Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 82

Thread: F-35 Detractors - You're Wrong

  1. #31
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Sep 08
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    I think the USAF is planning for 1700 F-35A's. You can't divert the funds for 200 of those and come up with 300 F-22A's.
    I agree that 200 F-35s would be less expensive than 300 F-22s, but my point though was that by buying the F-22s in those sorts of numbers, the unit cost would come down to a more affordable level. 500 Raptors over a 30-40yr career would make a lot more sense than 183. What kind of airframe hours/attrition would we see at that point? This would allow those Golden Eagles to retire as well, so we aren't flying a 50yr old airframe in A2A.

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    I agree that 200 F-35s would be less expensive than 300 F-22s, but my point though was that by buying the F-22s in those sorts of numbers, the unit cost would come down to a more affordable level. 500 Raptors over a 30-40yr career would make a lot more sense than 183. What kind of airframe hours/attrition would we see at that point? This would allow those Golden Eagles to retire as well, so we aren't flying a 50yr old airframe in A2A.
    Yes, but that's a never-going-to-happen wish list that is fiscially impossible.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by scorefour View Post
    Check out this article regarding all the recent crap we've been hearing about how bad the F-35 is. Very enlightening.

    Setting the Record Straight on F-35


    (Source: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company; issued September 19, 2008)



    FORT WORTH, Texas --- U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.

    The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.

    "In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer.

    Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a Hawaii-based simulated combat exercise are untrue, according to Maj. Gen. Davis.

    "The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj. Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges."

    The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.

    Other erroneous allegations about the program were recently made in a letter distributed and written by industry-watchers Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey.

    "It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."

    Here are the facts:

    -- The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.

    -- The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.

    -- The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.

    -- When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participate in the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations.

    Other important facts:

    -- External weapon clearance is part of the current F-35 test program.

    -- The government has already proven that no other aircraft can survive against the 5th generation stealth that only the F-22 and the F-35 possess; it is impossible to add this stealth to fourth-generation fighters.

    -- The F-35's data collection, integration and information sharing capabilities will transform the battlespace of the future and will redefine the close air support mission. The F-35 is specifically designed to take advantage of lessons learned from the F-117 stealth aircraft. Unlike the F-117, the ability to share tactically important information is built into the F-35, along with stealth.

    -- F-35 is developing, testing, and fielding mature software years ahead of legacy programs, further reducing development risk. The F-35's advanced software, already flying on two test aircraft with remarkable stability, is demonstrating the advantages of developing highly-common, tri-variant aircraft. The software developed span the entire aircraft and support systems including the aircraft itself, logistics systems, flight and maintenance trainers, maintenance information system and flight-test instrumentation.

    -- Rather than relying exclusively on flight testing, the F-35 is retiring development risk through the most comprehensive laboratories, sensor test beds, and integrated full-fusion flying test bed ever created for an aircraft program. Representing only 25% of our verification plans, still the F-35's flight test program is comparable in hours to the combined flight test programs of the three primary U.S. aircraft it will replace.

    -- The F-35 is one aircraft program designed to replace many different types of aircraft around the world -- F-16, F/A-18, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, Sea Harrier, GR.7, F-111 and Tornado -- flown by 14 air forces.

    -- In addition to 19 developmental test aircraft, the F-35 is producing 20 fully instrumented, production-configured operational test aircraft. No program in history has employed this many test vehicles.

    "Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again," said Burbage.

    The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history. Two F-35s have entered flight test, two are in ground test, and 17 are in various stages of assembly, including the first two production-model jets scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Air Force in 2010.


    Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $41.9 billion. (ends)

    sounds like their trying to advertise their f-35. Lol its amazing what creators of the fighter jet can say lol. I doubt the avionics on the f-35 are better then even the mig-35 of su-35bm.simulations dont prove anything, every country has different simulation's that show what their aircraft can do and cannot.

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,026
    Just fact checking...

    In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius.
    They must have used incredibly loaded down Eagles and Strike Eagles in the simulation.

    The government has already proven that no other aircraft can survive against the 5th generation stealth that only the F-22 and the F-35 possess; it is impossible to add this stealth to fourth-generation fighters.
    I believe a few F-22A's HAVE in fact been 'shot down' in simulated engagements. Almost all of them were blatant errors on the pilots or simulations part though. Stealth doesn't mean invisible, and you can make 4th generation fighter aircraft less radar observable (Super Hornet???).

    The F-35 is one aircraft program designed to replace many different types of aircraft around the world -- F-16, F/A-18, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, Sea Harrier, GR.7, F-111 and Tornado -- flown by 14 air forces.
    Covered this in another post...just doesn't make sense.

    will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially
    Even more misleading


    OK...I like the F-35, although sometimes I don't think it's right for the USAF. It will likely defend my own country in the years to come as well. The stuff that's been posted about the Hawaiian exercise and Sprey's comments are bogus...and I give credit to Lockheed Martin and the DoD official for fighting back. I only nitpicked this because a few things caught my eye, keep in mind almost everything that's in Sprey's evaluation I would consider false as well.

  5. #35
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Sep 08
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Airmaster View Post
    sounds like their trying to advertise their f-35. Lol its amazing what creators of the fighter jet can say lol. I doubt the avionics on the f-35 are better then even the mig-35 of su-35bm.simulations dont prove anything, every country has different simulation's that show what their aircraft can do and cannot.
    A- how is that any different then the claims from the Mig 35/Su-35 camp, claiming invincibility? You're using subjective reasoning(i.e. whatever Mig and Sukhoi says must be true, and whatever LM says must be an exaggeration).

    B- you doubt the avionics on the F-35 are inferior based upon what metric?
    Russian AESA technology is several generations behind that of the US, not to mention the other electronic gear on board the Lightning.

  6. #36
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Sep 08
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    Just fact checking...



    They must have used incredibly loaded down Eagles and Strike Eagles in the simulation.
    Well a combat loaded F-15C will have 8 AAMS, and at least 1 or 2 drop tanks. The -E isn't really a good comparison for A2A, as it's not gonna do WVR with a bomb load.


    I believe a few F-22A's HAVE in fact been 'shot down' in simulated engagements. Almost all of them were blatant errors on the pilots or simulations part though. Stealth doesn't mean invisible, and you can make 4th generation fighter aircraft less radar observable (Super Hornet???).
    The F-22s that were shot down in exercises were not due to mistakes on the Raptor pilots.

    In one engagement, an F-18 violated the minimum safe distance allowed in the exercise(which the Raptor pilot was adhering to), to get a gun kill.

    An F-16 got a kill due to it not having to leave the area before coming back into play, after it had already been killed by the Raptor.

  7. #37
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    ...In one engagement, an F-18 violated the minimum safe distance allowed in the exercise(which the Raptor pilot was adhering to), to get a gun kill.

    An F-16 got a kill due to it not having to leave the area before coming back into play, after it had already been killed by the Raptor.
    In neither case was a kill scored.

    The F-18 "kill" was most likely an overshoot. All there is to show for it is a HUD image with the Raptor in view.

    The so called F-16 "kill" was after the Raptor had disengaged and was exiting the battlespace.

    Both incidences have already been talked to death here and on other forums, lol.
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

  8. #38
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    Well a combat loaded F-15C will have 8 AAMS, and at least 1 or 2 drop tanks. The -E isn't really a good comparison for A2A, as it's not gonna do WVR with a bomb load.
    In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius.
    Your telling me a F-35A can go faster than even a combat configured F-15C, has a larger combat radius than a combat configured F-15E, more loiter time than a F-15E?

    The only one I could maybe believe is the sub-sonic acceleration, and even here, I would think the F-15C would win.

  9. #39
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    Your telling me a F-35A can go faster than even a combat configured F-15C, has a larger combat radius than a combat configured F-15E, more loiter time than a F-15E?
    Probably pours coffee and serves donuts too...

    I think someone has been talking to the advertising folks a wee bit too much...

  10. #40
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Sep 08
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    Your telling me a F-35A can go faster than even a combat configured F-15C, has a larger combat radius than a combat configured F-15E, more loiter time than a F-15E?

    The only one I could maybe believe is the sub-sonic acceleration, and even here, I would think the F-15C would win.
    What's the maximum speed that an F-15C can go with 8 AAMs and drop tanks? <M2. The maximum speed the F-35 can go is unknown, so it's difficult to compare.

    I agree that an F-15E has a longer combat radius/loiter time, but I don't think the comparisons that were made stated that the F-35 was superior in every conceivable category. The F-111 has a larger combat radius than the F-15E, but that doesn't mean that the capabilities of the Eagle in many areas aren't superior.

  11. #41
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    What's the maximum speed that an F-15C can go with 8 AAMs and drop tanks? <M2.
    I don't have a specific figure, but I would suggest a F-15C with 8 AAM's and no drop tanks could still reach Mach 2. Can anyone confirm that?

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    The maximum speed the F-35 can go is unknown, so it's difficult to compare.
    Haha, then what are we arguing about? But I can almost guarantee you that Lockheed Martin and the USAF know what the maximum speed of a clean F-35A with 4 AAM's is. Very little guesswork at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    I agree that an F-15E has a longer combat radius/loiter time, but I don't think the comparisons that were made stated that the F-35 was superior in every conceivable category.
    But they specifically mention that...

    In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius.
    Is the F-15E a 4th gen fighter...yup. So you yourself acknowledge that part of that statement is incorrect. I just happen to think the rest of it may be as well.

    Hey, like I said, not bashing the F-35 here...but I don't like when Lockheed Martin stoops to this level when trying to defend its program.

  12. #42
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Sep 08
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    I don't have a specific figure, but I would suggest a F-15C with 8 AAM's and no drop tanks could still reach Mach 2. Can anyone confirm that?
    I've heard something along the lines of M1.7-1.8, though I can't say that with 100 percent certainty.


    Haha, then what are we arguing about? But I can almost guarantee you that Lockheed Martin and the USAF know what the maximum speed of a clean F-35A with 4 AAM's is. Very little guesswork at this point.
    That being the case, they'd be in a better position to make assertions, as they know what speed the F-15C is capable of as well. The F-35 is capable of carrying more than 4 AAMs internally by the way. It just hasn't been the priority.


    But they specifically mention that...



    Is the F-15E a 4th gen fighter...yup. So you yourself acknowledge that part of that statement is incorrect. I just happen to think the rest of it may be as well.

    Hey, like I said, not bashing the F-35 here...but I don't like when Lockheed Martin stoops to this level when trying to defend its program.
    I know what the requirements were for the F-35 range wise, but is there any open source info on the actual capabilities? It may very well exceed the requirements by some margin. To play Devil's advocate- the F-35 was never meant to replace the F-15E, but I see your point.

  13. #43
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    The F-35 is capable of carrying more than 4 AAMs internally by the way. It just hasn't been the priority.
    Is that like saying I could eat 20 hamburgers in an hour, but it just hasn't been a priority?

    Are they planning to construct some sort of magazine for the internal weapon bays? I just don't see how your going to get any more missiles in there.

  14. #44
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    That being the case, they'd be in a better position to make assertions, as they know what speed the F-15C is capable of as well. The F-35 is capable of carrying more than 4 AAMs internally by the way. It just hasn't been the priority.
    Actually I've had a discussion on this board about whether the F35 can carry more than 4 AAMs internally.

    We know there will be 2 on the bay doors. There could be 2 more in place of the JDAMs. But we came to the conclusion that there simply isn't enough room to squeeze 2 AAMs in place of a single 2000 lb JDAM.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    We know there will be 2 on the bay doors. There could be 2 more in place of the JDAMs. But we came to the conclusion that there simply isn't enough room to squeeze 2 AAMs in place of a single 2000 lb JDAM.
    BINGO, that's what I thought, thanks gunnut

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why President Bush should be Re-elected
    By James_Jerome in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 10 Jul 09,, 20:23
  2. The Palin debate
    By Mangolassi in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 1156
    Last Post: 02 Nov 08,, 17:06
  3. Help....What did I do wrong?
    By Exarecr in forum WAB Information Center
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 26 May 08,, 16:39
  4. Should Blue States Join Canada?
    By NeoLiberal in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 15 Nov 04,, 03:29
  5. Exit Polls might be wrong: Jewish vote for Bush Higher
    By Gio in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09 Nov 04,, 08:54

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •