DailyTech - Report: Air Force's Spoiled F-35 "Superjet" Has No Code to Shoot Its Gun

Submit News

Science Report: Air Force's Spoiled F-35 "Superjet" Has No Code to Shoot Its Gun
Jason Mick (Blog) - January 2, 2015 2:17 PM

63 comment(s) - last by kyleb2112.. on Jan 12 at 4:02 AM

Armed w/ only 2-10 missiles, the F-35 will be deemed "combat ready" in 2015, but won't have gun code till 2019, despite 20 million LOC

After burning through hundreds of billions in expenditures (over $300B USD to date) along its much-delayed development arc, the "joint strike fighter" (JSF) -- also known as the F-35 Lightning II -- has earned the dubious distinction of being the most expensive combat aircraft in history. But according to a new report by The Daily Beast, the spoiled self-proclaimed "superjet" can't even fire its gun.

I. Duck Hunt: Lack of Gun Leaves JSF A Pricy Flying Duck

Yes, according to the report, which cites a number of Air Force pilots and senior officials as sources, the JSF -- with an estimated lifetime cost in the trillions -- after a decade of development the pampered project sports a gun that is currently little more than a decoration hanging as dead weight.

_{The JSF's gun is little more than dead weight at present, USAF sources say.

[Image Source: Firearms World]}

You could say after all that throwing good money after bad, in hopes of developing the "fighter of the future", Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and its subcontractors owe the American taxpayers the most dominant dogfighter in history.

Indeed Lockheed Martin promised the JSF would be a truly unprecedented design -- the first craft to be able to function both as a bomber and as dogfight-ready fighter. And it would have a number of customized designs for various takeoff scenarios and combat environments. In short, Lockheed Martin promised the mother of all fighters.

But taxpayers shouldn't be holding their breath as Lockheed Martin's $400B USD bid has been stuttering along for well over half a decade now. And if things aren't going well, the new report suggests the publicly acknowledged flaws are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Notably, the report cites roughly half a dozen USAF sources as confirming that the JSF has been banned from using its machine gun in combat until it receives a software update. And that update isn't expected to arrive until 2019. Until then the JSF isn't quite a sitting (or flying, more aptly) duck, but it's close to it.

_{Immobile and with a crucial piece of weaponry crippled, a dogfight with the F-35 is looking less like a fair fight and more like a "duck hunt". [Image Source: lacosta/Deviant Art]}

The gun is dead rate because after roughly 25 million lines of code it's written (code, incidentally, China might have stolen for free), Lockheed Martin apparently couldn't be bothered to write in code to connect the JSF's trigger to its gun. Air Force officials say that Lockheed Martin is telling them that it's going to take another four full years -- until 2019 -- to integrate the seemingly simple code into its web.

In the meantime the "operational" jet will be a bit lame, officials warn. But, it's a moot point many pilots say, as the craft's engine is too slow and clumsy for dogfights anyhow.

The only problem? Americans have to pay the bill for a supposed superfighter.

Enter the JSF, the spoiled superfighter du jour.

II. $400 Billion Dollar Baby

Word of the new issues come hot on the heels of troubling reports of potential problems with hot fuel. While it was unclear whether or not the fuel concerns were overblown given the Air Force's statement, the issue with the JSF's rotary cannon -- if true -- is arguably an undefensible strike against the already ailing JSF.

To be fair, this problem isn't only on Lockheed Martin, doesn't make the F-35's gun system. That role was subcontracted to General Dynamics Corp. (GD). That said, the failure appears to be mainly on Lockheed's front as GD delivered it by 2007 a functional gun that was below the required weight. But thanks to Lockheed dropping the ball, one system that looked a much-layup for the embattled jet has become the latest costly turnover.

The JSF is outfitted with a single four barrel 25 mm rotary machine gun cannon, located in its underbelly. Dubbed the GAU-22/A, the General Dynamics gun seemed to be a good fit for dogfighting duty as it's a tweaked version of the heavier five-barrel GAU-12 "Equalizer" cannon used in Boeing Comp.'s (BA) AV-8B Harrier II jump jet.

_{The F-35's 25 mm "Equalizer" machine gun cannon was supposed to be a layup. Instead it's turned into the latest debacle for the jet. [Image Source: GD]}

Lockheed Martin itself already has working code for an Equalizer, as it uses the GD gun in its AC-130 gunship. Some readers may recall the AC-130 as the primary craft used in USAF aerial directed energy weapons (laser) platform testing. The AC-130 is a variant of the C-130 Hercules transport plane. And the AC-130 fleet sports working GAU-12 Equalizer cannons.

But for some unexplained reason Lockheed Martin claims it can't come up with code for a design it is already is using in the field. And it says it won't have that code finished until roughly half a decade from now, 3 to 4 years after the craft was supposed to be fully "operational".

_{Lockheed has code for an almost identical cannon working for its AC-130 gunship (pictured), but somehow porting that code to the JSF codebase is supposedly taking 15+ years of labor.

[Image Source: Wikimedia Commons]}

The USAF source vented frustration over the SNAFU to The Daily Beast, grubmling:

There will be no [option to fire the] gun until [the Joint Strike Fighter’s Block] 3F [software], there is no software to support it now or for the next four-ish years. Block 3F is slated for release in 2019, but who knows how much that will slip?

In other words, it would seem that by digitizing what was once a simple mechanical function, it appears that Lockheed Martin has warped simple machine gun trigger pulling into a decade-and-a-half development process.

But the failure grows even more bizarre, when you consider that Lockheed has working code for a nearly identical machine gun in use in other planes designed. That's right -- if the report is to be believed -- Lockheed Martin reportedly is claiming to needs more than 15+ years of coding to port the logic to fire a fixed machine gun cannon with one less barrel and a slightly different firing rate.

If one were paranoid they might suspect that such a farcical seeming claim might be a fabrication designed to obfuscate the apparent failings of the jet's engine design -- failings that have severely limited its speed and maneuverability. But we'll take the report at its face value, and assume that if true it's just a matter of gross incompetence on Lockheed Martin's part.

II. Coding a Clusterf*ck, or How to Write a 24+ Million Line Code That Can't Do Its Duty

It's not altogether surprising to hear the source of this latest black mark, given that software has been one of the biggest problems on the relatively long list of issues with the Defense Department's spoiled jet. Part of the problem is simply size.

In layman's terms the craft's code is what professionals might refer to as a "clusterf*ck", a technical term muttered in cases like these under bated breaths to colleagues.

_{The F-35 sports unquestionably the most advanced collection of combat avionics ever formulated, but most of its systems appear to be buggy and broken to various degrees.}

And how could it not be? At over 20 million lines of code, the JSF's codebase is one of the largest pieces of software ever created and is perhaps a textbook definition of an overambitious doomed design.

Lockheed packed the JSF with an unprecedented array of sensors, but struggled to put them to use in a meaningful way as code ballooned to 24 million lines. While Lockheed Martin has said it hopes to trim down the existing code while adding more functionality, the pace of patches has been reduced to a snail crawl given the size.

Simple changes in the code can literally affect tens, if not hundreds of thousands of lines of code, potentially introducing hundreds of mission-threatening bugs. It's questionable whether it's even possible to thoroughly bugcheck such a massive code. There may be a way, but it's become increasingly clear in recent years that if there is a way, Lockheed Martin is unlikely the one to channel that coding magic mojo.

Bugs aside, it also appears Lockheed Martin has lost touch of the fighter's combat needs, in terms of prioritizing features. According to the report, even with its well over 20 million lines of code, there's no code yet to connect the pilot's trigger to the rotary cannon, so the cannon is essentially dead weight.

_{Lockheed won't comment on its bizzare inability to integrate GD's machine gun cannon.}

Further, the report says this isn't just an issue with the USAF variant, the F-35A. While the USAF's version might be hoped to be the only version with a dead gun -- given that it's the only version with an internally housed gun (housed by the engine inlet) -- it turns out that the more traditionally mounted guns are also not working, according to the report.

The report states that the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B variant (targeted at the U.S. Marines) and the carrier-based F-35C variant (targeted at the U.S. Navy) also have crippled guns. And like the USAF codebase, it sounds as if the fixes for the variants are rather far away:

Neither Lockheed nor the F-35 Joint Program Office responded to inquiries about the status of the jet’s gun... The Navy and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 have differing configurations and rely on an external gun pod. The software won’t be ready for those jets for years, either.

_{The F-35B (vertical takeoff version; pictured) and F-35C (carrier version) reportedly also have dead guns.}

A USAF official suggested Lockheed's refusal to promise a working gun until nearly half a decade from now, may be a sign that the project is in far more trouble than Lockheed Martin will admit. While the craft will fly, its functionality as a combat fighter is truly in question, the source indicates, remarking:

To me, the more disturbing aspect of this delay is that it represents yet another clear indication that the program is in serious trouble. Lockheed Martin is clearly in a situation where they are scrambling to keep their collective noses above the waterline, and they are looking to push non-critical systems to the right in a moment of desperation.

One must ask the obvious question -- if the gun can't fire on any F-35 variant -- what does the craft have to defend itself with?

III. Pilots Better be Good Shots or be Skilled at Fleeing From Enemy Jets

That's a pretty important question, given that the Pentagon recently cheerfully declared that the craft Lockheed Martin's deputy general manager of the JSF program, Jeff Babione, claimed to reporters in Sept. 2014 that the craft would be "combat ready" (become operational) by "mid-2015".

_{After many delays the F-35 is supposedly will be "operational" next year. [Image Source: Lockheed Martin]}

Well, the glass-a-tiny-bit-full is that it turns out that it may indeed be able to fire something in a dogfight. While the rotary cannon is its primary dogfighting weapon, the F-35 does have some secondary air-to-air weapons that reportedly are working -- namely a pair of missiles.

_{The F-35 isn't entirely defenseless; it packs up to 10 air-to-air missiles.}

The F-35's wingtips act as external hardpoints that can carry AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-132 ASRAAM short-range air-to-air missiles (AAM). The current codebase reportedly supports firing those two missiles at aerial targets.

_{The F-35 boasts some mean missiles or bombs on its wingtips.}

The craft also has four underwing pylons on each, which are capable of carrying a total of eight AIM-120 AMRAAM BVR air-to-air missiles (AAM) in its full air-to-air combat configuration. It's unclear whether those missiles are currently ready to fire, but the reports seems to suggest they may be.

So the F-35 has at best, at present ten shots. If the enemy is able to field more than ten fighters per F-35, the best outcome the F-35 can hope for is a hit-and-run. That's a major concern, given that lifetime costs per jet are over $600M USD at current estimates. Of that, about $170M USD is currently in the up-front purchase cost. By contrast, Russia's Mikoyan MiG-29 has a per-unit cost of around $28M USD, based on recent purchases.

So you can buy six MiG-29s for the up front costs of one JSF. Or if you prefer something a bit more modern you can get Russian Sukhoi Su-35 jets for around $40M USD (which would buy you roughly four per JSF).

_{It can also pack up to eight AMRAAM missiles for dogfights.}

Given that the JSF has only ten missiles, the pilots better be solid shots or they may find themselves swatted by masses of the older, less expensive, less complicated MiG interceptors. With the JSF, the old Revolutionary War Swamp Fox adage, "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day," might apply.

Unfortunately, the JSF appears to be heavier on the running and lighter on the fighting side of the equation, according to Air Force pilots quoted in the report. And the problem is it's not particularly good at running away, so it might not survive after all, according to pilots. In other words, it might be better off staying where it's spent so much of its time in recent years -- at home on the ground. The skies are a dangerous place after all.

IV. Ground Support? Nah...

Dangers aside, the lack of a gun creates secondary problems. More specifically, the flaw seriously endangers the JSF's from assuming its long-promised, long-delayed role in ground combat as well.

In recent years the USAF has been forced to realize what it should have known from way back in World War II -- that in many combat scenarios, you need a smaller caliber weapon to precisely target ground combatants.

The USAF has leaned on F-15 and F-16s for strafing targets fighting in close proximity to U.S. forces. In such situations, the kinds of GPS-guided bombs that the JSF can carry on its hard points are useless, as they would likely result in massive friendly fire casualties.

A USAF pilot told The Daily Beast:

GPS-guided munitions with long times of fall are useless when the ground commander doesn’t know exactly where the fire is coming from, or is withdrawing and the enemy is pursuing. GPS munitions are equally useless when dropped from an aircraft when the pilot has near zero ability to track the battle with his own eyes.

And this isn't just a "whoopsie". It's a potentially defect with potentially deadly outcomes.

Given that the USAF is racing to phase out its fleet of F-15s and F-16s, pilots warn that only the F-22 will available for such ground strikes, given the F-35s woes. And that puts the lives of American soldiers on the ground at risk by leaving soldiers in close-quarters combat without a viable air-strike option in some cases.

One pilot comments:

Lack of forward firing ordnance in a CAS supporting aircraft is a major handicap. CAS fights are more fluid than air interdiction, friendlies and targets move... Oftentimes quickly. The ability to mark the target with rockets and attack the same target 10 seconds later is crucial.

Could the F-22 make this shortcoming a moot point? Perhaps, but that raises problems of its own.

With the F-22s already tasked with picking up the F-35s slack in dogfighting, in a combat scenario against a well outfitted enemy with a workable air force, the USAF might be forced to save the F-22s for ground support, which in turn likely would force a grounding of the pricey F-35 bombers to avoid putting it at risk. This would also endanger lives as ground soldiers fighting at a greater distance might not have the air support they need against artillery.

V. Russian Su-35S Jets Enjoy Nearly Twice the Firing Time at a Fourth the Price

And according to the report, the JSF's gun issues will hardly be solved by the enabling of the gun, sometime in the somewhat-distant future. The article points out that even after the gun is enable 3 to 4 years after the craft is deemed "operational", the gun will remain an ineffective tool, given how fast it fires.

_{The F-35 packs a number of weapons stations, but the gun is among the most crucial to ground strafing and dogfights.}

The gun 3,300 rounds per minute -- a deadly barrage. The only problem is that the USAF variant (the F-35A) carries only 180 rounds in its ammo pods.

_{F-35s carry up to 220 rounds, w/ capacity varying by model (image's 225 round figure is outdated).}

The other two variants used by the U.S. Navy and Marines (the F-35B and F-35C) carry 220 rounds. So in its two forms, the pilot has around 3.3 seconds (F-35A) to 4 seconds (F-35B/C) of firing time... maybe enough for several quick flicks of the trigger.

_{The F-35's rotary cannon fires at a much faster rate than rival designs, but does not carry a bigger magazine. [Image Source: Baidu]}

A possible solution would be to lowering the firing rate. Lockheed's AC-130 gunship was forced to do exactly that for similar reasons. It reduced the rate of fire from the blistering 3,600-4,200 rounds per minute mark, down to 1,800 rounds per minute. If the F-35 adopted a similar firing rate, it could stretch its firing time to 6 seconds (F-35A) to 7.3 seconds (F-35B/C) -- somewhat better.

To return to the MiG-29 analogy, its onboard cannon, the GSh-30-1 30 mm cannon, fires at 1,500 rounds per minute and has 100 rounds in current variants -- good for 4 seconds of fire time.

_{You can buy roughly six MiG-29 fighters (pictured) or four Sukhoi Su-35 interceptors for the price of one JSF. And they have working guns to boot.}

So when Lockheed does at last activate the cannon, it will only match the MiG-29's firing time, unless it slows the firing down. And the Su-35 boasts a 150 round magazine @ 1,500 rounds per minute, so it will have nearly twice the firing time of the JSF unless Lockheed and GD slow down the firing rate. At best, the JSF will have a similar total firing time to the Su-35, at four times the cost.

Of course, the F-35 has a lot of countermeasures that should give potential combatants fits in dogfights. But the compelling question is whether Lockheed's code will even be able to make the high-tech deterrents effective, given all the problems with basic functionality like the gun.

Further the F-35 -- with its problem-plagued monolithic single engine -- isn't looking overly agile. When you consider it will face potentially four Su-35s or six MiG-29s, the picture isn't pretty. At best the Pentagon will have to outspend its foreign rivals. But it's hardly getting bang for its buck.

_{The Sukhoi Su-35 is among Russia's deadliest fighter designs. [Image Source: Takeoff Magazine]}

Maybe that's why some former "top guns" like retired Australian RAAF officer WGCDR Chris Mills (AM, BSc, MSc(AFIT)) claims that the JSF might be smoked by fully outfitted Su-35S in one-on-one combat (in a scenario where F-35s were mixed with Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors in a combined squadron).

The USAF ardently attacked that claim, as did Lockheed Martin. And at the time, sentiments seemed to be in their favor. Most -- even Rand Corp., the company conducting the study behind that claim (the August 2008 Pacific Vision simulation) -- seemed to agree that the Australian conclusions seemed a bit overblown.

But ironically they might not have been. The simulations were performed before the dead gun came to light. And they were also performed before the rash of engine troubles that have triggered a series of operational limits downgrades that have severely constrained the craft's speed and turning capabilities.

_{A 2008 simulation suggested a quartet of Sukhoi Su-35 interceptors could hold their own with a mixed quartet of F-35s and F-22s. [Imae Source: CzechAirSpotter]}

It'd be pretty interesting to see how the 2008 simulation (with both crafts fully outfitted with missiles and machine gun rounds) would play out, if the guns in the JSF went dark. Based on the statements from pilots, it sounds as if the JSF in its current state (a mired mess) might be lucky to perform as well as it did in the 2008 simulation, in that it'd be essentially dead wet, leaning on the F-22s in the squadron.

One Pentagon pilot familiar with the F-35A testing said to The Daily Beast, regarding the dead gun:

The jet can’t really turn anyway, so that is a bit of a moot point.

Another commented:

The JSF is so heavy, it won’t accelerate fast enough to get back up to fighting speed. Bottom line is that it will only be a BVR [beyond visual range] airplane.

"What do you call a fighter that can't fight in the air?"

"A joint strike fighter."

It sounds like a bad punchline, but it's increasingly looking like an accurate summary of the situation.

VI. "Hey Baby There Ain't No Easy Way Out (I Won't Back Down)"

General Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command is among the JSF's sternest defenders. And he raises some good points of why abandoning the fighter -- damaged goods and all -- would be a disastrous outcome for taxpayers. That said, he also has seemingly admitted that some of the criticisms of the design are valid.

_{USAF Gen. Mike Hostage has vowed to battle "to the death" cuts to F-35 orders. [Image Source: AP]}

In Jan. 2014 that he vowed "to the death" to avoid cuts to the USAF's planned 1,763 jet purchase. He was adamant about phasing out the trusty F-15 and F-16 from active duty, in lieu of the alluring, but mercurial JSF.

Technical Gen. Hostage is right about one thing. He says that if Congress forces the Pentagon to back away from the JSF, it will show allies that the craft is "weak in the knees." Indeed, this is the case. If the JSF purchase orders in the U.S. are trimmed, there's little reason to believe most allies won't respond even more aggressively in cutting their orders.

And that's not necessarily good news for U.S. taxpayers, as -- remember -- they've already paid $400B USD, an expenditure which was justified by the promise of foreign orders cutting the cost of Pentagon orders.

_{There's no easy escape route for the F-35, given the massive amount already spent.

[Image Source: Lockheed Martin]}

On the other hand, if the JSF can't even fire its guns it's questionable whether keeping it is a good option either. Even the USAF seems to recognize the deep hole it's dug itself into with its massive spending. Gen. Hostage in his defense of the craft ultimately said something rather damning about it -- he admitted that the JSF was not meant as an air-superiority fighter.

That's a pretty interesting admission, given Lockheed's claims of its air-to-air prowess.

VII. The Bomber That Wanted to be a Real Fighter

While the JSF isn't dead, its problems put the USAF between the metaphorical "rock and a hard place." It appears that the U.S. taxpayers have been rickrolled into an overpriced new stealth bomber masquerading as a jet fighter. The old phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind when examining the JSF, but that's perhaps a bit harsh. The JSF should be a passable bomber and air-to-ground missile platform.

The problem, though, is that the Pentagon didn't exactly need a new bomber -- it had plenty of functional designs already. The real issue isn't the JSF's capability to do something in combat, rather it's that Lockheed Martin convinced the Pentagon to pay boatloads of money for a craft that was billed as a terrific bomber and fighter jet rolled into one. The latter part increasingly appears to be a misleading claim at best.

_{Pinocchio wanted to be a real boy; the F-35 wanted to be a real fighter. Both had a tendency to fib now and then. Pinocchio, happily, became a real boy in the end. Unfortunately the F-35 might not have such a cheery fairy tale ending. [Image Source: Disney]}

The senior USAF who questioned whether the program was in deeper trouble also acknowledged to The Daily Beast the apparent truth:

From an air-to-air standpoint, an argument could be made that the F-35A not having a functional gun—or any gun, for that matter—will have little to no impact. Heck, it only has 180 rounds anyway. I would be lying if I said there exists any plausible tactical air-to-air scenario where the F-35 will need to employ the gun. Personally, I just don’t see it ever happening and think they should have saved the weight [by getting rid of the gun altogether].

In other words, however "good" the JSF is in its true roll -- as a bomber -- it could have been better (more maneuverable) and cheaper if it had just been forthright about its limitations and try to be the best bomber it could be. Then again, Congress might never have authorized the record-setting project were it not billed as a boon to air superiority, a claim that by the sound of it, even Pentagon officials are now quietly admitting was malarkey.

_{A battle tested F-16 (foreground) babysits its replacement, the overpriced, spoiled fighter jet. It needs the help -- were it to get in a real airfight, the F-35 can't turn quickly due to its broken engine and reportedly has no working machine gun. [Image Source: USAF]}

With the engine struggling along and with its gun dead, one can only hope that the F-35 is guarded by a large contingent of F-22 Raptors who can coddle and protect the vulnerable, spoiled Lockheed superjet.

Source: The Daily Beast

Comments

Threshold

Username	Please enter your username
Password	Please enter your password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why?

By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/2015 3:26:05 PM , Rating: 4

Why does this thing even have a cannon? From what we know, the F-35 utterly fails at:

1. Close air support.
2. Dogfighting.
3. Any other kind of fighting.

It's only use is a "stealthy" mini-bomb truck or standoff missile platform. Land or carrier based. And that's pretty much it.

Normally I would never say this about a fighter aircraft. But this isn't a normal fighter. If an F-35 pilot actually finds himself in a position where he would need a cannon, he should probably just pull the EJECT handle and get it over with.

This latest news is just..indefensible though. Seriously everyone involved in the entire project needs to be doing something else as a career.

RE: Why?

By Manch on 1/2/2015 4:53:02 PM , Rating: 3

Reminds of the F-4 development. They initially didn't have guns. They weren't needed they said. Dog fights are a thing of the past. Quick lessons from Vietnam added guns rather quickly.

Those could fire though....

Parent

RE: Why?

By Nightbird321 on 1/2/2015 7:59:59 PM , Rating: 3

You guys all missed the point, here's the message translation:

Ha, all this time and you only uncovered this one bug? Well we'll need 4 years to finish writing the first draft of the real software package, hopefully you'll be too dumb to notice.

Parent

RE: Why?

By Manch on 1/3/2015 10:36:48 AM , Rating: 2

No, I was just replying to Rec's comment about the need for guns on the platform. This is not the first time they've pushed an AC into operational status without one. Albeit for different reasons. Wasn't commenting about the bug.

Parent

RE: Why?

By Cypherdude1 on 1/2/2015 8:31:32 PM , Rating: 2

I wouldn't take everything you read on the 'Net too seriously. Think about it. How hard is it to add firing code to the F-35's onboard programs. Can't be that hard. A college grad could do that. I'm sure Lockheed can do it quickly. Perhaps, IMHO, Lockheed and its partners are simply trying to wring every last dollar's worth of profit out of the F-35 program. After all:
• IMHO, Lockheed and its partners gotta to make a buck too, right?
• IMHO, Lockheed and its partners bought off all our federally elected leaders, right? ?
• IMHO, Lockheed and its partners, they gotta have their mansions too, right? Am I right? ? ?

BTW, the Sukhoi Su-35 is not a stealth capable jet fighter. How any simulation can result in stating that 4 Su-35's can tie against 2 F-35's and 2 F-22's is ridiculous. Perhaps if the F-35's and F-22's had externally mounted tanks or weapons during the day, it would be a tie. However, at night, if the F-35's and F-22's had no externally mounted equipment, the Su-35's would have no chance at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

Parent

RE: Why?

By bug77 on 1/3/2015 6:43:39 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
BTW, the Sukhoi Su-35 is not a stealth capable jet fighter. How any simulation can result in stating that 4 Su-35's can tie against 2 F-35's and 2 F-22's is ridiculous.

The Su35 has reduced frontal radar signature, so if it's approaching head-on, it's probably on par with F22 and F35. Plus, the F35 has supermaneuverability; so does the F22, but not the F35.

quote:
Perhaps if the F-35's and F-22's had externally mounted tanks or weapons during the day, it would be a tie.

Without external weapons, the F35 can carry just to A2A missiles.

Parent

RE: Why?

By Manch on 1/3/2015 10:44:28 AM , Rating: 2

The comparo with the Su-35 is a bit ridiculous. It would get. squashed. We've had several of these exercises and we are usually handicapped off the bat to make it "fair".

Our stand off packages are far superior and can fire well before those SU-35's are ever in firing range. Also add in AWACS and several platforms and we can reach out and touch even further.

Parent

RE: Why?

By bug77 on 1/3/2015 11:36:54 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Our stand off packages are far superior and can fire well before those SU-35's are ever in firing range.

An indisputable advantage, but does one shot equal one kill?
I mean, all this seems similar to the story of the F4. But aviation is not one of the domains I'm very familiar with (much less military aviation), so I really don't know.

Parent

RE: Why?

By Manch on 1/3/2015 12:16:12 PM , Rating: 3

Not necessarily but in addition to our AWACS and other platforms extending the range we can also reduce their countermeasures effectiveness through jamming.

Also remember that the F22 & F35 both have supercruise without afterburners. So if they have to they can use the same tactic the F4's used to. Turn, burn and GTFO. And this is after they have already engaged, spent their load before the other fighter is even within range.

I'd rather have more F22's and a new version of the A10 rather than the F35. The F35 was supposed to be the cheaper companion to the 22 much like the 16 is to the 15.

Parent

RE: Why?

By bug77 on 1/3/2015 6:51:31 PM , Rating: 2

The F35 does not have true supercruise. It can supercruise for 100 or 150 miles. That's about 10 minutes at mach 1.2.

Parent

RE: Why?

By Manch on 1/4/2015 7:05:03 AM , Rating: 2

And that should be enough to get away. We'll have other assets in the air to protect returning AC.

Parent

RE: Why?

By superflex on 1/5/2015 3:48:07 PM , Rating: 1

You think nobody else has jamming capabilities?
Our AWACs are only good when there are no countermeasures.

Throw in some jamming capabilities like the Russians just did to our AEGIS destroyer in the Black Sea, and you're dealing with a fiasco.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html

Parent

RE: Why?

By Manch on 1/6/2015 4:03:16 AM , Rating: 2

Are you serious with this reply? That's hardly a credible source. Other than Russia's claim that it was so, there has been no other independent verification. Did you read the article? It reaks of propaganda.

I did not say or imply that other countries do not have jammers. We like they do also have countermeasures for those but ours are much better.

We found the Iraqi's Russian made GPS jammers in the Gulf war using GPS...

Now go back under your bridge troll..

Parent

RE: Why?

By Reclaimer77 on 1/3/2015 12:56:41 PM , Rating: 1

Comparing the F-4 to the F-22/F-35 is like comparing a car to a bicycle...

Lets put this another way. Our F-15 Strike Fighter has over 100 confirmed combat kills, and not a SINGLE loss. No F-15 has ever been shot down.

And the F-22 beats the F-15 in pretty much every category.

Parent

RE: Why?

By bug77 on 1/3/2015 7:13:54 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Comparing the F-4 to the F-22/F-35 is like comparing a car to a bicycle...

I was only talking about the idea of sending a plane to the sky with missiles only. It didn't work as expected for the F-4.

quote:
Lets put this another way. Our F-15 Strike Fighter has over 100 confirmed combat kills, and not a SINGLE loss. No F-15 has ever been shot down.

Well, anything less would be a huge embarrassment, considering the most modern plane the F-15 fought was the MiG-25. And that was the exception, it usually fought MiG-21s. But hey, that's good strategic planning; like some (marines?) general once said: "I'm not looking for a fair fight. When I send my boys to battle, I want them to have every possible advantage."

Parent

RE: Why?

By Reclaimer77 on 1/3/2015 7:24:09 PM , Rating: 2

Didn't the F-15 go up against Mig 29's in Iraq? On paper, at least, those are pretty evenly matched.

Parent

RE: Why?

By bug77 on 1/3/2015 8:44:09 PM , Rating: 2

I have no idea. According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force#1990s...
only 23 Iraqi planes were shot down, the rest were destroyed on the ground. By the second war, there wasn't much of an air force left.
And if you read that, you'll see the MiG-25s escaped superior F-15s in two encounters and managed to shoot down one F-18. Missiles can be, and were, evaded.

Parent

RE: Why?

By StormyKnight on 1/4/2015 4:41:13 AM , Rating: 2

http://iraqimilitary.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&...

USAF F-15C vs. IRAF MiG-29

The first air-air kills of the war occurred when two USAF F-15Cs shot down two Iraqi MiG-29s
17th January 91 - An Iraqi MiG-29 Shot down by F-15C 85-119 58 TFS/33 TFW pilot on K. "J.B." Kelk.
17th January 91 - An Iraqi MIG-29 shot down by F-15C 85-125 58 TFS/33 TFW pilot Capt. Chuck "Sly" Magill (USMC).

USAF F-15Es vs IrAF MiG 29

Sayhood continued his mission defending Iraqi airspace and came across two F-15Cs piloted by Captains Craig Underhill and Cesar Rodriguez. Underhill and Rodriguez spotted a pair of MiG-29s and gave chase when AWACS picked up Sayhood and his wingman. Sayhood and his wingman promptly engaged the two American aircraft and one of the most intense dogfights of the Gulf War ensued. The two MiGs and F-15s flew straight at each other, each attempting to visually identify their aggressors. Underhill faced Sayhood's wingman, while Sayhood himself faced Rodriguez. Underhill fired an AIM-7 at Sayhood's wingman, hitting him head on and killing him instantly.At the same time this was happening, Rodriguez sensed a radar lock by Sayhood, throwing him onto the defensive. Rodriguez dove down to the deck in order to confuse Sayhood's radar with ground clutter, hoping to shake the radar lock on his aircraft. After seeing his wingman killed, Sayhood briefly broke off the attack. Rodriguez and Underhill started heading south for a tanker, when Sayhood approached them from the north. Rodriguez and Underhill turned around to face Sayhood. Underhill got a radar lock on Sayhood with an AIM-7, but didn't fire because he wasn't sure if Sayhood was friendly or not. Sayhood sliced into their formation causing a "classic merge". Underhill climbed, keeping his lock on Sayhood, while Rodriguez stayed committed to the merge in order to visually identify the aircraft as hostile. As they passed each other, Rodriguez identified it as Iraqi, and each pilot turned left to engage the other. Sayhood was relying on the MiG's better turning radius to get onto Rodriguez's tail. They slowly spiraled towards the ground until Sayhood attempted to pull out using a split-s. Rodriguez didn't follow, and just before Sayhood could pull out, he crashed into the ground. He managed to eject from his MiG, however it is unknown if he survived.

Parent

RE: Why?

By bug77 on 1/4/2015 9:02:36 AM , Rating: 2

Ok, so it did shoot down some MiG-20s.

Parent

RE: Why?

By dew111 on 1/6/2015 6:07:29 PM , Rating: 2

I can tell from your post that you've never had a conversation with a software engineer that works for a defense contractor. One does not simply write code. It is preferable to write a document explaining how to avoid bugs in avionics software than to fix them. So they don't get fixed. Instead, the pilot is told not to turn left. Okay, maybe that's a bit of an exaggerated example, but less than you might think.

Also, stealth isn't the magic cloak from harry potter. Radar can still detect you if you get too close. And seeing as how the F-35 is supposed to be an air superiority aircraft, close combat is a basic requirement. Which also means the other guy can see you (and he can see you better than you can see him because his aircraft was designed specifically for this). And heat-seeking missiles will still find you.

Parent

RE: Why?

By Fallen Kell on 1/9/2015 4:21:54 PM , Rating: 2

Personally I don't blame Lockheed at all for this. I blame the government's armed forces for requiring a single aircraft to be a jack of all trades, including VTOL. If they even removed just the VTOL requirement, the jet would have been a much more capable fighter, but the space, power, weight, and aerodynamic requirements for VTOL eliminate too many options for a better aircraft. From an operational standpoint, I understand the want for a single aircraft used for the Navy, Airforce, and Marines, but the many times conflicting requirements of each of those groups added together created the JFS in the first place, not Lockheed, they simply won the bid to create it.

Parent

RE: Why?

By BRB29 on 1/3/2015 1:03:00 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
F-35 utterly fails at:

1. Close air support.
2. Dogfighting.
3. Any other kind of fighting.

The F35 does not need air superiority functionally. The only reason the US even have air superiority over the entire world is because of our massive military budget. There are better jets than the F35 for any tasks and they were all made decades ago. We have better combined arms simply because we have more money. The Israelis can fight much better than we can with less but we'll crush them by sheer dollars. In fact, the US military have regularly lost every type of combat exercise competition. Many of our best fighters usually gone the mercenary contractor route. Medals are great but some people would rather be paid millions.

The point of the F35 project is to actually save money by having a jack of all trades aircraft. But of course, military commanders orders are only 2 years long along with various "leaders" all wanting different things. Instead of 1 jet that can do all of it, they have so many different versions for different purpose and can't do a damn thing right. On top of that, budget is blown by several hundred % and delayed for years. Adding to more delays, we're looking at a project that will be a full decade late by the time the entire fleet is ready for actual combat.

Parent

RE: Why?

By Mitch101 on 1/3/2015 11:45:26 AM , Rating: 2

Killbots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eowPka21BNc

Parent

RE: Why?

By dew111 on 1/6/2015 6:21:04 PM , Rating: 2

The idea of a jack-of-all trades aircraft sounds like a good idea to a politician. But, as this project has clearly shown, the concept is not viable. It would have been cheaper to design specialized aircraft, because we know how to do that, and they actually work.

The concept is actually pretty silly when you think about it. Imagine someone telling you to design a tank that is also an MPC that is also an anti-aircraft battery. Also, it should be fast, and lightweight, and have good armor, and be cheap. You would tell them to go to hell, and rightfully so. It doesn't work that way. But instead of engineers deciding what our projects look like based on what actually is physically possible, politicians decide based on what sounds best.

Parent

RE: Why?

By encia on 1/3/2015 8:13:19 AM , Rating: 2

Rebuttal for Punk Journalism and the F-35.

Read
http://op-for.com/2014/02/punk-journalism-and-the-...

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/dav...

David Axe is just a journalist being debunked by an Aerospace Engineer that is involve with US weapons program.

Parent

I don't know where to begin, there's so much misinformation.

By inperfectdarkness on 1/5/2015 3:13:41 AM , Rating: 5

1. "Most expensive combat aircaft in history" is a misnomer. The C-130 has been around since the late 1960's--is still in continual production--and we procure more each year (and retire others). That kind of a production run has a LOT of cost (collectively) over its lifespan. Then you also have aircraft like the B-2, which cost 2 BILLION each. That's just the purchase cost, not lifetime cost--and that was 25 years ago--so figuring for inflation, it's substantially more.

2. The F-35, like the F-22 can carry external AND internal stores. The standard loadout for the F-15, for example, is 2 AIM-9 & 6 AIM-120: 8 missiles total. Insinuating that < 10 missiles is dangerous is pure F.U.D. Furthermore, missiles are not a 100% guaranteed kill. That's why fighters are employed in an air-air fight en masse. Limited fuel (no drop-tanks on air-air loadout) & limited missles necessitates it.

3. MS has had the same problem with code--although maybe not to the same magnitude. Windows 10 is one example of this--9x was already in use by coders. ANY program which gets to millions of lines of code runs an increasing risk of teething problems. I'm not excusing any programmers in this--I'm just saying that it WILL happen with a program that's this complex. That's also why it takes longer to add functionality or change things--because the code is labyrinthine. And the F-35 is hardly the first weapons system to have coding issues. The F-22 had issues with the international date line. And don't get me started on C2 weapons systems upgrades--or the difficulty in getting Link-16 interoperability to work properly.

4. A gun/cannon is NOT a primary dogfighting weapon. If your air-force tells you that--you're country is completely HOSED in the next air-war it has to fight. Missiles CONTINUE to be the weapon of choice for all engagements outside of 2-3 nautical miles. Most engagements in the visual realm (<10 nautical miles) are terminated via IR missile. And that's assuming the fight gets out of the Beyond-Visual-Range arena, where radar-guided missiles are king. In laymen's terms, there's a maximum range where any gun provides servicable functionality--and in the air-air realm in a supersonic engagement, that window is very, very narrow.

5. "hit and run" (aka "launch and leave") is a standard tactic in aerial warfare.

6. The Mig-29 isn't really even able to keep up with a block 30 F-16 (let alone a Block 60, an F-15, F-22, or F-35, EFA, JAS-39, etc).

7. Exported FSU jets are invariably "nerfed"--just like most of their US counterparts. 40m may be the individual cost for a SU-35 (doubtful, more likely the cost for a SU-27), but then you have to add the cost to get it up to snuff (radar upgrades, etc). And let's not forget that the USA still has the highest MFG costs in the world--and because we are talking about proprietary tech--it can't be outsourced for development/manufacture to CHINA (who can probably make J-11's for comparative pennies).

RE: I don't know where to begin, there's so much misinformation.

By inperfectdarkness on 1/5/2015 4:31:16 AM , Rating: 4

8. GPS Bomb Units (GBU's) are not the weapon of choice for Close Air Support. Laser-guided bombs (LGB), strafing and indirect fire are the standard choices. GPS bombs are better at attacking static targets (buildings, airfields, etc). Moving targets usually require LGB's. Additionally, since CAS is under duress, the Joint Terminal Attack Controller may not be able to provide 100% accurate coordinates, whereas a laser painting the target can be.

9. The best type of airframe for providing CAS is personified by the A-10. Unfortunately, the A-10 is a dinosaur and isn't really the ideal weapon of choice. What IS needed is a new bomber--remotely piloted--with 10,000 lbs payload capacity (larger than A-10, much smaller than B-52); and something with an integrally designed cannon for strafing. 30mm would be great, but it doesn't have to have the size-weight of the Gau-8. Even the M230 or Mk44 Bushmaster II would be fantastic. What has been repeatedly demonstrated is that the F-16/F-15E are simply too fast to easily make strafing runs. It's not impossible, but far from ideal.

10. Simulations aren't the final word. Even a Large Force Exercise (LFE) isn't the final word. And, as is typically the case for the USA, any participating fighters are usually hamstrung from using some capabilities. The USA does this to try and prevent all its cards from being laid face-up on the table. Consequently, simulation results & LFE results can be skewed. And that's not even taking into account the difference in pilot proficiency--which was the #1 reason for the USA's dominance in the skies of Korea.

11. Blame for this only partly lies with the USAF. It really belongs to the DOD in general--and largely to the bean-counters who insist on trying to put all the "multirole eggs" in one basket. It didn't work out great for the F-111 either.

12. If ANY fighter pilot is in a position where he has to switch to guns, it's already a bad day. And yes, the F-4 development similarities are amusing.

13. The SU-35's front Radar Cross Section (RCS) is about 10 times the size of an F-35's. And the F-22's is an order of magnitude smaller than the F-35's. That said, I'm glad that the world thinks so highly of the F-35--that makes it much easier to catch everyone with their pants down when the real fight begins.

14. The F-15 has no air-air combat losses. That is true. Plenty have been shot down by ground defenses though--both C and E models. It's about as stealthy as a brick. Adding stealth capability to an airframe doesn't mean it won't get shot-down, it just reduces the Weapons Engagement Zone (WEZ) for any ground-based defeneses--which can potentially create coverage gaps in an Integrated Air Defense System (IADS).

15. The F-15 and Mig-29 are in completely different leagues of Air-Air fighting. And let's not forget that the reason why many engagements go to the visual arena is because of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) which can require things like visual identification (VID) of target, etc. And for the record, F-15's don't normally HAVE to VID (unlike F-16s), because of Non-Cooperative-Target-Recognition. So that description of the engagement in Desert Storm is a misnomer. They would have known those were Mig-29's before they were ever visual--especially if they were head-on.

16. Air Superiority is quite necessary--and is in fact the driving purpose behind an air force (nay, any air force). Air superiority/supremacy allows for freedom of movement/maneuver throughout the battlespace. It assures that a military an provide ground support in an uncontested environment.

17. Most jets in the current inventory have long-since ceased production. Listing cost estimates for an F-16 ADF or block 10 is misinformation--because if the USA decides to procure more F-16's, the will almost assuredly be block 60's--and carry a substantial higher cost than the figures commonly tossed around (probably at least triple the 1998 cost for a C/D model). And the same goes for the F-15SE, which is said to be close to 100M each.

18. As mentioned above, combat exercises aren't the true litmus test. We've been churning out mediocre results in those for years--yet every time we have to actually put warheads on foreheads, we come up roses.

19. Again, "most expensive weapons system in history"? So we're not going to count the Ford or Nimitz class carrier development programs?

20. The real crying shame about the program isn't the F-35's alleged lack of warfighting prowess (I will withold a verdict until it actually is in LIVE combat), but the fact that congress already nixed the F-22 in favor of the F-35. That's a decision that we can't go back on--not without a huge cost investment that practically nullifies the purpose entirely.

21. No IRST system in the world has a useful range of 1300 KILOMETERS. That's not to say that an IR system can't detect any targets at said range, but that such capability is useless. Even at 50,000 feet (which is about the highest you'll ever see air-air combat go...and that's optimistic)--the curvature of the earth will blind a fighter to targets that are low (beyond a certain range). And since there's no fighter-carryable IR missile with a range over 100 miles (to my knowledge anyways), even if you had the detection ability--you wouldn't be able to use it until much closer.

Parent

RE: I don't know where to begin, there's so much misinformation.

By inperfectdarkness on 1/5/2015 4:52:51 AM , Rating: 4

22. The reason for the "cronyism" as some would call it--has been the reduction of military spending for decades. That reduction has caused merger after merger (and bankruptcies, etc) within the military industrial sector. It has effectively left 2 major USA airplane contractors to build airframes--whereas back during Vietman you couldn't even count the number on 2 hands. Douglas, Republic, Martin Marietta, etc...these all used to be distinct companies. Cutback after cutback has increased development times--since any fielded system has to be long-term capable...as a replacement won't be fielded for many years. This has lead to combining projects and project-creep, which in turn brings ballooning project costs. And the process repeats. The contracting sector is not the real source of the problem--though it may contribute to it.

23. 5th Generation fighters bring a new problem to the table which has not been the case with 4th Generation fighters--coding. While I do not see the current situation improving for many years, it is conceivable that a software "backbone" for a fighter jet is the crux. Glass-cockpit heavy aircraft have been common-place in the commercial segment for years. Those systems translate well to military heavy aircraft (i.e. sans classified information)--however, having a unified control/navigation/weapons employment/sensors package that IS appropriately classified/encrypted...has not been something heretofore developed. While planes have been "fly-by-wire" for quite some time, there's a big difference between an electronic connection between a switch & a servo...and a multi-purpose computer designed to handle/assist with virtually every cockpit task.

This is akin to complaining about why cars can't drive themselves already. Some can--in labratory settings--but it's certainly not ready for commercial sale. In the future, one can hope that such software--once the investment in its development has been completed, will function superbly well. There are numerous ways this may be of benefit. Off the top of my head, if a Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) has a secondary Passive Detection System (PDS), it may be able to estimate or determine which enemy system it is facing, and then deploy the appropriate countermeasures at the appropriate time. (Eg. IR missiles usually require a certain pattern of flare ejection to provide a successful defense--when combined with a high-G turn). All of this can happen seamlessly as the pilot focuses on his maneuver. BUT...in order to get there, we have to basically develop code from scratch.

24. Complaining that we spend too much on weapons systems for the enemies we currently face--is myopic. A military should be outfitted based on ANY conceivable threat--and be able to appropriately grapple with said threats. Trying to outfit our military based on the perception that camel-jockeys are all we'll ever face in the future--is a sure-fire way to lose the following conflicts.

It's all well and good to act like armchair-generals about this stuff...but you'd be adding a lot more to the discussion with some background information, history, and research. There ARE plenty of spears to sling at the F-35 project, but many others aren't actually legit. And I think the world likes to look at FSU aircraft with rose-colored glasses. If there's one thing that FSU aircraft should be lauded about...it's the ejection seats. Russia was forced to develop better ejection seats...I wonder why?

Parent

RE: I don't know where to begin, there's so much misinformation.

By DennisB on 1/5/2015 1:57:57 PM , Rating: 2

Anyone read that wall of Text?

Gee, there's so much ignorance on both side of the aisle I have to throw in some balance.

[quote]4. A gun/cannon is NOT a primary dogfighting weapon.[/quote]
Imho gun fight is the definition for dogfight the rest if BVR.

[quote]5. "hit and run" (aka "launch and leave") is a standard tactic in aerial warfare.
[/quote]
Fire and forget is only used in total war or for no-fly zones. IFF is not perfect yet. The usual procedure is visual ID, hence, the gun has it's uses.

6. Mig-29M ?

[quote]8. GPS Bomb Units (GBU's)[/quote]
GPS Bomb Unit is NOT GBU = Guided Bomb Unit for laser, GPS, TV, IR etc.

21. The F-14 camera had a range beyond 100 km. The reason why there's no long-range IR (except AA-6 ACID) is due to the speed necessary for these to reach that range rather than the possibility of using IR. The reaction time for Radar is just better than visual.

Historically, many military innovations came from or deployed first by the russian/soviets and the nazis rather than the west. For example parachute, robots/drones, missiles, VLS, Mauser/modern gatling, eject seats, tanks, back shooting missile, helmet tracking... The R-27 amraamsky&co. came a decade before the AMRAAM and spurted the Phyton series (~2 years later) and AIM120/AIM-9X.
We had the radar, ECM/ECCM, laser

Parent

RE: I don't know where to begin, there's so much misinformation.

By inperfectdarkness on 1/6/2015 4:59:45 AM , Rating: 2

-If you have spent any time involved in air combat or ACT, you would be well aware that pilots will always think of their gun as the 2nd to last resort (the very last being the yellow handle between their legs). There is a misconception that "dogfighting" is only about close-in yanking/banking with another fighter. While this IS part of it, there is much more to it. Knowing when to notch, knowing the minimum range for a high-g-maneuver required to defeat a given threat missle, etc. These are all elements of dogfighting. Additionally, most IR missile shots--as I noted above--occur in the visual realm. This is because a missile is much more maneuverable and capable of successfully hitting a target than any manned combat aircraft. A helmet-cuing system can allow high-off-boresight shots for a missle; whereas a gun requires being pointed at the target. And in addition to all of that, kentucky-windage is always required for using the gun/cannon in an aeriel fight--it's imprecise, and moreso at supersonic speeds.

-"Fire and Forget" != "Launch and Leave". The former is refering to a completely autonomous weapons system that is entirely self-guided from the instant it was fired. JDAM's are an example of this. On the other hand, launch and leave is a tactic used for attrition of a large grouping of enemy fighters--one which is the default standard tactic until the numbers have reached an acceptable ratio to the friendly fighters (eg. 1:1 ratio). The only time this would not be the case in the face of superior enemy numbers--is if the situation dictates a necessity of accepting the increased risk of friendly losses (eg. other higher-value assets which need to be protected). Contrary to myth, even an active guided missile needs to be "supported" by the platform that fires it--until it reaches a certain proximity to its taret.

-The "super fulcrum" as it's sometimes known (formerly Mig-33) has never been tested in combat, nor have any results about its prowess been widely published. Likewise, the Mig-35 is still in development. In either case, the per-unit cost of the Flanker-E/F is going to be an order of magnitude higher than the price quoted in this article--which is for legacy Mig-29's. Based on the purchase price listed for Russia's initial procurement of Mig-35's, the per-unit cost is going to be > 30 milliion USD. Of course, it remains to be seen if they will actually reach combat operational capability for that price. Russia/India/etc. have also slapped upgrade after upgrade on the Mig-21, but it was never as capable as a garden-variety F-16. And the same holds true for upgrades of the F-104 vs. the F-4.

-The AA-6 has the NATO callsign "Acrid".

-I can't speak to the ISR capabilities of the F-14. I do know that it possessed a fairly powerful radar. And the reason why radar is preferred at range, is that IR is not as reliable for providing a positive target--at range. Many conditions can affect this, not the least of which is climate/weather. Inside the visual arena (~10 NM), heat signatures are much more distinct & cannot be blocked via maneuvers (eg. notching)--which is why IR missiles are generally prefered in this realm.

-The British pioneered radar. The AIM-9 was the basis for the AA-2; it was reverse engineered after one got lodged in a Mig-15 and didn't explode. The Parachute was an invention of Leonardo DaVinci (and one could make the same argument regarding the tank as well). The gatling gun is entirely an American invention. Belt-Fed ammunition was pioneered by the Browning M1917/M1919, and disintegrating links were first used on the British Vickers. The AA-10 is a semi-active missile, which is akin to the AIM-7 Sparrow. The AIM-120 is an active missile, which would be more similar to the AA-12 (R-77). Russia has been playing catch-up to western airpower since Stalin purged the ranks of his best/brightest.

p.s.
Let's not forget that lateral thrust vectoring (yaw) is almost entirely worthless for dogfighting. Vertical thrust vectoring (pitch) is very beneficial. But since no aircraft are operated by pulling high-g turns in anything other than (primarily) the pitch axis, any other types of thrust vectoring that along said axis will provide minimal benefit. Russia talks a big game about 2D thrust vectoring, but in the real world, it won't have any impact. Fighters will always roll into the turn, and pitch up. That's how they were designed--and that's what physics dictates.

Parent

RE: I don't know where to begin, there's so much misinformation.

By DennisB on 1/6/2015 12:34:03 PM , Rating: 2

-That's a no brainer. Why would anyone use a lesser weapon when you got a better weapon at hand? Besides it's the AF's stated goal to give pilots the largest set of options whenever possible, hence, guns will stay a must have until lasers or better similar weapons are available.

-Same but without "Fire and Forget" you can't do "Launch and Leave" to begin with. It's "Fire and Forget" that makes that tactic possible. Anyhow it works for long-range or when the distance can't be closed quickly or e.g. under stealth. If both sides approach fast you will expose your butt to the approaching force.

-Isn't that why radar is better as I said?

-http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/paratroopers_...

-I said the modern Gatling. Look at the time the Mauser was given to the US and the time when it was shared with GM. And look at the mechanism. The only difference is the chambered and non-chamebered barrel and the barrel-circular arrangement for the gatling.

-Yeah, but without nazi gyroscope used in the V2 missile controls would be impossible.
-I said amraamsky didn't I? =R-77

Parent

RE: I don't know where to begin, there's so much misinformation.

By inperfectdarkness on 1/7/2015 5:06:46 AM , Rating: 2

-The gun on a fighter is a useful tool. Not having an operational one is hardly a deal-breaker for being able to use said fighter for air-superiority missions.

-Grinder tactics aren't about exposing your butt to the enemy. It's about allowing your missiles to continue hot aspect to a head-on target, while you gain some range from the leading edge of the opposing force (who are hopefully dying shortly). Furthermore, it offers the potential to kinematically outfly the range of some weapons, and a high-maneuver may defeat others. "Exposing your butt" is a complete misnomer. If you aren't "out" by a certain distance, you buy the merge. It's that simple.

-AIM-120 service date: 1991 R-77 service date: 1994 USA had theirs first. The point is, while Deutschland and Russia have had several innovations, the USA and western power have had many of their own.

Parent

hrm

By raphd on 1/2/2015 3:22:58 PM , Rating: 2

4 years to link an click event to execute code? lol.

RE: hrm

By jeepga on 1/2/2015 4:14:25 PM , Rating: 2

That's a significant oversimplification. There's a lot in abstraction layers to get you to a point of "link[ing] a click event" in a higher level language. Your sentiment is still valid though.

This stinks of dire problems in the code that Lockheed Martin is trying to whitewash.

Parent

RE: hrm

By M'n'M on 1/2/2015 8:34:54 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
This stinks of dire problems in the code that Lockheed Martin is trying to whitewash.

That's certainly true. It really stinks of the contractual process that LM is holding the Govt to. I'd bet (having BTDT) that it might actually take that long to do the whole software process, w/approvals and contract changes and etc, etc. I'll also bet that the engineers could have the gun working perfectly in 2 weeks. This is all "process" and $$ driven.

Parent

Actually..

By Joe765 on 1/3/2015 12:25:53 AM , Rating: 4

The F-35 program hasn't yet cost $400 billion.
(It will cost $400 billion if the US buys 2,500 planes as planned.
But so far about $87.5 billion has been spent on the program.)

What is true is that the F-35 is the most expensive weapon in history, and it's a huge blackhole in the Pentagon's budget.

I think it's unbelievable that after 14 years of development the plane still can't fire its gun.
But this seems to be just the tip of the iceberg.

The F-35 has myriad problems, the most glaring one being its poor performance (too slow, too unmaneuverable, too low-flying, too heavy).
The plane is so heavy that they can't even make needed fixes and design modifications if they will incur too much of a weight penalty.
The plane only has one engine; though the engine is powerful, the plane simply doesn't have enough engine thrust, because it's too heavy. It desperately needs two engines.

What's more, the engine has many problems.
The F-35 that suffered a catastrophic fire in June 2014 did so because the plane's engine was damaged during a previous test flight.
(During a benign maneuver, the engine "flexed" too much and overheated. Causing cracks that resulted in the engine ultimately exploding.)
God knows what might happen if the plane attempted more extreme maneuvers in the future, trying to expand it's flight envelope..

What they need to do is strengthen the engine housing and the airframe to prevent the engine flexing (and exploding) in the future.
But they can't do that, presumably because that will increase the plane's weight too much. They are just going to slap a band-aid on the problem.

Also, the plane's software is a mega disaster.
Being gargantuan in size and complexity, the software development has slowed to a crawl.
The current version of software has innumerable bugs which leave the plane barely functional.

All the plane's systems are dependent on the software.
But since the software is in such poor state, very few things work properly.
The plane can't even fly in its full flight envelope, let alone take on a mock combat mission, until the software is completed.

But even if they miraculously got the software to work properly, the plane is already obsolete in many ways.
It has been delayed so much that many of the systems are based on older technology.

Also, even its vaunted stealth capability is being cast in doubt, as the US's adversaries have been diligently developing sophisticated radars which can detect even stealth aircraft.

(It doesn't help that China stole a ton of technical data on the F-35. They have no doubt been using the data to identify the plane's weaknesses and devise strategies to counter it. Not to mention using the technology to speed development of their own stealth fighters; they will incorporate the F-35's strong points, while omitting its flaws.)

Even if all its systems worked perfectly, the F-35 will perform more poorly in some ways than the planes it's supposed to replace. (particularly in terms of flight performance)
Even if it worked perfectly, it will find very limited use.
(As a stealth bomber I suppose, against moderately defended targets.
But it won't be good for attacking China because it doesn't have long enough range, or good enough stealth.
Also, it will be useless for close air support missions.
And it will be particularly useless for dogfighting.)

I think there's no way that the US will need 2,500 F-35's.

I also think there's no sense in the US purchasing any more of these planes until the plane finishes development.

I think it's crazy for the Pentagon to put all its eggs in one basket, namely the F-35. The basket is looking more and more precarious..

RE: Actually..

By Joe765 on 1/3/2015 12:33:38 AM , Rating: 2

Oh, I forgot one thing.
The F-35's operating cost is projected to be a lot higher than the planes it's supposed to replace.
If the US buys 2,500 F-35's, the lifetime operating and maintenance cost will indeed probably be in the trillions.

The F-35 will be a very very expensive hangar queen.

We seriously need to consider alternatives for the F-35.

Parent

FAIL-35

By NanoTube1 on 1/2/2015 2:51:42 PM , Rating: 5

Pa pa pa pathetic

Counter...

By encia on 1/3/2015 8:11:06 AM , Rating: 3

Dave (the original article writer) oughta do some research instead of listening to the latest whisperer with an axe to grind.

The gun has been a planned Block 3F capability for a long time. Block 3F Fleet Release is end of 3d quarter/beginning of 4th quarter 2017 -- not 2019.

Here's a link from a PEO SWG brief (see slide 6), but I bet Spaz can find docs going back to 2010 or 2011 refecting same
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=182...

Read http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Audit%20Repor...
Australian 2013–14 Major Projects Report 17 Dec 2014 F-35 Section pp 183-184

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=199...

What's funny (and that they're completely oblivious to) is that the F-35 has more ammo than the Mig-29, Su-27, Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen. Whoops. I guess those all suck too...

Rafale

Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GIAT 30/M791 autocannon with 125 rounds

Typhoon

Guns: 1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 150 rounds

SU-27

1 × 30 mm GSh-30-1 cannon with 150 rounds

MiG-29

1 x 30 mm GSh-30-1 cannon with 150 rounds
Hypocrites can only go so far.

RE: Counter...

By DennisB on 1/5/2015 2:05:48 PM , Rating: 2

Disregarding the Kill volume, better gun effectiveness, first second fire volume...
For one these aircraft carry the larger gun/ammo with at least 26-73% more volume requirements.
Backward calculated for the 180 25mm of the F-35 that would give
142 for 27 mm
104 for 30 mm
All in all these aircrafts have more volume assigned for their magazine than the F35.

Parent

CAS with no machine gun?

By Masospaghetti on 1/3/2015 2:02:09 PM , Rating: 2

Wasn't the F-35 being pitched as a CAS replacement for the A-10? How is that going to work with no machine gun?

I wonder if AirLand Scorpion is being considered as a replacement for CAS? Unlike the F-35, it actually seems like it will be economical to operate in the long run, even cheaper than the A-10 per flight hour.

http://www.scorpionjet.com/

RE: CAS with no machine gun?

By sorry dog on 1/6/2015 9:33:05 AM , Rating: 2

The scorpion concept is something worth looking at... but it must be able to answer the same question that the A10 has a problem with which is: Is it highly survivable on a modern battlefield against things like advanced Manpad missiles or radar directed AAA?

Parent

At Jason Mick,

By encia on 1/3/2015 8:52:30 AM , Rating: 3

At Jason Mick,

Against "Of that, about $170M USD is currently in the up-front purchase cost"

From http://www.janes.com/article/46129/pentagon-finali...

Marina Malenic, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
23 November 2014

The US buy is for 19 F-35A conventional take-off and landing aircraft at USD94.8 million apiece; 6 F-35B short take-off and landing aircraft for USD102 million each; and four F-35C carrier variant aircraft at USD115.7 million per airframe. As previously reported by IHS Jane's and now confirmed by the Pentagon, those figures include price reductions to all three variants. The A-model's price was reduced by 3.6% from the previous lot, while the B-model's price was reduced by 1.7%, and the C-model's price was reduced by 0.1%.

$20 million for the engine. For $114 million for F-35A.

Against
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.ht...

APA's IRST issue.

F-35 has IRST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY
F-35's DAS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-A6PWRFno
The video shows F-35's IRST capabilities with tracking/detection >1300Km range. F-35 has 360 degree IRST distributive sensors with detection range around >1300Km.

APA's Mach entry claim.

From
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/P...

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners. "Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

APA's gun lethality

What's funny (and that they're completely oblivious to) is that the F-35 has more ammo than the SU-35.

SU-35
1 × 30 mm GSh-30-1 cannon with 150 rounds.

This should be green for F-35. Red for SU-35.

APA's Flare and Chaff
Stealth enhances larger RCS chaff countermeasures. This should be green for F-35 and Red for SU-35.

APA
Fuel Reserves for A/B

Su-35
1.92 lb/(lbf·h) x (32000 lbf x 2) = 122880 lb or 12 minutes at A/B

F-35
1.95 lb(lbf.h) x 43000 lbf = 83850 lb or 13 minutes at A/B

This should be green for F-35 and Red for SU-35 i.e. longer AB time for F-35.

Your
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.ht... is flawed.

Suggestion

By bug77 on 1/2/2015 4:26:33 PM , Rating: 2

I was just playing Raiden X. Classic vertical shooter, for those unfamiliar with it. In this game, there's a power-up that give your fighter a couple of drones - dumb things that fly on your left and right and just fire straight ahead. My suggestion is to use the F-35 as an extra source of missiles, flying along the F-22.

As for the gun trigger issue, I'm speechless. Install a damn classic gun if writing the code is so damn hard. What on earth does this code do anyway? If you gave a musket to a musketeer 400 years ago and told him you can't make it fire for another five years, he would have laughed in your face. Yet 400 years this is a defensible stance.

In other words...

By EricMartello on 1/2/2015 4:37:38 PM , Rating: 2

...the F-35 is crippled while waiting on a firmware update.

Even though I support robust military spending by our government, I loathe this cronyism that allows only a small handful of companies to ever be granted significant defense contracts. The F-35 seems like it's trying to be "all in one" which results in it failing at just about everything. I'd rather see a good portion of defense spending be allocated to NEW companies with NEW ideas, ideas that don't necessarily mean tech-bloat.

In real combat, high tech means higher potential for failure that cannot be field-repaired without specialized equipment. If the F-35 can be neutralized by a software glitch, imo it is useless as a weapon. Would you want a handgun that runs Windows ME, that may or may not fire when the trigger is pulled? No thanks...screw fly-by-wire nonsense and stick with good-ol mechanical linkages. It works; it's reliable; it can be fixed with common hand tools.

It's more cost-effective and practical to design planes for a specific role and deploy them in squadrons as needed to complete a mission. For example, a bombing run would have a bomber with fighters supporting it. You wouldn't try to make a bomber-fighter-jet all in one, because carrying heavy bombs requires wings that yield high lift at lower speeds, and wings like that create higher drag that prevents high speed. Weight also limits maneuverability.

Whoever is calling these shots needs to be shot. They're giving liberals an easy target for why we should cut military spending...and while I disagree with that sentiment, I would definitely say yes to cutting spending on projects like the F-35.

Light Fluffy pan cakes.

By drycrust3 on 1/2/2015 5:44:21 PM , Rating: 2

It is important to not over cook a meal, because over cooking can affect the taste, and that discourages consumption. For example, if you wanted to cook some light Fluffy Pan Cakes, then over cooking will result that no one wants to consume your light Fluffy pan cakes, which is the whole point of cooking, that people eat what you cook.
If there seems to be a constant string of basic mistakes, then that will affect how people perceive your cooking, and ultimately that will discourage consumption ... and it sort of suggests you're not the hottest ring on the stove, which is untrue, you're a brilliant cook. Which then begs the question of why you are suddenly so bad at cooking light Fluffy pan cakes when the rest of your food is so brilliant.
So it is important to cook your Fluffy pan cakes at a lower heat and have less frequent mistakes, then people will consume the light Fluffy pan cakes without question. I hope this isn't too cryptic.

Someone was to be shot over this...

By ChronoReverse on 1/2/2015 7:28:58 PM , Rating: 2

except the gun didn't fire when the trigger was pulled.

The gun isn't even needed!!!!!

By BillyBatson on 1/2/2015 10:20:14 PM , Rating: 2

Im going to keep this short, I am a USAF Veteran, I worked as a jet engine mechanic on pave low helicopters. Let me say that although Lockheed really fubar'ed this contract, and that that it's ridiculous that the gun doesn't work by this point, but doesn't change the fact that A MINI-GUN IS NOT NEEDED!!!!! The A-10 is really the only aircraft that flies slow and low enough to make use of its guns other than helicopters. Arial dog-fights are are all but non-existent these days. Fighter jets just fly too fast and too far apart even in pursuits to ever use the gun. It is all about about missiles, air-to-air, air-to-surface, and surface-to-air. The fact that it is included in the design spec is a tribute to the the U.S. govt/military/NASA iNability to adapt fast enough.
Realistically this aircraft has a lot more serious issues than a gun that doesn't work but wouldn't be used even if it did.

That 2008 simulation

By encia on 1/3/2015 8:56:25 AM , Rating: 2

That RAND report has already been debunked by no less than RAND itself.
Read http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/verb...

Mr Price : No, sorry; you will not read a RAND report of that activity. That activity was done separately to the Pacific Vision war game, and the analyst who did that was subsequently released from RAND because it never existed

Don't Build the F-35!

By Harry Wild on 1/5/2015 1:42:35 AM , Rating: 2

Pentagon should of not limited the number of F-22 to only 180 some! Now it the best overall fighter the U.S. has. They thought that the F-22 cost to much to produce and the F-35 was a cheap replacement for the F-22! Wow, super big mistake on the Pentagon and Congress part!

If I were a member of Congress; I just would not built the F-35 and just write off the $400 billion. Why built something that is already obsolete and inferior? What is the point of building the F-35 into production of 1,000 planes? Totally madness to do so!

richard89766

By Richard875yh5 on 1/5/2015 9:23:24 AM , Rating: 2

If you believe all this crap, the US government will tell you more. I believe all these revelations are false and is just a way to confuse the enemy and competition, on how well we are doing. Since when does the USA give all these details with pictures of it's highest secret projects? Don't believe all this crap!

Geez.....

By floydboyd lll on 1/10/2015 4:11:49 AM , Rating: 2

Used to be all you needed was a button on the joystick...after all this is a line of sight weapon.

Snow Crash is happening

By kyleb2112 on 1/12/2015 4:02:50 AM , Rating: 2

Remember when the supergun called Reason got jammed and Hiro had to update its software on the fly?
That was awesome.

How much technology do you need...

By jabber on 1/3/2015 7:38:16 AM , Rating: 1

...to go up against your enemy armed with donkeys and Toyota pick-up trucks?

Fit for purpose?

As a Brit I can't stand the thought we dumped our Harriers for these turkeys. I would have thought a modernised/revised Harrier would be perfect for long term middle-eastern conflicts.

Sources?

By Johnmcl7 on 1/2/15, Rating: -1

RE: Sources?

By JasonMick on 1/2/2015 4:37:58 PM , Rating: 2

quote:

What is the source for this? It's certainly not the daily beast article from the bottom and no others go into specific detail so either so either there's another source you're not mentioning or you're making some rather defamatory accusations.

Really?! It's all in the first four or five paragraphs of the source article and even the headline references the date!!

I'm not sure what you read, did you really even click the source link you claimed to have read?

Or do you work for Lockheed Martin or own their stock and are just looking to spread misinformation about my piece, perhaps?

Okay, for other readers' sakes, let me explicitly hold your hand and walk you through the sources you appeared not to have read...

The headline of the TDB article...

quote:
New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019

Paragraph 1 from the TDB piece...

quote:
The Pentagon’s newest stealth jet, the nearly $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, won’t be able to fire its gun during operational missions until 2019, three to four years after it becomes operational.

Then a couple more paragraphs down the source of the info about the delay being Lockheed's software lacking the functionality...

quote:
“There will be no gun until [the Joint Strike Fighter’s Block] 3F [software], there is no software to support it now or for the next four-ish years,” said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “Block 3F is slated for release in 2019, but who knows how much that will slip?”

Maybe you missed that Lockheed does the majority of the code in house hence the "Block 3F" is referring to a major F-35 software/firmware release from Lockheed.

Some of the software subsystems work is definitely subcontracted, but the core development and integration is mostly via Lockheed, based on virtually every reference I've read and my brief discussions with LM folks.

I'm not sure how you missed the 2019 part... it's in the source's headily for crying out loud. Please try to read more carefully before accusing me of "defamation". I quote my sources carefully... it's not my fault if you skim over the article and somehow miss information that's placed glaringly in the headline!

Happy New Years, anyhow, though. :)

Parent

RE: Sources?

By mrwassman on 1/2/2015 9:11:10 PM , Rating: 1

Dude, you gotta correct all the grammar mistakes and maybe not repeat the same thing over and over again. It was hard to read this all the way through.

Parent

RE: Sources?

By encia on 1/3/2015 5:47:22 PM , Rating: 3

The gun has been a planned Block 3F capability for a long time. Block 3F Fleet Release is end of 3d quarter/beginning of 4th quarter 2017 -- NOT 2019.

Here's a link from a PEO SWG brief (see slide 6), but I bet Spaz can find docs going back to 2010 or 2011 refecting same
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=182...

Read http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Audit%20Repor...
Australian 2013–14 Major Projects Report 17 Dec 2014 F-35 Section pp 183-184

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=199...

Parent

RE: Sources?

By sorry dog on 1/6/2015 8:55:07 AM , Rating: 3

Woah buddy... Jason, please put down the Xbox controller and take two steps back. Ace Combat 6 does not equal combat simulation.

Comments such as these two gems:

quote:
While the rotary cannon is its primary dogfighting weapon, the F-35 does have some secondary air-to-air weapons that reportedly are working -- namely a pair of missiles.

and this

quote:
So the F-35 has at best, at present ten shots. If the enemy is able to field more than ten fighters per F-35, the best outcome the F-35 can hope for is a hit-and-run. That's a major concern ...

Cannon is primary weapon? You do konw that it's 2015 and not 1955, right?

And the 10 shots comment? When was the last time a fighter fired more than 4 missiles in a single mission. Who is really going to be able to send up 40 Migs or Sukhoi's up all at once for CAP mission. Even if that were to happen, a formation that large will be spotted in enough time to marshal up an appropriate response greater than a pair of F-35's.

Here you have more screwed-up logic....

quote:
With the F-22s already tasked with picking up the F-35s slack in dogfighting, in a combat scenario against a well outfitted enemy with a workable air force, the USAF might be forced to save the F-22s for ground support, which in turn likely would force a grounding of the pricey F-35 bombers to avoid putting it at risk. -

If the air superiority for a given area is not won, or the air space is contested (bearing in mind that in the last few wars usually superiority is usually won before extensive ground ops conducted), then what aircraft is going to be better than the F35?

Certainly not the A10... which are being withdrawn because they are considered too vulnerable in contested air space (...and funding of course.)

The F22 doesn't carry the same loadout, targeted capability, communication ability, or even range and loiter capability, as the F35, and would be better served flying above winning that air superiority. Or, the next best option might be the mudhen, or F15's, but again the F35 can do all it can do, but better because of VLO capability gives it.
... and don't even bring up drones. They are just not ready to fire missiles within earshot of friendly troops.

Parent

RE: Sources?

By sorry dog on 1/6/2015 9:24:34 AM , Rating: 3

This part seems pretty silly as well...

quote:
The problem, though, is that the Pentagon didn't exactly need a new bomber -- it had plenty of functional designs already. The real issue isn't the JSF's capability to do something in combat, rather it's that Lockheed Martin convinced the Pentagon to pay boatloads of money for a craft that was billed as a terrific bomber and fighter jet rolled into one.

Lockmart didn't convince the Pentagon that they wanted a multi-role fighter. The program started that way at the outset. The air force already has an air superiority platform in the F22. Aviation design is all about trade-offs. They could have easily made the F35 into a better air to air performer by reducing attributes that will make it a great strike fighter such as reduced internal bomb and fuel capacity. Or reducing the stealth requirements would have made the designers lives must easier which would have further increased its "air show" performance and made it cost a lot less.
But that isn't what the Pentagon asked for. They want something that has a good chance to make it through a modern air defence system with advanced radars.

...and you mention other functional designs... are you referring to the 20+ year old F16 fleet, the 20+ year old F15 fleet, or 50+ year old B52 fleet.

Also... don't suppose you have a source on for the $40 million Su-35's do you?

Parent