F-35 status (in BMS) request
-
-
-
Thanks a lot for sharing, querido hermano Toro.
Please don’t hate me for this, but I don’t like that thing, as good as it could be in doing its job (and we’re still to have it demonstrated, let it be clear ).
Without any offense to anyone, and best regards to all.
-
To me, the F-35 is like the F-111. Tries to do everything, and therefore starts out doing everything terribly. But, with enough time and exorbitant capital investments, you eventually end up with a good weapons system.
…With both of those aircraft, you could have certainly made simpler aircraft at lower costs that would have done the same missions. But people are addicted to their own versions of reality, so there you go…
-
To me, the F-35 is like the F-111. Tries to do everything, and therefore starts out doing everything terribly. But, with enough time and exorbitant capital investments, you eventually end up with a good weapons system.
…With both of those aircraft, you could have certainly made simpler aircraft at lower costs that would have done the same missions. But people are addicted to their own versions of reality, so there you go…
Agree on yours above, Thaeris. On 199 per cent.
According to that little I can saw and talked with some RL pilots of any specialization in years, I have learned that having an “all-purposes” aircraft is not only impossible, but simply useless.
That because having a specialized one is unavoidable, due to the fact that the manifacturers, and their engineering and technical staff behind them, can’t compromise their choices more than a certain point, once reached it anyone will have to decide if that plane will be apted to fly, i.e., naval or ground and air-to-air or air to ground missions, satisfying those respective tasks accordingly in full and with tolerances no more than this.
The reasons of state budgetary economics have nothing to do here, to me… indeed, in my opinion, that choice would turn out to be a resounding failure, in conclusion. And here the examples are not lacking, I’m just afraid.
Just my own cent, nothing more.
With best regards to all.
-
To me, the F-35 is like the F-111. Tries to do everything, and therefore starts out doing everything terribly. But, with enough time and exorbitant capital investments, you eventually end up with a good weapons system.
…With both of those aircraft, you could have certainly made simpler aircraft at lower costs that would have done the same missions. But people are addicted to their own versions of reality, so there you go…
I do not get how can be posted such funny comments.
The F-35A was designed from 0 as a multirole fighter with main role as strike. Why nobody ever labelled the F-16 with “ries to do everything, and therefore starts out doing everything terribly”…? Because the F-16 was designed to LWF mainly as a fighter with secondary AG capability. Regardless of original design the Viper spent most of her career with strike duties with pods and heavy payload. This resulted the weight gain and more and more stronger engine to compensate the drag and weight of stores. (And cracks in the airframe.) Even of her chief designer Harry J. Hillaker stated he would had designed differently the Viper if he knew how is used in conflicts the light jet.
F-35A got integrated from all of the EQ with much less drag what F-16 carries externally and also benefits in stealth the 0 extra drag by stores. In demo config F-35A has the same absolute performance as F-16C which means the relative weight and drag increase is meaningless comparing to F-16C which always carry 2x370 gal drop tanks and at least two pods, ECM + TGP but HTS is also possible. Even this config is unarmed but barely can fly supersonic the Viper…
Your funny statement simply deny the laws of physics and 30+ year of technological advancement since F-16 and 60+ year the design of the F-111.
Yes, if the commonality req. would not exist F-35A and C could be even better but this does not mean it it doing everything terribly.
BTW where are the fans of F-14? Why is not fit on the Big Cat the “Tries to do everything, and therefore starts out doing everything terribly.”
Or what about F-15E family…?I simply cannot understand such comments about F-35A which simply deny ANY logic of fact…
-
Wow, thread derailment achieved!
…Next, you’re great, Molni, and I truly mean that.
However, we are both students of history. You cannot look back on programs like the afore-mentioned F-111 and F-35 and tell me that they were great, efficient, and without major developmental problems. Both of those aircraft, along with other wonder-do-alls like the F-105, eventually turned out to be good, if not very good, aircraft. It’s not a very smooth or fiscally-responsible road, however. The F-111, upon its debut in Vietnam, was so terrible it had to be removed from the theater. When it was eventually permanently retired from the US and Australia, it left a capability gap that has still not been completely filled. I love the F-111, but it started out as a boondoggle. The F-111B is an uncomfortable reminder of how inefficient the concept of “streamlining” the inventories of various air arms can be. This is not to say that streamlining cannot be done: the F-4 and the A-7 were both fantastic airframes in that mold. The sauce that made them successful in that area was a little bit different from the F-111, however. Note that drastic airframe changes were not required to make them functional for the purposes of the different services (and no, I would not count the addition of the M61 on the F-4E as a drastic change), namely because both of those aircraft started out as naval fighters.
So, concerning the F-35: I have never said that it was a bad aeroplane, and have generally contended that it would ultimately end up as a very good aeroplane (just like the F-111). But, it is a case of history rhyming rather than repeating itself. This time, it seems that a single airframe, which is more like three rather different ones (unlike the F-4 and A-7 examples from earlier), will suit the needs of the various services well. But, did that “streamlining” really yield any results in terms of cost-effectiveness or efficiency? Those were the primary selling points, after all…
Therefore, when I come at this subject from the lens of history, I don’t see any lack of logic. I’d say that the physics tangent sounds to be a bit of a red herring from my perspective. But then, for better or worse, people are addicted to their own versions of reality, so there you go…
-
Wow, thread derailment achieved!
…Next, you’re great, Molni, and I truly mean that.
However, we are both students of history. You cannot look back on programs like the afore-mentioned F-111 and F-35 and tell me that they were great, efficient, and without major developmental problems. Both of those aircraft, along with other wonder-do-alls like the F-105, eventually turned out to be good, if not very good, aircraft. It’s not a very smooth or fiscally-responsible road, however. The F-111, upon its debut in Vietnam, was so terrible it had to be removed from the theater. When it was eventually permanently retired from the US and Australia, it left a capability gap that has still not been completely filled. I love the F-111, but it started out as a boondoggle. The F-111B is an uncomfortable reminder of how inefficient the concept of “streamlining” the inventories of various air arms can be. This is not to say that streamlining cannot be done: the F-4 and the A-7 were both fantastic airframes in that mold. The sauce that made them successful in that area was a little bit different from the F-111, however. Note that drastic airframe changes were not required to make them functional for the purposes of the different services (and no, I would not count the addition of the M61 on the F-4E as a drastic change), namely because both of those aircraft started out as naval fighters.
The F-111 was crippled even from the beginning. Simply was not available such engine which is enough powerful with good consumption to achieve the demanded CAP time at distance. Also was totally funny and not justifiable the M2.4 top speed - because it could be achieved only by internal stores and this leaded to crew capsule which was also unnecessary it existed only because of the idiotic and techno optimist specifications.
The concept of F-14 dropped the most idiotic and unrealistic and UNNECESARY requests* set less top speed and less CAP time which made possible barely make a good fighter. Because of fear of the new engine it got the TF-30 which was such for a dogfigther.
The F-111B could be good BARCAP and strike plane but as a real ASF it was doomed. Even today would not be possible such fuel qty. a good fighter.- Even for the most beloved 4th gen aircraft the demanded top speed had not use, at all. They could reach only with gun or 2xAIM-9…
For F-14.
Lowered the BARCAP time.
Lowered the top speed.
Lowered the ejection speed.This made unnecessary the wide airframe and the traditional front/backseat was possible.
Erased the internal bay. This made lighter the airframe combined with the lack of crew capsule.
The carrier AIM-54 was restricted to 4 because it could bring back to deck only 4. Yes, in theory was capable to 6 but it could be utilized only from land unless you wish to drop to sea 2 before landing in case enemy do not show up…
The carried 4 missiles had to be carried externally. So the less airframe weight was converted into extra drag… But all missiles could be carried fix HP and not rotating pivots on F-111. —> Even more lighter airframe.But in case you used only AIM-7 in ASF the airframe had much better Ps values even just the poor TF-30 and would be much better with the originally planned but later cancelled engine. The F-14 reached its planned flight performance with GE F110.
So if the original specification had been better it could be built in first attempt an F-14 like fighter. You can call it F-4 Phantom II…
So, concerning the F-35: I have never said that it was a bad aeroplane, and have generally contended that it would ultimately end up as a very good aeroplane (just like the F-111). But, it is a case of history rhyming rather than repeating itself. This time, it seems that a single airframe, which is more like three rather different ones (unlike the F-4 and A-7 examples from earlier), will suit the needs of the various services well. But, did that “streamlining” really yield any results in terms of cost-effectiveness or efficiency? Those were the primary selling points, after all…
Sorry, I cannot help you…
You simply deny the reality. F-16 and F-15E, the F-18 and Super Hornet the (I have no idea why) F-14D is loved and admired as a good multirole jets. But a much more advanced jet with 30+ year later technology cannot reach the level of these?WHY?
Sorry, I cannot stand such…
I rather do not use some words because of fear of ban… -
Wow, thread derailment achieved!
However, we are both students of history. You cannot look back on programs like the afore-mentioned F-111 and F-35 and tell me that they were great, efficient, and without major developmental problems. Both of those aircraft, along with other wonder-do-alls like the F-105, eventually turned out to be good, if not very good, aircraft. It’s not a very smooth or fiscally-responsible road, however. The F-111, upon its debut in Vietnam, was so terrible it had to be removed from the theater. When it was eventually permanently retired from the US and Australia, it left a capability gap that has still not been completely filled. I love the F-111, but it started out as a boondoggle. The F-111B is an uncomfortable reminder of how inefficient the concept of “streamlining” the inventories of various air arms can be.
For major developmental problems insert aircraft X when you go back and look at some of these programs especially the pioneering 1950s.
The F-105 was not a joint program and would have been a good aircraft in its intended role - that being a low level nuclear bomber with an internal weapon and minimal A-A capability. The USAF tried to use it in a role that was never intended for over Vietnam with inevitable results and horrendous attrition rate. note the USAF also formally recommended removing the gun, ECM pod, RWR, chaff dispensers and fire suppression fuel tanks in the late 50s for budget reasons!
From a highly critical JSF case study regarding the TFX:
_Most opponents point to the failure of the TFX program as proof that a joint program could never succeed in the future. Much research has been conducted comparing the JSF program to the TFX program of the 1960’s. It appears to be a valid comparison as the very mention of one of these programs creates an almost passionate response from the separate services involved.
The two programs, however, were not conducted in the same manner at all. The TFX program was not jointly conceived. It was the result of the Navy being forced to join an existing program to fill its needs after the Secretary of Defense cancelled its fleet defense aircraft program. 2 The TFX program was also not jointly managed; the USAF had complete control with the Navy only providing liaisons within the TFX office. 3 Finally, the TFX performance requirements were developed in a vacuum completely independent of industry participation. 4 The JSF program was developed to avoid the pitfalls of the TFX program. It was joint from its inception to include rotating service management as well as ample industry participation……with conclusion:
The JSF program is attempting to do what no other joint acquisition program has successfully achieved: provide a viable TACAIR platform to three separate services. As previously stated, the program can be commended for learning from the historical mistakes of the TFX program. The possibility that was so arrogantly ignored by politicians, engineers, and the services alike, is that it could be inherently impossible to provide three separate services, each with distinct missions, a single platform to suit all their needs. All the forethought, planning, and seemingly small concessions in the world may not be enough to overcome the hurdle of joint TACAIR acquisition.
(Bowman, LCDR, USN, 2008 )_
-
For major developmental problems insert aircraft X when you go back and look at some of these programs especially the pioneering 1950s.
The F-105 was not a joint program and would have been a good aircraft in its intended role - that being a low level nuclear bomber with an internal weapon and minimal A-A capability. The USAF tried to use it in a role that was never intended for over Vietnam with inevitable results and horrendous attrition rate. note the USAF also formally recommended removing the gun, ECM pod, RWR, chaff dispensers and fire suppression fuel tanks in the late 50s for budget reasons!
Att. rate of F-105 was almost identical to F-4…
-
Att. rate of F-105 was almost identical to F-4…
On numbers lost perhaps, however the F-105 is infamous for being one of the few if not the only tactical Jet to be taken out of active service based on attrition. 397 F-105s lost out of a production run of only 753 meant in 1969 the F-105D was withdrawn to reserve leaving the F-105F/G Weasels to continue till 1973 and by then the writing was on the wall for those as well with the EF-4C.
-
On numbers lost perhaps, however the F-105 is infamous for being one of the few if not the only tactical Jet to be taken out of active service based on attrition. 397 F-105s lost out of a production run of only 753 meant in 1969 the F-105D was withdrawn to reserve leaving the F-105F/G Weasels to continue till 1973 and by then the writing was on the wall for those as well with the EF-4C.
The attrition is mission attrition rate. Calculate with mission qty. Only problem not every mission meant the same risk. You can find referring the attrition rate in Jeff Ethell’s book about F-15.
-
For major developmental problems insert aircraft X when you go back and look at some of these programs especially the pioneering 1950s.
From a highly critical JSF case study regarding the TFX:
_Most opponents point to the failure of the TFX program as proof that a joint program could never succeed in the future. Much research has been conducted comparing the JSF program to the TFX program of the 1960’s. It appears to be a valid comparison as the very mention of one of these programs creates an almost passionate response from the separate services involved.
The two programs, however, were not conducted in the same manner at all. The TFX program was not jointly conceived. It was the result of the Navy being forced to join an existing program to fill its needs after the Secretary of Defense cancelled its fleet defense aircraft program. 2 The TFX program was also not jointly managed; the USAF had complete control with the Navy only providing liaisons within the TFX office. 3 Finally, the TFX performance requirements were developed in a vacuum completely independent of industry participation. 4 The JSF program was developed to avoid the pitfalls of the TFX program. It was joint from its inception to include rotating service management as well as ample industry participation……with conclusion:
The JSF program is attempting to do what no other joint acquisition program has successfully achieved: provide a viable TACAIR platform to three separate services. As previously stated, the program can be commended for learning from the historical mistakes of the TFX program. The possibility that was so arrogantly ignored by politicians, engineers, and the services alike, is that it could be inherently impossible to provide three separate services, each with distinct missions, a single platform to suit all their needs. All the forethought, planning, and seemingly small concessions in the world may not be enough to overcome the hurdle of joint TACAIR acquisition.
(Bowman, LCDR, USN, 2008 )_
I have to go with Migbuster on this. I have trouble with the “JSF will never work, just look at the 'Vark” view. JSF is an entirely different program, run entirely differently, with a vastly different technological base.
BTW, I don’t feel the F-105 attrition rate was due to design issues. IMHO, the losses were due to the horrendous way the Viet Nam Air War was “fought” by McNamara and company,especially against the IAD they faced. Hopefully, that is a mistake we’ll never make again -
Just thought I’d add my 2 cents into this debate. No desire to change minds, but hopefully some perceptions may be “molded” by this video. Keep in mind that the battlefield of the 21st Century really has been influenced by the “video game” genre we all have been participating in for the past few decades. Thus the culmination of the electronic battlefield & the B-2, F-22 & F-35 (not to mention MQ-1/4/9 & UCAV). Regardless of whether the F-35 is a jack-of-all/master-of-none, it does what it was designed to do: Be stealthy & integrate “well” in the “e-game” battlefield that will be fought from here on out.
Cheers,
JollyPS - OH! and lets not forget that “one design” = commonality of parts, thus fewer supply lines. Essentially a fantasy world the US Military has been chasing since the F-111 days! :flypig::thumb:
-
from what i can gather about raptor tactics from public disclosure mostly Lockheed red flag bragging, the raptor doesn’t shoot BVR, uses decoy radar emissions to get the enemy cold on the nose, than uses a stalking like behavior to get in real close and shoot the gun directly at the canopy. This is how singletons have racked up 16 kill sorties in operational wargames,
-
No F-35 is planed yet.
An F-35 3D model project is on hold since 2016 : https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?22643-WIP-F-35A&p=368059&viewfull=1#post368059
… no updates since then.
Good Day, Dee-Jay. I don’t remember if it was 4.32 or .33, but I have flown the Lightning in BMS. I think it was K’12 theater(if memory serves) . So, when I set up the 4.34 K’12, I was surprised to see the F-22 modeled, but not the F-35.
Is there something in 4.34 that prevented that carrying over? -
Hi!
F-35 was never part of BMS database
(I was a huge fan of Airwolf ;))
-
IIRC, it was in the Nortic theater.
-
Hi!
F-35 was never part of BMS database
(I was a huge fan of Airwolf ;))
Hi, Guys. Dan, you’re right in was in Nordic, and I remember flying it off the Vinson off the east coast of Korea. I also found this:
The point being, the Lightning used to be in BMS, in some form, but of course you’re right, Dee-Jay, that it was never in the “base” BMS.
BTW, yes, Airwolf was a fun show. But, it sicks with me as that it led to a friend “assigning” me that callsign. And as the poet said, the rest is history. -
from what i can gather about raptor tactics from public disclosure mostly Lockheed red flag bragging, the raptor doesn’t shoot BVR, uses decoy radar emissions to get the enemy cold on the nose, than uses a stalking like behavior to get in real close and shoot the gun directly at the canopy. This is how singletons have racked up 16 kill sorties in operational wargames,
Yeah, this technology dates way back to the 1980’s with a little known helicopter called Blue Thunder!
:mrgreen: