Author Topic: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded  (Read 6973 times)

Offline JunkyII

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8428
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #150 on: February 27, 2013, 11:32:43 AM »
I live in Wales Uk and seen F4 phantoms , Jaguars and Tornado GR1 flying below 100ft (Jaguars were probably 50ft ish  as I was on a fire road just above the valley floor looking DOWN on the Jags) 
In a war zone...A10 did about 20feet in country above my head.

No General will let a price tag like an F35 fly that low unless it's to save it.
DFC Member
Proud Member of Pigs on the Wing
"Yikes"

Offline B3YT

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #151 on: February 27, 2013, 11:35:01 AM »
Bet you were glad to see that A-10 . Thats pretty impressive I didn't mean it to try and go one better just saying that the RAF  let them go low . but are not suitable for every task.
As the cleaners say :"once more unto the bleach"

Offline Mace2004

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
      • TrackIR 4.0
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #152 on: February 27, 2013, 11:39:31 AM »
....what attributes would you like to see in such an aircraft besides your favouring twin engines? If you were in charge would you buy the F-35 (without being forced for lack of alternative, obviously)? All of the US carriers now and projected still have the catapult and arrestor cable features, correct?

My example I gave about airframe vs missiles turning was, as I said, extreme.  The reality is that you have to look at some kind of balance and that's the real question, do you favor maneuverability or weapon system? 

A fighter that can't turn will be a failure and, while a missile may be able to maneuver enough to shoot over your shoulder, shots on targets behind you will still be harder than those in front if only due to the energy expended by the missile just to turn the initial 180 degrees.  Fighters will still need to turn well to defeat enemy missiles fired at them, to enhance the probability that their own missile will kill, to maneuver into the proper position for an air-to-ground weapon delivery, or as a last ditch option when out of missiles or for that inevitable "unobserved entry" of an adversary.  For CAS, the larger your turn radius, the harder it is to keep a target in sight. 

So, how much maneuverability is enough?  Well, with the exception of post stall maneuvers, manned aircraft are pretty darn close to the edge of the performance envelope that a man can survive.  It's not like AH where you can sit there turning high G turns forever, G's are exhausting and there's only so much a man can do.  You can build an airplane that can turn 40 degrees per second (missiles will do this already) but can a man survive the G's?  Nope.  On the other side of the maneuvering spectrum much is made about post-stall maneuvering, cobra maneuvers, and the like but what is the real tactical utility of slow speed maneuvers like this?

During every turn around training cycle we participated in the Fleet Fighter ACM Readiness Program (FFARP) which was about a month strictly focused on air-to-air combat.  On the last FFARP I participated in the sections and divisions I led scored an 18 to 1 kill ratio and that was because I never let any of my guys drop anchor to turn with an adversary.  We detected, sorted, and fired missiles in the face and then blew through to the next group leaving any survivors wondering what happened.  Our best single sortie kill ratio was a strike escort as a 2-plane.  My wingman and I killed all eight bandits.  We never turned more than 45 degrees to engage an enemy so, who cares that the F-16N's we were fighting could out turn us?  I lost one wingman the entire FFARP.  My normal wingman was sick so I had a guy from another division with me and, surprise surprise, he dropped anchor at the very first merge and was nailed before I could turn around to help.  So, personally, I think that post-stall maneuvering is a bunch of hooey.  I've always said let some adversary slow down enough to do one of his fancy post-stall maneuvers and I'd just pop him with an AIM-9 and move on.  Remember that scene out of Indiana Jones where the bad guy whips out a sword and does about 10 seconds of really really scary moves with it and Indiana just pulls out a pistol and shoots him?  That's what I'm talking about. 

So, those guys that think that the F-35 is overly compromised because it doesn't have twice the F-16's turn rate or thrust vectoring may want to rethink that.  I don't know if they've achieved the right balance between aircraft vs weapon system capability but then none of us have access to the plane's true weapon system capabilities.  There are reasons such things are classified. 

But, to answer your question, "would I buy the F-35 or another plane?"  If there were a similar airplane that had two engines I'd go with the two engines but there isn't.  I know that this plane competed with Boeing's plane and this one won so it's not like the military put all of its marbles in one sock from the start.  I have to admit I'm darned glad that Boeing didn't win, its plane was hidious and everyone knows, a good looking airplane is a better airplane (same theory applies to a newly washed car, it always drives better when clean).  Would I want a plane that's faster? Turns better? Carries more?  Goes farther? Is invisible?  Sure I'd want that AND dozens of missiles that can kill anything within a 10 miles radius of me but somewhere reality has to be considered.  Actually, my biggest concern about the plane is its speed and acceleration.  "Speed is life" has always been a fighter maxim and it concerns me that the plane appears to be slower with less acceleration than originally intended.  On the other hand, engine improvements are always happening and the airplane can be easily re-engined with more capable engines in the future so that's not a killer for me.  Overall, from what I know about the F-35 and accepting that none of us know the true capabilities of the weapon system I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say yes, I think I'd be comfortable with it.
Mace
Golden Gryphon Guild Mercenary Force G3-MF

                                                                                          

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #153 on: February 27, 2013, 11:55:02 AM »
GSholz, I don't want this to sound insulting or anything, but 50 planes, which is two squadrons is nothing more than national pride. It is enough for a token participation in the attack of insignificant European countries, or 3rd world countries that are geographically incapable of a direct conflict. They will have very little impact on a full scale ground war.

I think you're mindset is too much focused on the way a super power fights... Norway's defense is based on a collective defense with our NATO allies. During the dark years of the Cold War we could muster an army half a million strong... It was designed to last three days. We could buy our allies three days to mobilize and come to our aid. Our air force would be gone on day one, but their mission would be to take out key targets on day one, slowing the Soviet advance. After day three we would only have "stay behind" forces left; guerrilla forces (terrorists lol) using hidden caches of arms and explosives to terrorize the occupying force.

Today Russia is no longer the threat it was. Our armed forces are now more focused on international NATO operations. Yes, 50 planes isn't much by themselves, but again we're talking about a collective effort with other NATO countries. Collectively the countries of Europe can muster more than 3000 modern combat aircraft.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline nrshida

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8576
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #154 on: February 27, 2013, 12:01:36 PM »
We detected, sorted, and fired missiles in the face and then blew through to the next group

HOtard!  :old:

 :lol No I'm joking. That's a very useful insight, thank you for sharing your experience.

I find it very interesting what you say about thrust vectoring. Just to play fantasy aircraft league for a moment might it have been less risky to select the Northrop YF-23 and develop it for both the Navy and Air Force (there is precedent for this) and then pursue an alternate and dedicated solution for the close air support role. The 23 was more stealthy and faster that the 22, and arguable less complex (no thrust vectoring for starters)?

Your comment about the Boeing touches on a very provocative aspect of design relating to form and function, although this does not always hold. I think Boeing's design was underdeveloped but had some interesting features most especially the single composite wing and rear nozzle.


I'd also like to distance myself from earlier disparaging comments about Norway. I think it's a fine country and A-ha is one of my favourite bands.  :old:

"If man were meant to fly, he'd have been given an MS Sidewinder"

Offline Mace2004

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
      • TrackIR 4.0
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #155 on: February 27, 2013, 12:22:12 PM »
HOtard!  :old:

 :lol No I'm joking. That's a very useful insight, thank you for sharing your experience.

I find it very interesting what you say about thrust vectoring. Just to play fantasy aircraft league for a moment might it have been less risky to select the Northrop YF-23 and develop it for both the Navy and Air Force (there is precedent for this) and then pursue an alternate and dedicated solution for the close air support role. The 23 was more stealthy and faster that the 22, and arguable less complex (no thrust vectoring for starters)?

Your comment about the Boeing touches on a very provocative aspect of design relating to form and function, although this does not always hold. I think Boeing's design was underdeveloped but had some interesting features most especially the single composite wing and rear nozzle.


I'd also like to distance myself from earlier disparaging comments about Norway. I think it's a fine country and A-ha is one of my favourite bands.  :old:


I don't suppose you ever heard of the NATF?  That was to be the Navy's version of the F-22.  I saw little about it at the time but we did get to review the cockpit design.  It had a swing wing.  If you really look at the F-22 you can see how this would have been an easily adaptable design for variable geometry.  At first you have to wonder why this wouldn't be an option but it's not air-to-ground so wouldn't really answer all the mission requirements and I doubt it could be procured cheaper than the F-35.
Mace
Golden Gryphon Guild Mercenary Force G3-MF

                                                                                          

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #156 on: February 27, 2013, 12:22:59 PM »
In a war zone...A10 did about 20feet in country above my head.

No General will let a price tag like an F35 fly that low unless it's to save it.

The USAF may set minimum altitude on their jets. I also hear your guys don't get to train much on low level flying?

Of the 72 F-16 we bought in the early '80s, about 20 are now smeared up one mountainside or another. We fly them low and fast and we train accordingly, accepting the training casualties. Flying high is a luxury only a superpower with total air dominance can afford.

Most if not all European air forces fly low and fast.

Typical training flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6nTLWIl-Vj0#t=9s
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #157 on: February 27, 2013, 12:32:28 PM »
 :aok

My example I gave about airframe vs missiles turning was, as I said, extreme.  The reality is that you have to look at some kind of balance and that's the real question, do you favor maneuverability or weapon system? 

A fighter that can't turn will be a failure and, while a missile may be able to maneuver enough to shoot over your shoulder, shots on targets behind you will still be harder than those in front if only due to the energy expended by the missile just to turn the initial 180 degrees.  Fighters will still need to turn well to defeat enemy missiles fired at them, to enhance the probability that their own missile will kill, to maneuver into the proper position for an air-to-ground weapon delivery, or as a last ditch option when out of missiles or for that inevitable "unobserved entry" of an adversary.  For CAS, the larger your turn radius, the harder it is to keep a target in sight. 

So, how much maneuverability is enough?  Well, with the exception of post stall maneuvers, manned aircraft are pretty darn close to the edge of the performance envelope that a man can survive.  It's not like AH where you can sit there turning high G turns forever, G's are exhausting and there's only so much a man can do.  You can build an airplane that can turn 40 degrees per second (missiles will do this already) but can a man survive the G's?  Nope.  On the other side of the maneuvering spectrum much is made about post-stall maneuvering, cobra maneuvers, and the like but what is the real tactical utility of slow speed maneuvers like this?

During every turn around training cycle we participated in the Fleet Fighter ACM Readiness Program (FFARP) which was about a month strictly focused on air-to-air combat.  On the last FFARP I participated in the sections and divisions I led scored an 18 to 1 kill ratio and that was because I never let any of my guys drop anchor to turn with an adversary.  We detected, sorted, and fired missiles in the face and then blew through to the next group leaving any survivors wondering what happened.  Our best single sortie kill ratio was a strike escort as a 2-plane.  My wingman and I killed all eight bandits.  We never turned more than 45 degrees to engage an enemy so, who cares that the F-16N's we were fighting could out turn us?  I lost one wingman the entire FFARP.  My normal wingman was sick so I had a guy from another division with me and, surprise surprise, he dropped anchor at the very first merge and was nailed before I could turn around to help.  So, personally, I think that post-stall maneuvering is a bunch of hooey.  I've always said let some adversary slow down enough to do one of his fancy post-stall maneuvers and I'd just pop him with an AIM-9 and move on.  Remember that scene out of Indiana Jones where the bad guy whips out a sword and does about 10 seconds of really really scary moves with it and Indiana just pulls out a pistol and shoots him?  That's what I'm talking about. 

So, those guys that think that the F-35 is overly compromised because it doesn't have twice the F-16's turn rate or thrust vectoring may want to rethink that.  I don't know if they've achieved the right balance between aircraft vs weapon system capability but then none of us have access to the plane's true weapon system capabilities.  There are reasons such things are classified. 

But, to answer your question, "would I buy the F-35 or another plane?"  If there were a similar airplane that had two engines I'd go with the two engines but there isn't.  I know that this plane competed with Boeing's plane and this one won so it's not like the military put all of its marbles in one sock from the start.  I have to admit I'm darned glad that Boeing didn't win, its plane was hidious and everyone knows, a good looking airplane is a better airplane (same theory applies to a newly washed car, it always drives better when clean).  Would I want a plane that's faster? Turns better? Carries more?  Goes farther? Is invisible?  Sure I'd want that AND dozens of missiles that can kill anything within a 10 miles radius of me but somewhere reality has to be considered.  Actually, my biggest concern about the plane is its speed and acceleration.  "Speed is life" has always been a fighter maxim and it concerns me that the plane appears to be slower with less acceleration than originally intended.  On the other hand, engine improvements are always happening and the airplane can be easily re-engined with more capable engines in the future so that's not a killer for me.  Overall, from what I know about the F-35 and accepting that none of us know the true capabilities of the weapon system I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say yes, I think I'd be comfortable with it.

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline JunkyII

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8428
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #158 on: February 27, 2013, 01:08:28 PM »
Again...Not talking about Training....talking combat....

Please tell me a fight where we won't have air superiority?

No third world nation which is where we will most likely be fighting.
DFC Member
Proud Member of Pigs on the Wing
"Yikes"

Offline BaDkaRmA158Th

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2542
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #159 on: February 27, 2013, 01:50:29 PM »
I love reading your well typed and thought out post's mace. Highly agreed.  :aok


I woulda just said..

Is it super man? no. But it's batman...and he will have to do.
~383Rd RTC/CH BW/AG~
BaDfaRmA

My signature says "Our commitment to diplomacy will never inhibit our willingness to kick a$s."

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #160 on: February 27, 2013, 02:25:47 PM »
Again...Not talking about Training....talking combat....

Please tell me a fight where we won't have air superiority?

No third world nation which is where we will most likely be fighting.

This is most likely what we'll be doing in 3rd-world countries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVJOOjUlGek
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Plawranc

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2683
      • Youtube Channel
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #161 on: February 27, 2013, 04:02:57 PM »
Mace and Eagle..

Real fighter pilots.

If they say something, they know what they are talking about.

 :salute
DaPacman - 71 Squadron RAF

"There are only two things that make life worth living. Fornication and Aviation"

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #162 on: February 27, 2013, 04:13:46 PM »
 :aok

Mace and Eagle..

Real fighter pilots.

If they say something, they know what they are talking about.

 :salute
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #163 on: February 27, 2013, 08:54:30 PM »
It seems to me that most non-US players critiquing the F-35 need to remember that the plane was designed for America first and foremost. The US operates with de facto air supremacy, a colossal number of aircraft,  given the price tag,  and simply staggering capacity for support and maintenance.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Fish42

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
Re: F-35 Fighters Are Grounded
« Reply #164 on: February 27, 2013, 09:22:54 PM »
It seems to me that most non-US players critiquing the F-35 need to remember that the plane was designed for America first and foremost. The US operates with de facto air supremacy, a colossal number of aircraft,  given the price tag,  and simply staggering capacity for support and maintenance.

This plane from the very early stages was marketed to Non-US clients. LM knew they needed to sell a lot of them to make it cheaper.

They sold this plane on specs and pricing that it is no longer able to be obtained. The specs have been lowed quite a number of times so that it would "meet" those specs. The testing has taken much longer then planed.

The Australian Government who signed into the deal in mid 2001, for 100 Aircraft, has been forced to spend more money buying F/A-18 Super hornets as the F-111s retired without their replacement being ready.

I hope this plane turns out to be good/great because the RAAF needs new fighter/attack aircraft.

I liked the F-35 when I first heard about it...