Can't turn, Can't climb, Can't run: F35 problems

[kodiak74]

Not wanting to flog a dead horse, but...

 

"As it stands, the official estimate for a fleet of 65 F-35s is that they will cost $9 billion to buy and almost $37 billion to operate over the next 42 years. So, a total of just under $46 billion. If Boeing's figures hold up, the Super Hornets would cost about half that. " (so around $23 billion).

 

"Saab has offered to sell 65 Gripen NGs to Canada, with 40 years worth of maintenance costs for under $6 billion. $92M per plane for 40 years - compare to F35 $46 billion for the same number of planes - $707 mill per plane around 7 times that of the Gripen."

 

So there are cheaper options out there, that are operational today, and with the extra cash, we can save up for a fleet of stealth drones (Northrop Grumman RQ-180 - Wikipedia), or buy more airframes and have a low hour fleet with spares. Heck if we go with the Gripen option we could have one for every day of the week !!

 

I'm not sure I want our government to waste the taxpayers money on an aircraft thats looking like having an operational availability worse than the Collins class subs !!

 

Snippets from: BEST FIGHTER FOR CANADA

 

 

[mnewbery]

Canada, your best fighter will be made in ... Brazil.

 

Saab pinning its hopes on moving Gripen to Brazil

 

Saab is prepared to shift as much as 50 percent of future Gripen production to the South American country, where the main competition to provide 36 warplanes is from Boeing Co's F/A- 18, Bob Kemp, marketing chief for the $50 million plane, said. Final assembly work has already been offered to Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica SA, or Embraer, he said.

[Old Koreelah]

Check the publication dates.

 

 

[mnewbery]

Good. Well spotted. Question everything

 

 

[Nightmare]

The days of the dog fight are over, so to argue the F35 is useless because it will lose a dog fight doesn't mean too much. It's all about designing an aircraft with a low radar profile and good electronic countermeasures and weapons systems so you can shoot down the enemy long before they are in visual range.

That's what the US said just before Vietnam. They said the machine gun and canon in aerial warfare are things of the past. They learned real quick that having missiles and no guns puts them at a major disadvantage. Electronic counter measure systems will limit the use of missiles and radar, so there will always be a place for dog fighting using machine guns or canons and maneuverable fast aircraft. The designers and marketers of the F35 must be blissfully unaware or ignorant of the lessons by by the US pilots early in that war

 

 

[mnewbery]

SU-25 cannon: Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 with 250 rounds of 30x165mm (8-ish seconds of continuous fire)

 

SU-30 cannon: Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 with 150 rounds of 30x165mm (6-ish seconds of continuous fire)

 

SU-35 cannon: Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 with 150 rounds of 30x165mm (6-ish seconds of continuous fire)

 

F-35 cannon: General Dynamics GAU-22/A (Internal for A model, B and C model are external) with 180 rounds of 25x137mm (6-ish seconds of continuous fire)

 

F-4 cannon: General Electric M61A1 with 640 rounds of 20x102mm (6-ish seconds of continuous fire)

 

I dunno, did I miss something? Seems that the Su-35 with its one barrel gun and the F-35 with its 4-barrel gun aren't meant to be seriously shooting at anything in the air, but the F-4 was and Su-25 is. Is it ok that we all agree the F-35 has a cannon and its much the same as the one in the Su-35?

 

 

[Marty_d]

SU-25 cannon: Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 with 250 rounds of 30x165mm (8-ish seconds of continuous fire)SU-30 cannon: Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 with 150 rounds of 30x165mm (6-ish seconds of continuous fire)

SU-35 cannon: Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1 with 150 rounds of 30x165mm (6-ish seconds of continuous fire)

 

F-35 cannon: General Dynamics GAU-22/A (Internal for A model, B and C model are external) with 180 rounds of 25x137mm (6-ish seconds of continuous fire)

 

F-4 cannon: General Electric M61A1 with 640 rounds of 20x102mm (6-ish seconds of continuous fire)

 

I dunno, did I miss something? Seems that the Su-35 with its one barrel gun and the F-35 with its 4-barrel gun aren't meant to be seriously shooting at anything in the air, but the F-4 was and Su-25 is. Is it ok that we all agree the F-35 has a cannon and its much the same as the one in the Su-35?

It's not the fact that it has a gun, it's that it's dogfighting capabilities are reportedly insufficient to get that gun onto a target.

 

 

[mnewbery]

Which target?

 

 

[Marty_d]

Which target?

You tell me which air force we'll be going to war with next, and I'll tell you.

 

 

[M61A1]

It's not the fact that it has a gun, it's that it's dogfighting capabilities are reportedly insufficient to get that gun onto a target.

To add some fuel....

 

A cut and paste from an article written by Norwegian F-16 driver converting to F-35 ( “Here’s what I’ve learned so far dogfighting in the F-35”: a JSF pilot’s first-hand account)

 

The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Again don't discount self interest again, it's incredible a small country like Denmark can justify such a big spend on defense, there would be a lot of political pressure not to start the F35 program.

 

 

[mnewbery]

In my post May 7 2016 here

 

Current JSF test pilot Alan Norman is on the record noting that this year the controllability of all variants of the F-35 at 40 degrees angle of attack was validated.

During the same discussion he noted he expected that the validation up to 50 degrees AOA, while it would take some time, they would get there eventually it was just a matter of safely increasing the limitations in the software until a physical controllability limit was reached (and in my opinion not breaking the plane or killing someone). Also when that limit is finally reached I expect it will be classified.

 

My opinion is that stuff written about any military development which is still underway will rapidly become out-of-date and therefore quotably incorrect. Quote all the stuff you want, quote away I say!.

 

Anyone want to guess what the max AOA of the Su-27 (allegedly the world's most manoeuvrable fighter) actually is? Hint: its not 40 degrees.

 

Marty_d, how about you?

 

 

[kodiak74]

To add some fuel....A cut and paste from an article written by Norwegian F-16 driver converting to F-35 ( “Here’s what I’ve learned so far dogfighting in the F-35”: a JSF pilot’s first-hand account)

 

The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.

Hard to evaluate this one - everything I have read about aerial combat points towards maintaining a higher airspeed as the key factor to a successful engagement - over to the fighter jocks to argue the point. If we are just comparing the radar and weapon systems, then the airframes become less relevant, if however it was a guns only engagement then it would be more interesting.

 

The F16 has a high thrust to weight ratio (1.095 vs 0.87) and lower wing loading ( 88.3 lb/ft² vs 107.7 lb/ft² ) than the F35, and has a MTOW significantly lower (42,300 lb vs 70,000 lb) - all of which would suggest it to be the more agile of the two when it comes to a dog fighting scenario.

 

Now if we want to get really interesting, the Gripen, with its forward canards can match or better the F35 AOA, and has a thrust to weight ratio of 0.97, wing loading of 58 lb/ft² and a MTOW of 31,000 lb ....

 

 

[Marty_d]

Anyone want to guess what the max AOA of the Su-27 (allegedly the world's most manoeuvrable fighter) actually is? Hint: its not 40 degrees.

Marty_d, how about you?

Why are you picking a plane that showed its manoeuverability 20 years ago?

 

Read this about the SU-35... especially the line "followed by extremely slow flight at a near-90 degrees angle of attack".

 

http://aviationweek.com/awin/sukhoi-test-pilot-explains-supermaneuverability

 

 

[fly_tornado]

the USAF are starting to sound less committed

 

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-air-force-chief-backs-idea-low-cost-fighter-fleet?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20170119_AW-05_813&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_3&utm_rid=CPEN1000001417826&utm_campaign=8285&utm_medium=email&elq2=e45ff8e57cca49ef910e647ced70f10a

 

 

[mnewbery]

Dear Eastern Bloc Fanbois. You know who you are,

 

The Su-35 and the F-35 are both capable of Vectored-In-Forward-Flight (VIFF) thrust and both are capable of controlled slow speed flight beyond 90 degrees AOA. This is already well documented.

 

This can only happen when the flight envelope protection is turned off and it is only turned off for flight tests and slow speed display flight. Flight envelope protection exists to stop the plane from coming apart during combat manoeuvers.

 

Again, what is the max AOA of the Su-27 or would you like to answer a question with a question like the other fanboi. Extra points for replying first

 

 

[Marty_d]

Dear Eastern Bloc Fanbois. You know who you are,The Su-35 and the F-35 are both capable of Vectored-In-Forward-Flight (VIFF) thrust and both are capable of controlled slow speed flight beyond 90 degrees AOA. This is already well documented.

 

This can only happen when the flight envelope protection is turned off and it is only turned off for flight tests and slow speed display flight. Flight envelope protection exists to stop the plane from coming apart during combat manoeuvers.

 

Again, what is the max AOA of the Su-27 or would you like to answer a question with a question like the other fanboi. Extra points for replying first

Critical AOA for the Su27 is 33 degrees. There you go, answered. Now tell me why you're comparing a brand new F-35 with something that first flew 36 years ago?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Angle of attack pretty big on this video.

 

 

 

[mnewbery]

You mean this Su-33 Flanker D (the carrier variant with extra stabilators for SLOW SPEED CONTROL ON LANDING)?

 

Video Clip – Su-33 missed landing on carrier

 

Still not high AOA in combat and still not an Su-27.

 

Its pretty clear the fanbois don't know about their fave planes

 

 

[mnewbery]

The Su-27 is what the Su-35S is based on. Admittedly its possible the internal structure could have been strengthened to allow for better combat manoeuvres but that would make it heavier (slower, not as much fuel etc). So the public information is that the Su-27 is limited to 33 degrees AOA in combat. This means that at best, the Su-35 was put into combat in January 2016 with no NEW validated combat AOA beyond 33 degrees. The Russian air force has not faced an adversary where this became an issue. At worst the Su-35 development program is going through the same validation steps as everyone else including the Chinese and they don't need to tell anyone what the final numbers are when they are finished. But I strongly believe the Su-35 combat AOA validation is not finished and that since the Su-35 will not be carrier borne (therefore stronger), it will be less than the F-35 as a trade-off for carrying more payload.

 

I find it interesting that when the Russian government offered the Chinese an opportunity to licence build the Su-35, the Chinese turned their noses up at it, only showing mild interest in the NPO Saturn 117 engine but the Russian government said "Its a job lot. Build the plane under licence or get nothing". There are some other politics around that deal which complicate things further but not relevant to the F-35.

 

Side note for the Gripen fangurls: The Gripen C stalled when encountering wake turbulence that resulted in greater than 20 degrees AOA. For a period of time after the initial stall the test pilots needed to perform some alternate law (that is, overriding the computer controlled canard) commands in order to regain control. It took a couple of geniuses a few months to determine why the computers got so confused and what to do about it. This software change has been implemented in all versions from the -C onwards. This is why skipping AOA validation for combat is not really an option.

 

 

[willedoo]

The Su-27 is what the Su-35S is based on. Admittedly its possible the internal structure could have been strengthened to allow for better combat manoeuvres but that would make it heavier (slower, not as much fuel etc). So the public information is that the Su-27 is limited to 33 degrees AOA in combat. This means that at best, the Su-35 was put into combat in January 2016 with no NEW validated combat AOA beyond 33 degrees. The Russian air force has not faced an adversary where this became an issue. At worst the Su-35 development program is going through the same validation steps as everyone else including the Chinese and they don't need to tell anyone what the final numbers are when they are finished. But I strongly believe the Su-35 combat AOA validation is not finished and that since the Su-35 will not be carrier borne (therefore stronger), it will be less than the F-35 as a trade-off for carrying more payload.I find it interesting that when the Russian government offered the Chinese an opportunity to licence build the Su-35, the Chinese turned their noses up at it, only showing mild interest in the NPO Saturn 117 engine but the Russian government said "Its a job lot. Build the plane under licence or get nothing". There are some other politics around that deal which complicate things further but not relevant to the F-35.

 

Side note for the Gripen fangurls: The Gripen C stalled when encountering wake turbulence that resulted in greater than 20 degrees AOA. For a period of time after the initial stall the test pilots needed to perform some alternate law (that is, overriding the computer controlled canard) commands in order to regain control. It took a couple of geniuses a few months to determine why the computers got so confused and what to do about it. This software change has been implemented in all versions from the -C onwards. This is why skipping AOA validation for combat is not really an option.

Newbs, a lot of what you say makes makes sense.

 

Just a tip: if you really want to press home one side of a debate, do away with derogatory , sterotyped terms like Fanbois and Fangurls. It certainly does not add to the debate and makes you look a bit childish. If you can't debate a subject without resorting to namecalling, you might be better off going back to the drawing board and having a serious think about things.

 

Sorry mate, I don't mean to get personal but when people use name calling in a debate, it's a form of bullying in anyone's language. I often don't agree with other peoples opinions, but FT & Co. deserve equal respect to all other forum members, no matter what their opinions. Call them by their name, not some latest buzzword. I guess you wouldn't be worried if people called you an F-35 fanboi, but no-one else has lowered themselves to that level of debate.

 

I can only suggest you debate on facts and issues only. You won't win an argument or any respect by using terms for those with an opposite opinion that might be offensive to them.

 

Nothing personal, but I can't just bite my bottom lip when I see this sort of thing going on.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[mnewbery]

Thanks for the comments in post 208. I welcome the criticism as valid and timely

 

 

[M61A1]

FT & Co. deserve equal respect to all other forum members.

Cut and paste from admin announcments...

 

fly_tornado is the highest ignored user by all users on the site, 4 times more than the 2nd highest.

 

 

[willedoo]

Thanks for the comments in post 208. I welcome the criticism as valid and timely

Thanks Newbs, I only hope I can be as polite and understanding as that if someone pings me on a similar thing.

 

I think part of the problem with writing posts on forums is that the words are the only things the readers see. None of us are professional writers and sometimes posts can appear to have a different tone to what was meant by the poster. There's also a generational difference where normal banter from one age group might not seem a good fit for others.

 

I'm sure if we were all sitting around in person having a discussion, we would have a better understanding of where the speaker's coming from. Facial expressions, manner etc. all give away whether the speaker is joking, getting too serious or just having a subtle dig. In the meantime, we just have to do what we can do here.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[willedoo]

Cut and paste from admin announcments...fly_tornado is the highest ignored user by all users on the site, 4 times more than the 2nd highest.

You'd miss out on half the fun if you ignored FT.