F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

djpav

New Member
This is a thread for continued F-35 fantasy discussions (or fake F-35 discussions that have been debunked). That way, new members and readers will not be confused.

It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"

Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
It is certainly not doomed.

I suggest you read some of the threads on F-35 on this forum. I think you will find plenty of information that demonstrate to you that it is far from doomed, and also why that is so.

You will also find some critisism of the person that wrote the article that you qouted... It's not the first time he critisise the F-35.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
It sounds like someone regurgitated a Kopp "analysis".
Not that wackjob again. Nether one of those guys knows what they are talking about. I think it was wrong to cut off the F-22 production at 187 planes and I think its also wrong to cut back of the F-35. They need the F-35. Those guys rather see the air force fleet crumble by not replacing the 25-40 year old F-15s and F-16s.

Edit: Why in the hell do people get this idea that the F-35 and F-105 are related? They are too different jets from a completely different era.

The F-35 is more like a F-22 that can do the job of both the F-15 and F-16/F18.
 
I could understand the US wanting to keep the F35 at almost all costs but if it was such a rubbish aircraft why would the export customers buy it? They can't have all been fooled by the term 5th Gen.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I could understand the US wanting to keep the F35 at almost all costs but if it was such a rubbish aircraft why would the export customers buy it? They can't have all been fooled by the term 5th Gen.
Pro-tip: it's actually not a rubbish aircraft. The poster just doesn't know his stuff. ;)
 

latenlazy

New Member
I could understand the US wanting to keep the F35 at almost all costs but if it was such a rubbish aircraft why would the export customers buy it? They can't have all been fooled by the term 5th Gen.
Maybe because those who're actually doing the buying know it isn't a rubbish aircraft?

It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)
I find those argument that the F-35 will suck at dogfighting ridiculous. Stealth isn't just good for avoiding long range detection, but missile locks as well.
Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."
At worst, if it needs to carry a heavier payload it can carry them externally. External stealth pods aside, it can also go into an area after the air force achieves air superiority. which means it doesn't need to worry about compromising its stealth.
As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"
Maybe it can fly slower, or maybe its sensors are much better at getting a lock at further distances outside the range of weapons that can endanger it.
Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please.
No.
 

energo

Member
It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"

Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please.
Consider that all reliable evidence suggests that the F-35 has been designed with F-16 and F/A-18-like performances. In fact, the F-35 will out perform these in a tactical loadout, some of which has has already been demonstrated (climb out). Wheeler seems to be forgetting that the 49k take-off weight is with a huge 0.4 fuel fraction and no aerodynamic penalties. Expect the F-35 to be a sprinter once down to it's maneuvering weight. And it's stealthy.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo
 

Sea Toby

New Member
If the F-35 was a POS, all of the nations would have pulled out of buying the aircraft, including the USA. NONE HAVE! What a load of tripe!

LM is building them on time and on budget. Development may have been delayed a year or two, but with a new aircraft and new technology engineering has to be done before the program proceeds. In fact, of all of the most recent new aircraft, the development delays for the F-35 have been the LEAST by far.... At the moment I know of no building program delays....
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Not that wackjob again. Nether one of those guys knows what they are talking about.
Actually they do know what they are talking about for the most part, that’s the worst thing. They are out there deliberately misleading people.

I think it was wrong to cut off the F-22 production at 187 planes and I think its also wrong to cut back of the F-35. They need the F-35. Those guys rather see the air force fleet crumble by not replacing the 25-40 year old F-15s and F-16s.
You can blame LM for the F-22A, they screwed the pooch on that one. In 10 years half of that small fleet won’t be able to conduct air superiority missions (what the platform was designed for) because of software obsolescence and the fact that upgrades designed for the newer end of the fleet can not be applied to the older platforms.

Edit: Why in the hell do people get this idea that the F-35 and F-105 are related? They are too different jets from a completely different era.
Because in terms of airframe design, weight and to an extent the platforms intended roll they are similar. But to use that to make judgements on the F-35A's capability fundamentally misunderstands (or misrepresents) the nature of the battle-space the F-35A will be operating in. Just the F-35A's sensor and weapons package makes it more lethal than any other non F-22A platform yet devised. You could put that sensor/weapon combination on an F-16 and it would be more capable than the USAF's F-15C fleet. Battle isn’t just about instantaneous turn rates and energy management any more, information dominance is the name of the game and from that perspective the F-35A is a killer.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
If the F-35 was a POS, all of the nations would have pulled out of buying the aircraft, including the USA. NONE HAVE! What a load of tripe!

LM is building them on time and on budget. Development may have been delayed a year or two, but with a new aircraft and new technology engineering has to be done before the program proceeds. In fact, of all of the most recent new aircraft, the development delays for the F-35 have been the LEAST by far.... At the moment I know of no building program delays....
EVERY new platform has delays. LM is performing well on the JSF program; IIRC the F-22A had HEAPS of problems in SDD. They lost an airframe due to a bug in the flight control software.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
If the F-35 was a POS, all of the nations would have pulled out of buying the aircraft, including the USA. NONE HAVE! What a load of tripe!

LM is building them on time and on budget. Development may have been delayed a year or two, but with a new aircraft and new technology engineering has to be done before the program proceeds. In fact, of all of the most recent new aircraft, the development delays for the F-35 have been the LEAST by far.... At the moment I know of no building program delays....
Agree that delays have been minor compared to other programs.

However there have been some delays, and I would be surprised if there will not be more:

F-35 changes sought to avert more problems

Most likely both timelines and budget will grow. But this is normal!

If you want to talk delays in military aviation, look at the A400... Or the NH90.... And I think also the Eurofighter Typhoon had some delays. F22 has been mentioned. Etc..
 

B3LA

Banned Member
It's way too early to completely write the F-35 off as a dud.
Let's give it at least a couple of years more before we do that.
It has proven to be a very interesting project to follow, especially
since my tax money do not fund it. :cool:
 

energo

Member
It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35

[..]

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."
Couple of more remarks.

Actually, the F-35 will take 5700 lb of internal weapons, pull 9G's with that, and carry well over 18000 pounds if including the wing stations.

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10"
Wheeler is comparing against the spesific requirements of the 1970-1980s. The F-35 probably wont replace the A-10 in some narrow tactical niches, but it will probably more than make up for that due to its vastly longer sensor reach, self protection, network and data fusion. Sure the A-10 can do repeated strafes, but it also has a slower resonse time. What works best will depend on the conflict, type of mission and quality of the operational planning as much as the technical abilties of the platform in question.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
But that seems strange. Given modern GBAD, how does he expect those light fighters to perform missions in environments saturated with S-300 class systems, covered by Tunguskas, Shilkas, and Pantsyrs, as well as Tor and Buk medium level systems? His light fighters will taken out in bucket-loads. Not to mention the larger heavier fighters they go up against will have an advantage in engagement ranges due to more powerful electronics, radar, etc.
 

Haavarla

Active Member
Couple of more remarks.

Actually, the F-35 will take 5700 lb of internal weapons, pull 9G's with that, and carry well over 18000 pounds if including the wing stations.

Wheeler is comparing against the spesific requirements of the 1970-1980s. The F-35 probably wont replace the A-10 in some narrow tactical niches, but it will probably more than make up for that due to its vastly longer sensor reach, self protection, network and data fusion. Sure the A-10 can do repeated strafes, but it also has a slower resonse time. What works best will depend on the conflict, type of mission and quality of the operational planning as much as the technical abilties of the platform in question.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Agreed.
Somtimes tactics like striking medium/low, fast and be in the next valley when the boms hit the target are prefereble.
The A-10 cant do that, cause it dont have the speed.



Thanks
 
Last edited:

caprise

New Member
...Wheeler seems to be forgetting that the 49k take-off weight is with a huge 0.4 fuel fraction and no aerodynamic penalties...
I see what you mean(Internal vs external loud out), but weight (and a big belly)has always a aerodynamic penalty AFAIK.

Regards C.
 

merocaine

New Member
"Sprey, Wheeler et al. wants something radically different from todays concept of air power..."

There whole concept of war fighting is radically different. Its a fundamental philosophical difference.
They are of the opinion that the US is geared to fighting a 2 generational war, based on fire power not maneuver. There vision is a US military that is geared to fighting a war of movement, a third generational conflict, this is why they focus on tactical aviation so much.
 

energo

Member
I see what you mean(Internal vs external loud out), but weight (and a big belly)has always a aerodynamic penalty AFAIK.

Regards C.
You're absolutely right, although I would have to argue that you would still have to carry that weight in droptanks on a 4th gen fighter, limiting parts of the flight profile. However, as I think Spray (and thus Wheeler) is well aware of, it's more meaningfull to compare trust-to-weight and wing loading at comparable fuel fractions rather than some arbitrary fuel state. Doing so the F-35 comes out pretty much on par or even favorable to some of todays top fighters. Even better than the mighty F-16A.

That said, the F-16 showed that high wing loading does not necessarily mean lacklustre performance; even though it has a much higher wing loading it outperforms the F-15 in most cardinal performance parameters.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo
 
Top