hopsalotThat is not true, either. At least not generally. The combat effectiveness is greatly mission dependant. The F-35 offers many virtues which might not be needed by export nations, while failing in the roiles they require most (interception, point defense, air dominance).
:very_drunk:
Another round on MShpere!
Few things are more amusing to me than enthusiasts that insist on believing that only they know what their country -really- needs, which is invariably a pure air dominance platform. (sorta echos APA actually)
If you want to argue your peaceful European nation needs nothing more than some armed trainers then go for it. I am sure the Koreans would be happy to sell you some FA-50s… which would be more than capable of air policing and interception missions in friendly airspace. Which actually brings me to something you don’t seem to get… the missions you keep bringing up are actually not particularly demanding and could be performed by essentially any third, fourth, or fifth generation fighter.
If all you need to do is keep an eye on your airspace, fly some patrols, intercept some lost Cessnas and the occasional Russian bomber, and generally just maintain a presence then you can do that with almost anything. The idea that the F-35 would somehow “fail” in these missions is hilarious.
Naturally you don’t advocate for an armed trainer, second hand Kfir, etc… instead you waste everyone’s time trying to find ways to sling mud at the F-35.
hopsalotWhat an unbiased view of things/events :
When we speak of EODAS, EOTS, AESA, SA its all buzzword, when Situational awareness is something that is a well established parameter for figther pilots, and has always been important whether that is improved doppler radars or first generation IR sensors…In fact Situational awareness and battlefield picture is something that has been a driver of technology inovation for decades..With fast computing, sensor-integration and better M2M interface we have reached a new dimension where SA is exceptional compared to legacy fighters (so claim the fighters – who are working for the USAF, USN and USMC and have nothing to do with Lockheed ( Go watch the video interview of the USMC pilot who one of the few pilots to have been cleared on the raptor and F-35) )
Another way of putting it…
History is loaded with examples of slower and/or less maneuverable fighters winning decisively in real world combat.
On the other hand, examples of fighters with inferior situational awareness winning are almost unheard of.
People around here want to imagine air combat as a weird combination of a fair race/acrobatics show. BVR missiles “don’t work.” Fighters can just dodge them and continue on their way to WVR… where they will win by bleeding all of their energy off in a protracted turning fight that ends up low and slow. :applause:
(Of course BVR missiles don’t work. Just look at Spectra! It works so well that France isn’t even interested in BVR weapons like Mica NG or Meteor…. oh wait.)
Yet, SPECTRA, DASS, Advanced Data Links, Supercruise, GaN SPECTRA, OMNI ROLE (all features on 4.5 gen jets) are NOT BUZZWORDS…
Don’t you see the hypo
crisy at play here? When someone points this out, the immediate response is : “STRAWMAN ARGUMENT” ….. We have no problem believing pilot claims, Dassault literature and Operator claims for the Rafale or similar claims for the Gripen, and whenever folks with ties to Dassault or SAAB for example claim OUR SOURCES TELL US… the same dudes raising figures at the F-35 are SILENT…
Yep
Whats the point of even discussing when the discussion leads nowhere? All we get is other side talking about the negatives such as transonic acceleration or Delays, yet when we dive into the positives such as STEALTH , Situational Awareness, Integrated Avionics, EODAS/EOTS etc they are all DISMISSED as BUZZWORDS. When we talk about BVR ability, it is dismissed outright with claims that BVR Weapons are the MOST OVERRATED THING ON THIS PLANET , When we speak about EODAS+EOTS+HMD combo for WVR we get , NOT COMBAT TRIED/PROVEN…When we speak of STEALTH, we get RCS measurements from pictures, and talk about how the stealth fleet is statistically less survivable than the legacy fleet.
How do you carry on a discussion when such is the polarization? Better to stay away and follow the progam, and watch the Euro-4.5 gens wipe the floor when it comes to the aerospace marked due to the SUBPAR performance of the F-35 !
Of course on some level they know that what the F-35 offers is in great demand by the people who actually operate fighters, which is one of the main reasons they attack it so furiously. With no European equivalent in the works the F-35 has to fail… the alternative is unacceptable.
hopsalotAll of the above is simply distraction and illusion designed to deflect reasonable discussion of the issues impacting the F35 program.
None of the above actually addresses any of the points made with relation to the F35 issues.
It’s almost as if somebody doesn’t want them discussed.
nope
Nobody here is failing to address anything frankly. The F-35 has experienced its share of issues in development and everyone here acknowledges that.
The difference between the knowledgeable posters here and the trolls is that we are able to appreciate the value of what the total package the F-35 offers. It isn’t going to win a drag race against a clean Eurofighter and it won’t beat the Su-35 flying an air show routine. It will however offer incredible real world capability and combat effectiveness.
hopsalotThat is why I restrain from any claims when it comes to the performance of these aircraft. Of course, I have my assumptions and I am only presenting these as being such.
We agree it seems. You choose to believe what you want to believe, and refuse to believe what you don’t want to believe. At least we can get on the same page there.
Entertain me.. The politicians who signed up for the F-35 are perfectly aware of its performance specs? They would not recognize that thing on tarmac if it was parked next to a Gripen.
As always, the politicians are being advised by experts. No politician can be an expert in everything they end up getting involved in. They all rely on advisers.
Who exactly are those other manufacturers whose performance claims am I so happy to accept? Please show me the response of mine in which I have done so.
:stupid:
Come on man…
Do you think there is anyone here who isn’t well aware of your little routine by this point?
You want to contest any and every positive report about the F-35. You are never satisfied. Test pilots are paid shills. Operational pilots fear for their careers. Official press releases are marketing. Program managers are liars… unless of course it is a plane you like. :rolleyes:
hopsalotThat is what separate the wheat from the chaff, lucky it wasn’t an F-117 trying to dodge, like in Yugoslavia.
Still, to compete with contemporary missiles, the a/c also need to be contemporary, meaning a tad better performance than F-16,
to be on the safe side,
it may be a good idea to send in a couple of F-22/EF/similar @40k ft to deplete SAM inventory with a rudder-kick prior to sending in bombers
with lesser performance, for safety.
What is funny is that sometimes I think you are serious. :highly_amused:
hopsalotHow is F-35’s maneuverability compared to J-20?
Why don’t you tell us how the J-20’s maneuverability compares to the Su-27 first? :confused:
Is this really the best you can troll?
hopsalotRubbish, the majority of customers had already agreed to purchase the pile of crap long before the ‘lowering’ of its performance specs started to happen… And have any of those performance specs been revised upwards again? hmm…
-Dazza
Rubbish yourself, do you think they found out about that when you did? Do you think they are reading about this on the internet?
As information becomes available it is made available to the partners.
hopsalotNope, there are very convenient ways to persuade all those nay-sayers – publish measurable specs. Cut the crap with “almost F-22”, “better than F-16 Block 50” or “performs very well”, simply show acceleration figures for subsonic, high transonic and supersonic region at various altitudes. Show g-limitations. Show climb rates. Show sustained and instantaneous turn rates.
Sure, perfectly reasonable…. just like all the data that is available for the PAK FA, J-20, J-31, etc, right?
Shoot, that data isn’t even available in any detail for the Eurofighter, Rafale, or Gripen. They have released a few specific numbers under circumstances that are favorable, but they haven’t come close to releasing the type of data you seem to require as proof.
And before you jump on me with the “it’s all sooooooo top secret” argument, let me remind you that the same day the bird somehow barely crawled over M1.6 on full burners it was all over the news. When there’s something to brag about, then the bird’s specs are suddenly not classified, at all..
You have to understand that the people that are signing up to buy the F-35, and those that will be operating it are perfectly aware of its performance specs. Lockheed doesn’t feel a great need to convince ever-skeptical enthusiasts on the internet and neither are any of the other manufacturers.
Really this post is just another example of your bias. You are happy to accept the performance claims made by any other manufacturer, but when it comes to the F-35 you require exhaustive proof. The F-35 has already been far more transparent than almost any similar program and yet you choose to believe only what you want to believe.
hopsalotF-35 still has 719 problems to overcome. It would be a miracle if F-35 can achieve IOC by 2016 as forecasted.
This has already been posted several times.
IOC is slated for the end of 2015 with the USMC.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130531/DEFREG02/305310021/Pentagon-First-F-35s-Operational-2015
At this point the F-35 is well over the developmental hump.
hopsalotI do not see any point in considering buying any of the other MMRCA contenders to boost squadron numbers. Might as well simply scrap local production and buy French-assembled Rafales. I like the suggestion of buying more Mirage aircraft (if spare ex-Armee de l’Air M2K aircraft are available) since the type is already in IAF service and could be quickly and cheaply integrated.
That would be one possible approach, but I understand that the Rafale production line can only ramp up to about 22 aircraft per year from the current production rate of 11/year.
I still suggest it would be a good course of action to immediately double or more the number of Tejas Mk1 ordered and start implementing an increase in production rate to at least mitigate the looming crisis.
That assumes Tejas can perform at a level that would justify buying it. (of course that is a whole different discussion)
hopsalotuse the link in my signature, might save you a lot of headache 😉
Here we agree…. Not only would it shield him from troubling intrusions of reality into his world, but we wouldn’t have to hear from him.
hopsalotWell to get the F-18, they’d have to cancel the MMRCA tender and then float a new tender with the Boeing aircraft as the single vendor. Don’t know on what basis they’d justify that since the defence procurement procedure (as far as i know) was followed for this deal.
The problem with the MMRCA deal is basically this. The IAF did its job as it should have. So its not that the process was too complex and unworkable per se, its that there are additional factors.
The current Govt is arguably amongst the worst in Indian history.It has mismanaged the economy badly and blown a lot of the available cash on all sorts of sops for “poor folks”, basically intended to win the next election. Bribes basically.
Defence preparedness is an also ran in their list of things to do.So the IAF work, MOD negotiators etc can do all they are supposed to do. But the Fin Min and others will progress things slowly if the party which runs the current Govt asks them to get some money to throw on more populist schemes.
The mismanagement has also meant that the Rs-$/Euro exchange rates also took a hit, that makes these deals more expensive.
Add a Def Min, who is notorious for sitting on deals as versus acting on them, at the slightest hint of corruption (he wants to maintain a squeaky clean image), and you have the current situation..Of course Dassault has done its best to secure a better deal for itself, acted tough on TOT – they are a commercial organization, blaming them is pointless. Point is that if the GOI currently was more effective, EF & its L2 status would have been enough to get that sorted out quickly too.
I get governmental dysfunction. (I am posting from the US at the moment…) … but if your force structure calls for XX squadrons sooner or later you need to buy some jets or just admit you will never reach your targeted force structure.
At this point the MMRCA program has been running for how many years? I get the reluctance to throw out the time and money already invested in the program, but the end goal is the purchase of some fighter jets. It is one thing to see a new development program run years late… but how do you justify that type of delay when you are trying to buy aircraft that are already in service?
My personal opinion is that they are trying to do too much with one contract.
When they are satisfied with a simple order for equipment they get the equipment they need in a timely fashion. When they try to negotiate for anything and everything nothing seems to get done.
hopsalotProblem is both F-18 and F-16 flunked the kinematic performance part of the MMRCA trials. To get around that, the F-18 team offered a new but unproven powered up variant of the Ge414. If this is done, then the time to develop and certify the aircraft needs to be taken into account. That apart, the IAF may need to compromise on TOT as well, which it regards as critical for local, independent sustainment.
Sure, any or all of the features of the Advanced Super Hornet would be available, including the uprated engines, conformal fuel tanks, IRST, weapons pod, etc. I suspect none of these would require long. (and all are available as retrofits if India wished to accept the first aircraft in stock configuration before later upgrading them to a common standard)
My main point is that the Indian military has been complaining for years about declining fighter numbers. If they are really that short on planes then they should try just keeping things simple and getting the new planes they think they need rather than cooking up an unworkable overly complex arrangement including domestic production and tech transfer.
They may get the Rafale contract signed soon, it has been almost two years after all, but there is already talk that with elections upcoming it may slip well into next year. Things don’t need to take this long.
hopsalothopsalot, I don’t know why some find it so hard to understand there are performance priorities. They put 18,000lb weapon load and just internal 2 x 2,000 and 2 aim120 strike mission at ~600nm radius near the top.
usaf were happy with internal 1,000lb bombs but usn wanted 2,000.
usaf were happy with ~450nm radius, usn wanted ~600nm.
I think you will find that the usn wanted the 18,000lb weapon too, as it was their requirement to add lift along the intake section, creating more drag.
Are you referring to me?
I have always said that the F-35 represents the collective priorities of the Pentagon. Further I expect that in due time people will see that the Pentagon chose wisely in prioritizing the attributes that it did.
hopsalotWith Rafale deal negotiations so protracted it would make sense to barter for short term MiG-21 replacements via a lease agreement. Almost begs for Saab to step in with the stored Gripen airframes or Dassault to step up with Mirage airframes. It’s too bad they cannot upgrade the MiG-21’s with something that acts like a stepping stone to self sufficiency, like a scaled down indigenous radar set akin to how China originally wanted to turn F-7’s into Super 7’s. Giving the existing Bisons or other MiG-21’s a facelift seems unavoidable at the minimum.
Even if they signed the Rafale deal tomorrow it would take a long time to get their domestic production line fully up and running. (given their track record a lot longer than they are predicting…)
It would honestly make sense just to place an off the shelf order for F-16s, Super Hornets, or Eurofighters. All of those have hot production lines that could accommodate India’s needs in short order. The Super Hornet line in particular is turning out about 48 a year and will shortly run out of orders. In just a few years of production they could get India back up to strength with modern, affordable aircraft. Of course India would have to give up on some of their domestic production demands that have made working with them so problematic but costs would be low and risk would be practically zero.
Look at the C-17, C-130 or P-8 purchases. All of them are straight off the production line and all of them are arriving on time and on budget. There is no reason India couldn’t do that with a fighter… they would just need to decide to do it.
Sign In
