Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
fly_tornado

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

Recommended Posts

On 30/06/2015 at 8:34 PM, fly_tornado said:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875

 

New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle

 

by DAVID AXE

 

A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.

 

“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.”

 

 

I have not read the many responses to this post but do need to say this. Nobody wants to dogfight anymore. They all want to fire off their missiles and get the hell out of danger. Be it ASRAAM, AMRAAM or AIM9 - launch it and bugger off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@derekliston @Marty_d Your recent posts have some valid points which I don't wish to diminish. Below is a counterpoint for some consideration

 

Everyone who has contributed to this thread (a dreadful thread in my opinion, but here I am) is aware that the history of the F-111 was plagued with public complaints and epithets like "lemon" "Expensive capability we will never use" "vanity purchase" and many others that were worse. I don't care that the F-111 could fly from Darwin close to dark on Friday night at pretty much sea level, bomb Jakarta into a nuclear wasteland and be back in time for breakfast.

 

Its on the public record that the Indonesians did care and they were scared.

 

The same people who were saying bad things about the F-111 were the loudest when the decision to scrap the platform in favour of the F/A-18 was handed down. This can't be a coincidence. The people who wont he argument were using Energy-Maneuverability theory to support their argument.

 

The F-111 was a capability for a war, theatre and battle that no longer existed. By 2001 conflict had moved from conventional kinetic attacks where force over match was a very real consideration to very asymmetric (think "guerilla") warfare where the battle tactics focussed on drawing the enemy to expend vast resources on engaging with you while not doing the same. Some of these examples include having small highly mobile SAM sites and more sophisticated autonomous platoons equipped with RBS-70  or similar and then finding a way to sustain these forces in the field whilst remaining geographically dispersed so they couldn't all be taken out by a small number of anti-radiation missiles

 

The F-111 was never going to be a match for this sort of early network centric warfare, let alone what we have now ... 20 years later.

 

Just a few advances worth mentioning in that period of time which will contribute to the conversation and explain why product X was chosen over product Y:

 

1. IFF Mode 5 is a pain to integrate but someone thought it was a good idea to have it on pretty much everything including the MANPADS, tanks and anything else that can get shot at or bombed, or do the shooting or bombing. That cost a lot but product X came with all that stuff wired in and it was the only one, a saving of about $10M per example when measured over the entire NATO Defence forces. This feature pretty much ends the possibility of friendly fire. The $10M is my opinion, not a public number. Even if its $1M per example, that is a lot of jet fuel for training

 

2. Link 16 and later variants of battle field communications. The F-22 doesn't have this feature still, as far as public information goes. A saving of about $6M per example in my opinion. I believe the F-22 can only communicate using encrypted data via a relay between it and an AWACS, then back to the "non F-22" next to it

 

3. Sensor fusion. Product X has it baked in (space, wiring, generators, antennae) because it was designed for network  centric warfare. Product Y predates the concept

 

4. JHMCS. Works with sensor fusion so its a job lot. Other platforms have helmet sighting but can't display the sensor fusion available through network centric warfare

 

5. 360 x 360 degree Missile Launch detection system and auto chaff/flare dispensers

 

6. High fidelity networked flight simulation that was designed at the same time as the aircraft then updated as faster hardware and networks became available. This allows for NATO squadrons to play out likely scenarios and turn issues (terrain, force over match including millions of fly tomato's mythical carrier borne cheap Chinese drones in the South Pacific, GPS denial etc) to their advantage

 

.... and finally

 

I've said it before but it took 20 years for people to figure out how best to use the F-111. Australia got its F-111s in 1973 so do the math on that. The F-35 first flight was 2006 and Australia got its first look at their own F-35 at Avalon 2019. Australia was never not going to get a fifth generation fighter, it was just a matter of which one. Even if the F-35 turns out to be a total bucket of garbage .... even then ... not buying and learning to use then sustain a fifth generation fighter will put Australia behind the rest of the world by decades in terms of friends and adversaries and in terms of tools, technology and tactics.

 

The new war is already here, choosing not to participate isn't an option

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Every "new" war is a vastly different war from the previous one - and each "new" war is a massive learning and development curve, to counter the "new" systems the enemy has devised.

In the next war, F-35's won't even get off the ground. Drones will be the way the war is carried out, armoured war robots will be everywhere, and more war action will be carried out at computers based in hardened bunkers, than ever will be carried out by ordinary soldiers on the ground, or in the air, by manned aircraft.

The greatest threat to participants in the next war, is who will have the technology to unleash massive EMF bursts to destroy electric power facilities, and who will have the ability to destroy GPS satellites in space, thus "blinding" the enemy.

Edited by onetrack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aircraft it can't match anything in the Sukhoi SU27 to 35 family. Indonesia has SU35s more than a match for the FA18s. The new SU57  is likely to be everything the F35 should have been and more with real capability. Clutching on to the coat tails of Trumps mob only benefits them. In the event of a major issue if there is no benefit for the US it won't bother. The real issue is "are the latest generation of fighter/attack aircraft relevant in todays world of long range super accurate missiles, drones etc."

 

As for the billions being spent on obsolete submarines that don't seem to have a real purpose, what logic is there to that decision other than to suck up to the frogs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

new SU57  is likely to be everything the F35 should have been and more with real capability

... which is only one part of the equation. The other two parts are to be able to fight the platform and sustain it. This is one reason the Russians don't have combat deployed aircraft carriers. At least one got sold/given to the Chinese. Aircraft carriers are quite hard to fight well and the Russians just gave up on it

 

Quote

The real issue is "are the latest generation of fighter/attack aircraft relevant in todays world of long range super accurate missiles, drones etc."

...which aren't combat deployed because they can already be confused, disarmed and decoyed, aren't that reliable in combat and are only super accurate in comparison to the missiles they replaced. Both sides already know that. Once those issues are dealt with, these missiles and/or drones will need to be tested and those tests can't be hidden. Putins nuclear powered hypersonic missile made it 22 miles before a crash in 2018 and nothing has happened since. NOTHING! Stability control issues during hypersonic flight haven't been solved (nor will they ever IMO, the suckers generate a glowing plasma cloud at the pointy end FFS plus they have a nasty habit of melting in flight). Something else to consider, the Middle East Theatre isn't the Pacific and doesn't pose those threats.

 

39 minutes ago, onetrack said:

EMF bursts to destroy electric power facilities, and who will have the ability to destroy GPS satellites in space, thus "blinding" the enemy.

We've had nukes for 70 years now. EMP hardened combat systems have existed for a while.

 

So lets say we have a nuclear powered hypersonic space deployed laser toting Artificial Intelligence Stealth Drone waiting ... just waiting for the command to ... do what?

 

While governments figure out what to do with the new trinket on their noisy sabre, the platforms that are combat ready today are what will be used. The UK Navy was scared witless of the Exocet missile. It was the one thing they could not counter during the Falklands war. They deployed anyway and ran what they had. Some things don't change. One thing that doesn't change is estimating and accepting combat losses during conflict

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

As for the billions being spent on obsolete submarines that don't seem to have a real purpose

...other than to keep an eye on others warships others submarines, people smugglers, drug runners, pirates, belligerents messing with undersea cables, polluters, whales and those hunting the whales, illegal fishers, enviro-terrorists and the odd oil rig. No I agree its a waste of time and money. Not to mention keeping the other submarines away from our ships and ports

Edited by mnewbery
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As submariners say:

there are only two types of vessel- submarines and targets.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of submarines, to have a credible force available, we need lots of them because they seem to spend most of their time in port. Another problem is crew availability. We hear that the navy can't get enough people to crew their existing small fleet, so doubling the fleet will require lots of new crew...and lots more money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

submarines are one of the very few secret forces still in operation.
no one really knows where they are and what they do.

The most highly decorated boats aren't even public knowledge till they are retired.

if you want a good example of this, google submarine collisions. amazing how many have occurred between foreign submarines in peace time.

Collins class is still quieter then any of the American subs - downfall of nuclear is they are always pumping water to cool the reactors.

which is why the American's were so happy to design the propellers for it. they want the shared intelligence it can gather

Edited by spenaroo
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 20/07/2019 at 12:10 PM, mnewbery said:

... which is only one part of the equation. The other two parts are to be able to fight the platform and sustain it. This is one reason the Russians don't have combat deployed aircraft carriers. At least one got sold/given to the Chinese. Aircraft carriers are quite hard to fight well and the Russians just gave up on it


 

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

 

The Varyag is a story all on it's own. The Russians didn't sell it because it was in the too hard basket. They couldn't sell it because it didn't belong to them. The Admiral Kuznetsov (the current oil burning Russian rust bucket) was commissioned before the Soviet Union broke up, but the Varyag was still under construction in Ukraine when the Union went belly up and they ran out of money to complete it. It became the property of Ukraine after the dissolution and they didn't have the money to even maintain the part built ship so after about ten years they sold it.

 

I think it was a Dutch tug with a Philippine crew that had the contract to tow it to China. Turkey wouldn't allow it through the Bosphoros for safety reasons, it couldn't go back up the river in Ukraine, and there was nowhere to moor it in Sevastopol. So the tug towed it around and around the Black Sea for six months until the Turks finally let them through. The tow line broke off Greece and it nearly ran aground on an island before they got hold of it again. Then when they got to the Suez Canal, the authorities wouldn't let them through because it was not under it's own power. It had to be towed via Gibraltar and around the Atlantic to China in the end. The Chinese didn't do their homework very well.

Edited by willedoo
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...