F-16 Co-designer's take on the F-35

[Co Th G]

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468

[di1630]

I like Sprey but if it were up to him we'd have F-5's instead of F-15C's so he's off on a few points as he mostly thinks about A/A potential simply in terms of BFM capability. He's right on about the CAS potential but hey, all the F-35 has to do is outperform a B-1 for the USAF to call it the "best CAS platform ever".

That being said, I have not heard one great thing about the F-35 from the people working the program or the pilots flying it other than the standard USAF push line on how great it will be (when we go to war with China) via ppt slides.

[DUNBAR]

"A MIG-21 would hopelessly whip an F-35??"

Yowza.

[TreeA10]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5

[matmacwc]

GE engine....done.

[TreeA10]

Hey, the B model comes with auto-eject in case of fan or engine failure.

[HU&W]

Hey, the B model comes with auto-eject in case of fan or engine failure.

Might as well make it an RPA if it can kick the pilot out any time it wants anyway.

[busdriver]

I get what Sprey is saying, but goddamn that man distrusts technology to a level that is almost absurd. If he had his way, fighters would be day only no radar BFM monsters, CAS aircraft would be standby pipper gunfighters and everything else is who gives a shit. He bases all his analysis on WW2 and Vietnam.

[Steve Davies]

Since when did Spey become a co-designer of the F-16?

[Azimuth]

I get what Sprey is saying, but goddamn that man distrusts technology to a level that is almost absurd. If he had his way, fighters would be day only no radar BFM monsters, CAS aircraft would be standby pipper gunfighters and everything else is who gives a shit. He bases all his analysis on WW2 and Vietnam.

Which doesn't make since since he created the first electric fighter.

[TreeA10]

I get what Sprey is saying, but goddamn that man distrusts technology to a level that is almost absurd. If he had his way, fighters would be day only no radar BFM monsters.

Look at the F-16A. It had a small radar and was a day only BFM monster. The AF added crap until it became kind of a pig. A LGPOS dude in Korea said his BLK 42 was thrust limited which I found hilarious.

The F-35 is going to have to rely on stealth to save it because opponents can out turn, out climb, out accelerate, and out run it. What are the odds of all future engagements remaining BVR? Sounds like a time in the past when we thought guns were obsolete.

[Bullet]

Pierre Sprey = Co-designer of the F-16. Laughable statement, and the blog owner loses all credibiltiy from the get-go making it.

Sprey has long ago gone off the deep end on his own self worth, and has become his own biggest fan. Let's look at the other aircraft Sprey has railed against:

- The F-15 (I guess having a 100:0 Kill ratio has done enough to validate how WRONG Sprey was when he was so against it from the early 70s on)

- ANY F-16 beyond the Block 10 A-models. Radar? AMRAAMS? EW gear? HTS Pods? ALL wastes of fuel in Sprey's opinion. Like it has been said before, he wants BFM machines only. And lots of them to fight the Mig-15 hordes he still expects to be in the fight.

- The F-22. Enough said.

The man had one good idea at the right time (the need for a lightweight day BFM fighter to counter the AF leadership desire for a "strike-fighter only fleet"), and he's been living off that reputation ever since. Dude has lost it since....

[xcraftllc]

The Golden Penguin

(Because it looks and flies like a big expensive penguin.)

by xcraftllc

(Yes I titled my post. I've been writing a lot of essays for school recently. Big whoop, wanna fight about it?)

Well, I'm probably earning I reputation for long posts, so I'll try to keep this one (relatively) short. I have no personal fighter experience (I fly Apaches at the moment), but have been following this program ever since I saw Battle of the X-Planes as a kid. I also watched the Comanche program fail miserably. I'm a military aviation enthusiast and am fascinated with fighters. Don't worry though, I'm not going to try to throw in a bunch of fighter jargon and such in a vein effort to sound like I know more than I actually do. So here's my take on it:

Original mission of the JSF Program: To solve the problem of fewer fighters and less training due to increased costs from inefficient production methods and complex logistical support, by producing a fighter that uses economy of scale through parts commonality and a simple base design that can be made into different variants to suit the various user's needs. It would also have Supercruise as a standard feature and be operational by 2010.

Basically, the JSF Program, as it was originally laid out, is a failure. Producing fewer numbers which will be flown less due to increased costs caused by lack of economy of scale and significant differences between models. It will also not have Supercruise and will likely not be operational until 2016 at the absolute earliest.

HOWEVER...

This is all we got. And frankly all our allies have if they want to get new planes. I know the Superhornet is a great design, and Europe and Russia have good stuff too, but we are already committed. The western world's R&D/Acquisitions programs are so backward that there is basically no way that we're going to come out with a realistic replacement any time soon. Not to mention the economic impact of cancelling it now would literally be more of a threat to our respective nations' security than anything else.

The lasting problem with the F-35 won't be the program failure, many programs have rose out of their own ashes to end up being relatively successful. The problem is that the F-35 absolutely depends on it's technology. It isn't ever intended to have a backup plan if its technology doesn't win the fight. It can't dogfight, and it can't run. Although it's yet to be seen, I doubt it can take much damage and return to the fight quickly either. I don't think we should cancel it, but it certainly won't be getting us all the way through WWIII. We'll need a modern "Mustang" to get us through a war like that. Something relatively simple, reliable, mass-producible, adaptable, and versatile.

Until then we need to stick together and learn to love this Golden Penguin. Understand its weaknesses and strengths for what they are and don't lose absolute faith just yet, or we won't be flying anything but drones (don't even get me started on the vulnerability of depending on UAVs). Trust me, if the Army could take the overweight-under-powered Delta model Apache and use it effectively in the mountains of Afghanistan, then the Air Force can find a way to make the F-35 useful.

After all, it is kinda stealthy and does come with some really cool gadgets. Hey, the Air Force was even smart enough to put a gun in it this time, unlike the original F-4!

Edited June 18, 2014 by xcraftllc

[armada1651]

Trust me, if the Army could take the overweight-under-powered Delta model Apache and use it effectively in the mountains of Afghanistan, then the Air Force can find a way to make the F-35 useful.

The Air Force, maybe. The rest of us are going to have an even tougher time of it.

[busdriver]

Look at the F-16A. It had a small radar and was a day only BFM monster. The AF added crap until it became kind of a pig. A LGPOS dude in Korea said his BLK 42 was thrust limited which I found hilarious.

The F-35 is going to have to rely on stealth to save it because opponents can out turn, out climb, out accelerate, and out run it. What are the odds of all future engagements remaining BVR? Sounds like a time in the past when we thought guns were obsolete.

To be fair, Sprey/Boyd/etc didn't want any radar on the F-16. The mindset was that air to air radar was useless based on Vietnam experience because radar missiles didn't work, ROE would always require visual ID, and we had no effective airborne early warning. "They" said the E-3 would never work, the goal was to flood the sky with mk1 eyeballs and BFM the shit out of the enemy since all aspect IR missiles didn't exist.

What does out turn it really mean? They down graded the sustained turn requirement at some altitude and weight that we don't know and increased the allowable acceleration time in the transonic regime. That says exactly nothing about corner velocity or acceleration below the transonic regime or high AOA performance.

Sustained turn circle geometry is a very basic way of looking at aircraft performance, one that the AIM-9X+Helmet combo royally fucks with my students.

[TreeA10]

The ability to choose to enter the fight or run away from the fight is huge. Giving up that option is a mistake of historical epic proportions. Having to base your fighting decision as a reaction to the bandits decision means you are no longer driving the fight. Everybody is going to have helmet mounted cuing so that is not an advantage and still assumes you acquire the bandit, have a missile to shoot, and have a Pk suitable to kill him.

[xcraftllc]

The Air Force, maybe. The rest of us are going to have an even tougher time of it.

I hear ya. I think the Navy is playing its cards right with this one, since they'll be the last to put it into operation. It'll give em a chance to feel it out better, wait for a lot of bugs to be fixed, and lessons to be learned. Who knows, if by then the flaws are so glaringly obvious that we finally decide to fix our R&D/Acquisitions process, then the Navy will be in a perfect position to bail. Trying to fix the ball of bureaucracy, money and politics that it has become is no small feat.

The only economical and tactically sound alternative that I can think of based on what I know so far would be this (similar ideas have been tossed around):

1. Retain the engineers and products of the F-35 program such as the GAU-22, EOTS, spherical sensor array, helmet etc etc. and apply them to other aircraft. Just like the Army did with the Comanche technology. This would retain a bit of the economic strength, and time/money/energy invested in the program.

2. Forget about the A and C models (since they are the most compromised models) and just produce and sell the B model as THE F-35. Convert the existing A and C models to B models if able. Eat the loss of tax money and give the Marines a couple hundred or so to outfit their Gator Freighters. Allow it to be sold to international partners who are willing to pay what would then become quite a hefty price per copy. (Hey if they want a supersonic stealth Harrier they better pony up the cash).

2. Buy new (since they're still in production), F-16s equipped with avionics upgrades gained through the F-35 program. You could try zero-hour resetting old Davis-Monthan Vipers too (so I’ve heard).

3. Let the Navy do whatever they need to with the Superhornet/Growler combo for the time being (a genius combo I might add).

4. Run a new competition for a (relatively) lightweight, twin-engined, supercuise-capable, thrust-vectored, stealth, multirole fighter for all three services and international sales. A conventional design, no damn lift fan. An F-4 without all the glaring maneuverability and visibility flaws.

Use the lessons learned in the F-22 and F-35 programs to make a more realistic and affordable design. Hell, I would imagine that it would be so much more cost effective, it would probably sell like the F-16 (over 4500) and take the unit cost down even further. If Lockheed won that contract, they would probably make more than they would with the F-35 anyway.

Basically, a modern-day 5th-Gen version of the very successful 1972 Light Weight Fighter Program. Hell, even the loser of that program is still flying today in a nice new form.

Oh, and this time, let’s not let China hack into our computers (twice) and make a clone of our jet without all the flaws....although I doubt they'll ever fix their reliability issues and software glitches (if their other knock-off products are any indication).

Edited June 19, 2014 by xcraftllc

[summe32c]

You just described the theoretical F-35 program 2.0. The "lessons learned" idea was the original thought process in the first place.

[xcraftllc]

You just described the theoretical F-35 program 2.0. The "lessons learned" idea was the original thought process in the first place.

Minus the need to accommodate a lift fan which severely compromises the other attributes of the air frame yes. Also two engines would again be an option whereas they aren't with the F-35.

[Prozac]

The B is the least compromised? Thought the A was the lightest/most optimized design.

[TreeA10]

The A model has the same boat anchor fuselage as the B model....which is the problem that drives everything.

[busdriver]

The ability to choose to enter the fight or run away from the fight is huge. Giving up that option is a mistake of historical epic proportions. Having to base your fighting decision as a reaction to the bandits decision means you are no longer driving the fight. Everybody is going to have helmet mounted cuing so that is not an advantage and still assumes you acquire the bandit, have a missile to shoot, and have a Pk suitable to kill him.

As a fellow slow kid unable to choose when a fighter tries to shoot me I appreciate the ability to run away. I'm rapidly getting away from my area here, so I'll leave with this: I'm skeptical of the internet pundits who decry a reduction to 4.6g sustained since that is one data point that doesn't tell the whole story. As an example on paper I can pick a point where an H-60 can better a Viper in sustained rate and radius.

All that said, it does look like a chubby fucker when it's in the same hanger with an F-22.

[matmacwc]

As a fellow slow kid unable to choose when a fighter tries to shoot me I appreciate the ability to run away. I'm rapidly getting away from my area here, so I'll leave with this: I'm skeptical of the internet pundits who decry a reduction to 4.6g sustained since that is one data point that doesn't tell the whole story. As an example on paper I can pick a point where an H-60 can better a Viper in sustained rate and radius.

All that said, it does look like a chubby fucker when it's in the same hanger with an F-22.

Could happen on any Ps curve, you are forgetting about the vertical though. That being said, I've heard its a pig, still waiting on the GE fix, much like the block 40 F-16. They came to the rescue once before.

[xcraftllc]

The B is the least compromised? Thought the A was the lightest/most optimized design.

As TreeA10 was getting at, the non-STOVL variants are compromised by the requirement for the air frame to have enough volume to accommodate a lift fan, and a light enough structure to hover. It produces shortcomings that are unwarranted in non-STOVL variants such as a huge cross-section, poor area-ruling (a narrow waist to get help through the transonic region), as well as structural integrity and rear-visibility issues.

[billy pilgrim]

busdriver - I understand your point, but the reduction in g is a huge deal. It is a symptom of a larger problem. Sustained turn performance is absolutely critical to a fighter and due to the F-35's wing size vs weight it's going to have higher than ideal wingloading which means it will bleed energy significantly under g. (The smaller the wings the more AOA is needed to generate lift and the more AOA generates more drag). A better engine will mitigate this, but why not learn from the F-4 and Boyd and design a fighter with solid aerodynamic performance throughout the envelope.

Stealth and sensor fusion and all that is awesome, but I don't think it is the end all be all. Electronic attack can be a cheap stop-gap to make legacy systems more survivable until a viable solution is found.

If I were king for a day I'd re-roll the R&D into 4th gen airframes and start from scratch. This, of course, will never happen. The Air Force has gotten the job done with airplanes not ideal for the mission before (F-105 in Veitnam comes to mind) and will hopefully be able to do so again.

Lastly, from my perspective a legacy fighter is going to be higher performance, have better visibility and be a lot more fun to fly.