F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

Brumby

Major
Interesting, when was the last time when a pilot (or any other officer of any armed forces) publicly criticised the performance of any piece of actively used equipment?

It can bring three issue:
1. the sharing of issues of the equipment can be considered as share secret information with the public.
2. Every pilot wants to fly fighters, and criticise the aircraft that they trained for is not the best way to stay in the business of fighter piloting.
3. The f-35 program has so much vested interest from military, political and business side to share a negative view will bring a lot of "unofficial" difficulty onto anyone

So, saying anything more than the publicly available positive information from the manufacturer website or from official military statements is a sure way to kill the carrier in good case or to go to the jail in bad.

I don't say that the F-25 is bad( or good) , I just point out that the pilots (or military persons) are not the objective sources of information : D

Firstly, should I start with the premise that you are being objective in your opinion since you are generally asserting that the pilots are not? How do I know that you do not have your own vested interest just as you assert the pilots do? It is a problem when you start to focus a conversation on intentions (which are hard to establish) rather than facts.

Secondly, the problem with your logic is that by default pilots will naturally avoid expressing a negative view but in this case we are dealing with a positive story. You are reframing a narrative.

Bottom line is since we cannot pretend to know intentions, we have to stick with the facts and that leaves you with two possibilities. Either the pilots are making up a positive story i.e. lying or the story speak for themselves. Do you have any evidence to back up the former beyond asserting intentions?
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
It's "Comeback" was the fight systems. F35 like F16 And the super hornet was built with fly by wire inputs. Older jets and alternative machines like the F/A18 (until Super Hornet) used old school systems wires pullies and hydraulics. As such the flight controls are based on the programming limits and inputs.
F16 has had over 30 years to refine it's Fly by wire software. F35 in that test (not dog fight) was still in beta testing software. So you had a prototype machine using buggy software vs a refined well honed machine.
Since the fly by wire controls the flight characteristics of the machine the pilots found themselves heavily restricted.
 

Brumby

Major
It's "Comeback" was the fight systems. F35 like F16 And the super hornet was built with fly by wire inputs. Older jets and alternative machines like the F/A18 (until Super Hornet) used old school systems wires pullies and hydraulics. As such the flight controls are based on the programming limits and inputs.
F16 has had over 30 years to refine it's Fly by wire software. F35 in that test (not dog fight) was still in beta testing software. So you had a prototype machine using buggy software vs a refined well honed machine.
Since the fly by wire controls the flight characteristics of the machine the pilots found themselves heavily restricted.

plus there were system imposed flight envelope characteristics that were only lifted until they got to 3F status
 

Brumby

Major
LOL there are "stories" like changing so-called kill ratio from 15:1 to 20:1 to 24:0 (linked Thursday at 9:27 PM) and stories like
FY18 DOD PROGRAMS
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I am not going to research the source for each of the kill ratios. However I believe there is a reasonable and plausible explanation for a range of numbers. There had been a number of Red Flag exercises in just the recent few years involving the F-35. In each of these Red Flags, the scenarios are likely different and so would be the outcome. Having a range of numbers that correspond to different Red Flags would be a logical expectation. Conversely having the same number would be more problematic. I am reminded of China's economic numbers which stay constant quarter after quarter e.g. labor statistics - just thinking.
 

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
Seems pretty dangerous to release buggy software for automated flight controls. Isn't that how that 737 max crashed recently?
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
I am not sure how much of it was "flight software issues" and how much was actual failures of the airframe.
If I remember correctly the first F-35As to come out of the line had structural flaws.
So I doubt "software" was the problem. More like the "fix" they applied so you wouldn't exceed the limit of the airframe.
 
I am not going to research the source for each of the kill ratios. However I believe there is a reasonable and plausible explanation for a range of numbers. There had been a number of Red Flag exercises in just the recent few years involving the F-35. In each of these Red Flags, the scenarios are likely different and so would be the outcome. Having a range of numbers that correspond to different Red Flags would be a logical expectation. Conversely having the same number would be more problematic. I am reminded of China's economic numbers which stay constant quarter after quarter e.g. labor statistics - just thinking.
LOL! Brumby if the Pentagon after some future exercises says an F-35 "killed" forty fourth-gen aircraft in a single mission, will you believe it? and if they declared eighty, would you perhaps believe it, too? one-hundred?

what's your limit here?
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Seems pretty dangerous to release buggy software for automated flight controls. Isn't that how that 737 max crashed recently?
I'm that case it wasn't the software it was teaching people about the software.
I'm the case of the F35 in question the software when told to do something it didn't understand it would refuse.
As the envelope expanded the flight capabilities improved.
I am not sure how much of it was "flight software issues" and how much was actual failures of the airframe.
If I remember correctly the first F-35As to come out of the line had structural flaws.
So I doubt "software" was the problem. More like the "fix" they applied so you wouldn't exceed the limit of the airframe.
I don't recall a structural issue for the A model. There was an engine issue. And craving in the B as well as wing issues for the C.
In any case the unit was more than an Early F35A it was basically one of the last X35A. Heavily loaded down with sensors.
LOL! Brumby if the Pentagon after some future exercises says an F-35 "killed" forty fourth-gen aircraft in a single mission, will you believe it? and if they declared eighty, would you perhaps believe it, too? one-hundred?

what's your limit here?
Your quoting it wrong. It's not 20 vs 1 It's 20 victories to 1 loss.
The smallest maneuver unit of the USAF is a pilot and his wingman. These make up half a flight that is 4 aircraft. A single Pilot is never launched on a mission same for a single tank or single anything.

Even then the numbers can be "manipulated" by the F35 using its data links to offload the actual attack to another aircraft.
 
Last edited:
...

Your quoting it wrong. It's not 20 vs 1 It's 20 victories to 1 loss.
The smallest maneuver unit of the USAF is a pilot and his wingman. These make up half a flight that is 4 aircraft. A single Pilot is never launched on a mission same for a single tank or single anything.
Today at 8:43 AM
LOL! Brumby if the Pentagon after some future exercises says an F-35 "killed" forty fourth-gen aircraft in a single mission, will you believe it? and if they declared eighty, would you perhaps believe it, too? one-hundred?

what's your limit here?
I didn't quote anything

just was wondering how much Kool-Aid would Brumby take LOL
 
later read what Brumby posted in the second part of
#6415 Brumby, Yesterday at 7:49 AM
:
While there appears to be little discussion regarding the beyond visual range (BVR) prowess of the F-35, close-in dogfighting has always been an area that’s attracted detractors when it comes to the F-35, with reports of poor performance when it came to turning and burning. Knight offers a very different perspective based on his experiences flying the jet, as opposed to online speculation. ‘The first thing to realize when comparing modern fighter aircraft is that every type has compromises and it’s up to the pilot to get the best performance out of the jet. The F-16 is a relatively small and lightweight fighter; this meant we had great sustained high-speed turning performance and simple handling characteristics. The flight control laws were designed in such a way that the pilot can simply pull back on the stick as hard as he or she wants and the aircraft will give its maximum performance. On the flip side, we’ve always had to make do with limited fuel, limited payload and sluggish slow-speed maneuverability due to flight control limitations. ‘The F-35 is a very different aircraft, and it took pilots a while to adjust and figure out how to max-perform it. What didn’t help is that until about 18 months ago we were restricted in envelope, which meant we couldn’t pull as much g as we wanted to, nor fly with high-alpha. It was an eyeopener for all of us when those restrictions were lifted and we finally got to see the full potential. Actually, it was an eyeopener for a lot of adversary pilots as well.’ The F-35 is far larger than the F-16, and it carries twice as much fuel and three times the payload. ‘Consequently, the F-35 loses energy a bit faster than the F-16 at higher speeds,’ continues Knight. ‘But the slow-speed handling is amazing. The F-35 pilot has the option to continuously point the nose at the adversary, even at ridiculously slow speeds, which is a great capability to have in combination with high off-boresight missiles and a helmet-mounted sight. You need to be careful maneuvering the aircraft at higher speeds, because if you keep pulling back on the stick the aircraft will give you as much alpha as it can, but it will bleed a lot of energy in the process. It’s up to the pilot to recognize when to try to maintain airspeed and energy and when to give that away to prosecute with missiles or guns. I typically tell new pilots that the F-35 sits somewhere in between the F-16 and F/A-18 when it comes to within visual range maneuvering.’ Knight divulged a little more information about flying basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) in an F-35. ‘When our envelope was cleared to practise BFM we got the opportunity to fight some fourth generation fighters. Remember, back then the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldn’t really matter and that they would still easily outmaneuver us. By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the least… ‘High-g maneuvering is fun, but having high fuel capacity and the ability to carry lots of stores is great too. During the weeks when we were flying BFM we also needed to drop a GBU-12 [laser-guided bomb] on the China Lake weapons range. Back in our F-16 days we’d have had to choose, since there is no way you can BFM with a bomb on your wing, let alone having the fuel to fly both missions in a single sortie. With the F-35, however, this isn’t much of an issue. On one of the sorties, my colleague, Maj Pascal ‘Smiley’ Smaal, decided he would fly BFM and still have enough fuel to go to the range afterwards and drop his weapon. During the debrief, the adversary pilot told us he was confused as to why we went to the range after the fight. When ‘Smiley’ told him that he was carrying an inert GBU-12 the entire time and that he then dropped it afterwards during a test event, the silence on the other end of the line was golden.’
sounds like a commercial I've watched several times recently (actually I haven't LOL but it was on when I ate my dinner) for some toothpaste promising gums protection:

starts with gums issues (in that article there're moments like "What didn’t help is that until about 18 months ago we were restricted in envelope, ..." first)

...

then drama, how you might even loose a tooth (in that article "Remember, back then the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig.")

... followed by ...

the solution: buy the paste! (in that article "Back in our F-16 days we’d have had to choose, since there is no way you can BFM with a bomb on your wing, let alone having the fuel to fly both missions in a single sortie.")

... and ...

... a beautiful smile (in the article "... the silence on the other end of the line was golden.")

people should be very careful about what they're fed this way
 
Top