8 ms·

The F-35 Can’t Fight at Long Range, Either

58 points by mulander 11y ago

waffle_ss 11y ago
I wonder how any of the new fighter jets would fare against a modern attack helicopter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH
- trhway 11y ago
  say, helicopter is behind the hill and waits until a fighter passes low over the hill, and after that the helicopter shoots into the tail of the fighter? well, i think no fighter would fare well :) On the other side : "The official report details how the F15 was able to lock on to the helicopters around 64 km. However did not get visual ID till 6-9 km.(Beyond-visual range combat wasn't practiced at this typical exercise) " But why would fighter fly low? It would just shoot a missile from 10km height - unreachable height for helicopter and for many anti-aircraft missiles.
ForHackernews 11y ago
Who cares? Air-to-air combat is exceedingly rare these days, and in the very near future no piloted aircraft will be able to keep up with a drone anyway (smaller, lighter, able to pull G-forces that would black out or kill a human pilot).
- bigdubs 11y ago
  So why build a "fighter" at all then? Why not just extend / modernize the A-10?
  - ForHackernews 11y ago
    Because the air force is run by fighter jocks.
- ProAm 11y ago
  > Who cares? Everyone that paid for the promises that it could do all this stuff.
- ripter 11y ago
  Because the F-35 has been a huge boondoggle, at the taxpayers expense.
  - ForHackernews 11y ago
    The entire military-industrial complex is a boondoggle at taxpayer expense. The Iraq war cost, what, $1,000,000,000,000? And that didn't even involve any fancy next-gen fighters. I just don't see why people harp on this one stupid-expensive plane when there's all kinds of other stupid-expensive junk we waste money on. It's like somebody burned down your house, but what you're really mad about is that they burned down the brand-new tool shed out back.
- rdl 11y ago
  Yes, I'd be fully in favor of a 10-20 year life extension of the existing platforms, followed by "no more manned combat aircraft" after that.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  There is no "very near future" in military spending. It will take at least five and probably ten years to get a working high-G drone design with equivalent capability off the drawing board and into the air. Meanwhile the F-35 is a fiasco for US and NATO force projection. The whole point of modern weapons - ugly and expensive as they are - is that they're supposed to be so intimidating you barely need to use them. The F-35 fails to continue that tradition. The political consequences are going to be a lot more significant than the military ones.
  - ForHackernews 11y ago
    > It will take at least five and probably ten years to get a working high-G drone design with equivalent capability off the drawing board and into the air. Do you think we're going to have a shooting war with China or Russia before 2025? Because those are the only countries that can come close to challenging US air superiority.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Before 2025 probably not, but a proxy war might be fought (say Pakistan/India or Israel/some neighbours or North Korea/South Korea flare-up).
melling 11y ago
We can't be more than a decade away from autonomous drones becoming the fighter of choice. Shouldn't they be able to outmaneuver a human? If they are built cheaply enough, wouldn't a larger number overwhelm a conventional air force?
- tadfisher 11y ago
  They could, but the primary limiting factor of maneuverability is the integrity of the airframe, not the human inside.
  - nathas 11y ago
    Could you design drones that have higher integrity because you don't need to have a conventional cockpit area?
  - krschultz 11y ago
    Are you sure the integrity of the airframe isn't build to a particular strength due to the limitations of humans? Why carry extra weight for structure if the pilot can't handle those turns? I doubt it's a fundamental limitation of materials or physics, just of the constraints given to the designers of the aircraft.
    - tadfisher 11y ago
      The airframe is built to meet the intersection of hundreds of variables. Speed, stability, weight, repairability, and cost are a few. Needing to support a human is just one of those factors. You can over-G an F-16 at 4G depending on airspeed and loadout. That's well below (trained) human tolerances. Sure, you can build a drone that can handle 1000 cycles of 16G turns, but it's likely not going to be cheap, repairable, fast, capable of carrying weaponry, etc.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Safety margins dictate that the airframe should be substantially stronger than the occupants maximum tolerance.
hardwaresofton 11y ago
Is there any reason the F-35 is receiving this much scrutiny versus other military vehicles? Maybe it's just that it's the information age, or that there are more public people reviewing government action, but there's been a certain fascination with this F-35 that makes me suspicious. Surely the F-35 isn't the first bad military vehicle the government has/will purchase...
- adrianb 11y ago
  No, but it is the most expensive. It's the most expensive weapon program ever.
- elloworld1 11y ago
  it is the largest expenditure on one military vehicle in history though
- greglindahl 11y ago
  It's the first generation during which we're buying a single plane for all roles. That makes it the most expensive and riskiest plane procurement ever... which is a great reason to have it looked at very carefully.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- exar0815 11y ago
  No. but because ALL services bet on the same plane, NOTHING else is developed. Additionally, still formidable planes like the A-10 or F-22 receive flak because the brass wants its wonderplane...
- centro 11y ago
  The F-35 is receiving so much scrutiny because of the exorbitant cost of the program and the very poor product that program produced for the american taxpayer. Better fighters have been produced in far less time for far less money. I think it's receiving so much attention on HN because it's an example of poor engineering.
psycho666 11y ago
why they spend money on it and dont develop new better fighter jet ? are they incompetent or corrupted ?
hyperion2010 11y ago
A good time to repost this classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- anotherangrydev 11y ago
  Haha, thanks for the laugh. I do research on molecular biology, you could say that every meeting with our project leaders goes like that. Specially that part like: "Why did you do X?" "(I didnt' wanted to but...) As per your request, you said it was a really important feature." "No way, scrap it, how come you thought X was a good idea! Come on!"
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
eridius 11y ago
As I recall, when the last HN story came out about the F-35 not doing well in short-range combat, there was a rebuttal that basically said that the test run was not designed to accurately simulate short-range combat, and that in particular the F-35 was missing the expected software suite that significantly augments its navigation and dogfighting capabilities. I didn't follow the story after that, so I don't know if there were any counter-arguments made. But if that was true, might there also be some similar mitigating factors that apply to this story?
- Laforet 11y ago
  The only counter-argument I am aware of is that "It will get better as software and training improve." I don't doubt the veracity of this statement, however with the whole JSF fighter project falling this far behind schedule there is just too much uncertainly in how long it is going to take it to "get better" and how far you can push the airframe which is, as everybody can agree with, somewhat mutilated from the beginning.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    I do not agree at all. Mutilated? Explain how. Your hubris in assuming that everyone agrees with you is rather irritating.
mckiddy 11y ago
The missile argument is a bit of a stretch to me. The F-35 can carry way more than four missiles if they're attached to the wings (like the Su-35 the author compares it to), it will just destroy any semblance of stealth. Comparison with the F-22 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0105.shtml http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0105.shtml).
adventured 11y ago
This is a horribly unscientific article. It reads mostly like a 'because I say so' hit piece. "Instead, modern planes in a high-tech war would probably rely on their undetectable, “passive” infrared sensors" Probably? That's all you've got backing up such a significant claim? "Remember, the F-35 has one huge and very hot engine. True, Lockheed designed the JSF’s fuel tanks to help sop up some of the extra thermal energy the plane generates. But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. ..." Oh, it's round. Great, now prove your important claim with actual science, field data, etc. "Even with its radar off, an F-35 could struggle to hide from enemy planes" Oh, it could? More of the same empty statements, with absolutely nothing backing them up. "Using these radars, earthbound spotters could point warplanes toward incoming F-35s" Could? Again, empty. The article relies on Sprey, who himself is well known for half-cranked attacks on the F35: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-dia... This entire article reads in the same style: here is something I claim, it's a very important claim, and I'm not going to actually support any of it.
exar0815 11y ago
In the 1960s, we had some kind of the same fuckup in Germany, twice. Once the STarfighter/Lockheed affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#German_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#Ger... And at the moment basically the whole Bundeswehr in general. Google either: A400M, G36, Eurocopter Tiger... Edit: And the Eurofighter
pcrh 11y ago
When I read lines such as: >"But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. Highly stealthy planes such as America’s B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter both boast flat engine nozzles " I really doubt the credibility of the author; as if engineers would overlook such a basic factor if it was that crucial.
- angersock 11y ago
  It's not that they overlooked it as such--it's that, at different points in the plane's design, requirements changed. The original powerplant design was probably settled on before the stealth requirements were brought up.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    That's not the case at all. The aircraft has always been intended to be stealthy. The X-35 prototypes used F119 engines from the F-22 program (also a stealth aircraft). The F135 engine is a follow-on development with the F119 as a starting point.
- bdavisx 11y ago
  I doubt the engineers would overlook anything like that. It's more like: Engineer: "We can't get the engine to work with the current airframe design if we use stealthy engine nozzles. It's going to require a significant re-design." Manager: "Will it work with old style round nozzles? Then use those."
- bkohlmann 11y ago
  The JSF C-variant (carrier based) had a hook that didn't work last year...they finally rectified it. When it comes to the F-35, there are a lot of engineering items that have been overlooked that are mindboggling.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Your information isn't quite correct. Initial trials of the arresting system were conducted in 2011 at Lakehurst. The hook had several deficiencies, in part because a wire dynamics model provided by the government for the team to design against had faulty assumptions. Several components were redesigned and re-tested. During the first sea trials of the system in October 2014, two F-35C aircraft deployed to the USS Nimitz where the trials were highly successful: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/11/15/f-35c-navy-carrier-nimitz-sea-trials-trap/19019879/ http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/11/15/f-35... "The F-35C test pilots have made approximately 100 traps on the Nimitz, and the three wire was caught so many times that the metal cable had to be replaced. The one wire, the cable furthest aft on the flight deck, hadn't been used at all, Wilson said." What other engineering items have been overlooked that you believe are mindboggling?
curiousjorge 11y ago
I feel that the f-35 was a great plane to start with but ruined by adding a VTOL capabilities for the Marines. Why the hell does Marines Corp need fighter jets? Doesn't the Navy already have it? Doesn't the Air Force? Does this mean the Army will get it's own fighter jets? I don't understand why every branch of the military in the US needs a jet apart from Navy and Air
- redthrowaway 11y ago
  Marines operate amphibious assault ships. They're currently equipped with Harriers. Those need replacing.
- bkohlmann 11y ago
  Much of this is rooted in history - namely Guadalcanal. The USMC was very angry at Naval Aviation for "abandoning" them on the beaches without Close Air Support while the Navy instead flew missions to protect their Fleet. The USMC demanded an increased in their organic capabilities to support THEIR mission -- boots on the ground.
- headcanon 11y ago
  From my understanding, Marine air capabilities are typically for supporting marines on the ground. If a bunch of marines engaged in combat need air support NOW, its a lot more efficient for them (meaning, fewer jumps in the chain of command) to have their own planes than for them to have to call up the Navy and ask them to do it.
vilhelm_s 11y ago
Who is this Joseph Trevithick guy anyway? His linked in profile says "Journalist and researcher with experience using various open source and public domain resources", "Acted as an on call military history consultant for various miniatures gaming products." I feel a lot of the reasoning seems a little dubious. > Russian radars, such as the one on the new Sukhoi Su-35, at least match the JSF’s APG-81, according to data compiled by Carlo Kopp at Air Power Australia. While the specific details remain secret, Kopp estimates ... Air Power Australia have a MASSIVE axe to grind when it comes to the F-35. They also have a history of publishing things that look like F-22 fanfiction (e.g. an article saying that navalizing the F-22 should be a piece of cake, http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html). > But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. Highly stealthy planes such as America’s B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter both boast flat engine nozzles that spread out their exhaust plumes, I think they are flat mostly to shape radar reflections. I think the fact that the B-2 exhaust nozzle is on the upper half of the aircraft also is supposed to help the IR signature, but does the flatness really affect anything? > Even with its radar off, an F-35 could struggle to hide from enemy planes ... “You can’t stealthify against long-wavelength radars” Sure, but this affects every airplane, it's not a weakness of the F-35. > The F-35’s limited weaponry was one of the major problems that a controversial simulation highlighted back in 2008. Well, it was indeed controversial. As one article puts it "RAND’s core conclusion is not about specific fighter performance. It’s about the theoretical limits of better performance under adverse basing and logistics conditions."(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-controversy-05089/ http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-cap...). In particular, they concluded that the F-22 would also be completely outgunned, despite being indisputably the best air superiority fighter right now. The War is Boring coverage of the F-35 in general strikes me as kindof shoddy, it's like they decided that writing snarky anti-F-35 articles is now part of their blog brand.
mirimir 11y ago
It was arguably designed when radar stealth was a key advantage. But other detection technologies have since matured. And the Russians and Chinese have redesigned faster, perhaps relying on stolen plans and test results. So maybe it's time to drop the F-35, and copy Russian and Chinese designs.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Look at this image: http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Photo-comparison-of-the-U.S.-F-35-left-and-Chinese-J-20.-China-obtained-F-35-design-data-in-2007-through-cyberespionage.-Chinese-Internet.jpeg http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Photo-compa... F-35 on the left, Chinese J-20 on the right. We don't have to copy Chinese designs, they already copied ours.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Yes, that's well known. But maybe, in addition to copying many features, the Chinese tweaked other stuff. Maybe they tweaked heat management, agility, IR etc sensors, and so on. And maybe they also hacked the Russians and Japanese, and combined best features. Overall, maybe the J-20 looks a lot like a F-35a might look. That's a lot of "maybes", I admit. But it would be foolish to ignore the possibilities, no?
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      Well, a certain degree of paranoia about these things is healthy. So I will not dismiss your scenario, though I believe it is unlikely. EDIT: And there's no "maybe" about if the J-20 resembles the F-35...
      - mirimir 11y ago
        Unlikely? Hard to say. And yes, the J-20 closely resembles the F-35. There's no doubt about that. But in any case, I do think that it could be a productive scenario for the US military :)
snowwrestler 11y ago
> While the specific details remain secret, Kopp estimates the APG-81 can detect an aircraft with a radar cross-section of three square meters—a MiG-29, for example—just over 100 miles away. Russian radar-maker Tikhomirov claims the Su-35’s Irbis-E can spot a similar-size target at greater than twice that distance. So, we're comparing some blogger's estimate of the F-35 radar, to the unverified claims of a Russian radar-maker. This does not seem like the firmest ground upon which to base an argument.
geoffsanders 11y ago
This and similar criticisms of the F-35 are just silly. I can take any other aircraft in the U.S. inventory and put it in situations where it will lose engagements against other domestic or foreign aircraft and systems. Multi-role fighters like the F-35, Rafale, Viper, Hornet, and Gripen aren't meant to be dominant in any one specific area. They're meant to be flexible platforms that can be tailored for different operations and flight packages based on the needs of the mission at the time, and like most multi-role fighters, they each tend to be a little better at certain roles than others. Additionally, most of these criticisms act as if the F-35 will be acting alone on these missions, and don't take into account the fact that other aircraft, radars, and offensive/defensive systems are meant to be utilized alongside the F-35. Such a micro view doesn't adequately account for the actual theater of war these aircraft will take part in. Is the JSF program enormously expensive? Yes. Is it unnecessary? Maybe. However, expensive and unnecessary are separate issues from whether or not this is a capable aircraft, of which it empirically is. Does it have kinks to work out? Definitely, but this aircraft is still in testing phases, and like all other aircraft, it will go through iterations and variations. In time, as systems mature, bugs are fixed, and pilots become more experienced, we can be sure that the F-35 will at least be a capable tool to warfighters. Argue the cost, argue the need, but making the argument that the folks at Lockheed all of a sudden forgot how to build capable fighter aircraft is absurd.
codeshaman 11y ago
Seems to me this F-35 is the pacifist's wet dream. It can't fight long or short range and even if it could, it can't kill because it's too slow. It doesn't respond to violence with violence, hence - pacifist. For ultimate peace making, they should equip it with pigeons and let the birds loose over the enemy territory, sending out love letters to everyone. Also balloons and candy for the enemy children would be appropriate.

58 points by mulander 11y ago

I wonder how any of the new fighter jets would fare against a modern attack helicopter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH

trhway 11y ago
say, helicopter is behind the hill and waits until a fighter passes low over the hill, and after that the helicopter shoots into the tail of the fighter? well, i think no fighter would fare well :) On the other side : "The official report details how the F15 was able to lock on to the helicopters around 64 km. However did not get visual ID till 6-9 km.(Beyond-visual range combat wasn't practiced at this typical exercise) " But why would fighter fly low? It would just shoot a missile from 10km height - unreachable height for helicopter and for many anti-aircraft missiles.

ForHackernews 11y ago

Who cares? Air-to-air combat is exceedingly rare these days, and in the very near future no piloted aircraft will be able to keep up with a drone anyway (smaller, lighter, able to pull G-forces that would black out or kill a human pilot).

bigdubs 11y ago
So why build a "fighter" at all then? Why not just extend / modernize the A-10?
- ForHackernews 11y ago
  Because the air force is run by fighter jocks.
ProAm 11y ago
> Who cares? Everyone that paid for the promises that it could do all this stuff.
ripter 11y ago
Because the F-35 has been a huge boondoggle, at the taxpayers expense.
- ForHackernews 11y ago
  The entire military-industrial complex is a boondoggle at taxpayer expense. The Iraq war cost, what, $1,000,000,000,000? And that didn't even involve any fancy next-gen fighters. I just don't see why people harp on this one stupid-expensive plane when there's all kinds of other stupid-expensive junk we waste money on. It's like somebody burned down your house, but what you're really mad about is that they burned down the brand-new tool shed out back.
rdl 11y ago
Yes, I'd be fully in favor of a 10-20 year life extension of the existing platforms, followed by "no more manned combat aircraft" after that.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
There is no "very near future" in military spending. It will take at least five and probably ten years to get a working high-G drone design with equivalent capability off the drawing board and into the air. Meanwhile the F-35 is a fiasco for US and NATO force projection. The whole point of modern weapons - ugly and expensive as they are - is that they're supposed to be so intimidating you barely need to use them. The F-35 fails to continue that tradition. The political consequences are going to be a lot more significant than the military ones.
- ForHackernews 11y ago
  > It will take at least five and probably ten years to get a working high-G drone design with equivalent capability off the drawing board and into the air. Do you think we're going to have a shooting war with China or Russia before 2025? Because those are the only countries that can come close to challenging US air superiority.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Before 2025 probably not, but a proxy war might be fought (say Pakistan/India or Israel/some neighbours or North Korea/South Korea flare-up).

melling 11y ago

We can't be more than a decade away from autonomous drones becoming the fighter of choice. Shouldn't they be able to outmaneuver a human? If they are built cheaply enough, wouldn't a larger number overwhelm a conventional air force?

tadfisher 11y ago
They could, but the primary limiting factor of maneuverability is the integrity of the airframe, not the human inside.
- nathas 11y ago
  Could you design drones that have higher integrity because you don't need to have a conventional cockpit area?
- krschultz 11y ago
  Are you sure the integrity of the airframe isn't build to a particular strength due to the limitations of humans? Why carry extra weight for structure if the pilot can't handle those turns? I doubt it's a fundamental limitation of materials or physics, just of the constraints given to the designers of the aircraft.
  - tadfisher 11y ago
    The airframe is built to meet the intersection of hundreds of variables. Speed, stability, weight, repairability, and cost are a few. Needing to support a human is just one of those factors. You can over-G an F-16 at 4G depending on airspeed and loadout. That's well below (trained) human tolerances. Sure, you can build a drone that can handle 1000 cycles of 16G turns, but it's likely not going to be cheap, repairable, fast, capable of carrying weaponry, etc.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Safety margins dictate that the airframe should be substantially stronger than the occupants maximum tolerance.

hardwaresofton 11y ago

Is there any reason the F-35 is receiving this much scrutiny versus other military vehicles? Maybe it's just that it's the information age, or that there are more public people reviewing government action, but there's been a certain fascination with this F-35 that makes me suspicious. Surely the F-35 isn't the first bad military vehicle the government has/will purchase...

adrianb 11y ago
No, but it is the most expensive. It's the most expensive weapon program ever.
elloworld1 11y ago
it is the largest expenditure on one military vehicle in history though
greglindahl 11y ago
It's the first generation during which we're buying a single plane for all roles. That makes it the most expensive and riskiest plane procurement ever... which is a great reason to have it looked at very carefully.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
exar0815 11y ago
No. but because ALL services bet on the same plane, NOTHING else is developed. Additionally, still formidable planes like the A-10 or F-22 receive flak because the brass wants its wonderplane...
centro 11y ago
The F-35 is receiving so much scrutiny because of the exorbitant cost of the program and the very poor product that program produced for the american taxpayer. Better fighters have been produced in far less time for far less money. I think it's receiving so much attention on HN because it's an example of poor engineering.

psycho666 11y ago

why they spend money on it and dont develop new better fighter jet ? are they incompetent or corrupted ?

hyperion2010 11y ago

A good time to repost this classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
anotherangrydev 11y ago
Haha, thanks for the laugh. I do research on molecular biology, you could say that every meeting with our project leaders goes like that. Specially that part like: "Why did you do X?" "(I didnt' wanted to but...) As per your request, you said it was a really important feature." "No way, scrap it, how come you thought X was a good idea! Come on!"

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

eridius 11y ago

As I recall, when the last HN story came out about the F-35 not doing well in short-range combat, there was a rebuttal that basically said that the test run was not designed to accurately simulate short-range combat, and that in particular the F-35 was missing the expected software suite that significantly augments its navigation and dogfighting capabilities. I didn't follow the story after that, so I don't know if there were any counter-arguments made. But if that was true, might there also be some similar mitigating factors that apply to this story?

Laforet 11y ago
The only counter-argument I am aware of is that "It will get better as software and training improve." I don't doubt the veracity of this statement, however with the whole JSF fighter project falling this far behind schedule there is just too much uncertainly in how long it is going to take it to "get better" and how far you can push the airframe which is, as everybody can agree with, somewhat mutilated from the beginning.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  I do not agree at all. Mutilated? Explain how. Your hubris in assuming that everyone agrees with you is rather irritating.

mckiddy 11y ago

The missile argument is a bit of a stretch to me. The F-35 can carry way more than four missiles if they're attached to the wings (like the Su-35 the author compares it to), it will just destroy any semblance of stealth. Comparison with the F-22 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0105.shtml http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0105.shtml).

adventured 11y ago

This is a horribly unscientific article. It reads mostly like a 'because I say so' hit piece. "Instead, modern planes in a high-tech war would probably rely on their undetectable, “passive” infrared sensors" Probably? That's all you've got backing up such a significant claim? "Remember, the F-35 has one huge and very hot engine. True, Lockheed designed the JSF’s fuel tanks to help sop up some of the extra thermal energy the plane generates. But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. ..." Oh, it's round. Great, now prove your important claim with actual science, field data, etc. "Even with its radar off, an F-35 could struggle to hide from enemy planes" Oh, it could? More of the same empty statements, with absolutely nothing backing them up. "Using these radars, earthbound spotters could point warplanes toward incoming F-35s" Could? Again, empty. The article relies on Sprey, who himself is well known for half-cranked attacks on the F35: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-dia... This entire article reads in the same style: here is something I claim, it's a very important claim, and I'm not going to actually support any of it.

exar0815 11y ago

In the 1960s, we had some kind of the same fuckup in Germany, twice. Once the STarfighter/Lockheed affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#German_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#Ger... And at the moment basically the whole Bundeswehr in general. Google either: A400M, G36, Eurocopter Tiger... Edit: And the Eurofighter

pcrh 11y ago

When I read lines such as: >"But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. Highly stealthy planes such as America’s B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter both boast flat engine nozzles " I really doubt the credibility of the author; as if engineers would overlook such a basic factor if it was that crucial.

angersock 11y ago
It's not that they overlooked it as such--it's that, at different points in the plane's design, requirements changed. The original powerplant design was probably settled on before the stealth requirements were brought up.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  That's not the case at all. The aircraft has always been intended to be stealthy. The X-35 prototypes used F119 engines from the F-22 program (also a stealth aircraft). The F135 engine is a follow-on development with the F119 as a starting point.
bdavisx 11y ago
I doubt the engineers would overlook anything like that. It's more like: Engineer: "We can't get the engine to work with the current airframe design if we use stealthy engine nozzles. It's going to require a significant re-design." Manager: "Will it work with old style round nozzles? Then use those."
bkohlmann 11y ago
The JSF C-variant (carrier based) had a hook that didn't work last year...they finally rectified it. When it comes to the F-35, there are a lot of engineering items that have been overlooked that are mindboggling.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Your information isn't quite correct. Initial trials of the arresting system were conducted in 2011 at Lakehurst. The hook had several deficiencies, in part because a wire dynamics model provided by the government for the team to design against had faulty assumptions. Several components were redesigned and re-tested. During the first sea trials of the system in October 2014, two F-35C aircraft deployed to the USS Nimitz where the trials were highly successful: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/11/15/f-35c-navy-carrier-nimitz-sea-trials-trap/19019879/ http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/11/15/f-35... "The F-35C test pilots have made approximately 100 traps on the Nimitz, and the three wire was caught so many times that the metal cable had to be replaced. The one wire, the cable furthest aft on the flight deck, hadn't been used at all, Wilson said." What other engineering items have been overlooked that you believe are mindboggling?

curiousjorge 11y ago

I feel that the f-35 was a great plane to start with but ruined by adding a VTOL capabilities for the Marines. Why the hell does Marines Corp need fighter jets? Doesn't the Navy already have it? Doesn't the Air Force? Does this mean the Army will get it's own fighter jets? I don't understand why every branch of the military in the US needs a jet apart from Navy and Air

redthrowaway 11y ago
Marines operate amphibious assault ships. They're currently equipped with Harriers. Those need replacing.
bkohlmann 11y ago
Much of this is rooted in history - namely Guadalcanal. The USMC was very angry at Naval Aviation for "abandoning" them on the beaches without Close Air Support while the Navy instead flew missions to protect their Fleet. The USMC demanded an increased in their organic capabilities to support THEIR mission -- boots on the ground.
headcanon 11y ago
From my understanding, Marine air capabilities are typically for supporting marines on the ground. If a bunch of marines engaged in combat need air support NOW, its a lot more efficient for them (meaning, fewer jumps in the chain of command) to have their own planes than for them to have to call up the Navy and ask them to do it.

vilhelm_s 11y ago

Who is this Joseph Trevithick guy anyway? His linked in profile says "Journalist and researcher with experience using various open source and public domain resources", "Acted as an on call military history consultant for various miniatures gaming products." I feel a lot of the reasoning seems a little dubious. > Russian radars, such as the one on the new Sukhoi Su-35, at least match the JSF’s APG-81, according to data compiled by Carlo Kopp at Air Power Australia. While the specific details remain secret, Kopp estimates ... Air Power Australia have a MASSIVE axe to grind when it comes to the F-35. They also have a history of publishing things that look like F-22 fanfiction (e.g. an article saying that navalizing the F-22 should be a piece of cake, http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html). > But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. Highly stealthy planes such as America’s B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter both boast flat engine nozzles that spread out their exhaust plumes, I think they are flat mostly to shape radar reflections. I think the fact that the B-2 exhaust nozzle is on the upper half of the aircraft also is supposed to help the IR signature, but does the flatness really affect anything? > Even with its radar off, an F-35 could struggle to hide from enemy planes ... “You can’t stealthify against long-wavelength radars” Sure, but this affects every airplane, it's not a weakness of the F-35. > The F-35’s limited weaponry was one of the major problems that a controversial simulation highlighted back in 2008. Well, it was indeed controversial. As one article puts it "RAND’s core conclusion is not about specific fighter performance. It’s about the theoretical limits of better performance under adverse basing and logistics conditions."(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-controversy-05089/ http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-cap...). In particular, they concluded that the F-22 would also be completely outgunned, despite being indisputably the best air superiority fighter right now. The War is Boring coverage of the F-35 in general strikes me as kindof shoddy, it's like they decided that writing snarky anti-F-35 articles is now part of their blog brand.

mirimir 11y ago

It was arguably designed when radar stealth was a key advantage. But other detection technologies have since matured. And the Russians and Chinese have redesigned faster, perhaps relying on stolen plans and test results. So maybe it's time to drop the F-35, and copy Russian and Chinese designs.

engi_nerd 11y ago
Look at this image: http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Photo-comparison-of-the-U.S.-F-35-left-and-Chinese-J-20.-China-obtained-F-35-design-data-in-2007-through-cyberespionage.-Chinese-Internet.jpeg http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Photo-compa... F-35 on the left, Chinese J-20 on the right. We don't have to copy Chinese designs, they already copied ours.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Yes, that's well known. But maybe, in addition to copying many features, the Chinese tweaked other stuff. Maybe they tweaked heat management, agility, IR etc sensors, and so on. And maybe they also hacked the Russians and Japanese, and combined best features. Overall, maybe the J-20 looks a lot like a F-35a might look. That's a lot of "maybes", I admit. But it would be foolish to ignore the possibilities, no?
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Well, a certain degree of paranoia about these things is healthy. So I will not dismiss your scenario, though I believe it is unlikely. EDIT: And there's no "maybe" about if the J-20 resembles the F-35...
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Unlikely? Hard to say. And yes, the J-20 closely resembles the F-35. There's no doubt about that. But in any case, I do think that it could be a productive scenario for the US military :)

snowwrestler 11y ago

> While the specific details remain secret, Kopp estimates the APG-81 can detect an aircraft with a radar cross-section of three square meters—a MiG-29, for example—just over 100 miles away. Russian radar-maker Tikhomirov claims the Su-35’s Irbis-E can spot a similar-size target at greater than twice that distance. So, we're comparing some blogger's estimate of the F-35 radar, to the unverified claims of a Russian radar-maker. This does not seem like the firmest ground upon which to base an argument.

geoffsanders 11y ago

This and similar criticisms of the F-35 are just silly. I can take any other aircraft in the U.S. inventory and put it in situations where it will lose engagements against other domestic or foreign aircraft and systems. Multi-role fighters like the F-35, Rafale, Viper, Hornet, and Gripen aren't meant to be dominant in any one specific area. They're meant to be flexible platforms that can be tailored for different operations and flight packages based on the needs of the mission at the time, and like most multi-role fighters, they each tend to be a little better at certain roles than others. Additionally, most of these criticisms act as if the F-35 will be acting alone on these missions, and don't take into account the fact that other aircraft, radars, and offensive/defensive systems are meant to be utilized alongside the F-35. Such a micro view doesn't adequately account for the actual theater of war these aircraft will take part in. Is the JSF program enormously expensive? Yes. Is it unnecessary? Maybe. However, expensive and unnecessary are separate issues from whether or not this is a capable aircraft, of which it empirically is. Does it have kinks to work out? Definitely, but this aircraft is still in testing phases, and like all other aircraft, it will go through iterations and variations. In time, as systems mature, bugs are fixed, and pilots become more experienced, we can be sure that the F-35 will at least be a capable tool to warfighters. Argue the cost, argue the need, but making the argument that the folks at Lockheed all of a sudden forgot how to build capable fighter aircraft is absurd.

codeshaman 11y ago

Seems to me this F-35 is the pacifist's wet dream. It can't fight long or short range and even if it could, it can't kill because it's too slow. It doesn't respond to violence with violence, hence - pacifist. For ultimate peace making, they should equip it with pigeons and let the birds loose over the enemy territory, sending out love letters to everyone. Also balloons and candy for the enemy children would be appropriate.