Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

sferrin said:
You're starting to sound like the, "the F-35 got its butt kicked in a series of dogfights with the F-16" crowd.
*When being cornered by logic, changed the topic by labeling and generalization* ::) As for how early the simulator is, I already explained why that's irrelevant. You're more than welcomed to deconstruct my reasoning with logic.
 
donnage99 said:
sferrin said:
You're starting to sound like the, "the F-35 got its butt kicked in a series of dogfights with the F-16" crowd.
*When being cornered by logic, changed the topic by labeling and generalization* ::)

I don't think that word means what you think it does. "Logic" certainly does NOT suggest that one tale of a test with unknown parameters in a simulation over a decade ago has any significance whatsoever today. So answer the question: do you think every air power involved in the F-35 is populated by incompetent fools, who are being hoodwinked, or no?
 
sferrin said:
I don't think that word means what you think it does. "Logic" certainly does NOT suggest that one tale of a test with unknown parameters in a simulation over a decade ago has any significance whatsoever today.
My apology, I forgot the simple fact that if you missed logic the first time , you probably not gonna catch it the second time around. I think in your instinctive fanboy knee jerk reaction, you failed to see that there are TWO separate issues here, one is "does this simulation suggest the f-35 to be incompetent dogfighter?" and "has there been an attempt to use this simulation to cast f-35 in a positive light?" The link I gave has nothing to do with the first question. And the timing of the simulation or how early it was run has nothing to do with the ETHICS in which it was conducted.
 
The F-35 in a dogfight – what have I learned so far?


http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/

Scroll down for English translation.
 
sferrin said:
The F-35 in a dogfight – what have I learned so far?


http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/

Scroll down for English translation.
Great article thanks for posting. Like how he describes flying the F-35 :D
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norwegian-pilot-counters-leaked-f-35-dogfight-report-422552/

His claim of the f-35 acceleration is consistent of earlier claims made by lead test pilot that even though on paper, f-35 doesn't have the top speed of the f-16 but it out accelerate the f-16 at lower speed due to its monstrous engine.
 
From AFA:

A combat-coded F-35A assigned to Hill AFB, Utah, dropped a GBU-12 laser-guided bomb over the Utah Test and Training Range last week, marking another first on the way to initial operational capability for the Air Force variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35A has only ever dropped weapons in a testing environment. “This is significant because we’re building the confidence of our pilots by actually dropping something off the airplane instead of simulating weapon employment,” said Lt. Col. George Watkins, commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron, in a release. Lt. Col. Darrin Dronoff, director of Hill’s F-35 program integration office, noted that the members of the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings, which participated in the mission, will “be the airmen called upon to take the F-35 to combat, whenever that call may come.” The Air Force is expected to declare IOC between August and December. Aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin told reporters during AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium last week the company was aiming for the “front end” of that window. F-35 pilots at Hill will begin flying in the four-ship formation—the standard combat configuration—as early as March, according to the release.
 
donnage99 said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norwegian-pilot-counters-leaked-f-35-dogfight-report-422552/

His claim of the f-35 acceleration is consistent of earlier claims made by lead test pilot that even though on paper, f-35 doesn't have the top speed of the f-16 but it out accelerate the f-16 at lower speed due to its monstrous engine.

Top speed clean is pretty much irrelevant as the F-16 rarely goes there. Top speed in combat configuration on the other hand. . . Add a couple bombs and missiles and the F-35 will smoke the F-16 in the speed dept. (The F-35 is designed for Mach 1.6 with a pair of 2000lb bombs and a pair of AIM-120s.)
 
bobbymike said:
From AFA:

A combat-coded F-35A assigned to Hill AFB, Utah, dropped a GBU-12 laser-guided bomb over the Utah Test and Training Range last week, marking another first on the way to initial operational capability for the Air Force variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35A has only ever dropped weapons in a testing environment. “This is significant because we’re building the confidence of our pilots by actually dropping something off the airplane instead of simulating weapon employment,” said Lt. Col. George Watkins, commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron, in a release. Lt. Col. Darrin Dronoff, director of Hill’s F-35 program integration office, noted that the members of the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings, which participated in the mission, will “be the airmen called upon to take the F-35 to combat, whenever that call may come.” The Air Force is expected to declare IOC between August and December. Aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin told reporters during AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium last week the company was aiming for the “front end” of that window. F-35 pilots at Hill will begin flying in the four-ship formation—the standard combat configuration—as early as March, according to the release.

:) I need to move back north. Hill also has F-22s coming through all the time as that's where they do all the heavy maintenance/mods for the F-22 fleet as well. F-22s and F-35s coming and going all the time.
 

Attachments

  • 151030-F-JH400-6805.JPG
    601.8 KB · Views: 564
Marine Commandant Wants Lockheed To ‘Go Faster’ With F-35 Software

"The Marine Corps Commandant wants Lockheed Martin (LMT) to hurry up with the F-35’s software development, which will enable additional capabilities on the next-generation stealth fighter.

At a House Appropriations Committee hearing Tuesday, Gen. Robert Neller said that while the F-35 is “aeronautically sound,” he has “concerns about where the software was” and wants Lockheed to “go faster.”

Neller said the F-35 needs the 3F software and will hold the vendor accountable for that. An updated 3F version of the software will give the F-35 full war-fighting capabilities next year, including the ability to fire the plane’s 25-millimeter Gatling gun.

As of May 2015, 97.5% of the required F-35 software is currently flying and 99.9% of the required software has been coded, according to Lockheed’s website. But about 10,000 lines of code still need to be written.

The Marines F-35B variant was declared combat-ready in July and is set for deployment to Japan in early 2017."

http://www.investors.com/news/top-marine-official-wants-lockheed-to-go-faster-with-f-35-software/
 
Naval Strike Fighters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os5V-72I2rg
 
F-35

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

Is it weird this is how I enjoy spending my Saturdays watching defense committee hearings? If I was in DC I would be attending them.
 
bobbymike said:
Naval Strike Fighters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os5V-72I2rg

Thx for sharing, Bobbymike.

I found the info given by LtGen Davis especially interesting. See vid @ 45:28
 
sferrin said:
donnage99 said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norwegian-pilot-counters-leaked-f-35-dogfight-report-422552/

His claim of the f-35 acceleration is consistent of earlier claims made by lead test pilot that even though on paper, f-35 doesn't have the top speed of the f-16 but it out accelerate the f-16 at lower speed due to its monstrous engine.

Top speed clean is pretty much irrelevant as the F-16 rarely goes there. Top speed in combat configuration on the other hand. . . Add a couple bombs and missiles and the F-35 will smoke the F-16 in the speed dept. (The F-35 is designed for Mach 1.6 with a pair of 2000lb bombs and a pair of AIM-120s.)

An interesting (for me) comment I found regarding the relative performance of the F16 and F35. Possibly a bit overly simplistic, would appreciate comments from other flyers offering illumination.
The original article did not really say the F-35 can't dogfight, it stated that it suffered from energy deficit compared to the F-16. This article points out that it also benefits from less restricted angle of attack than the F-16. These are not inconsistent observations. I've fought the F-16 many times, and flew it once. The F-16 has significant AOA limits (limited by the FBW system). What does that mean? It means that the F-16 can carve a great turn and has a sweet 9G initial pull, but if you can live past the first couple turns the Viper is going to be AOA limited and you can pretty much have your way with it. I flew Navy jets (F-14/18) which have no AOA limit. Even with an energy deficit, the ability to "point the nose" has significant advantages, particularly today with high off-boresight weapons like AIM-9X. That being said, in 2016 I would expect to have a jet that has both AOA and thrust/weight advantages over a jet from the mid 70's. This sets up a classic rate vs radius fight. The F-16 has a rate advantage, the F-35 has a radius advantage.

For a (somewhat inaccurate) automotive analogy, the F-16 has more HP and torque, but suffers from understeer. If you enter a turn at the right speed you are fine, but enter too fast and no matter how much you turn the wheel you don't get any more turn out of the car. The F-35 allows oversteer. You can turn harder and the rear will start to swing around. You may loose 30MPH in the turn, but you will turn.
 
Well, the guy never flew an F-35 for starters. There's a recent article from a pilot who's flown both the F-35 and the F-16 that would probably be more helpful for you.
 
sferrin said:
Well, the guy never flew an F-35 for starters. There's a recent article from a pilot who's flown both the F-35 and the F-16 that would probably be more helpful for you.

Sure. I just thought it was newsworthy as an example of the more balanced comments appearing on the various non-aviation websites and blogs now when the subject of the F35 comes up. I should have provided a link (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/03/06/1537258/it-turns-out-the-f-35-can-dogfight) back to the source of the comment but it was relating to the recent article/paper published by the Norwegian pilot which is discussed above and that, despite there being a number of the usual over the top pro/con comments, there are many more balanced comments which at least attempt to address the issues involved in a way which better communicates the many pros and cons to be considered and providing, if not super accurate analogies, analogies which better illustrate some of those issues to the layman.

We're probably all familiar with being asked by family or friends for an opinion when stories like the comments made by Major Hanche appear in the mainstream press, I'm just wondering if any of the other pilots on here would 'agree' with the analogy as presented or just throw it on the pile of other wildly inaccurate comparisons and start showing our friend/family member some of the finer points using the salt and pepper shakers as props.
 
If you haven't been over to F-16.net you should check it out. There are many posts like that over there by actual pilots.
 
Off topic but I used to know it well. I always had a lot of time for posters like "Gums" and a few of the other pilots on there but the rest of them get a little too "Rah rah F35" for me.
 
sferrin said:
Top speed clean is pretty much irrelevant as the F-16 rarely goes there. Top speed in combat configuration on the other hand. . . Add a couple bombs and missiles and the F-35 will smoke the F-16 in the speed dept. (The F-35 is designed for Mach 1.6 with a pair of 2000lb bombs and a pair of AIM-120s.)

Comparison with the same load outs are good for internet sporting debate but quite irrelevant in real life scenarios. You can't obligate the enemy, especially a defender enemy to have the same load out as you.
 
donnage99 said:
sferrin said:
Top speed clean is pretty much irrelevant as the F-16 rarely goes there. Top speed in combat configuration on the other hand. . . Add a couple bombs and missiles and the F-35 will smoke the F-16 in the speed dept. (The F-35 is designed for Mach 1.6 with a pair of 2000lb bombs and a pair of AIM-120s.)

Comparison with the same load outs are good for internet sporting debate but quite irrelevant in real life scenarios. You can't obligate the enemy, especially a defender enemy to have the same load out as you.


You might want to read that again.
 
http://www.sldinfo.com/lessons-learned-at-pax-river-the-coming-of-the-f-35-fleet/
 
donnage99 said:
sferrin said:
You might want to read that again.

Yeah, good internet sporting debate. Nothing wrong with that.

We were talking about the F-16 and F-35. Enemy aircraft were and are irrelevant to the conversation.
 
F-35s Fly Simulated CAS for Rangers

3/10/2016

​Two F-35As assigned to Eglin AFB, Fla., supported Rangers with the 3rd Ranger Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, during an exercise at the base simulating hostile targets in close proximity. During training, Rangers set up communications systems to encode and decode messages, prepare fire support plans with target coordinates, and determine target locations, according to an Eglin release. The exercise isn’t the first time F-35s have flown simulated close air support during Army exercises; F-35As flew in support of Green Flag last summer. The Eglin exercise highlight the F-35’s close air support capability, which has become a major point of contention between the Air Force and Congress as the service looks to retire its most famous close air support platform, the A-10. (See also: A New Way to do Close Air Support.)
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-chief-expects-pws-bomber-work-to-reduce-f135-423013/
 
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-chief-expects-pws-bomber-work-to-reduce-f135-423013/

Should cross-post in the B-21 forum.
 
marauder2048 said:
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-chief-expects-pws-bomber-work-to-reduce-f135-423013/

Should cross-post in the B-21 forum.

That would seem to answer both which engine and how many. I can't imagine it being large enough to require 4 non-afterburning F135s.
 
The F-35, More Than Just a Fighter

—John A. Tirpak 3/11/2016

​​Critics have to stop thinking of the F-35 as merely the new fighter that replaces the worn-out 1980​s-vintage F-16, Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said Wednesday. Speaking at an AFA Mitchell Institute event, Work said the F-35 is “not a fighter. It is a ‘BN-35,’ a Battle Network-35. It is a sensor computer node in the distributed campaign battle network that causes the decisions of the pilots to be so much better than [that of] the adversary and also provides enormous benefit to the battle network” by distributing vast amounts of information to the joint force.

F-35A IOC Creeping Right

—John A. Tirpak 3/11/2016

​An August declaration of initial operational capability for the F-35A fighter with the Air Force is becoming less likely, according to comments made by Joint Strike Fighter program manager Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. Bogdan said two things are putting August IOC at risk. One is the final 3i software build, and the other is with the Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, he said during a McAleese and Associates seminar in Washington Thursday. Right now, “we’re probably 40-60 days” behind, Bogdan said. “That puts you in the September-October timeframe, and the US Air Force has said anytime between August and December is okay for IOC, so I do not see the threshold date of December at risk at all. But for my team, we’re still looking at 1 August.” The problem with ALIS is that the next increment—required for USAF IOC—requires an update that tracks the life of certain parts that get swapped from one jet to another. “Both systems,” Bogdan told reporters afterwards, referring to the logistics systems of Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney, “are proving to be really difficult in connecting with ALIS. That’s where the risk is in ALIS.” The shift requires some “serious changes to Lockheed’s … system.”

F-35 Milestones Loom

—John A. Tirpak 3/11/2016

​Besides Air Force initial operational capability,​ two other big milestones are looming for the F-35, program executive officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said. Bogdan said he’s hoping for a “handshake deal” on Lot 9 production “by the end of the month,” he told reporters Thursday at a McAleese and Associates seminar in Washington, D.C. He’s negotiating Lot 9 and 10 simultaneously, “and that’s not easy,” he said. Together, they represent $16 billion of work, and because Lot 10 is “a bigger quantity of airplanes, it’s more money” and “some of the costs need to be investigated” more closely. “We’re making sure we know every cost, on every line, of every one of those proposals,” he said. He’s also meeting with all the partners at the end of March to “validate” what will be in Block IV: the first tranche of updates after the all-service 3F base level of capabilities. He expects to send requirements to the Air Force and Joint Requirements Oversight Committees shortly thereafter. “When it comes out at the other end of the JROC in the spring/summer timeframe, we’ll be able to share with everybody what follow-on modernization looks like for the F-35,” he said. Not all partners will get what they want in Block IV, he added, because the weapons they want to integrate may not be mature enough at that point. To them he’ll have to say, “I know when you want it, but this is when it’s going to happen.”
 
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/03/10/2220203/software-bug-in-f-35-radar-causes-mid-flight-system-reboot
 
Split the Line?

—John A. Tirpak3/14/2016

​Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, Joint Strike Fighter program executive officer, last week questioned whether it make sense to split F-35 production into three dedicated lines, given that commonality between the three variants is only about 20-25 percent. Speaking at a McAleese and Associates seminar in Washington, D.C., on March 10, Bogdan appeared to think hard about the answer. “We’ll have to see​” if Japan’s F-35A-only production line turns out to be more efficient than the other, multi-type lines, he said. Italy’s facility will build both F-35A and B models, and Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas, plant makes all variants on one factory line. The original concept—and the one put into practice at Fort Worth—was that the types would be common enough that workers would be able to efficiently build whatever variant next came down the line. “There would be considerable expense in changing the (work) flow now,” an industry official said of the Lockheed line. “Learning curve would rise again for a while, and that’s not a direction you want to go,” he said. “Sometimes, you’re better off sticking with a system once you’ve got a system, even if it’s not the most efficient system.”
 
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/03/16/f35-cost-may-drop-to-85-million-by-2019.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl
 
The Defense Department has updated its projected total acquisition cost for the F-35 program to $379 billion, a drop of $12.1 billion from what was reported in 2014. The new number, mentioned in a Government Accountability Office report, which was presented to the House Armed Services Committee's tactical air and land forces panel on Wednesday, shows how the program is “coming down the price curve faster than anticipated,” F-35 Joint Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said at the hearing. The F-35 program is at a “pivot point” as manufacturing ramps up, including the delivery of 45 jets last year. The Air Force is working to meet its initial operational capability goal later this year, and is already moving to show off the jets it does have. The service has set up an F-35 heritage flight, and has planned 14 total public events this year, including air shows in places such as Chicago, Las Vegas, and New York City, Bogdan said. The plan is to publicly show the jet in an effort to build public support. “We’ve added years and billions of dollars to the program. Even though that hasn’t happened since 2010, people remember that,” he said. (Bogdan’s Prepared Testimony.)
 
​F-35 goes on global publicity tour in battle for hearts and mind

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-goes-on-global-publicity-tour-in-battle-for-he-423527/
 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/24/software_problems_bork_f35_fleet_til_2019/
https://armedservices.house.gov/legislation/hearings/update-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-jsf-program-and-fiscal-year-2017-budget-0
 
Lockheed F-35 programme extended to 2070

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-f-35-programme-extended-to-2070-423536/
 
Flyaway said:
Lockheed F-35 programme extended to 2070

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-f-35-programme-extended-to-2070-423536/

How will they get to those numbers of flight hours? F-22 has like an 8k hour service life - and it won't make that without some serious modifications.
 
NeilChapman said:
Flyaway said:
Lockheed F-35 programme extended to 2070

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-f-35-programme-extended-to-2070-423536/

How will they get to those numbers of flight hours? F-22 has like an 8k hour service life - and it won't make that without some serious modifications.

As I've said before elsewhere, insanity is one of the few things that's not in short supply these days.
 
The f-35 margin for weight gain isn't that great so I really don't see it going that far into the future. Unless we talking about a super lightning in the same fashion as the hornet to super hornet.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom