Well, we alraedy have eyeball RCS analyzers, aerodynamics can’t be much worse than that.

Playing devil’s advocate here, I remember when the T-50 came out Western ‘official’ comments were based on only photos and they haven’t changed much since. I don’t remember any recent western comments declaring the T-50 as a non sub-par LO design.

Again just playing devil’s advocate …

http://rt.com/news/226383-spain-jet-crash-albacete/

-Dazza

Hopefully there will be no victims, it is a problem for the HAF, they don’t have that many Ds

Yes, now that i compared to pics of real thing you are both correct. I immediately disagreeded without comparing due to “single piece canopy” comment. 😛 Windshield is also definitely different in several outlines, best seen when compared to T-50-0. If i were to *guess*, the CAD is showing an earlier version.

The CAD would not include a single piece canopy for any reason though. If the canopy is a dual piece then the CAD file would reflect that. At least in any company I have been, the working plans are the most accurate. Unless this is a very very early plan not even remotely close to what was put together.

Is there any particular reason/gut feeling you have that this is an older and not a newer version?

With the advent of off-boresight missiles capable of up to 90 degrees lock-on combined with advanced helmets, WVR fights have become extremely dangerous. In some cases the 2 opponents would probably shoot almost simultaneously at each other.

Now let’s say one of the 2 pilots would cut his engine or set it at minimum setting right before the merge. He would effectively deny its opponents his off boresight shot, yet he would probably be able to take his own shot. Obviously his plane would slow down very quickly but he would decelerate for only about 10-20 seconds and he would reengage the engine at full thrust with afterburner right after the enemy plane has been shot down.

I guess the effectiveness of that maneuver would depend on the probability of achieving a lock directly at the merge. That probability may be high, especially if the position of the target is displayed on the visor, like on the F-35 for instance ( or other planes maybe ).

So what would happen if the engine was cut off or reduced at minimum at high speed/high altitude?

Modern imagers lock on the whole aircraft not just the heat source.

There must be a size element too, otherwise 23mm shell would Trip it without being a true threat to the tank.

Is it me or the tyre is a bit flat ??

Sorry to butt in but..

You’re reference to the aircraft’s avionics as ‘gadgets’ suggests that you believe that there is a degree of frivolity involved. Which is fine if you would describe the Captor-E, SPECTRA, TIDLS, Striker II etc as ‘gadgets’ as well, and a double standard if not.

The F-35 project goes far farther in “gadget land” than any of the other designs. Which increases the complexity (and price) by an order of magnitude. I am not certain if I apply double standards here, I’ll be honest so I am open to your critique.

Take a look a the tech refreshes associated with the aircraft’s avionics. It also employs a far greater proportion of COTS than any preceding fighter.

for production however, things will need to solidify so suppliers can create a long supply chain that spans not only space (stock) but also time (production times, spares, tooling, training, etc) these cannot be done if you change systems every two years.

For strike in uncontested airspace the most cost effective option is probably the MQ-9. And it will be worthwhile to invest in a larger fleet of UAVs for unconventional/low-grade operations.

Thank you for picking that up. That is where I was going …

Radars will be able to pick up (non-radiating) stealth aircraft but at vastly reduced ranges (perhaps bordering on WVR). Question is, are you better off if only the opposing side fields stealth aircraft? That the other side may also have a gun is hardly justification for one to enter a fight with just a knife.

That is not necessarily true. There are radars that can pick up a VLO target at very long distances. Enough to alert you of their presence. They are not good enough to provide any kind of targeting solution nor guide -anything- to it with accuracy. But ones fighters will be alerted, even if they will need to fly without a useful radar.

There is factor of diminishing returns but here the cost has been consistently been falling before the production ‘ramp-up’. As the production increases, the fall in costs will only accelerate. Also, cost only need to fall for another three or four years (not 30 years) before target costs are met ($108M to $85M).

I just argued about the fallacy of expecting something to fall to below it initial price throughout its production run when this something is a fighter plane. No other plane in history has done that, why would the F-35 be the first? Is there a particular reason?

I have never seen an aircraft as widely (and more often than not… ignorantly) criticized by the media as the F-35. Perhaps its just short memories and the advent of the information age. In that respect, previous programs like the F-16 were fortunate in that ‘Lawn Dart’ attacks didn’t happen in the internet era.

There must be a reason, people don’t just decide to hate something.

Some of the above I agree with, and some of your above post is rather absurd, sorry. First off was the beast article correct on the details about the F-35’s gun?

Yes the F-35 is late, over budget, and there are many hurtles still to cross. As for a “one size fits all” solution: It is what it has been marketed and sold as, a relatively (subjective) affordable, LO, strike fighter.

Was L-M always forthcoming with budget and delays, nope. The issue here, for me, is the continuing downward trend of journalism and not only in the defense realm. Where was media when the F-35 program was truly going off the rails in the mid 2000’s? Busy killing the F-22: “Cold War Relic”, “400 million dollar fighter”, etc.

Now we have a situation where the F-35 program has stabilized and is headed toward IOC, and we see the usual suspects, Sprey, Wheeler, David Axe being quoted and pumping out the same tired junk. David Majumdar had some fine articles as part of the Flightglobal staff. It is a shame that to sell articles, journalists have to resort to sensationalism.

As far a reaping what you sow, the concern here isn’t about one program. It is about the increasing balkanization of media. You make a point to mention Loren Thompson, yet defend the above article. That is the definition of irony.

a bit delayed response, but I just had some time to read the thread.

I do not disagree with all you stated. You are downright 100% correct on some of them.

Seeing things with a cool level head and from a different perspective is helpful sometimes though.

The whole thing has been derailed completely. Personally I do not know how good the F-35 is going to be, I do however have significant concerns about it and about all the “theoretical” advantages it brings. I will name a few so you can see where I am coming from.

* Currently all of the western front line fighters are extremely expensive. I never said the Rafale or the EF2000 are cheap. I actually always believed they are way too expensive. You now have : Rafale, Typhoon, F-35, F-22 and Grippen/Grippen NG. NONE of which is affordable in any meaningful sense of the word. The traditional producer of affordable planes, the US has put all its eggs into an expensive basket. (F-22/35).

*Personally I respect the pilots who fly these planes, of course, but I take any enthusiasm on their part with a little grain of salt. Of course they are excited about all the new toys in a plane. They always have been and the F-35 is a nerd’s dream, it is a trip to gadget land. But in any realistic assessment, we all know that too much avionics can lead to an extremely complicated future for the plane.
You must of course be aware also that aircraft avionics are not kept up to date with commercial avionics. F-16s were delivered for a number of years to customers with the equivalent of a 486 CPU. Not only that but since it was a militarised and standardized version of the chip it was on production (or on stock) for a very long time before it was replaced. Similar with the F-35, the avionics have been finalized for some time now (I hope for their sake) but how long ago was this finalisation? How soon before updated equipment pods will make legacy fighters a more cost efficient option for operations? (i don’t suggest the purchase of legacy fighters, simply that it would be cheaper to fly one for a specific mission with a new mission pod that use the F-35. There is to this day no guarantee that a flight hour of the F-35 will be cheaper than any other average fighter out there. Some fear it might be more expensive actually.

*Stealth for me is a complicated and somewhat alarming issue. When only one side has Stealth then that is OK even if the benefit is marginal (claims are that it isn’t).
What if both sides have stealth? The fundamental flaw in that reasoning is that proponents of the F-35 feel that only US radars will be able to pick up other stealth planes. A flawed and dangerous logic. If the rhetoric is true and radars of any design are useless in picking up VLO targets in reasonable for BVR and safe distances, then what is the benefit of stealth in a world where both sides have it? You are effectively returning air combat back to WWI when pilots had to do visual interceptions (IRST in our case).
If you argue VLO is good for strikes and deep bombing runs then you must think that air defence radars (L-band) may not have resolution sufficient enough to direct missiles at a VLO target, but can bloody well tell you someone is coming and indeed from a good long distance away, enough to scramble fighters, just as one always did even before good VLO, so we are back to square one.

*Whenever there was a monopoly on a market, things went belly up. Most of the NATO airforces will put all their eggs in one basket. How is that a good thing? What if the “other side” finds a way to beat this plane by fielding a better plane? it would be hubris to assume that the “others” are not capable of making equally good or better planes; and this time more than ever, when the don’t have the numerical advantage, they need to.

*A huge number of compromises for this plane. Not too hot, not too cold, special this, special that, special the other and when it breaks, you have to go back to LM (that is the basis of the Self Diagnostic Functionality) in one way or the other, it’s like asking for permission to fix your plane!

*I don’t care how bad the Rafale or the Grippen are in their own respects, personally I never thought they were anything special to begin with, neither have I ever thought they were cheap. I was kind of hoping a US joint fighter would have been cheap though!

*There have been people on this forum in this thread I believe who claimed the price will go down by 4% every year in production.
To show you how ridiculous this claim is, I want you to follow this reasoning, let’s say (for argument’s sake) that the current flyaway price for the F-35A is currently at 130 million per example. Starting from 2016 and assuming a 30 year production run the F-35 (4% reduction every year) will cost just under 40 million a piece. And that is without inflation and any changes. Is this normal? Of course not, the F-16 was not more expensive when it went into production, it was more expensive near the end of its production. That is the natural progression of things. If you start high, you stay high, but LM seems to be the only one not noticing this.

Anyway, as a final thought, I have never seen so much affection towards something that has never shown anything in regards to its skill or usefulness. If the F-35 proves to be a good plane, fair enough. Nobody loses, but if it fails to deliver, the voice of the sceptics automatically become warnings that nobody paid attention to with grave results.