Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

F-35 Lightning II : News & Discussions

Discussion in 'The Americas' started by Picard, Sep 4, 2012.

  1. BON PLAN

    BON PLAN Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    1,461
    Country Flag:
    France
    nice !
    and how many space in a carrier takes a V22? 3 x F35 ?

    and for more longer range, a first V22 to refuel a second V22 to refuel the F35. as simple as that.
     
  2. BON PLAN

    BON PLAN Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    1,461
    Country Flag:
    France
    Nice pic.
    For the rest.... so classical!
     
    X_Killer likes this.
  3. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Remember US has long range stealth bombers.

    The B-2 is capable of all-altitude attack missions up to 50,000 feet (15,000 m), with a range of more than 6,000 nautical miles (6,900 mi; 11,000 km) on internal fuel and over 10,000 nautical miles (12,000 mi; 19,000 km) with one midair refueling. It entered service in 1997 as the second aircraft designed to have advanced stealth technology after the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk attack aircraft. Though designed originally as primarily a nuclear bomber, the B-2 was first used in combat, dropping conventional, non-nuclear ordnance in the Kosovo War in 1999. It later served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.[7]

    The Northrop (later Northrop Grumman) B-2 Spirit, also known as the Stealth Bomber, is an American heavy penetration strategic bomber, featuring low observable stealth technology designed for penetrating dense anti-aircraft defenses; it is a flying wing design with a crew of two.[1][4] The bomber can deploy both conventional and thermonuclear weapons, such as eighty 500 lb (230 kg)-class (Mk 82) JDAM Global Positioning System-guided bombs, or sixteen 2,400 lb (1,100 kg) B83 nuclear bombs. The B-2 is the only acknowledged aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration.

    The Northrop (later Northrop Grumman) B-2 Spirit, also known as the Stealth Bomber, is an American heavy penetration strategic bomber, featuring low observable stealth technology designed for penetrating dense anti-aircraft defenses; it is a flying wing design with a crew of two.[1][4] The bomber can deploy both conventional and thermonuclear weapons, such as eighty 500 lb (230 kg)-class (Mk 82) JDAM Global Positioning System-guided bombs, or sixteen 2,400 lb (1,100 kg) B83 nuclear bombs. The B-2 is the only acknowledged aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration.
     
  4. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
  5. BON PLAN

    BON PLAN Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    1,461
    Country Flag:
    France
    Opposing Views: Debating The F-35’s Strengths And Weaknesses
    Aug 8, 2017Aviation Week & Space Technology

    F-35, in Black and White


    [​IMG]
    Podcast: F-35 in the Crossfire, Part 1



    It is hard to find a more divisive topic in the aerospace world than the Lockheed Martin F-35. Aviation Week Pentagon Editor Lara Seligman sat down with two industry veterans who hold opposite views on the fighter: Marine Corps Lt. Col. (ret.) Dave Berke, a former Top Gun instructor, has flown the F-35, F-22, F-16 and F-18; and Pierre Sprey, of “Fighter Mafia” fame, helped conceptualize designs for the A-10 and F-16. Excerpts follow. Listen to their debate in full at AviationWeek.com/check6

    Seligman: Lockheed Martin and U.S. Air Force pilots contend that the maneuvers we saw at the Paris Air Show laid to rest the rumors that the F-35 can’t dogfight. Pierre, do you think that’s true?

    Sprey: That was nonsense, just marketing hype. The demo was as phony as all the other [air show] demos are. They had a super-light F-35, and the performance wasn’t all that impressive. I talked to a guy who prepped an A-10 for the air show, and they did the same thing—they [made] it so light it actually looked super maneuverable, which it’s not, except at low speed. The F-35’s turn rate was not impressive. It was [much] slower than a 30-year-old F-16. An engineer friend of mine clocked it at 17 deg. per second. Any old F-16 can do 22 [deg. per second].

    KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
    Can the F-35 dogfight?


    How does the F-35’s ability to communicate in flight change warfare

    What are the difficulties of producing F-35—a program that remains in development?

    What are the impacts of the F-35’s $406 billion price tag?

    Berke: I would not disagree. Air show demos are exactly that, a demonstration. I think part of the reason this demo got so much publicity is there has been a long-held misunderstanding of what the airplane can do in the visual arena. People have made claims that it’s incapable of dogfighting and things like that. It is a highly capable, highly maneuverable airplane, like everybody who has ever flown it understands.


    [​IMG]
    Pierre Sprey helped to conceive the design of the F-16 and A-10 fighters. Credit: James Stevenson



    Sprey: The airplane that flew at Paris was totally incapable of combat. And that’s not just me talking; that’s the operational testers of the Air Force, Navy and the Marines. In their assessment, the configuration that was flying in Paris, to go to war, would need an escort to protect it against enemy fighters. It would need extra help to find targets, particularly air-to-ground threats.

    How does the F-35’s networking capability change the game for warfare?

    Berke: I can’t think of any airplane that we’re flying today that would want to get into a dogfight. I would avoid that in any platform. F-22 pilots don’t fly around looking for dogfights. Part of the reason why the F-35 and the F-22 have such a massive advantage over legacy platforms is their ability to make really intelligent decisions. You’re getting information presented to you on a much larger scale, and it’s fused more intelligently.

    All my career, I’ve flown fighters, and flown them in combat, and I was a forward air controller. It’s all about making an intelligent decision as soon as you can. It is really difficult for me to overstate what a massive advantage you have in decision-making in the F-35. I don’t know a single pilot—and I know a lot of F-35 pilots—that would even consider taking a legacy platform into combat. The F-35 advantage over these platforms is infinitely greater.

    [​IMG]
    When he was an active duty Marine, Lt. Col. (ret.) David Berke flew the F-35B, F-22, F-18 and F-16. Credit: U.S. Marine Corps



    Sprey: The original marketing hype, both out of the services and Lockheed Martin, was always “It’s a great dogfighter; it’s a great close-support platform.” In truth it can’t do any of those missions very well because, like all multimission airplanes it’s highly flawed, and the technical execution of this airplane is unusually bad by historical standards. I agree with [Lt.] Col. Berke that no airplane looks for a dogfight. On the other hand, in serious wars sometimes you can’t avoid it. The F-35 is a horrible target if it has to get into a dogfight. It’s got an enormously high wing load. It’s almost as unmaneuverable as the infamous F-104.

    All that networking stuff, if it worked, would make the pilot smarter and more situationally aware. But right now it is an impediment, and it might be a permanent impediment given the cyber [threat], which is horrible for this airplane. All that reliance on networking is giving inferior, less well-funded, less equipped enemies a tremendous opportunity, because the airplane is so vulnerable to all kinds of cybermeddling. The people we might face—Chinese, Russians, Yugoslavs, whomever—are all pretty clever with computers. We’ve given them a tremendous opportunity to wreck our airpower for almost no money.

    Berke: I would disagree with virtually all of that. The idea that there are things wrong with the airplane is 100% true, but the idea [that] does not work is 100% not true. To fuse broadband multispectral information, [radio frequency], electro-optical infrared, laser infrared and laser energies among several cockpits, ground users and sea-based platforms is really complicated stuff. And so there are things wrong with the airplane. I don’t know a single [F-35] pilot that would deny that. But the idea that you would read some sort of report on the airplane’s performance and then draw the conclusion that it is broken forever is a leap. We inside the community haven’t done a good job of explaining how amazing the airplane is.

    You could bring 100 people into this room and ask what warfare is going to look like in 30 years, and you’re going to get 100 different answers. If I hear somebody talking about dogfighting, that person is not thinking about the future. And if I hear somebody say “wing loading,” that’s a red flag that you are thinking about the wrong things. Among every Marine, Air Force and Navy [F-35] pilot I know who came from a legacy aircraft—Hornets, F-15s, F-16s—there is no debate about what is the most capable aircraft they’ve ever flown and what they would take into combat tomorrow.


    [​IMG]
    “If you bought F-16s at the same budget, you’d be able to buy five times more airplanes.” —Pierre Sprey. Credit: Lockheed Martin Photos



    What are the difficulties posed by what is known as concurrency—the process of producing F-35s and testing them before system development is complete?

    Sprey: The testing that has taken place so far is very benign. It’s engineering testing—there has not been any rough testing yet—and the airplane has performed very badly on a whole score of issues. They’re not flying against any stressful scenarios for the simple reason that the Joint Program Office is sabotaging the operational tests, and this is very deliberate. Because if you fail, the [program] might be canceled.

    I have mixed feelings about pilots being so enthusiastic about their airplanes. It is very common now, because the services are so wound up with procurement, and people critical of their equipment tend to have shorter careers. I think you want to be skeptical about everything you work with. You don’t want to be a true believer going into combat and wind up hanging from a parachute, or dead.

    Berke: The idea that any professional uniformed officer, let alone a fighter pilot, would somehow find themselves unprepared for the horrors of combat because they were illusively in love with their equipment is preposterous. I’ve [been] a Top Gun instructor, and we would spend 8 hr. debriefing a flight. All you do is talk about things you did wrong, your strengths, your weaknesses, how to mitigate one and play to the others. If you are going to ask a fighter pilot who has done operational testing what their opinion is, the idea that even one shred of what they say is a party-line answer would be offensive. I’ve spent 23 years as a U.S. Marine, and never once did I get the implication that I shouldn’t be completely honest with my evaluation.

    The F-35 has good and bad things about it. In the operational test world, we are focused on making the airplanes better. We spend our time on a laundry list of things that need to be improved. When every single pilot that has taken the airplanes into highly complex [exercises] at Red Flag and at places like Nellis [AFB, Nevada,] comes back with overwhelming dominance, it’s difficult not to be really supportive. So if you hear pilots saying the F-35 is awesome, it’s not a sales pitch. It’s steeped in a long history of flying several different airplanes in different environments.

    F-35 procurement costs have come down in the last couple of years, but this year they ticked up slightly to $406 billion from about $380 billion.

    Sprey: Cost is part of what force you can bring to bear. To create airpower, you have to be able to put a bunch of airplanes in the sky over the enemy. You can’t do it with a tiny handful, even if they are unbelievably good. You send six airplanes to China, they could care less about what they are. F-22 deployments are now six airplanes, and that’s because of the cost. Force is a function of cost and how reliable the airplane is, how often it flies per day.

    If you bought F-16s at the same budget, $400 billion, instead of F-35s, you’d be able to buy five times more airplanes. It is five times as expensive and flies at best half as often. My feeling is it will fly less often than an F-22—it is a good deal more complicated than an F-22, and it’s showing that right now. If that’s the case, it may fly once every five days, in which case if will fly one-fifth as often as the F-16.

    Berke: I don’t care how cheap the airplane is; if you can’t fly it in combat, it is useless. We are inventing technology that didn’t exist before, and it’s all driven toward the idea of being relevant in a highly complex, 3D battlespace that we have a hard time predicting even for the next 15 years. I don’t want to buy a car that’s cheaper and then have that car not be drivable in three years. The fact is the Chinese [are developing] fifth-generation airplanes. They are building and buying [them] right now, and that’s going to make air warfare complicated. [The F-35 is] too expensive? That’s easy to say. Compared to what? Losing a war in 15 years? Or compared to an F-16 in 1977? Make sure you get that frame of reference right, because it is really important.

    ****

    STRANGE : the F35 supporter never spoke of Stealth.... THE marvellous quality vanted by LM is so important ? not sure.
     
    Picard likes this.
  6. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    352
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    Sprey is a nutcase who wanted the F-16 to not have a radar. After he left the program they scrapped all his ideas.

    He just repeats the same old arguments about dogfighting, repeats nonsense and relies on conspiracy theories.


    >If you bought F-16s at the same budget, $400 billion, instead of F-35s, you’d be able to buy five times more airplanes. It is five times as expensive and flies at best half as often.

    That's true for a 1980 F-16, the current F-16 is barely cheaper than the F-35's unit cost in 2019.

    >The airplane that flew at Paris was totally incapable of combat

    He's talking about the airshow configuration. Yet he's extrapolating that to actual combat.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017
    kiduva21 likes this.
  7. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,312
    Sprey was spouting useless crap. Berke made more sense, he was being polite and diplomatic.
     
  8. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Pierre Sprey. is about half of what he says is totally relevant, the other half is totally bullshit.

    1:10- The F-15 Is Loaded Up With A Bunch Of Junk... A Bunch Of Electronic Stuff That Has No Relevance To Combat
    The F-15 is the most successful modern air-to-air fighter in existence and it has remained relevant and in production longer than the F-16 has. Sprey's idea that the F-15 Eagle is a big turkey stuffed with frivolous things like a "big radar" and two engines is laughable. The Eagle's massive radar aperture allows for it to detect, and in some cases to engage enemy fighters well before they can detect and engage the Eagle. This is a very big deal when it comes winning in beyond visual range air-to-air combat, and with the recent upgrade to the APG-63V3 AESA radar the F-15 packs the most powerful and capable fighter radar in operational service anywhere on the globe.

    1:10- The F-15 Is Loaded Up With A Bunch Of Junk... A Bunch Of Electronic Stuff That Has No Relevance To Combat
    The F-15 is the most successful modern air-to-air fighter in existence and it has remained relevant and in production longer than the F-16 has. Sprey's idea that the F-15 Eagle is a big turkey stuffed with frivolous things like a "big radar" and two engines is laughable. The Eagle's massive radar aperture allows for it to detect, and in some cases to engage enemy fighters well before they can detect and engage the Eagle. This is a very big deal when it comes winning in beyond visual range air-to-air combat, and with the recent upgrade to the APG-63V3 AESA radar the F-15 packs the most powerful and capable fighter radar in operational service anywhere on the globe.
     
  9. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    2:00- 'As Soon As You Go To Design A Multi-Mission Airplane You're Sunk'
    Once again, what decade is this man living in? Wildly successful fighter aircraft are capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, including his own baby, the F-16 Viper, along with the Hornet Series and what became the F-15 Strike Eagle, just to name some American examples. Even the F-14 Tomcat ended up being as good of an attack aircraft as it was an interceptor even though it was never originally designed to do the precision bombing mission. Also, some of Europe's best fighter aircraft were purpose built to be multi-role aircraft, and they also retain incredible speed and maneuverability for the air-to-air role. Specifically, the Dassault Rafale and the Swedish Gripen come to mind.
     
  10. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    You can design a multirole fighter but not a multirole pilot. Even Israeli AF uses its F-16 sqns for specific tasks/roles and while the aircraft are same all across the sqns, the pilots are trained for specific roles only.
     
    kiduva21 and Picard like this.
  11. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Sprey was correct on most his points, though. F-35 is unmaneuverable POS, and it is true that often, you simply cannot avoid a dogfight. It is also true that air show demos are done with only light fuel load. As for F-35s vaunted networking abilities, it is a complex system, and complex systems in a war are prone to failure. You simply have to have a backup, which means dogfighting capability. Even F-22 was designed to be able to dogfight. F-35 was not designed for dogfight because it is a ground attack platform, it was only pushed into air-to-air role after F-22 couldn't be procured in large enough numbers. And networking is a danger as much as an opportunity.

    Berke is talking about the future, but how can you know the future if you don't know the past? That future they are talking about is based on the performance of BVR missiles against Iraqis and Yugoslavs, first of whom were incompetent fools all across the board, and latter who were also undertrained and flying literal flying bricks (aircraft had no radar, no MAWS, no RWR, no ECM... real representative of peer threats). Sensor fusion is important, but wing loading is also important... even in BVR combat, you need to be able to maneuver. Wing loading matters for turn rate, for climb rate, and both are still quite important. And F-35 may be more capable than "teens", but those are not its competitors.

    Equipment is important, and equipment that doesn't work is useless. And in war, you have to have reliable equipment. What is more important is that complex equipment often leaves more avenues open for it to be countered. Berke talks about F-35s performance in air combat, but does not mention its survivability on the ground. And that is F-35s biggest Achilles heel, I think.
     
    Ghanta, BON PLAN and vstol jockey like this.
  12. BON PLAN

    BON PLAN Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    1,461
    Country Flag:
    France
    2019 .... it's always promises for tomorrow with F35...
    NO. An actual F16 costs less than a F35. A plane is purchased by kilo. The heavier it is, the less affordable it is. F35 is heavier so more expensive.
     
    vstol jockey likes this.
  13. BON PLAN

    BON PLAN Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    1,461
    Country Flag:
    France
    Even the F35 supporter (a old topgun trainer) agreed.... so it's the truth.

    Sprey said what a lot of others said before : F35 need F22.... but only US has F22.
     
  14. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    352
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    Yes the plane that flew in the airshow didn't have any weapons and thus was incapable of combat. That's the point. Not some generalization about the program.
     
  15. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    Every thing about an aircraft is linked to its size and weight. From cost of ownership to cost of operation, maintenance, logistics, manpower and fuel.
     
    BON PLAN and Picard like this.

Share This Page