F35b limitations according to RN pilot.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah they did cheat a little by not including ground incidents but I still don't think the current craft is as bad as the development period incidents made it out to be, much like I believe the F-35 program is going. A number of setbacks that are giving the program a black eye that will be hard to get rid of, even after it has been in service for a while.

a reply to: Sammamishman

Well that, and they managed to "cut" costs by doing unit level repairs instead of depot level repairs. Some of the engine damage that was repaired was under the level of a Class A by doing it at the unit.

Its not anywhere near as bad as it was when it was "Osprey 1.0" by any stretch.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Right, and that is the way I see the F-35 going. Many problems and controversy early on, that people get hung up on and won't let go, even after the jet is saving lives in the battlefield.

a reply to: Sammamishman

Hell, they're already stuck on problems that have been solved, and issues that aren't. What makes you think it's going to get any better?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Lol. I know right? I don't think it will get any better but I can be optimistic right?

a reply to: _Del_

There was a top secret war game exercise called 'Pacific Vision' that was held at a Hawaiian air base in August, 2008 which Australia took part in. link. I originally thought that they modified other jet fighters with characteristics of F35 in real life games but wasn't sure so incorrectly responded to Zaphod58 that it was computer simulations (should have trusted my memory!). The exercise confirmed that F35 on visual range combat was doubly inferior to Sukhoi.

I don't dismiss your point that as it matures it can get better. One certainly hopes it gets triplely so.

a reply to: glend

On paper, the F-15 was worse than the Su-27 and MiG-29. They still are, on paper, even more so now with the G and mach limits they have. But again, it comes down to a lot of factors that computers aren't as good at modeling.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Visual range combat may be thing of the past as future wars might be played with long range missiles but they always need try simulate the ability of current and future jets to help guarantee that they can counter today's threats. I always loved the F15, even the F14, but its hard to go past the Sukhoi these days, they just extremely impressive. I am into programming so know that real modelling requires an enormous amount of computer power but I'd be very surprised if they haven't the software and hardware these days to pit the abilities of jets against one another to determine probable outcomes in visual range combat.

a reply to: Zaphod58

YOU mean PILOT training HUH?

a reply to: glend

Of course they can model it, but that's the point I'm making. Computer modeling only gets you so far. Yes, computer modeling can be pretty accurate, but it's not the be all end all. There are a lot of variables, and incalculable things that are involved in ACM.

originally posted by: glend
The exercise confirmed that F35 on visual range combat was doubly inferior to Sukhoi.

The F-35 has never taken part in Pacific Vision. The F-35 had nothing to do with the 2008 PACFOR exercise, as the exercise concluded that air power was sufficient to deter threats through 2016.

I read the actual RAND report, and it was not about specific aircraft, but about logistical scenarios defending Taiwan. It assumed Kadena and RoC airfields were incapacitated by ballistic missiles, and tried to show how difficult it would be to sustain airpower over Taiwan. It even assumed that OTH radar completely negated a stealth advantage by F-22 or F-35 aircraft. Only six F-22's were capable of maintaining station, if a goal was continuous presence over Taiwan. The total number of missiles available to blue force were insufficient to prevent a large number of red forces from engaging tankers and AWACS aircraft. Fighters other than those two also did not have the endurance/speed to cover long distances to engage forces threatening the support aircraft.

Even the "double-inferior" comments detractors have latched on to applied only to WVR engagement indicators. The F-35 appeared on a single slide of the presentation. It listed wing-loading and T/W ratios for various aircraft. I do not recall whether or not the performance charts for various aircraft listed combat loaded or clean. I do know that only the F-22 and F-15 were listed as on par or superior to potential adversary aircraft like the Su-30's or Pak-FA. F-16, F-18 and F-35 were all considered inferior by this metric. No other attempt was made to model individual aircraft performance.

It should be noted that while the MiG-17 had half the wing loading of an F-4, the F-4 did just fine against the Fresco. The MiG-21 enjoyed a wing loading and T/W advantage over the Phantom, and still the F-4 held it's own quite well against the Fishbed.