The F-35 Lightning II Thread

[Weaver]

I guess this is less of an issue for the USAF with its F-22s, but for the rest of us...

I'm interested in "the rest of us". Australia and Canada have somewhat similar needs; long range due to large land mass and distance between bases, primary role being an interceptor aircraft for domestic purposes, lack of resources for support aircraft such as the F-22, cold weather in the case of Canada, and a desire to fulfill a NATO commitment when required. I've been following this thread and I'm interested in the opinion of Weaver and others regarding the suitability of the F-35 for a nation like Canada or Australia.

I guess I cannot see the realistic need for Canada or Australia to have a penetration fighter, or that you'll be involved in many BVR missile fights.

I think you'd both be a lot better off buying more F15s and F16s for a fraction of the cost, and rely on modern pod multipliers to enhance both ECM and targeting beyond what the F35 will be able to do for at least a decade if not forever - especially since hanging a pod or any other external stores negates the stealth advantage (what there is of it) and radar advances will continue to nibble away at the benefits of a stealthy airframe.

[Griz_]

Out of curiousity, do you guys want it so much that you're willing to pay your share of the development costs? That would at least double the cost per plane.

Right now we (and Australia) are Tier 3 partners in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program. So yes, we've demonstrated that we are willing to to join and share in both the development costs and the spin-off industrial benefits. What is unfortunate is that the F-35 seems like a poor fit and participation in the F-22 program wasn't an option for us.

[Griz_]

I guess this is less of an issue for the USAF with its F-22s, but for the rest of us...

I'm interested in "the rest of us". Australia and Canada have somewhat similar needs; long range due to large land mass and distance between bases, primary role being an interceptor aircraft for domestic purposes, lack of resources for support aircraft such as the F-22, cold weather in the case of Canada, and a desire to fulfill a NATO commitment when required. I've been following this thread and I'm interested in the opinion of Weaver and others regarding the suitability of the F-35 for a nation like Canada or Australia.

I guess I cannot see the realistic need for Canada or Australia to have a penetration fighter, or that you'll be involved in many BVR missile fights.

I think you'd both be a lot better off buying more F15s and F16s for a fraction of the cost, and rely on modern pod multipliers to enhance both ECM and targeting beyond what the F35 will be able to do for at least a decade if not forever - especially since hanging a pod or any other external stores negates the stealth advantage (what there is of it) and radar advances will continue to nibble away at the benefits of a stealthy airframe.

That fits with a lot of the opinions I've been reading. Air superiority in the Arctic and coastal regions is the priority for us domestically. Participation in NATO commitments, while extremely important, is really just finding a role where we can be of some value and make a contribution with what we have. Our contribution in Iraq right now is a good example of that. I hate to call it "symbolic", it's more than that, I hope you understand my meaning. The national interest should be the priority and I'm not sure the F-35 is the best airframe.

[Warren Dew]

I guess this is less of an issue for the USAF with its F-22s, but for the rest of us...

I'm interested in "the rest of us". Australia and Canada have somewhat similar needs; long range due to large land mass and distance between bases, primary role being an interceptor aircraft for domestic purposes, lack of resources for support aircraft such as the F-22, cold weather in the case of Canada, and a desire to fulfill a NATO commitment when required. I've been following this thread and I'm interested in the opinion of Weaver and others regarding the suitability of the F-35 for a nation like Canada or Australia.

For the US Air Force, I think the F-22 and A-10 cover the actual required roles pretty well, and for the US Navy, I'd favor development of a stealth successor to the F/A-18.

For you guys, the F-22 and A-10 don't seem to be available for export, and you don't have the money to develop a new modern aircraft type on your own, so you may be stuck. I guess you could just accept lack of stealth capability and stick with F/A-18s, but that could be a problem against the latest Russian and Chinese aircraft.

[Griz_]

There has been a lot of talk here about just going to the Super Hornet. It sacrifices some stealth but otherwise it seems a better fit for the role. Boeing is promising the moon and the stars. The French Rafael, Swedish Gripen and the Typhoon also come up regularly as rivals and the Canadian government has been talking to all three. It's becoming as much a political football as it is a tactical decision.

[Made of Stars]

IIRC, for Australia the concern is maintaining air superiority versus burgeoning air forces in SE Asia, and China. If that's the goal, then the F-35 doesn't seem as good a choice, as it may, down the track, end up facing dedicated air superiority fighters. I think politics are driving the decisions though, rather than the military assessment.

How real the threat from Asian countries is is another question.

[Griz_]

I think that there are a lot of similarities between Australia and Canada's requirements.

[Rome Existed]

I guess this is less of an issue for the USAF with its F-22s, but for the rest of us...

I'm interested in "the rest of us". Australia and Canada have somewhat similar needs; long range due to large land mass and distance between bases, primary role being an interceptor aircraft for domestic purposes, lack of resources for support aircraft such as the F-22, cold weather in the case of Canada, and a desire to fulfill a NATO commitment when required. I've been following this thread and I'm interested in the opinion of Weaver and others regarding the suitability of the F-35 for a nation like Canada or Australia.

There's been buzz in Australia that we might again request that the US Congress approve the F-22 for foreign sale.

Out of curiousity, do you guys want it so much that you're willing to pay your share of the development costs? That would at least double the cost per plane.

Pretty sure that the F-22 has already been developed.

[Rome Existed]

I guess this is less of an issue for the USAF with its F-22s, but for the rest of us...

I'm interested in "the rest of us". Australia and Canada have somewhat similar needs; long range due to large land mass and distance between bases, primary role being an interceptor aircraft for domestic purposes, lack of resources for support aircraft such as the F-22, cold weather in the case of Canada, and a desire to fulfill a NATO commitment when required. I've been following this thread and I'm interested in the opinion of Weaver and others regarding the suitability of the F-35 for a nation like Canada or Australia.

I guess I cannot see the realistic need for Canada or Australia to have a penetration fighter, or that you'll be involved in many BVR missile fights.

I think you'd both be a lot better off buying more F15s and F16s for a fraction of the cost, and rely on modern pod multipliers to enhance both ECM and targeting beyond what the F35 will be able to do for at least a decade if not forever - especially since hanging a pod or any other external stores negates the stealth advantage (what there is of it) and radar advances will continue to nibble away at the benefits of a stealthy airframe.

We want something good to remain ahead of Indonesia. Indonesia is buying a bunch of Russian fighters.

[Teague]

And the hits just keep on coming:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ce=twitter

When the Pentagon’s nearly $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter finally enters service next year after nearly two decades in development, it won’t be able to support troops on the ground the way older planes can today. Its sensors won’t be able to see the battlefield as well; and what video the F-35 does capture, it won’t be able to transmit to infantrymen in real time.

Versions of the new single-engine stealth fighter are set to replace almost every type of fighter in the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps inventory—including aircraft specifically designed to support ground troops like the A-10 Warthog. That will leave troops in a lurch when the F-35 eventually becomes the only game in town.

“The F-35 will, in my opinion, be 10 years behind legacy fighters when it achieves [initial operational capability],” said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “When the F-35 achieves [initial operational capability], it will not have the weapons or sensor capability, with respect to the CAS [close air support] mission set, that legacy multi-role fighters had by the mid-2000s.”

One of the real problems with drawing up specs for technological equipment is that the technology advances during the development and production cycle, leading equipment to sometimes be near-obsolete by the time it becomes available. The answer to this is massive flexibility - but the over-arching desire to keep the F-35 airframe as stealthy as possible (despite indicators that stealth advantages are a thing of the past in the fighter world) has made flexibility a low-level concern.

The CAS role has been brought up before. Just look up videos on youtube of A10's coming home missing wing and tail pieces then compare that to one 5.56mm round can bring down an F-35 - which will also be a lot more expensive.

A-10
Unit cost
US$11.8 million (average, 1994 dollars)[3]
(wikipedia)

F-35
The Pentagon now plans to spend $391.2 billion on 2,443 aircraft, with each plane costing a staggering $160 million.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-cos ... z3NfNLhcjF

How low will they let this "CAS" aircraft fly? How effective will it be in it's role? What payload can it carry and how long can it loiter? How long of a runway does it need (will they use the vstol version, less payload?).

They really want to push this shit out and it seems there are no thoughts being placed on how effective they can be.

[Teague]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/31/new-u-s-stealth-jet-can-t-fire-its-gun-until-2019.html

The gun fires 3300rpm and they're giving it just 180 rounds. You'll have the thing dry firing before you can release the trigger button.

I'll take your 180 rounds and....

One of the most powerful aircraft cannons ever flown, it fires large depleted uranium armor-piercing shells. In the original design, the pilot could switch between two rates of fire: 2,100 or 4,200 rounds per minute;[59] this was changed to a fixed rate of 3,900 rounds per minute.[60] The cannon takes about half a second to come up to speed, so 50 rounds are fired during the first second, 65 or 70 rounds per second thereafter. The gun is accurate enough to place 80% of its shots within a 40-foot (12.4 m) diameter circle from 4,000 feet (1,220 m) while in flight.[61] The GAU-8 is optimized for a slant range of 4,000 feet (1,220 m) with the A-10 in a 30 degree dive.[62]
Another view of the A-10's GAU-8 installation

The fuselage of the aircraft is built around the cannon. The GAU-8/A is mounted slightly to the port side; the barrel in the firing location is on the starboard side at the 9 o'clock position so it is aligned with the aircraft's centerline. The gun's 5-foot, 11.5-inch (1.816 m) ammunition drum can hold up to 1,350 rounds of 30 mm ammunition,[48] but generally holds 1,174 rounds.[62] To prevent enemy fire from causing the GAU-8/A rounds to fire prematurely, armor plates of differing thicknesses between the aircraft skin and the drum are designed to detonate incoming shells.[48][53] A final armor layer around the drum protects it from fragmentation damage. The gun is loaded by Syn-Tech's linked tube carrier GFU-7/E 30 mm ammunition loading assembly cart.

And yours is only a piddly 25mm cannon too!

[Teague]

I guess this is less of an issue for the USAF with its F-22s, but for the rest of us...

I'm interested in "the rest of us". Australia and Canada have somewhat similar needs; long range due to large land mass and distance between bases, primary role being an interceptor aircraft for domestic purposes, lack of resources for support aircraft such as the F-22, cold weather in the case of Canada, and a desire to fulfill a NATO commitment when required. I've been following this thread and I'm interested in the opinion of Weaver and others regarding the suitability of the F-35 for a nation like Canada or Australia.

Well some people still are rooting for the Super Hornet with the two main reasons being it has 2 engines - quite a big thing when you're flying over Canada to have you're one and only engine fail and then there's the range which I believe the F18 has a lot more of (and a bigger payload if I'm not mistaken...oh and the ability to refuel other F18's and it's more maneuverable and can already take off from carriers and.....)

[Teague]

It is a heavy, under-powered plane with a wide turning radius and limited loadout, and without a gun initially then a couple of weak work-arounds, designed to be a one-plane-fits-all solution for all services but in actual fact meeting no set of requirements particularly well.

It is the F-4 Phantom in a stealth skin.

I'd say it's not even that.

Apart from the stupid decision not to fit a gun to the F-4, that aircraft was handicapped in some circumstances, because it was originally intended to be a fighter-bomber, but was called upon to do a dedicated fighter's job with the extra weight.

It eventually redeemed itself because [1] you could bolt a lot of bits to it, and [2] navy operators in particular learned to play to its strengths.

I remember one of its nicknames. "The triumph of brute force over aerodynamics".

That reminds me of another quote, something like,

"If you put enough force behind it you can make a brick fly" lol

[Warren Dew]

I'm interested in "the rest of us". Australia and Canada have somewhat similar needs; long range due to large land mass and distance between bases, primary role being an interceptor aircraft for domestic purposes, lack of resources for support aircraft such as the F-22, cold weather in the case of Canada, and a desire to fulfill a NATO commitment when required. I've been following this thread and I'm interested in the opinion of Weaver and others regarding the suitability of the F-35 for a nation like Canada or Australia.

There's been buzz in Australia that we might again request that the US Congress approve the F-22 for foreign sale.

Out of curiousity, do you guys want it so much that you're willing to pay your share of the development costs? That would at least double the cost per plane.

Pretty sure that the F-22 has already been developed.

There are still two ways to price it, depending on whether you price in development costs. One is to price it based on the incremental cost of producing a copy of the airplane. The other is to price it based on the program average cost - the total cost of the program divided by the total number of airplanes sold - which is effectively paying for a share of the development cost.

Program average cost for the F-22 is, if I recall correctly, somewhat more than twice as much as the incremental cost. With the deficit being a big issue in Congress, willingness to pay program average cost might make export much more attractive to Congress.

[Pragmaticthinker]

Canada will be smart to stay away from the disaster of the F-35 program.

The original decision to go F-35 by Canada was based on the broken promise by F-35 marketing convincing the Canadian government that the F-35 would be "cheaper to buy and cheaper to fly" then the CF-18. And that the capabilities of the F-35 are so much more advanced then any other option there was no point in a comparison competition. Also there are comments made by the government that they were led to believe that by buying into the "industry partners" program ($300+ million) of the F-35 that Canada was to get a far better lower price on it's F-35s by not having a tender competition. Government has mentioned they understood they would pay more if they bought F-35 after having a competition and best to jump on board fast. All of these are now known to be nothing more then slick marketing games duping inept politicians.

Today we see an F-35 program with over 100 jets completed in 3 variants of which not one can even make the flight to Canada to prove it can fly the required missions for Canada. Certainly not capable operationally. We see an F-35A that along with the F-18E are the poorest range and slowest fighter options for Canada. F-35 still cannot carry external fuel tanks which would give the F-35 the same range as the F-18E of around a barely acceptable 3,000 km. The Saab Gripen E, Dassault Rafale and EADS Typhoon can all better 4,000 km. If the F-35 never carries external non stealth tanks it's range is a totally unacceptable 2,200 km.

The F-35 along with the F-18E are not air superiority/ interceptors, they are glorified strike jets. Never intended to control vast amounts of air space but primarily designed to attack ground targets and in the case of the F-18 bounce on to boats. Both of these jets along with poor range are also slower by hundreds of knots both dash and intercept cruise. The more advanced Gripen E, Rafale and Typhoon can all dash to mach 2 and intercept with a full 6 missile load above mach 1.2 while the F-35 and F-18E cannot do so and remain subsonic cruising jets closer to the speed of a 737 full of tourists.

Arctic operations is where the F-35 really will not do well. With poor range and speeds there also are issues with basing in the north. F-35 will require a bolted on external braking parachute system now being developed by Fokker to be used on RCAF and Norway F-35 for arctic operations. Canada also intends on making expensive 2,000' extensions of arctic runways just to handle the f-35 since no other option requires this. And then special hangars and other support will be required to manage just the F-35. In complete contrast Gripen was designed from the beginning to operate in the arctic with minimal support. An inflatable tent and a road and a couple trained technicians and Gripen can be serviced and operated anywhere. A jet that is 1/2 the cost to buy and will cost 1/4 to fly of F-35. A jet that today has a more advanced and better radar and irst systems a generation ahead of the F-35 in the air to air role that can actually pick up, track and kill "stealth" aircraft since Gripen is already cleared to carry the best air to air missile in the world, the ramjet Meteor. A missile that F-35 cannot carry and may never be able to.

And that is just a sampler of the issues.

[Weaver]

I guess this is less of an issue for the USAF with its F-22s, but for the rest of us...

I'm interested in "the rest of us". Australia and Canada have somewhat similar needs; long range due to large land mass and distance between bases, primary role being an interceptor aircraft for domestic purposes, lack of resources for support aircraft such as the F-22, cold weather in the case of Canada, and a desire to fulfill a NATO commitment when required. I've been following this thread and I'm interested in the opinion of Weaver and others regarding the suitability of the F-35 for a nation like Canada or Australia.

I guess I cannot see the realistic need for Canada or Australia to have a penetration fighter, or that you'll be involved in many BVR missile fights.

I think you'd both be a lot better off buying more F15s and F16s for a fraction of the cost, and rely on modern pod multipliers to enhance both ECM and targeting beyond what the F35 will be able to do for at least a decade if not forever - especially since hanging a pod or any other external stores negates the stealth advantage (what there is of it) and radar advances will continue to nibble away at the benefits of a stealthy airframe.

We want something good to remain ahead of Indonesia. Indonesia is buying a bunch of Russian fighters.

So purchase F/A-18s, F-16s and F-15s, and use the money you save to buy modern pods to counter advanced Russian designs - and, in the end, you'll still have more capable aircraft with many more weapons per aircraft, and still save a shitload of money.

[Griz_]

Nice synopsis Pragmaticthinker, and welcome to the forum!

One of the knocks on the Gripen is that it's a single engine aircraft. There is a lot of support for the Super Hornet for that reason (and others) and the press is making a lot of it. Do you think it's overblown?

[Warren Dew]

F-35 still cannot carry external fuel tanks which would give the F-35 the same range as the F-18E of around a barely acceptable 3,000 km. The Saab Gripen E, Dassault Rafale and EADS Typhoon can all better 4,000 km. If the F-35 never carries external non stealth tanks it's range is a totally unacceptable 2,200 km.

The F-35 along with the F-18E are not air superiority/ interceptors, they are glorified strike jets. Never intended to control vast amounts of air space but primarily designed to attack ground targets and in the case of the F-18 bounce on to boats.

So was the Gripen D also a "glorified strike jet" since its range was less than that of the F-18? Or was it just a failed project, since it didn't have a significant strike payload either?

I agree that the F-35 has to sacrifice its primary advantage of stealth if it is to gain competitive range or, for that matter, strike payload, making all the extra cost highly questionable. However, I think you are overselling the Gripen in your post.

[Warren Dew]

One of the knocks on the Gripen is that it's a single engine aircraft. There is a lot of support for the Super Hornet for that reason (and others) and the press is making a lot of it. Do you think it's overblown?

I like the F-18, but I do think this particular criticism is overblown for the Gripen. One of the key design strategies for the F404 engine, which was developed for the F-18 and later used in the Gripen, was sacrifice of a small amount of performance in return for a large improvement in reliability and a substantial reduction in maintenance requirements. The U.S. Navy considered this to have been highly successful, to the extent that they are now willing to accept single engine designs - including, for example, the F-35 - which they were not willing to do when the F-18 was developed. The F414 engine which powers the latest F-18 and Gripen variants is basically an upgraded F404, and should retain these benefits, even for those of us who are skeptical about the use of a single F135 engine in the F-35.

[mrjonno]

I think people are ignoring one important feature is most nations cannot afford to dedicated to a single role aircraft. If an aircraft can do a multiple roles to a level that is 'good enough' the that is sufficient. Few if any countries can afford the best aircraft that can only do a single role.

Can it deal with cut down versions of Chinese/Russian exports to the 3rd world (likely) or the full versions (unlikely short of WW3) is the question that needs to be asked