General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: GScholz on November 16, 2016, 09:27:05 AM
Title: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: GScholz on November 16, 2016, 09:27:05 AM
Lt. Col. David “Chip” Berke, USMC, former F-22 and F-35B pilot now the Force Management Branch Chief on the Joint Staff J-8, and Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn, USAF, the commander of the 33rd Operational Support Squadron at Eglin AFB, Fla., discuss the capabilities of the F-35.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: pipz on November 24, 2016, 02:11:00 PM
Very informative insight. Thanks for posting GScholz.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: artik on November 24, 2016, 02:52:00 PM
To be honest it is very interesting... but also tells something disturbing.
If the single and most important factor is avionics... Why we can't take any existing 4+ gen fighter and put all avionics there (sensor fusion) + some good ECM and we get the most important/unique F-35 advantage but with a fraction of cost.
Virtually all aircraft pass though avionics upgrades during their life time. So why it can't we get all these great concepts into so called legacy fighters. Finally software and sensors are easy/cheap to upgrade.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: GScholz on November 24, 2016, 03:18:28 PM
"but with a fraction of cost" - Most of the delays and cost overruns with the A-model have been with the sensor fusion system. LM must recoup their development costs no matter what plane you put the systems in.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Krusty on November 25, 2016, 03:33:59 PM
To be honest it is very interesting... but also tells something disturbing.
If the single and most important factor is avionics... Why we can't take any existing 4+ gen fighter and put all avionics there (sensor fusion) + some good ECM and we get the most important/unique F-35 advantage but with a fraction of cost.
Virtually all aircraft pass though avionics upgrades during their life time. So why it can't we get all these great concepts into so called legacy fighters. Finally software and sensors are easy/cheap to upgrade.
For the same reason you can't upgrade your Commodore 64 to run Oculus Rift. It was great for its time, but every last bit of it, from size, to cooling (a major factor) to cpu processing power, to sensor integration (running wires internally and shieling them against external frequencies and EM to multiple dozens of sensor points all over the airframe) and then having the proper G-resistance mounting points, the proper shock resistances or shock absorption required to land and take off repeatedly.
What you suggest is an impossible task. F-16s are end of their practical development, for example, mostly because their avionics cannot be expanded beyond the current long-spine version. They just don't have the power generation, cooling, space, or integration capabilities. This is all built into an airframe from the start, or built in with the proper room/capabilities to include it in the future. Existing airframes currently are from the 1970s in nature. The computer technology and science of air combat has exponentially evolved since then. It's like trying to plug a Cray super computer into a D battery. Some things just don't work with other things.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Randall172 on December 23, 2016, 09:13:31 AM
its funny how my thread was shut down right away but this one keeps chugging along
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: bustr on December 23, 2016, 01:48:13 PM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: TequilaChaser on December 23, 2016, 03:24:51 PM
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Zimme83 on December 23, 2016, 06:49:23 PM
No one knows...
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: mthrockmor on December 23, 2016, 06:58:26 PM
A model of the F-15 was built, tested then dumped called the F-15SE (Silent Eagle.) It basically did what artik suggested, which was take the basic F-15 frame, strip it down to the bones and rebuild it with ultra modern avionics, etc and then handle some surfaces with radar absorbent design/material. It seemed to do much of what artik suggested, at a much smaller cost than the F-22. It was dumped. From a political point of view the SE variant has less umph than the F-22.
If the F-35 is all avionics there is no reason those could not be built into another bird. The F-35 is a platform, what they are describing is the data bus, link and system.
boo
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: oakranger on December 23, 2016, 09:12:43 PM
A model of the F-15 was built, tested then dumped called the F-15SE (Silent Eagle.) It basically did what artik suggested, which was take the basic F-15 frame, strip it down to the bones and rebuild it with ultra modern avionics, etc and then handle some surfaces with radar absorbent design/material. It seemed to do much of what artik suggested, at a much smaller cost than the F-22. It was dumped. From a political point of view the SE variant has less umph than the F-22.
If the F-35 is all avionics there is no reason those could not be built into another bird. The F-35 is a platform, what they are describing is the data bus, link and system.
boo
F-15SA. FBW. More payload. Being delivered to Saudi. I expect to see some built for the USAF.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on December 24, 2016, 11:46:51 AM
From page 55, “In August, an F-35 OT pilot from Edwards AFB, California, briefed the results of an OT community assessment of F-35 mission capability with Block 3FR5.03, based on observing developmental flight test missions and results to date. This OT assessment rated all IOT&E mission areas as “red,” including CAS, SEAD/DEAD, Offensive Counter Air (OCA) and Defensive Counter Air (DCA), AI, and Surface Warfare (SuW). Several DT Integrated Product Team representatives also briefed the status of different F-35 mission systems capabilities, most of which were rated “red,” and not meeting the entrance criteria to enter the “graduation level” mission effectiveness testing.” This is an F-35 pilot saying that the F-35 is hopeless at everything. (Note by Picard578: In missions such as CAS which require specialized skillset and aircraft design, even achieving full capability will still leave F-35 incapable of adequately performing the mission).
On page 56 the Block Buy is discussed. What is strange is the language which talks in terms of percentages of the Economic Order Quantity instead of stating the actual numbers of aircraft. The Block Buy is an attempt to forestall abandonment of the program by locking the USAF and foreign buyers into taking 452 aircraft before the program is abandoned. Lockheed Martin is aware that the foreign partners are only contracted for 30 aircraft. The lure is supposed savings by buying in bulk. Now what is not mentioned in the 2016 DOT&E report is the number of hours to build an F-35 of 70,000. This had flatlined in the 2015 report and thus no further decreases in the build cost could be expected. The 2016 DOT&E report also did not mention the rework rate which is the percentage of build hours spent fixing components that had been damaged during installation. The F-35 is packed tighter than a head of cabbage. The rework rate had also flatlined at 14% so no further improvement could be expected. Therefore the build cost will remain at about $130 million and not fall to the $80 million promised for the Block Buy. (Note by Picard578: $130 is most likely price for F-35A only, other versions would be more expensive).
From page 60, “Limitations to the carriage and employment envelope of the AIM-120 missile above 550 knots may be required due to excessive vibrations on the missiles and bombs in the weapons bay. Analyses of flight test data and ground vibration test data are ongoing (this applies to all variants).” With only two air-to-air missiles, the F-35 is effectively unarmed. Now it seems that, ten years after the first production aircraft came off the line, that the shaping of the bomb bay means that there is excessive vibration if the aircraft comes close to a high subsonic speed where it would normally be operating. (Note by Picard578: This also means that the F-35 cannot use supersonic speed and altitude increase that comes with it when launching missiles. As a result, missile launched from F-35 will have significantly less energy, and thus range, than a missile of the same type launched from other fighter).
From page 61, “All F-35 variants display objectionable or unacceptable flying qualities at transonic speeds, where aerodynamicforces on the aircraft are rapidly changing. Particularly, under elevated “g” conditions, when wing loading causes the effects to be more pronounced, pilots have reported the flying qualities as “unacceptable.” So as well as not being able to carry bombs and missiles at high subsonic speeds, the F-35 doesn’t handle the transonic part well either.
From page 69, “Many pilots assess and report that the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) on the F-35 is inferior to those currently on legacy systems, in terms of providing the pilot with an ability to discern target features and identify targets at tactically useful ranges, along with maintaining target identification and laser designation throughout the attack. Environmental effects, such as high humidity, often forced pilots to fly closer to the target than desired in order to discern target features and then engage for weapon employment, much closer than needed with legacy systems, potentially alerting the enemy, exposing the F-35 to threats around the target area or requiring delays to regain adequate spacing to set up an attack.” The F-35 was designed primarily as a ground attack aircraft and is not as good at doing that as the aircraft it would replace. (Note by Picard578: EOTS is a midwave IR system designed specifically for ground attack. Fact that legacy systems outperform it in its designed mission so comprehensively means that situation in air combat will be far worse). Also from page 69, “Compared to a legacy fighter with multiple weapons on racks, and multiple weapons types per aircraft, the limited load of two bombs means that only a limited number and type of targets can be effectively attacked.” Confirmation that the F-35 is not cost-effective. (Note by Picard578: This can be worked around by carrying external weapons, but as Block 3F testing revealed, even this has resulted in F-35 being “red” in capability).
From page 72, “If used in combat, F-35 aircraft will need support to locate and avoid modern threat ground radars, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft, due to unresolved performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs and two air-to-air missiles).” Finding ground radars was the one thing that the F-35 was supposed to be good at, but now it needs help to do that? (Note by Picard578: This means that the F-35 will be limited by “legacy” fighter support, preventing it from attacking targets deep in defended territory.)
From page 83, “Aircraft fleet-wide availability averaged 52 percent for 12 months ending October 2016, compared to the modest goal of 60 percent. It is important to note that the expected combat sortie rates will require significantly greater availability than 60 percent; therefore, if the F-35 is to replace legacy aircraft for combat taskings, availability will likely need to improve to near 80 percent.” (Note by Picard578: These availability rates are in line with availability rates of other stealth aircraft, F-22 in particular. It is therefore unrealistic to expect F-35 availability rates to go above 60 percent).
Also from page 83, “reliability metrics related to critical failures have decreased over the past year. This decrease in reliability correlates with the simultaneously observed decline in the Fully Mission Capable (FMC) rate for all variants, which measures the percentage of aircraft not in depot status that are able to fly all defined F-35 missions. The fleet-wide FMC rate peaked in December 2014 at 62 percent and has fallen steadily since then to 21 percent in October 2016.” So reliability has gone backwards and only one in five F-35s at a time might be able to fly a combat mission.
Lockheed has to be incentivised to perform. From page 84, “the program has implemented a Performance Based Logistics (PBL) construct with Lockheed Martin that ties contract incentive awards to a slightly different set of tailored fleet performance targets.” (Note by Picard578: All contractors have to be incentivised to perform, this is not only the case with Lockheed).
From page 87, “For the 12-month period ending in October 2016, the monthly cannibalization rate averaged 9.8 cannibalization actions for every 100 sorties against a program goal of no more than 8 actions for every 100 sorties.” This is absolutely bizarre for an aircraft in development, particularly for an aircraft which is so difficult to work in.
From the table on page 89, reliability is only at 45% of the required 20 hours between failures and won’t improve enough to meet the contract specification.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Krusty on January 25, 2017, 03:31:07 PM
Not to be a downer, or a fanboi, or anything... but... The 2016 DOTE statements by Michael Gilmore? He's been an obstructionist for the F-35 program (either directly or indirectly) and has prevented workarounds to reduce the cost and reduce time spent on several major occasions. He has a bit of a biased agenda IMO. He's imposed lame-duck requirements and side-by-side testing with the A-10 to prove which is better (a delay tactic to waste more time) to further delay and hinder the entire project. Flight tests are up, weapons tests are slightly behind schedule, there are some teething problems with the heat in the bays, etc, but the wing brackets have been already fixed and introduced to the production lines and the faulty insulation in the bays is known and being worked on.
The report is dated 2016 but as I read through the laundry list of problems, most of the comments are citing events on the FIRST and most heavily-stressed airframes in the fleet, and citing incidents from 2010, 2013, 2014, and so forth. You realize it's 2017. I do. Gilmore doesn't. The program today isn't even comparable to the program in 2010. Citing problems from the first airframe that have already been fixed isn't an objective summary.
The other more objective reports state that the latest batch have dropped the price an additional 5.5% per airframe, and as more and more pilots are getting exposure to the airframes in real situations, they love and love the plane above and beyond any 4th gen in the skies. I don't mean to use such blanket statements, but it's an almost universal pattern I'm seeing on every article, recently. None of the complaints in that DOTE report show up in any other articles or interviews.
Another article: Pilots' moments when they realized the F-35 was something extraordinary:
The Marines are writing the CAS Manual for the F-35. How are you finding the F-35 in that role compared to what you have now?
Price: In the CAS role it is performing well. Being a new aircraft there are some capabilities we’d like to continue working on, but the basic execution of CAS is “On Time, On Target.”
The jet is more than capable to execute that.
The unique capability it brings is executing CAS in the presence of a wide range of threats (something I could not do with previous platform).
Can you give me an example?
Traditionally (Gen 4) if we are executing CAS and a medium range surface to air missile (SAM) pops up on the battlefield, we are done with CAS.
We immediately transition into a SEAD, destruction of enemy air defense (DEAD), or reactive SEAD mindset. With the F-35, we may continue to execute CAS because of freedom of maneuver (stealth) and the SA I have about the threat, its location and its nature.
I may advise the forward air controller (FAC) that a threat has appeared, but it won’t impact mission execution. If the situation gets more threatening, I have the organic capability to go deal with the threat and then roll right back into CAS. Previously I would have to call in another platform, potentially call in our Prowlers or call in other combined arms to take care of the threat.
and
Quote
BC: I was conducting a strike mission and Red Air was coming at me. In a 4th Gen fighter you must do a whole lot of interpretation. You see things in azimuth, and you see things in elevation. In the F-35 you just see the Gods eye view of the whole world. It’s very much like you are watching the briefing in real time.
I am coming in to perform the simulated weapons release, and Red Air is coming the other direction.
I have enough situational awareness to assess whether Red Air is going to be a factor to me by the time I release the weapon. I can make the decision, I’m going to go to the target, I’m going to release this weapon.
At the same time I pre-target the threat, and as soon as I release the A2G weapon, I can flip a switch with my thumb and shoot the Red Air.
This is difficult to do in a 4th Gen fighter, because there is so much manipulation of systems in the cockpit.
All while paying attention to the basic mechanics of flying the airplane and interpreting threat warnings that are often very vague, or only directional.
In the F-35 I know where the threats are, what they are and I can thread the needle. I can tell that the adversary is out in front of me and I can make a very, very smart decision about whether to continue or get out of there. All that, and I can very easily switch between mission sets.
Mo: I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s.
We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out.
All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died. I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Ack-Ack on January 25, 2017, 04:41:50 PM
Used to watch the Top Gun agressor USN F-16Ns fly out of Miramar on their way out to over the ocean from my dad's office in La Jolla. It was cool seeing A4's and the F-16Ns flying in formation with their red little stars on the tails.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on January 26, 2017, 08:21:49 PM
Used to watch the Top Gun agressor USN F-16Ns fly out of Miramar on their way out to over the ocean from my dad's office in La Jolla. It was cool seeing A4's and the F-16Ns flying in formation with their red little stars on the tails.
Pretty cool.
I read an article by a TOP GUN Instructor about the N. It was quite the hot rod.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on January 28, 2017, 03:43:20 PM
I JUST RECENTLY read an article by a TOP GUN Instructor about the N. It was quite the hot rod.
Fixed it.
A little coincidence was what I meant to point out.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Squire on January 28, 2017, 10:07:03 PM
Well it's an official report not somebody's internet website. As far as the motivations of the authors out there? cripes man...I can't possibly know. Anyways it's posted for info.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on January 29, 2017, 12:17:12 AM
Well it's an official report not somebody's internet website. As far as the motivations of the authors out there? cripes man...I can't possibly know. Anyways it's posted for info.
The DOTE's job is to tell it like it is.
God bless the guy for having the stones to do so.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Rich46yo on January 29, 2017, 03:15:21 PM
How stealthy could you possibly make a F15 version? Possibly the most unstealthy, along with the SU's, design ever made. Yeah you can coat it, rebend some edges, maybe reduce the frontal RCS, carriage the weapons, and yeah you can re sensor the design. But you still have those two huge tails and two big engines and the detection threat is just getting stronger with every passing year. It was never an option for USAF, who wanted nothing to do with it, but was pointed at the export market instead.
When a country invests in a fighter/bomber they not only buy the plane but spend a ton on the infrastructure to fly, fight, and maintain it. Everything from pilot training to nuts and bolts, weapons, simulators, all kinds of stuff.
Im a little surprised this silent Eagle thing didnt get off the ground. Yes it was very expensive but the countries on the possible list for it all have cash or, like Israel, get stuff free from us, or steal it. The rest of the "possibles" Saudi , Singapore, Japan, South Korea, all have a lot invested in F15 and can afford a "sorta stealth" one at 100 m a pop. Last I heard only Israel was still interested.
A model of the F-15 was built, tested then dumped called the F-15SE (Silent Eagle.) It basically did what artik suggested, which was take the basic F-15 frame, strip it down to the bones and rebuild it with ultra modern avionics, etc and then handle some surfaces with radar absorbent design/material. It seemed to do much of what artik suggested, at a much smaller cost than the F-22. It was dumped. From a political point of view the SE variant has less umph than the F-22.
If the F-35 is all avionics there is no reason those could not be built into another bird. The F-35 is a platform, what they are describing is the data bus, link and system.
boo
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Squire on January 29, 2017, 07:30:46 PM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 02, 2017, 03:51:42 PM
How stealthy could you possibly make a F15 version? Possibly the most unstealthy, along with the SU's, design ever made. Yeah you can coat it, rebend some edges, maybe reduce the frontal RCS, carriage the weapons, and yeah you can re sensor the design. But you still have those two huge tails and two big engines and the detection threat is just getting stronger with every passing year. It was never an option for USAF, who wanted nothing to do with it, but was pointed at the export market instead.
When a country invests in a fighter/bomber they not only buy the plane but spend a ton on the infrastructure to fly, fight, and maintain it. Everything from pilot training to nuts and bolts, weapons, simulators, all kinds of stuff.
Im a little surprised this silent Eagle thing didnt get off the ground. Yes it was very expensive but the countries on the possible list for it all have cash or, like Israel, get stuff free from us, or steal it. The rest of the "possibles" Saudi , Singapore, Japan, South Korea, all have a lot invested in F15 and can afford a "sorta stealth" one at 100 m a pop. Last I heard only Israel was still interested.
Silent Eagle is a viable option as a replacement for our Eagle fleet which is falling apart.
Tail fins are what they are. Cant them. Coat them. Don't use the airplane for first wave attacks on access denial targets except as a standoff platform. Then use it to control the airspace after the F-22 defeats the first team.
You need numbers. Just like in World War Two when the P-40 was used EVERYWHERE. Yeah, it was not the best but was still good enough.
The F-15 can do things the A-35 NEVER EVER will be able to.
Our Eagles are falling apart. A low number annual procurement to upgrade the fleet is a smart move.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Krusty on February 03, 2017, 11:32:18 AM
P-40 was obsolete and continued production of it was actually brought up in trials post-war to see if corruption and bribery were the reason it was so prolific. That's not a good example to use for "numbers are everything" -- because they aren't.
P.S. The F-15 would cost more than the F-35 at a fraction of the capability. assuming the fuselage didn't crumple between the cockpit and the intakes like several have already begun to do.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 03, 2017, 12:55:43 PM
P-40 was obsolete and continued production of it was actually brought up in trials post-war to see if corruption and bribery were the reason it was so prolific. That's not a good example to use for "numbers are everything" -- because they aren't.
P.S. The F-15 would cost more than the F-35 at a fraction of the capability. assuming the fuselage didn't crumple between the cockpit and the intakes like several have already begun to do.
The airplane was available in large numbers and it did the job worldwide. The F-15 is not an ideal comparison because it is actually better on a relative basis.
Learn some facts. The reason the fuselage is breaking is because they're ancient. They need to be replaced. Same with the F-16. They're being held together with bailing wire.
The Marines are suffering because they won't buy Supers. Gotta hold onto their VTOL fantasy. As a result, Marines are being killed because the Classic Hornet fleet is falling apart.
Capability? What can the T/A-35 do that an F-15 can't? Oh, yeah, get shwacked by the Su-27, PAK-FA, or some random Chinese J-xx.
Cost? The Just So Failed is gonna' cost at least double what an F-15 would (and I'm being generous) for no capability or performance whatsoever.
The F-15 gives you options. The T/A-35 doesn't.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Krusty on February 03, 2017, 03:12:57 PM
Yes, learn some facts. You can't just "start production up again" -- the momentum is what keeps prices down. Once the production stops and must be started again prices skyrocket.
The marines won't by supers because they would cost more than the F-35 and have almost none of the benefits.
Keep spreading mass exaggerations and outright false notions and you'll get this thread locked too.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: DaveBB on February 03, 2017, 03:49:35 PM
I can't remember the name of the book, but I once read that for each successive generation of fighter aircraft, the number produced is 1/2 of the previous generation, and the cost is 10X as much.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 03, 2017, 04:46:23 PM
I can't remember the name of the book, but I once read that for each successive generation of fighter aircraft, the number produced is 1/2 of the previous generation, and the cost is 10X as much.
Not surprising when you look at the first generation.
I can't remember the name of the book, but I once read that for each successive generation of fighter aircraft, the number produced is 1/2 of the previous generation, and the cost is 10X as much.
If you plot the cost of airplane development it tracks a fairly predictable path. With the T/A-35 it spikes upward.
Interestingly enough the only fighter to bend the curve downward is the F-16. Its cost per pound tracked the line but its flyaway cost did not. Lighter jet x cost per pound equals price cut.
The T/A-35 is an abject disaster in every area. The Air Force is buying hundreds of mistake jets that it can barely even use for training. Sad.
The Navy has seen the light. They're working to get by with as few Joint Strike Failures as possible.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 03, 2017, 06:13:33 PM
The new SoD has ordered an operational review of the F-35C to see how it would compare to a Super Hornet as part of his total review of the F-35 program.
The new SoD has ordered an operational review of the F-35C to see how it would compare to a Super Hornet as part of his total review of the F-35 program.
The Super will have trouble against first tier threats, and I say that as a proponent of the airplane. Naval Aviation is in big trouble.
It pains me to say this, but that's not really a factor. Hornets are NOT a Day One asset. You won't find us trucking in country until AFTER the B-2s and F-22s have flown through slapping down everything that moves. If there ARE first tier threats in the air, there WON'T be Hornets.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 04, 2017, 01:15:17 PM
It pains me to say this, but that's not really a factor. Hornets are NOT a Day One asset. You won't find us trucking in country until AFTER the B-2s and F-22s have flown through slapping down everything that moves. If there ARE first tier threats in the air, there WON'T be Hornets.
And that's why Naval Aviation is in big trouble. Tip of the spear? Well, if you're bombing Somalia maybe...
It's a massive step back from what we learned in WWII (Mitscher's raids and his frustration over lack of standoff range, etc.) and developed all the way up through the mid-80s: a massive, diverse, deep strike, hard-hitting Air Wing.
ASH with EPE (more powerful vs more durable) motors will help, but our power projection is not where it needs to be, unfortunately.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Serenity on February 04, 2017, 04:16:55 PM
And that's why Naval Aviation is in big trouble. Tip of the spear? Well, if you're bombing Somalia maybe...
It's a massive step back from what we learned in WWII (Mitscher's raids and his frustration over lack of standoff range, etc.) and developed all the way up through the mid-80s: a massive, diverse, deep strike, hard-hitting Air Wing.
ASH with EPE (more powerful vs more durable) motors will help, but our power projection is not where it needs to be, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, without a carrierized F-22, the Navy isn't going to be a Day One Asset. That's become the purview of the Air Force with their super stealth platforms. What we have is the ability to continue the clean-up after the SEAD rolls through.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 04, 2017, 04:34:47 PM
Unfortunately, without a carrierized F-22, the Navy isn't going to be a Day One Asset. That's become the purview of the Air Force with their super stealth platforms. What we have is the ability to continue the clean-up after the SEAD rolls through.
Sadly, you are correct. Unfortunately, there are not enough Raptors to do the job. They can't deploy quickly enough for every flare-up nor can they be everywhere at once. Worse still, somewhere around 60 of the roughly 187 built are not combat coded. With retirements and losses we are staring at force of F-22s hovering near 100.
Having a CVN roaming the sea in range of a potential adversary is no longer the deterrent it once was. Huge step back and the JSF won't cure that. We are moving backwards.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Serenity on February 04, 2017, 05:55:31 PM
Sadly, you are correct. Unfortunately, there are not enough Raptors to do the job. They can't deploy quickly enough for every flare-up nor can they be everywhere at once. Worse still, somewhere around 60 of the roughly 187 built are not combat coded. With retirements and losses we are staring at force of F-22s hovering near 100.
Having a CVN roaming the sea in range of a potential adversary is no longer the deterrent it once was. Huge step back and the JSF won't cure that. We are moving backwards.
I don't think we are NECESSARILY moving backward. With regard to not being able to send Raptors everywhere, the list of places that a Hornet CAN'T comfortably fight their way into is still a VERY small list. Short of a hot war with China or Russia, the Hornet is still WELL equipped to lead the charge. And even looking at China and Russia, Hornets may not be Air Superiority fighters, but they're no pushovers either.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 04, 2017, 10:47:12 PM
I don't think we are NECESSARILY moving backward. With regard to not being able to send Raptors everywhere, the list of places that a Hornet CAN'T comfortably fight their way into is still a VERY small list. Short of a hot war with China or Russia, the Hornet is still WELL equipped to lead the charge. And even looking at China and Russia, Hornets may not be Air Superiority fighters, but they're no pushovers either.
They don't have the range.
When we dumped the KA-3 we lost a tremendous tanker asset. The KA-6 was so-so, but passable. The SH with buddy tanking is abysmal.
Look at what the Air Wing could do with a single KA-3 both in terms of numbers and how far they could drag them compared to now. Half your Strike Force is stuck offloading gas now. You're right back where we were in 1942--you have to get in really close to the enemy to hit him...........where he can sink your carriers.
China has ASMs that can reach further than the Air Wing can. That's a step backwards. Actually half a dozen.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Gman on February 05, 2017, 02:11:40 AM
I won't bother posting links to past threads, but I've been posting for a couple years about the USN's lack of a dedicated tanker post KA6D/S3/etc. McCain's white paper is interesting in this regard, the USN is proceeding with the UCAV tanker, the MQ25 is its new designation, and in testing it has worked extremely well. It's going to free up a lot of Hornets that can be strikers or CAP now instead of hauling gas, almost 1/3 of the Hornets in a carrier air wing in many scenarios.
The MQ25A "Stingray" will be more than just a tanker too, it'll have the potential capability to defend itself with internally carried a2a missiles as an option, and also will work as an ISR platform, and be able to hand off targets, and do the same trick recently done with the SM6 and F35C working in combination. All that as well as being a very low observable tanker. The stealth part of the new tanker is a very important feature, as the Chinese have been making weapons and aircraft that are obviously dedicated to making long range high speed runs and attacks specifically on tankers and other larger, slower assets that are frequently orbiting/etc. The USN's near future new tankers are going to be much harder to locate than previous tankers, which will give the USN a lot more options in where to put them, which opens up the playbook a lot for planning strikes, etc.
Quote
Navy Puts Procurement of Carrier Drone on Fast Track
I won't bother posting links to past threads, but I've been posting for a couple years about the USN's lack of a dedicated tanker post KA6D/S3/etc. McCain's white paper is interesting in this regard, the USN is proceeding with the UCAV tanker, the MQ25 is its new designation, and in testing it has worked extremely well. It's going to free up a lot of Hornets that can be strikers or CAP now instead of hauling gas, almost 1/3 of the Hornets in a carrier air wing in many scenarios.
The MQ25A "Stingray" will be more than just a tanker too, it'll have the potential capability to defend itself with internally carried a2a missiles as an option, and also will work as an ISR platform, and be able to hand off targets, and do the same trick recently done with the SM6 and F35C working in combination. All that as well as being a very low observable tanker. The stealth part of the new tanker is a very important feature, as the Chinese have been making weapons and aircraft that are obviously dedicated to making long range high speed runs and attacks specifically on tankers and other larger, slower assets that are frequently orbiting/etc. The USN's near future new tankers are going to be much harder to locate than previous tankers, which will give the USN a lot more options in where to put them, which opens up the playbook a lot for planning strikes, etc. http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/december/Pages/NavyPutsProcurementofCarrierDroneonFastTrack.aspx
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: jollyFE on February 08, 2017, 01:30:24 PM
F-35 seems to be doing ok at Red Flag. Having participated in several Red Flags myself, they were always more difficult that when we actually went out and did the actual mission.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 08, 2017, 01:49:37 PM
Quote
“The first day we were here, we flew defensive counter-air and we didn’t lose a single friendly aircraft,” Lt. Col George Watkins, an F-35 pilot and 34th Fighter Squadron commander, said in a release. “That’s unheard of,” he added.
Sounds like a winner.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Oldman731 on February 08, 2017, 04:09:52 PM
F-35 seems to be doing ok at Red Flag. Having participated in several Red Flags myself, they were always more difficult that when we actually went out and did the actual mission.
So....we'd like to hear more about your experiences!
- oldman
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: jollyFE on February 08, 2017, 04:19:07 PM
I was on the CSAR/PR end of things but we had occasion to mix it up with 16s, Hips and Hinds.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: DaveBB on February 08, 2017, 04:48:33 PM
F-35 seems to be doing ok at Red Flag. Having participated in several Red Flags myself, they were always more difficult that when we actually went out and did the actual mission.
Okay because big brother is protecting it from Red Air.
Meanwhile it is only deployable to air shows.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Dobs on February 09, 2017, 08:25:15 AM
F-22 and F-35 working together...aahhhh synergy!!
First day they flew DCA with ZERO losses to blue..admittedly Day 1 is much easier than Day 6, but still...
For those who have issues with F-35, F-22.....think of it like this.
A swat team has a terrorist holed up in a house. All the doors are locked, and windows barred....how do they get in? Usually you have one or two guys on "battering ram" duty who come up, knock the door in, and step out of the way...then the 8-10 dudes who are left go in and get the job done.
In the days of Double Digit Sams, AESA radars, and Coherent Air Defense systems...if a non-stealth flies into a double digit threat ring it will probably die. If that double digit sam is taken out, well the "door" opens.
If we have Stealth sweeping, the chances of enemy air getting through are slim. We have been accustomed to fighting in a permissive air theater......we own the skies and even the slowest (A-10) can go in and only worry about ground threats.... When we have to fight a full up IADS, that is when the F-35/F-22s will really shine. After all....you can't shoot what you can't see. And if they are fusing sensors, and you can be assured they are, that combo makes for a deadly pair for sure!!
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Zimme83 on February 09, 2017, 09:54:23 AM
Whitout knowing how the excercise was designed there is impossible to draw any conclusions from the result. Given the very limited loadout options currently available for the F-35 i suspect that the missions were constructed so that the F-35 could fly them.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 09, 2017, 11:57:00 AM
How is the loadout options limited?
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Zimme83 on February 09, 2017, 12:12:13 PM
Quite a lot of weapons are not operational on the F-35 yet, that limits the types of missions it can fly.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 09, 2017, 12:18:46 PM
Its air 2 air missiles are operational as far as I know. So are its jdams.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 09, 2017, 12:20:24 PM
Whitout knowing how the excercise was designed there is impossible to draw any conclusions from the result. Given the very limited loadout options currently available for the F-35 i suspect that the missions were constructed so that the F-35 could fly them.
This.
15:1 kill ratio? Compared to what? How did the Typhoon do? Are these direct shots or just assists through data link?
15 kills out of how many total?
This is week one. Things get tougher from here.
You're fighting small mouth Vipers with no IRST in a massive operation. In basketball you can hide a weak defender via the scheme. I guarantee you they're doing that here. The Air Force is not going to allow their pet project to look bad. And we all know they got busted for gagging their PR people with what they can and cannot say about the jet.
Context is everything.
There's nothing of substance in this 15:1 number as presently represented.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 09, 2017, 12:21:30 PM
Quite a lot of weapons are not operational on the F-35 yet, that limits the types of missions it can fly.
Not to mention it can only carry a max of four AMRAAMs--at the expense of all A2G--and the gun doesn't work, yet.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 09, 2017, 12:38:59 PM
How many AMRAAMs does an F-16 normally carry? After all that's the main type the F-35A is replacing. It can carry a maximum of six, but then it would have to leave its wing tanks at home. OK for short range point-interception I guess, but not much else.
How many AMRAAMs does an F-16 normally carry? After all that's the main type the F-35A is replacing. It can carry a maximum of six, but then it would have to leave its wing tanks at home. OK for short range point-interception I guess, but not much else.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 09, 2017, 01:27:07 PM
A very short range F-18 you got there. Pretty much only useful for point-interception of mass bomber formations. However it is a couple of missiles short of what the F-35 can carry in a similar configuration.
Viper can also carry Sidewinders and it has a gun that works. Why no tanks? They'll fit it appears.
Weight restrictions? I've never seen a Viper with six AMRAAMs and bags on. I have seen a two-bag Viper with four AMRAAMs and a pair of winders, but most carry only four missiles total.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 09, 2017, 01:57:02 PM
And I've never heard anyone say the F-16 is under-armed in the A2A role.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 09, 2017, 02:09:56 PM
Weight restrictions? I've never seen a Viper with six AMRAAMs and bags on. I have seen a two-bag Viper with four AMRAAMs and a pair of winders, but most carry only four missiles total.
I've seen the latter also. 2 4 2.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 09, 2017, 02:11:46 PM
You have a picture? (And I assume you meant the former... I.e. six AMRAMMs + bags?)
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 09, 2017, 02:12:00 PM
A very short range F-18 you got there. Pretty much only useful for point-interception of mass bomber formations. However it is a couple of missiles short of what the F-35 can carry in a similar configuration.
I am saying two 9s, four 120s, and two bags on the wings.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 09, 2017, 02:14:57 PM
Ok.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 09, 2017, 02:25:39 PM
I just want to add that I think the 14 missile F-35 loadout is a fantasy. I'm sure it is (or will be) able to carry that, but I see no real-world application for that loadout. Just like that 12 missile F-18 loadout.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 09, 2017, 02:49:13 PM
Short range and F-18 are synonyms unfortunately and the WTF-35 doesn't solve this problem.
Missed that one. In the OP's video the USAF pilot says the F-35 on internal fuel has twice the combat range of an F-15C with two DTs. That sounds substantially better than the F-18.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 09, 2017, 03:38:21 PM
I just want to add that I think the 14 missile F-35 loadout is a fantasy. I'm sure it is (or will be) able to carry that, but I see no real-world application for that loadout. Just like that 12 missile F-18 loadout.
Could be. Although the ASH with that setup would at least have more persistence than the standard Super Rhino.
I will say this, it looks pretty cool. :)
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 09, 2017, 06:45:41 PM
Missed that one. In the OP's video the USAF pilot says the F-35 on internal fuel has twice the combat range of an F-15C with two DTs. That sounds substantially better than the F-18.
Not on your life. F-15 has three times the total range and double the combat radius of the A-35 (depending on how you calculate it, the only question is how much more range the Eagle has over the Lightning II...100 miles or 500) and that's assuming the 590nm pipe dream combat radius for the latter is actually true.
I'd be curious to see his definition of "combat range".
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 10, 2017, 12:18:56 AM
Well, just watch the video from the 16 minute mark.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 10, 2017, 12:24:52 AM
Could be. Although the ASH with that setup would at least have more persistence than the standard Super Rhino.
I will say this, it looks pretty cool. :)
Looks "gamey"... Like something you'd see in DCS. Put tanks on those inner pylons and you still have 8 missiles, which is tremendous for such a small fighter, and you'll have a useful range as well.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 10, 2017, 12:27:34 AM
Looks "gamey"... Like something you'd see in DCS. Put tanks on those inner pylons and you still have 8 missiles, which is tremendous for such a small fighter, and you'll have a useful range as well.
Well, I'm used to transformable Japanese robot jets that carry 12-50 missiles, so I love it.
For defending home turf it would have its place I suppose.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 10, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
UN Spacy FTW. Sure, but I don't see the hundreds of strategic bombers attacking America as a realistic real-world scenario anymore. All the Russian bombers carry cruise missiles now. They don't even need to get anywhere near U.S. airspace these days, and that Hornet is not going to get far enough out to sea to stop them. Same with carrier defense. The enemy will launch their weapons hundreds, if not thousands of miles away.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 10, 2017, 08:29:24 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkVMaN1i3tE
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Krusty on February 10, 2017, 11:04:54 AM
Vraciu, if you spent less time trying to tear into the F-35 and going out of your way to try to coin phrases for how it's a failure and actually focused on facts, you'd find life is a lot more interesting and less filled with vitriol.
For example:
You're trying to show how great the F-15 is with range while decrying the F-35 as unable to fight or maneuver against anything. Quite the double standard. Hypocritical, you might say. The F-15 standard combat package is 2 giant weighty fuel tanks. MAX range, which is about 3000 nm, is only accomplished on an unarmed ferry configuration with the 3 largest external fuel tanks you can fit as well as 2 CFTs on top of that. You won't be fighting anything, anywhere, if you can't pull more than 1.5 Gs because you're overloaded. That's not a combat range. That's not a dogfight range.
F-15C combat range on internal fuel is about 1000 nm. At max speed of 1500 mph internal + CFTs that drops to about 590 miles before you're out of gas. That's according to NASA numbers on fuel consumption at 50,000 feet. F-35A had some early problems reported about not quite making 590 nm range -- with internal fuel only and 2000 lbs or bombs onboard. Depending on the report you read, a pure a2a configuration without 2x 1000 lb bombs brings that up to about 700 + nm. The F-35C CV variant has about 40% on top of that as well. That's not counting external fuel tanks -- which would be less draggy and more stealthy than the configuration on the F-15C. That's also not counting mid-flight refueling.
Pause for a minute. Examine how the F-15 is even used in this day and age. Hint: It's not as a cold-war MiG-killer. It's not as a dogfighter. The majority of its combat, anywhere, is as an overloaded bomb truck because the F-16s don't cut it at range. It's not dogfighting with a dozen Mk82s slung on CFTs. So... What are you trying to compare, even? The bomb trucks can't even operate on day 1 because they'll be shot out of the sky. The Air Force has better bomb trucks in this day and age with B-52s and B-1s being able to drop smart bombs from altitude with the same accuracy but releasing from way beyond the danger zone. Despite the original INTENT of the design, when you actually need to send them into combat with bombs you need to escort them, you need to clear the zone before they can even hope to go in, and they are slow and lumbering, drop their bombs, and get out. Funny how the F-16 devolved into that role as well.
In short, the F-35 doesn't compare to the F-15 if you look at the F-15 with rose colored glasses and ignore how the F-15 is actually used in real-world combat situations. When you look at what the Air Force needs to do when they use the F-15s, the F-35 can get in there safer, better, undetected, and the big kicker is the sensor fusion. You can't retrofit that. And they do it without escorts. In any condition you wish to look at Air Superiority, the F-15 doesn't hold up to is 1972 hype. You could have a single flight of F-35s with sensor fusion showing a crystal clear image of the area of engagement for hundreds of miles and have a ship-based G2A missile take anything out without even having to send the F-35s in. Or, you can send the F-35s in and they'll pick off anything from range. OR you can have them go in, and if they need to they can turn equal or better to F-16s and F/A-18s in use now, which are essentially the standard for turn fighting in this day and age. Even as recently as last June in 8 different operational combat tests the F-35 went up against F-15Es and was never spotted once when they attempted to locate the F-35s.
You may think its hip to hate on the F-35 "just because," or for political reasons, but look at it objectively. If you want to compare actual contenders, don't get all sentimental about the past. The past generations of planes don't cut it. Not even slightly updated. The reason is the recent technological leaps have been exponentional, not linear. There's no hope they can be brought up to speed, ever. To suggest otherwise and go backwards is just denying progress. Instead if you want to talk about potential replacements or alternatives, drop the F-15SE or F/A-18 nonsense. They're just fluff from giant industries that are selling a product. Look at the EF Typhoon or even the Rafale, though the Raf isn't as much of a challenger and the Typhoon has some political, economical, and developmental problems of its own (Gee... kind of like the F-35).
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 10, 2017, 01:27:18 PM
You're already wrong.
"At 1,500 mph" (something the A-35 can't even do straight down with the wings off) the F-15 already has a larger combat radius than the A-35 does plodding along at sub-Mach 1 speed with only four missiles.
That's not "double the combat range (radius) of the T/F/A-35." Not even close.
The WTF-35 has limited front quarter stealth, thermal issues that restrict its cruise speed, a poor top speed (from which it has to slow down to open its doors in order to employ weapons--because the gun still doesn't work), low operational ceiling, limited payload, a helmet that doesn't work, a defective nose gear which makes cat shots arduous if not dangerous, ad nauseum. It's a lemon.
Please learn some facts. There are none to be found in your screed.
The notion the T/A-35 can replace the F-15 or F-22 (yes, this is what the PR department wants us to believe) is simply laughable.
To win air wars you actually do need NUMBERS not overpriced mistake jets that are being parked in training squadrons to justify their existence. The WTF-35 *is* going backwards. Cancel it and use the money for something else--and that includes ASH and Silent Eagle.
Yeah, the Typhoon had problems. I'm no fan of it either. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out down the road it did better than the Just So Failed at Red Flag.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 10, 2017, 01:36:41 PM
The original PR memo for Red Flag and the JSF said 30:1. I guess someone told them to tone it down a notch. Hey, if you're inventing numbers any way why not make it 200:1 so it can be the new F-15?
I'll say it again. The F-35 is not an air superiority platform. The Air Force itself states the airplane is not meant to be a dogfighter. It is an attack/strike aircraft with LIMITED self-defense capability built for yesterday's war, arriving over a decade late.
Without the F-22 (and F-15 for that matter) to defend it the thing is dead.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 10, 2017, 01:56:08 PM
Oh, and anyone who says you can't retrofit sensor fusion doesn't know what they're talking about. It's all about money. You can rip every bit of avionics out of any airplane and replace it if you want to. The F-15SA is an example of something along those lines.
Speaking of lines... Lockheed can't even get a mere 9 million lines of code right, so asking them to re-invent the Viper with sensor fusion probably isn't the best idea.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 18, 2017, 04:21:44 PM
F-35 - 2016 Year in Review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfGuwS2tGPg
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 18, 2017, 04:27:26 PM
The U.S. Navy variant experienced an undisclosed amount of oscillation or turbulence during flight trials with the AIM-9X in December 2015, and Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan says aircraft already delivered need to be retrofitted with strengthened wings.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 20, 2017, 09:01:12 AM
"Nothing to see here. Everything is fine." - Bogdon
*facepalm*
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 20, 2017, 10:32:13 AM
The outer wing panels need to be strengthened, and replaced on 32 aircraft. Should be easy enough since they are already separate from the rest of the structure. I can't see how this is a major setback in any way shape or form. If the sky is falling this hard we don't need planes anymore anyhow.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Zimme83 on February 20, 2017, 10:38:11 AM
Should not be a disaster but they should have sorted things like this out years ago, its a decade since it flew for the first time... What also got my attention is that the article says the F-35 will use the aim-9x and Aim-120c while the legacy fighers already use the -120D abd -9x block II...
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 20, 2017, 10:45:39 AM
Last year was the first time they flew with the AIM-9 on the 35C. The first flight of the F-35A was a decade ago. The F-35A doesn't have these outer wing panels.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: ACE on February 20, 2017, 11:34:11 AM
The F35 is so purrrrrrty
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 20, 2017, 11:52:34 AM
The outer wing panels need to be strengthened, and replaced on 32 aircraft. Should be easy enough since they are already separate from the rest of the structure. I can't see how this is a major setback in any way shape or form. If the sky is falling this hard we don't need planes anymore anyhow.
They don't have a fix yet (like every other problem it is "being engineered").
Add weight there at the wingtip and you drive other problems. This is not an easy fix and they're still rolling mistake jets out the door so they don't fall further behind schedule.
It's unbelivable.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 20, 2017, 11:56:59 AM
Of course they don't have a fix yet. They've just discovered the problem.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 20, 2017, 12:13:18 PM
You missed my point.
Any way...
Just discovered THIS problem.
They don't have a fix yet. It's not a matter of simply beefing up the outer wing panel either. This fix will drive other problems. Ad nasueum.
Major setback? The bar for what defines major in this program is rather high (by necessity and incompetence).
Meanwhile they're building them any way. Why not? Free taxpayer money. Yum!
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Zimme83 on February 20, 2017, 12:17:38 PM
actually: (should have been in the original post, sorry for that)
Quote
Engineers have already produced an enhanced outer wing design, which is now undergoing flight testing. The issue has impacted the timeline for fielding AIM-9X, which is being rolled out for the Navy in Block 3F. “Once the new design is verified to provide the require strength, the fix will be implemented in production and retrofitted to existing aircraft by swapping existing outer wings with the redesigned ones,” Bogdan writes.
Title: Re: USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35
Post by: Vraciu on February 20, 2017, 12:37:26 PM