February 01, 2015
Right Way / Wrong Way
Over at Next Big Future, Brian Wang has been following a story about how the Chinese stole a vast amount of data on the F-35. He has concluded that the Chinese did indeed do so, but when using the data to assemble their own plane they judiciously omitted the design flaws and built a substantially better set of planes. The Chinese are developing the J-20 , and the J-31 amongst others and the Russians are developing the Sukoi T-50.
The F-35 is actually an exceedingly effective money disposal system. The utility of that accomplishment is debatable.
Pierre Sprey is the designer of the F-16 and A-10, which gives him a bit of credibility in the area of military aerospace engineering. He has some thoughts on the F-35.
Not kind thoughts, but thoughts.
David Axe has similar thoughts.
Note too that because of the vast amounts of data regarding the plane's signature reduction that the Chinese have pilfered, the the stealth of the F-35 is probably useless. This is critical since the performance of the plane is far less than other US fighters, stealth was supposed to make up for that. The plane isn't really even a fighter, with a 6-g limit on the marine version, it's a strike aircraft.
Instead of Lightning, they should have named it Devastator.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at
07:13 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The plane isn't really even a fighter, with a 6-g limit on the marine version, it's a strike aircraft.
...because that's what the F-35B is supposed to be, a CAS/strike fighter, with a 7-g limit.
The USAAF version, the -35A, is stressed for 9-g. as is the carrier capable -35C.
And farbeit from me to cast aspersions upon Mr Sprey, but he was NOT the designer of the F-16 and the A-10. He was a member of the design teams for the planes the F-35 is supposed to replace. He's a generation of planes behind the times, which is probably why he's now a music producer.
I mean, this is a guy who says the F-15's electronics suite is "a bunch of junk with no relevance in combat." Oh, and that stealth doesn't work, and a MiG-21 can outmaneuver a F-35.
He may very well be correct that the F-35 is a dog. But I'd be incredibly reluctant to take his word for it based on the raw idiocy of a number of the things he says in this video.
...because that's what the F-35B is supposed to be, a CAS/strike fighter, with a 7-g limit.
The USAAF version, the -35A, is stressed for 9-g. as is the carrier capable -35C.
And farbeit from me to cast aspersions upon Mr Sprey, but he was NOT the designer of the F-16 and the A-10. He was a member of the design teams for the planes the F-35 is supposed to replace. He's a generation of planes behind the times, which is probably why he's now a music producer.
I mean, this is a guy who says the F-15's electronics suite is "a bunch of junk with no relevance in combat." Oh, and that stealth doesn't work, and a MiG-21 can outmaneuver a F-35.
He may very well be correct that the F-35 is a dog. But I'd be incredibly reluctant to take his word for it based on the raw idiocy of a number of the things he says in this video.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Sun Feb 1 21:57:23 2015 (jGQR+)
2
The thing that has always worried me about the F-35 program was that the idea behind the program was more important than the product of the program. There was a massive info war between military bureaucracy and military dogma over military doctrine, and bureaucracy won.
The general purpose fighter was the easy, effective and cheap option; as opposed to special-purpose, high-tech, ridiculously expensive fighters. Of course, the F-35 is none of things now; it's an inferior version of fighters it beat out in this ideology war.
However, it does appear that the F-35 we have now is a much better plane than the F-35 we were supposed to get.
The general purpose fighter was the easy, effective and cheap option; as opposed to special-purpose, high-tech, ridiculously expensive fighters. Of course, the F-35 is none of things now; it's an inferior version of fighters it beat out in this ideology war.
However, it does appear that the F-35 we have now is a much better plane than the F-35 we were supposed to get.
Posted by: Ben at Mon Feb 2 11:20:24 2015 (DRaH+)
3
Spey has no credibility whatsoever.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Mon Feb 2 11:49:56 2015 (RqRa5)
4
Honestly, I'm fairly sure that the next "generation" of fighter aircraft won't have a pilot involved. Why centralize all the functions in a single expensive airframe when you can lift a LOT of semi-autonomous, relatively inexpensive drones, tailored to the mission profile and largely without limitation to the load limits of a single airframe?
Of course that's a massive doctrinal challenge to the air force, not least of which because it absolutely subverts the air force's primary mission - to have lots of officers so that they will need lots of senior officers to supervise them and thus put lots of generals in the Pentagon.
There was an era where planes needed people to be in direct control as they maneuvered against each other, like some kind of modern-day knighthood. But the development of long-range air-to-air missiles has left dogfighting an outdated relic; planes have been capable of killing each other from beyond visual distance for quite some time now...
Of course that's a massive doctrinal challenge to the air force, not least of which because it absolutely subverts the air force's primary mission - to have lots of officers so that they will need lots of senior officers to supervise them and thus put lots of generals in the Pentagon.
There was an era where planes needed people to be in direct control as they maneuvered against each other, like some kind of modern-day knighthood. But the development of long-range air-to-air missiles has left dogfighting an outdated relic; planes have been capable of killing each other from beyond visual distance for quite some time now...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Mon Feb 2 15:30:11 2015 (zJsIy)
5
Well a lightweight fighter cheap enough to build in mass quantities and inexpensive enough to give the pilots lots of flight time seems to be what they were initially gunning for, then they started adding stuff. I'm not sure the extraordinarily expensive F-35 is really better than 5 -10 times the number of Gripens, the proposed Makos or even the old F-5s. All of these would probably be individually inferior, but could be afforded in quantity and would be cheaper to operate. In any event I think Avatar is on theright track when he says...
I'm not quite sold on UAVs because basically anything can be hacked and RF links can be jammed, but with lasers and railguns coming online and missiles quite mature, I don't think that manned aircraft, particularly fighters are going to be viable much longer except in permissive environments or for certain niche duties like the A-10 does...and even then 8th Airforce casualty rates are to be expected against anything like a first world military.
It might be better to buy some lower end thing off the shelf to fill the rapidly dwindling niche where planes are survivable (pounding terrorists like ISIS and Boko Haram, for which the F-35 is rather overbuilt.
However, it does appear that the F-35 we have now is a much better plane than the F-35 we were supposed to get.
Well a lightweight fighter cheap enough to build in mass quantities and inexpensive enough to give the pilots lots of flight time seems to be what they were initially gunning for, then they started adding stuff. I'm not sure the extraordinarily expensive F-35 is really better than 5 -10 times the number of Gripens, the proposed Makos or even the old F-5s. All of these would probably be individually inferior, but could be afforded in quantity and would be cheaper to operate. In any event I think Avatar is on theright track when he says...
Honestly, I'm fairly sure that the next "generation" of fighter aircraft won't have a pilot involved.
I'm not quite sold on UAVs because basically anything can be hacked and RF links can be jammed, but with lasers and railguns coming online and missiles quite mature, I don't think that manned aircraft, particularly fighters are going to be viable much longer except in permissive environments or for certain niche duties like the A-10 does...and even then 8th Airforce casualty rates are to be expected against anything like a first world military.
It might be better to buy some lower end thing off the shelf to fill the rapidly dwindling niche where planes are survivable (pounding terrorists like ISIS and Boko Haram, for which the F-35 is rather overbuilt.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Mon Feb 2 19:22:09 2015 (ohzj1)
6
What in particular do you base that on Pete? I'm genuinely curious. This isn't my bailiwick at all, whereas you are an aviator and might know more about the guy. I've heard him spoken highly of by people I generally respect (Jerry Pournelle for instance) but that and a cursory web search are the extent of my knowledge about him.
Spey has no credibility whatsoever
What in particular do you base that on Pete? I'm genuinely curious. This isn't my bailiwick at all, whereas you are an aviator and might know more about the guy. I've heard him spoken highly of by people I generally respect (Jerry Pournelle for instance) but that and a cursory web search are the extent of my knowledge about him.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Mon Feb 2 19:33:02 2015 (ohzj1)
7
Your T-50 link is borked, unless the plane really is supposed to have "twin fusion turbines" for propulsion.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Mon Feb 2 21:25:58 2015 (jGQR+)
8
Huh...I remember that coming up and laughing at it...not sure how the link got pasted in though. (Thanks. Link Fixed. )
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Mon Feb 2 21:37:48 2015 (ohzj1)
39kb generated in CPU 0.024, elapsed 0.3476 seconds.
71 queries taking 0.3361 seconds, 365 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
71 queries taking 0.3361 seconds, 365 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
