The sky-high aircraft and aviation thread

The fact the F-35 is turning out to be a slow fucker compared to the last two generations of fighter aircraft combined as well as its 5th gen contemporaries. Two generations I might add that both run rings around the F-35 in raw speed AND do not sacrifice performance or risk structural damage at the same time as well! Seriously, Mach 1.2 for only 50 seconds or else is positively pathetic. It rules it out of the interceptor role in its entirety and heavily limits and compromises its fighter role.

Then there's the lift issues with the ever-troubled Marine Corps variant.

Having a speed cap of Mach 1.2 is a pretty serious design flaw

Some context here: the afterburner limit is due to a blistering of the stealth coating after prolonged use that could cause structural damage. The problem was only observed once, could not be replicated, and a new stealth coating with better properties has already been applied. The limit currently only stands as a precautionary one. I’ll also point out the F-35 is solidly middle of the pack in terms of speed, which shouldn’t be surprising given its role.

Compare these issues to the ones experienced by the F-16, the F/A-18, or even the B-29 as one of the commenters on that article pointed out. The F-16 made its first flight on accident due to control issues, and within a year of introduction had two full airframe losses due to technical issues. The F/A-18 had a ridiculously troubled development, starting from the Navy requiring them to put in a second engine after a single-engine airframe had been developed.

None of these issues seem exceptionally damning, other than the stuff with ALIS.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jun 12th 2019 at 8:32:58 AM

Mach 1.2 for 50 seconds even if precautionary is well below sustained speeds found on the Eurofighter Typhoon, F-16, F-18, F-15, F-22, Dassault Rafale, Mig-29/35, Mig-31, the entire Flanker family from Sukhoi, the J-20, and the J-10.

The F-16 for example can run at Mach 1.6 for as long as it has fuel without risking any damage to anything except maybe the Air Force's fuel budget. Both the F-15 and F-22 can hit Mach 2+ indefinitely.

Even if the stealth coating wasn't boiling away the risk of structural damage otherwise is a severe design flaw and ding against it.

The structural damage was due to the fragmenting of the coating on the tail. See the above “unreproducible, new coating”.

And I wasn’t aware sprint speed at maximum altitude was the sole arbiter of an aircraft’s success. If that was the case the Foxbat would probably be the best fighter around. In terms of consistent speed at operational altitudes the F-35 again sits in the middle of the pack, but of course it’ll outfight those older Russian and Chinese fighters every time thanks to massively superior mission systems.

Its not the sole arbiter, but all this crap adds up even if you don't want to admit it, or say that each thing is minor.

100s of minor issues still means a bad product.

Also "Is any of this new", doesn't need to be, its continually claimed here that its fixed, when this demonstraits that no, it has not been fixed at all.

Except the fact its all getting fixed and has already been known and reported and fixes already underway inside of a year.

Let me know when they have something interesting like landing gear actually collapsing on brand new production craft that are landing or something you know actually serious and consistently wrong with no fixes.

...Wait why are we complaining that a Strike Fighter doesn't work as an interceptor?

Because it's replacing our interceptors

No, it isn't given we haven't used an actual interceptor design in several decades and two of the three craft that fills that role, in general, are not going anywhere for quite some time and are still made. Not even the F-16 survived its design phase as an interceptor despite efforts of a certain well-known defense wonk. We also aren't going to be shedding our older fighters for a while yet either. We still need physical numbers and need workhorse craft.

Has there even been a dedicated interceptor design in a NATO air force since the Tornado ADV went west?

You could argue that the F-22 is an interceptor, but the role has kind of fallen to the wayside with the rise of long-range missiles.

And yeah, seriously. These are all software issues, a good portion of which are already fixed from the jump and all of which are known and being worked on. Considering the troubles our 4th gen fighters went through and considering the increased complexity of a 5th gen this isn’t anything unexpected, or even really a setback.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jun 13th 2019 at 7:07:49 AM

Deadbeat: Basically what happened is the interceptor role was effectively rolled into air superiority. Add to it nearly every fighter craft out there is multi-role with varying degrees of capability in semi-specialized roles.

If the max airspeed thing is such a dealbreaker for a combat jet, hell, let's get the blowtorches and start turning some Warthogs into something useful, like paperclips.

Also, isn't the whole point of the stealthy design of the F-35 to preclude situations requiring the ability to run away from the enemy to begin with? If so, it would make sense to set SOP to avoid damaging that coating to begin with.

I mean, hell, the F-16 has performance limitations imposed to avoid damaging the plane too. That's why they call the pilot of that jet a "Voting Member" sometimes, because the flight computer can be set to ignore inputs.

Edited by AFP on Jun 14th 2019 at 3:50:51 AM

Thats strawmaning and you know it, its a deal breaker for jets on interception duty, and air to air... for CAS the oppisite is true, where high speed makes it harder for them to aim, so having the ability to go slow without stalling is advantagous.

Its almost like different jobs have different requirements, and trying to make a jet that meets all of them doesn't work well.

Seriously check your reading skills, interception is reaching the target in the first place, not trying to run away.... which is much harder as your ship gets slower, seriously just ask our subs in WWII how effective they were at chasing down ships.... there is a reason every one else had to switch to ambush, its pretty hard to give chase when your slow.

After years and years of revisions, having started with a specialized role in the first place, and the additional features being added to a jet that already works.

Edited by Imca on Jun 14th 2019 at 3:09:32 AM

To add to the above, slow speed is also a liability if detected. The F-35 has a fucking huge IR signature and isn't truly invisible to radar. If you're detected, you die if you're slow. At Mach 1.2 for less than a minute, there's not a single air defense system in the world it will evade if detected and not a single SAM or air to air missile it can outrun.

If the F-35 is intended for SEAD and they're trying to shoehorn it into that, it's too slow for that. If they're trying to use it for air superiority missions in contested airspace, it's too slow for interception, interdiction or disengagement if shit goes sideways.

In the fighter role, speed is life. The F-35 doesn't have enough speed.

Edited by MajorTom on Jun 14th 2019 at 3:53:15 AM

You know, it’s funny how top airspeed at altitude has never been this critical of an issue until it’s something that can be leveled against everyone’s favorite target.

Edge-of-envelope speed hasn’t been a primary indicator of aircraft ability since Vietnam. Hell, the Air Force determined as much in official studies long before the F-35 or F-22 hit the scene.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jun 14th 2019 at 4:53:15 AM

Immy: It did not take years and years of revision. The US began abandoning single mission fighter designs before Vietnam. Multi-role fighter use started even further back during WWII when craft designed for singular roles frequently found themselves used in a number of ways their designs were not intended to be used for shortly after their adoption. I can practically guarantee someone could make a good argument for Multi-role dating back to WWI.

The P-38 Lightning alone filled 6 roles in general, starting to add roles shortly after it was adopted for service. As in inside of a year, it was doing more than being a "heavy fighter" by the end of the war it was filling a wide variety of roles and its service window was a relatively short time frame. The Ju-88 and De Haviland Mosquito also were rapidly turned into multi-role platforms.

The F-4, F-16, F-18, and F-18 Super all rolled off the line multi-role from the get-go. Even the F-14A was intended to carry bombs but the original racks were not strong enough and the bombs were left off until new mounts were created down the line. The Israeli's were the first to use the supposedly "pure air superiority" fighter F-15 C's and D's for ground attack in large part because the craft had the range needed for long-range strike missions. The US jumped on that bandwagon with the Strike Eagle after the fact. Even then the original F-15 wasn't a single mission craft either falling under the increasingly broad Air Superiority mission.

We have had little trouble with Multi-role capability and the practice is literally several decades old by this point. Last I checked it was multi-role fighters that carried out the vast majority of all airstrikes in more recent modern conflicts and have done so quite successfully.

The A-10's low airspeed so it "can aim better" is a very poor metric to lean on. Helicopters have it beat in that regard so by that measure we wouldn't need the A-10 in that direction either. The AC-130's also have a lower stall speed and better gun accuracy. Hell by that metric we could replace the A-10 with the Vietnam Era OV-10 NOGS. Various COIN craft would also meet that metric.

Tom: Not really. Again speed is not everything and never has been. The only time it works is when a craft is literally built for nothing but speed or there is enough distance for speed to matter. And even then it required an aircraft with truly absurd speed. By that very metric every fighter is a failure as there is not enough speed in any current fighter craft that would magically make them safer. Unless your going to roll out an SR-71 fast fighter craft from up your sleeve your logic falls pretty flat. Even then the SR-71 used distance and altitude just as much as it used speed to keep itself safe. In fact, it was that they had to fire on it from long range that allowed the SR-71 to push up its airspeed sometimes by going into a dive to open the distance further and more rapidly accelerate. There are 50's era missiles with a higher top speed than the average modern fighter.

The F-35 does not have a huge IR signature, that was debunked quite a while back.

Various stealth craft have a significant advantage over non-stealth craft against pretty much all radar-based systems which last I checked is still the top means of aircraft detection. The few IR detection systems that are useful for air defense are rather short ranged to the point standoff ranges are easily achieved with pretty much any guided weapon system in use now. The low radar signature feature appreciably reduces the effective range of pretty much all radar systems and makes locking on via radar a lot harder to do and the likelihood of losing a lock a lot more likely. Detection of stealth craft at best happens at short range.

SEAD/DEAD does not require speed either, you are literally fabricating a nearly non-existent metric. Rather telling is that some of the best SEAD/DEAD craft are not speedy platforms that you suggest are somehow necessary. Last I checked what they require is some sort of standoff capability more than anything else. That is in large part dictated by munitions and onboard or mountable systems. Increasingly it is including the ability to data link to other aircraft and sensor systems. Something that allows even non-stealth craft some capability in that mission as well. You know craft significantly more vulnerable to the systems SEAD/DEAD missions are aimed at.

Detection does not equal death if that was the case we wouldn't have an air force left. Evasion is not dictated by flat out speed. Missile evasion is more reliant on active maneuvering not flat out speed. That is also maneuver bolstered by electronic and physical systems that try to spoof the missile. By your own metric Tom, the F-16 is a piece of shit as it tops out at Mach 1.2 with anything but a clean configuration. Yet we know they can evade missiles despite those limits. Also, last I checked nearly all of our fighters are not going to be out running dedicated SAM platforms given the vast majority of those systems easily hit higher max speed than pretty much any of our aircraft in use. The average top speed among the majority of modern fighters is Mach 2.2. Quite a few SAM systems have weapons that can beat that speed and they reach it far more quickly than the aircraft they are firing at. Distance and altitude are far better at reducing the efficacy of a missile. The shorter the range it fires from the more advantage the missile has. The more time a fighter has to maneuver the more likely they are to successfully evade or spoof the missile.

No speed is not king in the fighter role given the exorbitant number of examples that operate to the contrary.

Pedantic nitpick: Fighters were filling multiple roles as far back as WWI, with fighters being used in the ground attack/interdiction role when air superiority was already gained. A lot of the stuff folks think was invented in WWII had already been around in WWI, airpower-wise. They even had the power vs agility fighter design debate in the US Army Air Service, with the Nieuport 28 either being the Almighty's very own gift to the American fighting man, or a severely flawed deathtrap that could either tear its own wings off or set itself on fire if handled improperly (the Army ended up favoring the SPAD series of fighters, which were less maneuverable but faster).

And there we have it. AFP made a good point about Multi-role being older than we think.

Except agian, thats added AFTER the fact, your flat out ingnoring that key distinction, especialy evidented by brining up the eagle as multi-role, which yes it was by the end of its life, but how was it developed?

Oh right "Not a pound for air to ground"

And let’s not forget these same accusations about multi-role fighters being compromised by nature were leveled during the development of every multi-role fighter mentioned above. That’s an old line and it’s never been a winner.

Uhh...given the development of the F-15 I’m not sure how well that holds up. It was pretty much always intended to have some secondary ground attack capabilities.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jun 14th 2019 at 8:20:58 AM

Immy: No, you are deliberately ignoring the fact that some sort of multi-role capability has been built into aircraft for a very long time and refuse to acknowledge the extant facts. All the modern craft I listed rolled off the line as multi-role units. Not after the fact modification, the capability was developed as part of their overall design. F-4 Phantom-Off the line, F-16 Off the Line, Both F-18's off the line. None of those had those roles after the fact, they had them out of the box. That, by the way, is the sharply truncated list, not the exhaustive list which includes jet fighters as far back as Korea in off the shelf multi-role capability.

Even in WWII, the vast majority of craft that picked up additional roles required no additional modification of the aircraft at all. The P-38 did not need modifications for dive bombing, level bombing, various CAS and ground attack missions, interceptor roles, anti-shipping, and even long-range escort. All it needed was whatever they could fit under the wings. It was also not the only craft to be capable of that during WWII.

Again the US left off strict one role design a long time ago and rapidly expanded missions to encompass individual roles into far broader roles. The only people who have desperately clung to the singular role have been people like Sprey who latched on the arbitrary classification system of WWII.

Oh and like Archon mentioned the F-15 despite that bs line required only a data link. The crafts mountings were already capable of handling the appropriate racks and their mounted radar was a multi-role capable radar from the ground up. So much for no pounds for air to ground considering they dedicated quite a few pounds to installing equipment that had that capability built in. The craft already had the vast majority of the parts in place to enable air to ground, adding the data link was literally a trivial step.

Sooner or later every fighter becomes an attack plane, if only because there will usually be ground targets left after you eliminate enemy airpower, and you already paid for those planes, you might as well get some use out of the damned expensive things. And so you end up with things like the P-51 Mustang, one of the greatest air superiority designs of WWII, being used to stomp on German trucks and mules.

Even the P-51 was built out of the gate to carry bombs and rockets. Turns out to have been pretty good at ground attack by all accounts. The first big ground attack mission for the Mustang was attacking German airfields and then they said fuck it shoot up the rest of the German toys on the ground if you can find them.