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

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/ ... ghter-jet/

The Air Force Secretly Built Its Next Fighter Jet: Here's What It Means for Defense Stocks

Also kind of sort of related, is a story that Pres Trump told at a rally about CV catapults and CV elevators. Very illuminating about our procurement and development process, and also very interesting in how this administration is changing it.

I met Regan's Sec of Navy a few years back, and this is pretty much all he talked about: shortening the development time of new systems.

All the good his talking did. Look at the monstrous F-35 and it's "development" time.

And since when do we design planes in "secret" like this? Obviously to escape oversight.

Who knows what other "Secret", wasteful projects they are working on.

[8|] Same old, same old, I see.

I can think of a far more obvious answer than "escaping oversight" (what oversight?) - keeping your capabilities and research secret from potentially hostile opponents for as long as possible.

It's not as if designing planes in public is a longstanding and important tradition or something.

Going further, I would have thought that you, of all people, would have been ecstatic - given how much the F-35 is your personal hobby horse.

[Alpha77]

I think the low readiness states reported above might be exagerated.. perhaps even a ruse for potentiell enemies...

Just per coincidence I found this article on a German aviation site, reporting problems with F-35 "OBIGGS (On Board Inert Gas Generation System)":

https://aerobuzz.de/militar/f-35-lightn ... ernhalten/

But I also have read F-35 was good in A2A combat in "red flags exercises" I guess vs. F15/16(?)
That it´s weapons are inside gives F-35 of course an advantage compared to planes having all payload on pylons.. these add of course weight and drag. Also eg. the outboard fuel tanks need to be jettisoned in A2A. Or potentially bombs/ground attack missiles too. F-35 has an advantage carrying everything inside.
Downside is low payload, for my taste TOO low. Also would weapons bay opening perhaps screw with stealth?

[fcooke]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

Well thank you for calling me one dimensional. And not addressing the additional F-15 procurement. You think that came out of nowhere? If you want to control more drones get a dedicated bird, not a one pilot fighter.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

Well thank you for calling me one dimensional. And not addressing the additional F-15 procurement. You think that came out of nowhere? If you want to control more drones get a dedicated bird, not a one pilot fighter.

If the F-35 could do what it was promised to do there would be no need to buy the F-15X.

The F-35 was sold to us as a replacement-the "next generation" of fighters-not as a supplement.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

I think the low readiness states reported above might be exagerated.. perhaps even a ruse for potentiell enemies...

Just per coincidence I found this article on a German aviation site, reporting problems with F-35 "OBIGGS (On Board Inert Gas Generation System)":

https://aerobuzz.de/militar/f-35-lightn ... ernhalten/

But I also have read F-35 was good in A2A combat in "red flags exercises" I guess vs. F15/16(?)
That it´s weapons are inside gives F-35 of course an advantage compared to planes having all payload on pylons.. these add of course weight and drag. Also eg. the outboard fuel tanks need to be jettisoned in A2A. Or potentially bombs/ground attack missiles too. F-35 has an advantage carrying everything inside.
Downside is low payload, for my taste TOO low. Also would weapons bay opening perhaps screw with stealth?

Depends how you define A2A. Dogfighting? Nope, it is "meat on the table" for even Gen II Russian planes.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/ ... ghter-jet/

The Air Force Secretly Built Its Next Fighter Jet: Here's What It Means for Defense Stocks

Also kind of sort of related, is a story that Pres Trump told at a rally about CV catapults and CV elevators. Very illuminating about our procurement and development process, and also very interesting in how this administration is changing it.

I met Regan's Sec of Navy a few years back, and this is pretty much all he talked about: shortening the development time of new systems.

All the good his talking did. Look at the monstrous F-35 and it's "development" time.

And since when do we design planes in "secret" like this? Obviously to escape oversight.

Who knows what other "Secret", wasteful projects they are working on.

[8|] Same old, same old, I see.

I can think of a far more obvious answer than "escaping oversight" (what oversight?) - keeping your capabilities and research secret from potentially hostile opponents for as long as possible.

It's not as if designing planes in public is a longstanding and important tradition or something.

Going further, I would have thought that you, of all people, would have been ecstatic - given how much the F-35 is your personal hobby horse.

Given the amount of waste and fraud in almost everything under the sun in Pentagon procurement that is the most logical conclusion.

Just look at the waste and failed promises in the F-35 program.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

"negative"? More like an indictment.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

You don't need a $100,000,000.00 plane to guide drones to target. A larger drone can do that-but there is no profit in that, is there.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

Well thank you for calling me one dimensional. And not addressing the additional F-15 procurement. You think that came out of nowhere? If you want to control more drones get a dedicated bird, not a one pilot fighter.

As pointed out previously, having specialised aircraft may not by default be a cheaper solution as now you've a larger air force and the costs that come with it.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

I think the low readiness states reported above might be exagerated.. perhaps even a ruse for potentiell enemies...

Just per coincidence I found this article on a German aviation site, reporting problems with F-35 "OBIGGS (On Board Inert Gas Generation System)":

https://aerobuzz.de/militar/f-35-lightn ... ernhalten/

But I also have read F-35 was good in A2A combat in "red flags exercises" I guess vs. F15/16(?)
That it´s weapons are inside gives F-35 of course an advantage compared to planes having all payload on pylons.. these add of course weight and drag. Also eg. the outboard fuel tanks need to be jettisoned in A2A. Or potentially bombs/ground attack missiles too. F-35 has an advantage carrying everything inside.
Downside is low payload, for my taste TOO low. Also would weapons bay opening perhaps screw with stealth?

Depends how you define A2A. Dogfighting? Nope, it is "meat on the table" for even Gen II Russian planes.

When was the last time air-to-air combat occurred where dogfighting actively occurred?

The characteristics key in dogfighting, while still desirable in an airframe, have much less importance now than previously.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

You don't need a $100,000,000.00 plane to guide drones to target. A larger drone can do that-but there is no profit in that, is there.

Perhaps so, but if you've got all your drone pilots in the same place (let's say a control room on a CV) then a single missile hit and they might be out of action.

If you've got ten F-35's up, there's ten F-35s, each with a semi-autonomous mini-air wing of drones.

That's the kind of war the F-35 is aimed at fighting.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

You don't need a $100,000,000.00 plane to guide drones to target. A larger drone can do that-but there is no profit in that, is there.

Why do you care? The Russians are not paying for it.

[fcooke]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: fcooke

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

Well thank you for calling me one dimensional. And not addressing the additional F-15 procurement. You think that came out of nowhere? If you want to control more drones get a dedicated bird, not a one pilot fighter.

As pointed out previously, having specialised aircraft may not by default be a cheaper solution as now you've a larger air force and the costs that come with it.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

I think the low readiness states reported above might be exagerated.. perhaps even a ruse for potentiell enemies...

Just per coincidence I found this article on a German aviation site, reporting problems with F-35 "OBIGGS (On Board Inert Gas Generation System)":

https://aerobuzz.de/militar/f-35-lightn ... ernhalten/

But I also have read F-35 was good in A2A combat in "red flags exercises" I guess vs. F15/16(?)
That it´s weapons are inside gives F-35 of course an advantage compared to planes having all payload on pylons.. these add of course weight and drag. Also eg. the outboard fuel tanks need to be jettisoned in A2A. Or potentially bombs/ground attack missiles too. F-35 has an advantage carrying everything inside.
Downside is low payload, for my taste TOO low. Also would weapons bay opening perhaps screw with stealth?

Depends how you define A2A. Dogfighting? Nope, it is "meat on the table" for even Gen II Russian planes.

When was the last time air-to-air combat occurred where dogfighting actively occurred?

The characteristics key in dogfighting, while still desirable in an airframe, have much less importance now than previously.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

You don't need a $100,000,000.00 plane to guide drones to target. A larger drone can do that-but there is no profit in that, is there.

Perhaps so, but if you've got all your drone pilots in the same place (let's say a control room on a CV) then a single missile hit and they might be out of action.

If you've got ten F-35's up, there's ten F-35s, each with a semi-autonomous mini-air wing of drones.

That's the kind of war the F-35 is aimed at fighting.

Ah yes, the US learned the hard way in Vietnam that going all missile and no cannons didn't work out too well. Just like all computer and not enough humans will likely not work out in the future. As for the bigger airforce argument, procure a few less F-35s and get some next gen AWACS. Air Force brass has ALWAYS been drawn to fighters. If keeping things cost effective is important then why are the 100 odd F-22s still in operation? There's almost no way that makes fiscal sense.

And the single pilot is going to fly the plane and manage the drones.....ok.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: fcooke



Well thank you for calling me one dimensional. And not addressing the additional F-15 procurement. You think that came out of nowhere? If you want to control more drones get a dedicated bird, not a one pilot fighter.

As pointed out previously, having specialised aircraft may not by default be a cheaper solution as now you've a larger air force and the costs that come with it.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961





Depends how you define A2A. Dogfighting? Nope, it is "meat on the table" for even Gen II Russian planes.

When was the last time air-to-air combat occurred where dogfighting actively occurred?

The characteristics key in dogfighting, while still desirable in an airframe, have much less importance now than previously.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961





You don't need a $100,000,000.00 plane to guide drones to target. A larger drone can do that-but there is no profit in that, is there.

Perhaps so, but if you've got all your drone pilots in the same place (let's say a control room on a CV) then a single missile hit and they might be out of action.

If you've got ten F-35's up, there's ten F-35s, each with a semi-autonomous mini-air wing of drones.

That's the kind of war the F-35 is aimed at fighting.

Ah yes, the US learned the hard way in Vietnam that going all missile and no cannons didn't work out too well. Just like all computer and not enough humans will likely not work out in the future. As for the bigger airforce argument, procure a few less F-35s and get some next gen AWACS. Air Force brass has ALWAYS been drawn to fighters. If keeping things cost effective is important then why are the 100 odd F-22s still in operation? There's almost no way that makes fiscal sense.

And the single pilot is going to fly the plane and manage the drones.....ok.

The pilot flies the plane and the computer manages the drones.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: fcooke



Well thank you for calling me one dimensional. And not addressing the additional F-15 procurement. You think that came out of nowhere? If you want to control more drones get a dedicated bird, not a one pilot fighter.

As pointed out previously, having specialised aircraft may not by default be a cheaper solution as now you've a larger air force and the costs that come with it.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961





Depends how you define A2A. Dogfighting? Nope, it is "meat on the table" for even Gen II Russian planes.

When was the last time air-to-air combat occurred where dogfighting actively occurred?

The characteristics key in dogfighting, while still desirable in an airframe, have much less importance now than previously.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961





You don't need a $100,000,000.00 plane to guide drones to target. A larger drone can do that-but there is no profit in that, is there.

Perhaps so, but if you've got all your drone pilots in the same place (let's say a control room on a CV) then a single missile hit and they might be out of action.

If you've got ten F-35's up, there's ten F-35s, each with a semi-autonomous mini-air wing of drones.

That's the kind of war the F-35 is aimed at fighting.

Ah yes, the US learned the hard way in Vietnam that going all missile and no cannons didn't work out too well. Just like all computer and not enough humans will likely not work out in the future. As for the bigger airforce argument, procure a few less F-35s and get some next gen AWACS. Air Force brass has ALWAYS been drawn to fighters. If keeping things cost effective is important then why are the 100 odd F-22s still in operation? There's almost no way that makes fiscal sense.

And the single pilot is going to fly the plane and manage the drones.....ok.

Still too one dimensional

The pilot isn't going to manage the drones, he's going to direct the drones. If you've ever seen the 80's classic Firefox, think along those lines, just with less mind-reading and more drop-down menus.

As for more AWACS and less fighters, if you turn off all the electronics on a AWACS and an F-35, which is more useful? The fighter airframe or the lumbering transport plane with a large radar dome stacked above? Which could carry out a wider missions in a combat zone in a pinch?

Ten AWACS aren't much good if you need a 500kg bomb delivered somewhere five minutes ago, but one F-35 might be.

[Alpha77]

Some people are funny, bringing up Awacs and saying "you don´t need cannons anymore"

Awacs can detect even smaller targets at huge ranges and serve as a command post in the air, it directs air assets to counter threats.

The Vietnam thing was already brought up, here another example, the Royal Navy had almost no "close in defense" anymore in the Falklands war era. They relied on missiles, however the Argentine airforce proved to be a brave foe and came close enough to severall ships to drop oldstyle ironbombs on them. Plus managed some Exocet hits - as most of you know they lost some ships there. As first meassure (until more expensive and capable CIWS systems could be installedd) they used oldschool 20mm cannons and perhaps also a bunch of HMGs. Which clearly is better than nothing, pumping lead in the air instead sitting duck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

Also what are you gonna do, if all missiles in your plane are expended? You need to rtb, but if their are still enemies airborne closing in? Then you need to run or fight the oldschool way. Luckily the F-35 has a gun, as it is not fast enough to run from most fighters, all Russian types plus Eurofighter/Rafale are faster. Also what if you encounter some lumbering transports, helis etc. You spend missiles for such targets instead using a gun? You shot down 2 helis with your missiles now most of them gone than enemy fighters appear still having full load of missiles.. [:D]

But seriously this is a WW2 forum, so I am not blaming people having not much clue about "modern" combat, instead repeating phrases put out like "guns are obsolete" or "only aircraft with stealth are the future". Tbh honest I have not myself at least after 2000 or so. Therefore I know cold war weapons quite well and guess most lessons still apply

Well at least they will remember you:

[Alpha77]

And btw. I think the F-35 is better than some make it to be...when the main faults are ironed out, the software bugs corrected etc. in perhaps 2-3 years it should be very capable. Just not for all the roles it is meant to be...

For many roles right now I prefer these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijs6csP5UbY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCSL6yLy4k

Btw, I find such videos quite relaxing

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Some people are funny, bringing up Awacs and saying "you don´t need cannons anymore"

Awacs can detect even smaller targets at huge ranges and serve as a command post in the air, it directs air assets to counter threats.

Yes, but it can't do diddly-squat on it's own.

The Vietnam thing was already brought up, here another example, the Royal Navy had almost no "close in defense" anymore in the Falklands war era. They relied on missiles, however the Argentine airforce proved to be a brave foe and came close enough to severall ships to drop oldstyle ironbombs on them. Plus managed some Exocet hits - as most of you know they lost some ships there. As first meassure (until more expensive and capable CIWS systems could be installedd) they used oldschool 20mm cannons and perhaps also a bunch of HMGs. Which clearly is better than nothing, pumping lead in the air instead sitting duck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

Also what are you gonna do, if all missiles in your plane are expended? You need to rtb, but if their are still enemies airborne closing in? Then you need to run or fight the oldschool way. Luckily the F-35 has a gun, as it is not fast enough to run from most fighters, all Russian types plus Eurofighter/Rafale are faster. Also what if you encounter some lumbering transports, helis etc. You spend missiles for such targets instead using a gun? You shot down 2 helis with your missiles now most of them gone than enemy fighters appear still having full load of missiles..

But seriously this is a WW2 forum, so I am not blaming people having not much clue about "modern" combat, instead repeating phrases put out like "guns are obsolete" or "only aircraft with stealth are the future". Tbh honest I have not myself at least after 2000 or so. Therefore I know cold war weapons quite well and guess most lessons still apply

To be honest, a better comparison would be to removing the deck guns from submarines.

Yes, they do have some value, and yes, they would be useful in specific situations. However, the overall nature of warfare in that space has shifted so dramatically that those specific situations are effectively never going to arise.

[fcooke]

I've said it before but will repeat again. You cannot fully rely on computers to get the job done. Software is written for specific use cases. When the software does not understand the use case it fails. And treating a f-35 as a mission control bird, is frankly stupid.

[Alpha77]

Interview with Tony "Pax" Paxton on the Tornado GR1 & F2/F3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPCa1wsnjBM

This guy also flew Lightnings, which had no guns for a while, which was then corrected. This channel is very interesting he interviews with pilots (or ex) of MANY coldwar + still actual planes.

Here a 2 comments under the vid:
"'ve never ever understood this concept in the 60s that dog fighting was over so remove the guns.

Even if they were right and you are only to intercept bombers 20mm cannons would still work on bombers after you fired your missiles. It then gives the fighter the ability to bring down one or two more bombers far cheaper than missiles!

I've never understood why they believed cannons wouldn't have any effect on bombers and not just for fighters.

And they were wrong about dog fighting."

"Also : You can't dodge or jam a 20/30mm shell."

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

I've said it before but will repeat again. You cannot fully rely on computers to get the job done. Software is written for specific use cases. When the software does not understand the use case it fails. And treating a f-35 as a mission control bird, is frankly stupid.

There was sufficient computing power in 1969 to put two men on the moon. In the half-century since then, computing power has progressed a little.

The software used won't be as you understand it (that is, written for a specific purpose). Instead, it will be an AI that has been developed through a supervised learning process, and taking general direction from a human operator (i.e "Go here, perform this mission, report every 15 mins).

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Interview with Tony "Pax" Paxton on the Tornado GR1 & F2/F3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPCa1wsnjBM

This guy also flew Lightnings, which had no guns for a while, which was then corrected. This channel is very interesting he interviews with pilots (or ex) of MANY coldwar + still actual planes.

Here a 2 comments under the vid:
"'ve never ever understood this concept in the 60s that dog fighting was over so remove the guns.

Even if they were right and you are only to intercept bombers 20mm cannons would still work on bombers after you fired your missiles. It then gives the fighter the ability to bring down one or two more bombers far cheaper than missiles!

I've never understood why they believed cannons wouldn't have any effect on bombers and not just for fighters.

And they were wrong about dog fighting."

"Also : You can't dodge or jam a 20/30mm shell."

If we're taking Youtube comments as gospel on this forum then there really isn't much hope left...

[Alpha77]

I copy these cause they mirror my opinion, so I safe also time writing it out myself
You disagree fine, but the issue is not relevant for the topic anyway: The F-35 has a cannon[:'(]

Btw, I wonder where is your gospel coming from when every major airforce disagrees with you (they have guns in almost all of their fighters)