The F-35 brings improved stealth and countermeasures, and incorporates the latest available technology for advanced avionics, data links and adverse weather precision targeting. It has increased range and includes weaponry upgrades which are superior to the weapons currently employed in the fleet. This state of the art aircraft will enable the Navy and Marine Corps team to command and maintain global air superiority in an increasingly dynamic and dangerous world. FY 2014 is the eighth Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) for the STOVL variant and carrier variant (CV) with six and four aircraft respectively.
As is, the Navy is well on-track toward fielding an obsolete-to-the-threat carrier air wing.
H/T-CDR Salamander
---
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Aviation Week (ARES blog) F-35 posts (2007 to present)
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
19 comments:
I wouldn't call the F-35 "obsolete". It has its faults but they can be fixed or upgraded. Since your're known to criticize the F-35, I'm curious to know what you would pick as an alternative to the F-35? What do you think the three branches should get to replace F-16, F-18, Harrier?
For high-end threats, the F-35 is not "the one". Weight performance, thermal issues, software, compromised design for all 3 variants because of STOVL. Non-all-aspect, non-broadband stealth (which can only be addressed by awesome airframe performance to reduce enemy NEZ) And so many other reasons. Doubtful that it is very "upgradable" unless you start a new D and E variant (CTOL and CV) that doesn't have any of the pollution of STOVL.... and of course it has to be affordable. It was sold to Congress years ago as being an affordable solution. For non-high-end threats we have existing tech that works fine. If the U.S wants to maintain air supremacy past 2020 they better start working on an evolved F-22 that makes up for all of the lessons-learned mistakes.
There are plenty of alternatives. Once you cancel the F-35C and truncate the F-35A, there will be cash to upgrade the F-18, accelerate the FXX project and maybe develop an F-35X air superiority version with 2 engines for the USAF. our allies should also recognize that we have become the cannot do country and should develop their own weapon systems. A collaboration between Israel, Sk, Japan and Germany would go a long way to produce lethal subs, missiles and aircraft
Adverse weather targeting for a plane unlikely to fly in adverse weather. Wonderful.
Fortunatley this heavy thing doesnt have to fly or anything. We can always add heavy upgrades and fixes that Im sure will be free.
An engine upgrade for the F-35 can make a Huge difference. The Air Force is already developing a 2020 engine upgrade. Its called the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program. It will solve the fuel effeciency problem as well as supercruise. Thrust will most likely increase as well. Our existing fighters will get chewed up by S-300/400/500 missiles and other 5th gen aircraft. An evolved F-22 would not be any better since the raptors payload is small and only good for carrying air to air missiles. Unless you make a new designed variant which would cost more money than a F-35 upgrade. I'm all for the F-35B to be canceled. With out a doubt it cost the F-35 program big. I think people are criticizing the F-35 to early. People didn't like the F-15 but its record proved it was worth the price. At this point there isn't really a alternative to the F-35. Lets put the F-35 into production until a sixth gen fighter comes and then we could maybe cancel production for the remaining F-35s.
The F-18 is obsolete. It wont survive in a modern day battle against advanced air defenses or 5th gen fighters. Developing a new F-35 variant with two engines will cost way to much money in a already troubled program. The best thing to do to save money is buy less F-35s until FAXX comes around. Use those F-35s to clear the way for upgraded legacy fighters. We don't need to collaborate with other countries on most military equipment. We have the most advanced military in the world, plus black programs.
Of interest. The F-35 is a "fifth-generation fighter" only in the minds of marketeers.
https://www.box.com/s/wx51r9s8oumiah537fat
Then there is the issue of comparative performance.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y15BW5Vx-Fw/UWQsdWchS7I/AAAAAAAAC9w/UBNSOe5zG0c/s1600/JSCFADT-2012-Sub-2-p16.png
And:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_91NwZ_2uEs/UWQsUV9EWAI/AAAAAAAAC9o/N05MACKURSM/s1600/MaxPower5gManeuverEnvelope_F-22_F-15_F-35.jpg
The F-18 is OK if it isn't facing high-end threats. Many operations (like Libya as an example) don't require high-end anti-access efforts.
Stating that the F-35 will "clear the way" is at best, a product of LM F-35 (and or fan-base) marketing spin.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html
Inaccurate comparisons. Why are we comparing aircraft in service to aircraft such as the F-35 and T-50 which we know little about as far as performance. F-35 got marked down for no side radars when it has DAS. F-35 can go through the sound barrier for 150 miles without using afterburners and its not even a supercruise aircraft. We don't know its climb rate or acceleration. None of that has been released. Estimates are worthless.
I like how the first sentence of this article mentions the F-117 which has obsolete stealth technology AND a larger radar cross-section than the F-35. The F-35 was made to have a small radar cross-section from the front, but much less on other angles unlike the raptor which was designed to reflect radar even on the sides/rear. According to Lockheed the F-35s cross section is the size of a metal tenis ball compared to the X-35s golfball size, and F-22s metal marble. F-117s was said to be the size of a Seagull. I'm sure lockheed has tested the F-35 against many different radars. We have S-300 missile systems and radars bought from Ukraine so we have an advantage. Lets wait to see it in combat before we make estimates on stealth.
Estimates are only worthwhile when the source is an LM press release. As for DAS, it needs a working helmet.
Balance and the JSF JORD. The F-22 was made to kill high end threats. After that, small X-band and similar battlefield threats would be left. Workable. The JORD depends on the F-22. The "go-it-alone" nonsense from LM (those words used in a 2007 brief) aren't credible.
To ArmyAbrams Tanker
I agree that the F/A-18 is obsolete and won't survive in a anti-access & area denial threat environment against the Su-27/30 family, upcoming PAK-FA,J-20 and J-31 and advanced air defence systems. The F-35 will also be obsolete against those threats too.
Like what Eric said before, the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 is OK if it isn't facing high-end threats. Many operations (like Libya as an example) don't require high-end anti-access efforts. The existing fighters are perfectly fine for low-medium threat environment.
To ArmyAbrams Tanker
The F-35 was defined during the mid-1990s to have “affordable” aerodynamic performance, stealth performance, sensor capabilities and weapons loads to be “affordably” effective against the most common threat systems of that era past – legacy Soviet Cold War era weapons, not for the 21st Century emerging threats.
The F-35 is designed primarily to support ground forces on the battlefield with some self defence capabilities and is not suitable for the developing regional environment and, not suitable again for close air support missions. The aircraft is unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence due to limited range/endurance, limited weapons load and limited supersonic speed.
You quoted: "It has its faults but they can be fixed or upgraded."
Yes the F-35 has a lot of faults. But unfortunatley the aircrafts limitations are inherent to the design, they cannot be altered by incremental upgrades.
The F-35 will be ineffective against the current generation of extremely powerful advanced Russian and Chinese systems, as detailed above; In any combat engagements between the F-35 and such threat systems, most or all F-35 aircraft will be rapidly lost to enemy fire.
So if you have the F-35s that just aren’t capable of dealing with the anti-access & area denial threat zones, it just doesn’t do you any good of going ahead with the failed program and sink the money. Because the F-35 will be increasingly expensive aircraft that will fail the air defence program.
The F-35 can't go through the sound barrier for 150 miles without using afterburner and its not a supercruising aircraft like the Su-35S, F-22, PAK-FA, J-20 and J-31?.
I know there's a bunch of folks that know the F-35 is a turkey, alright. They've told me, they've told friends, colleagues and acquaintances of mine in the defence industry that they are terribly concerned about the F-35 that can't turn, can’t climb, can’t run to escape enemy fighters/guns/missiles, terrible acceleration, limited range/endurance and doesn’t have enough motor for the weight.
So the estimates are not worthless.
@ ArmyAbrams Tanker,
There are two of the most common misconceptions concerning the F-22 are the belief that the aircraft cannot carry external stores, and the belief that the aircraft cannot perform strike roles effectively. Both of the ideas are simply falsehoods without substance.
I also reckon Lockheed Martin's conclusion about the F-35 is misleading. The vulnerability has decreased 25 percent focused on a small area “if the aircraft is hit.” The probability is actually high, in classified number. This means the overall impact to aircraft’s survivability is high, higher than 0.5 percent.
Why is the survivability higher than 0.5 percent?
To restore a 2 lb safety valve system part of 43 lb (20 kg) equipment will increase more weight on the F-35 affecting the aircraft’s flight performance parameters, making it draggier that can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run to escape enemy fighters/guns/missiles, terrible acceleration, limited range/endurance and won't have enough motor for the weight.
As I explained to you before, Lockheed Martin has done very little with major safety precautions on the F-35 which is a very delicate aeroplane that makes it more vulnerable (if flown at very low altitudes when performing close air support missions) from a high-explosive round like the .22 Rifle, or any form of gunfire that will disable or destroy an engine and fuel tank and the F-35 has no armour cockpit tub to protect the pilot if hit by a bullet or fragment. The F-35 doesn't carry flame-retardant foam in its fuel tanks because the foam displaces fuel. The fuel tanks are not equipped with self-sealing membranes to plug bullet or shrapnel holes.
Also the F-35 is a single engine which gives it little margin for error. The very thirsty thrust-producing of the F-35 will be extremely hot. The back end of the F-35 in full afterburner is something like 1600 degrees (Fahrenheit). In terms of temperature, aluminum combusts at 1100. You are talking about something really, really hot. If you have got a dirty big sensor on the front of your Su-35S or your PAK-FA or whatever, it lights up like Christmas lights and there is nothing you can do about it. And the plume, because of the symmetric exhaust, is all over the place. It is not shielded; it is not ducted in any useful way. The F-35 will be like a “blow torch” if detected and hit by high explosive rounds.
To ArmyAbrams Tanker,
Yes the F-35 was made to have a small radar cross-section from the front only, but much less on other angles unlike the F-22 which was designed to reflect radar even on the sides/rear.
Some hostile nations could well be purchasing the Nebo M Mobile “Counter Stealth” Radar, advanced S-400 and S-500 SAM systems which will make the F-35 obsolete.
The VHF band element in that radar will detect the F-35 at a distance of tens of miles. That is without a doubt. What that means is that the aircraft is going to be in great difficulty if it tries to deal with what I call a modern or contemporary threat. The same is also true when you deal with these newer stealth fighters, because they are designed to compete with the F-22. They fly higher; they are faster and more agile—much, much more agile. They have more powerful radars and much, much better antenna packages for other sensors. The F-35 is not meeting its specifications and its specifications are inadequate to deal with the changed environment.
If the F-35 was to be able to meet its specifications, the aircraft will have the ability of going up against a 1980s Soviet air defence system of the type that we saw destroyed very effectively in Libya last year, the F-35 would be reasonably be effective in that environment, because these older Soviet radars would not see it.
But if you are putting F-35 up against the newer generation of much, much more powerful Russian radars and some of the newer Chinese radars, the aircraft is quite detectable, especially from behind, the upper side and from the lower sides as well.
Also F-35 will also be detected by the L-Band AESAs which is equipped on the Su-35S and PAK-FA. It is used for targetting which they’ll be able to track LO/VLO stealth planes such as the F-35 again from behind, the upper side and from the lower sides too just like the Nebo-M.
This is why the F-35 has "partial stealth".
To ArmyAbrams Tanker,
What you hear those statements from Lockheed for e.g. that the F-35s cross section is the size of a metal tenis ball compared to the X-35 prototype golfball size, and F-22s metal marble is only in the minds of marketeers and certainly not believable.
How old are those estimates? These estimates are released because buyers need to have some information on the aircraft.
You don't have to rely on a "stealthy" design (i. e. shape, intenal weapons, coating...) to get a stealth airplane. If you are able to master ECM technologies you get an "active" stealth aircraft.
The French were working on active cancellation (AC) technologies for years and it looks like the were finally succesful. Last years "Mace XIII" exercise hold in Slovakia against a S-300PMU1 system had a clear winner: The Rafale B with the Spectra ECM system. The Rafale was the only one who made it against the S-300, using active cancellation and emitting "bogey targets".
Part of the "attacking force" were also French Air Force Mirage 2000Ds, Royal Danish Air Force F-16AMs, a NATO E-3A and a French Air Force E-3F, Royal Norwegian Air Force Falcon 20, Slovakian Air Force MiG-29AS/UBS and L-39ZAM. The Turkish Air Force participated with its F-4E-2020s Phantom II with israelian Elta EL/L-8222 ECM Pods. There was also a private owned German Learjet 35A with 2 Cassidian ECM pods. The "attacking force" (except the Rafale B) achieved a partial suppression of the S-300, but well-trained SAM crews were able to overcome this and keep the system combat ready. I. e. in a real fight the attacking force had to take serious losses.
Caveat: The Slovakian S-300 was ordered 1999, delivered 2001. So it is a decade+ old.
...
Pure speculation: Maybe LM "secret selling point" is AC?
But if this is the case there is still no proof A) that the US get this in working order (just watch the current age old US ECM equipment) and B) that this will be succesful integrated into the JSF with its hardware/software/aparture size/cooling prooblems.
In contrast the Rafale is known for its well-integrated avionics suite, noted at many fighter/sale competitions.
BTW, the two-word verification is a pain in the ass. Had at least to type any note 2 times to get it right. Sometimes even sometime more... :-(
Post a Comment