The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[TaiidanTomcat]

Why Saab? Why? :'(

 

[EricChase88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddQ-OoUraqs

Bill Sweetman question the effectiveness of stealth.

 

[Sferrin]

Bill Sweetman question the effectiveness of stealth.

Of course he does. You're surprised?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Bill Sweetman question the effectiveness of stealth.

This is news to you? ???

That video has been making the rounds all over the net and getting a lot of laughs.

From the Video:

Sweetman "Clearly this aircraft has been designed as a counter to stealth aircraft." (at 1:51)

Sweetman "Its a version of an aircraft first flown in the 70s, fielded in the 80s" (2:23)

I am impressed at the Soviet's Foresight ;D I wonder what this means for the Eurofighter and F-22, which of course were built to specifically counter Flankers, and more than a tad maneuverable themselves WVR.

for more on the origin of the "utter tosh" as bill would say about the missiles mentioned in the first part of the video here is an expert site:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?123370-F-35-Debate-thread-(2)/page27

Just kidding its online forum. He takes what is said but several posters and regurgitates it in the video. Cheers.

 

[bobbymike]

Bill Sweetman question the effectiveness of stealth.

This is news to you? ???

That video has been making the rounds all over the net and getting a lot of laughs.

Oh my Gosh the Cobra maneuver - me sometime in the 80's

Question as I am not Tom Skerritt - In air to air combat the SU-35 would be detected first, fired upon and then have to go defensive to dodge the missile if it detected the missile. Would you not always be at a disadvantage having to go defensive and couldn't a stealth plane keep you defensive? The Su-35 is flinging itself all over the sky dodging A2A missiles and you calmly fly in for the kill?

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Stealth is useless. Why wont the Worlds premier airforces accept this simple fact that even people on the internet already know? India needs to cancel its AMCA and ask Russia to "un-stealth" their birds. Drop PAKFA. Japan, China, South Korea, Turkey....their indigenous programs are clearly misguided. Especially the ones that have an uncanny resemblance to the F-35 and 22 The JSF countries need to wake up and smell the coffee. Don't they realize that the conventional wisdom on certain internet forums dictates a laser like emphasis on turnin' and burnin'? Situational awareness, Stealth...you can't see those capabilities at an airshow, so they aren't important. ;D

The part of that video that I found funniest was the idea that it would be rational to "cede the first shot" as a strategy. That would lead to less than optimal results. Even if they can avoid the first missile, why are they not assumed to be continually under fire until they arrive at the merge? What pilot is going to want to go to war thinking, "if I can just dodge those missiles till I find these guys and get in close"?

 

[aam641]

Question as I am not Tom Skerritt - In air to air combat the SU-35 would be detected first, fired upon and then have to go defensive to dodge the missile if it detected the missile. Would you not always be at a disadvantage having to go defensive and couldn't a stealth plane keep you defensive? The Su-35 is flinging itself all over the sky dodging A2A missiles and you calmly fly in for the kill?

It would, unless it can take a shot at the radar that detected it. So there are two interesting questions. Can Su-35 approach E-3 Sentry close enough to fire R-77 (or R-37) before it is detected? And if F-22/35 detects Su-35 and fires AMRAAM at its maximum range, it will need to briefly track the Su-35 again to provide a mid-course update to the missile. Is this enough for the Su-35 to estimate the F-22/35's position well enough to accurately fire its R-77s?

 

[Dragon029]

According to Wikipedia, the E-3 has a detection range of 400km against low-flying targets, and 650km against targets at medium-high altitude.

With the R-77M having a range of 80-160km, I think the Su-35 would have some trouble delivering a successful strike without being detected.

As for the scenario where the the Su-35S is on the defensive; obviously that's going to be extremely circumstantial and dependent on classified data.

 

[Sferrin]

According to Wikipedia, the E-3 has a detection range of 400km against low-flying targets, and 650km against targets at medium-high altitude.

With the R-77M having a range of 80-160km, I think the Su-35 would have some trouble delivering a successful strike without being detected.

As for the scenario where the the Su-35S is on the defensive; obviously that's going to be extremely circumstantial and dependent on classified data.

Especially since the AWACS won't be undefended. The Su-35 would have a short and exciting life.

 

[aam641]

According to Wikipedia, the E-3 has a detection range of 400km against low-flying targets, and 650km against targets at medium-high altitude.
With the R-77M having a range of 80-160km, I think the Su-35 would have some trouble delivering a successful strike without being detected.

We don't know what sort of target is assumed here. If it's something like Tu-142 or Tu-160, the detection range against Su-35 could be about half that. Also, fairly small changes (like in Super Hornet) are claimed to reduce RCS by an order of magnitude, which would again almost half the detection range. Either of the above would put the E-3 into range of R-37, and both combined would put it into range of R-77.


As for being defended, I am not sure what can be done once a missile is launched. There is no question of E-3 evading it. Perhaps the missile can be jammed if its launch is detected early enough? And trading one Su-35 for one E-3 seems like a fair trade.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As for being defended, I am not sure what can be done once a missile is launched. There is no question of E-3 evading it. Perhaps the missile can be jammed if its launch is detected early enough? And trading one Su-35 for one E-3 seems like a fair trade.

So just send one SU-35 to kill the sitting duck/undefended AWACs. Why wouldn't the AWACs detect the big radar reflecting 1970's aircraft and vector fighters to it? the Su-35 pilot will be remembered fondly I'm sure, but "sneaking up" on an AWACs is not easy to do especially in an aircraft that shows up like a signal flare on the scope. They are well aware of enemy aircraft, that is their job after all.

Is this enough for the Su-35 to estimate the F-22/35's position well enough to accurately fire its R-77s?

No. Thats why AESA radars are in vogue, they are extremely hard to detect. Low Obeservability is not just radar, its IR, and Signal reduction as well. even then, by ceding the first shot the Flanker pilot may be a bit "busy" dodging incoming fire to look.

fairly small changes (like in Super Hornet)

Those were not "fairly small changes" serpentine intakes, radar blockers, and a completely redesigned fuselage, along with RAM are a few of the things that come to mind with the Super Hornet. I see none of that with this Flanker or any other Flanker iteration for that matter. Even canted tail fins would be a step in the right direction, but they don't even bother with that.

HTH

 

[Sferrin]

As for being defended, I am not sure what can be done once a missile is launched. There is no question of E-3 evading it. Perhaps the missile can be jammed if its launch is detected early enough? And trading one Su-35 for one E-3 seems like a fair trade.

It sounds like you have no clue how AWACS works. The Su-35 would have an exceedingly tough time even getting close enough to launch a missile at one.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Question as I am not Tom Skerritt - In air to air combat the SU-35 would be detected first, fired upon and then have to go defensive to dodge the missile if it detected the missile. Would you not always be at a disadvantage having to go defensive and couldn't a stealth plane keep you defensive? The Su-35 is flinging itself all over the sky dodging A2A missiles and you calmly fly in for the kill?

It would, unless it can take a shot at the radar that detected it. So there are two interesting questions. Can Su-35 approach E-3 Sentry close enough to fire R-77 (or R-37) before it is detected? And if F-22/35 detects Su-35 and fires AMRAAM at its maximum range, it will need to briefly track the Su-35 again to provide a mid-course update to the missile. Is this enough for the Su-35 to estimate the F-22/35's position well enough to accurately fire its R-77s?

Answer to the first question is no. Definitely not without getting killed first. Is there a way to get to an AWACS? I don't know.

Any ideas? Air launching an S-300 class weapon? Could it work?

 

[sublight_]

Wired magazine's "Danger Room" staff revolted and quit because management wouldn't let them publish this:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/69dcb831fae

 

[Sferrin]

Wired magazine's "Danger Room" staff revolted and quit because management wouldn't let them publish this:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/69dcb831fae

If it's such a steaming pile even Wired wouldn't publish it, why bother us with it?

 

[bobbymike]

Wired magazine's "Danger Room" staff revolted and quit because management wouldn't let them publish this:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/69dcb831fae

If it's such a steaming pile even Wired wouldn't publish it, why bother us with it?

Danger Room went steadily downhill after 'Journolister' Spencer Ackerman joined and made everything political and that influenced the other writers whose stories were less and less 'technological'. No matter what the story 'fighting in Eritria' for example they would somehow bring Cheney or Rumsfeld into the story.

 

[lastdingo]

Answer to the first question is no. Definitely not without getting killed first. Is there a way to get to an AWACS? I don't know.

Any ideas? Air launching an S-300 class weapon? Could it work?

The Russians have an entire group of missiles for dealing with the likes of AWACS, J-Stars and KCs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-100_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-33_%28missile%29

The West has no such thing, and the West has probably no good anti-VLO capability either.
Look at Russia if you want to find counters to stuff the West relies on militarily.

 

[Sferrin]

Answer to the first question is no. Definitely not without getting killed first. Is there a way to get to an AWACS? I don't know.

Any ideas? Air launching an S-300 class weapon? Could it work?

The Russians have an entire group of missiles for dealing with the likes of AWACS, J-Stars and KCs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-100_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-33_%28missile%29

The West has no such thing, and the West has probably no good anti-VLO capability either.
Look at Russia if you want to find counters to stuff the West relies on militarily.

The R-33 is the only one in service. And good luck with that.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Answer to the first question is no. Definitely not without getting killed first. Is there a way to get to an AWACS? I don't know.

Any ideas? Air launching an S-300 class weapon? Could it work?

The Russians have an entire group of missiles for dealing with the likes of AWACS, J-Stars and KCs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-100_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-33_%28missile%29

The West has no such thing, and the West has probably no good anti-VLO capability either.
Look at Russia if you want to find counters to stuff the West relies on militarily.

What is "anti-VLO capability"? I'm not aware of anything serious out there. A bunch of gossip about passive radars and cell phone towers. Let's see how long those things last in an actual conflict. These things can't be hidden and are dependent on being networked....knock out one node and the rest of the system will be degraded immediately. Corridors can be opened. CHAMP missiles, MALD-J, NGJ, stealth fighters with EW capabilities. Those seem like effective weapons to me. The "anti-stealth" stuff, I have strong doubts about that. The best counter to VLO is to have your own VLO aircraft, good jamming, good networking etc.

By the way, how would the West (US), that has VLO fighters and bombers for decades already, not know the most about their capabilities? Why would others, who don't have access to the systems or technologies, know the most about defeating them? It doesn't add up.

The West doesn't need a lot of anti-awacs weapons, because there is noone out there right now that has many AWACS. The Russians don't have too many, as their doctrine doesn't emphasize their use. The Chinese will need a long time to get these on the ramp too. They don't have many either. If something is needed, there will be time to develop it.

How many of those R-33 are even in stock? How many are integrated with fighters for actual use? What is their track record? Can they be intercepted, jammed, countered? We would need to know the answer to all those questions and more, before getting bent out of shape about it.

 

[bobbymike]

Answer to the first question is no. Definitely not without getting killed first. Is there a way to get to an AWACS? I don't know.

Any ideas? Air launching an S-300 class weapon? Could it work?

The Russians have an entire group of missiles for dealing with the likes of AWACS, J-Stars and KCs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-100_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-33_%28missile%29

The West has no such thing, and the West has probably no good anti-VLO capability either.
Look at Russia if you want to find counters to stuff the West relies on militarily.

I have read several articles that I would have to scour my archives for but they basically said - and yes it was some facts some speculation - that the US has been working in top secret since way back in F-117 days to develop counter stealth 1) To be able to 'counter' counter-stealth and 2) knowing that at some point in the future they would be going up against stealthy platforms. One of the lesser known sides of new weapon systems procurement is that usually there is a parallel 'red team' effort to counter the same technology if we were ever to face it in combat.

So like BLL said how could others have more knowledge of counter stealth than the country that has invested hundreds of billions in stealth programs over the past 30 + years.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Wired magazine's "Danger Room" staff revolted and quit

really? that would be great. maybe I can start reading wired again.

isn't that story old? Bronc reading that months ago influenced him so much he started accusing posters here of being paid spokespeople until he was banned

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The West has no such thing, and the West has probably no good anti-VLO capability either.

You had me at "probably" Are you really upset that the US has yet invent a specific missile to destroy the type of aircraft that the enemy doesn't even have?

 

[sublight_]

Wired magazine's "Danger Room" staff revolted and quit

really? that would be great. maybe I can start reading wired again.

isn't that story old? Bronc reading that months ago influenced him so much he started accusing posters here of being paid spokespeople until he was banned

Regardless of how you feel about Bronk and the old wired staff, Astroturfing is generally considered to be a "slimy" thing to do. The program is already so deep in the "controversy" zone (this might as well be the "The Roe V Wade No Holds Barred topic") that any too clever PR tricks are just going to cause more harm than good.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Regardless of how you feel about Bronk and the old wired staff, Astroturfing is generally considered to be a "slimy" thing to do. The program is already so deep in the "controversy" zone (this might as well be the "The Roe V Wade No Holds Barred topic") that any too clever PR tricks are just going to cause more harm than good.

how is LM's JSF astroturfing and lobbying any different than any other company doing the same thing with their aircraft? Saab is notorious for spoiling aviation writers with drinks and dinners for example. If you think that Boeing didn't recently pull every trick in the book including AstroTurf for the recent KC-X contract, you have another coming:

http://sacurrent.com/news/members-allege-the-american-gi-forum-has-been-shilling-for-boeing-big-oil-and-at-amp-t-1.1202783

I'm not defending LM or astro turfing. I do have a problem though when only one side is presented as the evil empire for something both sides do, but only one side is mentioned because it helps push an agenda.

I also didn't appreciate bronc suddenly deciding that the only people who have knowledge of this aircraft and thusly support it, must be paid shills of course, because he had made up his mind a long time ago.

what got turned on wired was when David Axe grossly inflated the cost of a cashed F-22 in order to have a more eye popping headline. He included the lifetime cost of the aircraft, which seems a little odd considering the aircraft had no lifetime cost anymore as it was crashed and gone forever. but its wrong to manipulate the public with shenanigans like that isn't it?

Boeing astrotruf:

http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/12/operation-astroturf/all/1/

 

[bobbymike]

Regardless of how you feel about Bronk and the old wired staff, Astroturfing is generally considered to be a "slimy" thing to do. The program is already so deep in the "controversy" zone (this might as well be the "The Roe V Wade No Holds Barred topic") that any too clever PR tricks are just going to cause more harm than good.

how is LM's JSF astroturfing and lobbying any different than any other company doing the same thing with their aircraft? Saab is notorious for spoiling aviation writers with drinks and dinners for example. If you think that Boeing didn't recently pull every trick in the book including AstroTurf for the recent KC-X contract, you have another coming:

http://sacurrent.com/news/members-allege-the-american-gi-forum-has-been-shilling-for-boeing-big-oil-and-at-amp-t-1.1202783

I'm not defending LM or astro turfing. I do have a problem though when only one side is presented as the evil empire for something both sides do, but only one side is mentioned because it helps push an agenda.

I also didn't appreciate bronc suddenly deciding that the only people who have knowledge of this aircraft and thusly support it, must be paid shills of course, because he had made up his mind a long time ago.

what got turned on wired was when David Axe grossly inflated the cost of a cashed F-22 in order to have a more eye popping headline. He included the lifetime cost of the aircraft, which seems a little odd considering the aircraft had no lifetime cost anymore as it was crashed and gone forever. but its wrong to manipulate the public with shenanigans like that isn't it?

Boeing astrotruf:

http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/12/operation-astroturf/all/1/

David Axe just wrote an article about the Rafale v F-22 shootdown and after several paragraphs of 'This is the end of the world for US air superiority' he ends with 'But since we don't know the ROE we really can't conclude anything' NOW THAT'S good writing NOT!

 

[sublight_]

Regardless of how you feel about Bronk and the old wired staff, Astroturfing is generally considered to be a "slimy" thing to do. The program is already so deep in the "controversy" zone (this might as well be the "The Roe V Wade No Holds Barred topic") that any too clever PR tricks are just going to cause more harm than good.

how is LM's JSF astroturfing and lobbying any different than any other company doing the same thing with their aircraft? Saab is notorious for spoiling aviation writers with drinks and dinners for example. If you think that Boeing didn't recently pull every trick in the book including AstroTurf for the recent KC-X contract, you have another coming:

http://sacurrent.com/news/members-allege-the-american-gi-forum-has-been-shilling-for-boeing-big-oil-and-at-amp-t-1.1202783

I'm not defending LM or astro turfing. I do have a problem though when only one side is presented as the evil empire for something both sides do, but only one side is mentioned because it helps push an agenda.

I also didn't appreciate bronc suddenly deciding that the only people who have knowledge of this aircraft and thusly support it, must be paid shills of course, because he had made up his mind a long time ago.

what got turned on wired was when David Axe grossly inflated the cost of a cashed F-22 in order to have a more eye popping headline. He included the lifetime cost of the aircraft, which seems a little odd considering the aircraft had no lifetime cost anymore as it was crashed and gone forever. but its wrong to manipulate the public with shenanigans like that isn't it?

Boeing astrotruf:

http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/12/operation-astroturf/all/1/

Wow, you are really going out of your way to interpret my mention of what happened to the Wired staff as "anti Lockheed". What I specifically said was "anti Astroturf". Yes, if Boeing did it, then their just as bad. In closing, may I just bring to your attention that you might be getting a little bit too "fanboyish" on the subject?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I don't like one sided reporting, and the F-35 as you point out has become so controversial, with so many biased self appointed "experts" that are extremely selective about what they report, that the bad things that others do tend to be swept under the rug, to the point that everything the negative about the F-35 seems unprecedented.

If being sensitive to the overt double standard, makes me sound like a fanboy... well Ive been called worse.

 

[airman]

How many Pro and how many Cons about this fighter ?
From Pro and Cons of this fighter i presume is a mediocre fighter ! ( not bad and also not excellent ) :

 

[SpudmanWP]

I’ll Bite B)
Pros (combat configured):
VLO
Lowered IR Signature
Meets or beats most current 4th gen assets that it is replacing re: kinematics
LPI Radar
EODAS
HMD Gen3
IRST
ESM
LPI & Directional Datalinks
Fully integrated avionics
Large user base ensures cheaper & quicker updates, parts, etc
Software jet
UAI


Cons:
Cost
Schedule
KPPs have slipped a little

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Cons:
Cost
Schedule
KPPs have slipped a little

You forgot:

Not an F-22
Not a Typhoon
Not a Super F-111.

 

[kcran567]

Stealth is useless. Why wont the Worlds premier airforces accept this simple fact that even people on the internet already know? India needs to cancel its AMCA and ask Russia to "un-stealth" their birds. Drop PAKFA. Japan, China, South Korea, Turkey....their indigenous programs are clearly misguided. Especially the ones that have an uncanny resemblance to the F-35 and 22 The JSF countries need to wake up and smell the coffee. Don't they realize that the conventional wisdom on certain internet forums dictates a laser like emphasis on turnin' and burnin'? Situational awareness, Stealth...you can't see those capabilities at an airshow, so they aren't important. ;D

The part of that video that I found funniest was the idea that it would be rational to "cede the first shot" as a strategy. That would lead to less than optimal results. Even if they can avoid the first missile, why are they not assumed to be continually under fire until they arrive at the merge? What pilot is going to want to go to war thinking, "if I can just dodge those missiles till I find these guys and get in close"?

Maybe the Russian emphasis is a cheap counter to the expensive stealth approach the USA has chosen. The new Su-35 can use those jinking maneuvers and countermeasures to help break a missile lock. They want to avoid the missiles rather than the fighter. They try and then detect and get in visual range with the stealth fighter. The Russians seem confident they can do this to defeat the western systems. If their approach works then stealth will be exposed as the most expensive failed idea yet that that the F-35 was supposed to represent.


The most serious question RE the f-35 is the cost issue. Why is the f-35 becoming so astronomically expensive? It was (supposed) to represent the economic solution to fighter design cost and is the exact opposite of what we were told it would be. Where is the outrage here. Taxpayers are footing this bill. Regardless if the f-35 can perform miracles and turn water into wine while ruling the skies, it should be cancelled for cost reasons alone and someone(s) at Lockheed martin should be doing jail time.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Maybe the Russian emphasis is a cheap counter to the expensive stealth approach the USA has chosen.

Maybe the russian emphasis on a cheap counter is because they have no money for aircraft or R&D, so we get another warmed over flanker. what is the price of an Su-35S or PAKFA anyway?

The new Su-35 can use those jinking maneuvers and countermeasures to help break a missile lock.

source needed

They want to avoid the missiles rather than the fighter. They try and then detect and get in visual range with the stealth fighter.

ceding the enemy the first shot seems a brilliant strategy. Hope is not a course of action, and I have no clue why the stealth fighter would play along and close to detection range, let alone visual range.

The Russians seem confident they can do this to defeat the western systems.

why the PAKFA then?

If their approach works then stealth will be exposed as the most expensive failed idea yet that that the F-35 was supposed to represent.

and if maneuverability fails?

The F-35 is not the only LO aircraft. Stealth aircraft have been being used in combat since 1989 in thousands of sorties. one loss so far.

The most serious question RE the f-35 is the cost issue. Why is the f-35 becoming so astronomically expensive?

becoming? the price is going down.

It was (supposed) to represent the economic solution to fighter design cost and is the exact opposite of what we were told it would be.

well its looking like 85 million dollars by 2020. that is 75 million in todays dollars. a FY2012 Super Hornet for the USN is 67 million.

Where is the outrage here.

guess how I know you havn't read this thread? ;D

Taxpayers are footing this bill.

yes, as they would with any other aircraft.

Regardless if the f-35 can perform miracles and turn water into wine while ruling the skies,

indeed, why that should that play any part in consideration for a combat aircraft. if capability doesn't matter and cost is everything, I can sell the RCAF a Cessna 172 right now. Tell em to call me.

it should be cancelled for cost reasons alone and someone(s) at Lockheed martin should be doing jail time.

If you can find something cheaper for Canada I'm all ears. If we locked people up for delays and cost escalation the defense gulag would rival the US federal prison system.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Stealth is useless. Why wont the Worlds premier airforces accept this simple fact that even people on the internet already know? India needs to cancel its AMCA and ask Russia to "un-stealth" their birds. Drop PAKFA. Japan, China, South Korea, Turkey....their indigenous programs are clearly misguided. Especially the ones that have an uncanny resemblance to the F-35 and 22 The JSF countries need to wake up and smell the coffee. Don't they realize that the conventional wisdom on certain internet forums dictates a laser like emphasis on turnin' and burnin'? Situational awareness, Stealth...you can't see those capabilities at an airshow, so they aren't important. ;D

The part of that video that I found funniest was the idea that it would be rational to "cede the first shot" as a strategy. That would lead to less than optimal results. Even if they can avoid the first missile, why are they not assumed to be continually under fire until they arrive at the merge? What pilot is going to want to go to war thinking, "if I can just dodge those missiles till I find these guys and get in close"?

Maybe the Russian emphasis is a cheap counter to the expensive stealth approach the USA has chosen. The new Su-35 can use those jinking maneuvers and countermeasures to help break a missile lock. They want to avoid the missiles rather than the fighter. They try and then detect and get in visual range with the stealth fighter. The Russians seem confident they can do this to defeat the western systems. If their approach works then stealth will be exposed as the most expensive failed idea yet that that the F-35 was supposed to represent.


The most serious question RE the f-35 is the cost issue. Why is the f-35 becoming so astronomically expensive? It was (supposed) to represent the economic solution to fighter design cost and is the exact opposite of what we were told it would be. Where is the outrage here. Taxpayers are footing this bill. Regardless if the f-35 can perform miracles and turn water into wine while ruling the skies, it should be cancelled for cost reasons alone and someone(s) at Lockheed martin should be doing jail time.

If you go back and read the thread, you'll see that myself and others have already discussed and dealt with this stuff that you're bringing up.

The idea that getting shot at first by an unseen opponent is ok, because you'll just "confuse the missile" and then somehow, although you lose through maneuver your situational awareness, tactical position and especially that energy and those amazing kinematic advantages (such that they actually exist to a tactically significant level) is lost as well. Meanwhile the fighters (because real air combat is not a 1vs1 dual) that fired on you in the first place are continuing to fire on you and your companions as you depart from your battle plan "jinking and jiving". Engaging in this kind of behavior would be suicidal and frantic maneuvering will cause a pilot to completely lose sit awareness...and this is at the same time as, in this outlandish scenario at least, the SU35 should be closing to WVR at a kinetic advantage, going from flipping around dodging missiles, maybe using post stall maneuvers (a total fantasy in that case) to attacking with a tactical advantage. All of this is predicated on crossing from BVR to WVR under missile fire, from an opponent you didn't see first. That is a specious scenario. It's actually a laughable scenario.

Assuming that you survive, in your flanker, till WVR. Is that a good place to be? Probably not, as HOBS missiles and HMCS are fielded against you.


It's just a fantasy. Obviously so, imo. The Russians can try to sell this; it's clearly re-marketing of the same exceptional maneuverability we've always seen in Flankers. They definitely don't plan to use their SU-35s that way against 5th gens. They're, of course, trying to build another fighter to deal with other 5th gens. The merits of the PAKFA belong on a different thread, suffice it to say the SU-35 is an interim fighter while waiting for the PAK. They would love to sell some of these fighters. Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot to distinguish the maneuverability of the Su-35 from the other previous, already highly-maneuverable SU-27/30 etc. These fighters are known quantities at this point. We actually have some flankers down at Nellis and we've also flown against them in exercises. They constitute the threats that F-22 and 35 were designed to have for breakfast.

I don't know why, but I've been baited into this again. Sometimes it seems like we've already deconstructed these rather unusual and interesting theories before on this thread. Oh yeah, we have.


Also, it is not going to be more expensive to buy an F-35, than to buy a Typhoon or Rafale. The numbers that are coming from the Government (not Lockheed) now show it on track to only slightly exceed it's projected cost. LRIP purchases are going to cost more, using certain metrics, compared to FRP prices that 4th gen fighters can offer. To get much greater capabilities at close to the same price you'd pay for a 4th gen alternative...that would be considered to be a good deal.

That's why everyone is buying it. It's gotten a horrible reputation publicly, from hack media coverage, but the politicians are still willing to risk offending the public in order to buy the fighter that their Air Forces are asking for. They are asking for this capability, because it will work, not because they feel like taking a gamble on "stealth". The transition to the 5th Gen represents the movement of all modern militaries toward Netcentric Warfare. The F-35 facilitates and enable that organically. It is a node in a network, and a powerful ISR/EW platform as well as a kinetic fighter. That's about a lot more than VLO stealth. Again, this is really fundamental to understand; platforms capabilities by themselves cannot be validly compared outside of the systems context in which they operate against each other.

 

[GTX]

From Pro and Cons of this fighter i presume is a mediocre fighter ! ( not bad and also not excellent ) :

How do you come up with such an assessment without any details?

 

[GTX]

The most serious question RE the f-35 is the cost issue. Why is the f-35 becoming so astronomically expensive?

And how exactly is the F-35 different from any other equivalent advanced combat platform in the Western world??

Taxpayers are footing this bill.

Check your facts - many of the companies involved, right down to small bit players are putting their own money into the F-35 as well! :

Regardless if the f-35 can perform miracles and turn water into wine while ruling the skies, it should be cancelled for cost reasons alone

And then what???

someone(s) at Lockheed martin should be doing jail time.

For what? Trying to satisfy their customers? For delivering a standard setting product?


BTW, enough of this old garbage of simply blaming Lockheed Martin - there are also Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt&Whitney all equally involved here...not to mention the numerous Govt partners.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

It's just a fantasy. Obviously so, imo. The Russians can try to sell this; it's clearly re-marketing of the same exceptional maneuverability we've always seen in Flankers. They definitely don't plan to use their SU-35s that way against 5th gens. They're, of course, trying to build another fighter to deal with other 5th gens. The merits of the PAKFA belong on a different thread, suffice it to say the SU-35 is an interim fighter while waiting for the PAK. They would love to sell some of these fighters. Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot to distinguish the maneuverability of the Su-35 from the other previous, already highly-maneuverable SU-27/30 etc. These fighters are known quantities at this point. We actually have some flankers down at Nellis and we've also flown against them in exercises. They constitute the threats that F-22 and 35 were designed to have for breakfast.

Ding! ding! ding!! We have a winner!! even the test pilot said it is as manueverable as an Su-30MKI. So I'm guessing if stealth wasn't all the rage, if the F-35/ F-22 used a warp drive the Su-35S would be marketed as the anti warp drive fighter. why? because they are trying to sell airplanes. I don't remember them marketing the MKI as missile dodging anti stealth.

I can only imagine the kind of Komrade Fanboi rage that would take place if the US put TVC in an F-15C and declared it the anti PAKFA, and even when the PAKFA sneaks up on the F-15C undetected; the F-15 manuevers, and beats it everytime. because 'murica.

also why is the F-35 WVR dogfighting a flanker in broad daylight when it has EODAS to see in the darkness and the flanker does not? We all know that the US/NATO initial attacks are always at night right? and they only fly in daylight after the defenses are pretty much neutralized?

there are also Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt&Whitney all equally involved here...not to mention the numerous Govt partners.

we don't need details when assigning blame, thank you. you are just complicating the narrative

 

[SOC]

Question!


Are these the correct figures for minimum acceptable numbers after the 2012 DOT&E:


-4.6 sustained g's at 15K feet (down from 5.3, down from 6.0)
-63 seconds to accelerate from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach at 30K feet (down from 55)

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Question!


Are these the correct figures for minimum acceptable numbers after the 2012 DOT&E:


-4.6 sustained g's at 15K feet (down from 5.3, down from 6.0)
-63 seconds to accelerate from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach at 30K feet (down from 55)

depends on the variant

 

[SOC]

Duh, should've specified the F-35A.

 

[kcran567]

I suppose all the f-35 huggin' fanboi's on here know exactly what the Su-35S is capable of? its operational capabilities? that is for another thread. You think that after 25 plus years of stealth there aren't any counter-stealth tactics and tech? Only a stealth fighter will be able to operate against another stealth fighter? All 4+++ designs are doomed? The Russians put "some" concessionary stealth features on the Pakfa, yet clearly not to the extent of the F-35 or F-22. That wasn't just for a lack of tech or cash on their part. Sure the F-35 can network and become a node and all that, operate with other aircraft...big deal...hasn't the Mig-31 been there done that? Other than a helmet that still doesn't work right (they need more money to fix it) what else is so "revolutionary". I guess I remain an f-35 skeptic. Lets see how well this works in the real world. I'm not saying that Russian 4th generation fighter designs are the answer to stealth, what I was mainly critiquing is the price of the F-35 for what we are getting. And you F35 "price quoters" sound like oily used car salesman. $80 million? Are you kidding! Try $120-$180 million to start and the price is going to just get higher around 2020 due to inflation. And if there is a viable anti-stealth approach that is practical and works at a lower cost, then that makes the F-35 a very expensive choice indeed. And why all the bluster and bragging RE the F-35? You F35 Fanboi's are about as bad as the Russian Fanboi's in you're own right.