F-35

My concern on the F-35 is that compared to other fighters its kinematic performance is compromised. For all those partner nations that don't have an F-22 to sweep the sky that makes it a dubious choice.

The stealth characteristics are fundamental to the airframe. Over the next 20 years radars are going to evolve while the stealth performance of the F-35 really cant. When you negate the stealth you get an aircraft that isn't going to have a fun time against advanced Flankers of PAK-FA.

It cant turn well, cant run well and has a limited internal weapons payload. What is it going to do when some of its long range first shots miss? Which they will since they will be near max range for the AMRAAM and Px kill will not be near 100%.

i worry that compromising the airframe performance to achieve a modicum of stealth, and accommodate a STOVL architecture is too much compromise for something that needs to be able to achieve air superiority for 20+ years.

The problem with "stealth" aircraft that are not intended to "reflect" microwaves pointed at them.....they become anodes and absorb the microwaves and other frequencies pointed at them.

Which is easier to "see"......an aircraft reflecting away energy thats pointed at it....or something designed to absorb it all?

I don't think engineers are going to have a problem "seeing" aircraft that are anodes. As long as they have satellites and a ground station they can "see" where there's a moving spot absorbing microwave emissions.

"Stealth"......no longer is an applicable military tool.

That's why the Pentagon is switching to those tiny automated or remote control aircraft....bit harder to see. They have less of an "ANODE" effect.

Stealth really is dead. It's now miniturization.

reply to post by Pervius


Radar works by "seeing" the energy returned to it. Satellites can't see absorbed energy, and neither can a radar antenna. If there's no energy returned, there's no radar signature. Stealth is multifrequency now, and works on many levels. Stealth is far from dead.

reply to post by Zaphod58


This is a pretty interesting article on Flight, about the 53rd TEG out of Nellis (which oversees units at Eglin and Edwards as well). They are getting ready for operational testing on the F-35s.

www.flightglobal.com...

Thanks for the link.

How long do you think it will take for these aircraft to go from testing and evaluation to combat operation?

reply to post by allenidaho


The F-35 is scheduled for IOC some time around 2018 at this rate. There is talk that they will deploy them, and then do IOC which is unheard of. That's if they can get everything under control which right now is not looking good.

The Pentagon has announced it will need $12.6B a year through 2037 to pay for the F-35 program. This includes purchase price of all the F-35s that it plans to buy, plus program cost. The program cost is estimated at $400B, with $1T (yes, that T as in TRILLION) for the 30 year life cycle of the aircraft.

Yearly costs for all three models are estimated at $18.2B, as opposed to $11.1B for the legacy aircraft they're replacing in 2010.

Source

And in more fun news for the F-35 program, a brand new F-35 on the way from Fort Worth to Nellis was forced to make a "precautionary landing" in Lubbock TX after a warning light came on in the cockpit. The two aircraft were flying to their new home on Monday when one was forced to land. The second continued on to Nellis safely.

New Pentagon super fighter will get pilots shot down, warns report

The U.S. Air Force version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has shortcomings that will get pilots shot down in combat, according to a leaked Pentagon report evaluating combat testing of the plane.

I have problems with eneding the link. Just look up: Pentagon super fighter will get pilots shot down

reply to post by spy66


Report

There you go.

One of the problems cited was the head rest size. It's larger than other aircraft, but the theory is that once they get the helmet working (which currently is a big if), then the helmet will display all the information from the sensors on the face shield. When they look behind them, they will see "through" the head rest, and see what's behind them. The problem comes in when you realize the helmet is currently a giant steaming pile of crap laying in a field.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by surfin4it

 

That had better be sub-orbital at that price and I'm NOT kidding. It better be at that, just for starters.

I don't know what they figure makes an airplane worth 100 million dollars but this taxpayer says nothing designed to do battle...and as part of that, perhaps be LOST in battle....should cost anything even remotely close to that unless it's capabilities FAR FAR exceed what the public knows about.

This cost garbage has gotten so far beyond logical, people don't even question it anymore. It's not even a question to look at the physical thing and ask what could possibly be within that aircraft worth THAT much to produce? Ummm... Logic test fail in my mind...

From what I heard the F-35 is inferior to the F-22

www.abc.net.au...
www.military.com...

The truth is, the Military industrial complex is producing junk planes(F-35), so the West doesn't get too far ahead of everyone else.

reply to post by korathin


Comparing the F-22 and F-35 is pointless as it was never intended to be better. The two aircraft are in a different category altogether.

As originally envisaged think F-15 vs a F-16 an an analogy for F-22 vs F-35. The airframe performance of the F-22 is in a different league to the F-35, it was designed to be.

Its complicated by a number of factors. The F-35 is a more modern design and as such will have a more modern avionics fit at entry to service (one example is F-35 has a HMD while the F-22 has a fixed HUD). F-22 block upgrades will rectify this.

The problem with F-35 is that it was sold as all things to all people (stealth, STOVL, highly manoeuvrable, cheap as an F-16). Whats come out of it is an expensive jack of all trades and master of none.

This isn't any fiendish master plan its just the DoD and foreign MoDs believing a fanciful sales pitch and now being too heavily invested to have a workable plan B.

F35 = big investment in high technology that isnt working as well as it's supposed to, it's trying to be a jack of all trades but rapidly proving that its master of none. The F35 is a good concept but it's not the aircraft we need right now for the operations that are happening and have been happening for the last 10 years. the airforce (USAF/RAF) always love to get the newest most advanced toys but what we need is a low tech option for ground support, helicopters are good but turn around time and loiter time are not the best and using a missile costing a lot of £$00000000 is not cost effective. A prop plane such as a Skyraider or Hawker Sea Fury would be more cost effective and be able to be produced in larger numbers. We already have the euro fighter for air superiority so for fighting the mad mullahs in caves why not use the low tech option.

I just don't get why they haven't fixed the helmet yet.

BAE Systems is a sub-contractor on the project. They built a fully functioning helmet just like it for the Eurofighter Typhoon. Why didn't they use that pre-existing technology as a modifiable baseline for the F-35 rather than spend a small fortune to have Vision Systems International deliver a faulty product?

Here is a video of the Typhoon Helmet:

reply to post by allenidaho


The HMSS that the Typhoon uses is similar to having a HUD right in front of the pilots face (slightly simplified explanation), and allows targeting at high off boresight (HOBS).

The F-35 helmet on the other hand, is an augmented reality system. It displays 360 degrees around the aircraft, taking data from all the sensors mounted on the aircraft. It's a much more data heavy system than the standard helmet cueing system, so it would be harder to modify a standard helmet to work with the system.