F-35 in reality

Disinformation is real. US does have a department for that in the AF. Don't know where else it might reside in gov.

 

I do know from my own experience that every engineer I ever worked with that worked on the F35 said it was a piece of shit

Most would always say how proud they were to work on program X and how cool X program was. This would always bring up great discussions about what it was like there. For the F35 program, they would lament you why it was a messed up design concept and how it was utterly failing to meet its requirements. I know from my own experience having worked on a couple programs... I've always been proud to have worked on them.

 

I'm positive they will fix the airframe software issues but it is alarming how this program was conceived (One airframe to rule them all) and executed. Too many people that never flew watching too many movies, deciding how to make an airplane program.

 

The F35 should of been two possibly three separate programs. Someone wanted their cake and to eat it too.

 

ETA: Don't forget when reading this that I might of got a biased sample. But I am skeptical that I did because compromises are always made to make anything. When you ask an aircraft to do it all. It has to make an awful lot of compromises.

Odd, my experience has been the total opposite. :dunno:

Odd, my experience has been the total opposite. :dunno:

Wouldn't surprise me at all.

And yea it definitely surprised me when I got an earful. It also surprised me what the design issues were they were talking about.

Wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

And yea it definitely surprised me when I got an earful. It also surprised me what the design issues were they were talking about.

It's an aircraft that will be interesting to observe (as an enthusiast at least) over the decades.

I am sure in a perfect world we would have all preferred 3 different programs in place of JSF but would that really have survived the early 2000s? I for one remember what an absolute struggle the F22 endured in the Iraq/Afghanistan years where new fast jets like it were being painted as cold war relics not worth the cost.

Fast forward to today and US airpower is essentially paying the price for the premature cancellation of the Raptor.

My hunch is that the F35 will be a world beater in its intended role as a next gen fighter bomber in the spirit of the Hornet and Falcon. I don't see it as the F35's "fault" that it will probably have to pick up some of the slack left behind by ~150 "missing" Raptors.

As for F35 replacing the Harrier and Hog - it will surely be a quantum leap ahead of the former but I understand some people's reservations about the latter. It is, after all, a very qualitatively different aircraft. That said, even that might not be such a bad thing if you're preparing to deal with the emerging array of stupidly capable GBAD/IADS systems coming out of the competition.

I for one do not see the Hog successfully running the gauntlet of a battlefield populated by the likes of S400, Buk M3, Tor M2, Pantsir, Verba, Sosna or their Chinese analogues - SEAD/DEAD support or not. The picture only worsens when you factor in enemy airpower.

Sometimes I wonder if it is a pentagon strategy to down play the effectiveness of US equipment in order to give a false sense of security to potential enemies.

if that's the idea then it's not working

because china knows the f-35 is good

"A high level discussion regarding “future air combat” was held in Beijing during which the “dogfighter is useless” comment posted above was revealed.

A few highlights:

-Figures attending the discussion include Yang Wei, chief designer of J-20, Xu Yongling, test pilot and An Shidong, former Director in charge of Air Force military theory study.

-The discussion generally recognize the USAF’s understanding of future air combat meaning things like situation awareness, relying on system rather individual aircraft, focusing on BVR engagement are the features of future air combat.

-The discussion largely downplays the importance of dogfight and WVR engagement.

-The discussion largely recognizes the result of the Red Flag exercise and F-35 as a fighter jet while in the meantime being very critical to so called “military specialist” e.g. Tyler Rogoway (did not mention his name) and Fox Trot Alpha who repeatedly bash F-35.

-The discussion speaks very high of situation awareness and information processing and tries to persuade the air force to change their mind and shift their focus from maneuverability to information fusion."

I can't get over how much we are allowed to know about the F-35. Videos on Youtube; pictures of the cockpit (I wish those screens flip around to expose "real" gauges :) ); articles about its weaknesses. Whatever happened to cold war secrecy?

I was amazed to read that the F/16 and Hornet were first deployed in the early 1980s. That's around 30 years ago. The first simulation of the F/16 that I considered realistic was Falcon 4 in 1999. The delay may be due to the speed of evolution of consumer-level technology rather than the lack of publicly available information on the F/16 before that. If the latter, then we probably can't expect an F-35 module in DCS for another 20 years.

Given the multinational aspect to the F-35, I wonder if sufficient information will be available in coming years to allow reasonably accurate simulation?

I can't get over how much we are allowed to know about the F-35. Videos on Youtube; pictures of the cockpit (I wish those screens flip around to expose "real" gauges :) ); articles about its weaknesses. Whatever happened to cold war secrecy?

True. That said I imagine a lot of the F35's best party tricks occur "under the hood" so to speak (ditto for its contemporaries).

For instance there is a whole world of competition and development going on behind the scenes in terms of electronic warfare & attack, signals management, secure data sharing, cyber warfare, 360 degree weapon cueing, unmanned teaming and weapon employment/guidance/sharing thereof that I'd bet is AT LEAST as important (if not more) as the more superficial & publically available features we tend to focus on around here... yet we basically have zero insight into how it is all shaping up.

We're probably all missing the forest for the trees when it comes to the reality of who would win the next air war on a forum like this. From what I'm hearing it would likely hinge on who has the best, most effective team of networked assets (the whole being greater than the sum of its parts). The real inner workings of that seem very much shrouded in the sort of secrecy you'd expect.

The author is a liar, plain and simple.

The author is a liar, plain and simple.

If it were that plain, and that simple, there wouldn't be 4,202 posts on this forum alone (forget about the rest of the world) arguing about whether or not it will ever be the plane it was sold as...

Simply saying something firmly doesn't make it a convincing argument except to people that know you.

The discussion largely downplays the importance of dogfight and WVR engagement.

That particular argument has been made (many times) before :)

If it were that plain, and that simple, there wouldn't be 4,202 posts on this forum alone (forget about the rest of the world) arguing about whether or not it will ever be the plane it was sold as...

Actually, there probably would. After all we are talking about a technologically ambitious aircraft that will be making up the bulk of US (if not western) tactical airpower for many years to come. It was always going to come under tremendous scrutiny and critique from multiple angles for that reason alone.

As for the author, well I covered the issues with getting reliable info from POGO earlier.

The strange thing is that the people that criticises a project out from a report never have seen inside the cockpit and never even been close to the real aircraft! I chose to believe the blogs and reports from the real pilots flying this aircraft, it is the best aircraft they ever flown.

The F-35 may be good or not. The porblem is that you can't trust the cheesy pilots interviews, because they will publically tell what they are allowed to.

They are following a communication plan that has been leaked, I found it on WarIsBoring blog, and I don't pretend this blog is neutral. But so far, I haven't read any pilot's report going out of the lines of this document.

The original link is dead, but here is another one:

http://wearethemighty.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/F-35-Public-Affairs-Guidance.pdf

And let's face it, every pilot (and especially test/ demonstration pilots) will tell his aircraft is the best in the world, or he may have troubles in his job.

Take the Typhoon: "Best AA fighter after the F-22" is their selling point.

Yet, from what can be publically known, the plane doesn't make any significant difference against a Rafale.

So, for a plane this new "the pilots say so in the media" isn't a valid point.

It was true for other planes in the past, it will be again in the future...

That's for Public Affairs Officers, man. Not pilots.

That's for Public Affairs Officers, man. Not pilots.

Yes, off course :music_whistling:

Wings will also identify pilots and maintainers who are proficient at telling the F-35 story and are willing to lend their name and image to the effort.

Names of identified Airmen will be provided to their MAJCOM and in turn to SAF/PA

Yes, off course :music_whistling:

of course pilots can speak about unclasified things and their experience with jets freely....

in the past, they speak about 2gen helmet, 3i limitations, missed sorties due to software bugs, and lots of the other things...

So you can compare op article vs this article about dutch pilots...

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=26975

Not quite true, but I get your point. There's a publicly available video from a British RAF ex Tornado F3 pilot who had done an exchange course to France who quite clearly indicated that the F3 was rubbish and the French 2000-C was the best (dog) fighter from all those he had had the luck to fly. Yeah, it's retired pilots and mostly retired airframes, so that's a limit.

You just have to travel around and listen to the multiple airframe pilots a bit more to get a clearer picture. Airframes vs Airframes, in a WVR sense, can easily have "pilot opinion" that ends up just that, and has diminished value until you get to someone that flew both airframes which is way less common.

Pilot interviews tend to start going quiet when it comes to weapon effectiveness and sensors, as a general trend that I've seen from listening to hours and hours of these pilots talking. Once the topic of a weapon launch parameter or radar or RWR comes up, things get very dicey indeed with information.

I don't think the document that was linked, on media instructions, is anywhere close to misguiding, it's very similar to sales playcards that my company works from where you have a question and the response is canned and emphasises the good whilst deflecting the bad, it's not in the same league as "maskirovka", not by a long way.

A lot of the problems with this project are down to modern day costing which makes it an internal argument of worth, rather than a combat capability question. By internal, I mean political, home politics. The media in the West aren't subject to the East's restrictions, so they go places they really shouldn't, if we are honest with ourselves. Military capability is a defensive measure. Undermine that and you get into a state of "perceived weakness". We all know how the East's mindset is on that.

I'l give one opinion away in this though. Agility is a desired capability still, IMHO. In every conflict to date, the one with the leading technology has a massive potential advantage. All this electronics is humbly where things can go wrong or be countered in the next era of any battlefield. Frankly I still believe in core agility and guns, because stuff breaks, or is countered or unavailable, something that the armchair pilot really doesn't see because we simulate based on everything working in best possible conditions. You only need to look back on the lessons learned after Bosnia to cringe in fear when the next political stack of cr@p on sharing, even between any coalition, or between elements of a coalition (UN and NATO) comes to a stop when the battlefield picture is degraded. VID is a political implementation that can level the playing field in a nano second.

The F-35 may be good or not. The porblem is that you can't trust the cheesy pilots interviews, because they will publically tell what they are allowed to.

They are following a communication plan that has been leaked, I found it on WarIsBoring blog, and I don't pretend this blog is neutral. But so far, I haven't read any pilot's report going out of the lines of this document.

The original link is dead, but here is another one:

http://wearethemighty.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/F-35-Public-Affairs-Guidance.pdf

 

And let's face it, every pilot (and especially test/ demonstration pilots) will tell his aircraft is the best in the world, or he may have troubles in his job.

Take the Typhoon: "Best AA fighter after the F-22" is their selling point.

Yet, from what can be publically known, the plane doesn't make any significant difference against a Rafale.

 

So, for a plane this new "the pilots say so in the media" isn't a valid point.

It was true for other planes in the past, it will be again in the future...

RCS reduction is made by TAILLESS concepts.If you look at a B2 RCS and compare it to an F35 RCS picture,you will see that the B2 has only horizontal radar deflection.From above,below and same level.If you look at an F35 from above,you will immediately see the two canted tails.Also you will see rest of the tail.The canted TAIL STABILIZERS are deflecting radar energy at an azimuth angle comparable to that of vertical stabilizers,like that of an F16.The canted tails create more INDUCED DRAG,with the result of acceleration and speed performance reduction.Also,when you look at the canted tails from an above angle,you will see that the radar energy is actually deflected towards the above of the aircraft,therefore making it more detectable from an above angle.If you look at an F35 from below,you will also see the TAIL ELEVONS.IF you compare an F35 with no external hardpoints and an F16 with 2 fuel tanks,you will see that the RCS will only be reduced by 0,08%.This is hugely neglectable,especially when you consider amplitude of a RADAR BEAM.

My point about this "Public Affair Guidance" is: just realize that what pilots can say or not is regulated, and who is allowed to talk to the media is also regulated and filtered.

If we put stealth aside for a minute, from pilot's interview or press release, I still don't know what the F-35 weapon system does better than Rafale or Typhoon. These planes already have data fusion.

The F-35 helmet may be great, but does it worth the troubles the program is facing from removing the HUD ?

Where does it come from ?

Appart "it's a great aircraft" pilots don't tell us anything.

there are plenty stories from pilots, when they reveal litle bit more. and there are plenty stories from ground personal too.

and since you choose dont read my link, here is short example what pilots can say:

While a lot of missions are conducted with the JOTT partners, the Dutch F-35s periodically fly with the 148th Fighter Squadron ‘Kickin’ a$$’, the RNLAF’s F-16 training unit in Tucson, Arizona, to evaluate and validate new tactics. ‘The first time we got to test all these advanced capabilities to their fullest potential was about a year ago, with and against our F-16s in Tucson,’ says Knight.

‘The initial scenario was that our two F-35s would escort a four-ship of F-16s

across a notional border and protect them against another eight-ship of F-16s simulating a modern adversary. A relatively inexperienced flight leader was in charge of the F-16s on our side and Lt Col Joost ‘Niki’ Luijsterburg, the Tucson detachment commander, was responsible for the adversaries. Up to this point we had only practised these scenarios in the simulators and while we had a decent game-plan, we were all anxious to see

how the F-35 would perform in real life. We figured that the F-35’s stealth would keep us out of harm’s way for most of the fight, but that we also need to protect the friendly F-16s, maximize the lethality of their missiles and get them to the target.

To make this happen, we planned to initially use electronic attack against the adversary F-16s, see if we could avoid having them detect friendly fighters and datalink the location of the hostile aircraft

to our F-16s. This way we could use the F-16s on our side to shoot down the initial wave of enemy fighters and keep our own missiles available once the ‘Blue Air’ F-16s had to focus on their target attack. The plan worked flawlessly.

‘In the debrief ‘Niki’ told us it was one of the most memorable sorties he had ever flown. Having previously worked in the F-35 program office he was elated to find out how effective the F-35 was, but at the same time he was frustrated by not getting a single shot off the rail against us, while getting killed multiple times. After that sortie it really hit us that the F-35 was going to make a big difference in how we operate fighters and other assets in the Royal Netherlands Air Force.’

RCS reduction is made by TAILLESS concepts.If you look at a B2 RCS and compare it to an F35 RCS picture,you will see that the B2 has only horizontal radar deflection.From above,below and same level.If you look at an F35 from above,you will immediately see the two canted tails.Also you will see rest of the tail.The canted TAIL STABILIZERS are deflecting radar energy at an azimuth angle comparable to that of vertical stabilizers,like that of an F16.The canted tails create more INDUCED DRAG,with the result of acceleration and speed performance reduction.Also,when you look at the canted tails from an above angle,you will see that the radar energy is actually deflected towards the above of the aircraft,therefore making it more detectable from an above angle.If you look at an F35 from below,you will also see the TAIL ELEVONS.IF you compare an F35 with no external hardpoints and an F16 with 2 fuel tanks,you will see that the RCS will only be reduced by 0,08%.This is hugely neglectable,especially when you consider amplitude of a RADAR BEAM.

well explain then how f22 dominate every other fighter? how come f35 dominate same way with lesser kinematics?

if you are right, then magic called spike management work perfectly.... and this make stealth working for them.

delete

RCS reduction is made by TAILLESS concepts.If you look at a B2 RCS and compare it to an F35 RCS picture,you will see that the B2 has only horizontal radar deflection.From above,below and same level.If you look at an F35 from above,you will immediately see the two canted tails.Also you will see rest of the tail.The canted TAIL STABILIZERS are deflecting radar energy at an azimuth angle comparable to that of ----.

Not really seeing the relevance of trying to compare a strategic bomber with a tactical fighter - and your attempts to eyeball aero and RCS are completely irrelevant.

What next a comparison with the B-2s internal fuel and payload!

The F-35 had a requirement for maneuverability including a slow speed High AoA capability which is one reason it has those twin canted tails. (and no the Ho-229 is not up for discussion )

stealth is the sellingpoint for F35, Sensor Fusion is already available in Typhoon and Rafale for Europe, sure since start of the ATF program, Russia and China fire up their research and budgets to counter stealth, was is left on the F35 if take away Stealth? What else this Aircraft can do better than Typhoon or Rafale, just looking from Europe side, smells like F104 2.0, in my opinion Europe need to develop their own Programms to get independent, as there is no stability in the relationship anymore, just my personal opinion.

stealth is the sellingpoint for F35, Sensor Fusion is already available in Typhoon and Rafale for Europe, sure since start of the ATF program, Russia and China fire up their research and budgets to counter stealth, was is left on the F35 if take away Stealth? What else this Aircraft can do better than Typhoon or Rafale, just looking from Europe side, smells like F104 2.0, in my opinion Europe need to develop their own Programms to get independent, as there is no stability in the relationship anymore, just my personal opinion.

They have different level of sensor fusion- page 4-6

IRL there is big diference in situational awareness, which is shared with others.

Stealth enhances other capabilities, its not primary and only diference between eurocanards.

Atlantic trident is good start to look at diferent capabilities, where eurocanards integrate with f-35

https://sldinfo.com/2017/05/a-french-air-force-perspective-on-atlantic-trident-2017/

 

“A key question has been raised about how to handle C2 and weapons decisions across the battlespace.

 

“The Sentinel and the Wedgetail both operated to provide a quarterbacking role, but given the fidelity with which the F-35 can see the battlespace sorting out relationships among the various C2 element is part of shaping the way ahead.

 

“A key challenge as we integrate various assets is how to ensure we know who can see what.

 

“As we introduce the F-35, the pilots have to adjust to the fact that their machines will see and convey data that they themselves are not looking at. And different airplanes will have different levels of SA in the battlespace. How to adjust the operation of the force to meet this challenge?”

Weapons system as whole, there is wast difference in capabilities and gap only gets bigger...

F-35 will change how airforces and alied forces as a whole will operate in future.

Yes Europe should, problem is, there is no united Europe and FR and Germany should start developing decade ago, when they have chance at last get other states aboard with tornado replacement. So today they can only hope to have 6gen aircraft for Rafale/Typhoon replacement...

They have different level of sensor fusion- page 4-6

 

 

IRL there is big diference in situational awareness, which is shared with others.

These slides doesn't describe how the Rafale perform data fusion.

- Correlates multiple tracks to single best source

- Tergeting solutions relies on primary source

It is a full automated process carried out in three steps:

 

1. Establishing consolidated track files and refining primary information provided by the sensors,
   
2. Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,
   
3. Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays.
   

So ok, F-35 brings data fusion, it does it better than F-16 MLU, but it doesn't allow to compare to Rafale and Typhoon.

Finally yes, the stealth has its own advantages.

I have this on sensor fusion in the Typhoon. The argument that the F-35 somehow does magic that you can't do in any other jet doesn't hold up. Sensor fusion is mainly software, but the F-35 has superior ELINT capabilities so that might play its part.

So ok, F-35 brings data fusion, it does it better than F-16 MLU, but it doesn't allow to compare to Rafale and Typhoon.

Yes, almost all of pilot experiences come from comparing F-35 vs US legacy jets, but there are lots from pilots flying SH, F-22. And there are Typhoon and Rafale pilots training with F-35 and F-22 and already told us about their experiences.

My quotes above are from RAF pilot flying Typhoon. And you can easily found lots more... F-35 have significant advantages in situational awareness even over Rafale or Typhoon (if nothing, have better sensors).

Slide is not wrong.

Differences are: in Rafale, Typhoon, SH, etc sensor will determine track, share it, system will task other sensor where too look to help refine track + uses tracks from datalinks. System then decide what is real track. Big advantage over legacy systems lowering pilot workload.

F-35/F-22 raw data from sensors going in the fusion engine, so its done on much lower level and its more difficult to implement and there was real problem in the past with this... . But output is more precise. Fusion engine have access to threat libraries, which is on of them most costly thing in the jet.

Most of the advanced functions of DAS for example will newer work without fusion engine.

fusion engine also receive precise tracks from other F-35 trough MADL (also very difficult to make it work).

Almost all software problems and delays are related to sensor fusion and threat libraries databases and then alis, which is separated issue. So its not same... its not same even with F-22.

But in the end, you get fleet of jets with good ISR and networking capabilities to enhance not just own fleet, but whole force and your allies.