5 ms·

David Axe exhibits poor engineering understanding of the aircraft, which results in him interpreting the reports that he reads in ways that are simply not suppo

David Axe exhibits poor engineering understanding of the aircraft, which results in him interpreting the reports that he reads in ways that are simply not supported by the source material. As someone with detailed knowledge of the program, I consider his reporting to be misguided at best and potentially malicious at worst. At the very least I wish he would consult someone with flight test experience as he writes.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Actually, the test pilots tell him it's such a poor design that they lost to F-16's in the mock battles: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16248/test-pilot-f35-cant-dogfight/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16248/test-pilot-f... Rather than denying it, Lockheed's response was that it was intended for "long range" dominance. Axe's claim was that it would fire off its payload and be destroyed in dogfights by any planes that survived. The pilot's remarks and Lockheed's support that this is true... even if they have their older planes. ;) Far as long-range, there's concerns even if we take Lockheed's word their stealth is great. Their word hasn't been reliable so far but let's pretend it is. That leaves two problems: engine being picked up by upgraded infrared sensors on next-gen aircraft; fact that tests showing long-range dominance were done with weapons it doesn't even have and still aren't in the program. Both mean it might not perform as well as expected with one being straight-up deceptive. So, the evidence in dogfights, Lockheed's response, and their cooked tests show this plane is worthless. Upgrading proven designs that are each great at their respective missions would've been a better investment. Far as aircraft engineering, I haven't met one engineer that in private will endorse F-35 or existing VTOL aircraft. They all mock both while praising their choice of prior aircraft. F-15's, A-10's, and F-18 Super Hornets get my vote for upgrade dollars. That's air, ground, and multi-mission. Maybe try to make the F-22 cheaper while they're at it. Improve some drones or human, recon craft. Throw in improvements on an ECM craft. All adds up for most bang for buck. Collective capability would rival a bunch of F-35's. Military with with the F-35's. Should've chosen Option A.
- douche 11y ago
  The whole long-range dominance idea reminds me of early-Vietnam era F4 Phantoms - they were supposed to use the early models of Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles exclusively for air-to-air combat. So when they actually got into combat, the armorers started strapping externally mounted gunpods on them, so that they could have a chance to dogfight with the mostly cannon-armed MiGs they encountered.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    One of the VTOL opponents I know was my grandfather, who flew F4's. :) He loved them (unsurprisingly). He told me they did a lot of interesting stuff with them trying to squeeze out more ROI or effectiveness. The gunpods sound like an interesting example of that. Probably the best example of that idea in Vietnam, though, were the AC-130's with Vulcan's. I think the F4's might have been more cost effective, though, given how much munition the Spookies dropped vs number of kills.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    What you are describing is historical truth. The Sparrow missiles were really bad. They had poor seekers, poor motors, and poor maneuverability. It took multiple Sparrows to even have a chance of killing a target. I believe their Pk was below 20% and was often as low as 9%. Early Sidewinders were more reliable, but had a narrow engagement envelope. And pilot training completely eliminated any work on how to conduct traditional dogfights. This was a recipe for lots of aircraft and aircrew losses. However, the aerospace industry and government have not stood still. Newer missiles are orders of magnitude more reliable and capable. High off boresight missiles mean that pilots can engage targets from a wide variety of angles. Seeker technology is amazingly better.
- perfTerm 11y ago
  As a layman reading about this plane for years and years and years it almost seems like the military would have had better results stacking the 400 billion dollars up in 5inch stacks and strapping it to the soldiers as body armour at this point. They're doing some cool stuff though, the military. The new railguns and laser systems the Navys building are pretty neat and will probably end up having some civilian benefits in the future. This unfortunately feels like a huge sinkhole which won't produce any tangible benefit for the military or civilians.
neurotech1 11y ago
These hit pieces are never actually written by anyone with actual air combat experience. Test pilot reports tend to be quoted out of context and misinterpreted in the media. Its ironic that "everyone" claims the F-35 can't dogfight etc. forgetting that the former JSF program director [0] has actual experience in an actual dogfight[1]. [0] http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=288 http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=288 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981)

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Actually, the test pilots tell him it's such a poor design that they lost to F-16's in the mock battles: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16248/test-pilot-f35-cant-dogfight/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16248/test-pilot-f... Rather than denying it, Lockheed's response was that it was intended for "long range" dominance. Axe's claim was that it would fire off its payload and be destroyed in dogfights by any planes that survived. The pilot's remarks and Lockheed's support that this is true... even if they have their older planes. ;) Far as long-range, there's concerns even if we take Lockheed's word their stealth is great. Their word hasn't been reliable so far but let's pretend it is. That leaves two problems: engine being picked up by upgraded infrared sensors on next-gen aircraft; fact that tests showing long-range dominance were done with weapons it doesn't even have and still aren't in the program. Both mean it might not perform as well as expected with one being straight-up deceptive. So, the evidence in dogfights, Lockheed's response, and their cooked tests show this plane is worthless. Upgrading proven designs that are each great at their respective missions would've been a better investment. Far as aircraft engineering, I haven't met one engineer that in private will endorse F-35 or existing VTOL aircraft. They all mock both while praising their choice of prior aircraft. F-15's, A-10's, and F-18 Super Hornets get my vote for upgrade dollars. That's air, ground, and multi-mission. Maybe try to make the F-22 cheaper while they're at it. Improve some drones or human, recon craft. Throw in improvements on an ECM craft. All adds up for most bang for buck. Collective capability would rival a bunch of F-35's. Military with with the F-35's. Should've chosen Option A.

douche 11y ago
The whole long-range dominance idea reminds me of early-Vietnam era F4 Phantoms - they were supposed to use the early models of Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles exclusively for air-to-air combat. So when they actually got into combat, the armorers started strapping externally mounted gunpods on them, so that they could have a chance to dogfight with the mostly cannon-armed MiGs they encountered.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  One of the VTOL opponents I know was my grandfather, who flew F4's. :) He loved them (unsurprisingly). He told me they did a lot of interesting stuff with them trying to squeeze out more ROI or effectiveness. The gunpods sound like an interesting example of that. Probably the best example of that idea in Vietnam, though, were the AC-130's with Vulcan's. I think the F4's might have been more cost effective, though, given how much munition the Spookies dropped vs number of kills.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  What you are describing is historical truth. The Sparrow missiles were really bad. They had poor seekers, poor motors, and poor maneuverability. It took multiple Sparrows to even have a chance of killing a target. I believe their Pk was below 20% and was often as low as 9%. Early Sidewinders were more reliable, but had a narrow engagement envelope. And pilot training completely eliminated any work on how to conduct traditional dogfights. This was a recipe for lots of aircraft and aircrew losses. However, the aerospace industry and government have not stood still. Newer missiles are orders of magnitude more reliable and capable. High off boresight missiles mean that pilots can engage targets from a wide variety of angles. Seeker technology is amazingly better.
perfTerm 11y ago
As a layman reading about this plane for years and years and years it almost seems like the military would have had better results stacking the 400 billion dollars up in 5inch stacks and strapping it to the soldiers as body armour at this point. They're doing some cool stuff though, the military. The new railguns and laser systems the Navys building are pretty neat and will probably end up having some civilian benefits in the future. This unfortunately feels like a huge sinkhole which won't produce any tangible benefit for the military or civilians.

neurotech1 11y ago

These hit pieces are never actually written by anyone with actual air combat experience. Test pilot reports tend to be quoted out of context and misinterpreted in the media. Its ironic that "everyone" claims the F-35 can't dogfight etc. forgetting that the former JSF program director [0] has actual experience in an actual dogfight[1]. [0] http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=288 http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=288 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981)