F-35 status (in BMS) request
-
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:
-
-
-
-
-
…Marines are not “fighter pilots”…they are Attack pilots. And if you ever address one incorrectly they will VERY quickly correct you.
-