F-35 Lightning info

[brabus]

Raptor has had it's day? We all get a chuckle when it checks in with its ridiculous SCL. It remains irrelevant in our current fight, even if shows up episodically, because we have no need for the specialized capabilities it brings.

Yeah I know...it's was tongue in cheek to an extent. It is relatively useless in the current fight, but the same can be said for a lot of current, relevant platforms in tomorrow's fight. So does that mean we scrap every bit of those once the next big war kicks off because "we'll never use those again!" Avoiding the current conflicts is not the answer, but neither is sticking your cranium in the sand regarding the future conflicts.

The F-35 was conceived damn near 20 yrs ago, and a big problem is that the world/military needs and technology changes

OK...and it will never change (at least for hi-tech requirements). Things are too advanced and our process is too fucked to ever go back to the days where we could roll new shit off the line in a matter of months/1-2 years in response to emerging threats. It's not an F-35 problem, it's a "this is the world we live in" problem.

Air Interdiction - hindsight would have been a strike version of F-22s. That said, would you rather send a 4-ship of LO F-35's vs a preplanned tgt...or a truly stealth tail-less RPA (x-47b type) jet to do the same preplanned job?

The F-35 is our LO strike fighter, essentially a "strike version of the F-22." That's it role. Sure you could put some bombs on a C-Model, but there's a reason we have that aircraft and F-16/F-15E. I'll take the F-35s right now (call it 5 years from now). Additionally, many targets are not CAT I pre-planned. More often than not we don't have the luxury of just BOC'ing on CAT-1. That said, there are definitely things worth putting specific UAVs against as the primary asset, but that doesn't mean they work well across the spectrum.

Proponents may argue you could load up external hard points but c'mon...at that point, why not just have a cheaper legacy jet doing the job. And don't give me contested airspace bullshit...the radar threat is not the main one in f on f CAS

Well if we're doing full up Force on Force CAS - we're doing it after several days or weeks of IADs and key COGs destruction. As in, we're cool with 4th gen or 5th gen with hardpoints flying overhead to provide CAS. You're right, a 4th gen can do that job by that point in the war, but we also need to replace our 4th gen for the fact they're falling apart. On that note, the F-35 still brings a lot of good sensor capes to such a fight all of us 4th gen guys cannot. And yes, I know it can't sparkle - got it, but picking one thing out of the many capes it brings is a bit ridiculous. I'm sure it will sparkle in time; I'm not losing sleep over it. No argument on the gun - what a farce. Again, not an A-10 replacement, or a CAS machine by any stretch, but it will be decent enough, which is all we can afford right now (no money for niche aircraft).

A/A...again, should have bought more F-22's. Hope LO pays off but EA is a b-tch and the F-35 was not designed for a visual fight.

Other than internal payload limitations, I wouldn't worry about it's A/A capability. Again, it's complimentary to the F-22, and will also do just fine by itself, internal payload not withstanding. Should we have shit-canned the Viper just because a standard SCL is 3x1 and it's radar is smaller (which is a non-issue with the F-35)...well the C model carries more and has a bigger radar, therefore we should just have C-Models! Dumb.

It surely won't be a BFM machine - and that sucks. But, it's something we have to live with for better or worse. The Strike is a pig in BFM, but that doesn't mean it's not a great aircraft with awesome capes or we should shitcan it/should have bought less. Again, one data point that honestly is very small in the grand scheme of things.

Edited February 26, 2015 by brabus

[ShavedDogsAss]

Raptor has had it's day? We all get a chuckle when it checks in with its ridiculous SCL. It remains irrelevant in our current fight...

I'm not a huge Raptor advocate, but we need to acknowledge 2 things.

1. Any Air-to-ground mission it fulfills is inherently a secondary mission. A2A is still primary.

2. That's OK. Yes, it may not ever meet the aerial hoardes in an epic battle, but it may not ever have to in order to be successful. The simple fact that we can meet any threat skull-on may be deterrent enough to ensure it won't happen.

Would it not be a strategic victory on our part to instill a sense of inevitable defeat, should our enemies challenge us in the air? Hell, our purse beat the Soviets, not our power. The raptor at the very least intimidates our near peer, and provides us a cushion from which to operate our other, more CAS-centric wars.

As msn/cc, I would never base my plan on the raptor A2G capes, but at the same time, their specialized capes can certainly enable a more efficient plan.

[MD]

CAS- anyone who knows CAS knows the F-35 can do some types of CAS with PGMs but cannot really do others (effective strafe/AGM-65)

I'd like someone to tell me what I'm missing.

AGM-65 for CAS? Maybe times have changed. Back in my day the AGM wasn't really considered a CAS weapon in terms of using around friendlies.......what with needing specific size/shaping such as vehicles to lock on to, but moreso, too much chance of break lock post-launch and/or going stupid and heading to who knows where. It's thought that this is what happened to the USMC LAV-25 in Desert Storm during the battle for OP-4 near Khafji where USMC APCs were engaging with Iraqi armor and APCs. IR Mav being fired at an Iraqi tank, instead hit the LAV. Maybe things have changed with them now.

[SurelySerious]

AGM-65 for CAS? Maybe times have changed. Back in my day the AGM wasn't really considered a CAS weapon in terms of using around friendlies.......what with needing specific size/shaping such as vehicles to lock on to, but moreso, too much chance of break lock post-launch and/or going stupid and heading to who knows where. It's thought that this is what happened to the USMC LAV-25 in Desert Storm during the battle for OP-4 near Khafji where USMC APCs were engaging with Iraqi armor and APCs. IR Mav being fired at an Iraqi tank, instead hit the LAV. Maybe things have changed with them now.

The L Mav (laser guided, big improvement on the E) is relatively new. A-10s were considering them for moving targets when strafe was inappropriate last I heard, since they don't carry the G54.

[MD]

The L Mav (laser guided, big improvement on the E) is relatively new. A-10s were considering them for moving targets when strafe was inappropriate last I heard, since they don't carry the G54.

That's pretty cool. I'd wondered if the AF was going to adopt the USN/USMC E/F or equivilent laser Mav's once the Hog got TGPs. Guess that answers the question.....times have changed! Thanks!

Long ways from the days of trying to get an A to lock on at 2 to maybe 3 miles from the target, or maybe gain an extra mile or two with the Scene Mag B. And actually have them stay locked and a steady cross prior to launch.

[di1630]

AGM-65 for CAS? Maybe times have changed. Back in my day the AGM wasn't really considered a CAS weapon in terms of using around friendlies.

An old A-10 pilot once told me that in a real war, he'd jettison his bombs and other only use 30mm and Mavericks.

The L model is terrific, as is the K for optical shots.

Oh wait, this is the F-35 thread....last time I was at the -35 factory I was told no rockets or AGM capes....is this still true?

[Clark Griswold]

More good news.

F-35 Can't Carry Its Most Versatile Weapon Until At Least 2022

[SurelySerious]

But first, question: are other platforms carrying this block of SDB yet, or is this sensationalism?

[brabus]

Nobody is carrying this operationally. In fact, LRIP hasn't even started. So yes, more sensationalism that people with no SA use to "legitimize" their grip on the anti-F35 bandwagon.

[SurelySerious]

Nobody is carrying this operationally. In fact, LRIP hasn't even started. So yes, more sensationalism that people with no SA use to "legitimize" their grip on the anti-F35 bandwagon.

Thanks; I hadn't seen anything about it yet.

This just in: the F-35 won't be able to use light sabers until at least 2025.

[StoleIt]

Thanks; I hadn't seen anything about it yet.

This just in: the F-35 won't be able to use light sabers until at least 2025.

[Clark Griswold]

But first, question: are other platforms carrying this block of SDB yet, or is this sensationalism?

Nobody is carrying this operationally. In fact, LRIP hasn't even started. So yes, more sensationalism that people with no SA use to "legitimize" their grip on the anti-F35 bandwagon.

Valid points but the WTF of the article really was that they hope to have it capable of SDB II employment in 2022, not even sure if that is going to happen.

These paragraphs pretty much sum it up:

In the end, the lack of SDB IIs in the F-35's quiver till at least 2022 may not be a show-stopper for a jet that has fought one problem after another throughout its development, but it is just another 'wait and see' item on the F-35's growing list of 'wait and see items.' The truth is that, regardless of its price tag, the F-35 will not really exist as promised until the middle of the next decade, assuming development goes as planned and assuming that orders remain intact at current levels. This puts the existence of a fully mission ready F-35 close to 20 years after its first flight, and some 25 years after its technology demonstrator, the X-35, first flew back in 2000.

For some perspective, you were lucky to be carrying an analogue Motorola StarTAC cell phone in 2000, now take a look at your cell phone now. If we can learn anything from the F-35 debacle it is that we need to find another way to design, test and procure high-end weapon systems. A 30+ year cycle just to get the weapon system as originally envisioned is totally unacceptable and in many ways the F-35 is already obsolete both on a sub-system level and on a conceptual level.

I get it that we have bought it and it is going to be that mainstay of the AF, Navy, USMC, etc... but at some point there has to be a come to Jesus moment where we admit we bit off more than we can fully chew, the program achieved some of its objectives, some it missed and some it only partially achieved and it is time to curtail it responsibly. We have to get some operational aircraft out of it but to stop throwing good money after bad.

[schokie]

It doesn't need the SDB II to be fully mission capable. There are plenty of other weapons it can carry that are full up. Hell, how many current combat aircraft can't even carry the SDB I? When did the F-16 get it again? Last year? It's a cool weapon, but it's certainly not a game changer.

I'm far from an F-35 apologist, but this article is total sensationalism.

[dvlax40]

every generation needs its f-4 and f-111 to then set the course for their f-15 and f-16s

[Majestik Møøse]

Well that's an expensive plan.

[FlyinGrunt]

Yeah, not to mention that the article in question drastically overstates the capes of ANY SDB variant. Unless they decided to mount a rocket engine on it, for instance, I dispute its claims regarding "fast-moving vehicles." As previously stated, while the tri-mode seeker is certainly a gnarly piece of gear, there are a ton of ways to get the job done otherwise on a number of platforms.

And the author's claim regarding the munitions self-targeting, with the aircraft "firing blind", is absolutely absurd with today's CIVCAS and CDE concerns, not to mention dual-use buildings, vehicles, etc. Unless we're talking no-joke WWIII, that claim is pure sensationalism.

[busdriver]

Tyler Rogoway is a joke. The intellectual dishonesty is just silly. Let's see, the common cell phones in 2000 were digital not analog, remember the Nokia's with the swapable faces? The one he mentioned was introduced in 1996. Then claiming that to be fully mission ready it needs the "super weapon" SDB2 is also patently false. Will it not be fully mission ready until it integrates the mini missile (CUDA is one example) that is basically at the good idea fairy stage right now? Where does it end?

So in reality: TD flight in 2000, First flight 2006, IOC 2016 (F-35A), "full warfighting capability" planned for 2017 delivery in LRIP 9. Even if we slip that to 2018, that's 12 years not even close to "almost 20 years." Then he jumps to a "30+ year cycle to get a weapons system as originally envisioned;" I can envision ejection seats that boost pilots into low earth orbit to make them easier to recover in an A2AD environment, doesn't mean it's realistic to get that inside of 30 years or even the laws of physics. The program has been plagued with enough delays and problems, there's no reason to inflate them and confuse the issue with hyperbole and dishonesty.

I don't dis-agree that we need to change the way we acquire widgets. The pace of technology advancement demands it. The first iPhone was introduced in 2007, based on some simple internet searching and not even close to subject matter expertise, I figure my phone (today) has pretty close to the computing power of my laptop from 2007. It seems to me that we have a mis-match in the way software runs on our aircraft versus the way industry has progressed. I think one possible solution is to have a DoD standard operating system, and each airframe's software is essentially an "app" that runs on that operating system. Set aside some amount of space on every airframe for a "mission computer" then as OS upgrades demand it, every airframe gets upgrades to that space. If one airframe needs more computing power, it sets aside multiples of that computer so it can do parallel computing or whatever.

Tangent rant over, the F-35 will be a jack of all trades and a master of none. Just like it was always intended to be.

[dvlax40]

I don't dis-agree that we need to change the way we acquire widgets. The pace of technology advancement demands it. The first iPhone was introduced in 2007, based on some simple internet searching and not even close to subject matter expertise, I figure my phone (today) has pretty close to the computing power of my laptop from 2007. It seems to me that we have a mis-match in the way software runs on our aircraft versus the way industry has progressed. I think one possible solution is to have a DoD standard operating system, and each airframe's software is essentially an "app" that runs on that operating system. Set aside some amount of space on every airframe for a "mission computer" then as OS upgrades demand it, every airframe gets upgrades to that space. If one airframe needs more computing power, it sets aside multiples of that computer so it can do parallel computing or whatever.

never, oh please god no never. one size fits all programming is the bane of my existence, i shudder to think of the implications on a specialized embedded system... the problem with our development is we are too software reliant, software sucks to develop, hardware is easy. as long as we become more and more reliant on software, there will be issues that need to get worked out.

[MKopack]

Nothing intelligent to say (one of those nights), just a pic. Marines B last spring at Cherry Point.

[JarheadBoom]

Dislike the subject, but that is an awesome pic.

Kinda surprised by the panel gaps evident in this shot, especially the AR probe door, given the little bit I know about LO construction/maintenance techniques...

EDIT: Hmmm... be right back. There's a big black helicopter hovering over my backyard, and some guys with guns fastroping out of it. Gonna go see if they need help or

Edited March 3, 2015 by JarheadBoom

[Marco]

Keep in mind that Foxtrot Alpha is a sub-site on Jalopnik. It's a site originally formed to talk about cars. His audience is not those with technical backgrounds in our chosen profession(s).

[Clark Griswold]

I don't dis-agree that we need to change the way we acquire widgets. The pace of technology advancement demands it. The first iPhone was introduced in 2007, based on some simple internet searching and not even close to subject matter expertise, I figure my phone (today) has pretty close to the computing power of my laptop from 2007. It seems to me that we have a mis-match in the way software runs on our aircraft versus the way industry has progressed. I think one possible solution is to have a DoD standard operating system, and each airframe's software is essentially an "app" that runs on that operating system. Set aside some amount of space on every airframe for a "mission computer" then as OS upgrades demand it, every airframe gets upgrades to that space. If one airframe needs more computing power, it sets aside multiples of that computer so it can do parallel computing or whatever.

not a bad idea and on a somewhat related topic, there is some success with a common computer language, Ada. Very stable, open with lots of safety features built in and used by some (Boeing 777, ATC and traffic systems, ISS, etc.) in critical systems. Unfortunately, for whatever reason we do everything by committee now and it takes so much compromise to get everyone on board that the end result is not corrupted but comprised to a fault.

Nothing intelligent to say (one of those nights), just a pic. Marines B last spring at Cherry Point.

It is a cool pic, saw the A (several) of them at Eglin, a bit chubby but still good looking.

I think I should be more optimistic and the reference to the F-4 could be a good thing, despite all it's faults it turned out to be the most successful fighters (number of airframes) and one of the longest serving multi-role fighters and had a respectable record when improved technically and employed to max its advantages.

Edit for grammar.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[dvlax40]

I think I should be more optimistic and the reference to the F-4 could be a good thing, despite all it's faults it turned out to be the most successful fighters (number of airframes) and one of the longest serving multi-role fighters and had a respectable record when improved technically and employed to max its advantages.

bingo, hopefully we get a jet that we work the kins out, serves long and ushers in a new generation of bad ass manned fighters. for all the f-35 faults at least theres a dude in it

[Ram]

for all the f-35 faults at least theres a dude in it

Just like BQZip's mother.

[MKopack]

Dislike the subject, but that is an awesome pic.

Kinda surprised by the panel gaps evident in this shot, especially the AR probe door, given the little bit I know about LO construction/maintenance techniques...

EDIT: Hmmm... be right back. There's a big black helicopter hovering over my backyard, and some guys with guns fastroping out of it. Gonna go see if they need help or

Several of the panel lines were more "pronounced" than I had expected - although most of the aircraft almost appears to not have panels at all (F-22 typical). The lines that were visable are incredibly precise, almost as if they'd been machined out of a solid block. The "fit and finish" of the aircraft is unlike anything I'd seen before - I'm going to guess that there won't be any more installing a panel with a speedhandle and a wooden wheel chock to "customize the fit" (not that anyone would have ever done such a thing in the past...)

The exhaust nozzle is literally a work of art, just has to be a crazy amount of metalwork involved. Would have taken pics, but the guys with the guns around the jet recommended against it.

Here's a shot of one of the B's in "Transformers mode". Massively loud in the hover, even by Harrier standards. Obvious how much power the engine produces. The aircraft is smaller than I expected overall, not a lot more than Harrier sized. The "wrong way opening" canopy looks huge, until the pilot is in it for scale. The crews I spoke to (prior Harrier and Hornet guys) said that the cockpit doesn't have a lot of extra room either, but that it's a very easy aircraft to fly and all - with a couple of reservations - had a pretty positive opinion.