Thanks for the link Joe!
David Axe has been a long time critic of the F-35. If you follow his writing then its damn near undeniable. And although Sweetman has been missing in action of late (I hope he's ok, I miss jabbing at him) he's definitely an acolyte of the dark lord.
But back on track.
Axe wrote up his latest hit piece on the F-35 and to be honest I'm a bit confused. Check this out...
All four student pilots commented on the out-of-cockpit visibility of the F-35, an issue
which not only adversely affects training, but safety and survivability as well.8
One rated the
degree to which the visibility deficiencies impeded or degraded training effectiveness as
“Moderate;” the other three rated it as “High” or “Very High.”
That my friends is a training issue. I can tell you and I'm not a fly guy that fighting an F-35 will be markedly different than fighting a F-16 or A-10. If this was a real article then this part of the report would have been the real issue.
F-35 pilots are fitted with and required to wear a jacket on every flight as part of theirI can see armored vehicle cooling jackets coming to the air wing real soon...at least while the planes are on the ground.
flight equipment, which works with the escape system and personal flotation devices. Three of
the four student pilots and one instructor pilot commented on thermal burden created by the
jacket in their survey comments. The discomfort to the pilots due to excessively hot pilot’s flight
equipment (PFE) did not significantly hamper the execution of the OUE, but the outdoor
temperatures during the evaluation were nowhere near the maximums experienced during the
summer months at Eglin AFB or at other training sites, such as Marine Corps Air Station
(MCAS) Yuma, Arizona, where the first operational F-35B unit is located. While the thermal
loading of the PFE was tolerable during the OUE time period, it may very well turn out to more
significantly hamper training at hotter times of the year.
But to the part where Palmer smashes Axe. Its in the comments. Check this out and consider it an accidental jab that lands with a pound of truth.
If only DAS and the helmet actually worked reliably.What he's saying is that rearward vision will be a non-issue once DAS and the helmet works.
I mean seriously! The plane is designed so that the pilot can see through the planes floor and engage airplanes below it! Look and shoot will be a reality once the planes hit the fleet!
This article was a cheap shot at a plane still in development, being assessed by pilots that weren't able to take full advantage of its capability (not fully installed), who were assessing it against airplanes that don't have the same capabilities!
Let's be honest. An F-16 doesn't have the rearward visibility that a WW1 biplane has. But which would you want to take into combat?
Agree with you that the visibility issue is way overblown by Axe but can't let this one go by:
ReplyDelete"Look and shoot will be a reality once the planes hit the fleet!" What it should say is:
look and shoot will be a reality FOR THE US once the planes hit the fleet. Look and shoot was in service with the SAAF in the late 70s or so and every Mig-29 rolled off the line with a helmet mounted site for off boresight firing.
Will the F-35's system be superior, when it works in 2014-15-16 or whenever, to what the Mig-29 had operational in 1985? Sure it will.
The F-35 will have 360 degree off boresight but, if it within 60 degrees of the nose of a gen 4 Mig-29 in WVR, it will offer no advantage over the Mig-29's 1980s, 80/20 solution.
but in that area the F-35 will be able to fry the incoming missile with its tuned AESA array!
DeleteNot quite sure how aesa is going to hurt an ir missile. It's a jamming capability, not a death ray.
ReplyDeletestuff i've read indicate that it goes beyond jamming and that they're actually working on frying circuits. besides. who called it a fucking death ray
DeleteI believe the original quote was "It could cause actual physical damage to a system, providing it is on the X-band", Wayne Wilson, Director of Fighter Business Development for Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, was quoted as saying by the Defence News.
DeleteSo no, it's not going to affect an IR missile. If you could fry any circuit board then you could fry the fly by wire systems in an enemy plane and it would fall out of the sky: that's pretty close to a death ray.
Also, what would this say about AMRAAMs and AIM-9s against AESA equipped peer opponents? Would everyone have to go back to guns?
The F-35’s HMD/EODAS/Avionics combo is VERY different and much more capable than any previous system.
ReplyDelete1. 1st gen HMS was limited to the FOV of the missile; the F-35 is not. The F-35 can engage a target anywhere in the 360 providing there is a high enough pK.
2. Current HMS systems cannot provide post launch updates if the target is outside the FOV of the radar/IRST; the F-35 can provide post launch updates in the full 360.
3. Current HMS systems require the pilot to cue the missile for HOBS; the F-35 does not. The EODAS keeps track of all targets in the 360 and the pilot can fire on one based on the track on his display. He never has to even see the target.
4. Current HOBS shots are bearing only while the F-35 tracks the GPS location of the target.
I'm not disputing any of your points; mine is that another way to say what you are saying is "The technology we will implement in 2018 or so after enormous expense and delay is much, much more advanced than what the Russians fielded quickly and cheaply in 1985."
DeleteUm.. NO.
DeleteThe EODAS functionality I have described above is flying today in Blk2B and the USMC will have when they IOC with 2B.
What you said was that there were several aspects of the F-35 that were no better than the older Russian systems, which is clearly not true. I did not even touch on the night-fighting aspect of the F-35 and how other HMS units are virtually useless at night.
As far as the cost, nothing improves without the influx of funds.