Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 7/31/2020 at 3:40 AM, Ramlaen said:

 

Air Power Australia is neither an official source or from 2020.

 

Oh it’s much worse than that. APA are a laughing stock in the Australian aviation community for good reason. When AIR6000 - the project to replace the RAAF legacy Hornet fleet - was first floated, APA advocated a mixed fleet of super-duper upgraded F111s and a buy of ~50 F22s. They then started a shell company called Australian Flight Test Services to submit this proposal for AIR6000 as the prime(!), with the intention of sub-contracting the work to Lockheed Martin (ha!). When their proposal was dismissed, they started trotting out bitter garbage like the flawed and arbitrary Zero-One Comparison Table (“ZOCT”) posted earlier.

True to form, this table was submitted as part of their “contribution” to a Senate hearing on the F35 acquisition only to be laughed out of the room once again. From ASPI:
 

Quote

The list of characteristics (APA incorrectly calls these 'metrics') of what constitutes a 5th generation aircraft (a term that is not well-defined in any case) is selective and omits or grossly simplifies several of the characteristics that are the strong points of the F-35. Some of the characteristics that are included are of debatable value.


From SRWF (RAAF Air Marshalls Eroll McCormack & Geoff Brown):
 

Quote

The table focuses excessively on flight performance qualities of 4th and 5th generation fighters. Over half the table relates to the relative flying qualities of the assessed aircraft. Even using these characteristics, a true comparison is only possible with access to classified data. For example, the table is factually incorrect with the data on flight characteristics presented on the F35 and Super Hornet. The performance of the Russian and Chinese aircraft is also misrepresented. However, even without access to classified data, open source reporting by the Indian Air Force on the deficiencies of the PAK50 give a good indication on the level of misrepresentation inherent in the table. There are videos available on the internet that point to the inadequate performance of both the J20 and J31. Chinese engine technology is many years behind their western equivalents. The ZOCT Table places significantly less emphasis on the 5th generation characteristics of Very Low Observability (VLO), sensor fusion and network interoperability, which are fundamental to the successful attainment of air superiority in a hostile contested environment. The table significantly underestimates the VLO of the F-35 and significantly overstates the Low Observability (LO) capabilities of the PAK50 and J20. Even open source reporting from Russia does not claim the same level of LO that APA states in the ZOCT Table. Another area where APA has significantly understated the F-35 and Super Hornet is in the performance of Active Electronically Scanned Array radars of each aircraft. The underlying data used by APA in their analysis of the competing radars is in error by a very significant margin and that leads to erroneous conclusions about the performance of the respective radars.


From the ADF/RAAF themselves:
 

Quote

The ZOCT is a simplistic aircraft attribute scoring table that is unsuited to convey how individual platform characteristics interact in an operational context to deliver capability outcomes. Further, the ZOCT is unsuited for identifying whether those aircraft, as part of a larger force structure, can meet Australia’s strategic requirements. Resolving this question requires useful capability assessments

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 841
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but I decided to throw this together and I hope everyone finds it interesting/informative. If I have made any mistakes please feel free to point them

From AH dot com, of all places (apparently the one competent poster)   Also, the F-35's IR sensors are pretty good;  

Boagrius, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Could you please help me with other links which you had offered? You had said that their contribution was laughed out of the room once again and presented massive document about F-35 acquisition. Which part of this document you are referring to? I could find only very vague references by skimming the article. I also think that you had linked a wrong article in your first reference. First link shows that they are advocating mixed fleet of F-35 with F-111 which rather speaks quite highly of them to be able to reach a realistic compromise. I had watched attached video and table was dismissed out of hand, I'm surprised that it was submitted in its current form, but I could not find the quote in the video which you are presenting. In fact, outside of vague comments about inaccuracy of said data, there was very little said further. That is not good source to show why Air Power Australia is as you say. I had looked at all of your sources and they do not support what you say in your comment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 3:23 PM, Gripen287 said:


No it doesn’t. No F-35 model has any CAT 1A deficiencies at present. Are you surprised to learn that POGO and the media either don’t bother to differentiate CAT 1A from 1B deficiencies (the program office’s metrics) or use the Air Force’s definition of CAT 1 that is a lot broader and includes less serious deficiencies than those that represent a serious risk to the aircraft? 

 

Are you purposefully trying to conduct an impossible analysis to justify your preconceived notion that the F-35 is crap? Can you go back in time and apply today’s level of oversight and risk averseness to legacy programs?
 

I’ve already given you more of my time than you appear to deserve. You don’t seem to have realistic expectations or a realistic frame of reference. So rather than submit a few hundred FOIA request hoping to get that nugget of releasable info that will surely, surely change your mind, I’m going to enjoy the rest of my day. 

 

 

 

So, why they are saying that F-35 has 9-13 Category A defects while others are being fallaciously downgraded to Category B defects? Is there an essential difference between Category 1A and 1B deficiencies?

Quote

The F-35’s problems include 13 Category 1 deficiencies. Such problems “may cause death or severe injury; may cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; critically restricts the combat readiness capabilities of the using organisation; or results in a production line stoppage according to the US Air Force’s (USAF) definition

 

I'm not an aircraft engineer, but in my eyes it is pretty serious regardless of further categorization on how your aircraft is going to crash. It seems that you are missing a forest for the trees here.

 

I'm also uncertain why you said that no such defects exists when in my previously provided source, there are plenty of such defects on a list as late as 2020. I will quote again said source: 

https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2020/03/f-35-design-flaws-mounting-new-document-shows/

 

Quote

Are you purposefully trying to conduct an impossible analysis to justify your preconceived notion that the F-35 is crap? Can you go back in time and apply today’s level of oversight and risk averseness to legacy programs?

 

My analysis is quite simple, there are still plenty of Category A problems in F-35 aircraft despite it being half a decade into full scale production. I'm not sure why you are so up in arms about it, it is piece of machinery. This project was mishandled. It is not as good as promised. That is fine, no need to take F-35 program as a personal failure.

 

Quote

Air Power Australia is neither an official source or from 2020.

 

I have quoted few more sources, namely POGO after that. POGO uses official documents, this is why I had said that if you deny such source as legitimate one, you might as well deny Apollo 11 landing. It uses JSFPO Deficiency Report Metrics or  Defense Budget Materials - FY2021. This information is released by the government and denying that POGO does not know what it is talking about is no longer possible. We then reach the stage that we either accept that official budget reports passed to congress are either correct, or you have to directly tackle information there. So far, this community only talks the talk, but I'm yet to see much substance in other people arguments. Seeing for example how Air Power Australia is being laughed at and all sources provided there fail to show why they are laughed at all, only how solid they are, being able to present their case at the highest level possible, I'm left confused of hostility towards me or APA (Air power australia). People here strike me as anti-intellectual, who prefer obscurantism over true debates. I merely want to force an issue on this point, because people here seem to be awfully ignorant of F-35 flaws and struggles (fellow forum member was completely unaware that F-35 had plenty of Category A defects even in 2020). While maybe I should not had presented F-35 in such a negative light to the community which is not used to that kind of critical thinking, now it is little too late to change my attitude.  

 

https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2020/03/f-35-design-flaws-mounting-new-document-shows/

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/11/deceptive-pentagon-math-tries-to-obscure-100-million-price-tag-for-f-35/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2020 at 7:09 PM, OnlySlightlyCrazy said:

Unfortunately I won't be able to respond at length, since I need to head into work in just a few minutes. Broadly, most of the issues I outlined with the "Legacy" fleet are publicly available, including from POGO.

https://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/05/pilots-arent-guinea-pigs-ground-the-f-22-until-dangerous-oxygen-problem-resolved.html

and

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2018/03/pentagons-21st-century-icarus/

"Breathing problems aboard the Navy’s main fighter, the F-18, spiked from 57 in 2012 to 125 in 2016. The breathing gear on the Navy’s F-18s and T-45s “is inadequate to consistently provide high quality breathing air,” the Navy itself concluded last June. “The net result is contaminants can enter aircrew breathing air provided by OBOGS and potentially induce hypoxia.” The Navy flubbed its probe into a series of F-18 oxygen-related crashes that killed four pilots, a Navy-commissioned NASA report, ordered by Congress, concluded in September." And, yes, the 2nd article includes the fact that F-35As are also having platforms - but this is exactly my point; all platforms are dealing with problems like this. I'm sure you can find sources from your NGO of choice for the structural problems with the Eagle or any of the other problems I've listed.

Regarding the Viper stuff, the F-16 is a very mature and relatively simple platform, so I wouldn't say the issues are as severe as the F-35A's, which isn't surprising. They're mostly to do with the fact that the majority of the Blk 30 fleet is using mech-array radars as far as I'm aware, which is about as useful as a knife in a gunfight. 

I won't really dispute that there is a technological debt on F-35 - the fact that it was developed prior to massive advances in computing power and metallurgy means it's avionics and engine need some love, for example. I instead dispute that it's severe or unusual - the fighters as they stand are the best multirole in the sky, bar none, and the level of rework and continuing development they're receiving isn't so much a sign of malfeasance or incompetence as it is a normal and frankly healthy part of keeping fighters on the bleeding edge of performance.

 

Here is a problem with logic of your argument. Most of legacy fighters had some problems. Some of them still do. You attribute failure of one sub-system, oxygen supply system failure to properly work on some extreme conditions as a failure of fighter program. You use this as a proof that previous generation aircraft had suffered and suffer same amount of problems as F-35 despite that problem persist through all types of aircraft where this module is present. Then you use this 1 case to argue that 13 or something problems like that on F-35 are not more severe. Do you understand why I disagree with you on this stance? You dismiss my claim of F-35 being a problematic airplane, because other fighter planes had and still have issues. You link just 1 issue and consider it to be equivalent to train wreck of a program which F-35 is. I think that you are not taking into account differences in scale of these two examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had read report on F/A-18 development. I can state with certainty that F/A-18 did not experienced nearly as many problems. There were only several important areas where F/A-18 had struggled during its prototyping stage and during review process and still when aircraft was undergoing development, most of those issues were fixed according to contractors. Cost overruns also were 10 times lower than of F-35. Report was more concenred about long term prospects like cost growth due to struggling contractors to deliver more complex equipment than actually presenting issues with an aircraft. Here is conclusion of all problems presented within F/A-18 prototype. As you see, majority of them are either potentially fixed during release of report or are unrelated to development of aircraft itself, like lack of AMRAM missile to increase aircraft‘s deadliness.

 

Acceleration threshold not reached – fixed with minor modifications during prototyping.

Range is short of Navy expectations – Fixed through lowering weight down by 341 pounds back to approved specifications. Changes were made by 123‘th produced aircraft.

Higher than anticipated drag – Changes were made during prototyping stage to address problem and solve underwhelming performance of aircraft, results are not stated in the document.

Lower engine thrust – It is unknown if problem exists, more testing required.

Sparrow missiles reduces F/A-18 survivability – Irrelevant critique. All aircrafts need to light up target with radar to use said missile.

Sidewinder missile capabilities – Irrelevant critique. Enemy‘s ability to evade new missile is a separate issue from plane‘s design.

Harm deficient – Irrelevant critique. Aircraft‘s armament is a separate concern from the design of aircraft itself.

Advanced systems planned for F/A-18 slow in development - Noncooperative target recognition capability which would enable the pilot to identify all known aircraft are to be developed sometime later in 1980. Critique can‘t be compared to systems late on F-35 who are not ready even after 5 years being late.

Late aircraft deliveries slowed flight testing – Deliveries of aircraft were late by 2 months, setting entire program back up to 3 months. Problem was that Northrop‘s plant had underestimated production challenges of F/A-18. They had estimated 67,500 production hours per developmental aircraft, but it actually took 93,000 and 147,000 per aircraft. Contributing problems were poor plant layout, required major redesign of the F/A-18 and recurring problems with fit, access and leakage of plane‘s fuel cells.

Critique is legitimate, but largely irrelevant. 2 months delays are acceptable and can‘t be compared to delays experienced by F-35. F-35 experiences over a month of production delays which proves that scale of problems with F-35 is in a different league all together.

https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/article/22028435/lockheedmartin-f35s-full-rate-production-to-be-delayed-up-to-13-months-longer

Starter deficiency – Engine starter had failed during test flight. Analysis had indicated complex problem leading to starterts being unable to reach specified 7,800 hours lifespan. 500 to 1000 hours were more realistic for existing starters. New contractor were given a job of designing new starter, expected delay 1-2 years.

Finally, a fair critique of an aircraft, but fairly minor one. The only impact it has on development of aircraft is more expensive maintenance.

 

Oil temperature exceeds allowable limits – Oil temperature exceeds allowed limits and puts operating limits of aircraft. Redesign of oil cooling system is being considered. A fair issue with the aircraft.

Air-condition system does not provide adequate cooling – Installation and operation difficulties had led to redesign of a system. This redesign is done and manufacturer claims that new system exceeds design requirements.

 

F/A-18 Cost growth – There are many reasons behind cost growth, but in short aircraft price had changed from predicted 15.9 million per aircraft to 17.4 million per aircraft. It is around 9% growth, acceptable margin of error, by comparison price of F-35 had almost doubled.

https://nation.time.com/2012/07/09/f-35-nearly-doubles-in-cost-but-you-dont-know-thanks-to-its-rubber-baseline/

 

Radar production problems could have long-term cost impact – Hughes was losing money on radar production due to underestimating complexity of hybrid radars. Producer was 5 radar units short, but it had no impact in short term with potential cost increase later on.

Rest of cost related issues – Article speculates that aircraft might face possible further issues, because contractors are not monitored. It further speculates that being an export success could alleviate those problems which we with hindsight know that it did.

 

Review of F/A-18 concludes by saying that design-production cost analysis has too many unknown variables to be a reliable tool in estimating costs. It predicts further cost growth for aircraft and recommends delaying full scale production until previously analysed issues are fixed. Delay caused by all those issues were of few years. Review of F/A-18 development had proved that this aircraft had faced a lot less problems than F-35 faces. If there any similarities in problems encountered between these two aircrafts, F-35 takes similar problem to entirely new level. 2 months delay in production are stretched to year long delays. Cost growth of 10% is multiplied to 100% cost increase with F-35. After reading literature presented to me by forum members I thereby conclude that my initial opinion on F-35 was correct. F-35 is a lemon, its fifth gen capabilities were so delayed that when it comes out, it is not nearly as potent as it was ought to be. It cost had ballooned out of proportion. Furthermore, it continues to face never ending design problems. Within F/A-18 were potentially none of just few Category A design problems. F-35 has 9 of them half a decade after mass production together with almost a thousand of smaller issues which still are ought to be fixed. F-35 will need at least another 5 years and new serial production batch to mature into worthwhile fighter. This proves that my linked article in Air Power Australia was correct in its analysis, F-35 represents high risk investment which would take a decade after its completion to mature into platform worth investing into. Alternative investment options were proven to be superior.

Overall analysis of cost growth. Major source of cost growth seems to be inflation. Lack of consistent cost analysis tools as repot had indicated is a major cause of incorrect cost analysis. It turns out that designing and producing aircraft takes a while and we still did not figured out that during that time inflation will cause significant growth in overall costs. Secondary problem are that key contracts fail to properly make cost-analysis and production analysis and impede progress of entire program. We had seen this happen with Northrop. Third major factor behind the cost is lack of commitment from government. If investment would be set in stone, contractors would not have to account for potential risks and thus could drive costs down. Government needs to commit into procuring certain quantity of aircrafts. Furthermore, changing requirements and unrealistic goals cause massive delays in key areas which are expensive. Requirements should be set in stone. Such programs require director to oversee entire process who would be responsible in keeping design changes to a minimum and would focus on as quick and cheap delivery of a first serial production variant. Further improvements could be delivered with further production models as A,B,C…etc models. In addition, contractors need governmental oversight as often they fail to properly assess cost and time requirements for their own contracts. This causes costly delays for an entire program and inevitable costs revisions for contractors. Supervision should be tighter and allowed estimates more generous in order to control overall time frame of development better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2020 at 2:43 AM, Calicifer said:

I had looked at all of your sources and they do not support what you say in your comment. 


Actually they absolutely do, you just didn't read them properly: 

My first link clearly specifies a proposed fleet of 50 Raptors and 36 (heavily) upgraded F111's precisely as I said. The RAAF dismissed the proposal primarily on the grounds that the F22 was not suited to its needs, unavailable for export and entirely unaffordable to operate. Meanwhile, the obsolete, orphan F111 fleet had long-since become a maintenance hog that could not provide enough capability to justify its existence.

- APA's anti-F35 stance can be clearly traced back to their early (ridiculous) bid to directly profit from the AIR6000 program as the prime contractor. They are about as trustworthy and "independent" on this issue as an alcoholic running an AA meeting.

- The quotes I posted (from actual experts) are also readily available at my second link. You can find them here if you take the time (p42 onwards).

- The "ZOCT" is demonstrably ridiculous. A high-school level understanding of Science will tell you that displaying characteristics like an aircraft's kinematic, sensor and signature reduction performance in a binary table is not a valid way to present the relevant data because they are not binary variables.

 

Furthermore, the table itself is misleading, incomplete and fundamentally not connected to a rigorous or objective assessment of aircraft capability whatsoever.

Once again, real experts have pointed this out already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but I decided to throw this together and I hope everyone finds it interesting/informative. If I have made any mistakes please feel free to point them out and I will be happy to correct them.

At any rate, the issues with APA's Zero One Comparison Table or "ZOCT" are severe and numerous. Here are some of the more egregious ones based on open source information:

 

  • The Air Power Australia "ZOCT" is wrong about the F35’s radar.
     

    - Greater radar aperture is advantageous if all else is equal, but it is not in this case. For example,  the ZOCT does not differentiate between the PESA technology in the Irbis-E on the Su-35 and the AESA technology used in the F35’s APG-81. The table does not adequately account for T/R module or LPI/LPD performance, electronic attack or passive detection functionality, radar sub-modes, ECCM and so on. The ZOCT fundamentally ignores the comparative technological sophistication of each radar, with no analysis of their actual capabilities.

    - The ZOCT also incorrectly portrays the APG-81 as having the least capable, “medium power aperture". Generally speaking, a larger radar array on an AESA allows for a greater number of track/receive (T/R) modules, which enhances the radar’s detection capability. The ZOCT table is likely linked to APA’s false claim that the APG-81 only has ~1200 T/R modules.

    - In reality, the APG-81 has over 1600 T/R modules, which is higher than their (also incorrect) figure of 1500 for the F22’s APG-77. Note that they classify the APG-77 as a “high power aperture” at only 1500 modules, so - using APA's own reasoning - the APG-81 would qualify as a "high power aperture" as well.

    - It is also worth noting that the updated T/R modules fitted to the Raptor’s radar in the APG-77(v)1 upgrade were GaA T/R modules derived from the F-35’s own APG-81 (and not the other way around). Objectively speaking, both radars are world leading in their own right and are generally regarded as offering similar performance overall. You can get a better sense of their dimensional similarity below:


             kNnAZAA0e8i7Rt6lX9XpQlY1yhdjy0Sd2jeNiXs4yJK4RWCrmvxJnSctMhxNMC0c1VEr75ZUvqIm4TMMG7LA3rG-ZVY_wzbzV25FdLqF4nGeiDxThcdxXW09VpPuIqIS-ZjoMKq9

 

  • The relevance of side-looking AESA arrays is debatable for a jet with AN/AAQ-37, AN/ASQ-239 and MADL

    Much like thrust vectoring, the importance of side-looking AESA arrays to the F35 is debatable, and AFAIK (contrary to how the ZOCT portrays the issue), there are currently no solid plans to install them in any of the aircraft in the table aside from the Su57. It should be noted that, due to size and space constraints, these “cheek” arrays potentially force the main radar array further forward into the nose-cone, limiting the volume it can occupy.

    When dealing with LO opponents, it may well be more effective to retain a single larger and more powerful forward-facing array (to maximise detection range vs low RCS targets) while using 360 degree passive sensors and/or offboard donors (via datalink) to deal with contacts outside of the radar’s field of view. The presence or absence of side-facing radar arrays is arguably more a matter of CONOPS than an outright advantage in every case.

     

  • The ZOCT is wrong about supersonic weapons delivery

    “Supersonic launch of internal weapons, including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air to air missiles, is a feature of all F35s”.

     

  • The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s future engine growth

    The potential for growth in the F35’s powerplant is far from limited.
    As a matter of fact, research into variable bypass engine technology has made the F35 a prime candidate for early implementation.

    Pratt and Whitney have already proposed F135 Growth Options 1 and 2, with the latter introducing variable bypass technology that has the potential to decrease fuel burn by up to 20% and increase thrust by up to 15%. This would improve the jet's thrust to weight ratio from 1.07 at 50% fuel and a full weapons load to over 1.2. A completely new powerplant derived from technology found in the GE XA100 and/or PW XA101 variable bypass engines is another distinct possibility that is being actively explored. 

     

  • The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s combat ceiling

    It is not less than 45,000ft as the table claims, but greater than 50,000ft.

     

  • The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s RF stealth features

    - The ZOCT’s description of the F35’s stealth features as “partial” is based on the disingenuous claim that its stealth shaping works best from the forward aspect, and is less effective in the beam and aft sectors. What APA neglects to acknowledge is that this is true for ALL the stealth aircraft in the table.

    - In reality, both the F22 and F35 are all-aspect VLO designs, optimised to defeat the shorter wavelength fire control radars that are typically used to guide anti-aircraft missiles. Their actual radar cross-section values are of course extremely classified, but those few individuals that DO know what they are have long described them as being very comparable between the two aircraft.

    - It is important to note that the ZOCT also completely neglects the vital importance of stealthy sensors and emissions control (EMCON) for stealth aircraft. Compared to the other aircraft in the table, the F35 has extremely sophisticated EMCON and passive sensing capabilities (LPI/LPD radar modes, MADL datalink, passive IR based MAWS, AN/ASQ-239, long range EOTS FLIR) that are not adequately accounted for.

     

  • The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s non-RF stealth features

    The F35’s non-RF stealth features are at least as sophisticated as those found on any of the other aircraft in the table and probably superior to most, if not all (with rough parity perhaps, to the F22). They include:

    - The use of divertless supersonic inlets with serpentine inlet ducts to block the line of sight to the engine’s hot interior from the forward hemisphere.

    - The use of fuselage air “scoops” to mix cooler outside air with the engine exhaust so as to rapidly cool it and in turn reduce the IR signature of the engine plume

     

    - The use of onboard fuel as a coolant alongside IR suppressant coatings (p4) to reduce the IR signature of the airframe itself

    Recessed positioning of the nozzle so that the jet’s tailfins block a direct line of sight to it in all but the aft-most sector.

     

    - The use of a serrated nozzle derived from the Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle (LOAN) program to further reduce the signature of the engine and assist with mixing cool air with the exhaust plume (p4). Note that this fundamental design approach has been subsequently replicated in new nozzles proposed for the J20, J31 and Su-57. None of these aircraft feature a stealthy nozzle design in their current form though.
     

DOKmKL-hP9PXCzSwPQ4qN4aJIril82xCqJgpw29dCD_-q2n0ndCSJCGltcHGJMtiVVN5Sj-tQze2JfJ8lf3qu0FEY2cXSLSznqT2LgoUzgyoydft1ctUZ_IJrRrp1Ds77040spBV

  • The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal fuel.

    The amount of fuel the F35 carries is irrelevant on its own. Being able to fly further for longer is certainly advantageous though. Hence, the relevant stat here is range, and the range of the F35 is comparable to that of the F22 that APA endorses. Again, this will only improve with planned enhancements to the F35’s powerplant.

     

  • The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal hard point stations

    New F35s will have 6 internal hard points with the Sidekick weapons bay modification, not 4 as the ZOCT claims.

     

  • The ZOCT over-emphasises arbitrary aerodynamic features 

    It is true, for example, that the F35 does not feature super cruise or thrust vectoring, but neither feature is a requirement for its specified mission set. The general consensus is that the F35’s aerodynamic characteristics combine the excellent low speed controllability of the Hornet, with the excellent subsonic acceleration of the F16. Unlike either of those aircraft, however, the F35’s ability to carry all of its weapons, EW gear and sensors internally means that it maintains its aerodynamic performance at full combat loads. Current indications are that this kinematic profile is extremely capable.

     

  • Due to its flawed binary design, the ZOCT gives equal weighting to features that are not "equal".

    Compare, for example, TVC to VLO. APA have long claimed that non-TVC teen series fighters like F16 and F/A18 variants (along with the F35) ought to be an easy meal for a late-model TVC equipped Flanker, especially in the low speed BFM domain where TVC should be most useful. After years of DACT conducted with Flankers of this type, though, the advantage provided by TVC may not be nearly as decisive as APA would have us believe: 

    Legacy Hornet Beats TVC Su-30MKM 3-0 in BFM


    In reality, BFM is a highly nuanced, complex artform that favours the pilot who is most effective at playing to the strengths of their own aircraft. TVC may be useful here, but it does not appear to be a panacea - pilot training, experience and skill seem to be the real differentiators. Now compare this to the well documented effect that VLO has on a tactical aircraft’s lethality and survivability and it becomes clear that the weightings allocated to each category in the ZOCT are deeply flawed:

    ""I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

    We took off out of Madison (to join the fight),” said Lt. Col. Bart Van Roo, 176th FS commander. “We went to our simulated air field out in the far part of the air space. As the two ship from the Northern half of the air space we turned hot, drove for about 30 seconds and we were dead, just like that. We never even saw the F-35A.”


    "Everything they see becomes the F-35 out there. Every radar hit, every communication is about the stealth jet. They want to illuminate or eliminate a threat they can't handle. It has nothing to do with their skill or technology. They're at such a technological disadvantage. I've seen guys in F-18s turn directly in front of me and show me their tails cause they have no idea I'm there. It aggregates to a completely inept response to what we're doing in the air. People are so hellbent on shooting down the stealth fighter that they invariably make mistakes that I can exploit."  Retired US Marine Corps Maj. Dan Flatley

     

  • The ZOCT is missing important data

    APA have also omitted a plethora of features that are just as (if not more) important than many of those listed in the ZOCT. For example

    - Multi-spectral sensors - this refers to having RF sensors PLUS infra-red, EO and laser range finding. This is a feature that the F35 has and the F22, for example, does not.

    - Spherical FLIR and missile cueing - AN/AAQ-37 provides the F35 with a permanent passive missile lock on every aircraft around it within visual range (and possibly further). This means the F35 can fire on an enemy aircraft regardless of where the F35’s nose is pointed or where the bandit is coming from - even if it is behind the F35. No other aircraft in the table (aside, possibly, for the J20 with its DAS clone) has an equivalent system.

    - Sensor fusion - this refers to the capacity of the aircraft’s onboard computers to collect, assimilate, analyse and present data from the aircraft’s sensors to the pilot in a way that streamlines their workload and enhances their decision making. This data can also be shared via;

    - An LPI, jam resistant, high throughput datalink - (eg. MADL on the F35 or the older IFDL on the F22) which, when combined with sensor fusion, allows for;

    - Cooperative Engagement - the high quality of the F35’s sensor fused targeting data combined with the capacity of the MADL datalink allows it to share targeting information with other platforms (eg. Aegis vessels, Army/USMC MLRS units or other F35s) and subsequently use it to fire on desired targets without relying on their own onboard sensors.

    - Cooperative EW - eg. cooperative jamming where members of a flight of aircraft can alternate/coordinate jamming emissions to enhance jamming effects and prevent hostile assets from pinpointing the source of the jamming.

    - RF threat triangulation and geo-location (p6) - eg. networking the passive ESM equipment on multiple members of a flight of aircraft to passively triangulate and geolocate threat emitters like SAM sites, ISR assets and fighter aircraft.

    - Cooperative IRST - eg. using a passive FLIR like EOTS cooperatively in conjunction with MADL provides another method of triangulating the location and range of hostile assets/aircraft without emitting any RF signals.

     

  • Suffice it to say that the F35’s unique combination of features is extremely potent:
     

     

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2020 at 5:36 AM, Boagrius said:


Actually they absolutely do, you just didn't read them properly: 

My first link clearly specifies a proposed fleet of 50 Raptors and 36 (heavily) upgraded F111's precisely as I said. The RAAF dismissed the proposal primarily on the grounds that the F22 was not suited to its needs, unavailable for export and entirely unaffordable to operate. Meanwhile, the obsolete, orphan F111 fleet had long-since become a maintenance hog that could not provide enough capability to justify its existence.

- APA's anti-F35 stance can be clearly traced back to their early (ridiculous) bid to directly profit from the AIR6000 program as the prime contractor. They are about as trustworthy and "independent" on this issue as an alcoholic running an AA meeting.

- The quotes I posted (from actual experts) are also readily available at my second link. You can find them here if you take the time (p42 onwards).

- The "ZOCT" is demonstrably ridiculous. A high-school level understanding of Science will tell you that displaying characteristics like an aircraft's kinematic, sensor and signature reduction performance in a binary table is not a valid way to present the relevant data because they are not binary variables.

 

Furthermore, the table itself is misleading, incomplete and fundamentally not connected to a rigorous or objective assessment of aircraft capability whatsoever.

Once again, real experts have pointed this out already.

 

You are right, I did not read it correctly, mostly because it was a lot of information and without linking a specific page, I would have to go through hundreds of pages myself. Thank you for your reply, I will make sure to read it and investigate it myself at a later date. I also believe it to be ridiculous that they had proposed to go for F-22. Now it is clear to me why these people in your video were commenting about procuring F-22 which to me appeared quite silly. It was because Air Power Australia had raised this question. I had watched video fully before and to me it appeared that they dismissed them out of hand without properly addressing issues which they had raised. However, after reading document which you had attached, they do address it in 42 page and beyond. Now when I have context for that video and that proposal, I do agree with you.

 

I want to ask you if you can recommend me a source to learn about modern jet fighters. I do understand basics, but more advanced, technical details are beyond me and I would enjoy website or a book who explains in details concept behind air warfare. My focus were always more on ground vehicles as to me they were a lot more intuitive to understand. I even got a partnership deal with a local website to publish articles about warfare, because I was so outraged by nonsense being printed for public. Hopefully, I will be able to write in the future about development and procurement decisions of most modern jet fighters as I'm comfortable speaking about tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2020 at 2:56 AM, Calicifer said:

 

You are right, I did not read it correctly, mostly because it was a lot of information and without linking a specific page, I would have to go through hundreds of pages myself. Thank you for your reply, I will make sure to read it and investigate it myself at a later date. I also believe it to be ridiculous that they had proposed to go for F-22. Now it is clear to me why these people in your video were commenting about procuring F-22 which to me appeared quite silly. It was because Air Power Australia had raised this question. I had watched video fully before and to me it appeared that they dismissed them out of hand without properly addressing issues which they had raised. However, after reading document which you had attached, they do address it in 42 page and beyond. Now when I have context for that video and that proposal, I do agree with you.

 

I want to ask you if you can recommend me a source to learn about modern jet fighters. I do understand basics, but more advanced, technical details are beyond me and I would enjoy website or a book who explains in details concept behind air warfare. My focus were always more on ground vehicles as to me they were a lot more intuitive to understand. I even got a partnership deal with a local website to publish articles about warfare, because I was so outraged by nonsense being printed for public. Hopefully, I will be able to write in the future about development and procurement decisions of most modern jet fighters as I'm comfortable speaking about tanks.


No problem, unfortunately there is no individual source that is ideal for getting information on military aircraft. The best advice I can give you is to try to hunt down current defence professionals where possible. It is not easy but there are a variety of places out there where you can get their input (not going to advertise other forums out of respect for this one). As a rule it is wise to be extremely wary of information coming from the blogosphere - places like War Is Boring, The National Interest, Foxtrot Alpha, The Drive etc. There are some think-tanks like RAND, CSBA and ASPI who write interesting (if not flawless) stuff from time to time. That said, even a seemingly independent organisation like POGO has a clear agenda to push. For example:

POGO went after the Abrams tank just before it earned its reputation in Desert Storm
They also went after the F22
Bashing the F22 again
...and again (this one did not age well)
Bashing the V22

The best starting point would be to have a careful read though my last post and go from there. Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, that does not help much. I do read individual articles, but they are not what I'm looking for in a sense that they quote a lot of numbers which I can't take into context properly. Is it good or bad? How it compares to competition? What are key aspects of this piece of technology? How useful it is or how useful it is considered. It is like calling stealth plane as stealthy. Alright, what are differences when engaging enemy SAM sites? How stealthy it is by comparison to older aircraft? It does not give necessary context to properly understand how stealthy is. It does not compare stealth cross section nor directional stealth cross section. It is like they would give you bunch of numbers of how stealthy it is at best and say it is stealthy. For example, you said to read what you gave me for starters. Multi-spectrum link shows exactly why such information is quite useless. It talks about F-35 having much broader spectrum. Literally in that video speaker constantly uses such words like "much wider" and how I'm supposed to understand differences between F-35 and F-22. How much wider it is? Is it a big deal? Or officials tend to parrot about how F-35 have information centric warfare suit and how good it is supposedly. Alright, but F-16 models also have that. So wouldn't it be better just procure more of F-16 if that is such a big deal? A lot of sources do not go into proper detail and showcase why one system is better than another. Most articles are just an alphabetical list of features and capabilities of an aircraft with little actual hard analysis of why it is precisely better than its competition. Articles do tend to give similar kind of information, they will talk about capabilities without putting things into context nor highlighting what is important. For them everything is important and thus it is impossible to understand what to look for specifically. What I'm looking for most likely would either be a book or I will have to write an investigative analysis myself. I tend to learn best by doing it myself.

 

You have to read into what they are saying as they are governmental watchdog which means that they will attack anyone and anything for their failures and as we had established, nearly no large scale project goes without multiple parties screwing up. They will critique every project and it is important to read into why they are critiquing it, because there is always room for improvement. They do not seriously propose to cancel project nor they push for some other competing projects. Every large project will have countless flaws. F-22 IS very expensive which they had pointed out. Same critique was used and in F-117 scandal, but aircraft had proved to be cost efficient with time. I went through entire prototype testing report as suggested by another fellow forum reader. Even with F/A-18 there were dozens of major issues which anyone could had picked on. Govermental watchdog should b e considered as a dog, constantly barking at everything they see no matter of context. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2020 at 9:23 PM, Calicifer said:

 Multi-spectrum link shows exactly why such information is quite useless. It talks about F-35 having much broader spectrum. Literally in that video speaker constantly uses such words like "much wider" and how I'm supposed to understand differences between F-35 and F-22. How much wider it is?


It's not if you bother to do a little follow-up research. He is referring to the fact that the F22 relies entirely on its radar (APG-77) and ESM/EW suite (ALR-94) to detect & track air and surface targets. Both of these work exclusively in the RF spectrum. The Raptor also has the IR based AN/AAR-56, but this is only a missile warning system (for now).

By contrast, the F35 has its radar (APG-81), ESM/EW suite (AN/ASQ-239), long range IRST + targeting pod with laser (EOTS) and spherical close-in IRST with MAWS functionality (AN/AAQ-37). Also, there is simply no comparison between the sensing/data handling capabilities of an F16 and an F35 (with its onboard processing power and fibre optic internal network). Compare their bus data rates, for example. The rough analogy would be an internal 56k dial-up system (F16) vs an onboard 5G network (F35).

If you are after even more detailed technical data, you will find a lot of it is classified, but following Gripen's advice above would be a good starting point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the issue. I should not do my own research. All research should be already be done, well referenced and presented for ease of reading. I will have to try books on aviation, I was expecting some recommendation from there as I much prefer just to pay an author for their work rather than going through the hassle myself. Books are my prefered form of information and they had worked wonders for me in the past for land vehicles.  If I do use other sources, they often are similarly vague about details and sometimes present questionable claims out of nowhere like with F-16. This is why I wondered if there is any website which has those analyses, articles and comparisons, because most of them present vague and general data which does not help me even if it comes from reputable source.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2020 at 12:44 PM, Calicifer said:

This is the issue. I should not do my own research. All research should be already be done, well referenced and presented for ease of reading. 

 

If you're serious about this, then you'll find no home on this forum, certainly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading your takes on the f35 and drones (lmaooo) I'm going to outright call your "land vehicles knowledge" pure unadulterated bullshit. (Your t55 post does that for you anyway since even one of our least favorite britbong shills apparently knows way more about the state of t55 fleets than you do)

 

You keep talking about how you have all this knowledge, while at the same time spewing utterly inexcusably stupid takes everywhere you go on here.

 

Now this last post of yours in here about how you shouldn't have to do your own research...

 

Quite frankly, as one of the dumber people here, I find that incredibly offensive and simultaneously laughable.

 

To be even more brutally honest, unless and until you can actually put down the whole ensemble of negative character traits you have put on display here...

 

Even books aren't going to help you

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it surprising how oblivious some of a people are here. All you do is insult me and never provide anything of value in critiquing me. My point in this thread was ultimately ignored all together after I went through all the trouble of looking through information recommended to me. Some of people here do nothing else, but insult me merely on a basis that I have different opinion. There are some knowleadgable people here and I did had interesting discussion with them in other threads. 

 

Boagrius, thank you for your contribution and help. I appreciate your efforts to help me, however information you had provided do not answer my questions. For example, your latest post. It essentially says: "do my own research". This is what I had decided to do since nobody in this forum knows for any good source on aerial warfare which would cover topics in depth. I also do raise a lot more complex questions than the ones which people would like to ask. For example, why F-35 information centric system could not be used as an upgrade program for F-16 and then we could procure more of F-16 to save the money? We need then to investigate where those parts are located in those planes, their physical dimensions, power and other equipment requirements which those systems might have and only then we could answer if F-16 could have same capacity as F-35. It seems that F-16 uses older ARINC-664 & Avionics Ethernet while F-35 uses Fibre Channel. Both are electrical optic cables. So, how little research would give me an answer of why we do not simply upgrade F-16 with same capabilities as F-35? Both are merely just optic cables, any plane can have same bus rate as F-35 if we would replace old wiring in those planes with newest data transfer cables. It just one example of how trying to do your own research does not answer questions which you have. 

 

Now however I often find non descriptive comparisons or talks about one or other system without a proper comparison. It all comes down to "do your own research". This would put me ahead of even most officials in terms of understanding modern military equipment as you can see that their understanding of a topic is very tenuous and generic. They use wide generalisations, they can't give practical examples of how new weapons system is better and why. It also would take a lot of time, you casually offer to do something which is neither easy or fast. Making FOI request or finding relevant cross information takes a lot of free time and unless you are jobless, you can't casually just do that on everything you read or think. 

 

On 8/17/2020 at 9:55 PM, Sturgeon said:

 

If you're serious about this, then you'll find no home on this forum, certainly.

 

Yes, I can see that people here have a different mindset than me. A lot of people seem to absolutely hate any critique and negativity here directed to military equipment. That is fine, it is your forum and your environment. If people would keep themselves from replying to me, I will be on my way quicker.

 

I do however find your design of vehicles to be fascinating. If I will ever have time to design my own vehicle or piece of equipment, I will come here to ask for feedback. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To top our hatred of entitled whiners, your question about why you can't just jam the f35's systems and capabilities into an F16 is a great example of how entirely you've failed to do your own research since that's a conversation that's been had multiple times on this board, is extremely well covered on secret projects.co.uk and has probably literal thousands of pages worth of discussion freely available and well indexed on the f16.net forum.

 

You can literally type that question into Google and read dozens of masters grade theses on THAT EXACT QUESTIONS off what you get in the first page of a Google search.

 

It is not anyone else's job to do your googling for you. We have all long since done our reaearch on questions like that and purged the links to source material from our favorites list years ago for the sake of having actual important information and links at our fingertips.

 

And that's really the issue, you're expecting to be spoonfed stuff by the people here that is inexcusably easy to find on your own.

 

As to your accusation that we don't like our favorite systems being criticized, you stupid petulant little child, this board is almost 70% shit talk of any and every system, program, and other sacred cow/individual members here favorite systems. We collectively spend most of our leisure time Actually looking for stuff to criticize or otherwise discuss the flaws of, especially if we like the systems.

 

Quite frankly we have had far better posters than you flounce off in far more impressive huffs and histrionics more times than it's worth keeping track of.

 

One of the mottos of this forum is that we strive for and expect posters to be high signal to noise contributors. (I.e. exactly what you are not. You have been all noise no signal)

 

Hopefully this clears up your misunderstanding of what the purpose of this place is and convinces you to actually contribute meaningfully rather than petulantly demanding that we provide you education on your terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Sadly no, such things are not well documented. I had discussion, at least for a little while about F-35 capabilities and I could not find anything about this aircraft in a nicely summarized fashion. Even some basic things are surprisingly difficult to find about this plane. Which is to be expected as it is still new aircraft with a lot of its information tightly guarded. However, failure for you to provide any such information which you had referred to confirms my initial claims and position. I had asked this forum also the same question, but nobody could give me any solid source, only generic newsites or press conferences. You throw around a lot of statements and insults, but have absolutely nothing to back them up with. I did understood eventually that you guys have religious-like obsession with your favorite military equipment and this is why you can't stand critique towards those pieces of equipment which you love. This is why posting here is solely positive and you somehow manage to avoid entire controversy over most controversial high profile military hardware in 30 long thread which is named as "bash thred". This is impressive to say the least.

 

I also highly doubt about your claim of "quality posting". You had contributed nothing to constructive conversation while pretending to speak from position of superiority. I had seen other people being harrassed here too merely on a basis of them daring to have their own opinion or more precisely - a negative opinion over something. Posts are nothing more than just posting information you found on the internet. Those posts are not high quality posting, but perphaps you do consider that to be high quality posting, throwing a link to information you found somewhere. In my eyes, I had forced users to try harder in trying to disprove me than most of you had tried to in posting high quality material lately. You don't have to lie, I had checked other threads too and the quality of posting present here. While it is perfectly fine not to like me, you should not lie to me. Especially than you yourself had contributed nothing, but a noise to every reply to me ever since I was here. I was not disproven on my claims regarding F-35 despite the massive outrage. Only 1 person here and that was a new guy, previously just reading material here who had brought forth why AirPowerAustralia is not a credible source. However, he did not touched anything in said source or what I had said previously. In fact, when I did my research and had posted high quality post, it was completely ignored despite being the core of initial outrage. That is even sadder is that without me, this forum is pretty much dead. F-35 being the major talking point for any military enthusiast received no replies since me.

 

I would like you to do something constructive and maybe create quotable FAQ on most common contention points. There are many points which you could do research on, some are easy to disprove like low autonomy, high wing load of F-35 while others needs a lot more research like F-35 maneuverability in a dogfight. You certainly claim that you have all the information at the fingertip. However, that is the use of all that high and mighty information if all you do with it is boosting your own ego? You should try and do something constructive with it like I do in my own life. Since I had joined here, I got publishing deal from one online site to post my own articles. Said newspaper has connection to other newspapers and I will pretty much be publishing to half of Lithuanian audience about military technology and explaining how warfare works. My first article will be about AMX-30. You should too try to be more constructive in your life or here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Calicifer said:

Sadly no, such things are not well documented. I had discussion, at least for a little while about F-35 capabilities and I could not find anything about this aircraft in a nicely summarized fashion. Even some basic things are surprisingly difficult to find about this plane. Which is to be expected as it is still new aircraft with a lot of its information tightly guarded. However, failure for you to provide any such information which you had referred to confirms my initial claims and position. I had asked this forum also the same question, but nobody could give me any solid source, only generic newsites or press conferences. You throw around a lot of statements and insults, but have absolutely nothing to back them up with. I did understood eventually that you guys have religious-like obsession with your favorite military equipment and this is why you can't stand critique towards those pieces of equipment which you love. This is why posting here is solely positive and you somehow manage to avoid entire controversy over most controversial high profile military hardware in 30 long thread which is named as "bash thred". This is impressive to say the least.

 

I also highly doubt about your claim of "quality posting". You had contributed nothing to constructive conversation while pretending to speak from position of superiority. I had seen other people being harrassed here too merely on a basis of them daring to have their own opinion or more precisely - a negative opinion over something. Posts are nothing more than just posting information you found on the internet. Those posts are not high quality posting, but perphaps you do consider that to be high quality posting, throwing a link to information you found somewhere. In my eyes, I had forced users to try harder in trying to disprove me than most of you had tried to in posting high quality material lately. You don't have to lie, I had checked other threads too and the quality of posting present here. While it is perfectly fine not to like me, you should not lie to me. Especially than you yourself had contributed nothing, but a noise to every reply to me ever since I was here. I was not disproven on my claims regarding F-35 despite the massive outrage. Only 1 person here and that was a new guy, previously just reading material here who had brought forth why AirPowerAustralia is not a credible source. However, he did not touched anything in said source or what I had said previously. In fact, when I did my research and had posted high quality post, it was completely ignored despite being the core of initial outrage. That is even sadder is that without me, this forum is pretty much dead. F-35 being the major talking point for any military enthusiast received no replies since me.

 

I would like you to do something constructive and maybe create quotable FAQ on most common contention points. There are many points which you could do research on, some are easy to disprove like low autonomy, high wing load of F-35 while others needs a lot more research like F-35 maneuverability in a dogfight. You certainly claim that you have all the information at the fingertip. However, that is the use of all that high and mighty information if all you do with it is boosting your own ego? You should try and do something constructive with it like I do in my own life. Since I had joined here, I got publishing deal from one online site to post my own articles. Said newspaper has connection to other newspapers and I will pretty much be publishing to half of Lithuanian audience about military technology and explaining how warfare works. My first article will be about AMX-30. You should too try to be more constructive in your life or here.

 

"Do all of my work for me. Wait, why are laughing?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 2:35 AM, Boagrius said:

I must admit to being a little hurt that my posts didn't rate more highly with Calicifer. I honestly thought they were masterpieces (replete with high quality links/sources) compared to what you'd get from most other fora. *Sigh* back to the drawing board I guess... :lol:

 

Well, I have whole forum to fight against. So sorry, but it is easy to forget, especially when you see me coming only once in a week or even more rarely. I was just loaded with work last, this and next month. I also was talking about a different thing, that there isn't any educational content available. A lot of it are just news articles, some official talking about something or someone robotically mentioning all the parts of a tank. Alright, I want to know the differences between various 1'st and 2'nd generation thermal optics between Soviets and Western tanks.  Show me pictures of generated images of both systems side by side. Or how does radar and stealth interact with each other? Those questions are a lot harder to find and there is a distinct lack of people which could explain those things to others. Asking community for anything here was completely fruitless as they either seem to hoard knowledge or don't have anything of value themselves. I had suggested that since people here want to be seen as extremely knowledgeable, they could start writing and publishing those kinds of articles. As people who are talking about defence and who have huge followings are sometimes are a little bit questionable for example Red Effect. However, community here did not wanted to be relevant and you can see results of that for yourself. It seems that they are just content sitting in their own forum and being horrible rather than trying to do something constructive with their time. 

 

I also want to say that I learned a lot about F-35 when discussing it with the other fellow elsewhere. I can see now how AirPowerAustralia was dishonest in its work and where they had made key mistakes. It also helped me to finally understand modern aircraft in their entirely. By that I mean that I know of all major components and systems and what is important in a fighter plane. However, my view remains the same about this aircraft if you can remember what it was. 

 

Btw: Even if I did not said it aloud previously, I did read through most of what you had wrote to me (articles). I will eventually finish with the rest. 

 

Edit: As I'm reading, there are alarmingly more and more links which lead to nowhere. For example, in 6 vs 4 internal hardpoints argument you had attached me Navy procurement budget...In ZOCTS over presents arbitrary features you had attached me an article which talks that every fighter plane has its problems when you named it: "the F35’s aerodynamic characteristics combine the excellent low speed controllability of the Hornet, with the excellent subsonic acceleration of the F16". Another case was when one guy talks that F-35 is just as maneuverable. However, he does not give any specifics and we all at least should know that F-35 can't maneuver as well due to how it is designed, not to mention various other high profile failures to beat legacy fighters in BFM. That is not rebuttal. That is telling me that you know the guy who knows the guy who works on F-35 program and he knows all the details about it and he said that aircraft is... You quoting of AirPowerAustralia is non existent and when you do quote them, you link whole article which talks about entirely different thing than you had presented me in your argument. Also, reading again what they wrote, it seems that time had validated their arguments and conclusions. Later you are attaching link of simulated exercise which does not talk at all about BFM combat. In fact, those loses in that exercise all came from dogfights which only disproves your argument. I'm also confused by how poorly that Su-30MKM pilot handles his plane. He seems to be quite inexperienced and he did three times the same mistake. However, if you had watched that video yourself, you would see an alarming capabilities of TVC from Su-30MKM when it basically turns around and scores a kill shot during the time it took for Super Hornet to recover from a dive and your other article about F-22 does not say much of anything either which would be relevant when it comes to BFM combat. I had read through all your posts together with articles and I must say that it is a highly questionable post. You lack quotes of your claims and where you do provide me with such, it appears that you did not bothered at all to read source material and had quoted rubbish. What you quote as examples or evidence has no correlation at all with ongoing argument with highly misleading headers. You rely mostly on news and promotional articles which are either very generic or serve just to advertize plane's capabilities. Sometimes however you quote articles completely randomly for your points. This is on top of that I did not payed a lot of attention at the beginning of your post, if I would had been critical, I might had found a lot more errors in it. Though, that was a good post, especially at the end. You should had focused more about mentioning the technological edge of F-35 rather than making dubious efforts in discrediting unspecified (no links attached to claims you are discrediting thus you can make up whatever you wish to discredit) source. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Utter nonsense. You clearly didn't read/comprehend what I posted properly...  again.

- The Navy budget link directly covers the Sidekick weapon bay mod that will give all F35A's and Cs from Lot 15 onwards the capacity to carry 6 AIM120/260 internally. This is not controversial.
 

- The pilot being interviewed is necessarily general in his feedback since the data on the specific aerodynamic capabilities of the F35 (eg its EM diagrams) is heavily classified and will remain so for decades to come. I will take his word (and that of numerous other relevant members of the operational community) over yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

bg-f35a-overview-chart-2.jpg

 

- Your unsupported assertion that the F35 has suffered “various other high profile failures to beat legacy fighters in BFM” is a myth. I suspect it stems from a misleading 2015 blog article by David Axe on a developmental control law test conducted with an F16. In short, it was not a dogfight but Axe tried to spin it as one anyway.

 

- The Su-30MKM never scored a kill in the three engagements depicted in the video I posted. It used TVC to briefly reverse a losing position into a neutral merge* (the pilot/narrator clearly says this at 12:42) only to be gunned again later on. You are literally making things up now.

*The Flanker's nose was pointed too low for a head-on gun shot, which would have been a no-go for both aircraft anyway.  

 

- The US aircraft was a legacy Hornet, not a Super Hornet. Once again you are clearly not examining/comprehending information properly.
 

- The link about the F22 was never supposed to relate to BFM, but to highlight the decisive advantage its VLO features have been providing it for over a decade – precisely as I claimed. This is yet more of you failing to adequately read or comprehend the information being presented.

 

EDIT: Have now added additional quotes, as if there was any doubt about the advantage VLO provides(!).


At this point I have to question whether you are even able to competently engage with what I am posting. It certainly doesn’t seem like it. I think I will leave you to do your own "research" as I can't see any point in persevering here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Compared to the most well known Japanese fighter of World War 2, the A6M “Zero”, the J2M Raiden (“Jack”) was both less famous and less numerous. More than 10,000 A6Ms were built, but barely more than 600 J2Ms were built. Still, the J2M is a noteworthy aircraft. Despite being operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), it was a strictly land-based aircraft. The Zero was designed with a lightweight structure, to give extreme range and maneuverability. While it had a comparatively large fuel tank, it was lightly armed, and had virtually no armor. While the J2M was also very lightly built, it was designed that way to meet a completely different set of requirements; those of a short-range interceptor. The J2M's design led to it being one of the fastest climbing piston-engine aircraft in World War 2, even though its four 20mm cannons made it much more heavily armed than most Japanese planes.
       
       

       
      Development of the J2M began in October 1938, under the direction of Jiro Hirokoshi, in response to the issuance of the 14-shi interceptor requirement (1). Hirokoshi had also designed the A6M, which first flew in April 1939. However, development was slow, and the J2M would not make its first flight until 20 March 1942, nearly 3 ½ years later (2). Initially, this was due to Mitsubishi's focus on the A6M, which was further along in development, and of vital importance to the IJN's carrier force. Additionally, the J2M was designed to use a more powerful engine than other Japanese fighters. The first aircraft, designated J2M1, was powered by an MK4C Kasei 13 radial engine, producing 1430 horsepower from 14 cylinders (3) (compare to 940 horsepower for the A6M2) and driving a three bladed propeller. The use of such a powerful engine was driven by the need for a high climb rate, in order to fulfill the requirements set forth in the 14-shi specification.
       
      The climb rate of an aircraft is driven by specific excess power; by climbing an aircraft is gaining potential energy, which requires power to generate. Specific Excess Power is given by the following equation;
       
      (Airspeed*(Thrust-Drag))/Weight
       
       
       
      It is clear from this equation that weight and drag must be minimized, while thrust and airspeed are maximized. The J2M was designed using the most powerful engine then available, to maximize thrust. Moreover, the engine was fitted with a long cowling, with the propeller on an extension shaft, also to minimize drag. In a more radical departure from traditional Japanese fighter design (as exemplified by aircraft such as the A6M and Ki-43), the J2M had comparatively short, stubby wings, only 10.8 m wide on the J2M3 variant, with a relatively high wing loading of 1.59 kN/m2 (33.29 lb/ft2) (2). (It should be noted that this wing loading is still lower than contemporary American aircraft such as the F6F Hellcat. The small wings reduced drag, and also reduced weight. More weight was saved by limiting the J2M's internal fuel, the J2M3 had only 550 liters of internal fuel (2).
       
      Hirokoshi did add some weight back into the J2M's design. 8 millimeters of steel armor plate protected the pilot, a luxurious amount of protection compared to the Zero. And while the J2M1 was armed with the same armament as the A6M (two 7.7mm machine guns and two Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannons), later variants would be more heavily armed, with the 7.7mm machine guns deleted in favor of an additional pair of 20mm cannons. Doubtlessly, this was driven by Japanese wartime experience; 7.7mm rounds were insufficient to deal with strongly built Grumman fighters, let alone a target like the B-17.
       
      The first flight of the J2M Raiden was on March 20th, 1942. Immediately, several issues were identified. One design flaw pointed out quickly was that the cockpit design on the J2M1, coupled with the long cowling, severely restricted visibility. (This issue had been identified by an IJN pilot viewing a mockup of the J2M back in December 1940 (1).) The landing speed was also criticized for being too high; while the poor visibility over the nose exacerbated this issue, pilots transitioning from the Zero would be expected to criticize the handling of a stubby interceptor.
       

      Wrecked J2M in the Philippines in 1945. The cooling fan is highly visible.
       
      However, the biggest flaw the J2M1 had was poor reliability. The MK4C engine was not delivering the expected performance, and the propeller pitch control was unreliable, failing multiple times. (1) As a result, the J2M1 failed to meet the performance set forth in the 14-shi specification, achieving a top speed of only 577 kph, well short of the 600 kph required. Naturally, the climb rate suffered as well. Only a few J2M1s were built.
       
      The next version, the J2M2, had several improvements. The engine was updated to the MK4R-A (3); this engine featured a methanol injection system, enabling it to produce up to 1,800 horsepower for short periods. The propeller was switched for a four blade unit. The extension shaft in the J2M1 had proved unreliable, in the J2M2 the cowling was shortened slightly, and a cooling fan was fitted at the the front. These modifications made the MK4R-A more reliable than the previous engine, despite the increase in power.
       
      However, there were still problems; significant vibrations occurred at certain altitudes and speeds; stiffening the engine mounts and propeller blades reduced these issues, but they were never fully solved (1). Another significant design flaw was identified in the summer of 1943; the shock absorber on the tail wheel could jam the elevator controls when the tailwheel retracted, making the aircraft virtually uncontrollable. This design flaw led to the death of one IJN pilot, and nearly killed two more (1). Ultimately, the IJN would not put the J2M2 into service until December 1943, 21 months after the first flight of the J2M1. 155 J2M2s would be built by Mitsubishi (3).
       
      By the time the J2M2 was entering service, the J2M3 was well into testing. The J2M3 was the most common variant of the Raiden, 260 were produced at Mitsubishi's factories (3). It was also the first variant to feature an armament of four 20mm cannons (oddly, of two different types of cannon with significantly different ballistics (2); the 7.7mm machine guns were replace with two Type 99 Model 1 cannons). Naturally, the performance of the J2M3 suffered slightly with the heavier armament, but it still retained its excellent rate of climb. The Raiden's excellent rate of climb was what kept it from being cancelled as higher performance aircraft like the N1K1-J Shiden came into service.
       

       
      The J2M's was designed to achieve a high climb rate, necessary for its intended role as an interceptor. The designers were successful; the J2M3, even with four 20mm cannons, was capable of climbing at 4650 feet per minute (1420 feet per minute) (2). Many fighters of World War 2, such as the CW-21, were claimed to be capable of climbing 'a mile a minute', but the Raiden was one of the few piston-engine aircraft that came close to achieving that mark. In fact, the Raiden climbed nearly as fast as the F8F Bearcat, despite being nearly three years older. Additionally, the J2M could continue to climb at high speeds for long periods; the J2M2 needed roughly 10 minutes to reach 30000 feet (9100 meters) (4), and on emergency power (using the methanol injection system), could maintain a climb rate in excess of 3000 feet per minute up to about 20000 feet (about 6000 meters).
       
       
       
       
       

       
       
       
       
       

       
      Analysis in Source (2) shows that the J2M3 was superior in several ways to one of its most common opponents, the F6F Hellcat. Though the Hellcat was faster at lower altitudes, the Raiden was equal at 6000 meters (about 20000 feet), and above that rapidly gained superiority. Additionally, the Raiden, despite not being designed for maneuverability, still had a lower stall speed than the Hellcat, and could turn tighter. The J2M3 actually had a lower wing loading than the American plane, and had flaps that could be used in combat to expand the wing area at will. As shown in the (poorly scanned) graphs on page 39 of (2), the J2M possessed a superior instantaneous turn capability to the F6F at all speeds. However, at high speeds the sustained turn capability of the American plane was superior (page 41 of (2)).
       
      The main area the American plane had the advantage was at high speeds and low altitudes; with the more powerful R-2800, the F6F could more easily overcome drag than the J2M. The F6F, as well as most other American planes, were also more solidly built than the J2M. The J2M also remained plagued by reliability issues throughout its service life.
       
      In addition to the J2M2 and J2M3 which made up the majority of Raidens built, there were a few other variants. The J2M4 was fitted with a turbo-supercharger, allowing its engine to produce significantly more power at high altitudes (1). However, this arrangement was highly unreliable, and let to only two J2M4s being built. Some sources also report that the J2M4 had two obliquely firing 20mm Type 99 Model 2 cannons in the fuselage behind the pilot (3). The J2M5 used a three stage mechanical supercharger, which proved more reliable than the turbo-supercharger, and still gave significant performance increases at altitude. Production of the J2M5 began at Koza 21st Naval Air Depot in late 1944 (6), but ultimately only about 34 would be built (3). The J2M6 was developed before the J2M4 and J2M6, it had minor updates such as an improved bubble canopy, only one was built (3). Finally, there was the J2M7, which was planned to use the same engine as the J2M5, with the improvements of the J2M6 incorporated. Few, if any, of this variant were built (3).
       
      A total of 621 J2Ms were built, mostly by Mitsubishi, which produced 473 airframes (5). However, 128 aircraft (about 1/5th of total production), were built at the Koza 21st Naval Air Depot (6). In addition to the reliability issues which delayed the introduction of the J2M, production was also hindered by American bombing, especially in 1945. For example, Appendix G of (5) shows that 270 J2Ms were ordered in 1945, but only 116 were produced in reality. (Unfortunately, sources (5) and (6) do not distinguish between different variants in their production figures.)
       
      Though the J2M2 variant first flew in October 1942, initial production of the Raiden was very slow. In the whole of 1942, only 13 airframes were produced (5). This included the three J2M1 prototypes. 90 airframes were produced in 1943, a significant increase over the year before, but still far less than had been ordered (5), and negligible compared to the production of American types. Production was highest in the spring and summer of 1944 (5), before falling off in late 1944 and 1945.
       
      The initial J2M1 and J2M2 variants were armed with a pair of Type 97 7.7mm machine guns, and two Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannons. The Type 97 used a 7.7x56mm rimmed cartridge; a clone of the .303 British round (7). This was the same machine gun used on other IJN fighters such as the A5M and A6M. The Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannon was a clone of the Swiss Oerlikon FF L (7), and used a 20x101mm cartridge.
       
      The J2M3 and further variants replaced the Type 97 machine guns with a pair of Type 99 Model 1 20mm cannons. These cannons, derived from the Oerlikon FF, used a 20x72mm cartridge (7), firing a round with roughly the same weight as the one used in the Model 2 at much lower velocity (2000 feet per second vs. 2500 feet per second (3), some sources (7) report an even lower velocity for the Type 99). The advantage the Model 1 had was lightness; it weighed only 26 kilograms vs. 34 kilograms for the model 2. Personally, I am doubtful that saving 16 kilograms was worth the difficulty of trying to use two weapons with different ballistics at the same time. Some variants (J2M3a, J2M5a) had four Model 2 20mm cannons (3), but they seem to be in the minority.
       

       
       
      In addition to autocannons and machine guns, the J2M was also fitted with two hardpoints which small bombs or rockets could be attached to (3) (4). Given the Raiden's role as an interceptor, and the small capacity of the hardpoints (roughly 60 kilograms) (3), it is highly unlikely that the J2M was ever substantially used as a bomber. Instead, it is more likely that the hardpoints on the J2M were used as mounting points for large air to air rockets, to be used to break up bomber formations, or ensure the destruction of a large aircraft like the B-29 in one hit. The most likely candidate for the J2M's rocket armament was the Type 3 No. 6 Mark 27 Bomb (Rocket) Model 1. Weighing 145 pounds (65.8 kilograms) (8), the Mark 27 was filled with payload of 5.5 pounds of incendiary fragments; upon launch it would accelerate to high subsonic speeds, before detonating after a set time (8). It is also possible that the similar Type 3 No. 1 Mark 28 could have been used; this was similar to the Mark 27, but much smaller, with a total weight of only 19.8 pounds (9 kilograms).
       
       
       
      The first unit to use the J2M in combat was the 381st Kokutai (1). Forming in October 1943, the unit at first operated Zeros, though gradually it filled with J2M2s through 1944. Even at this point, there were still problems with the Raiden's reliability. On January 30th, a Japanese pilot died when his J2M simply disintegrated during a training flight. By March 1944, the unit had been dispatched to Balikpapan, in Borneo, to defend the vital oil fields and refineries there. But due to the issues with the J2M, it used only Zeros. The first Raidens did not arrive until September 1944 (1). Reportedly, it made its debut on September 30th, when a mixed group of J2Ms and A6Ms intercepted a formation of B-24s attacking the Balikpapan refineries. The J2Ms did well for a few days, until escorting P-47s and P-38s arrived. Some 381st Raidens were also used in defense of Manila, in the Phillipines, as the Americans retook the islands. (9) By 1945, all units were ordered to return to Japan to defend against B-29s and the coming invasion. The 381st's J2Ms never made it to Japan; some ended up in Singapore, where they were found by the British (1).
       

       
       
      least three units operated the J2M in defense of the home islands of Japan; the 302nd, 332nd, and 352nd Kokutai. The 302nd's attempted combat debut came on November 1st, 1944, when a lone F-13 (reconaissance B-29) overflew Tokyo (1). The J2Ms, along with some Zeros and other fighters, did not manage to intercept the high flying bomber. The first successful attack against the B-29s came on December 3rd, when the 302nd shot down three B-29s. Later that month the 332nd first engaged B-29s attacking the Mitsubishi plant on December 22nd, shooting down one. (1)
      The 352nd operated in Western Japan, against B-29s flying out of China in late 1944 and early 1945. At first, despite severe maintenace issues, they achieved some successes, such as on November 21st, when a formation of B-29s flying at 25,000 feet was intercepted. Three B-29s were shot down, and more damaged.

      In general, when the Raidens were able to get to high altitude and attack the B-29s from above, they were relatively successful. This was particularly true when the J2Ms were assigned to intercept B-29 raids over Kyushu, which were flown at altitudes as low as 16,000 feet (1). The J2M also had virtually no capability to intercept aircraft at night, which made them essentially useless against LeMay's incendiary raids on Japanese cities. Finally the arrival of P-51s in April 1945 put the Raidens at a severe disadvantage; the P-51 was equal to or superior to the J2M in almost all respects, and by 1945 the Americans had much better trained pilots and better maintained machines. The last combat usage of the Raiden was on the morning of August 15th. The 302nd's Raidens and several Zeros engaged several Hellcats from VF-88 engaged in strafing runs. Reportedly four Hellcats were shot down, for the loss of two Raidens and at least one Zero(1). Japan surrendered only hours later.

      At least five J2Ms survived the war, though only one intact Raiden exists today. Two of the J2Ms were captured near Manila on February 20th, 1945 (9) (10). One of them was used for testing; but only briefly. On its second flight in American hands, an oil line in the engine failed, forcing it to land. The aircraft was later destroyed in a ground collision with a B-25 (9). Two more were found by the British in Singapore (1), and were flown in early 1946 but ex-IJN personnel (under close British supervision). The last Raiden was captured in Japan in 1945, and transported to the US. At some point, it ended up in a park in Los Angeles, before being restored to static display at the Planes of Fame museum in California.
       
       

       
       
      Sources:
       
       
      https://www.docdroid.net/gDMQra3/raiden-aeroplane-february-2016.pdf#page=2
      F6F-5 vs. J2M3 Comparison
      http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/j2m.htm
      http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Jack-11-105A.pdf
      https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015080324281;view=1up;seq=80
      https://archive.org/stream/corporationrepor34unit#page/n15/mode/2up
      http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html
      http://ww2data.blogspot.com/2016/04/imperial-japanese-navy-explosives-bombs.html
      https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3008.html
      https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3013.html
      https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3014.html
       
       
      Further reading:
       
      An additional two dozen Raiden photos: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/japan/aircrafts/j2m-raiden/
       
       
    • By Belesarius
      Possible image of the H-20 bomber. Screengrab.  This will be the thread for the H-20 as more information becomes available.
       
      Anyone want to take a shot at translating what's on screen for us?
       
      Edit: This is a photoshop, as confirmed later in the thread where it was posted.
      But I'll keep the thread going for later stuff, and H-20 discussion.
       
       
       
    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Collimatrix
      I found this interesting picture of the Yakovlev MFI design:
       

       
      Obviously, it was never built.  The MiG submission was the 1.44 and the Sukhoi submission was the SU-47.

×
×
  • Create New...