OT: F-35 Performance downgraded (I told you so edition)

[Rusty1961]

https://www.flightglobal.com/reduced-f- ... OGn1-k_-TA

I told you so; this plane is "meat on the table" for Russian/Chinese 2nd+ generation planes, such as the Indian version of the Mig 21.

Let's go point-by-point:

"Turn performance for the US Air Force's F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from five to 4.5 g's, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to five sustained g's. Acceleration times"

4.5/4.6gs? Really? Mig 21 Bison can do a sustained 8G turn (later model).

Thrust to weight: Mig 21: .76. F-35A: .87

So the 35 has a superior T-w number, but can only pull 5 gs while the '21 can do an incredible 8 gs.

More Maneuverable Plane: Mig 21 by a mile.

Speed comparison:

On paper the '35 can do Mach 1.6, but the speed has been downgraded to 1.2 and only for limited times of some 40 seconds, lest the skin of the fabric on the plane starts to warp:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... h-coating/

So at Mach 1.4 the tail-structure had problems and the skin warped. New speed limits: 1.2 Mach.

Mig 21 top speed: Mach 2.0.

The Lightening also can only go super-sonic for 43 seconds. The '21 has no such limitations.



A flight officer, un-named, said,"What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications. Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

Unreal. What a boondoggle.


For example, an F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed, slow down for a couple seconds and then speed back up. However, the time requirements reset after the pilot operates at military power — an engine power setting that allows for less speed and thrust than afterburner — for a duration of three minutes.

The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

But for both the C and B models, flying at Mach 1.3 over the specified time limits poses the risk of inducing structural damage to the aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer.

It is infeasible for the Navy or Marine Corps to operate the F-35 against a near-peer threat under such restrictions, the documents acknowledge.


I told you so.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

your first link is an article from Jan 2013

And it is being at least a few decades in which speed has not being the main predictor of success in an aircraft design, I believe the F-16 is slower than most Migs, but they have had a better battle record than anything fielded by the Russians; and those super maneuverable Sukhois are great for airshows, but that is it, the Pugachev's cobra is useless in combat


check this:

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-av ... 180971734/

"Fighter aircraft all have to have a level of performance and maneuverability: speed, Gs, turn rate, turn radius, acceleration, climb—all of those things. In the F-35, there’s not a massive change in those performance metrics. The F-35 is better [than legacy aircraft], but not a lot better. But those ways to measure an airplane are not nearly as relevant now as they used to be. They’re not irrelevant, but they are not as important as all the other qualities that you should be measuring an airplane by.
If you were to write down all the ways in which you could measure an airplane—payload, fuel, ordnance, handling—and ask 100 pilots to rank which is the most important, I guarantee you that 100 out of 100 pilots would say “situational awareness.” By far. Not a single pilot in the world would say “turn radius.” Not one. Because the more you know, the more accurately you know it, the better able you are to make a decision.
In situational awareness, the F-35 is superior to all platforms, including the Raptor. I’d never been in an airplane that so effectively and seamlessly integrates information to tell me what’s going on around me—and not just from the radio frequency spectrum, but laser, infrared, electro-optical. That’s usually the first thing people notice when they get in the airplane. They know so much more than they ever knew before.
After situational awareness, you want to be able to dictate access regardless of the capability of the threat. A highly robust air-defense network can deny access. The biggest problem that legacy aircraft have right now is that the threat gets to dictate when and where we fly.
Air-defense networks can also be limiting for stealth aircraft. The first thing you have to think about in the F-35 is managing your signature. In an F-18, you don’t even think about it because everybody sees you the minute you take off, so you don’t spend a lot of time trying to hide. Managing all the components of low observability is very challenging, and pilots have to think about it all the time. And they don’t do it well the first time. We all struggle with that initially. But you de-brief and analyze and start to build a database of the methods being used to detect you. You start to build a strategy that will keep others from finding you. Where do you want to put other people in the formation so you can maximize information sharing and sensor coverage and sensor footprints? It’s really no different, from a philosophical viewpoint, from what we’ve always done. We spend a lot of time trying to figure out what our weaknesses are: What do I need to fix as a pilot?

[RangerJoe]

Yes, the Argentinians shot down all of the British Hawker Harriers with the result that the ENTIRE Royal Navy fleet was wiped out. That is why the Falkland Islands are now controlled by Argentina and they are now called the Malvinas. The Argentine ruling junta was not deposed and in fact, Argentina is still ruled by a military junta. [8|]

By the way, do you ever go into the sunlight? [&:]

[JohnDillworth]

"A horse designed by a committee". I often wonder why we produced so few F-22? It seems a better air superiority fighter and while expensive, most of the development cost was wasted by producing so few.

[RangerJoe]

The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter. Its job is to destroy the enemy's air defence radars plus disrupt the enemy's command and control systems while having some air to air capabilities unlike the F-117.

[mrchuck]

Who dogfights in the 21st century? Air combat today involves standing off 1-200 km and blasting your opponent with a brace of missiles. No more Top Gun these days except for primitive air forces in dusty backwaters. If you do find yourself in a dogfight, something much larger has gone horribly wrong.

Mig21 wouldn't last 10 seconds in a modern air war battlespace.

Drones will replace all of them soon enough anyway. It's hard to see much justification for manned air warfare systems these days, apart from the pushback from crusty aviator types.

[geofflambert]

I think that Firefox is better than anything we have, looks like a mini XB-70. Clint Eastwood is still alive, ain't he?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I think that Firefox is better than anything we have, looks like a mini XB-70. Clint Eastwood is still alive, ain't he?

Yes, but the contract to get him to steal another 200 Firefoxes would be cost prohibitive!

[mind_messing]

I miss Commander Stormwolf

[fcooke]

Fun movie.

IMO the F-35 is a nightmare. Trying to jam every capability into one platform means it might be 'OK' at a lot of things but good at nothing. And meanwhile they are trying to kill off the A-10 to help pay for the F-35, because that would be cheaper (please!).

As to the dogfighting comment - we have been there before when cannons were not included in aircraft because it would all be missile warfare leading into Vietnam. That didn't work out so well/ Modern tech almost always comes with issues. And last I checked there was an effort to acquire more updated F-15s to keep the fighter fleet numbers up because the time of production and cost of the F-35 was an issue.

Hopefully this post is not considered political.

Time to watch a mindless fun movie. Or perhaps a good one.

[Knavey]

A Mig 21 vs F 35? Really? Are you kidding me? Besides being a 7 year old article, if you believe it, would you really jump in a Mig 21 and take your chances?

[fcooke]

I did see an F-35 demo at an airshow last summer. It could do some pretty cool things. But then the Blue Angels got up and literally floored me. Of course it was 95% pilot, and the Blues actually fly one of the older Hornets. The Red Arrows were there too. I had seen them before. But the old saying about 'its the pilot, not the plane' really got drilled home.

There was also a team of Texans who made those 70 year old birds look like baby chicks. Was a good day - until trying to get out of the parking lot......

[CaptBeefheart]

I'm with Jorge. You guys need to play some C:MANO (or the newer version, CMO), or the old Harpoon. Sensors, datalinks, long-range fire-and-forget missiles: That's what wins air battles. Yes, the cannon can come in handy, but usually after the battle is decided.

However, I still think that the USAF and USN versions should have had a completely different airframe than the vertical-takeoff version. They could still have shared 95% of the avionics. The area rule-busting airframe required for vertical takeoff is a non-starter.

Cheers,
CB

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I think that Firefox is better than anything we have, looks like a mini XB-70. Clint Eastwood is still alive, ain't he?

Yes, but the contract to get him to steal another 200 Firefoxes would be cost prohibitive!

You must think in Russian. Pay him in kopeks.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I think that Firefox is better than anything we have, looks like a mini XB-70. Clint Eastwood is still alive, ain't he?

Yes, but the contract to get him to steal another 200 Firefoxes would be cost prohibitive!

You must think in Russian. Pay him in kopeks.

[:D]

[Rondor11]

The F22 is The USA's true fighter superiority aircraft and is not exported for a reason. The F35 is a completely different aircraft that really is not intended for much A2A inside of BVR.

[Macclan5]

There are obviously a lot of boosters and detractors of the F35 program.

Canada not the least.

I am certain the program is neither as good as some advertise nor as bad as other advertise. Inevitably the boosters focus on capability - the detractors on capability verses cost. We wont really have definitive assessed proof probably for many years ( as we learned with the F4 Phantoms with no guns, the F14 Tomcat as a carrier monster, the F16 as too big and heavy)

One can search the "interweb thingy" and find an article to support any view you wish to forward. Some reputable some not some current some old etc. Pro or Con

I think it is important to recall

1) A single plane or squadron of planes do not fight on their own. In addition other air superiority measures - AWACs, GPS, Drones heavens knows what - contribute to the overall tactical plan. This is not 1917 - dog fights over the trenches are not the 'only' facet of air combat.

2) The planes are also part of 'much more' combined arms tactics nowadays. Far more so since 1945. Far more so than Nam. Far more so than the first Gulf war although that is the most relevant comparison. Its not just other air superiority measures. Its ground forces / ships / helicopters and heaven know what more.

3) Western programs are subject to far more scrutiny than Russian / Chinese / weapons programs etc. Simply freedom of the press and public cost accounting drive this greater transparency. There is a laundry list of failed Soviet / German (Axis) / Japanese (Axis) programs - however we generally find out many years latter because their military's are not subject to the same level of scrutiny or analysis.

As I say there are plenty of booster / detractors with many (self serving - argument) points.

Its all rather academic as they are just deploying now and have hardly been used.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I miss Commander Stormwolf

[:D]

His spirit lives on. People still give this guy an audience. [>:]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

There are obviously a lot of boosters and detractors of the F35 program.

Canada not the least.

I am certain the program is neither as good as some advertise nor as bad as other advertise. Inevitably the boosters focus on capability - the detractors on capability verses cost. We wont really have definitive assessed proof probably for many years ( as we learned with the F4 Phantoms with no guns, the F14 Tomcat as a carrier monster, the F16 as too big and heavy)

One can search the "interweb thingy" and find an article to support any view you wish to forward. Some reputable some not some current some old etc. Pro or Con

I think it is important to recall

1) A single plane or squadron of planes do not fight on their own. In addition other air superiority measures - AWACs, GPS, Drones heavens knows what - contribute to the overall tactical plan. This is not 1917 - dog fights over the trenches are not the 'only' facet of air combat.

2) The planes are also part of 'much more' combined arms tactics nowadays. Far more so since 1945. Far more so than Nam. Far more so than the first Gulf war although that is the most relevant comparison. Its not just other air superiority measures. Its ground forces / ships / helicopters and heaven know what more.

3) Western programs are subject to far more scrutiny than Russian / Chinese / weapons programs etc. Simply freedom of the press and public cost accounting drive this greater transparency. There is a laundry list of failed Soviet / German (Axis) / Japanese (Axis) programs - however we generally find out many years latter because their military's are not subject to the same level of scrutiny or analysis.

As I say there are plenty of booster / detractors with many (self serving - argument) points.

Its all rather academic as they are just deploying now and have hardly been used.

Eh, how are our old Hornets adjusting to the cold?[:)]

The F-35 is the only true 5G plane option to the West. Critics have simply not understood what true 5G is. The F-35 is not intended to be all the things which the critics find fault with. The correct viewpoint is to view the F-35 (and any true 5G plane) as the conductor of the orchestra. A conductor brings out the greater synergy of the parts. The resulting performance is greater than the sum of the parts.

Alfred

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

There are obviously a lot of boosters and detractors of the F35 program.

Canada not the least.

I am certain the program is neither as good as some advertise nor as bad as other advertise. Inevitably the boosters focus on capability - the detractors on capability verses cost. We wont really have definitive assessed proof probably for many years ( as we learned with the F4 Phantoms with no guns, the F14 Tomcat as a carrier monster, the F16 as too big and heavy)

One can search the "interweb thingy" and find an article to support any view you wish to forward. Some reputable some not some current some old etc. Pro or Con

I think it is important to recall

1) A single plane or squadron of planes do not fight on their own. In addition other air superiority measures - AWACs, GPS, Drones heavens knows what - contribute to the overall tactical plan. This is not 1917 - dog fights over the trenches are not the 'only' facet of air combat.

2) The planes are also part of 'much more' combined arms tactics nowadays. Far more so since 1945. Far more so than Nam. Far more so than the first Gulf war although that is the most relevant comparison. Its not just other air superiority measures. Its ground forces / ships / helicopters and heaven know what more.

3) Western programs are subject to far more scrutiny than Russian / Chinese / weapons programs etc. Simply freedom of the press and public cost accounting drive this greater transparency. There is a laundry list of failed Soviet / German (Axis) / Japanese (Axis) programs - however we generally find out many years latter because their military's are not subject to the same level of scrutiny or analysis.

As I say there are plenty of booster / detractors with many (self serving - argument) points.

Its all rather academic as they are just deploying now and have hardly been used.

Eh, how are our old Hornets adjusting to the cold?[:)]

The F-35 is the only true 5G plane option to the West. Critics have simply not understood what true 5G is. The F-35 is not intended to be all the things which the critics find fault with. The correct viewpoint is to view the F-35 (and any true 5G plane) as the conductor of the orchestra. A conductor brings out the greater synergy of the parts. The resulting performance is greater than the sum of the parts.

Alfred

This is what I've read as well. It's a design looking forward. What will air combat look like in ten years?

There will be a lot more unmanned aircraft for all purposes, and the F-35 can help run that show with it's stealth, situational awareness and information gathering ability as mentioned in Jorge_Stanbury's post above.

It isn't an air superiority fighter as we've seen before, but is that the model for the future? Probably not. Stick it up there with 100 drones and it'll be a different story.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... air-combat

A number of senior Air Force leaders have offered updates about NGAD recently, all of who stressed that the final force mixture will include a variety of different platforms, as well as munitions and other systems, all tied together at various levels. This could include manned aircraft networked together with “loyal wingman” drones, fully autonomous unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV), swarms of low-cost unmanned aircraft, and more.