The Commanche and the Albatross

[Greg]

I CAST THREAD NECROMANCY because I don't want any doubt left as to whether Sprey is a completely irrelevant crank. Among his most hilarious assertions:

IJN destroyers > USN cruisers
M48 Patton > M1 Abrams
AR-15 > M14 in "stopping power"
"F-15 easily shot down by 0.22 cal"

I really don't want to read more Sprey (did I mention I don't particularly care for him?) but FYI that first assertion you list is actually a pretty common conclusion of people who've actually looked at surface combat in the Pacific War. Particularly early on, when USN doctrine was especially bad.

Have a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tassafaronga

You have a force of Japanese destroyers on a transport mission, surprised and ambushed by an (on paper) enormously superior American force, heavy on the cruisers. The Japanese lose a destroyer, and the Americans wind up nearly annihilated.

US heavy cruisers from the 'treaty' period were particularly helpless against Japanese destroyers, as their main armaments couldn't hit one, and their secondary armament wasn't particularly DP (they were really just heavy aa guns).

[PawPaw]

More joy this morning over at Hot Air. It seems that they did some advanced testing of the F-35 against the old, outdated F-16 and the results were compelling and decisive. But not in the manner you'd expect.

The report goes into a lot of technical details which may not be of much interest unless you’re seriously into avionics, but the basics don’t sound great. The F-35 was “flying clean” without excess loading of weapons while the older F-16 had two bulky underwing drop tanks installed, putting it at a disadvantage. Still, even with that perceived leg up, the new fighter was at an Energy Deficit whenever fast maneuvering was required and the pilot was unable to lock on to the older plane for a targeting solution. By comparison, the F-16 was able to maneuver into position and lock on for a shot at the F-35 with comparative ease.

I'm no expert, you understand, just citing a source. However, the test pilot seems to be well regarded.

I would note that from everything I can see, this story is single sourced from a test pilot who wished to remain anonymous. (Really? How many test pilots were involved? Seems like the military could figure out who it was, doesn’t it?) But Axe seems to be highly regarded and his report is being cited in multiple publications. And if accurate, this is some seriously bad news. How can the military move forward to a next generation plane that can’t beat its predecessor in a dogfight? And if it can’t what’s to be done about the trillion dollars we already flushed into the program? I suppose they could go back to the drawing board and try to make some design changes to get the Joint Strike Fighter up to snuff, but you can be sure that a lot of members of Congress aren’t going to be happy about that.

Interesting.

[skb12172]

An interesting article from an AF Colonel, advocating that the AF cut slingload on the F-35 program. Of note is that it's posted at maxwell.af.mil.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/digi ... trucha.pdf

Wasn't there just a recent article on how our military officers are risk averse careerists afraid to challenge the preferred service position? (Although part of me wonders if the author is an O-6 who knows there are no stars in his future, and is thus free to speak his mind without too much worry about the repercussions.)

Another Billy Mitchell?

[Termite]

When you try to design a fighter plane to be a "jack-of-all-trades", it is a master of nothing.

[Langenator]

When you try to design a fighter plane to be a "jack-of-all-trades", it is a master of nothing.

Especially when one of the things you're trying to make it do (STOVL) is known to entail massive performance compromises in things like range, speed, etc.

At least the Harrier has that 'viffing' trick it can use in a dogfight. I'm not sure the F-35 can do that, either.

[Jericho941]

Been away awhile, and have been doing a lot more research into this. I'm significantly less pissed off about the F-35 than I used to be.

Anyway.

Okay, a couple of things here. The F-35 vs F-16 thing that's getting a lot of press right now was a BFM flight test, not a serious DACT fight. This was information gathering for automatic flight controls more than anything else. Plus, the test pilot in the F-35 was a career Strike Eagle driver. As in, he's used to flying a plane that's configured heavy and at a severe disadvantage in a dogfight, now performing BFM after against light turnfighter piloted by a Lockheed-employed career F-16 pilot, i.e. an ungodly number of hours in the F-16.

So, your new jet is being flown by a guy who's relatively new to the jet, against a guy who probably wears the Viper about as comfortably as his underwear. Using BFM. Yeah, determining a winner isn't the goal here.

For another source:

The article talks about energy bleed rates, high-Alpha maneuvering, and the F-35 pilot’s “only winning move” to threaten with the nose at high angle of attack. What does that sound like?To me, it sounds like a Hornet fighting a Viper. Of course, a Hornet is not going to do well against an F-16 in a sustained rate fight. Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down. The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35 had this problem is not surprising to me–despite its monstrous amount of available thrust, and it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.

And the heavier F-35C can do this.

When you try to design a fighter plane to be a "jack-of-all-trades", it is a master of nothing.

Especially when one of the things you're trying to make it do (STOVL) is known to entail massive performance compromises in things like range, speed, etc.

At least the Harrier has that 'viffing' trick it can use in a dogfight. I'm not sure the F-35 can do that, either.

The F-35B has been the single biggest stumbling block to the JSF program. But there's one thing the Harrier can do that the F-35B won't: pop stall.

I really don't want to read more Sprey (did I mention I don't particularly care for him?) but FYI that first assertion you list is actually a pretty common conclusion of people who've actually looked at surface combat in the Pacific War. Particularly early on, when USN doctrine was especially bad.

Have a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tassafaronga

You have a force of Japanese destroyers on a transport mission, surprised and ambushed by an (on paper) enormously superior American force, heavy on the cruisers. The Japanese lose a destroyer, and the Americans wind up nearly annihilated.

US heavy cruisers from the 'treaty' period were particularly helpless against Japanese destroyers, as their main armaments couldn't hit one, and their secondary armament wasn't particularly DP (they were really just heavy aa guns).

Yeah, it's not one I really care for. There was so much going on with differences in not only design philosophy, but tactics and training (IJN's borderline obsession with night battle, for one thing, superior torpedoes for another) on top of rapidly developing post-Treaty technologies, that it's an exceedingly simplistic conclusion to draw.

[Langenator]

When you try to design a fighter plane to be a "jack-of-all-trades", it is a master of nothing.

Especially when one of the things you're trying to make it do (STOVL) is known to entail massive performance compromises in things like range, speed, etc.

At least the Harrier has that 'viffing' trick it can use in a dogfight. I'm not sure the F-35 can do that, either.

The F-35B has been the single biggest stumbling block to the JSF program. But there's one thing the Harrier can do that the F-35B won't: pop stall.

I think the Marines were (are?) in a bind with their need for a new fighter to replace the Harrier. They need a new plane, and VSTOL is one of their Must-Have capabilities for that plane. But the other services don't need that (or want it, because of the inherent performance compromises), but even if the Brits buy some for their carrier force (what's left of it) as well, you're still not talking enough airframes to spread R&D costs over to make the per unit cost palatable

They have much the same problem with trying to develop a replacement for the AAVP-7. Not a lot of international buyers, the Army has no need for them, so the Marines have to pay for all the development, and they don't need a whole lot of vehicles.

[Mike OTDP]

At least the Harrier has that 'viffing' trick it can use in a dogfight. I'm not sure the F-35 can do that, either.

I don't think it can. The VL mode has a lot of doors that open for the lift fan.

[Jericho941]

Especially when one of the things you're trying to make it do (STOVL) is known to entail massive performance compromises in things like range, speed, etc.

At least the Harrier has that 'viffing' trick it can use in a dogfight. I'm not sure the F-35 can do that, either.

The F-35B has been the single biggest stumbling block to the JSF program. But there's one thing the Harrier can do that the F-35B won't: pop stall.

I think the Marines were (are?) in a bind with their need for a new fighter to replace the Harrier. They need a new plane, and VSTOL is one of their Must-Have capabilities for that plane. But the other services don't need that (or want it, because of the inherent performance compromises), but even if the Brits buy some for their carrier force (what's left of it) as well, you're still not talking enough airframes to spread R&D costs over to make the per unit cost palatable

They have much the same problem with trying to develop a replacement for the AAVP-7. Not a lot of international buyers, the Army has no need for them, so the Marines have to pay for all the development, and they don't need a whole lot of vehicles.

Unfortunately, the only real solution to that problem involves slaughtering a sacred cow.

[Aesop]

Or as much common sense as God gave a jackass, to recognize that you gave separate missions and roles to the separate services, and that any fucktard from the Pentagon thereafter decreeing that any new weapons system must work For All Roles And Missions Of Entirely Separate and Disparate Services should be immediately and without emotion set on fire, with prejudice, the ashes strewn into the winds or buried at sea, and any further disclosure of said person's disposition or whereabouts completely disavowed, as if they'd never existed. Mere utterance of "Joint Service" in connection with any major weapon system by anyone above the rank of E-3 should henceforth be added to the Three Unforgiveable Curses and land anyone uttering it in Azkaban Prison under the tender loving care of Dementors.

You simply can't make a sporty convertible dumptruck that will make 9G turns at altitude while carrying every weapon in the catalog and extended-range fuel tanks, can deploy 72 combat-loaded troops while getting 200 MPG with a range of 10,000NM in full afterburner, costs less than an ultralight glider, and will fold to fit underneath the bunk on any submarine, simply because some shitforbrians clerk - or SecDef - decrees it, any more than they can decree that all circles will have 90-degree corners, or that money henceforth should grow on trees.

Every service chief should have noted that loudly, and with emphasis, until the lesson was well and truly absorbed, and they should have been ready to kill the messenger for even trying to deliver it, at the drop of a hat, with gusto, glee, and much carnage. On live TV.

We've learned that lesson 5 or 10 times already, and it's written in other people's blood.