pfcemThe USMC has it wrong this time . The USAF should have gone for a F-22B (fighter-bomber)
Just what does the USMC have wrong?
F-22B to replace 2000+ F-16, LOL.
No it does nothing , it is a prototype who has undertaken less than 10% of its flight tests so far .
Wrong. X-35 was the prototype, F-35 LRIP lots 1-3 (FY2007-2009 budgets) are program test airframes & LRIP lot 4 (FY2010 budget) & beyond are service airframes.
Nobody has , not even LM 😀
Yes they do. These days flight tests are to verify (not learn of) flight performance/characteristics…
I disagree . Its “stealth” will not save it against Mig-31s or late Flankers .
First , a F-35 maximum dash speed with external stores is probably around Mach 1.3-1.4 (top speed clean is Mach 1.6), that ‘s a Mach less than the Russian fighters 😮
The Russians also have great Radars , rather good ECMs , excellent IRSTs and long range IR missiles . It is going to be like sheetahs against a wildboar .
What are you smoking? How are Mig-31s or late Flankers going to defeat the F-35?
Mach 1.6 is a MINIMUM requirement & is with a full internal load (~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel). Besides how is any aircraft being faster than the F-35 going to amount to jack? We are talking about air combat not a drag race.
The F-35B is not going to satisfy any user , I bet my next paycheck on it .
Don’t be a fool, you are going to lose that paycheck.
***
What F-35 became was due to the politics of the 1990s. Remember who was President at the time? (loathed the military and liked BJs?)
….
The bottom line is F-35 requirements were an expedient written to be acceptable to Billy BJ’s administration and not what the services stated as their true need in 1992-3. To the services, it was better to have a short-legged stealthy striker than none at all.
That is a nice story but in now why supports your assertion. Even if the F-35 had remained a USAF/USN F-16/F-18 replacement program without being merged with the USMC AV-8B replacement program to become what it is today, the USAF/USN requirements would have still resulted in a similar size/weight aircraft.
Higher aspect ratio means more drag and higher rolling inertia. It is the same phenomenon you see when comparing the performance of F-15A and F-18E. Both are similar size, weight and thrust, yet the carrier-optimized aerodynamics of the SH prevent it from achieving the Eagle’s performance.
I think you missed th point…
pfcemLowObservable,
Did you even bother to read the rest of the article?
I thought not. 🙂
pfcemDid you not read the last post?
I was responding to your post.
It does everything the aircraft it replaces can do, but compared to other current aircraft it doesn’t do anything superbly. It isn’t a top notch fighter compared to others like the F22 or T50 for example. It tries to be too many things which leads to compromises having to be made, so I’m sure it’ll do everything well, but I doubt there’s much it’ll do in a better way than other 5th gens.
Typical strawman BS. The F-35 is not & was never intended to be a F-22. As for the T-50/PAK FA, the F-35 will fair better against it than anything other than a F-22. And you have a serious disconnect from reality if you think either the F-22 or the PAK FA are/will be better than the F-35 for what the F-35 is intended to do/be.
It is one thing to say that the F-35 is not as good an air-superiority fighter as the F-22 &/or T-50/PAK FA (assuming its ends up as good as it could be – & I would not hold my breath on the Chinese doing any better than the Russians) but that is not what you said.
So just what does any current ‘middle-weight’ multi-role fighter do better than the F-35?
Again, not about what it’s replacing, just that it does everything but not as well as 5th gens with a more specific role in mind.
Wrong, it is about what it is replacing, what it is replacing does, & most of all what it is intended to do/be.
pfcem@ pcfem: Care to explain what compromises to the F-35A & F-35C were made due to the F-35B?
Two answers wrapped in one: The B dominates the structural and aerodynamic layout, where the engine sits in the airframe, &c &c. I mean it’s pretty obvious. A and C have to work within these limits. Dumping A and B would still leave C with all the compromises of the B, hence if the B is dumped (either because of acquisition costs, or crappy bang for the buck over the lifetime return, or the whole questionable and not conforming to real world conditions STOVL ops concept, or whatever) a C-only is not a real option, since you’d still have the limitations inhereted from B. Dropping the B would result in a serious re-orientation/redesign of the aircraft, akin in scope to what happened to the F-18 on the way from classic to Super. But I think it would make a pretty good fighterbomber, as long as no-one tried to do air superiority with it.
LOL…
So without the B, the A & C would have there engine somewhere else?
Please, try to explain how anything with the A &/or C would be significantly different if not for the B…
***
Didn’t say that, I just said that because it is trying to do so many things at once, it does none of them as well as it should do. Yes it does them all better than the previous generation, but what happens when it comes up against things of the same generation?
You called the F-35 a ‘jack of all trades, master of none’. So explain what it is that it does not do better than the many aircraft it is replacing. What does it not do well as it should?
***
The airframe weight/size was set by the B’s need to fit on the LHD’s elevator. This is an unfortunate constraint on the military utility of the A and C versions which really need much longer combat radii to perform in future scenarios where nearby basing is threatened.
Oh really…So what would the weight/size of the F-35 A &/or C be if there was not B? The weight/size of the F-35 is set by the requirements (most notably stealth, range & cost) it is to meet.
And earth to djcross, the F-35 (all three variants) exceeds its combat radius requiment – it is a multi-role fighter, not a bomber.
The A has the best acceleration and maneuver performance. The C had to employ larger wings/tails and heavier structure per NAVAIR constraints for operating off the CVN. While providing a minor increase in range, the big wings/tails degrades acceleration and maneuver. C is still OK for a bomb truck, but it doesn’t have the performance of a clean F-16 Block 50.
What, wings/tails degrades acceleration and maneuver? Tell that to all those who spout wing loading (along with trust-to-weight) as the be-all of flight performance. 🙂
***
The C-only scheme has been kicked around and it does seem to be a rational strategy going forward. Dwightlooi even conceived of the pretty intriguing F-35E model way before its time – credit to him. I would have supported that single variant for USAF/USN from inception. But even now, with a theoretical ‘joint-C’ variant only procured, it still doesn’t solve USAF recap issues vis-a-vis rapidly expanding gap in the interim development period.
No, a C-only scheme is not a a rational strategy going forward. The C is poorly suited (compared to the A) to USAF requirements & simply can not meet USMC STOVL requirements.
Not to mention that a C-only (the most expensive & lowest priority variant) scheme would not save any time & would result in a higher cost.
pfcemI won’t try to back up anything. You, too, didn’t bother when you dismissed Sweetman, Kopp or other ‘naysayers’. Now it comes back to you, you reap what you sow. Don’t bother posting anything from that Dr. Thompson, again.. Bye
Yes I have, as have many others time & time & time again.
***
PFCEM –
With all due respect… and I appreciate your dedicated defensiveness and faith in your convictions… but 1) URF costs for FY09 alone (the 3rd lot) was what, $163m? Then add the modifications needed to meet block III configuration?
Good God man. Do you not realize that FY09 represents airframes #9-17 & that they actualled cost less (not signifiantly more as would have to be the case for the latest Pentegon projections to be at all accurate) than what they were projected to cost in 2007? Do you not know what below projected cost means?
Anyway, URF costs are irrelevant and URF costs can actually be hidden elsewhere in the total UPC cost…
So the cost of the actual aircraft (airframe, engines, avionics et cetera) is irrelevant? Thats right it is the #1 most significant/relevant cost. And if it is so hidden how is it possible that you were able to find what it was? That’s right it is not hidden you just have to know where to look for it.
But it’s the UPC which Defense pays for in annual procurements, NOT the URF!
And what is UPC? Thats right it is URF + a number of other costs not directly related to the cost of the aircraft (airframe, engines, avionics et cetera).
I.e., It’s the cost to BUY each unit, which is relevant here not the cost to PRODUCE.. See?
URF is the cost paid to buy the aircraft (airframe, engines, avionics et cetera).
Moreover, USAF will NOT be affording anywhere close to still scheduled orders. Not even half. For one thing, short of WWIII Defense appropriations budgets will be reduced even before FRP is supposed to kick in. There’s no way USAF will have $12+ billion/yr for F-35 procurement alone, sorry.
You don’t know that. In fact the USAF has already projected its budget to do just what you claim won’t happen.
F-35 is a well intentioned 90s bubble era wet dream, but unfortunately the ‘stay-the-course’ policy is locking USAF/services into a dangerous game of chicken beyond any strategic logic. Most the deciders know this, just they are not stupid to forfeit their careers. Unfortunately too, only a few Congressional members know this or care.
It will take the Program to be so obviously impossible to be sustained as estimated, for deciders and top brass to finally speak up and say to Congress that they need to alter the plans some. Altered by default, in a tacair structure outlook, far below what is required or expected today.
Take that to the bank 🙁 God speed.
What are you talking about?
Contrary to your BS doom & gloom the program is actually progressing quite well (aircraft meeting or exceeding requirements/expectaions, ‘just’ ~6 months behind schedule & actual production/procurement cost below projections). It is downright scary to think just how well it would be/had been going if the bean counters had not stressed low cost above all else (SWAT would likely not have been necessary).
***
You ignore the the historical cost reduction of the manufacturing learning curve where prices stabilize at about the 50th unit produced. The F-35 program is nowhere near the 50th unit, yet.
What are you talking about? The cost of the F/A-18E/F did not stabilize at about the 50th unit produced nor did the F-22 – the cost of the F-22 was still dropping when further production was cut! Costs tend to stablize when stableized full rate production rates are achieved. At best you can say the rate of cost reductions stabilizes around the 50th unit.
***
The 50th LRIP unit will not be in the historical pretense though, that’s the point being missed here. Maybe by the 50th ‘mature’, post SDD-complete unit such learning curves/stabilization will be more predictable relative to history, but then costs will be unknown and challenged all over again with the Block IV?
Then why did you cite the cost of the 9th unit?
Take a look at how many F-35s are to be produced/procured each year. A lot of F-35 (& resulting learning) will have been before SDD is complete…
***
– i do notice that the f-35 is facing Nunn McCurdy for the second time
based on wild projections of future costs not even based on the actual status (cost or otherwise) of the program.
– the progamme has severl years of developments delay.
The only ‘years of delay’ are those from SWAT. The program is currently ~6 months behind the post-SWAT schedule.
Does that mean that the f-35 is a bad plane by default?
No, it only indicates that LM is not managing its development all too well and this may mean that the product itself (the f-35) is not going to be very “stable” and will include a few solutions that are not totally mature. This could compromise its performance, reliability and battle performance.
We (the general public) will only find out what it is word the day it id fielded against a serious oponent (let us hope never).
And watching all this, if I were a client of this thing, I would already have become very very suspicious and be searching for alternatives.
See above. Reality is quite different (better) than being portrayed by naysayers.
***
there’s no real threat that the current assets the USAF, USN and USMC can’t handle. Today’s US&allies air power is way beyond anything that an oponent can handle and, what’s more, if there ever was a chance that they may be seriously challenged, the politicians won’t start that war… bodybags coming back aren’t so good for reelection, so, quite likely, there will be a political solution/agreement found.
The F-35 is intended to face future threats & is intended to keep the US way beyond anything that an oponent can handle.
Basically, is it an absolute necessity? no. Will it be cancelled? probably not either
Recapitalizing our current (essentially 1980’s) military forces is an absolute necessity. It would be less urgent/critical if not for the cut in the 1990’s.
You go to war with what you have not what you wish you had.
***
I agree with maus92. As the cost of the F-35 rise and they will the numbers will be reduced. The intial F-22 production numbers were over a 1000 with a two seater version and the US Navy was to get about 700 of a swingwing variant. As the costs went up the numbers went down and variants cancelled.
So now we will be getting less than 200 of them.
I won’t be surprised as cost for the F-35 go up nations will pull out and numbers will be reduced. Not because the F-35 is a bad plane it will just be too expensive for a “cheaper version of the F-22”.
Except that the actual cost of the F-35 is tracking below projections…
pfcemThe loser in air combat is the first person who makes a mistake that can be successfully exploited by his opponent(s). F-22 pilots are just as capable of making mistakes as any other well-trained pilot. In the instance where the F-18 pilot violated the ROE to get the killshot, I would be interested in which rule he broke. The fact remains that the Hornet pilot got a solution. And in wartime, all is fair.
The two planes got too close together & the engagement was called off. The F-22 pilot acknowledged the call & stopped ‘fighting’ executing a calm low g turn away from the engagement, the F/A-18E/F pilot did not & continued to engage the no longer ‘fighting’ F-22.
pfcemBluewings,
The reason why there are three F-35s is because the USAF, USN & USMC each have their own requirements/needs but because those who control the purse strings have gotten so cheep when it comes to military spending (but amizingling nothing else) the USAF, USN & USMC were forced to combine there individual fighter recapitalization programs (to replace the F-16, F/A-18C/D & AV-8B respectively) into one joint program to save money.
Ther is nothing better for the USAF (& any/every air force the US government will allow to have it) than the F-35A.
The F-35B is verifying that it works with each & every test flight.
The F-35C is not the real F-35. The F-35A is the real F-35 with the F-35B & F-35C starting from the basic F-35A with specific changes to meet the USMC’s & USN’s unique requirements/needs.
The USN wants the F-35C because they know that the aircraft will fit the job and the bill. The USMC wants the F-35B because they know that the aircraft will fit the job and the bill. The USAF wants the F-35A because they know that the aircraft will fit the job and the bill.
A single aircraft to fit all possible missions would be worse than the F-35A for the USAF, worse than the F-35B for the USMC & worse than the F-35C for the USN. IF a single aircraft would have worked then the F-35 would have been a single aircraft.
The F-35A is not a bomber, it is not an interceptor it is a multi-role fighter & does everything the F-16 Block 60 does better than the F-16 Block 60 does it.
The Royal Navy chose the F-35B mostly because even with as big its new carriers are, it has become accustomed to STOVL & staying with STOVL is much easier/less expensive for them. I am of the opinion (as are most everyone who knows jack about carrier operations) that CTOL would have been a better way to go – despite it greater cost, if affords significant increase in capability.
***
Distiller,
Care to explain what compromises to the F-35A & F-35C were made due to the F-35B?
***
Cola1973,
No, the F-35 is built around F-16 replacement requirements primarily with compromises to the F-35A for commonity with the F-35B & F-35C (& visa versa). In fact it is due to USAF & USN requirements (more USN than USAF) that the F-35 is as big as it is – just take a look at the F-16 vs AV-8B vs F/A-18C.
The F-35’s design is not problematic, it is a feat of engineering to pack so much into so comparatively small a package.
***
Nicolas10,
The AV-8B has proven you wrong time & time again.
***
Bluewings,
You have no clue what you are talking about concering the F-35’s performance. There is absolutely no way one can intellectually honestly call a combat loaded fighter with the acceleration & turning abilities (& range with internal fuel similar or greater than ‘comparable’ 4th generation fighters with two external tanks) of a clean F-16 Block 50 as a dog.
A F-35B with external stores is going to have its way with any (except for F-22 or T-50/PAK FA) fast closing interceptor.
***
Grim901,
Just what does any previous generation aircraft that the F-35 is going to replace do better than the F-35 will do it?
pfcemPlease correct me if i am wrong but have you not accused Bill Sweetman of bias; yet here you are presenting a paid consultant of LM as an unbiased source.
I have done no such thing.
Bill Sweetman is biased, that is not an accusation, it is a statement of fact & everything he has written about the F-35 for many years demonstates it clearly (& I and other have shown it to be so many times).
Dr. Thompson is not a paid consultant of LM.
Claiming anything from Dr. Thompson as good, factual and unbiased info exposes your blinkered viewpoint.
Reading much of his writings they come across to me as puff pieces containing little if any real data.
How about instead of making baseless accusation you try & sho how anything in either of the two article to not be factual.
In fact they remind me of the 1950’s books that presented the deeds of daring do performed in the second world war rather simplistically; yet, due in part to the still classified nature of the data, contained little real verifiable fact to back up the stories.
When the data has been released often a rather different story is there to be told, in some cases the deeds of daring do were far beyond those claimed, in others a rather different and somewhat more complex history has emerged.
You mean like claims of 60-90% production cost increases when actual costs are below even 2007 projections. 🙂
ps: you still haven’t answered whether you get paid by LM as well as Dr. Thompson…;)
Yes I have. How about you show either I or Dr. Thompson having been paid by LM…
***
Mr. Thomson has officially become a new Dr.Kopp 😉
I suppose it is too much for you to back that nonsense up.
pfcemLittle known doesn’t change the fact that it existed before and that the USAF or whom ever changed the definition.
I never said otherwise.
You are aware the supercruise means supersonic cruise? Obviously not.
No it does not. That is the point.
***
Don’t see anything revolutionary about that. I tell you why.
Supercruise is a typical example of taking something very specific for one design (Raptor) and setting it as threshold for all other designs to come, absolutely disregarding different boundary conditions. An example: MiG-31’s engines have lower SFC @ low AB setting than @ full dry thrust. Only an idiot would want to squeeze the last **** out of the engines on dry when he can comfortably engage 1st stage AB and achieve much more at the cost of less. But the SC definition is set in a stupid way that prescribes that ONLY dry thrust “counts” – which suddenly puts the Raptor into a some kind of “never-before-seen revolutionary supercruise league” even if it’s in fact not much better than what an old Russian design has been doing for the last 30 years.
This is how useless myths are born.
The Mig-31 is the exception, not the rule. Just how fast is a Mig-31 going at full military thrust vs stage 1 afterburner? 😉
LM clearly had SC defined as ability to cruise at supersonic speeds (read >M1,0). Not high supersonic speeds as they suddenly have now. This has been proven to death on this forum before, I am NOT gonna waste my time with ignorants who still repeat the same BS even upon having been provided clear evidence on the contrary.
No it did not. One article in a magazine (even if a LM run magazine) is not proof va the lierally hundreds of USAF/DOD/LM documemts & related items to the contrary.
I could not care less what USAF/DoD say, in return. They can establish their own category which is above M1.5 and tap themselves on the shoulders, but SC stays as it is: @ >M1.0. Comprende?
It is you who fails to comprehend.
F-35 isn’t about faith. I don’t need to believe anything, LM simply needs to demonstrate cruising at >Mach 1.0 without AB and then the case is closed. Until then, the aircraft is NOT able to supercruise. Your almost-religious beliefs about what it allegedly can do and talks about “intellectual dishonesty” won’t change a thing about it.
Lm will demonstrate the F-35 cruising at >Mach 1.0 without afterburner someday. It could do it tomorrow if it felt the need to do so.
It is you with the almost-religious beliefs about what the F-35 can’t do.
You can’t be serious..
100% serious.
***
Please , enough with the “supercruise” business 😎
This capability is only usable during the merge and only for a short period of time as you still burn fuel as an alarming rate (full mil power, dry) .
Thus clearly demonstrating you have no clue whatsoever.
Thanks 🙂 but I still wait for data . What are the MLW of the various F-35s ?
IIRC the ‘bring back’ requirement is 10,000 lbs.
pfcemThat is not a fact.
pfcemRaptor is just evolution of legacy designs. Like F-15 among Phantoms.
In your dreams. The F-22 is truly revolutionary & its advancements/advantages over 4th generation fighters are easily as great as was that of 2nd generations fighters over 1st generation fighters.
pfcemI’ve heard that F22s almost don’t use this capability as they prefer to stay airborne for longer period as they can remain undetected. They then engage AB to quickly accelerate to supersonic speeds for intercepts. But basically they don’t SC for very long periods.
I beleive that SC can be truely useful in an environment where the ennemy is clearly known but in complex environment I doubt that a fighter jet will shoot at a target at full range without positive ID.
Just to say that SC might sounds that the ultimate thing to have but that it could in fact rarely be used in a real conflict scenario.
Anyway the F22 doesn’t need that to dominate any potential threats in the near future.
You have ‘heard’ incorrectly (actually I think you made it up). While a F-22 is certianly not going to needlessly supercruise for any significant period of time on a peacetime air partol or ferry flight to an overseas deployment, is does, as has been demonstrated so much in exercises, go into battle supercruising.
pfcemFound it:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/02/boeing-ditches-v-tail-for-firs.html
Does this imply that perhaps the internal weapons bay is more important for reducing the RCS than having canted tails?
OTOH saying that “it could come back” seems to imply that it would probably reduce the RCS even further…?
So perhaps the value of having canted tails on a fighter like Rafale or Typhoon has limited value, as long as weapons are carried externally?
It states quite clearly that the canted tail is going to cost time & money to develope/fit & if a customer wants it they will have to put up their own money to pay for it.
pfcemCola’s questions are logical. Let me rephrase… Exactly what makes cruising at M1.5 revolutionary and cruising at M1.35 not? :confused:
Mach 1.5 is >50% faster than typical cruise speed & Mach 1.35 is not. With the greater fuel burned cruising at supersonic speeds (even though doing so without afterburner) the speed at which you do it needs to be very signifiantly faster than typical subsonic cruise speed for it to be worthwhile – why do you think the USAF chose a requirement of cruising at >Mach 1.5 rather than say Mach 1.25…
***
LM first coined the term supercruise as ability to cruise @ >M1.0. They only later changed to >M1.5 after they found that practically all Euros could claim the same. This has already been proven several time by quotes from old CodeOne mags.
LM did no such thing. It was the USAF which coined the term supercruise for the ATF requiremnt to cruise at >Mach 1.5 without the use of afterburner. And prior to doing so nobody made a big deal of thier ability to cruise at >Mach 1.0 without afterburner & the term ‘supercruise’ was little known to any but a relative few.
For me, SC stays as ability to cruise @ >M1.0. It was initially defined so, the name ‘supersonic cruise’ also makes sense and I don’t feel bonded by later Lockheed’s marketing redefinitions. LM can freely define their own “MickeyMousecruise” at >M1.71, I don’t mind. But for me SC stays as it was at the very beginning – @ >M1.0. And most aviation authors I am aware of use the term in the very same way.
End of story.
The USAF/DOD could care less what you think, they say supercruise is >Mach 1.5 & that is what LM delivered with the F-22. Your wishing things were different so that the F-22 does not appear so special won’t change the reality that it is.
They won’t. Because F-35 obviously can’t cruise @ >Mach 1.0.. If it could, we would already know, one way or another.
Quite the opposite. If you believe the claims of cruising at >Mach 1.0 without afterburner of 4th/4.5 generation fighters then you are being intellectually dishonest to believe that the F-35 can not.
***
Very nice. Nice view of the avionics too..
I wish someone would make a accurate flightsim of the F-35 so I can fly my own F-35 too 😀
LM has a very accurate one. 🙂 Although unless you are in line to become a F-35 pilot or someone of importance to the program you won’t be getting your wish any time soon.
***
Maybe we can all agree that supercruise is >Mach 1.0 on dry thrust and just use a new term for supercruise above Mach 1.7, like MSphere said. I don’t care for MickeyMousecruise. (Mice are cousins to rats after all, plus I simply have a disdain for Disney-anything.) I get the negative connotation for the M-M term, but really we should put a positive spin to it. Here are a few suggestions:
superdeucecruise (later simplify to deucecruise)
therealsupercruise
L-M-supercruise
supermancruise
stealthmodesupercruise
superstealthcruise
1-7-supercruise
super-1-7-cruise
mach-1-77-cruise (and note that’s mach, not mock)
raptorsupercruise (later simplify to raptorcruise)
americansupercruise
yankeesupercruise
More realistic & accurate would be for all to recognize that supercruise is >Mach 1.5 & that is what the USAF/DOD/LM mean when they use the term & that prior to being made so so nobody cared to make a big deal of cruising >Mach 1.0 so you know that anyone using supercruise as >Mach 1.0 is playing games rather than being intellectually honest (or is simply ignorant as to what supercruise is & incorrectly assume or have been told it to be short for supersonic cruise)…
supercruise: > Mach 1.5
> Mach 1.0 < Mach 1.5: supersonic cruise
pfcemer, no, not to my knowledg, and I obvously am not the only one since others asked you to show them
Err yes this is only about the ~6th time it has come up on this forum.
But I can play games too, how about anybody provide a link for the numbers they are citing. :rolleyes:
Sign In
