F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[On Guard for Thee]

Derek 2.0, on 03 Jul 2014 - 6:40 PM, said:

 

So that’s a no on expanding on your earlier claim?

 

 

 

 

Are you suggesting the issues the Super Hornet faced during development that led to two groundings are no longer present?

The service record of the Hornet and now the Super Hornet speaks for itself. It's in the posts I and others have put up here. And the service record of the F 35 speaks for itself. Too bad about the 2 British airshows, but would you want to fly one of those GD turkeys across the Atlantic thinking about that record? Edited July 4, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Derek 2.0]

Lower drag is great, but knowing that your primary fighter has similar energy/maneuverability diagrams to the F-18 is worrisome, considering that's a +35 year old design now and wasn't a premier air-superiority platform even in its time.

But it doesn't.....the listed public figures associated with the Falcon/Flanker/Hornet/Typhoon etc are of aircraft without weapons and limited fuel.

Once detected, the F-35 is going to have a huge disadvantage in BVR combat as well as dogfighting against dedicated air-superiority fighters like the Typhoon, or even the F-15 or SU-35. If it's detected too early, those fighters will launch their missiles from further out, at higher speeds (F-35's supersonic acceleration is horrible)

Outside an X-Wing fighter, no current or near future aircraft can outrun a modern air to air missile within it’s flight envelope……….but as you said, those other aircraft have to detect it first.

and in the unlikely scenario where they actually dogfight, simple weight/thrust and wing-loading are going to strongly be against the F-35.

Ahh but it's not that simple........Sustained Gs coupled with the L/D ratio are far more important in a turning fight………And of all those aircraft mentioned, how many can detect, track and launch a missile at a target directly, behind, below or above it?

It has fantastic transonic acceleration, I know that, but I find it unlikely that it's going to be agile like the A-4 at low speeds. The A-4 was tiny and had wing-loading comparable to the Raptor, whereas the F-35 is large and has worse wing-loading than the 1950's era Voodoo.

You're putting too much stock in both wing-loading and declassified “stats” of other aircraft……..remember, nearly all those figures you’ll see on the internet are of aircraft with very little fuel and nothing under the wings.

[Derek 2.0]

The service record of the Hornet and now the Super Hornet speaks for itself. It's in the posts I and others have put up here. And the service record of the F 35 speaks for itself. Too bad about the 2 British airshows, but would you want to fly one of those GD turkeys across the Atlantic thinking about that record?

So are you saying the Super Hornet was sorted out during development?

Edited July 4, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

So are you saying the Super Hornet was sorted out during development?

Once again, go read the history. How long did it take to get the F 18 from first flight to in service. And then look at how long the F 35 has sat in testing, training, developement , whatever you want to call it phse, because of the ongoing snags. And certainly not all engine related, although that makes up a majority.

[Derek 2.0]

Once again, go read the history. How long did it take to get the F 18 from first flight to in service. And then look at how long the F 35 has sat in testing, training, developement , whatever you want to call it phse, because of the ongoing snags. And certainly not all engine related, although that makes up a majority.

Nearly a decade, but if you want to compare apples to apples, also add the cumulative time of the F-16 and Harrier development........

So you're saying the Super Hornet is now sorted?

[On Guard for Thee]

Nearly a decade, but if you want to compare apples to apples, also add the cumulative time of the F-16 and Harrier development........

So you're saying the Super Hornet is now sorted?

Half a decade actually. And how well does the F 35 stack up? Once again, go study the service record. Oh wait, the F 35 doesn't actually have a service record. Maybe that's because it has a lot of engine failure troubles.

[Derek 2.0]

Half a decade actually. And how well does the F 35 stack up?

1974-1983=?

Once again, go study the service record. Oh wait, the F 35 doesn't actually have a service record. Maybe that's because it has a lot of engine failure troubles.

But what of the Hornet prior to it entering service? I doubt it had much a service record no?

[On Guard for Thee]

1974-1983=?

But what of the Hornet prior to it entering service? I doubt it had much a service record no?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. But anyway, the Hornet and the Super Hornet do already have service records. You realize the Super Hornet is in service do you?

[Derek 2.0]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. But anyway, the Hornet and the Super Hornet do already have service records. You realize the Super Hornet is in service do you?

I sure do, as I realize the issues I mentioned (several fleet groundings) took place during the development process........I assume you would agree right?

[On Guard for Thee]

1974-1983=?

But what of the Hornet prior to it entering service? I doubt it had much a service record no?

Better check your numbers. First flight '78

[Derek 2.0]

Better check your numbers. First flight '78

Of this:

1974.........

[On Guard for Thee]

I sure do, as I realize the issues I mentioned (several fleet groundings) took place during the development process........I assume you would agree right?

The F 35 is more years behind sked than the first flight to service time for the F 18. Much of the lost time is engine problems, but there are others. Never mind the money aspect, holy doodle, the mind boggles.

[Derek 2.0]

The F 35 is more years behind sked than the first flight to service time for the F 18. Much of the lost time is engine problems, but there are others. Never mind the money aspect, holy doodle, the mind boggles.

What’s the cumulative time of first flight to service time (your measure) of the F-16, F/A-18 and Harrier?

[On Guard for Thee]

What’s the cumulative time of first flight to service time (your measure) of the F-16, F/A-18 and Harrier?

I don't know, why don't you look it up. I guess what you are trying to do is downplay the huge problems the F 35 has because other aircraft had teething problems. They all do. Here is one thing to note in general terms and you seem to portray yourself as having engineering knowledge: you can't make a plane that does everything well, at least not yet, so if you try you end uop with a turkey that resembles something like as if you put slicks and mag wheels on your Ford Aerostar and then cut the roof off to make it a convertable.

[Derek 2.0]

I don't know, why don't you look it up.

Using your “gold standard” of first flight to entering service, the development stream of the F/A-18, F-16 and the Harrier were a cumulative total of 15 years………the X-35 and F-35, next year once it enters service with the Marines, will be 15 years……Now of course, the USAF will a year later and the Navy several after that……..I suppose if we stay comparing apples to apples, we could also add the F-117 to the three legacy aircraft bringing that total up inline with the F-35C…..but I digress.

They all do. Here is one thing to note in general terms and you seem to portray yourself as having engineering knowledge: you can't make a plane that does everything well, at least not yet, so if you try you end uop with a turkey that resembles something like as if you put slicks and mag wheels on your Ford Aerostar and then cut the roof off to make it a convertable.

Or why not just use this:

[On Guard for Thee]

Using your “gold standard” of first flight to entering service, the development stream of the F/A-18, F-16 and the Harrier were a cumulative total of 15 years………the X-35 and F-35, next year once it enters service with the Marines, will be 15 years……Now of course, the USAF will a year later and the Navy several after that……..I suppose if we stay comparing apples to apples, we could also add the F-117 to the three legacy aircraft bringing that total up inline with the F-35C…..but I digress.

Or why not just use this:

First flight to in service is what I'm talkin' about. F 35 won't be inservice for years to come. Especially if it keeps having engine fires.

[Derek 2.0]

First flight to in service is what I'm talkin' about. F 35 won't be inservice for years to come. Especially if it keeps having engine fires.

The F-35B enters service next year with the Marines.

[On Guard for Thee]

The F-35B enters service next year with the Marines.

That's if it gets past it's current grounding, and doesn't suffer yet another, which I suspect it will. Too much heat from ONE stove.

[Derek 2.0]

That's if it gets past it's current grounding, and doesn't suffer yet another, which I suspect it will. Too much heat from ONE stove.

The F-35B isn't grounded (nor the Navy's F-35C).......they have already given up their Hornets and started conversion training and will be fully activated next year, late fall/early winter.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

The F-35B isn't grounded (nor the Navy's F-35C).......they have already given up their Hornets and started conversion training and will be fully activated next year, late fall/early winter.

Well it's either grounded or the Pentagon is lieing to us. What do you figure?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/03/us/f-35-fleet-grounded/index.html

[Derek 2.0]

Well it's either grounded or the Pentagon is lieing to us. What do you figure?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/03/us/f-35-fleet-grounded/index.html

Get a better source......the Marines and British resumed flights last Friday.

[On Guard for Thee]

Get a better source......the Marines and British resumed flights last Friday.

Good on the Brit;s for choosing not to risk their pilots crossing the Atlantic in a doubtful airplane. I guess the Queen will have to amuse herself with other things.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/british-f-35b-not-yet-ready-transatlantic-crossing

[Moonbox]

But it doesn't.....the listed public figures associated with the Falcon/Flanker/Hornet/Typhoon etc are of aircraft without weapons and limited fuel.

Thrust to weight and wing loading have nothing to do with the F-35's advantage in drag. The maneuverability maps for various planes, as far as I know, are not things that are readily public from my research, so when we really have to go on what little information we have and what the pilots are saying. Aside from disingenuous LM spokespeople, I've read nothing that suggests the F-35's internal weapons bays and fuel pods are going to make enough of a difference in terms of drag to make up for its severe wing-loading and thrust/weight ratios.

Outside an X-Wing fighter, no current or near future aircraft can outrun a modern air to air missile within it’s flight envelope……….but as you said, those other aircraft have to detect it first.

It's not a matter of outrunning a missile. It's a matter of launching your own missiles at greater height and speed (thus longer range) than your opponent. If you can turn, climb and fly faster than your opponent, that allows you to launch your weapon at longer range than him, and then turn quickly away and gain as much speed and altitude as possible. If you fire first outside your opponent's range, and then turn and fly faster than him, you ideally keep yourself out of his weapon range, or give yourself the space needed for the evasive maneuvers that will eventually burn his missile out. Of course if you can't see you opponent in time, this doesn't work, and that's what the F-35 is counting on.

Ahh but it's not that simple........Sustained Gs coupled with the L/D ratio are far more important in a turning fight………And of all those aircraft mentioned, how many can detect, track and launch a missile at a target directly, behind, below or above it?

I'm not an engineer, but from what I know basic aerodynamics dictate that the lower the wing load, the tighter the sustained turn. As you continue your turn, you bleed speed and require more lift to continue the turn. A plane that generates more lift for less thrust is naturally suited for this. Higher wing loading tends to allow faster instantaneous turns with lower bleed, but they have trouble sustaining the turn. That's why you see interceptors like the Starfighter with such high wing loading. They weren't meant for turn fights, but flying fast and straight.

You're putting too much stock in both wing-loading and declassified “stats” of other aircraft……..remember, nearly all those figures you’ll see on the internet are of aircraft with very little fuel and nothing under the wings.

Wing-loading is weight relative to wing surface from what I understand. Those are the figures we see, and whether your fuel and weapons are loaded inside or outside doesn't change that basic math. Internal weapons/fuel reduce drag certainly, but I've read nothing to indicate that it'll be enough to make up for the F-35's large disadvantage in fundamental wing-loading math.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

Good on the Brit;s for choosing not to risk their pilots crossing the Atlantic in a doubtful airplane. I guess the Queen will have to amuse herself with other things.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/british-f-35b-not-yet-ready-transatlantic-crossing

Read your link:

Parts of the F-35 fleet have been grounded since an F-35A model caught fire the morning of June 23. Program officials said the F-35B model, including a UK-owned plane, had resumed flights by last Friday; however, the rest of the fleet remains on the ground while inspections are underway into the cause of the fire.

The F-35B models flying over to the UK will need to leave in the next few days to attend an F-35-focused event at RIAT on July 10. If the cause of the fire is not discovered or is found to be common to the F-35B models, it would raise questions about whether the jet can fly safely over the Atlantic.

The "B" uses a different engine.

[On Guard for Thee]

Read your link:

The "B" uses a different engine.

F 135 F 136 basically the same engine. All having failures.