tried to save you the embarressment but still you insist on exposing yourself.

In no way were any of these insults goaded or responding to some insult at them. They were just the natural first responses these characters brought to this forum because I am offering arguments that run counter to theirs.

I would love to see a lowering of the personal attacks but it would appear with ELP, Horde and snafu352 that just isn’t possible.

[snafu352]

Thanks John Symons.

My motivation is simply a strong dislike of unjustified and unrealistic claims.
It is interesting that you choose to initially focus on my motivations rather than address the questions.
Frankly my "motivations" are irrelevant.
Whether my thoughts have merit and are supported by reasoned logic and fact or indeed if they do not and my reasoning and or supporting evidence can be shown to be inaccuate is the important element.

The point i've have been making is not that the program is late and over budget that is indeed indisputable, it is the implications of that.
Perhaps i over simplified the point but this was simply to strip away the "noise" and achieve some focus on that which i consider the key point.

As an aside i'm disappointed to see my prediction concerning the little joke in a prior posting being at least partialy confirmed.

On the subject of the F35, taken at face value your reasoning makes a lot of sense. I would hope however that you would acknowledge that the hanging of all hopes on one aspect is rather a high risk approach.

To address the points you make. At present there has been no comment from within the program on the subject of observability, that is correct and frankly to be expected. There was an intriging classified section of the OLR however which it is not unreasonable to surmise may well relate to the key classified aspect of the program, the observability. Note i am not claiming that it does, merely surmising that balance of probablities suggests it might.

On the next point re the tactics of (for brevity) "stealth;" the key element that must be present to justify this opinion is an assumption that whilst "stealth" tactics may evolve, anti "stealth" tactics will always be playing catch up. I'm struggling to see any justification for that stance other than wishing to present the F35 as superior.

To claim that the F35 "will be more than good enough" performance wise is another assumption that is simply not supported by facts, particularly in the air to air scenario. Height and speed being critical for an air to air platform.
This leads to the fuel and range points, to achieve these the F35 simply does not have the performance of other platforms, thus we are back to the assumption that the performance will be adequate.
To claim that perfomance equal to the F16 and F18 is adequate is worrying as these are not the threats the oppostion will be fielding. The point of a new design is surely to exceed the performance of the now obsolete(?) predecesers.
But performance in this age does not simply concern the kinetic it relies heavily upon the sensors and systems i hear you cry. That is true.

The claim that the sensors and systems of the F35 are to a significant extent more advanced than other sensors and systems is simply not true.
They are certainly not sufficiently in advance of such as SPECTRA and the Typhoon systems that the F35's lack of kinetic performance relative to these platforms is negated. There is little reason to assume that the Russians or Chinese, (or Japanese, or Korean?) are any further distanced and they are all flying prototypes or planning designs of platforms with greater performance than the F35.

I am sure that eventually the F35 will be fielded and that it will have some good capability.
The pertinent question is when does that capability provide the critical advantage that is required over the opposition?
If that date was the original IOC of 2010 or similar what is the worth of the dollars spent?

On your last point, would you say that the F14 was a worse alternative to the F111B?
If your point is that cancellation is worse than eventually fielding an expensive, medicore platform then i would suggest that an examination of that is a very worthy subject for discourse.

Your last is also an example of one of the reasons i started posting on F35 threads, all too often F35 proponents would make comments of that nature yet fail to provide any reasoning or evidence to support their assertations and then proceed to get rather hot under the collar when challenged on them.
Reference my dislike of unjustified and unrealistic claims.
Perhaps that goes some way to explain any venom you have detected.

Thankyou for the reasoned discourse.

[snafu352]

Why do you think I have any need to ask these or any other questions regarding this programme? Why do you have the need for that matter? Especially when you already know the answers and many on the pro side had already admitted to the answers you were looking for anyway.

Before you accuse me of being an LM employee (Seriously? WTF? how is that ever a sensible debating response?), or being pro F35 in anyway whatsoever I consider myself fairly neutral on this subject. My only motive in the previous reply is to inform that the conduct of many of the participants of this debate has pretty much ruined this thread. Alas it seems that any chance of a reasoned F35 debate seems lost to the onslaught of hysterical trolls on both sides chucking insults at each other.

Sorry Kev99 this smacks of the thought police.

I have to read day in day out comments that essentially state the F35 program should be left alone and "yes it's late and over budget but it's all ok" yet i can't make, albeit slightly brutal, points based on fact?
Sorry but i'm not accepting that.

As i hope you'll see from John Symons and my lastest offerings it is perfectly possible to have a civilised debate.

[snafu352]

Mercurius,

I like your point about the 20's and 30's RAF. Very well made.

The dismissal of comparison to prior programs when concerns were raised still stands and really invalidates any current explanation of issues by refering to past projects in my opinion.

[kev 99]

Sorry Kev99 this smacks of the thought police.

I have to read day in day out comments that essentially state the F35 program should be left alone and "yes it's late and over budget but it's all ok" yet i can't make, albeit slightly brutal, points based on fact?
Sorry but i'm not accepting that.

As i hope you'll see from John Symons and my lastest offerings it is perfectly possible to have a civilised debate.

I have never stated there is anything wrong with what you think about the F35 programme merely the way you (and others) have expressed them and how this has ruined any chance of a reasoned debate, therefore I find the suggestion that this in any way represents the 'thought police' is not relevant.

As for John Symons posts, he has responded in very level headed way considering some of the language you've thrown at him. I also note that you're reasoned reply only appeared after John put you in your place regarding the accusations over him and others of being an LM employee and of him questioning your motivations.

[Nicolas10]

If you ask me there is a very legitimate reason to have a beef at the JSF. In my opinion the hidden goal of the whole project was to suck up as much R&D money from the europeans as possible, and ultimately kill or at the very least damage their fighter industry. This for instance considerably slowed the development of the Typhoon wrt air to ground capabilities.

Nic

[kev 99]

If you ask me there is a very legitimate reason to have a beef at the JSF.

On this we can agree Nic, the programme has been a bit of a cluster**** from the start.

[snafu352]

I have never stated there is anything wrong with what you think about the F35 programme merely the way you (and others) have expressed them and how this has ruined any chance of a reasoned debate, therefore I find the suggestion that this in any way represents the 'thought police' is not relevant.

As for John Symons posts, he has responded in very level headed way considering some of the language you've thrown at him. I also note that you're reasoned reply only appeared after John put you in your place regarding the accusations over him and others of being an LM employee and of him questioning your motivations.

Kev, if you think the jibes re LM shares etc. were in any way an issue then it only goes to show that the main point of the comment has been missed.

The tone and comments from both John Symons and one other in particular is the catalyst that triggered those comments.

I certainly don't feel put in my place by anything John Symons, you or anybody else has posted.
In fact it is notable that due to my continually pushing the point(s) John Symons eventually did respond with a thoughtful , reasoned and logical post. My response was to that, as it would have been all along if the simple questions i asked had been taken as simple questions and not attacked alongside attacks on me.

When you've seen years of the unsubstanitated waffle coming from supposed F35 supporters it gets very wearing to encounter the same rubbish again and again, rubbish that has been demonstrated as such, often accompanied by a tone designed to provoke and irritate.
It certainly comes across as a tactic designed to stiffle any meaningful debate.
Thus those of us who may not share the view that all is good and no critical comment should be tolerated may have a tendancy to react less than positively when we see the same tired excuses being trotted out. There is also a suspicion that it is the same people trotting out the same tired excuses for their own gratificaition rather than a desire to discuss aviation.

[swerve]

Even if all of the Western European nations (UK, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway) cancel further orders (which is very unlikely) that’s only 450 units down from 3,300 commitments.

2458 US requirement, plus commitments or orders from Australia (ca 80), Canada (65), Israel (ca 20), Japan (ca 40), & Turkey (100). That's 2750 or so, not the 2850 implied by your 3300 - 450.

The USA, however, is now looking wobbly in terms of numbers, which could make a big difference to the total.

[John Symons]

Thanks John Symons.

My motivation is simply a strong dislike of unjustified and unrealistic claims.
It is interesting that you choose to initially focus on my motivations rather than address the questions.
Frankly my "motivations" are irrelevant.
Whether my thoughts have merit and are supported by reasoned logic and fact or indeed if they do not and my reasoning and or supporting evidence can be shown to be inaccuate is the important element.

The point i've have been making is not that the program is late and over budget that is indeed indisputable, it is the implications of that.
Perhaps i over simplified the point but this was simply to strip away the "noise" and achieve some focus on that which i consider the key point.

As an aside i'm disappointed to see my prediction concerning the little joke in a prior posting being at least partialy confirmed.

But my motivation was apparently? I'm the alleged L-M employee. I'm allegedly happy at my tax dollars being "wasted". I'm the alleged "cheerleader" whatever that vacuous statement is meant to mean?

Hopefully from here on in, we can all debate in a sensible way.

On the subject of the F35, taken at face value your reasoning makes a lot of sense. I would hope however that you would acknowledge that the hanging of all hopes on one aspect is rather a high risk approach.

If that was what I believed and if that was what the F-35's combat capability was predicated upon then that would be a fair point. But it isn't soley dependant on one aspect.

It has an advanced AESA radar.

It has an advanced EO/IR targetting system.

It has an advanced 360 degree IR tracking system

It uses the most capable weapons available to Western air forces.

It uses fighter level performance.

It has the ability to use high altitudes (unless you are seriously going to argue that 50k feet altitudes aren't high).

It has low observability in addition to that.

It has the capability to carry weapons internally and minimise it's drag and maximise it's signature reductions, or alternatively carry a larger more flexible weapon load with a mix of internally and externally carried weapons and it is one of perhaps (if the J-20 can actually be considered a fighter, a topic for somewhere else) only 4 fighter aircraft in the world, likely to be able to do so.

To address the points you make. At present there has been no comment from within the program on the subject of observability, that is correct and frankly to be expected. There was an intriging classified section of the OLR however which it is not unreasonable to surmise may well relate to the key classified aspect of the program, the observability. Note i am not claiming that it does, merely surmising that balance of probablities suggests it might.

On the contrary, there has been plenty of commentary, as far as security classification allows. It has been confirmed publicly by L-M, the JPO and the DOE&T people that F-35 is meeting and indeed even exceeding to some degree, it's LO requirements.

What there hasn't been is the sort of stuff that many clearly want to discuss, ie: a blanket statement from L-M or similar along the lines of "the signature management measures on the F-35 mean it can't be detected on radar beyond X klm's."

On the next point re the tactics of (for brevity) "stealth;" the key element that must be present to justify this opinion is an assumption that whilst "stealth" tactics may evolve, anti "stealth" tactics will always be playing catch up. I'm struggling to see any justification for that stance other than wishing to present the F35 as superior.

That assumption and observable history. In no operational environment have the LO measures on US military aircraft, failed to demonstrate clear operational advantages over aircraft that do not possess them.

This situation is little more than the arms and armour race played out in a different technological arena, but observable history has shown that overwhelming weight of success has been and remains with LO aircraft.

To claim that the F35 "will be more than good enough" performance wise is another assumption that is simply not supported by facts, particularly in the air to air scenario. Height and speed being critical for an air to air platform.

So Mach 1.6 and 50k feet altitudes is not high or fast enough for you?

Just like every other military aircraft, the F-35 will fly around subsonically the overwhelming majority of the time. When needed it will fly at the same sort of supersonic speeds as it's competitors. Dreams or marketers words of higher speeds than M1.6 don't happen in combat, except for specialised aircraft like the MiG-25 and so on. They of course have other problems. These sorts of speeds generally occur in peacetime when aircraft have the time, space and fuel load available to reach such high speeds.

I'm sure you don't believe the F-15C/D has too many performance shortfalls? The amount of time it has spent at speeds beyond Mach 1.4 in combat is measured in minutes, across the entire F-15 fleet.

I look at the F-35 not from a paper statistics point of view, but from the point of view of it being first and foremost a combat platform. I'm not trying to sound arrogant, I just like my history and it's a fact that the single most overwhelmingly dominant factor in air combat has been situational awareness. The "attack out of the sun" tactic wasn't devised for no reason.... Having it or not having it is the factor that has dominated most engagements.

I highly recommend "Air Warfare in the Missile Age" by Lon O. Nordeen. The 2002 edition in particular in relation to these matters.

Speed, acceleration, altitude, range, available fuel, weapons, sensors etc are all important attributes, it's just that SA is historically the most important.

I don't believe there is any other single aircraft that will provide a pilot better SA than the F-35 will deliver.

This leads to the fuel and range points, to achieve these the F35 simply does not have the performance of other platforms, thus we are back to the assumption that the performance will be adequate.

Again I disagree, but as flight test is not yet advanced enough to have proved this one way or the other, it's pointless us arguing it.

To claim that perfomance equal to the F16 and F18 is adequate is worrying as these are not the threats the oppostion will be fielding. The point of a new design is surely to exceed the performance of the now obsolete(?) predecesers.

If you believe that performance alone is the sole determinate of capability, I'm sure you believe that is the case.

Was the U-2 faster than the SR-71? Which aircraft is still used today?

Were the British Sea Harriers in the Falklands, better physical performers than the Mirage 3/V's they faced? Which aircraft proved superior in air to air combat there?

Hopefully you see the point here, pPhysical performance has never been the sole determinate of combat capability in any platform and it won't be in the next decade either.

But performance in this age does not simply concern the kinetic it relies heavily upon the sensors and systems i hear you cry. That is true.

I agree.

The claim that the sensors and systems of the F35 are to a significant extent more advanced than other sensors and systems is simply not true.
They are certainly not sufficiently in advance of such as SPECTRA and the Typhoon systems that the F35's lack of kinetic performance relative to these platforms is negated. There is little reason to assume that the Russians or Chinese, (or Japanese, or Korean?) are any further distanced and they are all flying prototypes or planning designs of platforms with greater performance than the F35.

So you know the performance of the AN/ASQ-239 do you? You can tell us exactly how inferior or superior it is to the SPECTRA or DASS EW systems can you?

Of course you can't. Even if you could, you wouldn't be posting the information here.

I am sure that eventually the F35 will be fielded and that it will have some good capability.

Once again we are in agreement.

The pertinent question is when does that capability provide the critical advantage that is required over the opposition?
If that date was the original IOC of 2010 or similar what is the worth of the dollars spent?

Every nation who has signed on to the F-35 has done so because they believe it represents the best aircraft to replace their existing fleets. In addition to that, they believe it will provide the best industrial benefits they can get and further to that the ability to leverage the US's second to none training and logistical stream, well funded upgrade path and overall interoperability benefits, provide a significant advantage to anyone who buys a US aircraft and the US are moving mostly into the F-35.

On top of that, it may even be comparatively cheap (if it's full rate production remains high) compared to most fighters on the market. The LRIP aircraft aren't particularly cheap, but then not even Lockheed Martin ever claimed they would be, nor can any reasonable person expect them to be. The relatively high price of Rafale and Typhoon would drop substantially if they were building 3000 of each of them too, as will be the case with F-35 should the commitment to that many aircraft remain in place.

However, not one of those perceived advantages in the F-35 project has changed because of the schedule delays or budget over-runs.

The industrial benefits may be pushed back, but as that is yet to happen no-one can say with authority what WILL happen, unless the entire project is cancelled and then one can say that NONE of those benefits exist.

As to it's capability against which future fighters? The J-10B? In the case of the PAK-FA and J-20, what capability do they provide? What contracts have been signed for them? Will they even go into production or will they go the way of the SU-47 or the MiG 1.44?

You seem quite happy to poo-poo the claims of L-M, yet take Sukhoi or Chengdu's claims on face value without a hint of question. They are all fronted by snake oil types afterall...

Rather unusual attitude isn't it?

On your last point, would you say that the F14 was a worse alternative to the F111B?
If your point is that cancellation is worse than eventually fielding an expensive, medicore platform then i would suggest that an examination of that is a very worthy subject for discourse.

No, but I would suggest that circumstances are not remotely similar. When the F-111b was cancelled, USN had a perfectly capable fighter (the F-4) well and truly capable of "carrying the load" so to speak, until the next generation fighter was ready and what's more it could do so at minimal additional cost.

That is not the case with the USAF's worn out F-15's, F-16's and the USN/USMC's worn out F/A-18A/B/C/D's that MUST be replaced in the majority in less than 10 years or so, not to mention the partner nations that are in the same boat. The US has also proved repeatedly that it cannot develop a clean sheet fighter design in under 20 years in the modern times and in the restricted budget environment we are now seeing, this development is even less likely to happen quickly.

For your apparently preferred alternative to work, the US would have to invest in a new fleet of F-15, F-16 and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, substantially update them along the lines of the Super Hornet International, F-16 Block 60 and F-15SE to make them reasonably capable in the meantime, invest enormously in standoff weapon capability, standoff EW jamming (because that advanced IADS and enemy fighter threat isn't going away, just because F-35 is going to be scratched) and probably some additional F-22A numbers.

AND on top of this design clean sheet future fighter aircraft capable of meeting the requirements of at least 2 of the 3 Services AND develop it by 2030 or so, unless you wish to see how an F-16 or a USN Super Hornet would fare in the 2030+ threat environment?

Somehow that doesn't strike me as cost effective in comparison to the F-35 plan, nor anywhere near as capable for the majority of that timeframe.

Your last is also an example of one of the reasons i started posting on F35 threads, all too often F35 proponents would make comments of that nature yet fail to provide any reasoning or evidence to support their assertations and then proceed to get rather hot under the collar when challenged on them.
Reference my dislike of unjustified and unrealistic claims.
Perhaps that goes some way to explain any venom you have detected.

Thankyou for the reasoned discourse.

Your welcome. Hopefully we can build from here. By the way, your favourite (I jest, I jest..) made a few statements about the tailhook issue today.



http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/0...issues-011712/

[mrmalaya]

And the issue for the foreign operators is what happens in the US in terms of timelines and aircraft surviving the chop, not whether they just cancel the orders.

I'm not clear if the discussion about Japan has proved so heated because the F-35 in the Asia-Pacific region is a big issue for a group of Australian contributors, or if the procurement was so one sided as to stir up the hornets nest again.....


From a UK perspective I find it particularly galling that we should choose to switch to the C (in part because it looked more secure) only to find it seriously flawed, potentially critically delayed and under threat.....

Although, having read the article above I wonder if those details reassured Philip Hammond enough for the time being?

[John Symons]

And the issue for the foreign operators is what happens in the US in terms of timelines and aircraft surviving the chop, not whether they just cancel the orders.

I'm not clear if the discussion about Japan has proved so heated because the F-35 in the Asia-Pacific region is a big issue for a group of Australian contributors, or if the procurement was so one sided as to stir up the hornets nest again.....


From a UK perspective I find it particularly galling that we should choose to switch to the C (in part because it looked more secure) only to find it seriously flawed, potentially critically delayed and under threat.....

Well the UK changed models because their initial choice appeared under threat and likely the most costly. Plus it allowed your current Government to defer expenditure on the project, shunting the bill off to some other Government down the track.

Seems to me like they tossed the coin and lost...

[kev 99]

Kev, if you think the jibes re LM shares etc. were in any way an issue then it only goes to show that the main point of the comment has been missed.

I doubt it, it wasn't exactly subtle.

The tone and comments from both John Symons and one other in particular is the catalyst that triggered those comments.

I certainly don't feel put in my place by anything John Symons, you or anybody else has posted.

Fine I only say things as I see then.

In fact it is notable that due to my continually pushing the point(s) John Symons eventually did respond with a thoughtful , reasoned and logical post. My response was to that, as it would have been all along if the simple questions i asked had been taken as simple questions and not attacked alongside attacks on me.

You're questions were loaded, we've already established that, why would anyone answer them when both you and he already know the answers? John was right it smacks of cheap point scoring.

Thus those of us who may not share the view that all is good and no critical comment should be tolerated may have a tendancy to react less than positively when we see the same tired excuses being trotted out. There is also a suspicion that it is the same people trotting out the same tired excuses for their own gratificaition rather than a desire to discuss aviation.

You could easily state the same thing about many of the detractors, same names across multiple forums, saying the same things over and over again.

I'll leave this tired debate now, after all I broke my own rule of "never get involved in an F35 thread" to do so and rather wish I hadn't.

[snafu352]

But my motivation was apparently? I'm the alleged L-M employee. I'm allegedly happy at my tax dollars being "wasted". I'm the alleged "cheerleader" whatever that vacuous statement is meant to mean?

Hopefully from here on in, we can all debate in a sensible way.

The original comment i made was regarding LM share holdings. The only time i mentioned employees of LM was clearly flagged as a jest.
If you must take umbridge please get the facts correct.
As for "cheerleader" that is not a allegation i have made to you during this conversation.

If that was what I believed and if that was what the F-35's combat capability was predicated upon then that would be a fair point. But it isn't soley dependant on one aspect.

It has an advanced AESA radar.

It has an advanced EO/IR targetting system.

It has an advanced 360 degree IR tracking system

It uses the most capable weapons available to Western air forces.

It uses fighter level performance.

It has the ability to use high altitudes (unless you are seriously going to argue that 50k feet altitudes aren't high).

It has low observability in addition to that.

It has an advanced AESA radar.
So does everything else by the time the F35 reaches service.

It has an advanced EO/IR targetting system.
So does everything else.

It has an advanced 360 degree IR tracking system
Short range defensive aid was the latest description of that.

It uses the most capable weapons available to Western air forces.
It does not carry meteor, mica, asraam and IRIS-T at this time, i would not describe amraam as the most capable.

It uses fighter level performance.
Of legacy fighters that are constantly being talked down by F35 proponents.

It has the ability to use high altitudes (unless you are seriously going to argue that 50k feet altitudes aren't high).
Yet the opposition still has an altitude advantage.

It has low observability in addition to that.
So will the oppostion.

On the contrary, there has been plenty of commentary, as far as security classification allows. It has been confirmed publicly by L-M, the JPO and the DOE&T people that F-35 is meeting and indeed even exceeding to some degree, it's LO requirements.

Would you be kind enough to direct me towards this literature?

Speed, acceleration, altitude, range, available fuel, weapons, sensors etc are all important attributes, it's just that SA is historically the most important.

I don't believe there is any other single aircraft that will provide a pilot better SA than the F-35 will deliver.

I agree with regard to SA. Having the performance to then do anything with the knowledge is rather important.

To make the statement that the F35 pilot will have better SA than emerging threats is rather too faith based then i'm prepared to risk.

So you know the performance of the AN/ASQ-239 do you? You can tell us exactly how inferior or superior it is to the SPECTRA or DASS EW systems can you?

Of course not, But neither do you. Statements claiming superiority are thus rather dubious.
I have merely stated that in contrast to LM marketing the capabilites claimed for the F35 sensor suite are neither unique or vastly superior to existing tech.

You seem quite happy to poo-poo the claims of L-M, yet take Sukhoi or Chengdu's claims on face value without a hint of question. They are all fronted by snake oil types afterall...

Rather unusual attitude isn't it?

If you wish to put words in my mouth, then yes.
However as that isn't my take on things then it can't be. This is called a strawman.
A major part of the problem with the debate is people making assumptions of this nature.

[Sens]

The only way to avoid technical risk is not to do anything technically risky. The glorious succession of silver-doped biplanes that entered RAF service in the 1920s and 1930s comes to mind. The Siskin begat the Gamecock, which in turn begat the Bulldog, which it its turn begat the Gauntlet. And as a result of all that development work, top speed increased from 126 kts to a dizzying 200 kts.

That was the typical path of evolution to come to the limits of a design. All that designs were influenced by the demands of WW1. The typical dogfight demanded agility = turning ability and sturdiness for some kind of energy-fight.
The mono-wing fighter with a high performances engine available from the 30s changed the basic design as well as the fighter tactics in need for that. Agility was sacrified for the gains in speed. The fighters operated in pairs and keep contact by radio. That design reached its limits in the 40s approaching the transonic range. In the 50s it was the supersonic range and in the 60s it was learned that there is no real combat behind Mach 1,5. From the 70s higher flight performance was surpassed by better carefree handling demands.
From the 80s the performances of the avionics and weapon-systems surpassed the flight performances. The F-35 is just a correction of the 90s, because it use fusion-technology to outsmart the brute-force designs by higher SA. Just the tree-service approach comes along with costly compromises. Something like the F-22/T-50/J-20 are still ideas from the 90s.

[SpudmanWP]

“It has an advanced AESA radar.”
So does everything else by the time the F35 reaches service.

The US benefits from having 2 manufactures that each have many years of multiple operational fighter AESA radars behind them. The -81 is also the only current AESA that does EA (with pulse-by-pulse cooperation with the ESM system) and high-bandwidth datalink.

“It has an advanced EO/IR targetting system.”
So does everything else.

The EOTS combines the traditional IRST and FLIR functions. Other fighters have two separate systems.

“It has an advanced 360 degree IR tracking system”
Short range defensive aid was the latest description of that.

If you consider WVR tracking of planes and AAMs/SAMs “short ranged”, ok. Most planes flying do not have a MAWS or use an active version (EF) that could give their position away. Nobody else currently offers the ability to engage a non-emitting target with a HOBS shot without a HMS.

“It uses the most capable weapons available to Western air forces.”
It does not carry meteor, mica, asraam and IRIS-T at this time, i would not describe amraam as the most capable.

Meteor and ASRAAM are in the works. When NGM (aka JDRDM) comes online, it will likely be better than anything else. Besides, mfgs can always create UAI drivers if they want to sell to F-35 customers.

“It uses fighter level performance.”
Of legacy fighters that are constantly being talked down by F35 proponents.

It’s the overall performance of 4th gen fighters that the F-35 surpasses. 4th gen maneuverability is good enough when combined with superior SA, avionics, and RCS. Remember that everything is a tradeoff. If you designed the F-35 will “airshow” quality maneuverability, then it would either have a smaller internal bay, less range, or be a lot more expensive.

“It has the ability to use high altitudes (unless you are seriously going to argue that 50k feet altitudes aren't high).”
Yet the opposition still has an altitude advantage.

The “opposition” would have to know where the F-35 is and be able to be procured in numbers to make a difference. Both are are not likely to happen.

“It has low observability in addition to that.”
So will the oppostion.

So you think that the US, with its decades of operational VLO experience, will be matched on the “opposition’s” first time at bat?

One more item to add that John forgot: LPI & LPD datalinks – The ability to communicate and share info WITHOUT giving your position away will be invaluable.

—Disclaimer—
I am not saying that nobody will ever match US systems or make similar stuff, just that as of now this is what the F-35 has.

[ELP]

, just that as of now this is what the F-35 has.

....With all the poor program management...has yet to prove. Funny is looking at one of the paper-thin weight margin charts and they mention EOTS. LOL

[SpudmanWP]

Most (if not all) of the avionics subsystems have been flying for years and are very stable.

While the margins are a bit thin (for my liking), what avionics (and what they do) the F-35 will have is pretty set.

[ELP]

Flying mission systems in a test-bed is great and good. However the massive amount of mission systems have to fly in a go to war config'd aircraft which currently has lots of thermal issues and other design problems to get over.

It isn't until later LRIPs that they start putting in the new computer hardware that will drive the software for final Block 3. And all that has to be tested too.

The work left to do is tremendous. I would be more OK with that if we didn't hear all the endless empty platitude over the years. On-track, is not on-schedule.

In the end, all this talent is going toward building the wrong aircraft. It is time to get all of that talent toward building the right aircraft. Or, the pain is going to get worse.

[Trident]

The US benefits from having 2 manufactures that each have many years of multiple operational fighter AESA radars behind them. The -81 is also the only current AESA that does EA (with pulse-by-pulse cooperation with the ESM system) and high-bandwidth datalink.

Europe has Selex and Thales, with at least Selex having some service experience with fighter-type AESAs. Russia has Tikhomirov and Phazotron. As has been pointed out many times, F-35 systems rather stretch the definition of "current" By that measure you'd have to accept at least the AESA version of the RBE-2 as service-ready too.

The EOTS combines the traditional IRST and FLIR functions. Other fighters have two separate systems.

Not true. As for all 4.5 generation fighters (with the possible exception of the Su-30MKI family), if it has an IRST in the first place, it also has a built-in imaging capability. PIRATE, AAS-42 (F-15SA/K/SG, perhaps SH in future), OSF, the Su-35S system - you name it. The only area where EOTS is unique (well, disregarding the Su-34) and likely to remain so is that it offers an internal laser designation capability for ground targets (probably the main reason why it's chin- rather than nose-mounted).

If you consider WVR tracking of planes and AAMs/SAMs “short ranged”, ok. Most planes flying do not have a MAWS or use an active version (EF) that could give their position away.

Define "most planes". Among those which do have a MAWS, the Typhoon is the odd one out - AFAIK the only other aircraft with an active solution is the British incarnation of the Harrier II (this was a predecessor of the Typhoon system). By the time the F-35 is actually operational the number of other platforms with MAWS will be substantial: Typhoon, Su-35S, Rafale, Gripen NG, Su-30MKM, F-15SG (not sure about that one, it has a non-standard EW-suite with a few extra apertures), possibly the Super Hornet. A fair few of the above mentioned examples already have a MAWS today and we haven't even mentioned the current Chinese fighters (JF-17, J-10B, J-11B), although they have only rear hemisphere coverage right now.

Nobody else currently offers the ability to engage a non-emitting target with a HOBS shot without a HMS.

Demonstrated by a pair of Rafales a few years ago with a data-link supported over-the-shoulder Mica shot - Rafale does not have a HMS (probably its biggest weakness at the moment). Gripen (and Typhoon, if Rafale's Link-16 is able to) could probably do the same but for the lack of a HOBS-capable missile with data link, although if AMRAAM qualifies on the F-35 I suppose it actually counts.

[SpudmanWP]

@ELP:

The hardware that is flying in in CATB is "go to war" IF there are not any serious issues found. For instance, the reported issues with the radar may (or may not) require a hardware tweak.

My point is that the avionics are not likely to lose a functionality that they have now. For example, the EOTS will not lose the ability to lase, EODAS will not lose the ability to track, and the cockpit displays will not lose the ability to display merged data.

Obviously there is a lot of testing to still do and new issues will be found (as it is with any SDD program). The true test of the program is did they budget enough room it program since the re-baseline to compensate for the new development & /tests.



@Trident:

Sorry that I did not clarify some things:

1. AESA - Besides their current projects, what history of operational fighter AESA do they have?

2. IRST/FLIR - I obviously meant FLIR including a laser designator for L-PGM usage. All the fighters you mentioned still need to add a FLIR pod (internal or external) in order to designate L-PGMs.

3. MAWS - IIRC The F-22 was the first US plane with MAWS (IR) built in. When you look at the relatively small amount of Rafales, EFs, etc that do have it, me saying that "most planes" do not have is factual. By 2020 it will still be factual.

4. HOBS shots - I was speaking of a self-designated shot as a data-linked shot still requires the target to be in "someone's" forward sector.