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.

Just detecting is plenty against the F-35. It's mother naked to IR threats, the Soviets equipped their interceptors and air-superiority fighters with long-range IR scanners and long-range IR-guided missiles, and I don't expect with America being so heavily invested in anti-radar stealth the Russians and Chinese would have been dumb enough to stop doing so.

The F-117, being heavily IR baffled, could have evaded them. Not the F-35.

Well, they break easy, and the issue about just one engine the Navy brought up before rears it's ugly head again.

https://news.usni.org/2018/09/04/f-35c-damaged-36249

Still more problems for the F-35. https://www.yahoo.com/news/f-35-966-still-unresolved-124200867.html

Yes, after 17 years of work there is still nearly a THOUSAND flaws in the aircraft, over 100 of which can potentially destroy or severely damage the aircraft and/or kill the pilot.

Remember the good old days when we could design and build a production aircraft in SIX MONTHS using nothing more than brains, drafting tables, and slide rules? Now they're too busy using their Nintendo's to do the design work and don't seem to be exercising their brains at all...

 Vulcan wrote:
Still more problems for the F-35. https://www.yahoo.com/news/f-35-966-still-unresolved-124200867.html

Yes, after 17 years of work there is still nearly a THOUSAND flaws in the aircraft, over 100 of which can potentially destroy or severely damage the aircraft and/or kill the pilot.

Remember the good old days when we could design and build a production aircraft in SIX MONTHS using nothing more than brains, drafting tables, and slide rules? Now they're too busy using their Nintendo's to do the design work and don't seem to be exercising their brains at all...

To be fair to them, aircraft got a LOT more complex since the days they were designed and built in six months.

Remember when cars were just 4 stone wheels, and a dinosaur canvas for a roof? Those were the days.

The design of a 5th generation aircraft is more complex than could possibly imagine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, that article is a hack job of pretty amazing proportions, written by someone with no understanding of how issues manifest, and risk management.

Some of those issues are exactly the same as ones that still exist on jets that have been flying for years in the USAF. Wonder why that isn't being mentioned...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Still more problems for the F-35. https://www.yahoo.com/news/f-35-966-still-unresolved-124200867.html

Yes, after 17 years of work there is still nearly a THOUSAND flaws in the aircraft, over 100 of which can potentially destroy or severely damage the aircraft and/or kill the pilot.

Remember the good old days when we could design and build a production aircraft in SIX MONTHS using nothing more than brains, drafting tables, and slide rules? Now they're too busy using their Nintendo's to do the design work and don't seem to be exercising their brains at all...

To be fair to them, aircraft got a LOT more complex since the days they were designed and built in six months.

True, but seventeen years is still seventeen years. How many new fighters have the Russians designed and built in that time? How many have the Chinese designed and built?

Heck, Kelly Johnson and crew flew the SR-71 in SIX years... without a single computer. Lockheed went from the P-38 to the SR-71 in less time than the F-35 has been in development. At some point you have to say "Enough is enough" and start issuing severe penalties for nonperformance.

Your article mentions failures that are still present in the F16. Should that aircraft be fixed by now?

Thebiggesthat wrote:
Your article mentions failures that are still present in the F16. Should that aircraft be fixed by now?

Yes. Why aren't they? How many are there? Do any threaten the life of the pilot?

Perhaps a link might help answer my questions.

Like any modern combat aircraft, I'm sure the F-35 will be fine...in about 10-15 years. However, the main issue is the cost of getting to that point. Combat airframes are deceptively worthwhile considering the often maligned costs that citizens gripe about. "$30 million for a plane is too much!", etc. We often get 25-40 years out of an aircraft before retiring it. That's a pretty good investment.

The F-35, while generally failing to deliver on a bunch of promises, may eventually become a worthwhile component of our combat aviation community...but those dollars are adding up at a frightening rate. I feel we could be paying top dollar for a completely "okay" product by the time it's all said and done.

If I was anyone other than the US I wouldn't look at it for a second. Gen 4++ style aircraft are a much more decent option, often doing 70-80% of the work a fancy new super jet will do for maybe 30% the cost. Even the Russians have backtracked on their own Su-50 and revised their procurement schedule to concentrate more on a slew of Su-35s and the newest Migs they're producing. They did do the Su-50 (PAK-FA) in a fantastically short period, and I think it'll likewise be a great plane when finalized.

I think the F-35 stands a strong chance of being the painful first child in the new family of mass-production 5th generation aircraft. I hope we can scrounge back the performance we initially wanted out of it. It's nothing to write home about at the moment.

 Vulcan wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:
Your article mentions failures that are still present in the F16. Should that aircraft be fixed by now?

Yes. Why aren't they? How many are there? Do any threaten the life of the pilot?

Perhaps a link might help answer my questions.

Maybe they aren't fixed because in reality, they aren't the big deal that a yahoo article written by someone that doesn't understand aircraft development and risk management thinks they are.

Maybe you could point out which of those issues in that article risk the life of the pilot? I'll be happy to rebuke and inform where I can, with the caveat that this is a public forum and I can't speak freely. But if you are only interested in articles written by journalists, then you'll not get the full picture I'm afraid.

Thebiggesthat wrote:

Maybe you could point out which of those issues in that article risk the life of the pilot? I'll be happy to rebuke and inform where I can, with the caveat that this is a public forum and I can't speak freely. But if you are only interested in articles written by journalists, then you'll not get the full picture I'm afraid.

Have not read the article, but I'll call only carrying two to four anti-aircraft missiles and the fact that I'm given to understand the part where the pilots blacking out is still occurring. I'd call those threats to the pilots. Landing gear collapse is also something of an issue but not as severe.

Thebiggesthat wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:
Your article mentions failures that are still present in the F16. Should that aircraft be fixed by now?

Yes. Why aren't they? How many are there? Do any threaten the life of the pilot?

Perhaps a link might help answer my questions.

Maybe they aren't fixed because in reality, they aren't the big deal that a yahoo article written by someone that doesn't understand aircraft development and risk management thinks they are.

Maybe you could point out which of those issues in that article risk the life of the pilot? I'll be happy to rebuke and inform where I can, with the caveat that this is a public forum and I can't speak freely. But if you are only interested in articles written by journalists, then you'll not get the full picture I'm afraid.

So you're claiming to work on or around the F-35 and have information that we're not privy to. All right. Please, Enlighten us with your credentials and what your experience is (as far as you can without violating security) with the F-35 so we know how serious to take you.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, they break easy, and the issue about just one engine the Navy brought up before rears it's ugly head again.

https://news.usni.org/2018/09/04/f-35c-damaged-36249

funny the proponents of Canada buying the F-35 have insisted that technology has reached a point where a second engine isn't nesscary. they where wrong, biiiig suprise

So you link to an article where a second engine wasn't necessary.......

Unlike the biggest I haven't worked around the F-35 but I have done DoD acquisition and that Yahoo article had my eyes rolling so many times they're just recovering now a few days later. I could take a T&E report on picnic tables and use quotes to make it sound like the end of the world. You have one org (T&E) who has zero responsibility to get anything delivered but always want to be able to say I told you so and a second org (News) whose ignorant of what their talking about and just needs to make everything as exciting as possible (and probably has an agenda to boot).

The twin engine thing is a big knock. Technology be damned, ask any combat aviator who flies off a carrier for a living...two engines is ALWAYS better than one. I don't need the opinion of the internet, the government, or the contractor building it - I'm interested in the guys who'll be flying the thing.

I'm a trials engineer, who's job it is is to test software and functionality on fast jet aircraft. Ive worked on a state of the art fast jet for 8 years, and have extensive experience in reporting and analysis regarding faults and fixes. And yes, have some experience in the last couple of years with JSF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:

Maybe you could point out which of those issues in that article risk the life of the pilot? I'll be happy to rebuke and inform where I can, with the caveat that this is a public forum and I can't speak freely. But if you are only interested in articles written by journalists, then you'll not get the full picture I'm afraid.

Have not read the article, but I'll call only carrying two to four anti-aircraft missiles and the fact that I'm given to understand the part where the pilots blacking out is still occurring. I'd call those threats to the pilots. Landing gear collapse is also something of an issue but not as severe.

Neither mentioned in the article. But well done for not bothering to read.

Weapon loadout is fairly irrelevant, that's not what it's there for solely. 4 is more that enough.

Please expand on the blackout issues. Is this the seat oxygen system, or pilot unfamiliarity with an aircraft capable of this performance.

Same with landing gear collapse? Is this collapse despite being within the performance window, or VTOL pilots used to a different aircraft like the GR/AV8?

Four weapons is only enough when you aren't facing five or more opponents...

A software engineer. Very good, I'm sure you know all about the software problems and could tell us why the F-35 can't use a host of new weapons systems yet... if not for the pesky security issues. Can you address the severity of the 100+ open issues that threaten the life of the pilot and/or the flightworthyness of the airframe?

 Vulcan wrote:
Four weapons is only enough when you aren't facing five or more opponents...

How often is an F-35 going to be flying solo against 5 targets?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Four weapons is only enough when you aren't facing five or more opponents...

How often is an F-35 going to be flying solo against 5 targets?

Well, if it is supposed to fly CAS missions then quite often. Furthermore, only having 4 weapons is also going to be a problem if it is supposed to fly air superiority or intercept missions, since the kill probability of a missile is quite a bit less than 100%, which means you need multiple missiles for a single target. Which means that you'd need to send in multiple F-35s, which drives up the already stellar operating costs even further. Either that or you mount more weapons externally on the F-35 which dramatically increases its usefulness but of course at the cost of stealth. It is a tradeoff you need to make with the F-35 for every mission. Do you need stealth but at the cost of having a small payload, or do you need a larger payload but at the cost of lacking stealth? Overall that is still an improvement over 4th-generation jets since they don't get to make that choice at all, they always suffer from a lack of stealth.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Four weapons is only enough when you aren't facing five or more opponents...

How often is an F-35 going to be flying solo against 5 targets?

Right, and what is it going to do if up against 7 targets and its only got 6???????????? I guess its going to shoot 6 missiles and then high-tail out of there.

I think the 4 is ok. Its not great, but since we'll have far more of them than lets say the F-22, we'll just be sending more of them. As its been mentioned here before, the internal bays will be used for the initial strikes against radar sites and so on, and then as things get harder for the enemy to target, let alone shoot at, the F-35, then its will start using its external hardpoints to carry more.

And think about this, its stealthy, but more importantly can shoot missiles in any direction. That's amazing for even a single F-35, but going up against a wing of these? The enemy will get massacred. And you also have to stop looking at these things in a void, they are part of a system. Chances are we'll know every movement taking place well before a threat is in the area. So you are talking about an enemy trying to visually see an F-35 and hopes it can get a radar lock on it (as in that Australian pilot talked about trying to do to an F-22), while the F-35 is going to know where exactly you are from beyond visual range.

Sure the project has been a mess, but they are really trying to build 3 different aircraft at the same time all carrying the same software. Its pretty crazy and will probably be never attempted again. At least I hope not. But regardless the F-35 is still miles away from what anyone else is able to field. I would have felt better about having 200 more F-22s but oh well. We haven't needed them and by the time we probably will, there will be something else in the works. I think there already is: 1 air superiority fighter, and a long range fighter to accompany the Raider. So we'll have to see what happens. I am sure both will be scary.

And don't get me started on that chinese crap. They can't even build a good jet engine. Can't hit moving targets with their carrier killer missiles. Anything they have are just cheap imitations of american or russian designs. They might keep things interesting in the opening salvos, but after that? They will be picked apart and destroyed.

KTG17 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Four weapons is only enough when you aren't facing five or more opponents...

How often is an F-35 going to be flying solo against 5 targets?

Right, and what is it going to do if up against 7 targets and its only got 6???????????? I guess its going to shoot 6 missiles and then high-tail out of there.

I think the 4 is ok. Its not great, but since we'll have far more of them than lets say the F-22, we'll just be sending more of them. As its been mentioned here before, the internal bays will be used for the initial strikes against radar sites and so on, and then as things get harder for the enemy to target, let alone shoot at, the F-35, then its will start using its external hardpoints to carry more.

And think about this, its stealthy, but more importantly can shoot missiles in any direction. That's amazing for even a single F-35, but going up against a wing of these? The enemy will get massacred. And you also have to stop looking at these things in a void, they are part of a system. Chances are we'll know every movement taking place well before a threat is in the area. So you are talking about an enemy trying to visually see an F-35 and hopes it can get a radar lock on it (as in that Australian pilot talked about trying to do to an F-22), while the F-35 is going to know where exactly you are from beyond visual range.

Sure the project has been a mess, but they are really trying to build 3 different aircraft at the same time all carrying the same software. Its pretty crazy and will probably be never attempted again. At least I hope not. But regardless the F-35 is still miles away from what anyone else is able to field. I would have felt better about having 200 more F-22s but oh well. We haven't needed them and by the time we probably will, there will be something else in the works. I think there already is: 1 air superiority fighter, and a long range fighter to accompany the Raider. So we'll have to see what happens. I am sure both will be scary.

And don't get me started on that chinese crap. They can't even build a good jet engine. Can't hit moving targets with their carrier killer missiles. Anything they have are just cheap imitations of american or russian designs. They might keep things interesting in the opening salvos, but after that? They will be picked apart and destroyed.

The problem with 'just sending more' is that it is more expensive. And more expensive means less export sales, less missions, less equipment, less manpower etc. A wing of F-35s may be impressive, but that is little use if the enemy can field 3 wings of cheaper fighters for every F-35 wing you have (there are plenty of ways to get a radar lock on an F-35, or to kill an F-35 without radar as discussed earlier in this thread). You want to balance out performance with costs. Building the best, deadliest jet in the world is easy. It is designing such a jet while keeping it cost-effective that is hard.
The Chinese may not be able to build good jet engines, but they build perfectly fine jets using Russian engines. The J-10 for example is a very modern, deadly design that can easily match or even outmatch all other 4th generation multirole fighters. And the J-31 looks like a very promising 5th generation stealth fighter, produced in a fraction of the time the US needed for its projects. China is very rapidly catching up to the US and Russia in terms of technology, so it would be unwise to underestimate their new designs. The US is still firmly in the lead when it comes to the latest fighter jet technology. But it can't remain in the lead if it starts underestimating its rivals. That same sort of complacency saw the US lose its initial lead in missile and space technology to the Soviets/Russia.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The problem with 'just sending more' is that it is more expensive. And more expensive means less export sales, less missions, less equipment, less manpower etc. A wing of F-35s may be impressive, but that is little use if the enemy can field 3 wings of cheaper fighters for every F-35 wing you have (there are plenty of ways to get a radar lock on an F-35, or to kill an F-35 without radar as discussed earlier in this thread). You want to balance out performance with costs. Building the best, deadliest jet in the world is easy. It is designing such a jet while keeping it cost-effective that is hard.

Red Flag is saying otherwise. Besides, the F-35 is not fighting in a void. Still plenty of other aircraft in the US air force to help it.

Also, this is cool too: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19636/this-is-what-the-us-air-force-wants-you-to-think-air-combat-will-look-like-in-2030

Those Loyal Wingman plans are the real deal apparently. One of the things the F-35 is supposed to do is act as a manager for other aircraft, so it looks like this capability was planned a long time ago.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Chinese may not be able to build good jet engines, but they build perfectly fine jets using Russian engines. The J-10 for example is a very modern, deadly design that can easily match or even outmatch all other 4th generation multirole fighters. And the J-31 looks like a very promising 5th generation stealth fighter, produced in a fraction of the time the US needed for its projects.

And even the Russian engines are lagging. And Russia wont give China their best one. And you say looks promising but you cannot look at an aircraft and conclude its abilities. The truth is both are frankenstein jets built from tech they ripped off from others. I doubt they barely understand the tech. And if they did, they wouldn't be relying on the russians for engines.

Worse still, China has no experience in any kind of air campaign. Not even a short one, let alone a long complex one. All they have are theories and a bunch of parades to go by. That is very different than another that's a well oiled machine with experiencing managing the complete battle space.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Four weapons is only enough when you aren't facing five or more opponents...

How often is an F-35 going to be flying solo against 5 targets?

Given the pricetag of the F-35, I don't think America is ever going to have very many of them. Yes, I know the plan was to buy several thousand, but how realistic is that anymore? We'll be doing good to get a couple hundred.

How many fighters do the Russians have? How many do the Chinese have? A couple THOUSAND... each? Even an obsolescent piece of garbage is more than a match for an F-35 that's out of ammo. Worse, the fifth fighter is free to go after AWACs or tankers...

KTG17 wrote:
One of the things the F-35 is supposed to do is act as a manager for other aircraft, so it looks like this capability was planned a long time ago.

Among two dozen other things. And calling it 'planned' is a bit generous. It's about as planned as a table napkin sketch is a fully developed blueprint.

I'm a bit curious how the pilot is going to fly half a dozen planes in a combat situation. Something tells me he's gonna be busier than the proverbial one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

The F-35 definitely stinks of being a bunch of good ideas mismashed together without a coherent vision.

Its gonna be stealthy!

And its gonna be stealthy while it has weapons!

And its gonna be able to not be stealthy and carry more weapons!

And its gonna be able to do CAS!

And its gonna be able to Dog Fight!

And its gonna be able to scout!

And its gonna be able to fly a bunch of drones!

repeat Ad nausium...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
One of the things the F-35 is supposed to do is act as a manager for other aircraft, so it looks like this capability was planned a long time ago.

Among two dozen other things. And calling it 'planned' is a bit generous. It's about as planned as a table napkin sketch is a fully developed blueprint.

I'm a bit curious how the pilot is going to fly half a dozen planes in a combat situation. Something tells me he's gonna be busier than the proverbial one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

He isn't. In the example of Have Raider, the drone F-16 simulated a bombing attack while avoiding an attack and regrouped with the F-16 with the pilot on its own. I think if they were expecting the F-35 pilot to actually pilot the drones this wouldn't be getting off the ground. The idea is for the F-35 to give tasks to the Loyal Wingmen and for them to autonomously engage those targets on their own, including air to air targets, then regroup with the F-35. And I don't mean the planned capability in this regard, as I have no idea, but I know the software on the plane is meant to handle the battle-space for other aircraft, especially the Gen 4 ones. So I don't think this is a huge leap. Rather than picking up a target and assigning it to a couple of F-15s, it will just assign it to a Loyal Wingman.

I think this is going to come up a lot faster than people think, too.

I think this pic is so badass, even if CGI.



While everyone else is trying to catch up to building a Gen 5, we're working on this.

KTG17 wrote:


While everyone else is trying to catch up to building a Gen 5, we're working on this.

No, they arn't, and, IIRC, legally we shouldn't be working on this, as, you know, autonomous weapons systems are SERIOUSLY frowned upon with quite a few efforts underway to add 'killer robots' to the list of banned weapons, along with Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological warfare.

Uh, yes they are. Google Loyal Wingman there is plenty to read up on. The Navy is also building autonomous ships to patrol too. In war time you can bet they will be told to engage as well.

Also, the difference between autonomous and killer robots is that the human pilot is still making the decision for the Loyal Wingman, or whatever weapon system, on what to engage. The Loyal Wingman is just deciding how to do it. 'Killer robots' would mean you just let it go and if picks its own targets, and may end up killing indiscriminately. That's the problem people have. It might be a blurry line but there is a difference.

And consider this, the Air Force has already come out and said that the next gen of combat aircraft might be it as far as human pilots are concerned. A great deal of effort goes into preventing an airplane from being too maneuverable, because the human pilot can't handle it. Remove the pilot and your aircraft can push even crazier gs. Those Loyal Wingmen will fly circles around any human pilot since they wont have to worry about blacking out.

Future war is going to be decided lighting quick by the 'toys' everyone has at the time. Whoever runs out of those toys first is going to lose. Might be another 100 years before thats a reality but its coming.

 KTG17 wrote:

Future war is going to be decided lighting quick by the 'toys' everyone has at the time. Whoever runs out of those toys first is going to lose. Might be another 100 years before thats a reality but its coming.

Unless one side figured out that they could easily win the war if they can keep going once all expensive toys are exhausted and were to keep back a massive supply of cheap, outdated equipment. If you are a big country like the US, Russia or China, there is no way the enemy can put you out of the fight before they exhaust their advanced equipment. Then it comes down to who can keep producing the most cost-effective weapons, rather than the most advanced ones. Total war between large industrial nations won't change a lot, those are always going to remain wars of attrition. It is going to be a different story for smaller conflicts though, those are already decided very quickly when an advanced military shows up, and that is going to be even quicker. And if the past 73 years are any indication, those smaller conflicts are going to remain a lot more common than big wars, thanks to the blessing that is mutually assured destruction.

But yeah, aircraft are probably all going to be drones in the future. The technology is not quite here yet, but if it keeps advancing like it does currently it definitely won't be more than a century.
Fully autonomous robots without human control are never going to happen I think. Even before going into ethical and legal barriers, fully autonomous robots just don't provide many benefits over human-controlled ones, and quite a lot of drawbacks.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

Future war is going to be decided lighting quick by the 'toys' everyone has at the time. Whoever runs out of those toys first is going to lose. Might be another 100 years before thats a reality but its coming.

Unless one side figured out that they could easily win the war if they can keep going once all expensive toys are exhausted and were to keep back a massive supply of cheap, outdated equipment. If you are a big country like the US, Russia or China, there is no way the enemy can put you out of the fight before they exhaust their advanced equipment. Then it comes down to who can keep producing the most cost-effective weapons, rather than the most advanced ones. Total war between large industrial nations won't change a lot, those are always going to remain wars of attrition.

Indeed. Which is something that is sorely overlooked right now. Expensive toys are good when they're better than the opponent, but if there is anything close to parity they lose their advantage and suddenly have a massive number of disadvantages.

It is going to be a different story for smaller conflicts though, those are already decided very quickly when an advanced military shows up, and that is going to be even quicker. And if the past 73 years are any indication, those smaller conflicts are going to remain a lot more common than big wars, thanks to the blessing that is mutually assured destruction.

At least until anti-ballistic missile technology becomes more reliable, and that day is fast approaching. Once ICBMs can be shot down with a high success rate the thread of MAD will cease to exist. Then we will be back to the way things were before nuclear bombs.

There would be a brief period where only one super power has reliable anti-ICBM technology, a time when they could flex their muscle since their ICBMs would still be useful while their opponents were useless. But the other nations would catch up in time, either independently, a defector steals the plans, etc...

The refinement after that will be the ability to trivially shoot down combat aircraft and smaller missiles. At which point we're back to infantry, indirect artillery, and tanks being the main fighting force. Aircraft will be relegated to scouting duties, and then it will be unmanned drones trying to stay hidden because if detected a laser will shoot them down immediately.