F-35 Fighters Are Grounded

[nrshida]

Name one.

Pierre Sprey.

[GScholz]

Lol, Pierre Sprey of Fighter Mafia fame?

Don't believe anything that man or his partner in BS Winslow Wheeler says.

I read Sprey’s essay on the F-22, and after that I'm never reading anything that man writes, ever. It fails to offer any proof and in fact, offers the same standard lies about the F-22 that I’ve already heard numerous times. Moreover, the essay reveals that Sprey is either completely ignorant about defense issues or, more likely, so biased against modern weapons that he’s blatantly lying to malign them while praising the F-16 fighter to the highest.

Why the F-16? Because Sprey, as a member of the Fighter Mafia, was one of the men behind that program and, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, he advocated its development and production. Sprey is, in short, the godfather of the F-16 as much as Harry Hillaker and John Boyd were. His love for his brainchild, the F-16, is obviously blinding him, leading him to malign better, more capable aircraft, including the F-22 and F-35.

[nrshida]

For everybody other than Mr. Scholz who is unswervingly worshipping in his appraisal (which is fine) here is the Nova documentary made in Holland (also on the list of buyers).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc

Well worth watching.

[icepac]

Same guys who lobbied so heavily that the F5 didn't get a chance to properly compete against the F16?

[nrshida]

Why the F-16? Because Sprey, as a member of the Fighter Mafia, was one of the men behind that program and, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, he advocated its development and production. Sprey is, in short, the godfather of the F-16 as much as Harry Hillaker and John Boyd were. His love for his brainchild, the F-16, is obviously blinding him, leading him to malign better, more capable aircraft, including the F-22 and F-35.

That's a big stretch and unsubstantiated. Instead of paying attention to an ad hominem attack, I suggest everyone just watches the documentary and listen to their points.

[nrshida]

Why the F-16? Because Sprey, as a member of the Fighter Mafia, was one of the men behind that program and, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, he advocated its development and production. Sprey is, in short, the godfather of the F-16 as much as Harry Hillaker and John Boyd were. His love for his brainchild, the F-16, is obviously blinding him, leading him to malign better, more capable aircraft, including the F-22 and F-35.

That's a big stretch and unsubstantiated. Instead of paying attention to an ad hominem attack, I suggest everyone just watches the documentary and listen to their points.

[GScholz]

Yes, well worth watching just to see how Wheeler's claims have little or no foundation in reality, how he's still mentally in the 1960's and '70s, and how he consistently fails to back up his opinions with anything.

[GScholz]

LOL! He actually claimed that when F-16 pilots get to fly the F-35 they will be horrified! That man is so completely full of sheit!

Yeah, let's ignore what the actual pilots say and listen to this sweethunk!

I'm not watching parts 2-5.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=96Kx6b7oKA8

[GScholz]

Imagine that... He's not horrified!

[Gman]

Win lose or draw with the F35 program, one thing that will drive me absolutely insane is that if they pull the plug on it say in the next year or so, after spending SO much on the development so far.

If this was to occur, it would remind me SO MUCH of the RAH66 Commanche program, where the US Army/Pentagon spent 9 Billion developing the thing, then cancelled the 6 billion dollar part of the program that actually would build them.  So, out of a 15 billion dollar program, they spent nearly 2/3 of the budget  to create it and make it work (by many accounts it worked incredibly well), then decided to not spend the smaller amount of the budget which would actually build and maintain them.  Like, what the h e-double hockey sticks?!

One thing I'll repeat is all the tech and stealth and ordinance carrying capacity aside, a HUGE, and I mean HUGE factor for export customers with smaller air forces, like ours in Canada, is the 50% greater internal fuel fraction the F35 has over current fighters like the F18 Legacy.  We don't have a huge tanker force, in fact I think Canada has 2 converted transports for our entire fighter force of about 85 upgraded Hornets, and 65 projected F35's should we buy them.  Simple things like this, which will result in far greater range and flexibility for F35 customers upgrading gen 4 and 4.5 fleets are a crucial point in favor of it.


I still have to wonder though, after reading a couple of books and papers from Barett Tillman, if small air forces like ours would be better served with larger numbers of lower tech, cheap, but still high performance planes like say the F20 Tigershark.  With the advances in engine tech since the F20 was new, it would be even higher performing, and it was already 1.1 or 1.2 thrust/weight back then.  Stick in a decent radar, or even a small AESA, forget the stealth stuff, and I think for our mission, which is primarily NORAD air defense missions and supporting NATO ops on occasion, we MAY be better off.  Tillman states that due to it's simplicity, the F20 or a similarly simple modern fighter would have sortie generation rates triple that of these modern wizzbang jets with all the stealth features and what not.  I'm not saying this is the way to go, just that I've enjoyed reading what air force experts have considered regarding this route.

Thanks for posting Beau, I always await your responses in the F35 thread, I for one appreciate the work you guys are doing, it must really suck in this age trying to keep positive with the media and every group that has a dog in the hunt either scrutinizing or bashing every single incident that occurs.  One thing that keeps me hopeful is something you always hint at, that we the public aren't cleared to get the whole picture of what's really happening with the F35.  I think that it's probably a lot like the special operations field, the only times the public hears anything is if it revolves around failure, the successes by design and requirement most often go unknown.

[bozon]

Let's see, one of those nations shot down an F-117 (another damaged), one F-16 (even made the movies), plus two A-10s and a couple of Mirages damaged...

So, 4 downed planes in two decades is something that requires a new and generation-leap of superior technology? Because it did not look like Norway/NATO was about to lose the air war. Do you think that the F-35 cannot be shot down? Note that I am not saying that there should not be a next generation strike plane, I am just saying that it needs to be a LOT simpler and practical than the F-35 elephant.

[GScholz]

The only thing that secured victory in Bosnia/Serbia was NATO's overwhelming air power. Norway cannot gamble on always having that advantage. The U.S. can afford to upkeep a multi-thousand fleet of combat aircraft. We have 50 old planes. We're buying 50 new planes to replace them. We want them to be the best we can get for our money.

Are you privy to the details of the F-35's complexity and practicality, or are you basing your opinion on what the media is feeding you?

[nrshida]

Honestly GScholz, when you just attack people personally without addressing their points then it does rather diminish your credibility and your position. Right now you look like a proper fanboi who won't tolerate an opinion which differs from your viewpoint. I don't know why you're so motivated to promote this aircraft, but you're not discussing, you're just dictating, and everyone should listen to you only  


Even if Sprey and Wheeler are raging, dribbling lunatics, so butthurt that their favourite aircraft are going to be replaced that they've gone full-on LACES OUT , let's just address a couple of their issues and see if they stand to reason:-


The stealth technology of the F-35 is of limited benefit and comes with penalties: The stealth is frontal aspect only, and nullified completely with external ord. And it's high maintenance we know the F-22s in service can be as bad as 35 hours per 1 hour of flight. This only gets worse as they age.

The aircraft isn't manoeuvrable enough to be a fighter: The roll rate is as good as the F-16 (and they seem to roll it an awful lot in the 'adverts'), the wing loading however is 103 lb/ft² with full fuel, no ord and as much as 150 lb/ft² fully loaded. And I'm talking about the 'A' here, the so-called 'hot fighter' variant, not the Navy one or the STOVL version both of which are heavier. There is no thrust vectoring and the sustained turn is limitted to 4.5G because of airframe limitations. Wouldn't be so bad if it could out climb everything but it can't do that either.

The aircraft is vulnerable and unsuitable for close-air-support: It has no fire suppression system, no armour, the fuel tanks envelop the engine. A single 12.7-mm in the wrong place, and there are plenty of wrong places, and you have an Aces High Zero in a heartbeat. Even the Talywhackerban can field such weapons on the back of a Toyota or concealed on the ground. You can't fulfill this role flying at 20k, where it's safe.

The BVR only approach is folly: Hasn't every conflict to date illustrated this? Do we have stealth missiles or smart missiles with IDFOF built in? How many missiles can the F-35 carry internally? How many fundamental changes have their been in the last three decades? Why does the F-35 carry a gun?


The F-16 was introduced in 1978, that's 35 years ago! Just accounting for the natural progression of technological development including materials, engine development and computing and the resources expended the F-35 should not be a small improvement, it should be spanking everything.

[beau32]

I have talked to the pilots and seen what they say about the F-35. One pilot flew F-16's, one flew the A-10, another flew the F -15E, and another the F-18. All have combat time in their respective planes. They all agree that the F-35is better than the others, hands down. And once they get fielded, will be a huge asset to the battlefield.


The f-35 does have fire suppression bottles, changed one out a few weeks ago......

[GScholz]

Honestly GScholz, when you just attack people personally without addressing their points then it does rather diminish your credibility and your position. Right now you look like a proper fanboi who won't tolerate an opinion which differs from your viewpoint. I don't know why you're so motivated to promote this aircraft, but you're not discussing, you're just dictating, and everyone should listen to you only.

Don't listen to me. Don't listen to the media talking heads. Listen to beau32. Listen to the pilots who fly the F-35. Listen to those involved in the project.

The stealth technology of the F-35 is of limited benefit and comes with penalties: The stealth is frontal aspect only, and nullified completely with external ord. And it's high maintenance we know the F-22s in service can be as bad as 35 hours per 1 hour of flight. This only gets worse as they age.

The F-35 has front focused stealth. The F-35 is said to have a small area of vulnerability from the rear because engineers reduced cost by not designing a radar blocker for the engine exhaust. From other angles the F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117.

The aircraft isn't manoeuvrable enough to be a fighter: The roll rate is as good as the F-16 (and they seem to roll it an awful lot in the 'adverts'), the wing loading however is 103 lb/ft² with full fuel, no ord and as much as 150 lb/ft² fully loaded. And I'm talking about the 'A' here, the so-called 'hot fighter' variant, not the Navy one or the STOVL version both of which are heavier. There is no thrust vectoring and the sustained turn is limitted to 4.5G because of airframe limitations. Wouldn't be so bad if it could out climb everything but it can't do that either.

The F-35A has better instantaneous and sustained turn rates than an F-16 carrying a war load. A clean F-16 in "air show mode" has a maximum sustained turn rate of 18 degrees per second. The F-35A carrying an A2A war load and full fuel has a sustained turn rate of 17 degrees per second. The F-35 has better acceleration and top speed than the F-16 carrying a war load, and that's with the F-35 carrying 3.5 times more internal fuel than the F-16. The F-16 is actually structurally limited to 4G's if carrying external fuel or bombs.

The aircraft is vulnerable and unsuitable for close-air-support: It has no fire suppression system, no armour, the fuel tanks envelop the engine. A single 12.7-mm in the wrong place, and there are plenty of wrong places, and you have an Aces High Zero in a heartbeat. Even the Talywhackerban can field such weapons on the back of a Toyota or concealed on the ground. You can't fulfill this role flying at 20k, where it's safe.

It has self sealing fuel tanks and an inerting system. If you don't know what that is, google it. Your Zero-analogy is completely ridiculous.

The BVR only approach is folly: Hasn't every conflict to date illustrated this? Do we have stealth missiles or smart missiles with IDFOF built in? How many missiles can the F-35 carry internally? How many fundamental changes have their been in the last three decades? Why does the F-35 carry a gun?

The F-35 can carry the AIM-9X Sidewinder and IRIS-T dogfight missiles. And, as you point out, it has a gun. This is one issue where Wheeler really shows how delusional he is, or more likely deliberately untruthful. The whole point of developing that fancy helmet is to guide those dogfight missiles.

BVR missile reliability is another issue where he is clearly delusional, and clearly still in Vietnam-mode. Since the late-'80s more than half the recorded U.S. A2A victories have been made with AIM-7 or AIM-120 BVR missiles. Since it entered service in 1992, 13 AMRAAMs have been fired in anger resulting in the destruction of 9 aircraft.

The F-16 was introduced in 1978, that's 35 years ago! Just accounting for the natural progression of technological development including materials, engine development and computing and the resources expended the F-35 should not be a small improvement, it should be spanking everything.

It is spanking everything, or rather it will be. All except the F-22 of course.