I wouldn’t say the B is shitty. It has a smaller performance envelope but it makes up for it by being much easier to base and launch, and still has all the features that make the F-35 useful. Its ready rates are also only ever so slightly lower than the normal models.
It’ll certainly outperform any 4th gen fighter out there, and probably 4.5 gen ones too.
edited 28th Feb '18 2:05:32 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
The problem with the B is it was and possibly still is a source of lot of the F-35 hang ups including the new line of development to create a whole new aircraft and engine design. They had a number of other problems as well. Speaking of which did they ever fix any of the weapons bay issues or are on track to fix them?
Who watches the watchmen?
I believe fixed as of the most recent increment. They’re having issues with the oxygen systems now, but those are fleet wide and not so much specific to the F-35.
The B definitely did slow down development, but now that things are on track for the most part it’s shaping up to be a pretty good piece of equipment. Development issues aside I really think the F-35 is gonna be a game changer, especially for countries like Japan.
They should have sent a poet.
The B can NOT out perform 4th generation fighters, it looses to both F-16 and F-18 due to the added weight severly hamepering manuverability and the bulk of the lift fan eating into its payload capacity.
The B does have the ease of base and launch, but this makes its use a trade-off rather then an upgrade.
If you CAN use an F-18 there is no reason not to use an F-18 over the B model of the F-35, you are going to get much higher performance (even if you can debate the A and C, the lift fan eats into the B's performance drasticly)
However, it does have its use, a plane that is inferior to other planes is still better then no airplane. Which does correctly make it a game changer for nations unable to suport full sized carriers.... and could even in theory allow you to base it off of destroyers..... but does not make it a "game changer" in the sense that it is a good airplane.
edited 28th Feb '18 2:17:12 PM by Imca
With the most recent software updates even the B version is seeing much better performance. It was using shackled control laws during most of the testing phase. IIRC the only 4th gen that gets better performance is the F-16, and even then only in a clean configuration. The A and C versions do even better, but let’s not forget that modern missile technology reduces the importance of extreme maneuverability.
The F-35 also has a lot of features that 4 and 4.5 gens don’t have, like advanced data and sensor fusion and the large weapons bays. The avionics themselves are a massive improvement over what’s currently fielded, and they’re also much stealthier than an F-18 could ever be.
The development process was an absolute travesty and can be pretty rightly criticized, but the F-35 itself is turning out to be an excellent jet.
edited 28th Feb '18 2:24:11 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.
Stealth isn't an end all be all like it is played up to be though, nor is it a dead end, either so you are right that it deserves some points for that.
But the B's payload is much worse then the F-18, and especially in a stealth configuration which would preclude its use in naval combat entirely (No naval weapons fit in the payload bay)
And the maneuverability is ass, that isn't a software problem, that's an aeronautics problem.... it has F-4 syndrome where the wings and control surfaces are just too small to out maneuver previous generation of jets. Aeronautics are a choice between speed and maneuverability, and like the F-4 they chose the speed.
The avionics I am pretty sure have been back-ported to the F-18G, if not I can also give that, but would argue that doing so would still give you a better carrier capable jet then the B.
Again the B isn't useless, its just not the best jet, as some one who hates the entire F-35 program, the B is the one that I actually think has the most promise despite its flaws simply because again..... A poor airplane is better then no airplanes.
The ability to cram it onto vessels that would normally be limited to helicopters IS a game changer, its just not fit to replace a dedicated attacker, nor will it ever match them..... but it doesn't have too, thats not its job.
edited 28th Feb '18 2:50:29 PM by Imca
I'm not sure what weapons Japan has procured for the B but I believe the US will field it with the same weapons the A and C use.
While the payload is lower, the B has a stealthy strike capability the F-18 will most likely never have. The B version also has a much larger combat radius. The avionics haven't been switched over to the F-18 yet though Boeing did propose that. Even if they were switched though the F-35 has sensor systems like DAS that the F-18 wouldn't, and its system architecture allows it to make better use of everything than an F-18 with the same package.
As for maneuvering it's rated to 8g and mach 1.1, which is comparable to an F-18. The early reports about lacking maneuverability were before the control law updates. It's also proving to be capable of very high angles of attack.
I agree that it's not the best among F-35 variants but even with the downsides it's a massive leap in capabilities over the F-18, and as noted it allows countries with smaller carriers and facilities to have access to high-end air power. I think a lot of the F-35 hate stems from the development and not the plane itself.
They should have sent a poet.
See the problem that your seeming to miss, is that to be stealth, you can only use internal weapons, and the payload bay cant suport any thing bigger then 2 SDB (the lift fan eats the payload capacity down from 4). While this is possible to be used against ground targets.....
Even in the US's arsenal there is ZERO naval engagement load-outs that work with that kind of restriction, any kind of ASM is way too big to fit into the stealth load out, though you could pack a couple of AA missiles and still be stealth, you can't actually engage naval targets while stealth.
As soon as you mount something externaly, like you would have to to engage a naval target, due to the size of the weapons involved, all stealth capability is gone.
It is literally a situation of pick one or the other, being able to make an attack, or being able to be stealth.
Because anti ship missiles (top) are big weapons
◊
and thats the Amercian's
edited 28th Feb '18 3:31:12 PM by Imca
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
This does make me wonder, with stealth being less and less effective as time passes and radars become more advanced at what point is the investment into a low RCS just not worth it in terms of sacrificing payload?
Oh really when?
Personally I think that's a question that will only be answered by experience,
I don't think you'd want to put A Sh Ms in an internal bay even if you could. They burn pretty hot when they launch. Also, B variants can currently carry 4, not 2 SD Bs and will be able to carry 8 with the current round of changes, though Japan won't be getting those for a while. The internal bays on the B variant are big enough for "first day of war" operations, and then you have the option of using hardpoints. That's the capability you get over the F-18. 4th and 4.5 gen jets have trouble operating in a contested environment, for example over North Korea during strike missions. The whole idea with the B variant is that you can get close with small carriers and kick down the door for other aircraft. Even with external stores the B has a smaller RCS than the F-18 as well.
As for stealth being less effective, while detection gets better stealth isn't a fixed value either. It's also not absolute invisibility.
They should have sent a poet.
No, it can't it was a big deal last year, that despite the INTENT for the B model to mount 4SDB, the lift fan took up more space then planed, and it was unable to mount 2 of the 4.
Right from the department of defence.
Also your not going to kick down the door with small carriers, that's in incredibly dumb idea, that's what missile cruisers are for, and they don't have to care about losses at all.
.... And North Korea "Contested" you do realise they don't even have enough fuel to train pilots, and there doing so with literal cardboard cutouts right? That they have so little fuel that they have two navys because it is logistically impossible for there fleets to merge?
Edit: To add insult to injury, the payload is never going to be fixed
This is right from the DOD, they flat out say it is deficient and of limited combat capability but it is now a finished product with no more development.
edited 28th Feb '18 4:06:16 PM by Imca
As of FY 17 it's back up to 4. I believe they adjusted some internal dimensions though I'm honestly not sure. You can see in that document that they planned to have basic block 3 functionality come online in early 2017.
Kicking down the door with carrier launched stealth jets is pretty much going to be one of the F-35s main tasks if war breaks out. It will happen in conjunction with missile strikes but on day one they will likely be the first manned aircraft over enemy territory, along with the F-22.
As for NK being contested air space, they have one of the thickest SAM networks on the planet. Their stuff is old but there's a lot of it. Check out this article. [1]
Like I said before, the B variant may not be the best F-35 variant but it's head and shoulders over 4 and 4.5 gen jets right now.
They should have sent a poet.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
The problem with the B isn't from the stealth application limiting its payload. It is the engine arrangement and other factors. The B-2 Spirit for example has quite a large payload but is reportedly one of the stealthiest aircraft designed to date.. Stealth designs can be scaled to large sizes if needed what is more important factor for payload is how much space you dedicate in the design for payload.
As for stealth, true it's status nearly invisible status has waned, but that doesn't make it useless by any measure. The detection metrics are still reliant on the craft being relatively close and actively lit up by enemy radar and detection sources for the most reliable means. A form of passive early warning detection requires a "signal noisy" environment to work and it doesn't give location all that well but tells you something is there which can be used to queue active systems. IRST detection can detect and track such craft but their effective range is fairly short compared to radar and some other forms of passive detection equipment.
What this means is that long range strikes or using already practiced tactics to reduce detection are actually complimented by stealth. Especially with the steady increase in stand off strike ranges of fighter carried munitions. Even some of the bombs have missile ranges comparable with some of the Air to Ground missile systems.
So the idea is to leverage any number of still rather reliable benefits of stealth launch long range stand off attacks to help whittle away enemy defenses which then opens the door for their less stealthy counter parts, as pointed out by Archon, to follow through with additional strikes. Stealth is still an enabling technology for strikes into enemy territory. They may not be able to fly right on top of tracking and detection equipment anymore but they still have the edge in long range combat.
Who watches the watchmen?
Except it is not in the slightest.....
Even last year it needs its wing replaced just to be able to carry sidewinder missiles.
The B has its uses in that it can be used where no other airplane can, but any dedicated Gen 4 or 4.5 jet is going to kick its ass hands down.
Just last week the US Navy scaled back F-35 production and increased F-18 production because the jet promised a lot of things, but it just cant deliver on them.
edited 28th Feb '18 4:23:55 PM by Imca
I went and found the 2017 report, just to be sure, and suprise suprise.... it is STILL bad.
For further context on that one, some of the aircraft in service have over 1,000,000 flight hours on them, with them specificly hauling a B-52 out of the grave yard because it ONLY had 1.2 million.... making it the least flown aircraft in the fleet.
And here is the real kicker...
and
The plane is utter garbage and it is not getting better.
BTW; Just to be clear here, I didn't even make it 1/3rd of the way through the report before I got bored and hungry and gave up.
edited 28th Feb '18 4:46:28 PM by Imca
All tactical aircraft require their wings to be rebuilt on a regular basis, weapons or no. Also, Lockheed hasn't slowed production, just delivered fewer jets to the US to keep up with foreign orders. And Boeing's delivery of additional F-18s was cut in half from 12 to 24.
The F-35 program as a whole only recently reached 100,000 flight hours, that's across all existing aircraft. The total lifespan hours of an individual F-35 is supposed to be around 8000 hours. I don't think there's an aircraft on earth with a million flight hours on it.
Also, I'm not sure you're reading that report right. The stuff listed in the executive summary is what they're working with leading into 2017, and if you note at the top you'll see that they're on schedule to move from block 3 to block 4 for 2018, starting in February. That milestone has already passed. If you read down at the bottom you can see all the program directives for 2017, which are supposed to remedy the listed issues. You an see in the executive summary that it says "The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) plans to transition into the next phase of development – Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C 2 D 2) – beginning in CY 18, to address deficiencies identified in Block 3F development."
Again, the development process for the F-35 has been a total disaster. If you want to talk concurrency I'm on board with calling out the process, it simply doesn't work. I think you've bought into the F-35 hate train a little too much though.
They should have sent a poet.
The hate train never actualy influenced my disdained for the F-35, rather I haven't liked the thing from the onset due to the crafts very nature.
You can't build one tool and expect it to do every thing like there doing, that's development fallicy 101..... combining a hammer, a screw driver, wirecutters, pliers and a voltmeter doesn't give you a super wiring tool, it gives you a shitty hammer, screw driver wirecutter, plier, and voltmeter that doesn't do any thing as well as the tools actualy dedicated to the job, and worst of all you don't try to throw away your entire toolbox for that monstrosity.
Yet that's EXACTLY what the dod did, they tried to make an airplane that does everything, got an airplane that does nothing, and then continualy try to replace working aircraft with it.
If it was just given a single nice and left to blinder about its own buisness while the other airplanes were fine and left to do there own thjng until it proved itself, I wouldn't dislike it as much as I do.
Hell as I have agreed the B has a niche even though it is inferior to existing aircraft, why not play up that single niche and make something BETTER.... instead if trying to do it all.
Like we even have a term for this in programing "KISS" Keep it simple stupid
The "hate train" is just a coincidence in this case.
edited 28th Feb '18 5:38:44 PM by Imca
This is where the whole "hate train" thing comes in. The F-35 isn't meant to do everything, you really only hear people claiming that on the internet and in Lock Mart brochures. It fills the same niche the F-15 and F-16 have been filling for 30 years now, and is meant to replace those jets specifically.
If you're referring to the A-10, the F-35 isn't replacing it but rather the A-10 is simply being phased out in general. Fast jets like the F-16 already perform the majority of CAS missions, and the A-10, designed for a mission that no longer exists (tank busting in FEBA during WW3), has gradually begun to show its age.
Also, again, while the development process has been disastrously mismanaged the F-35 provides capabilities far beyond what can be coaxed out of 4 and 4.5 gen fighters, and represents an even more massive leap for countries with smaller air forces.
They should have sent a poet.
That is NOT the case at all, you could sell me on it if it was just to replace the F-16 but it's not, an airplanes role should be describeable without having to form a sentance.
But no, the F-35 is trying to replace the F-16, strike.
It's trying to replace the F-18 carrier operations
It's attempting to replace the A-10 CAS.
That is indeed trying to do everything but bombing and logistics.
You kind of loose the claim that it was an F-16 replacment just by the B and C's existance, carrier operations are a whole other game then land ones, and no plane should ever do both, you will just get something crappy at both, hindered by the carriers weight restrictions and need for chasis reinforcmenr, and unable to fill a dedicated role like ground based craft.
Just like no aircraft that is going to serve on a carrier with a catapult should be even further restricted by the weight limits of s/vtol...
You are purposely hindering the performance of your own aircraft for something they flat out don't need in each case
You can say things like the A and C modle don't have the lift fan all you want, but they were still designed with it in mind due to the B's existance.
edited 28th Feb '18 6:01:06 PM by Imca
I should have included the F-18 in there for general fighter ops but the F-35 won't be replacing the Growler. The F-18 will be replaced for general fighter ops by the F-35C which is far more capable than the B. It's also far more capable than the F-18.
Also, if you're saying no plane should ever do naval and land ops then that applies equally to the F-18 which was originally conceived as a land fighter and is operated as one by almost all the countries that use it.
And again, the F-35 isn't replacing the A-10. The A-10 has already been essentially replaced by fast jets (F-15 and F-16) which currently perform the vast majority of CAS missions. The F-35 just replaces those fast jets.
You've totally bought into the F-35 hate train and while it's deserved, what with what a mess the development was, I think you should watch what happens in the next few years very closely. You'll be pretty surprised.
edited 28th Feb '18 6:13:52 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.
No, it is not more capable then the F-18.....
And kind of, I am saying that no ground based aircraft should ever be designed as naval, and no naval cat-launched aircraft should ever be designed as S/VTOL, each hinders the other.... if you make one that can passably do other roles its a happy accident, but it should never be designed for that.
Lets look at this another way, your trying to enter two car competitions, one of which is to go the fastest, and the other of which is to get the best fuel econemy, you decide your going to be smart and use the same basic design for both competitions, only in one you put a V-12 and in the other you put a V-4..... no mater how good your design is on this car, it will never be as good as it could have been.
Your fuel economy car will forever be hampered by the fact that it has to have dead mass for the extra space needed for the V-12 engine in the other model, and your speed car will forever be hampered by the fact that it can't use the proper aerodynamics equipment to get good traction because the V-4 car cant handle the extra weight.
Only with military tech if you don't win the competition, you don't not get a shiny gold trophy, no.... your people fucking die.
If your speed car some how mariciously just sips gas? There is no reason you cant enter it, and if your economy car is some how super zippy the same applies.... If you make one thing and it turns out it can do another role passably there is nothing wrong with having it do that role some times, but you should never purposely work around restrictions to try and do every thing.... you build a machine to do ONE job, and to do it very well.
This is why the B-52 is expected to stay in service for 100 years, it drops bombs which is a role it is peerless in, does it go fast? No it drops bombs. Does it stealth? No it drops bombs. Does it also engage other aircraft? No it drops bombs..... Other aircraft exist that can do every thing else listed as well as drop bombs, but they have not replaced the B-52 simply because when it comes solely to dropping bombs, they can't even scratch it.
Also just because high speed aircraft have been replacing low speed ones for CAS doesn't mean they should, that actually causes the second highest rate of collateral damage and blue on blue in the air-force, second only to the B-1B lancer.
And agian these opinions formed before the F-35 hate train was even a glint in the internets eye, this has been how I felt about the thing since 2006, before it ever even flew.
edited 28th Feb '18 6:39:06 PM by Imca
So Tuffel, you show your true colors at last and admit the F-35 is powered by the souls of enslaved gerbils! You fiend! ![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
"No, it is not more capable then the F-18....."
Double the combat radius (300nm to 600nm), larger payload (15,000lbs to 17000lbs) plus the ability to carry internally. Rated to the same G load, but the F-35 has a higher performance ceiling, faster climb rate, better post-stall control and angle of attack That's before we even get into modern avionics and LO features.
You've moved the goalposts back every time you've replied here, and we're now down to talking about multimission capability as a concept. Regardless of when you formed these opinions, they're just not correct any more. The F-35 had extreme developmental issues, and if we'd had any common sense we would have whacked the program a year in. Regardless of that, we've ended up with a very capable aircraft. Was it worth the money? Maybe not, but it's capable none the less. Like I said, I'd suggest keeping your ear to the ground on this topic.
Also, it's absolutely powered by the souls of enslaved gerbils. I'm pretty sure that was in the original design brief.
edited 28th Feb '18 6:52:54 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.
Its the B, the deck is a bit..... by which I mean a lot heavier then is needed for helicopters, which I am pretty sure is a dirrect counter to "It melts through carrier decks"
I really don't like the B, but this kind of situation where an argument can be made for the tradeoffs it made being worth it, even a shitty airplane is better then no airplanes.
edited 28th Feb '18 1:10:55 PM by Imca