Comments on: USMC F-35B pilots speak about their aircraft

By: Sam J.

Sam J. — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 02:58:47 +0000

It cost way too much. It’s another reincarnation of the F-11 that tried to do too many missions at once. I don’t deny that the sensors are fantastic. We should cancel it and have a competition between 4 or 5 aircraft companies. Give then each 2 billion and 2 years to do the best they can. The rules should fit on a single sheet of paper. Give us your best at say 60 million a copy and see what they come up with. One of the rules would be that it doesn’t need a cockpit that you can look out of. What’s the purpose? With multiple cameras and large LED screens surrounding the pilot you could have resolution better than the pilots vision. He could look in any direction and even program views such as wrapping the whole plane view(front. back, sides and rear) to a 180 degree area. Another would be that the vertical take off and landing could be “bolted on” in a reasonable time say 4 or 5 hours. That way the extra drag would just be for VTAL aircraft only yet we could have the option of adding it if airfields were taken out or small ships were needed for an attack. Might even add two bolt on models. One for VTAL and another with extended wings for ground attack. All the electronics could be the same just ditch the heavy helmets and use LCD (or other) displays.

By: Sauerteig

Sauerteig — Sun, 18 Dec 2016 03:48:48 +0000

“I can make the decision, I’m going to go to the target, I’m going to release this weapon.” You better run that by the lawyers first, fly boy:

“Before they shoot, U.S. troops have to navigate a tricky legal and political question: When is it OK for them to kill Taliban? […] Was there a risk that an airstrike would kill civilians? Were the men actually militants? Even if they were, did they pose a threat that made them legitimate targets on this particular night?”

(The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2016)

I did enjoy the Aviationist author informing us that “21st century warfare and capability has about as much in common with wars of the past as your 1970’s land line has to your smartphone.”

Let’s see… 1970… lengthy, undeclared war in Vietnam, also bombing Laos and Cambodia… nope, none of that sounds familiar.

“Citing restrictions on hitting important targets like major ports, antiaircraft-missile sites under construction and MIG fighters on the ground during the bombing campaign called Rolling Thunder, [Air Force Colonel Jacksel Broughton] lamented ‘what was probably the most inefficient and self-destructive set of rules of engagement that a fighting force ever tried to take into battle.’”

(The New York Times, Oct. 29, 2014)

By: Bob Sykes

Bob Sykes — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:41:38 +0000

Because of its small internal stores volume, on many (possibly all) missions the F35B will carry weapons and fuel tanks on pylons under its wings. This will severely degrade its stealthiness. Think F16 on the inbound, attack route and stealthy on the outbound, return route. Configured for aerial combat, it will be stealthy.

On the other hand, its capabilities far exceed those the the Harriers it is replacing. The Marine amphibious carriers will now have an air wing similar in capabilities to those on the big deck attack carriers. We have nine Marine carriers. The F35B will essentially double the number of attack carriers in service.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/7-things-the-marines-have-to-do-to-make-the-f-35b-worth-1560672069

By: Scipio Americanus

Scipio Americanus — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 03:11:39 +0000

And the same is true of tank combat, incidentally. After the war, extensive statistical analyses showed that around 4/5 times, the tank that saw the other first, and thus got off the first shot, got the kill. Even if the kill wasn’t on that initial shot, being ambushed and fired upon tended to unnerve the enemy and greatly reduce their subsequent effectiveness.

The other interesting thing was that this effect was almost independent (within reason) of the relative gun and armor strength of the combatant vehicles. An M4 Sherman spotting a Tiger first was very nearly as likely to kill the Tiger as the Tiger was to kill the Sherman in the reverse situation.

By: Lu An Li

Lu An Li — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 01:54:32 +0000

“Just about every comprehensive examination of aerial combat since WW2 has reached the same conclusion, that about 4 times out of 5, if you get shot down, it’s by an enemy that you didn’t see coming.”

Oswald Boelcke from WW1. See the enemy before he sees you.

So simple.

By: Sheldon

Sheldon — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 01:51:39 +0000

The Israelis are happy with the plane. Very much so. Does that say a lot or what?

By: Cassander

Cassander — Sun, 11 Dec 2016 20:43:11 +0000

The F-35 program, like all large government IT projects, is a clusterfuck of epic proportions. That said, as an aircraft, it will eventually prove very good.

Just about every comprehensive examination of aerial combat since WW2 has reached the same conclusion, that about 4 times out of 5, if you get shot down, it’s by an enemy that you didn’t see coming. Situational awareness, not speed or maneuverability or anything else, is the key.

The F-35 is really the first aircraft in the world that takes this lesson to heart and lets it drive the design process. Almost all of the advanced technology in it is devoted to either minimizing the enemy’s awareness (stealth) or maximizing that of the pilot (sensor fusion, the helmet, the auto-pilot). It will cost way more than it should, and come in way past the original schedule, but it will also be massive step forward.