VanshilarSo…you can’t answer a simple yes or no question?
Vanshilarwhy would A2G entail F-35 to fly at any altitude other than 30k ft to and from the target ?
I gave a yes or no question. Either:
1. Yes, you can’t think of any reason why the F-35 (or any other plane) may not fly at optimum cruise to/from a target or over a target when conducting an air-to-ground mission, despite you being one of the most prolific posters in the F-35 thread and hoping that people will take what you say seriously, thus justifying why you think A2A profile has about same range as A2G profile (including for the F-35), or
2. No, you know perfectly well that A2G and A2A profiles may differ in altitude and speed (besides just for the sake of a camera) and thus affect combat radius, and are just trolling people for a response.
Which is it?
Vanshilari see zero use of different flight profile for F-35, optimal alt is the only alt,
except possibly if it needs to use the camera when it would go down at the target
Wait…is your knowledge of air-to-ground missions really just “take off, fly at optimal cruise toward target, drop bombs at optimal cruise conditions over target, fly back to base at optimal cruise, land”? Pointing a camera is the only reason you can think of why an airplane might not fly at optimal cruise height and speed for such missions?
VanshilarI try not to intervene on F-35 topic about Rafale, but…
I prefer to stick on official numbers… Nvm
Comparing Rafale and F-35 programs timeline and delays is fairly ridiculous. One never missed money while the other was struggling and awaited orders for several years (tooling was ready and rusting…). If you cite 1990 dollars for Rafale and 2017 dollars for F-35, you are comparing apples and oranges.And whatever say wikipedia (what a source!) , Rafale program was audited and cost rose for roughly 5%. Definitely not 62.7 billions, around 45 (2014 euros, documented, tired to post it).
No, I was citing 1980s and 1990s expectations for the Rafale program versus where it ended up in reality. Just like how people are doing in this thread with the F-35 program’s progress.
I used Wikipedia simply because other sources used dollars, and it gave the dollar amount from euros for comparison. It links directly to the Senate report saying the program cost 45.9 billion euros, or $62.7 billion. The original estimate when it was announced in 1987 was $30 billion (although, again, the 1990 book gave it as $18 billion — so they were probably counting different things).
still, when rafale entered service (IOC), it had finished its flight testing (flight domain, all that), and was introduced as air superiority platform (fleet defense). It is not about the aircraft having all the capabilities it may reach over its lifetime, but having a standard that, as such, is usable operationally for what’s being asked from it at that point.
So why is the F-35 not being given the same benefit? IOC means it’s able to deploy and be used on an initial status as the operator sees fit, but that doesn’t mean they have to use it for combat just because some Internet commentator says it needs to prove itself. The F-22 for example IOC’ed in 2005 and its first overseas deployment was also to Japan in 2007, despite everything going on in the Middle East. It didn’t actually do a combat mission until 2014. So was its IOC also just for show? The F-35B IOC’ed in 2015 because Block 2B was good enough for IOC for the Marines, and similar with the F-35A and Block 3i for the Air Force, just like how the Rafale M IOC’ed in 2002 with the French Navy because it was good enough for IOC for the Navy, even though it didn’t have any air-to-ground capabilities despite Dassault marketing it as “omnirole” and despite the Navy needing air-to-ground, not air-to-air, in Afghanistan. So why are the F-35 IOC’s just for show but not the Rafale’s?
No, you misunderstood: in not any point I have said 10 years late. Check it.
I have said instead that it’s the double of the envisaged time to reach IOC: 2006 to 2010/2011 is 4/5 years, 2006 to 2015/2016 9 to 10 yen years.
Well again by that standard, the Rafale first flew in 1991 (C and M models); I’m not counting the Rafale A first flying in 1986 because that’s really a tech demonstrator like the X-35. But the Rafale M didn’t IOC until 2002, 11 years later, and the Air Force version was not until 2006 (15 years later). So by that standard, the F-35A (first flight in 2006, IOC in 2016, so 10 years) and the F-35B (first flight in 2008, IOC in 2015, so 7 years) is coming in better, not to mention the F-35C (first flight in 2010, IOC planned for 2018, so 8 years) as well.
—–
The point in all this is that this is the typical pace of modern fighter development, and the F-35 is no different. It’s pretty much average in terms of how behind it is and the development progress. If you want to criticize how late the F-35 program is, you better be able to justify why you think it’s more late than other fighter programs (i.e. out-of-the-ordinary enough to criticize), unless you’re blanket criticizing all fighter programs. If you want to criticize how its current capabilities are still limited relative to its planned final capabilities, you better be able to justify why other fighters at their IOC were better relative to their current final capabilities. If you think the F-35’s developmental issues mean they won’t be solved or they’ll negatively affect the F-35’s effectiveness or they mean the program should be canceled or the F-35 will suck etc., you better be prepared to justify why the Rafale, Typhoon, F-22, etc. shouldn’t have been canceled when they had their own issues at the same stage of development.
Vanshilaryou know, there are two ways to win, either you are better, but its a hard way, or you manage to diminish your opponents… the easiest 😉
Actually this makes sense, this is probably why the F-35 threads are filled with trolls and garbage while the threads about other planes are relatively uncluttered. None of the other threads have such a high proportion of bad facts and inaccurate assertions about the plane compared to this one. “Can’t beat it in the air, have to beat it on the forums” seems to be the mantra.
—–
Since this thread is temporarily diverging toward the Rafale, yes let’s compare just how the Rafale program did. France had been looking into it since the 1970’s, with the ACT in 1978, ACX in 1982, and of course ECA, FEFA, and EFA with the other European countries prior to pulling out. Similarly, there were precursors to the JSF program for the F-35, i.e. CALF, JAST, etc. France announced the $30 billion program in 1987, saying it was expected to enter service in 1996. It actually IOC’ed in 2002 with the F1 standard in October 2002. That standard is an air-defense standard, i.e. only has air-to-air capability. Sure, France sent a few of them on the Charles de Gaulle in 2001 and 2002, but they only have one carrier to play around with, so if they’re trying to figure out how to set up naval operations with the plane then it has no choice but to go wherever the carrier goes…and the carrier went to Afghanistan to support operations there. So basically it went to do air superiority missions against the non-existent Taliban Air Force as part of its operational testing and exercises, since it couldn’t drop any bombs. So much for that “omnirole” and the operational danger. It didn’t receive the F2 standard, which gives it air-to-ground capability, until 2005, with the Air Force starting operations with it in 2006, and with Dassault saying along the way that the program being 10 years behind was not its fault (but of course the 5-year delay of the F-35 program is 100% Lockheed Martin’s fault!).
Oh yeah…originally announced as a $30 billion project, it’s now estimated to be some $62.7 billion according to wikipedia, taken from the French Senate. From a book from 1990, the development and tooling costs were estimated to going to be $6.1 billion, with the Navy version to cost $36.3 million and the Air Force version to cost $39.2 million (presumably in 1990 dollars). (The book also says the Rafale program would cost $18.3 billion for 336 aircraft.) How well did those estimates hold up?
So you have a program which started in the 1980s, originally scheduled to enter service in 1996, finally achieve IOC with the Navy in 2002, and didn’t have any air-to-ground capability until 2005, and the Air Force started operating it in 2006 (there’s some discrepancies as to whether the 2006 date was IOC or FOC, but the Air Force wanted air-to-ground capability which wasn’t delivered until 2005, so IOC couldn’t have been before that). Compare that with the F-35 which was originally scheduled in 2001 to IOC in 2010 to 2012 (depending on variant), and is now ending up reaching IOC in 2015 to 2018 — and at the time of IOC can already fire missiles and drop bombs, with the final IOC in 2018 being cleared for full weapons and flight envelope (IIRC). Not only is it ahead of the Rafale’s timeline in terms of staying closer to the original schedule, but it had to demonstrate more capabilities than the “omnirole” plane.
It’s the problem with trolls trying to come to this thread to pick on the F-35’s developmental issues — every aircraft had issues during development, and just about every recent fighter program has had cost overruns and schedule slippages. Yet somehow they think it’s fine to pick on the F-35, as if their own favored aircraft didn’t have any issues. Do these trolls point out the cost overruns and schedule slippages of other fighter programs in other fighter threads? Do they think it’s fair game to talk about how their own respective planes had developmental issues as well and clutter up those other fighter threads?
Vanshilarand now we know you didn’t bother watching it but got your pitchfork out already.
argue the points, not the puppet.
Why don’t you watch it yourself and then write up some points from it that you want to discuss and defend, rather than have everyone else do the work for you?
VanshilarWhy do you think the USN would pick something different? The only thing that I can think of that they would want to change would be 2xF414 instead of an F135.
Two engine, and possibly two seater as well, depending on the anticipated workload. I just figure something more in line with the Flying Dorito or the subsequent A-X program.
VanshilarIf the services had to choose the designs as they were, they’d probably all choose the X-35. I think the X-32 layout, encumbered by the location of the engines for VSTOL, was just too wonky.
However, if the services could have chosen between the variants or a “clean sheet” design without encumbering the other variants (i.e. they could redo the layout of the X-32), I would guess the Air Force and Marines would pick the X-35, the Navy would pick something different.
Because the F 35 is a jack of all trades but a master of none.
People always say that as if it’s an argument unto itself, and for some reason it’s always applied to just the F-35 and not any of the other multi-role airplanes out there. So you believe that the PAK FA is either a single-role fighter or that it sucks? Or that the F-16, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, etc., all suck? Or I guess the Rafale is okay because it’s not “jack of all trades”, it’s “omni-role” which is of course very different.
Vanshilar41 years, really? I know how airplane design take a lot of time actually but such a lifespan seem me absurd, it would be like the MiG-15 or F-84 to be still in service (in their original service branches, not in some third world country) in the nineties.
It is, however, the only reason justifying why the media calls the F-35 a trillion-dollar program — because official cost estimates have to game out the overall cost of the whole ~2,500 F-35 fleet from 1994 to 2070 (76 years), including operating and maintenance (fuel, salaries, spare parts, etc.), and including inflation out to 2070, under the assumption that it will be in service (i.e. stay relevant) that long. If you’re one of the the types who think the F-35 will be rapidly obsoleted by magic anti-stealth radar etc., then logically you also believe that it won’t actually be a trillion-dollar program, and it’d be hypocritical (or at least, logically inconsistent) to call it one.
VanshilarPilot don’t talk about the program, they give the feedback on what they think the plane will be…
Can you back that up with any sources? Such as:
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/qualitative-advantage-1091
I’ve always said this: the greatest advocates of the F-35 are the people closest to the program. The biggest skeptics and critics are the people farthest away from the program. The less you know about it, the less you understand it, and the more critical you are of it. If you ever hear someone pining away for the F-16 of 1979 or the F-18 of 1983 or the F-15 of the mid 70’s, you’re talking to a someone who’s so far behind the technology and what the airplane can do that to me, his criticisms are just totally unwarranted.
The people that know the most about the jet are the people who are the biggest advocates for it. And keep in mind these are people with experience in other airplanes and other warfighting assets. I didn’t grow up on the F-35. I had three previous operational experiences with amazing airplanes prior to the Joint Strike Fighter. My opinion of the F-35 is vastly higher than that of anything else, and that’s just because I understand it.
Note that he’s an F-35 pilot talking about the F-35 program. Note that in the article he doesn’t really say what the F-35 “will be”, he says what the F-35 “is”. There’s a variety of other examples from people who actually work on the program; Bogdan has said something similar as well.
VanshilarExcept that with the F 35, most of the criticism is coming from people close to the program. This doesn’t always happen.
That’s funny, because there’s been multiple people close to the program such as pilots saying that the more you understand the plane the better you think it is, and by implication that it’s the people who are ignorant about the plane’s capabilities who are its biggest critics. But now I suppose you’re going to claim that the chief pessimist at DOT&E is considered “close to the program”?
VanshilarWell, it clearly says eight conformal fuel tanks.. maybe it’s for the Fs only?
It’s possible it’s for the F model, or just that Kuwait figures it doesn’t need them most of the time, but it’d be nice to have.
It does mean that one of the Advanced Super Hornet features now has a buyer though, so it’ll actually be produced — which bodes well for the Super Hornet program lasting longer. (It’s also possible that part of the cost of the deal also includes the cost of developing the production model, rather than the prototypes to date.)
VanshilarIt say internal air to air configuration not external configuration
You forget, this is Obligatory interpreting powerpoint slides, so under his “I can add any of my own details I want to anything about the F-35 that wasn’t specifically excluded” interpretation, “internal air-to-air” refers only to carrying weapons internally, but does not exclude carrying massive drop tanks externally — even though the slide just prior in the presentation made a point of talking about how the F-35 being 5th generation mean it relies on its internal fuel tanks rather than having to use external drop tanks, and even though drop tanks for the F-35 haven’t been in discussion for years. Similarly, this means that you’re free to interpret anything about the Gripen NG’s range as assuming a 300-knot tailwind both going to and returning from. In fact, I’ll bet that’s Obligatory’s next assumption about any range estimates of the F-35.
VanshilarA Gripen E carrying 2x 1700+ 1×1100 eft is going to weigh 9.5 tons empty. Without fuel, those EFT and pylons add at least 1 ton to the 8.5 ton empty weight (a US 370 gallon tank weighs ~700lbs with pylon).
That gives a fuel fraction of .42 with three EFT, or .39 with two 1700L EFT.
Actually, I think the main problem is that for a Gripen NG, it’s pretty close to its MTOW weight once it loads up on fuel tanks to reach that hypothetical brochure range:
8000 kg empty weight
3400 kg internal fuel
3700 kg external fuel (2 1700-liter and 1 1100-liter)
~800 kg fuel tank and pylon weight (guesstimate)
—–
15900 kg
Its maximum take-off weight is given as 16500 kg, so this means it has 600 kg remaining for weapons (and whatever other weights may be needed such as the pilot, any sensor pods, pylons to hold the weapons, etc.) before it can’t get off the ground. So discussion about the Gripen NG’s theoretical range carrying maximum fuel tanks is essentially talking about its ferry range, not its range when doing anything operationally useful — and don’t even bother considering its maneuverability in such a configuration.
Vanshilarfrom LM presentation to Norway:
https://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf
from that link:
” The F-35 has a radius of 673 nautical miles on internal fuel alone and 728 nautical miles using external tanks. “
that’s 8% increase in range while adding external tanks and way under the range SAAB claims for the Gripen, even with drop tanks. Given how poor increase it is compared to the quantity of fuel added, it’s quite pityful, and no wonder they always talk about range on “internal fuel only… good way to avoid showing the poor result of adding drop tanks and that allows o claim that they are somehow “better”.. in the same time, they transport over 8t of fuel internally. For comparison, if wiki has it right, the Typhoon on A2A mission with 10min loiter time has 750nm range with 3 drop tanks of 1000l (which would be about 7.7t of fuel… over half a ton of fuel less, with DT drag added it goes further than the F-35
If you look at the accompanying graphic on the top right part of the same page, it also says 728 nm. If those two are the same 728 nm, then it is simply because the assumed profile (for a surveillance mission) had the F-35 flying at between 5,000 ft and 25,000 ft, far lower than its optimum cruise altitude.
Sign In
