U.S. waived laws to keep F-35 on track with China-made parts

[Ceonwulf]

Lots of countries have avionics technology very similar to what the US has - UK and France as examples.

Neither can design an F-22 now though as they do not have the technology - maybe the UK is the closest as it has engine techology second only to the US in the world.

I don't think its a case of a lack of technology, but rather that their current defense budgets are far too small to realistically fund a project to design and build a 5th generation fighter. The UK has proved with Taranis that it has advanced stealth technology, Typhoon is evidence of sophisticated avionics and Rolls Royce builds the best engines in the world.

 

[jhungary]

The F35 is a big mistake according to Pierre Sprey

As for the combat radius between f16 and F35.. You add a drop tank to an F16 and the range will be different..
As for the F35 putting anything on the wing would defeat its stealth feature so no drop tank or external weapon load.

Lol, so...

You think what is correct when somebody famous say the stuff is worthless, without looking objectively?

Ask what Pierre think about the USAF view on A-10.

Everyone have their own agenda, of course the F-16 designer will say F-35 is worthless as naturally they want to keep making F-16 instead of F-35, so they can earn more. If you failed to realise that then, we'll, either yourselves are ignorant, or have your own agenda too

And if F-35 do take on extra load, yes, it will be relegated to F-15e role, and so F15 can do their job, which is bomb truck, but then what if I want a stealth surgical strike which I need bomb drop at certain target, silently? Can F-15E do that?

In these days, you don't have much bomb truck mission anymore, you want a strike when you want it where you want it. In my days as an infantry commander, when I have to call in eagle package, I will need to make sure there are no SAM threat otherwise those fly boy won't come near, and the fact that they were detected miles away from target mean when the strike came, enemy would have been clear out already

So why is it bad for an aircraft to do the stuff F-15E supposed to be doing, and then something F-15E cannot do? I will say that is a good thing, isn't it?

And have to disagree with the engine too, the keyword is "IF" J-31 get it....

 

[UKBengali]

They are virtually same. J-11 is marginally bigger so it will be heavier. F-35 thrust is 19,522 kg. 2 RD-33 engines have thrust 16,600 kg. Big advantage in thrust/weight for F-35. In addition 1 engine configuration has less bottom drag and much better roll rate (very important in dogfight).

Nope the most likely candidate to power production J-31s is WS-13A with thrust of 100KN each. That makes 200KN in total which is more than the 191KN of the F-35.

J-31 will super-cruise whereas the F-35 does not.

J-31 will have a higher top speed whereas F-35 can only manage Mach 1.6

J-31 will manoeuvre much better than F-35.

Whichever way you look at it both J-20 and J-31 will shoot F-35s out of the sky relatively easily since China is catching up with the US radar and avionics technology as the years pass.

May start wanting to look at acquiring the F-22 if the US would sell.

I don't think its a case of a lack of technology, but rather that their current defense budgets are far too small to realistically fund a project to design and build a 5th generation fighter. The UK has proved with Taranis that it has advanced stealth technology, Typhoon is evidence of sophisticated avionics and Rolls Royce builds the best engines in the world.

Even the UK would have trouble building a F-135 class engine as it does not have experience in military engines of this class. Russia has with the AL-31 and China with the WS-10A.

There is some difference between civilian and military engine technology.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

just wondering why cant a trim tank be added in the tail?

 

[500]

Nope the most likely candidate to power production J-31s is WS-13A with thrust of 100KN each. That makes 200KN in total which is more than the 191KN of the F-35.

They did not make WS-13 with total thrust 172 KN yet, but u already dream about WS-13A with total thrust 200 KN. Funny guy.

And why do u think that F-135 engine wont be upgraded in the future?

J-31 will super-cruise whereas the F-35 does not.

No it wont have. It has less thrust/weight ratio than F-35.

J-31 will have a higher top speed whereas F-35 can only manage Mach 1.6

No it wont have. It has less thrust/weight ratio than F-35.

J-31 will manoeuvre much better than F-35.

On contrary:

1) It has less thrust/weight ratio than F-35.
2) It is has 2 engines => much worse roll rate.
3) F-35 already proved 50 degrees alpha. Something u cant even dream about.

Learn the facts fanboy.

 

[Kyle Sun]

They did not make WS-13 with total thrust 172 KN yet, but u already dream about WS-13A with total thrust 200 KN. Funny guy.

And why do u think that F-135 engine wont be upgraded in the future?


No it wont have. It has less thrust/weight ratio than F-35.


No it wont have. It has less thrust/weight ratio than F-35.


On contrary:

1) It has less thrust/weight ratio than F-35.
2) It is has 2 engines => much worse roll rate.
3) F-35 already proved 50 degrees alpha. Something u cant even dream about.

Learn the facts fanboy.

It is true !

We still need to learn more about engine ,and we are working on this.

BTW, 50 degrees alpha is really incredible , our jet certainly do not have such wonderful ability but our missile has.

 

[gambit]

I have no experience that why I'm going with Pierre Sprey opinion over you on the F 35. Your experience with the f111 or the f16 could have been as a radar tech on those plane, since you didn't went into detail. So I will be sticking with Pierre Sprey opinion over someone who use to work in the USAF. Remember I'm from the US and we don't worship at the feet of someone that work with the military. Let just say for the most part the US arm forces doesn't get the brightness HR from the population at large.

That is funny...What do you think Sprey did at the Pentagon?

In the video of Sprey that you brought on, he effectively said that 'stealth' have been defeated by longer wavelengths radars. He gave no technical explanations on how, perhaps there were time constraints in the interview? Of course, what you brought on is nothing new. I have responded to that 'long wavelengths' charge before.

But here is my recent write-up about what Sprey said...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction

Notice that I give the readers links and keywords searches for the readers to verify my arguments. Most here do not do that, least of all from the Chinese members. Everything -- EVERYTHING -- I said in that explanation is well known by every working radar engineer. To date, no one have ever used keywords searches I provided and return to this forum and proved I misled the readers.

So if you chose to stick with what Sprey said, then you are in a pit that I dug for you.

The B2 drop 6 jdam and have range that the F35 could never have... 6 bombs > 2 bombs, B2 ranges> F35 ranges

That is not the point, which is that we now with 'smarter' weapons can produce the same effects without resorting to the massive array of weapons like the old days. You criticized the F-35 as not able to carry as much bombs as the older fighters. You are wrong to start because when low radar observability is not important, the -35 can carry external stores. But if one well placed bomb can produce the desirable effects, then what is the point of carrying many? That was the point of the B-2 and 6 JDAMs example.

You fail to notice how the F35 component are source to state with key senator who can support such a big project. If you are saying that Lockheed is just a supplier to the US military, you a quite naïve at the working of a trillion dollar project.

Same for the F-16. And look how it turned out.

As regard to the hi/low mix I agree with that concept. With short range, small weapon load, and lack overall maneuverability the F35 is just a bad plane to be put into the mix. My vision of a HI/low mix is f22 flying cap for stealth drone/drone... IMO they kill the wrong plane, they should have kept the f22 line and drop the F35.. Our only hope now is to sucker in as many foreign customer as we can get to lower the until cost of the F35. Even if we are able to do this, it will only solve our cost issue, the problem with the F35 being a bad concept and design won't go away. Critical thinking as much as you want, but at the end of the day the F 35 is still a plane that can only carried two bombs, lack super cruise, lack range, can't climb, and can't turn worth a dam.

Looky here...Drop the pretense that you are for any objective and unbiased discussions. You already made up your mind and you sought out only sources to confirm yourself.

"Go talk to a professional accountant and HR specialist"
Whoa, so a HR specialist should decide what weapon platform we should use

Why not? You pretty much demanded that we, at least those in this little corner of the Internet, listens to you who have no experience whatsoever about this.

 

[gambit]

As for the combat radius between f16 and F35.. You add a drop tank to an F16 and the range will be different..
As for the F35 putting anything on the wing would defeat its stealth feature so no drop tank or external weapon load.

The F-35 can fly with external fuel until it reaches the areas/points where radars are or will be active, then it discard the tank or tanks. You talk as if the jet will be in radar coverage from take off to landing.

Here is what you do not understand about 'stealth'...But talks as if you do...

Being low radar observable is not about being carefree with the radar threat. The best 'stealth' is to be avoid being inside the radar beam in the first place. That was how we flew the F-111 back the days of the Cold War and that was why the Russians were so glad when we retired that jet. Being low radar observable is STILL about mapping out the radar threats, navigating around them, and if I find myself inside a radar beam, I am confident that I will be far less detectable so I can still achieve my objective.

 

[gambit]

@gambit : Is the USAF's plan to use the f-22 and f-35 in a hi-lo mix, similar to the f-15/f-16 combo? If so, doesn't the small number of f-22s preclude that? I mean, the ratio of f-15 to f-16s in the fleet and the ratio of f-22 to f-35s is so different.

Back in WW II, the number of escort fighters to bombers were grossly out in favor of the bombers. With today's more precise weapons, a single F-35 can produce the desirable effects of a WW II or even the Cold War era flight of fighter-bombers. We proved that with the F-117 back in Desert Storm. The -22 will not always be the -35's escort. The -22's mission will be preemptive at best and deterrent at least, meaning it will try to preemptively destroy any opposition air forces to clear the path for the -35s, or make the enemy wary of entering any suspicious airspace and corridor for fear of meeting a flight of -22s. Personally, I do not like the quantity we have. I would rather we have a thousand F-22s.

Look at it this way...If a flight of PAKs were on their way to intercept a flight of F-35s and all of a sudden, two PAKs went down from two AMRAAMs, what do you think the rest of the PAKs will do? For all you know, there could be just four F-22s escorting 10 F-35s and even though outnumbered, they just scattered the enemy.

Also, would the f-35 be useful to other air forces who will not get the f-22?

As an example, the israeli air force had an f-15/f-16 combo like the USAF. But in future, they will have only f-35s, no f-22. Would f-35s alone be able to take on all spectrum of aerial warfare, like the 15/16 combo could until now?

For those that can only get the F-35, they will have to use the -35 in the role of the -22 when needed, and as multi-role fighters when needed.

Remember that I said this before: In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours, and cheating is allowed.

Operation Bolo back in the Vietnam War proved that the heavier and less maneuverable F-4 could outfight the lighter and more agile MIG-21 if the proper tactics were employed. It all depends on the pilot. Operation Bolo proved that truth and the F-4 had no gun in that fight. In a single day, the North Vietnamese lost half of its MIG-21 fleet, then the other half were grounded until other, but not necessarily better, tactics were employed. After Operation Bolo, the -21s were much less of a threat, not just because there were less of them, but equally because the North Vietnamese pilots were unable to force the F-4 pilots to fight where the -21's strengths lies.

The F-35's usefulness to other air forces will depend on how creative they are.

And what about the USN - presently they have a twin engined, heavy f-18/f-18SH mix. They will not have F-22s in future, only f-35. Is it wise to go for only the jack of all trades aircraft?

The Navy is a special case. An aircraft carrier is essentially an expeditionary air force, designed to temporarily provide air presence until superior forces arrived and/or can make a longer and stronger presence. For decades, the US Navy had to pay to support several platforms per carrier deployment and it is not that financially attractive any more. If it is possible to have 'stealth' for the Navy -- and it is -- then the Navy need a 'stealthy' jack-of-all-trades.

Once stealth fighters proliferate, wouldn't air combat capabilities still matter, since neither the f-35 nor the PAKFA can see each other from a distance? I mean, as of now the f-35 can rely on stealth and the ability to see and shoot first. But once that advantage is negated, wouldn't PAKFAs and similar aircrafts with much more load and missile carrying ability, and much better aerodynamic performance, have an upper hand?

I have to disagree on that. I have hinted on how the US have effectively defeated 'stealth' and that is all I will say. Sorry.

 

[Ceonwulf]

Even the UK would have trouble building a F-135 class engine as it does not have experience in military engines of this class. Russia has with the AL-31 and China with the WS-10A.

There is some difference between civilian and military engine technology.

On the contrary, the UK appears to have considerable experience with both 4.5 and 5th generation engines:

- The EJ200 used in the Eurofighter Typhoon is based on a Rolls Royce prototype and Rolls Royce has the largest production share of the EJ200.

- General Electric and Rolls Royce developed the alternative F-136 engine for the F-35.

- The F-135 engines used in the F-35B require the Rolls Royce STOVL Lift System.

Based on this, it would be wrong to assert that the UK has no "experience in military engines of this class".

Like I said before, the UK has the technology but it doesn't have the funding.

 

[Ceonwulf]

For those that can only get the F-35, they will have to use the -35 in the role of the -22 when needed, and as multi-role fighters when needed.

Remember that I said this before: In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours, and cheating is allowed.

Operation Bolo back in the Vietnam War proved that the heavier and less maneuverable F-4 could outfight the lighter and more agile MIG-21 if the proper tactics were employed. It all depends on the pilot. Operation Bolo proved that truth and the F-4 had no gun in that fight. In a single day, the North Vietnamese lost half of its MIG-21 fleet, then the other half were grounded until other, but not necessarily better, tactics were employed. After Operation Bolo, the -21s were much less of a threat, not just because there were less of them, but equally because the North Vietnamese pilots were unable to force the F-4 pilots to fight where the -21's strengths lies.

The F-35's usefulness to other air forces will depend on how creative they are.

Its a pleasure reading through your posts. Very informative and a reflection of your knowledge and experience on the subject matter. I particularly like your references to real life operations and applications of the tactics you are trying to explain (like the one above regarding Vietnam).

Sadly allot of people here on defence.pk are nothing more than illiterate fan-boys who cannot grasp the concepts of modern aerial warfare. Terms like "precision firepower" mean nothing to them... they can't comprehend the network-centric warfare doctrine of the USAF and they prefer to ignore the human elements of war such as superior training and tactics (of which the US and Western Europe reign supreme).

Furthermore, in the minds eye of many of these fan-boys, the hypothetical battles that takes place are nothing more than dogfight-romanticism. They fail to recognize the evolution of WVR to BVR tactics and technology.

An American F-35 pilot will possess training and experience several orders of magnitude above that of a Russian pilot (according to the IISS US fighter pilots receive upwards of 250 flight hours per year, while Russians only 140 hours). Additionally the F-35 pilot will be part of a network-centric battle-group, he will have superior situational awareness, be able to receive data and communicate with ground forces as-well as his fellow pilots. They will have an information advantage and will be better able to collaborate and employ superior tactics than their enemy. American F-35 pilots will also have significant AEW&C and EW support depending on the mission etc...

Americas enemies don't operate network-centric forces. They will lack all of the advantages that the US pilots will enjoy in abundance, and therefore, more often than not, be at a significant disadvantage.