F-35 in new dogfight over Chinese, Russian stealth fighter advances

[Jimbuna]

I found the comparisons interesting and a little worrying.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/in...-1227181998650

[Schroeder]

So far the F35 seems to be one big fail.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

So far the F35 seems to be one big fail.

Yup.

[Otto Harkaman]

Youtube

Pierre Sprey is an aircraft designer, defense analyst, and record producer. Working with John Boyd and Thomas P. Christie, analyst Tom Christie and test pilot Col. Everest Riccioni as well as aeronautical engineer Harry Hillaker, they formed the core of the self-dubbed "Fighter Mafia", advocating the use of Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory in fighter design.

His approach was to build an "honest plane"—one focused on the end product. "The whole essence of this is to judge everything by outcomes."

This group worked behind the scenes in the late 1960s to pursue a lightweight fighter as an alternative to the F-15. The group strongly believed that an ideal fighter should not include any of the sophisticated radar and missile systems or rudimentary ground-attack capability that found their way into the F-15. Their goal, based on E-M theory, was a small, low-drag, low-weight, pure fighter with no bomb racks. This led to the highly successful F-16 that Sprey greatly influenced. He also wrote the initial requirements for the A-X program that became the A-10 and optimized its safety features. The "Warthog" appears ungainly, but is "enormously difficult to shoot down", and "devastating against tanks and other armored vehicles."

He is a critic of the F-35. He asserts that despite its 200 million dollar price tag per plane, it is less agile than the F-16, and flies at altitudes and speeds too high and fast to replace the A-10. Compared to the F-16 or A-10 (in both of whose operational roles it operates) he characterized the F-35 as overweight and dangerous, stating “It’s as if Detroit suddenly put out a car with lighter fluid in the radiator and gasoline in the hydraulic brake lines: That’s how unsafe this plane is…" and "full of bugs". He asserts the plane is too heavy (nearly 30,000 pounds heavier than a fully loaded F-16). Most of all, the plane's wings are too small to give the fighter maneuverability in combat.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman

Youtube

Sprey is a hack, people like him because he does not like the F35, but he thought the F15 was a lemon also.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pie...and-1592445665

[Mr Quatro]

It's not going to get any better for the US Navy or Airforce or Army with prices going up and budgets going down.

They will have to live with what they have till these contracts are finished and then they will be able to borrow no more.

Times are changing ...

as for the F-35 I think the Marine carrier based version will be among the best fighter planes of the future.

I hope we don't have to start a war to prove it

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Sprey is a hack, people like him because he does not like the F35, but he thought the F15 was a lemon also.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pie...and-1592445665

The issue here I think it not a capability of an aircraft, but it's cost/effect ratio, something that I have explained above.

The pre 1991 BVR capability and the costs of having it on an aircraft vs the day only F16 is another can of worms entirely. As is multi-role vs specialised plane.

[Skybird]

This thing always wanted to be too much, and thus invited too much compromise. The Airbus 340 transport is plagued by immense problems for exactly the same reasons: promising to be too much, inviting too many special wishes - and now the whole program again being in serious trouble. There is doubt that Germany will get the second transport this year. The first one has serious deficits.

Needless to say that if so many wishy-washy-don't-know-what-i-want-wishes get cllected for one and the same program, this is a provokation for the nindustry to milk as much coins as possibel. Because idiodts pay for just everything as long as it makes them look good when posing beside it. Especially if said idiots waste money that is not theirs. No money is spend as easily as money that one does not own.

I do not udge the technical sophistication of the Russian and Chinese designs. But their way of deciding on a design is looking superior to our method, more focussed, with less voices throwing in a growing amount of compromising special wishes.

The weapon loadout of the F-35, for a plane that should replace the F-15E and the A-10, is a bad joke.

[em2nought]

F-35 should be open cockpit, that way pilots could at least fire their sidearms at the enemy.

Guess nothing has been learned in the "too big to fail" department, huh?

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

So far the F35 seems to be one big fail.

Don't tell that to our Danish politicians that they are keen on buying this fighter nothing can change their minds

Markus

[ikalugin]

Article is of very mixed quality.
Kopp (from Australian airpower) is known to be biased against the JSF.

Basically - JSF is not bad by itself. It offers good strike performance, is fairly survivable, could complete the air superiority missions, the likes US and US allies were conducting in the recent decades.
All things considered USAF would still be the strongest air force around, if only due to the numerical superiority of the F35A fleet it plans to field.

The only issue with the JSF is that it is -expensive- to buy and probably to operate, even though originally it was envisioned to be -cheaper- than the Super Hornet! Compared to a Su35S jet it is around 7-8 times more expensive, meaning that a Flanker series operator could get a fleet of 4 Su34s and 4 Su35s (Su34 being cheaper) for the price of a single JSF (prices in comparison are based on the 2014 contracts for the JSF batches, with engine costs included, and on the ongoing Su35S/Su34 contracts adjusted for inflation).

Now, even though this (as I have already said) may not be a problem for the USAF/USN/USMC, it will be a problem for any export JSF client, who would have to measure up his air force against that of a potential Flanker series operator. And in my opinion having 4 Su34s and Su35Ss for every JSF is a good position to be in, as it provides you new capabilities due to the air force size when considering the average contract sizes for the export JSF, which I believe tend to be in the real of a few squadrons (ie a Flanker operator could field air wing for the same price, allowing him to be in many places at the same time, ect).