The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Matej]

High costs is a good point against F-35, but I will extend your question: Thirty years from now, would you go into the war with the F-16 against T-50 or J-20?

 

[sublight]

High costs is a good point against F-35, but I will extend your question: Thirty years from now, would you go into the war with the F-16 against T-50 or J-20?

I don't think the F35 is a 30 year out program just like the F22 wasn't a large scale 30 year out program. The cost is killing the platform.
30 years from now the UCAV's will own the sky, not the F35's.

 

[sublight]

High costs is a good point against F-35, but I will extend your question: Thirty years from now, would you go into the war with the F-16 against T-50 or J-20?

How many T-50's or J-20's will the Russians and Chinese crank out? If they manage to crank out 2000 or so, that would still be an 8:1 ratio in our favor.

 

[piko1]

High costs is a good point against F-35, but I will extend your question: Thirty years from now, would you go into the war with the F-16 against T-50 or J-20?

in basic you can go in to a war against T-50 or J-20 with f-16 the history it self showed that it can be done successfully but not 100%
even the bgaf pilots shot several f-16 with that old thing MiG-21 in the us-bg exercises every year

 

[Matej]

I don't think the F35 is a 30 year out program just like the F22 wasn't a large scale 30 year out program. The cost is killing the platform.
30 years from now the UCAV's will own the sky, not the F35's.

It was said many times before: Your idea will always look better than my hardware. There is no service-ready UCAV that can perform F-35 tasks and it will take a long time till we will have some. I am also expecting a lot of persistence from the manned fighters lobby against UCAVs in the short and mid term.

(note the absurdness of the situation - I, as the big supporter of the UCAVs, am advocating JSF )

even the bgaf pilots shot several f-16 with that old thing MiG-21 in the us-bg exercises every year

Well, does the exception make the rule? Can you imagine the situation, that USAF is currently flying F-8 against the Su-35 or MiG-29, because in mid. 70s they decided to go for the F-8 instead of the LWF? Yes, you can shot down the fighter even with the hand gun, but it requires very specific circumstances. To make it your core war strategy is not a good choice. Also - another important factor in the "west" countries are losses of the soldiers and public opinion. Lets say pure mathematical assumption, that you will need only a four F-16s to successfully shot down the PAK FA. How the US public opinion respond, when from all groups of four F-16 only one or two returns to the base? If its not directly 3. world war, nobody can sustain the political and public pressure of that kind.

My whole point is - no matter how bad (someone can say good) the JSF is, there is currently not any good alternative, applicable in the required timeframe.

 

[sferrin]

High costs is a good point against F-35, but I will extend your question: Thirty years from now, would you go into the war with the F-16 against T-50 or J-20?

I don't think the F35 is a 30 year out program just like the F22 wasn't a large scale 30 year out program. The cost is killing the platform.
30 years from now the UCAV's will own the sky, not the F35's.

As long as you can negate a UCAV by jamming it your claim is pure fantasy and nevermind the problems of it getting shot down.

 

[sublight]

High costs is a good point against F-35, but I will extend your question: Thirty years from now, would you go into the war with the F-16 against T-50 or J-20?

I don't think the F35 is a 30 year out program just like the F22 wasn't a large scale 30 year out program. The cost is killing the platform.
30 years from now the UCAV's will own the sky, not the F35's.

As long as you can negate a UCAV by jamming it your claim is pure fantasy and nevermind the problems of it getting shot down.

That's too simplistic. You are assuming a UCAV will be a dumb "joystick toy" and have no autonomous functionality, and you are assuming its communication will be subject to jamming. Spread spectrum isn't bulletproof, but I would hate to try and jam a UCAV only to have it come shoot me for my effort....

 

[sferrin]

High costs is a good point against F-35, but I will extend your question: Thirty years from now, would you go into the war with the F-16 against T-50 or J-20?

I don't think the F35 is a 30 year out program just like the F22 wasn't a large scale 30 year out program. The cost is killing the platform.
30 years from now the UCAV's will own the sky, not the F35's.

As long as you can negate a UCAV by jamming it your claim is pure fantasy and nevermind the problems of it getting shot down.

That's too simplistic. You are assuming a UCAV will be a dumb "joystick toy" and have no autonomous functionality, and you are assuming its communication will be subject to jamming. Spread spectrum isn't bulletproof, but I would hate to try and jam a UCAV only to have it come shoot me for my effort....

You've been watching too much Hollywood. Keep in mind jamming includes jamming GPS (or disabling the satellites). Also, even the fanciest X-47 would be meat on the table to any fighter that detected it.

 

[sublight]

You've been watching too much Hollywood. Keep in mind jamming includes jamming GPS (or disabling the satellites). Also, even the fanciest X-47 would be meat on the table to any fighter that detected it.

So your saying that today's ridiculously high powered processors tied with sensors don't have the ability to perform hundreds of decision loops inside a humans single decision loop, nor does an autonomous vehicle have the ability to perform high G maneuvers that would kill a human, and these autonomous vehicles would be utterly blind without GPS and we couldn't possibly build in any other sort of navigation using magnetic, astronomic, gyroscopic, or terrain recognition? GPS hasn't killed inertial yet....

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

The latest F-35 program fact sheet. -SP

Can't open it, the file's damaged.

 

[quellish]

So your saying that today's ridiculously high powered processors tied with sensors don't have the ability to perform hundreds of decision loops inside a humans single decision loop, nor does an autonomous vehicle have the ability to perform high G maneuvers that would kill a human, and these autonomous vehicles would be utterly blind without GPS and we couldn't possibly build in any other sort of navigation using magnetic, astronomic, gyroscopic, or terrain recognition? GPS hasn't killed inertial yet....

One of these aircraft is fictional, one is not. Processing power has nothing to do with it.

 

[AeroFranz]

Once and for all - the myth of UCAVs pulling 15 g's is ridiculous. Who wants to haul around the increased structural weight required for this level of performance? Not to mention that to sustain that, you need one (or two) mother engines. Just not worth it.

 

[sublight]

The original question was, given the F35's huge price tag of 388 billion for 2450 planes, would you rather go to war with that or 19,400 of the latest block of F-16's???

 

[sferrin]

The original question was, given the F35's huge price tag of 388 billion for 2450 planes, would you rather go to war with that or 19,400 of the latest block of F-16's???

And how much to train and pay the 20,000+ pilots and maintain that force? Oops.

 

[sferrin]

You've been watching too much Hollywood. Keep in mind jamming includes jamming GPS (or disabling the satellites). Also, even the fanciest X-47 would be meat on the table to any fighter that detected it.

So your saying that today's ridiculously high powered processors tied with sensors don't have the ability to perform hundreds of decision loops inside a humans single decision loop, nor does an autonomous vehicle have the ability to perform high G maneuvers that would kill a human, and these autonomous vehicles would be utterly blind without GPS and we couldn't possibly build in any other sort of navigation using magnetic, astronomic, gyroscopic, or terrain recognition? GPS hasn't killed inertial yet....

 

[quellish]

The original question was, given the F35's huge price tag of 388 billion for 2450 planes, would you rather go to war with that or 19,400 of the latest block of F-16's???

Depends.
Does the enemy have a stealth blimp?

 

[sublight]

The original question was, given the F35's huge price tag of 388 billion for 2450 planes, would you rather go to war with that or 19,400 of the latest block of F-16's???

Depends.
Does the enemy have a stealth blimp?

I don't know, do they?

 

[PAK FA]

pix of f-35c with finished coating and painting

the F-35 is getting more beautiful by the minute

 

[GTX]

...and to reduce weight, they did away with the undercarriage ;D...sorry, I thought it was time for some levity to this thread!

Regards,

Greg

 

[Thorvic]

...and to reduce weight, they did away with the undercarriage ;D...sorry, I thought it was time for some levity to this thread!

Regards,

Greg

You mean they are either re-looking at the British rubber deck idea again using new materials or they really have developed the anti-gravity technology and that trolley is designed to hold it in place and stop it floating away ;D.

G

 

[Thorvic]

Back on a serious note that F-35 fact sheet from the Gates speech last week is rather interesting, with the LRIP for F-35B production trimmed all the way back to the minimum 6 to retain the production capability on the type, whilst 53 are added to the F-35A production over the next 5 years and the other 7 to F-35C.

There are a few veiled swipes at Lockheed Martin over the program and mentions the review was the first chance in years to get a proper and complete look at the program !.

 

[Stargazer]

The original question was, given the F35's huge price tag of 388 billion for 2450 planes, would you rather go to war with that or 19,400 of the latest block of F-16's???

Depends.
Does the enemy have a stealth blimp?

Probably not, but by then they may well have the B-2 Stealth Bomber... :

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You mean they are either re-looking at the British rubber deck idea again using new materials or they really have developed the anti-gravity technology and that trolley is designed to hold it in place and stop it floating away ;D.

No can't you all see.. The F-35 IS the stealth blimp!

 

[Stargazer]

You mean they are either re-looking at the British rubber deck idea again using new materials or they really have developed the anti-gravity technology and that trolley is designed to hold it in place and stop it floating away ;D.

No can't you all see.. The F-35 IS the stealth blimp!

Now that may explain why it advocates are so full of hot air!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Now that may explain why it advocates are so full of hot air!

The most lethal and survivable aircraft ever built and it doesn’t need a runway… That’s not hot air.

 

[Ogami musashi]

Once and for all - the myth of UCAVs pulling 15 g's is ridiculous. Who wants to haul around the increased structural weight required for this level of performance? Not to mention that to sustain that, you need one (or two) mother engines. Just not worth it.

+10^80

You can also say that you have yet to find a plane with aeros being able to attain 15's at today's best cornering speeds;

 

[Stargazer]

Now that may explain why it advocates are so full of hot air!

The most lethal and survivable aircraft ever built and it doesn’t need a runway… That’s not hot air.

Hmm... Maybe. I hope you're right. The only measure of how lethal a weapon really is is when it has seen action... Let's just hope it doesn't have a rough time in one-to-one combat with a PAK-FA, which for now seems a lot more lethal to me.

 

[sferrin]

You mean they are either re-looking at the British rubber deck idea again using new materials or they really have developed the anti-gravity technology and that trolley is designed to hold it in place and stop it floating away ;D.

No can't you all see.. The F-35 IS the stealth blimp!

Now that may explain why it advocates are so full of hot air!

Name some viable alternatives. That's right, there aren't any. :

 

[shivering]

Looks like the alternative engine is canceled:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110216/ap_on_re_us/us_congress_spending

Despite all the political hot air concerning the costs for the alternative engine
program it does seem a drop in the bucket when compared to the size of the
overall (bloated) Pentagon budget....which very much needs cutting, IMO.

 

[erod]

I hope that GE/RR continues to work on the 2nd engine using thier own money.

 

[Sundog]

Now that may explain why it advocates are so full of hot air!

The most lethal and survivable aircraft ever built and it doesn’t need a runway… That’s not hot air.

Hmm... Maybe. I hope you're right. The only measure of how lethal a weapon really is is when it has seen action... Let's just hope it doesn't have a rough time in one-to-one combat with a PAK-FA, which for now seems a lot more lethal to me.

I'm not sure where the PAK-FA and the F-35 would ever meet in combat, but if they did, do you think the PAK-FA will be able to get through the F-22's to reach the F-35's?

 

[Thorvic]

I'm not sure where the PAK-FA and the F-35 would ever meet in combat, but if they did, do you think the PAK-FA will be able to get through the F-22's to reach the F-35's?

Yes because the F-35 in theory is going to be spread more round the world where as F-22 are clustered in hotspots due to their fewer numbers, so the obvious answer is the F-35 is more likely to encounter a Pak-Fa derived aircraft than an F-22. Quite how that combat wil fair will greatly depend of the hardware used, the skill of the pilot, and of course the rules of engagements.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Let's just hope it doesn't have a rough time in one-to-one combat with a PAK-FA, which for now seems a lot more lethal to me.

'Seems' has killed more fighters than just about anything else... Argentine Mirage IIIs, Arab MiGs, Pak Sabres, IAF Hunters, PRC/SU MiG-15s...

If the Russian radar people can be believed their new AESA for the operational version of the PAK-FA will be able to detect the F-35 in frontal aspect at a range of 18-19km (10 NM). Which means the F-35 will be pitching the rough times and the PAK-FA catching no matter what they want.

[Claim made was this radar could detect a 5sqm target at 160km against air or 150km against ground. Which equates to 18-19km against a -30dbsqm target.]

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Your figures are way off for radar range I think.

There are no published figures for the T-50's radar, however it is likely to match or exceed the range of the same developers' (PESA) Irbis-E radar. This has been claimed to allow detection of a 3 sq m target at 350-400km.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Your figures are way off for radar range I think.

There are no published figures for the T-50's radar, however it is likely to match or exceed the range of the same developers' (PESA) Irbis-E radar. This has been claimed to allow detection of a 3 sq m target at 350-400km.

It was from a story copied into a blog from another blog! Here is the link to the original:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a3db93762-d2c5-4483-b73b-b73e218cbe26&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

If the Irbis can detect 3sqm at 400km then it is outperforming many shipboard radars!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Zhuk-AE is a private venture "budget AESA" by Phazotron NIIR sized for the MiG-29 nosecone (680mm or so) and intended for MiG-29 upgrades. The AESA in the T-50 will be by NIIP, significantly larger and higher technology.

I believe the Irbis range quoted is during a restricted sector scan, in a wider search pattern it would decrease.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Zhuk-AE is a private venture "budget AESA" by Phazotron NIIR sized for the MiG-29 nosecone (680mm or so) and intended for MiG-29 upgrades. The AESA in the T-50 will be by NIIP, significantly larger and higher technology.

I believe the Irbis range quoted is during a restricted sector scan, in a wider search pattern it would decrease.

Fair enough. I just read the title on the reblog, range, RCS and did the rest. Recalculating using the 350km figure for the Irbis-E one still gets a 47km detection range against a -30dbsqm target (F-35). Not quite situational awareness in a BVR fight… That is of course if the numbers are accurate. The Russians have a nasty habit from the old central economy days of quoting performance figures that aren’t meet in the real world.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Sure, it doesn't make a huge difference. What's the range on the AN/APG-81?

 

[flateric]

F-35C landing gear details

 

[GTX]

Looks like the alternative engine is canceled

Looks like someone can't actually read the story correctly!

Quote from article:

The ultimate fate of the alternative engine wasn't sealed by the day's vote.

This is but the first stage in the ongoing saga of the F136 and like previous years, I wouldn't write it off yet.

Regards,

Greg