True enough. OTOH, the just-over-stall-speed-to-loop transition cannot be sniffed at. The plane appears to have plenty of power, and very good low-speed controlability. Whether those factors matter in combat may be another question. Hey, it didn't shoot anyone down at Paris.
Most impressive air show performance I ever saw was the Harrier. This guy came close.
To give equal time and be fair, of course, you should see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaJYDtzhCkc
- oldman
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Vraciu on June 28, 2017, 10:22:18 PM
True enough. OTOH, the just-over-stall-speed-to-loop transition cannot be sniffed at. The plane appears to have plenty of power, and very good low-speed controlability. Whether those factors matter in combat may be another question. Hey, it didn't shoot anyone down at Paris.
Most impressive air show performance I ever saw was the Harrier. This guy came close.
To give equal time and be fair, of course, you should see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaJYDtzhCkc
- oldman
Super Hornet demo far more impressive than this JSF thing...
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: nrshida on June 29, 2017, 12:32:16 AM
Not long at all. This is a four minute demo because the T-35 is a dog. Add any more gas and it will be good for flybys. This is fake news/marketing. The Super Hornet demo is 15 minutes long--yet the Super is considered relatively short-legged--and far more impressive overall.
Notice also the persistent wingtip vapor trails. This tells you a lot about the Joint Strike Failure and it isn't good.
It needs to be canceled but we are in too deep to pull out now.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: icepac on June 29, 2017, 08:03:58 AM
Ah....the same exact conditions that all the stripped out russian demo planes uses?
I don't think this f35 was as "empty" as any of the russian demo planes.
The Russian demo planes are already heavier by default and performed longer demonstrations. They're more capable all around in any configuration.
I have been avoiding T/A-35 threads like the plague. It's a waste of effort bothering to comment. Minds are made up despite the airplane's myriad rash of continuing problems.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: icepac on June 29, 2017, 10:30:07 AM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Vraciu on June 29, 2017, 10:53:10 AM
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 29, 2017, 04:44:41 PM
"The F-35’s maneuverability is all the more impressive because, unlike the F-16s that perform at air shows, the Joint Strike Fighter flying the demonstration this week is fully combat-ready. Flynn’s F-35A will move easily through complex aerial maneuvers loaded with everything it needs to go to war."
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: nrshida on June 30, 2017, 01:20:31 PM
Su-27 (from which the Su-35 is derived) first flew in 1977. Totally irrelevant comparison. In fact it should be a totally irrelevant comparison. The fact they are remotely comparible in any way is a tragic commentary on the JSF programme. Should be an all-aspect stealthy, huge payload-toting, viffing, super-agile, fuel efficient vision-from-the-future, shooting glitter out of its tailpipe on demand for the resources, technology, (international) money and man-hours they've spent on it.
It's simply a product of a fatally flawed design process. Nice business model though. That's been the really clever part.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Arlo on June 30, 2017, 03:47:40 PM
I found meme! (Lots and lots)
(Too many to post - would cause a pie fight in my AH family.)
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 30, 2017, 06:19:54 PM
John Richard Boyd would have loved the F-35. Not for its kinetics, but because it is almost entirely designed around Boyd's Cycle (OODA loop). The F-35's sensor fusion and stealth gives its pilot the advantage of staying way ahead of the adversary's decision process. The F-35 practically does all of the observation and orientation itself leaving the pilot to concentrate on the decision and action.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Vraciu on June 30, 2017, 06:44:11 PM
John Richard Boyd would have loved the F-35. Not for its kinetics, but because it is almost entirely designed around Boyd's Cycle (OODA loop). The F-35's sensor fusion and stealth gives its pilot the advantage of staying way ahead of the adversary's decision process. The F-35 practically does all of the observation and orientation itself leaving the pilot to concentrate on the decision and action.
You obviously don't understand a thing about the man with a position like that. Fancy Gizmos don't work on the first day of the war. Never will. This airplane is too complex and too compromised to be good at ANYTHING and Boyd would be the first one to point that out.
Pierre Sprey did it in his stead.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 30, 2017, 06:51:13 PM
Pierre Sprey is stuck in the Vietnam War. Just sad.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Vraciu on June 30, 2017, 07:07:27 PM
The customers ordered the only available option of what was remaining of their requirements, after every possible agency down the line had taken their turn at compromising the design brief to maximise their share of the funding. And all that reduction largely coming after huge financial commitments had been made with severe penalties for withdrawing from the programme. Like I said, clever business model. They must've been laughing all the way to the bank.
If you want to actually discuss the design process at any point, let me know :)
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Arlo on June 30, 2017, 10:55:08 PM
And ... here's a picture of a Sabre jet. Yeah, it's performance may not be up to 'modern day' .... but it would only cost less than 2 million per plane in 2017.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: icepac on July 02, 2017, 04:45:15 PM
Time will tell.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: ACE on July 02, 2017, 05:20:22 PM
As a outsider who doesn't know much about aircraft I can gather all these opinions from you guys. It's pretty clear they have spent WAY TO MUCH money. That is all.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Arlo on July 03, 2017, 01:42:14 AM
I think this would be a good basis for a 'fantasy football' style game, once we all agree on their specific combat capabilities (yes, even the trainers and attack craft).
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: nrshida on July 03, 2017, 02:22:11 AM
The two charts conflict Arlo. Presumably the picture chart is featuring the F-35A? The graph shows the F-35B to be nearly 50% more expensive is that accurate?
"In 2011, Lockheed Martin executive vice president Tom Burbage and former Pentagon director of operational testing Tom Christie stated that most program delays were due to the F-35B, which forced massive redesigns of other versions".
"USMC Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle has said that the vertical lift components would only be used "a small percentage of the time" to transfer the aircraft from carriers to land bases".
"Lockheed Martin Vice President Steve O’Bryan has said that most F-35B landings will be conventional to reduce stress on vertical lift components. These conventional mode takeoffs and landings cause an "unacceptable wear rate" to the aircraft's "poorly designed" tires".
"The Marines plan to use the F-35B from "unimproved surfaces at austere bases" but with "special, high-temperature concrete designed to handle the heat".
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl You can't make this s*** up! :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Arlo on July 03, 2017, 02:06:05 PM
The two charts conflict Arlo. Presumably the picture chart is featuring the F-35A? The graph shows the F-35B to be nearly 50% more expensive is that accurate?
They do - they do. I have no idea, at all (well, I'm honest). Apparently 'fantasy fighter conflict' may take some time. The potential player base is very demanding and the 'players' have little 'game time' to build true stats (thankfully, if you think about it).
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: nrshida on July 03, 2017, 09:23:23 PM
See Rule #2
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Gman on July 11, 2017, 03:24:31 PM
I think this would be a good basis for a 'fantasy football' style game, once we all agree on their specific combat capabilities (yes, even the trainers and attack craft).
I can't see the 2nd graph, but another factor is longevity in service, not just US service either.
Correct if I'm wrong, but the only aircrafts not in worldwide service on that graph are the A-6A/E, F-111, F-117.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Gman on July 13, 2017, 05:52:44 PM
The USMC and USAF are flying at Red Flag right now, integrating both the A and B models in a battle exercise for the first time. The USMC have really called in the clans, unlike previous EXs, they have an entire squadron, plus all the maint/support crew deployed. Previous F35 exs they only had 4 or 6, and would typically just sortie a 2 ship a few times per day, and on rare occasion a 4 ship during previous x-Flag exercises. Now they can simulate an entire squadron operating - Should give some more information on what a full squadron will be like under combat ops, as well as how the A and B models will work together. Read a lot about how they are using the F35 to penetrate deep, and help target/guide weapons from assets like the B1B and other gen4+ fighters that carry more ord, once the F35 has depleted its 2 1000lb (F35B) and 2 2000lb(A) weapons. Interesting stuff regardless on where you stand on the F35 debate. Looks like the UK is doing the same with its future F35B on the new carriers, to work alongside their Typhies and Tor"nah"does.
I like the part where the plane handler is giving hand signals to the drone on deck (5:30) .
Grummans A-6 Intruder lives on in the X47B. The Landing Gear are both from the A-6 Design, The F-35 rear wheels are also from the A-6.
Tried and True I suppose.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Gman on July 17, 2017, 06:39:25 PM
Speaking of Grumman, read an article about an all Grumman air wing on the USS Ranger right before it was retired. Lots of A6 variants and Tomcats. Ok, it wasn't all Grumman, but all the strike and air defense squadrons were. So much was lost when the A6 was retired IMO - no more KA6D tanker (boo for the Navy, huge booo), soon the EA6Bs will be all gone, and then of course the medium/heavy strike capability gone. The Supers are great, but don't have the range or payload that the A6 had.
Speaking of Grumman, read an article about an all Grumman air wing on the USS Ranger right before it was retired. Lots of A6 variants and Tomcats. Ok, it wasn't all Grumman, but all the strike and air defense squadrons were. So much was lost when the A6 was retired IMO - no more KA6D tanker (boo for the Navy, huge booo), soon the EA6Bs will be all gone, and then of course the medium/heavy strike capability gone. The Supers are great, but don't have the range or payload that the A6 had.
But on the other hand everything we fire now will land within 3 to 5 meters of where we want it now and stand off weapons extend the range of our USN aircraft 600+ NM.
So what does that mean? It means and F35c flying off a CV by New York city can take off, fly to the limit of its combat range, and Launch a JASSM-ER, which is very hard to detect, and put a 1,000 lb warhead thru the front window of your house in Omaha NE. So yeah the over all platforms are less, the payloads are less, but the capability of taking out targets are far, far, far more.
It took us 7 years to finally take out the Thanh Hoa bridge, the most strategic bridge of the Vietnam war because the bulk of the NVA arms and supplies traveled over the Song Ma river on their way south. The NVA put 5 air defense regiments around the bridge to defend it and we took heavy casualties in the many attacks against it. Also its Location meant we had to fly in a lot of bad weather to attack it. Now? Taking out that bridge, or any bridge, would be almost an after thought. We finally took out the Thanh Hoa bridge with the first precision weapons we deployed in 1972.
After 7 years, 871 sorties, 11 lost air craft, and about every conventional bomb we had. We even flew C-130's with 5,000 lb bombs over it trying to destroy it.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: DaveBB on July 18, 2017, 03:46:23 PM
Everyone would have been onboard with the FB-22. The F-15/F-15E combo worked out great.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Gman on July 18, 2017, 05:03:12 PM
That's all true Rich, however the range issue, which the SH still greatly lacks compared to the A6 and F14 - the carrier strike group radius of influence dropped by 50% when the Hornets became the only offensive strikers - will hopefully be somewhat mitigated by the F35C's 20,000lb of internal fuel, and possible future internal tank carrying capability. 2 1/2000lb bombs+ 2 internal tanks could = a plane that can reclaim the lost range of the strike group + low observability and all the rest of the F35's capability. New "robotanker" is coming too, which should help free up Supers from having to waste 1/3 or more of the squadron doing buddy tanking sorties. However as it stands right now, today, the CVN strike group has a much shorter stick to poke people with than it had when the Intruder and Tomcat were still around. You still have to get to, and return from, the targets you hit with precision munitions, especially bombs, as weapons like the extended range joint missiles are hugely expensive, and will be used up very quickly in any major conflict. Plus, that weapon, and the other long range missiles, for the most part don't fit in the bays of the F35 and need to be carried externally, defeating the purpose of L/O and the ability for deep strike in A2/AA areas. There will always be far more guided bombs than long range air launched missiles, which means range will still be an issue too.
Time will tell regarding the F35C and its combat radius - we already have a good idea of the F35Bs, and it's fairly short, but that was known long before it was tested in that regard. The C model is the largest of the 3, and carries the most gas, and it'll be interesting to see how far it can fight with just internal fuel, and any of the future internal and external fuel tank ideas that have been floated.
My friend CO of the RCAF test squadron which is part of the new Canadian fighter procurement, at least the military's side of it, and the F35 is back under consideration along with an advanced SuperHornet and a couple others. The F35C is the strong leader of the 3 F35 options, due to it having compatible refueling apparatus for our existing drogue/basket tankers, the folding wings (the hangars are all set up spacing wise for the Hornets with folding wings too), and of course the longer range/persistence of the C model. Every little bit helps, and our runways and bases are very sparse in the AO the new fighter will be flying in.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Nefarious on July 19, 2017, 07:55:24 PM
The bridge was off limits from 1968 to 1972 when the bombing was halted.
So in reality it was only 4 years, and the first three years precision guided munitions were still very much in their infancy and not really in service yet. <S>
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Rich46yo on July 19, 2017, 09:09:03 PM
On the other hand in the '70s and '80s when the Tomcat and A6 ruled the roost there weren't dozens upon dozens of VLS launchers on CSG ships loaded with Tomahawks, including fleet subs with over 150 alone. And now of course with other stand off missiles, a new AShM based on JSSM-ER, a SM with a land attack mode, ER 5" and ER-155mm guns "future along with rail guns". And each and all and more of the above on one network for the Commander to see air, land, and sea easily far more detailed and further then before.
Squids hated losing those airplanes but the truth is neither could do well in the contested airspace of today and the future. Plus the fact the F-14 was a mechanics nightmare and cost a fortune to operate against a threat that had all but dissapeared. The Backfire threat. It was a fine airplane but it was eating the USNs budget up during a time the world situation had changed and emerging technologies had to be developed.
I dont blame people for loving it and missing it, I feel the same about the Phantom. But the truth is its time has gone and the USN of today has even more reach and far more precision then it had in the '70s and '80s. As far as strike goes. I agree "Legs" might have been lost for ATA defense with F14 and Phoenix retired. Then again you have to higher sortie rate of the SH and soon F35c to make up for it, somewhat.
I truly dont know what Canada will do. They still produce, man for man, excellent troops but they just dont want to make the investment. They had a world class Navy in WW2, as well as other services, but now they aren't even capable of protecting their own shores. It would be a huge outlay for a respectable capability.
That's all true Rich, however the range issue, which the SH still greatly lacks compared to the A6 and F14 - the carrier strike group radius of influence dropped by 50% when the Hornets became the only offensive strikers - will hopefully be somewhat mitigated by the F35C's 20,000lb of internal fuel, and possible future internal tank carrying capability. 2 1/2000lb bombs+ 2 internal tanks could = a plane that can reclaim the lost range of the strike group + low observability and all the rest of the F35's capability. New "robotanker" is coming too, which should help free up Supers from having to waste 1/3 or more of the squadron doing buddy tanking sorties. However as it stands right now, today, the CVN strike group has a much shorter stick to poke people with than it had when the Intruder and Tomcat were still around. You still have to get to, and return from, the targets you hit with precision munitions, especially bombs, as weapons like the extended range joint missiles are hugely expensive, and will be used up very quickly in any major conflict. Plus, that weapon, and the other long range missiles, for the most part don't fit in the bays of the F35 and need to be carried externally, defeating the purpose of L/O and the ability for deep strike in A2/AA areas. There will always be far more guided bombs than long range air launched missiles, which means range will still be an issue too.
Time will tell regarding the F35C and its combat radius - we already have a good idea of the F35Bs, and it's fairly short, but that was known long before it was tested in that regard. The C model is the largest of the 3, and carries the most gas, and it'll be interesting to see how far it can fight with just internal fuel, and any of the future internal and external fuel tank ideas that have been floated.
My friend CO of the RCAF test squadron which is part of the new Canadian fighter procurement, at least the military's side of it, and the F35 is back under consideration along with an advanced SuperHornet and a couple others. The F35C is the strong leader of the 3 F35 options, due to it having compatible refueling apparatus for our existing drogue/basket tankers, the folding wings (the hangars are all set up spacing wise for the Hornets with folding wings too), and of course the longer range/persistence of the C model. Every little bit helps, and our runways and bases are very sparse in the AO the new fighter will be flying in.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Arlo on July 21, 2017, 04:45:29 PM
It was a lot easier to appreciate tech advancements when the A-6 was rolled out considering this is what they replaced:
(Not that I think the A-1 Skyraider wasn't cool. They were deployed with Dad's CV in Vietnam.)
Nowadays, it seems all about the 'stealth' looks and price tag.
Great pic, what Carrier was your dad on?
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: TequilaChaser on July 21, 2017, 08:20:28 PM
Arlo, why didn't you include the A-7 Corsair on your chart?
I remember getting my first injury swapping out the engines on an A-7, raised up real quick at the wrong time catching the edge/end of the engine compartment door, slicing open my mid back on the right side of my spine... while kneeling/duck walking under the jet, as we were pushing the engine dolly out....
anyways.... Didn't notice that Jet on your chart
TC
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Arlo on July 22, 2017, 12:46:10 AM
He was on Lexington's last WestPac and Connie's first. I cut my navy brat teeth on his cruise books. My decision to join the Navy was primarily to follow in his footsteps .... alas, I went P-3s. :)
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Arlo on July 22, 2017, 12:54:51 AM
Arlo, why didn't you include the A-7 Corsair on your chart?
I remember getting my first injury swapping out the engines on an A-7, raised up real quick at the wrong time catching the edge/end of the engine compartment door, slicing open my mid back on the right side of my spine... while kneeling/duck walking under the jet, as we were pushing the engine dolly out....
anyways.... Didn't notice that Jet on your chart
TC
Well, I was borrowing from other sources (as in 'not really my chart').
I'll gladly add wiki-web-net material for that old sexy bird:
Role:Attack aircraft National origin:United States Manufacturer:Ling-Temco-Vought First flight :6 September 1965 Introduction:February 1967 Retired:1991 (USAF, USN); 1993 (ANG) 1999:(Portuguese Air Force) 2014:(Hellenic Air Force) Status:Retired Primary users:United States Navy (historical) United States Air Force (historical) Portuguese Air Force (historical) Hellenic Air Force (historical) Produced 1965–1984 Number built 1,569 Unit cost:US $2.86 million Developed from: Vought F-8 Crusader Variants:LTV A-7P Corsair II Vought YA-7F
(Sorry about the thread deviation. I get excited and travel back in time, feeling like a 4 yr old with Dad's cruise books spread open on the floor when I see these pics. I recently lost him - so there's melancholia added to that.)
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: Arlo on July 22, 2017, 03:32:55 PM
Well, Photobucket's new policy makes you pay to share 3rd party. erg.
Here's some links from the source I found (if you don't mind):
VA-144 Lexington 1961 (Dad's second from right, back row - bottom pic on page):
He was on Lexington's last WestPac and Connie's first. I cut my navy brat teeth on his cruise books. My decision to join the Navy was primarily to follow in his footsteps .... alas, I went P-3s. :)
Cool. That pic of the Connie was an awesome airwing. Phantoms and Crusaders together. The next year she would take part in Flaming Dart I and II against North Vietnam.
My dad served aboard the Independence, JFK, Nimitz, and America over 20 years with A-6 squadrons, and 1 cruise with S-3s.
Love the cold war naval aviation, wish we had a game like AH set in that era.
Title: Re: F-35 at Paris Air show
Post by: icepac on July 22, 2017, 08:35:29 PM
My dad flew the A7 and A4 and said that the A4, like the F105 were far better "pure fighters" than history tells largely because they likely weren't ever used as pure fighters.
The A4 and A1 without all the drag inducing bits, were pretty amazing to fly but you had to be watching like a hawk for the opportunity since pretty much all of them had all hardpoints and pylons at all times unless you got to ferry one during a change of said plane's purpose (like into a target tug.....if they even bothered with removing anything).
It cleans up pretty well.......well enough to not come in last in the unlimited field at the reno air races.
He said the A7's accuracy with ord and the electronics package is why it ended up destroying so much stuff in the first gulf war.
This A1 was single seat but had extra radios to used as a relay/repeater.
It had special radios and a rare camera and almost got destroyed by the famous toilet bomb when it turned bowl to the wind after the drop and basically stopped in midair almost collecting 577.....which someone else was diving to film the drop.