Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:
You'd also be getting a 4.5 gen jet instead of a 5th.

And what would be the difference between those two? EW?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And what would be the difference between those two? EW?

Electronic warfare capabilities are part of it, under the umbrella of advanced avionics in general, but it'd also include very low observability (stealth), battlefield networking capability, high maneuverability, etc.

All of which apparently is super important for defending a barren hellscape no one give a gak about. Apparently stealth is super important in a dog fight.

 Crablezworth wrote:
All of which apparently is super important for defending a barren hellscape no one give a gak about. Apparently stealth is super important in a dog fight.

Hard to defend anything if the aggressors shoot you down before you're even capable of knowing they're there. Stealth isn't important in a dogfight, no. The last time anybody had one of those was 1982, however. Stealth's designed to help ensure you never get to the merge. If I can see you (thanks, AESA) and you can't see me (thanks, VLO), then who has an advantage?

If dogfighting's your real concern, though, AIM-9X Block IIIs and EODAS will have you covered.

But let's not talk solely about defense. Do you believe the Rwandan genocide should've been stopped, out of curiosity? If so, you believe in the need for at least some military power.

 djones520 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
The shortcomings of the F35 are pretty well known, easy to find and too numerous to list. The plane is going to be a jack of all trades if we are lucky, which is great in the regular world....but not in the world of air combat....second place means you are dead. The whole idea of the whole "One Frame" Idea was to save money, but its given Lockheed a monopoly, and they are milking it for all it is worth.

No, the F-35's shortcomings are extant, but widely misunderstood by the general public. There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.

What's going on with the F-35 is, to use an analogy, a little like what would happen if you tried to show a B-29 to a World War I pilot. He'd go, "You idiots! You forgot to allow the canopy to open so the pilot can throw bombs out!"

I like that analogy.

Yeah, its a fun analogy......but it is completely inaccurate.


The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
The software development is behind schedule.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.
Range and payload are also less than the fighters it is scheduled to replace.

And testing really hasn't even started yet. Really the plane has issues popping up all over the place and it hasn't even been pushed to the limits.

AND IT STILL CANT LAND ON CARRIERS!

Not sure how any of the equates to your analogy?

And yes I know there are always going to be teething problems.This is much more than that, this project was promised as the future in aircraft development, 1 airframe for all roles, which anybody that knows anything about aircraft means just tons of compromise in a combat system that functions best when it does not compromise. The development was supposed to be cheaper because it was being built and tested using computer simulation. That has crapped out as we have found issues with the basic structural integrity of the airframe during testing.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Yeah, its a fun analogy......but it is completely inaccurate.


The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
The software development is behind schedule.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.

And testing really hasn't even started yet. Really the plane has issues popping up all over the place and it hasn't even been pushed to the limits.

AND IT STILL CANT LAND ON CARRIERS!

You're quoting a lot of outdated issues that have been resolved, and some of it was outright misleading when it was first claimed. Even still, that would all be problematic on an operational aircraft, which the F-35 is not. It's got three more years before it's operational.

And yes I know there are always going to be teething problems.This is much more than that, this project was promised as the future in aircraft development, 1 airframe for all roles, which anybody that knows anything about aircraft means just tons of compromise in a combat system that functions best when it does not compromise. The development was supposed to be cheaper because it was being built and tested using computer simulation. That has crapped out as we have found issues with the basic structural integrity of the airframe during testing.

There's no question that a bad development path was chosen for the F-35, but it doesn't follow that a chaotic and costly development necessarily leads to a bad product. If my days of slamming aircraft onto pitching decks in bad weather at night were ahead of me instead of behind me, I'd have no qualms at all about flying operational F-35s.

And again, I can't say enough that I think the F-35's main problem is that too many of its advantages, while incredible, are a little too esoteric for anyone but pilots to understand. The general public understands speed. They understand Flankers doing Cobras at air shows. They don't understand sensor fusion or clean vs. loaded performance envelopes or over-the-shoulder AMRAAM cuing.

So basically, it's like saying a bunch of people on the internet are debating the merits of new brain surgery techniques. They may understand some basics of it, but in the end the only people who really know whats going on is brain surgeons.

As a member of the AF who works in operations, and is required to have a decent understanding of aircraft, I agree with your assesment on that. Many of particulars of fighter aircraft are greek to me, and I spent nearly 5 years working directly with F-16's. What I do know though is that I've yet to hear of a single pilot whose worked with the F-35 who hasn't liked it, and what it's going to bring to the fight.

 Seaward wrote:
Do you believe the Rwandan genocide should've been stopped, out of curiosity? If so, you believe in the need for at least some military power.

Seeing as members of our armed forces would have to hold their collective thumbs out on the side of the road to get there, I'm firmly in the "it's not our problem" camp. Our ability to contribute to nato is somewhere between adorable and cute. We'll never totally rid ourselves of our military, it's an important make work project.



And as for the inference that we're all too dumb to be able to assess what makes a good combat aircraft, I can assure no one gives a gak. To me it's like a middle class family being told they're too stupid to understand how much they truly need a farrari by a ferrari salesman.

I'll be sure to tell all non-medical people to just shut up because they don't know what they are talking about in any future ObamaCare threads if that is how we are going to play around here now...

 Seaward wrote:
There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.

So what is the point of the F-22 then? Wasn't it supposed to be the ultimate air to air fighter? Is it already obsolete before we've even used them in any meaningful way?

The fake offense is strong in here...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.

So what is the point of the F-22 then? Wasn't it supposed to be the ultimate air to air fighter? Is it already obsolete before we've even used them in any meaningful way?

The problem with ferrari's is you start to wrorry about'm gettin dinged up or scratched. It was too "precious" to use in combat. But it looks really cool in bad summer blockbusters.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
There's nothing current or projected anywhere in the world - including the F-22 - that's going to give it serious trouble in air to air combat. The F-22 might end up with the advantage WVR, but that's very far from certain if it never winds up getting some sort of HMCS.

So what is the point of the F-22 then? Wasn't it supposed to be the ultimate air to air fighter? Is it already obsolete before we've even used them in any meaningful way?

I have seen some things that say some of the things the F-35 will be bringing are more advanced then the F-22. It won't be obsolete, just like the F-16 didn't make the F-15C obsolete.

 Peregrine wrote:
So what is the point of the F-22 then? Wasn't it supposed to be the ultimate air to air fighter? Is it already obsolete before we've even used them in any meaningful way?

It's very far from obsolete, and it'll remain the premier air superiority fighter for the foreseeable future, long after the introduction of the JSF. The JSF has a lot of nifty tricks that'll potentially put it on an equal footing, at least defensively, with the F-22, though. I'd describe it as the F-22 ending up a little better at shooting down, and the JSF ending up a little better at not being shot down.

Though, again, the F-22 really needs helmet-mounted cuing. Off-boresight missiles have pretty much rendered traditional dogfighting tactics obsolete.

 Seaward wrote:
It's very far from obsolete, and it'll remain the premier air superiority fighter for the foreseeable future, long after the introduction of the JSF. The JSF has a lot of nifty tricks that'll potentially put it on an equal footing, at least defensively, with the F-22, though. I'd describe it as the F-22 ending up a little better at shooting down, and the JSF ending up a little better at not being shot down.

Though, again, the F-22 really needs helmet-mounted cuing. Off-boresight missiles have pretty much rendered traditional dogfighting tactics obsolete.

When did we realize this? Maybe I'm completely wrong on this, but I thought the whole idea was that the F-22 would be the "elite" super-plane capable of effortlessly dominating everything, while the F-35 had the role of being a cheaper "everyday" plane that could make up the required total fighter numbers without destroying the budget or giving the F-22 to anyone else.

 d-usa wrote:
I'll be sure to tell all non-medical people to just shut up because they don't know what they are talking about in any future ObamaCare threads if that is how we are going to play around here now...

Yeah, that's always the balancing act in democracy. Because we can't just accept the military (or whatever other industry) gets to tell everyone what they want and how much it has to cost because they have greater expertise, but at the same time you have to recognise they are worth listening to.

And in this instance, when you've got a guy who says he flies in the military and seems to know what he's talking about, and some other folk who seem to be coming in with knowledge gleaned from some military blogs, I think the military guy is probably worth listening too.

I mean, when the military says 'this new thing is pretty good' just be grateful they're not asking for a more expensive toy

 Peregrine wrote:
When did we realize this? Maybe I'm completely wrong on this, but I thought the whole idea was that the F-22 would be the "elite" super-plane capable of effortlessly dominating everything, while the F-35 had the role of being a cheaper "everyday" plane that could make up the required total fighter numbers without destroying the budget or giving the F-22 to anyone else.

I doubt there's anything that can effortlessly dominate anything else, in the modern realm of 4th/5th gen fighters, there's just stuff that's going to have advantages, however significant, over the competition. The F-22's an amazing aircraft, and will remain one, but there are ways to defeat it, and always will be. (My avatar's a screen cap of a Super Hornet getting a gun kill on a Raptor over Langley, for example.) Same goes for anything else, including the F-35.

The F-22 was designed as an air superiority fighter, and the F-35 was designed as a multirole. The F-22's going to be a better "pure" fighter than the F-35 simply by merit of range, payload, and speed. The gap may close a little due to the planned upgrade path for the F-22 getting altered due to sequestration. The Air Force was working on a helmet cuing system for AIM-9X integration before it hit, and last I heard, they canceled it for the time being, because the reality is that we're the only guys with 5th gen fighters in the air, and that's going to remain the case until 2020 at the earliest. The F-22 doesn't need HOBS capability to defeat 4th gen fighters the majority of the time, so we can wait on the capability. That lack of capability, however, would make it a little more vulnerable to the F-35 if they ended up dogfighting. Wouldn't affect BVR, which is really where the Raptor makes its bones, anyway. I said I figured the F-22 and the F-35 would end up about equal in the BVR department because I don't actually know what the F-35's radar cross section's going to end up (as that's pretty highly classified), but I assume it probably won't be significantly worse than the F-22's, so they're about as stealthy as each other, as far as I know, which is what counts (at least initially) in beyond visual range engagements.

The F-22's got a little more flexibility for avionics upgrades as well, due to not being as weight-constrained as the F-35. What makes a modern fighter superior to another is, largely, the ability to spot the other guy before he spots you, so being able to cram a more power-hungry radar into the F-22 will make a difference down the line. For a bird that was designed to have a couple AMRAAMs headed your way before you knew it was even there, that's pretty crucial. When it all shakes out and we're comparing them in 2025, the F-22'll probably have an edge in that department.

So if the major difference in capability is which plane gets priority for electronics work was cutting F-22 production in favor of more F-35s (and more F-35 upgrades) the correct decision? Should the F-22 have been abandoned earlier and replaced entirely with the F-35?

 Seaward wrote:
The F-22's got a little more flexibility for avionics upgrades as well, due to not being as weight-constrained as the F-35. What makes a modern fighter superior to another is, largely, the ability to spot the other guy before he spots you, so being able to cram a more power-hungry radar into the F-22 will make a difference down the line. For a bird that was designed to have a couple AMRAAMs headed your way before you knew it was even there, that's pretty crucial. When it all shakes out and we're comparing them in 2025, the F-22'll probably have an edge in that department.

Being the air superiority fighter, it should be better in those regards.

 Peregrine wrote:
So if the major difference in capability is which plane gets priority for electronics work was cutting F-22 production in favor of more F-35s (and more F-35 upgrades) the correct decision? Should the F-22 have been abandoned earlier and replaced entirely with the F-35?

The F-35, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't have a post-operational upgrade path marked out yet, but we've never not upgraded our air assets throughout their life cycle, so I'm sure they'll both get appropriate upgrades as time goes by.

As for the question, I think the answer depends mostly on if you believe in the possibility of us ever going to war with another major power. The F-35's more versatile, and makes more sense in asymmetric stuff like we've been doing for the past decade. It wouldn't be a slouch in conventional air warfare, either, but it's very much a strike fighter, not necessarily an air superiority fighter. The F-22 has some strike capabilities, sure, but it's a thoroughbred air superiority plane. A lot of people would argue pure air superiority fighters no longer have a mission. I'm not sure I agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Being the air superiority fighter, it should be better in those regards.

Should be and probably will be, but I don't know if it's guaranteed. The F-22's rooted in the '80s, after all, and a lot of what we learned on the F-22 went into the F-35.

If they ever get in a pure gun fight, F-22's gonna smoke the F-35 without much trouble.

Seaward, you and I don't always see eye to eye on a lot of things discussed around here. But as a naval specialist with only the faintest idea of modern aircraft and their workings, I'd just like to say that I appreciate you breaking down the F-35 in discussion in the way you're doing.

 Ketara wrote:
Seaward, you and I don't always see eye to eye on a lot of things discussed around here. But as a naval specialist with only the faintest idea of modern aircraft and their workings, I'd just like to say that I appreciate you breaking down the F-35 in discussion in the way you're doing.

No problem. I stopped flying and went to work in the private sector a couple years ago, but I still love rambling about this stuff for hours at a time.

 Seaward wrote:
I said I figured the F-22 and the F-35 would end up about equal in the BVR department because I don't actually know what the F-35's radar cross section's going to end up (as that's pretty highly classified), but I assume it probably won't be significantly worse than the F-22's, so they're about as stealthy as each other, as far as I know, which is what counts (at least initially) in beyond visual range engagements.

I need to revise this statement. I checked, just on the off-chance that the DOD had ever released anything regarding comparative radar cross sections, and it turns out they did, back in 2005. The F-22 has a (frontal) RCS roughly equivalent to a marble at 0.0001~0.0002 m2, while the F-35 was projected to have an RCS roughly the size of a golf ball (0.0015m2). The F-35 was stated to have exceeded that expectation when they began testing it, so it's better than projected, but not quite as stealthy as the F-22, in all likelihood, and the F-22 probably has better all-aspect stealth.

This is an interesting article
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/09/joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin

So, to sum up, billions will be wasted on a jet that will probably have a glorious military service of doing nothing more than bombing empty tents and camels in the middle east.

You may disagree, but I can't see the US military (and depressingly, Britain as well) doing anything else for the next 10 years.

It's high time America got its priorities right and spent the money on developing decent bread and cheese, instead. And beer...definitely need good beer!

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
This is an interesting article
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/09/joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin

I've read it. It gets some stuff wrong, but it' offers good insight as to why concurrent design/testing/production's a bad idea that we'll hopefully not do again.

In March 2013 USAF test pilots noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights and said that this will get them consistently shot down in combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from the flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption";[185] in response, program manager Bogdan suggested that pilots worried about being shot down should fly cargo aircraft instead.[186] The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):

Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.
Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.
The radar performs poorly or not at all.
Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
Maintenance tools do not work.[187]
The JPO responded that more experienced pilots would be able to safely operate the aircraft and that procedures would improve over time.[188]

Even in the final "3F" software version, the F-35 will lack ROVER, in spite of having close air support as one of its primary missions.[189]

This is from Wikipedia. The pilots I work with seem to have very positive view of the F22 and think the F35 is a load of high priced gak. I don't really have an opinion as I'm not a pilot and I haven't done a ton of research on that airframe.

My experience as a government contractor tells me that just about anything produced in the current era of "pay us and we will build it" as opposed to a company building a product then trying to sell it, is going to be a gakky product AND/OR cost WAY more than it should.

Spartak wrote:
In March 2013 USAF test pilots noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights and said that this will get them consistently shot down in combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from the flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption";[185] in response, program manager Bogdan suggested that pilots worried about being shot down should fly cargo aircraft instead.[186] The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):

Eh, that's a tad misleading. It was one Air Force pilot in one report. And he's right, as far as I can tell; aft visibility isn't great, but EODAS is designed to make up for that.

There's a decent argument to be made, of course, that if EODAS goes down, the plane's fethed, and it's probably true to a large extent.

Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.

Unsure what this refers to. We're flying them, currently.

Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.

That's not F-35 specific. Any ejection seat can fail, and if it does, you're dead.

Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.

Haven't heard anything about that myself, but sounds like an iPad-level fix.

The radar performs poorly or not at all.

This one's just confusing. The AN/APG-81's an amazing radar, very likely the best we can field in a fighter. It specced very well out of design, and nobody thought it'd do what Northrop Grumman claimed - and then it exceeded expectations in operational testing.

Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.

That needs to come down, but two hours is likely a pipe dream.

Even in the final "3F" software version, the F-35 will lack ROVER, in spite of having close air support as one of its primary missions.

ROVER's the gak, but we'll likely just pod it, like we do with everything else it's deployed on. Won't be much of an issue, as I can't imagine you could come up with a scenario where we'd want to use it without air superiority, so the hit to RCS won't be a big deal.

This is from Wikipedia. The pilots I work with seem to have very positive view of the F22 and think the F35 is a load of high priced gak. I don't really have an opinion as I'm not a pilot and I haven't done a ton of research on that airframe.

This is the part I'm most interested in, to tell you the truth. Raptor pilots aren't sold on the F-35?

You're quoting a lot of outdated issues that have been resolved, and some of it was outright misleading when it was first claimed. Even still, that would all be problematic on an operational aircraft, which the F-35 is not. It's got three more years before it's operational.

Which would put it 7 years behind schedule, the navy is saying it may not be operational till 2019. To put that into perspective, it took less than 8 years to develop and produce most of the 4th gen fighters, and this one is potentially going to be 9 years behind schedule? Not to mention that there are whole squads on the tax payers dime who have been flying this thing for years, some pilots entire carriers are basically going to be taken up testing the same aircraft.

I know enough about aircraft, admittedly not as much as you, but I also know rose colored glasses when I see them. There are issues with the f35 that I'm not concerned with, like the fact that its basically a flying pig, current aircraft will be able to dance around it. As impressive as Russian airshows are, with pilots throwing planes around, its not really any use in combat especially against the impressive systems the f35 is supposed to pack. I know and understand this. I also know that we have made very similar and incorrect assumptions before. "Phantoms don't need guns!" "The days of dog fighting are over".

I hope they are right this time. If not, our pilots are going to be flying a brick with limited range and payload. In so many respects the f35 falls short of the aircraft it is replacing, yes theoretically it will be able to destroy most anything before those stats matter, but air combat history has a way of turning that theory on its head.

 d-usa wrote:
I'll be sure to tell all non-medical people to just shut up because they don't know what they are talking about in any future ObamaCare threads if that is how we are going to play around here now...

Eh... not quite "D".

Obamacare issues isn't medical at all... it's about the administration of the program.

But, then again.. we all have our own opinions.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Which would put it 7 years behind schedule, the navy is saying it may not be operational till 2019. To put that into perspective, it took less than 8 years to develop and produce most of the 4th gen fighters, and this one is potentially going to be 9 years behind schedule? Not to mention that there are whole squads on the tax payers dime who have been flying this thing for years, some pilots entire carriers are basically going to be taken up testing the same aircraft.

I know enough about aircraft, admittedly not as much as you, but I also know rose colored glasses when I see them. There are issues with the f35 that I'm not concerned with, like the fact that its basically a flying pig, current aircraft will be able to dance around it. As impressive as Russian airshows are, with pilots throwing planes around, its not really any use in combat especially against the impressive systems the f35 is supposed to pack. I know and understand this. I also know that we have made very similar and incorrect assumptions before. "Phantoms don't need guns!" "The days of dog fighting are over".

I hope they are right this time. If not, our pilots are going to be flying a brick with limited range and payload. In so many respects the f35 falls short of the aircraft it is replacing, yes theoretically it will be able to destroy most anything before those stats matter, but air combat history has a way of turning that theory on its head.

Oh, it's definitely behind schedule, and I'll be the last person in the world to dispute that the procurement was mismanaged. It's been a dreadful process and could have been done much better. I'm not as concerned about the timeline, though, simply because even if the C - the last one to enter service - doesn't hit the fleet until 2019, we'll still be ahead of the Russians and the Chinese, the only other games in town as far as 5th gen fighters are concerned. And we've already got the Raptor up. We'll have two operational 5th gens before either of them have one, which isn't so bad. Also consider that the F-22 was born in the 80s, and didn't enter service until 2005, so in the scheme of 5th gen fighter gestation periods, the F-35 isn't doing horribly.

I'll also agree on the gun issue. I think it's a horrible decision to omit it from the B and C variants, and I'm also not wild about single engine aircraft for naval aviation. There were a lot of compromises, which prevent it from being anywhere near a perfect aircraft. It's still going to be a great one, though.

That said, the lack of a gun on the B and C isn't the end of the world. We've come a long way from Vietnam, where we were running missile systems in their infancy. The AIM-9X is impressive as hell, and we've been running it for a while now.