The F-35 Thread

Fer Fer, this is a Quality Assurance doc. This is the way the military does things. They set the bar at 150% and expect 100%. High QA and logistics standards is why the US has a superior military force. If you cleaned and serviced your favorite weapon as thoroughly as you could I would find 20 inspection infractions. Do some research and look at the readiness rates of previous aircraft over their service life. You'll find that the phase01 readiness was extremely low but raised steadily over the life of the aircraft. Take a look at the F-35 readiness in relation to other aircraft. It's already at 62% last I heard (USMC). The F-15 in relation was in the 40s when it went operational.

 

Here are some reference averages:

F-35 simulator, I want one...

 

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-crazy-simulator-where-pilots-learn-how-to-fly-the-f-1724652258

F-35 simulator, I want one...

 

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-crazy-simulator-where-pilots-learn-how-to-fly-the-f-1724652258

 

heres more info about ;)

 

Edited August 19, 2015 by Griffon26

GUN TEST

 

I watch these vids and I know "Sweetness is the man and machine"!

 

What a tool this aircraft is!

File Footage: USMC F-35B Fighter undergoing Operational Test Trials abroad USS Wasp (LHD-1) amphibious assault ship.

Courtesy: US Navy

After nearly 15 years of development and a half-dozen years of testing, the first squadron of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters is officially operational.

The decision was formally announced by Marine Commandant General Joseph Dunford on Friday, making the Marines the first military branch to declare its version of the aircraft combat-ready.

In declaring it operational, Dunford described the advanced plane as "capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance."

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall called the Joint Strike Fighter's launch an "affirmation that the F-35 program is on track to deliver essential 5th generation warfighting capabilities to our U.S. services and international partners."

He added that it was also a reminder that "we still have work ahead to deliver the full warfighting capability required by all three services and our partners" while continuing to cut the programs' cost.

The first squadron of 10 F-35s was initially scheduled to be declared operational in 2012, but that target date was delayed after a series of setbacks. The program's current price tag is $400 billion and is expected to cost $1 trillion over its entire life.

The Marine Corps calls the F-35 the "future of tactical aviation," expecting it to eventually replace three legacy platforms currently in use: the AV-8B Harrier, the F/A-18 Hornet and the EA-6B Prowler.

 

GUN TEST

 

 

Anything near the gun muzzle (specially that gun port cover) must be a life limited part. After firing 3 times you probably need to replace those parts likely costing some 4000$...or more.

Anything near the gun muzzle (specially that gun port cover) must be a life limited part. After firing 3 times you probably need to replace those parts likely costing some 4000$...or more.

 

I don't know what makes you think that. It's not like the F-22 has a concealed gunport as well.

F-35 vs A-10 weapons test

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/08/27/weapons-testers-pit-f-35-against--10/71279564/

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2015/08/24/welsh-f-35-vs--10-testing--silly-exercise/32292147/

 

Mixed feeling about the test. The first article does indicate a mindset by some that the analysis would be objective enough to show the gaps or limitations of each air frame performing CAS. Ultimately I feel that some will take the findings and use it as additional ammunition in the anti-A-10 campaign...

I hope it's objective, but it all seems like common sense to me that an F-35 will have an increased ability to perform CAS in a contested environment over an A-10, at the expense of delivering weapons with a short time of flight on enemies within typical small arms range, even in a permissive environment.

 

I would use the term danger close, but that term is thrown around too much....it differs based on the weapon.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/08/27/weapons-testers-pit-f-35-against--10/71279564/

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2015/08/24/welsh-f-35-vs--10-testing--silly-exercise/32292147/

 

Mixed feeling about the test. The first article does indicate a mindset by some that the analysis would be objective enough to show the gaps or limitations of each air frame performing CAS. Ultimately I feel that some will take the findings and use it as additional ammunition in the anti-A-10 campaign...

 

If the test is conducted like the A-7 vs A-10 test in the 70's the A-10 will take the F-35s lunch money and pants it at recess.

 

If you havent seen it take a look at this:

 

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/media/wwwlboroacuk/content/systems-net/downloads/pdfs/A-10%20Thunderbolt%20II%20(Warthog)%20SYSTEMS%20ENGINEERING%20CASE%20STUDY.pdf

 

It covers the development of the A-10 and everything that was considered. Including the fly off between the A-7 and A-10.

If the test is conducted like the A-7 vs A-10 test in the 70's the A-10 will take the F-35s lunch money and pants it at recess.

 

 

One unhappy ex Nam CAS pilot has a different view with accusations it was rigged. If it was rigged you know which way it's going this time :thumbup:

 

 

 

 

I take offense at the statement that the Hog was lots better than the SLUF in the rigged flyoff.

 

Reason Congress wanted the flyoff was that the Hog was also gonna replace the F-100 and A-7 for BAI and some interdiction work. The Double Ugly was gonna be phased out as the Eagle came online. Funny, but we were gonna have a big gap in the mudbeater world until the Viper arrived, and that plane was not a factor in the A-10 design or ops requirements. All we had was the A-7, and USAF had to kill it in order to get the Hog. See my AvWeek editor letter in fall of 1974 if you can find it.

 

Only thing the Hog dominated was strafe effectiveness and its ability to get the nose around quickly for another run or a nape pass. Its bomb accuracy was a joke, and the thing did not even have a real HUD or decent nav system, much less a computer-assisted bombing system that the A-7 had since 1968!!!!!!. It was a WW2 plane with jet motors and a big cannon - a jet-powered A-1 that would have worked wonders in 'nam and be slaughtered over the Fulda Gap or the Sinai in 1973.

 

My immediate boss was TDY for the flyoff and he came back and told us all that the thing was rigged and we were flying planes that would soon go to the Guard. Sure enough, our A-7's went to one Guard outfit after another and the 356th TFS became the first operational Hog squadron after handing their SLUF's off to a Guard unit.

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=299954#p299954

One unhappy ex Nam CAS pilot has a different view with accusations it was rigged. If it was rigged you know which way it's going this time :thumbup

 

What troubles me most about this is nobody is denying its about anything other than money. Nobody is saying the A-10 can't do its job and "needs" to be replaced...they want to use the money on the F-35. From a management stand point, I get it. From a "Business" stand point it worries me. The "business" of the military is to kill people and break things. If we don't give the employees the tools they need to do the job...our business will fail.

The "business" of the military is to kill people and break things. If we don't give the employees the tools they need to do the job...our business will fail.

Hence the F-35. It can do what the A-10 can do, while doing what the F-16 can do. If you can't afford to maintain a military, the military can't break anything. That's the business case. The A-10 has some handy niche abilities, but it would never be able to be the mainstay of an air force. If you have to cut something, it needs to be something like the A-10.

 

The pdf above also indicates why the F-35 may win out over the A-10 in the fly off. The pilots preferred the A-7 except in specific cases where you needed to hug the ground. Modern technology will reduce the need for visual contact, and will also make it more dangerous to fly low in the form of better enemy weapons.

A-10 is old tech and will soon start falling to pieces.

F-35 is brand new high tech and is the best investment we have done in a long time.

F-35 looses dogfight against Red Baron

 

http://duffelblog.com/ZTw9m

 

This is exactly how it'd go down. :lol:

http://duffelblog.com/ZTw9m

 

This is exactly how it'd go down. :lol:

 

Quick someone tell Pierre Sprey! lol

A-10 is old tech and will soon start falling to pieces.

F-35 is brand new high tech and is the best investment we have done in a long time.

 

You're being sarcastic I hope? :megalol:

 

The F-35A, B and C fly like 'dump trucks'. Yeah actual pilots have said that. This plane is an embarrassment to my nations technical prowess. The PAK-50 will beat this plane. The F-16 INTRODUCED IN 1978 destroyed this plane.

 

They keep saying it's the 'Aerial Sniper' of the modern age. It doesn't help if you can't see your target. And WTH is up with only 180 rounds of 25mm ammo? That's only 2.5 seconds of trigger time. A 'FIGHTER' should have way more. The F-15 carries 511 rounds.

Both of them are extremely close in size.

 

This reminds of when they decided to for-go the gun all together on the F-4 Phantom. Big mistake that was they found out.

 

I'm off my soap box now. I could go on and on about this POS!

 

:pilotfly:

Edited September 7, 2015 by SPEKTRE76

A-10 is old tech and will soon start falling to pieces.

F-35 is brand new high tech and is the best investment we have done in a long time.

 

This is the most uneducated post in this entire thread. Without going completely off topic the A-10 is not going to fall to pieces and the things suite 8 A-10's can do is not old tech at all.

Well, when airforce generals say about the A-10 "It’s ugly, it’s lumbering and it’s old" they may be wrong then? The F-35 is certainly new!

You're being sarcastic I hope? :megalol:

 

The F-35A, B and C fly like 'dump trucks'. Yeah actual pilots have said that. This plane is an embarrassment to my nations technical prowess. The PAK-50 will beat this plane. The F-16 INTRODUCED IN 1978 destroyed this plane.

 

They keep saying it's the 'Aerial Sniper' of the modern age. It doesn't help if you can't see your target. And WTH is up with only 180 rounds of 25mm ammo? That's only 2.5 seconds of trigger time. A 'FIGHTER' should have way more. The F-15 carries 511 rounds.

Both of them are extremely close in size.

 

This reminds of when they decided to for-go the gun all together on the F-4 Phantom. Big mistake that was they found out.

 

I'm off my soap box now. I could go on and on about this POS!

 

:pilotfly:

 

Been reading Pierre Sprey and War is Boring eh?

 

180 rounds isn't a problem when contemporary Euro aircraft have 110-200 rounds of 20-30mm ammunition. Reason why US legacy fighters have such high internal cannon ammo is because the Vulcan has large spread.

 

PAK-FA won't be built in any decent numbers lol, and will be less stealthy then F-35 and less powerful sensor suite. Russia have continually reduced their order, its from 150 initially reduced to 12 on order aircraft this year.

 

F-16 didn't defeat the F-35 in a dogfight. Nobody won anything. It was a test to optimize the control laws at high AoA. In the era of HOBS missiles like AIM-9X that are increasingly hard to spoof with flares the ability to get the nose pointed and the first short off becomes ever more important.

 

It's pointless to draw conclusions even if it was a dogfight. It's would be just one engagement. There is a guncam footage of a T-38 getting a F-22 in their gun sight. Do you seriously argue that the T-38 is much better then the F-22?

 

 

Lack of Gun wasn't the biggest problem on the F-4 Phantom in Vietnam. Improper training in how to use missiles and maintain missiles was the issue. The US Navy tackled this problem. USAF strapped a gun on their Phantoms. What resulted was that the Navy K : D soared to over 10:1 and USAF stayed the same.

Edited September 7, 2015 by RoflSeal

In the era of HOBS missiles like AIM-9X that are increasingly hard to spoof with flares the ability to get the nose pointed and the first short off becomes ever more important.

The point is - when you meet a technically comparable adversary, classic dogfight capabilities become mandatory. Preferring YF-22 over YF-23 was a wise choice even if Black Widow was more stealthy and could pull as high AoAs as Lightning could do.

Now put some laser missile protection system on your foe's plane and see how missile effectiveness fades away... again

It doesn't help if you can't see your target.

Sounds exactly what the F-35 is supposed to do.

 

 

And WTH is up with only 180 rounds of 25mm ammo?

Alot of modern fighters have nearly, or very very close to that same amount of ammunition, Gonna attack them too?

 

 

This reminds of when they decided to for-go the gun all together on the F-4 Phantom. Big mistake that was they found out.

Here we go again... It does have the gun though, they aren't making the "same" mistake. Just because it doesn't have the ammunition to your liking, it isn't good enough?

 

 

The F-16 INTRODUCED IN 1978 destroyed this plane.

The F-16 is no slouch for any plane in WVR after 1978 too, so what exactly is your point?

 

 

 

The PAK-50 will beat this plane

Glad you have insight on exactly how two prototypes will perform against eachother based on reading news articles.

 

 

The F-15 carries 511 rounds.

Both of them are extremely close in size.

Su-27 weighs way more than the F-15 and carries only 150 rounds. Your point?

The point is - when you meet a technically comparable adversary, classic dogfight capabilities become mandatory. Preferring YF-22 over YF-23 was a wise choice even if Black Widow was more stealthy and could pull as high AoAs as Lightning could do.

Now put some laser missile protection system on your foe's plane and see how missile effectiveness fades away... again

All aircraft have strengths and weaknesses in WVR. You can also expect them to both try and exploit them. F-18 pilots may not be the best turners, but they make full use of their high AoA and instantaneous turnrates. I agree with you on the F-22, though, i feel like the F-23 should be used as the replacement for the F-15E's.

 

Isn't the F-35 supposed to get a laser missile protection system in a later block? 2022-2023ish~?

I see we're back on about the sensationalised F-16 vs F-35 test... Yawn! So here's an Italian built F-35 making its first flight....