Support NeoGAF

[Delta Assault]

Inferior in what precise way? The guided bombs/missiles the drone shoots are some how not as good as when a pilot hits the button or something?



Gaf told me thrust vectoring is pointless in combat.

Drones we have now are good for slowly flying over a battleground and launching Hellfires at mud huts. That's cool and all, but that is nowhere close to what we need for an air superiority fighter. And no, you can't just mount AMRAAMs onto those drones, because the lack of speed affects weapons performance. If you'd ever played a late 90s PC flight sim like Falcon 4.0 or F-22 ADF, you'd know that the faster the launch platform's speed, the longer the range of the missile that it fires. Firing from a high altitude and velocity as opposed to a low one can in many cases double the range of a missile. This is pretty advantageous in aerial combat.

So the basic drones we have now are jokes for air superiority. If you want to go out and design a dedicated air superiority drone, with all new state of the art systems for drone control, trying to minimize control latency to where it's not an issue in air combat maneuvers, and also figuring out how to defeat heavy enemy jamming in the theater of operation, well... at that point you're gonna be spending just as much money as the F-35, or probably more.

And no, thrust vectoring isn't pointless in combat. It's just a trade-off, as are most things in life. You're gaining a momentary boost to turn rate, while bleeding off a lot of energy. This leaves you in a vulnerable position against high energy dogfighters like the Typhoon if you don't manage to fire and kill with that initial nose-to-target boost.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Military spending isn't about worth. US is still wasting money on new tanks our army doesn't want or need.

We spend a ridiculous amount of money on personnel too. If America had a Universal Health Care system and college wasn't built from the ground up to rob you of every dime, it's almost a guarantee that our budget would be maybe, 400B$ TOPS. But since most people join for Health Care and College, that's a huge chunk of change going towards the soldiers.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

So they are assuming in the event, there is an actual military action between super powers that air superiority will delay the use of nukes.

 

[Tugatrix]

Hey guys don't bash me, that's what I heard and I recall reading an article at the time confirming it, if not true I'm sorry about it

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

The helmet is able to see through objects and see an actual real world image? That's insane

No, it uses cameras mounted around the aircraft to create the images.

 

[Nivash]

So they are assuming in the event, there is an actual military action between super powers that air superiority will delay the use of nukes.

No, the assumption is that if one side possesses a credible (or in the hypothetical case of the US vs Russia, overwhelming) conventional capacity the risk of the powers ever ending up at war with one another will be dramatically lessened because the aggressor won't dare to try anything if they risk both nuclear and conventional destruction.

Let's continue using Russia in a hypothetical: tensions rise between NATO and Russia because the latter is having designs on the Baltics. In scenario one NATO has a formidable air force which they deploy to Eastern Europe. Russia could attempt an invasion but success is not guaranteed - high losses are, even if they win. In scenario two NATO lacks air power and relies solely on nukes.

Which scenario do you think is the most likely to result in Russia invading while thinking "nah, no way are they going global thermonuclear war over Lithuania!"?

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

I understand where you're coming from, but isn't Air Superiority is changing with drones, as well as satellite weaponry and technology?

It looks like a mistake of not-thinking down the line, to blown the money on these programs, when you realize that technology is going to surpass the capabilities of the f35(there is a debate about it already happened with its stealth capabilities). That is a bad investment, when you consider pilots are going to be a thing of the past with better technology integrating pilots and their craft. 15-20 years, there aren't going to be manned f35's flying in the sky, dominating anything. imo.



No, for any conflict I suggest that we use our weapons that we've been using. Our existing airframes, which in combination with our superior global network of defense, will crush any air threat from China Or Russia.

The future war with China or Russia isn't just american forces in it by ourselves. Our Air superiority is still very much firm, without the f22/f35. Making up a scenario where we need to rely on the capabilities of the f35's alone, isn't realistic. We are talking about Japan/UK/Israel/USA?German air superiority. Its just fear mongering to blow money on a plane to fight the future war with countries that have more to lose from conflict, economically, than anything else in this globalized world. All while blundering every step of quality control along the way. Creating a disaster that pilots are weary of. If we spared no expense, and made sure the F35 was the best airframe out, both of you would have a wonderful point. Unfortunately, we are here with something that isn't exactly worth its price, and will continue to be expensive due to the mistakes in material selections/contractors, everything. Patching together this thing isn't going to be some amazing threat to China/Russia whom have probably stolen the design by now, and will note the mistakes we've made.


I'm not buying the whole, blow billions just in case one day Russia invades a country like we've done in the past. There is no legitimate threat from the Russian \Chinese Airforce, that our current airforce (as well as skunkwork projects) can't trump. Drones are very successful currently, and they are only getting better.

The idea of the Russian pilot taunting the american in the f16 as he hides in the clouds above, immediately before getting his lock and knocking him out of the sky isn't happening in 2014+. All sorts of amazing anti-aircraft/missile technology is already happening. I'm willing to bet that we have either plasma weapons/rail gun/laser/electronic technology that could cripple an entire fleet of enemy planes. Its such an archaic idea to spend trillions on, when it is a low risk of actually happening in anyway that would be detrimental to the US's air superiority.

I was curious about this so I found this article with this quote:



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...ses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/

It seems to me, that if you can dominate the skies without even getting into a dogfight, then drones are far, far, far superior in every way. And they can be developed for a fraction of the cost of a real fighter.

nonsense. no drone will ever be as good as a pilot and may I remind you that most drones today are still piloted off theater by a person?

 

[wsippel]

German Eurofighter displays Raptor kill from Red Flag training exercise. From The Aviationist

From the same exercise:

The Eurofighter is quite a beast at short to medium ranges. It supposedly has (or had) problems beyond visual range though.

 

[commedieu]

nonsense. no drone will ever be as good as a pilot and may I remind you that most drones today are still piloted off theater by a person?

Thanks for the reminder, I thought we had quantum computing A.I by now piloting instead of humans. Of course this is known..

And the war scenario that we have against China/Russia will still include our ally's air forces, combining to create ultimate air superiority, without any need of an f22 or an f35. Also, in 15-20 years, the drones will more than likely replace manned flight. The idea that the f35 is going to be the timeless wonder is absurd considering the investment and the leaps in drone technology/anti-aircraft and laser weaponry.

Its a waste, and we are stuck with it. But trying to justify it as the last line, or any line, of defense against Russia and China in an all out war scenario with our best anti-aircraft weapons and technology isn't grounded in reality.

Drones we have now are good for slowly flying over a battleground and launching Hellfires at mud huts. That's cool and all, but that is nowhere close to what we need for an air superiority fighter. And no, you can't just mount AMRAAMs onto those drones, because the lack of speed affects weapons performance. If you'd ever played a late 90s PC flight sim like Falcon 4.0 or F-22 ADF, you'd know that the faster the launch platform's speed, the longer the range of the missile that it fires. Firing from a high altitude and velocity as opposed to a low one can in many cases double the range of a missile. This is pretty advantageous in aerial combat.

So the basic drones we have now are jokes for air superiority. If you want to go out and design a dedicated air superiority drone, with all new state of the art systems for drone control, trying to minimize control latency to where it's not an issue in air combat maneuvers, and also figuring out how to defeat heavy enemy jamming in the theater of operation, well... at that point you're gonna be spending just as much money as the F-35, or probably more.

And no, thrust vectoring isn't pointless in combat. It's just a trade-off, as are most things in life. You're gaining a momentary boost to turn rate, while bleeding off a lot of energy. This leaves you in a vulnerable position against high energy dogfighters like the Typhoon if you don't manage to fire and kill with that initial nose-to-target boost.

Mud-huts, are pretty much what we've been basically taking out and spending billions doing so. Our technology to what we are actually blowing up ratio must be staggering. We aren't relying on just airframes to deliver ordinance, you and I both know this. And the drones are perfectly adequate for the pace of battle happening. The dog fight isn't a reality with long range everything, as well as destroyers in the water, satellite weapons in the air, lasers to knock out missiles. Rocket\railgun shields, the list of the amazing amount of technology we have to knock out a plane from the ground, or air, combined with allies is superior to any threat. There doesn't seem to be any scenario to where the f35 versus ______ is going to happen in a vacuum. If we are at war, I'm imagining all sorts of systems will be knocking out planes. So I'm left with all this money spent, on something that when the shit hits the fan, will be just as useful as our current fleet. In an all weapons systems go china/russia war. Drones would have been a way more sensible 1 trillion dollar investment over their lifetime.

Its not as if we are going to have a situation where are airframes are going head to head, USA vs China/Russia alone. To where our oh-so-old and useless planes will all be wiped out with one russian wave. That type of war is no longer a conventional one. And with the craft we have today, they can work perfectly at the needs, in which we realistically need them. For any super-secret china tech. We have our own black budgets/secret tech to respond.

We hardly need to blow money on manned planes that we don't need to be dominate in the airspace now, or in the near future.

That is a silly thing to say. Drones will be able to do things that pilots physically cannot do.

Exactly

 

[HelloMeow]

nonsense. no drone will ever be as good as a pilot and may I remind you that most drones today are still piloted off theater by a person?

That is a silly thing to say. Drones will be able to do things that pilots physically cannot do.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I don't think it matters if the F-35 is worth the funding or not, because it is envisioned as the future (Big dreams), and they're gonna get it at all costs.

That is a silly thing to say. Drones will be able to do things that pilots physically cannot do.

Those sophisticated drones and F35s won't exist side by side. That's later technology.

 

[wsippel]

That's not what this article states:

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/cleaning-up-red-flag-alaska-f-22-vs-typhoon-debate/

It's important to know that Eurofighters typically use IRIS-T missiles though, whereas US planes use that worthless Sidewinder garbage thanks to the infamous 'Murica hubris.

To understand that part, a little history lesson is probably in order. During the Cold War, the US, Germany and I believe the UK agreed to jointly develop a new short to medium range air-to-air missile to succeed the Sidewinder. That missile was supposed to exceed the then assumed capabilities of Russian missiles. After the reunification, Germany suddenly got tons of modern Russian hardware to reverse engineer and pilots and engineers who had hands-on experience with those systems. And they noticed that the Russian missiles were much better than expected, and still quite a bit better than even the target specs for that joint program. So they shared their discoveries with their partners, but the US didn't want to hear it. Germany bailed and decided to develop their own missile, one that actually exceeds Russian capabilities, and contracted Diehl. The result was the IRIS-T. The UK also bailed and contracted BAE to develop something new. The US on the other hand just improved the old ass Sidewinder a bit and called it a day.

The important point is that the IRIS-T works a bit differently from other missiles. Its seeker and targeting system become active as soon as the plane starts up, and its pretty much completely autonomous. It can use the plane's targeting computer, but it doesn't have to. On top of that, once its connected, it also serves as a sensor pod and targeting computer for the plane itself - and if multiple IRIS-T are mounted, they network with each other and the plane. They can autonomously detect, track and engage targets at any angle.

 

[Delta Assault]

Mud-huts, are pretty much what we've been basically taking out and spending billions doing so. Our technology to what we are actually blowing up ratio must be staggering. We aren't relying on just airframes to deliver ordinance, you and I both know this. And the drones are perfectly adequate for the pace of battle happening. The dog fight isn't a reality with long range everything, as well as destroyers in the water, satellite weapons in the air, lasers to knock out missiles. Rocket\railgun shields, the list of the amazing amount of technology we have to knock out a plane from the ground, or air, combined with allies is superior to any threat. There doesn't seem to be any scenario to where the f35 versus ______ is going to happen in a vacuum. If we are at war, I'm imagining all sorts of systems will be knocking out planes. So I'm left with all this money spent, on something that when the shit hits the fan, will be just as useful as our current fleet. In an all weapons systems go china/russia war. Drones would have been a way more sensible 1 trillion dollar investment over their lifetime.

What are you talking about, dude. Dogfights are always going to be a reality. Strict ROEs would necessarily lead to them. You don't just spot a blip on your radar and launch your missiles and go home. Political considerations come into play. You'd probably need to get visual confirmation first. That means flying closer to the target. That cuts out BVR missiles.

Destroyers in the water have their hands full with submarines and intercepting anti-ship missiles. They leave anti-fighter defense to the aircraft carrier, which launches... fighter planes.

Satellite weapons in the air? Those don't exist.

Lasers to knock out missiles? We have a few of those, but they aren't that powerful, and it'd be preferable to knock out the planes launching those missiles instead. For that, we need our own fighter planes.

Rocket/railgun shields? Again, we don't have those. The Navy may have railguns in the future, but those will be used primarily for off-shore artillery support. In time, they may be refined enough for anti-fighter defense, but that is way off in the future.

The fact of the matter is, our military is designed for fighter planes to be the response to enemy fighter planes. We don't devote heavy research and development to SAM solutions like the Russians do. The Russians developed a strong SAM component to complement their mass tank doctrine in the Cold War. We don't have S-300/400s. Our SAM system consists of the Chaparral, retired in 1998, and the Avenger, which is basically a humvee with an eight-pack of Stinger missiles. But since they're MANPADs, they have woefully short range. This is basically a joke against modern fighters.

And I've already addressed why current drones don't make sense in any sort of fighter role.

 

[BlackJet]

That is a silly thing to say. Drones will be able to do things that pilots physically cannot do.

Only in some cases. Right now they are only good for reconnaissance or bomber roles, as these don't require the complex maneuvers that a human pilot can provide.

Let's not forget that drones don't have a sense of loyalty. They will respond only to whoever is controlling them. Iran (with help from possibly Russia) was able to hack and take control of an RQ-170, one of the most sophisticated known drones in the US military. You don't have to worry about such a event with a human piloting a plane.

People don't seem to realize that drones and future planes go hand in hand. Sure, you could use AI for warfare but you're going to need a platform for it. Why not develop the F-35 and eventually convert some to drones when it won't be such a huge deal in the event that one is lost?

 

[commedieu]

What are you talking about, dude. Dogfights are always going to be a reality. Strict ROEs would necessarily lead to them. You don't just spot a blip on your radar and launch your missiles and go home. Political considerations come into play. You'd probably need to get visual confirmation first. That means flying closer to the target. That cuts out BVR missiles.

Destroyers in the water have their hands full with submarines and intercepting anti-ship missiles. They leave anti-fighter defense to the aircraft carrier, which launches... fighter planes.

Satellite weapons in the air? Those don't exist.

Lasers to knock out missiles? We have a few of those, but they aren't that powerful, and it'd be preferable to knock out the planes launching those missiles instead. For that, we need our own fighter planes.

Rocket/railgun shields? Again, we don't have those. The Navy may have railguns in the future, but those will be used primarily for off-shore artillery support. In time, they may be refined enough for anti-fighter defense, but that is way off in the future.

The fact of the matter is, our military is designed for fighter planes to be the response to enemy fighter planes. We don't devote heavy research and development to SAM solutions like the Russians do. The Russians developed a strong SAM component to complement their mass tank doctrine in the Cold War. We don't have S-300/400s. Our SAM system consists of the Chaparral, retired in 1998, and the Avenger, which is basically a humvee with an eight-pack of Stinger missiles. But since they're MANPADs, they have woefully short range. This is basically a joke against modern fighters.

And I've already addressed why current drones don't make sense in any sort of fighter role.

Everyone is talking about a future scenario, why I'm not allowed to speculate on what happens in the 15-20 year lifetime of the f35 is beyond me as far as a 15-20 year timeline of the f35's service. These things will in fact be a reality very soon, nothing you've said highlights the f35, as all of these things can be done with our current fleet. So if my point is that our planes now, without the f35 can perform all of these tasks, efficiently, then the money can be spent into drones. Which will create a better unmanned weapon, than the man weapon could have ever been but;

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/world/russia-us-jet-fly-by/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

U.S. official: 'Dangerous' Russian jet fly-by was 'straight out of a movie'

Looks like dogfights are back on the menu boys!

A Russian fighter jet buzzed dangerously close to a U.S. military plane in April, a U.S. official said Tuesday, describing the fly-by as "straight out of a movie."
The Russian jet flew within 100 feet of the nose of a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance plane over the Sea of Okhotsk between Russia and Japan, a Defense Department official said.

 

[Delta Assault]

Everyone is talking about a future scenario, why I'm not allowed to speculate on what happens in the 15-20 year lifetime of the f35 is beyond me, nothing you've said highlights the f35, as all of these things can be done with our current fleet. So if my point is that our planes now, without the f35 can perform all of these tasks, efficiently, then the money can be spent into drones. Which will create a better unmanned weapon, than the man weapon could have ever been but;

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/world/russia-us-jet-fly-by/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



Looks like dogfights are back on the menu boys!

No, they can't be done with our current fleet. Our F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s are past their expiration dates. And if they were done, there'd be higher casualties, because they don't have the stealth characteristics of the F-35.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

If anything, the more broke the US gets the stronger our military must be. We are the biggest debtor nation on Earth, what would happen if everyone decided to call in those debts? Unless we want to be the economic slaves of China we better have the military might to back up our words. Also Putin seems to think it's the Cold War still, just because we aren't fighting the Cold War anymore doesn't mean other nations aren't.

China only owns a fraction of the US Debt, comparable to what Japan owns. The biggest creditor that America borrows from is Americans. If China decided to declare war on the United States for purposes of Debt Collection they are risking nuclear war. It's a nonsencial scenario. America does need to maintain a strong military but that's not the reason why.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/world/russia-us-jet-fly-by/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


Looks like dogfights are back on the menu boys!

Dogfights will always happen to some extent, even if the majority of combat is going to be BVR. Your link has nothing to do with that, though. I'm not sure why you think it does, unless you're saying that the two aircraft were engaged in combat and the Russians closed to that distance to have a dogfight with them? I mean we had dogfights in the first Gulf War, quite a few of them. Not so much with guns, but "relatively" close range missile fights. A whole fleet of combat aircraft all having modern stealth characteristics is an extremely significant change to the situation, though.

 

[luckygodzilla]

That's not what this article states:

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/cleaning-up-red-flag-alaska-f-22-vs-typhoon-debate/

Huh, color me surprised.

Still, until we know how many Eurofighters the F-22 shot down it's still undecided on who ultimately came out on top.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

Silent Eagle does jack for the Navy though. Once you factor in the Navy/USMC requirements(USMC's STOVL especially) they would pretty much need to start over if the F-35 was killed.

in hindsight it probably was cheaper to switch the f-14D to the quickstrike/ ASF or F 21 Tomcat and go from there. But that wouldnt help the Marines so i guess the problem remains for a fighter that fills all roles every branch would need.

 

[commedieu]

No, they can't be done with our current fleet. Our F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s are past their expiration dates. And if they were done, there'd be higher casualties, because they don't have the stealth characteristics of the F-35.

I do sincerely get where you're coming from though. I just don't grasp the threat that justifies the f35 including its price tag, when any threat from any military seems to be covered very well by all of our current airframes and allies, and a threat that will come directly from an opposing jsf. I just don't see that threat being the end game for the USAF/RAF/etc. There is so much support and constant development of other systems. There were a lot of options, and we chose a bad one. Not only that, we didn't even put our best people on it. The f35 can't stand on this quality/performance platform, when its just been a constant disastrous production.

Dogfights will always happen to some extent, even if the majority of combat is going to be BVR. Your link has nothing to do with that, though. I'm not sure why you think it does, unless you're saying that the two aircraft were engaged in combat and the Russians closed to that distance to have a dogfight with them? I mean we had dogfights in the first Gulf War, quite a few of them. Not so much with guns, but "relatively" close range missile fights. A whole fleet of combat aircraft all having modern stealth characteristics is an extremely significant change to the situation, though.

It was in the spirit of a Top-Gun style move, the fly by. Meaning that craft are close to one another, meaning dogfights are on the menu again. (Stretch, I know.)

 

[Averon]

Pentagon Grounds F-35 Fleet

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/03/us/f-35-fleet-grounded/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The Pentagon has made the call to ground the F-35 fleet after a recent runway fire at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

Is this plane a money pit at this point?

 

[Gallbaro]

Pentagon Grounds F-35 Fleet

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/03/us/f-35-fleet-grounded/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



Is this plane a money pit at this point?

No, its a feature.

 

[Loofy]

Paper here was saying it'd be a waste to spend all that money on a high tech jet.. that only has one engine.
Any truth to this?

 

[ramuh]

Bring back the F14 Tomcat! But seriously, have then even figured out the F22 pilot oxygen problem? (I think it was the F22). This is a money pit, but what are you going to do? Scrap the whole thing?

I always feel hesitant about all these super electronic suites they use in jets. Seems like it could be a cyber target.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

Pentagon Grounds F-35 Fleet

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/03/us/f-35-fleet-grounded/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



Is this plane a money pit at this point?

It is but this is not really a huge deal, F22s have been grounded multiple times as well.
Most recent was because pilots weren't getting enough oxygen during certain maneuvers.

Bring back the F14 Tomcat!

LOL I wish.

 

[Delta Assault]

Is this plane a money pit at this point?

I prefer a Brewster's Millions, thanks.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

Engine fire took out a PAK FA like a couple weeks beforehand, too.

 

[Ravek]

Bring back the F14 Tomcat! But seriously, have then even figured out the F22 pilot oxygen problem? (I think it was the F22). This is a money pit, but what are you going to do? Scrap the whole thing?

I always feel hesitant about all these super electronic suites they use in jets. Seems like it could be a cyber target.

The O2 problem is fixed. However, that doesn't means it won't come back. These jets break, hard, after being in the air for just an hour...

 

[mercenar1e]

what are the costs to maintain the F-35?

 

[dalin80]

Pentagon Grounds F-35 Fleet

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/03/us/f-35-fleet-grounded/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



Is this plane a money pit at this point?

Minor point but not all of them are grounded. The B variant is still flying.

 

[Ravek]

Minor point but not all of them are grounded. The B variant is still flying.

Thats not a minor point at all.

 

[Jezbollah]

I'm going to the Farnborough air show in exactly two weeks - hopefully the F35 they have on display there is a B variant!

EDIT: Ok, issue was due to a blade-off in the P&W engine - ironically while it was preparing for the Farnborough air show..

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/us-lockheed-fighter-inspections-idUKKBN0F72F020140702

 

[Log4Girlz]

F 35 money pit. Has a ring to it

 

[Mental Atrophy]

Regarding stealth, even if an L-band signal pings an aircraft, it sort of doesn't matter--and that's still an if. It's just telling you the aircraft is somewhere over there, and nowhere near capable enough to guide a missile at it. The mission can be completed before it matters.

 

[dalin80]

It was the naming ceremony of HMS Queen Elizabeth today, a golden opportunity for the media to get every detail wrong and mess things up.

The carrier is built entirely for the F35-B as a dedicated STOVL platform and with a high load of 75,000t is 3 times the mass of the ship it is replacing.

Any interested in heavy engineering can follow the build log photos here-

https://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/


https://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/7301314478/

'Forward a bit...'

 

[eot]

What are you talking about, dude. Dogfights are always going to be a reality. Strict ROEs would necessarily lead to them. You don't just spot a blip on your radar and launch your missiles and go home. Political considerations come into play. You'd probably need to get visual confirmation first. That means flying closer to the target. That cuts out BVR missiles.

Not to mention that the PK for BVR missiles isn't great. In Desert Storm I think it was something like 25%, and that's against a poorly trained and equipped air force.

 

[Nikodemos]

I don't see why stealth is so hyped. I mean, you could just build a large IRST and use that instead of a radar to direct SAM batteries. Or you could go further, with something resembling those old-school artillery directors, with a big IRST at each end and a CPU to interleave the signals, for triangulation. It could work particularly well against the F-35, which has very high IR emissions (compared to, say, the F-22 or the B-2) due to its engine design and configuration. Not to mention that, it being completely passive, is impossible to preemptively spot and take out.

 

[Wubby]

Came across this today

 

[rokkerkory]

not worth it, plagued with issues and waste of my tax money

 

[kmfdmpig]

I'm going to the Farnborough air show in exactly two weeks - hopefully the F35 they have on display there is a B variant!

EDIT: Ok, issue was due to a blade-off in the P&W engine - ironically while it was preparing for the Farnborough air show..

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/us-lockheed-fighter-inspections-idUKKBN0F72F020140702

Ironic that the policy makers were so sure that having just one engine supplier (P+W) instead of two would be a good way to reduce costs. That seems like a mistake, just as many predicted at the time of the decision.

 

[Dyno]

I've followed the Joint Strike Fighter Program and the F-35 from the beginning. I thought it was such a brilliant idea. Get all branches of the States and their NATO allies flying the same stealth aircraft for unprecedented inter-operability. Training, parts, fuelling, and armaments could all be passed around as needed.

And Lockheed Martin? How can you not cheer that company? They have made the most magnificent airplanes on earth! Their track record is nothing short of astounding.

But it all just seems like it's gone to hell now, hasn't it? What a shame. It really is such a pity.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

I don't see why stealth is so hyped. I mean, you could just build a large IRST and use that instead of a radar to direct SAM batteries. Or you could go further, with something resembling those old-school artillery directors, with a big IRST at each end and a CPU to interleave the signals, for triangulation. It could work particularly well against the F-35, which has very high IR emissions (compared to, say, the F-22 or the B-2) due to its engine design and configuration. Not to mention that, it being completely passive, is impossible to preemptively spot and take out.

IRST's are physcically limited since infrared radiation is largely absorbed in the atmosphere:

When everything is at high altitude they can see reasonably far (IIRC ballpark, ~.25 as far as most radars), but looking up through the murk of the atmosphere, through clouds, isn't going to work very well.

That's why Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) AESAs radars are such a big deal, because they let you see super far but (hopefully) not get caught.

 

[commedieu]

Came across this today

haaaah

 

[Oveja Negra]

I've followed the Joint Strike Fighter Program and the F-35 from the beginning. I thought it was such a brilliant idea. Get all branches of the States and their NATO allies flying the same stealth aircraft for unprecedented inter-operability. Training, parts, fuelling, and armaments could all be passed around as needed.

And Lockheed Martin? How can you not cheer that company? They have made the most magnificent airplanes on earth! Their track record is nothing short of astounding.

But it all just seems like it's gone to hell now, hasn't it? What a shame. It really is such a pity.

Whatever happens with the F-35 program. It would be great if someone writes a damn book about the whole process, from the beginning. You know, like the one that describes the process of making the PS3's Cell CPU.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I read an interesting thing the other day from a defence analyst that suggested that one of the problems was that most of the best Aeroplanes of all classes were born by looking at the failure of the previous Aeroplanes and how they were usurped as the enemy planes and AA improved. But that's not the case here because the Teen series didn't fail, in fact they excelled. So they've designed a new plane based on projections of future operational environments, rather than failures with the old ones. The conclusion was that whether it turns out to be excellent or shit will be defined by how accurate their estimate is.