The F-35 Thread

[aaron886]

Also I think a good indication of the F-35's lack of effective lifting surface is how much Lockheed had to increase the wing area of the F-35 to make it capable of operating from an aircraft carrier. Obviously that big chunky fuselage, whilst ofcourse generating lift, just aint very efficient at it - which even the mk.1 eyeball can deduce really.

 

Pseudo-science. You're doing this all over these forums. An F-16, by way of example, would not be capable of carrier landing approach speeds at appropriate angles of attack. The pilot would not be able to see properly over the nose. That does not mean the F-16 is inefficient or poorly designed, it is simply designed for a different purpose. Should the F-16 have been used in naval aviation, it would have required a redesign of its wing as well.

[RoflSeal]

Yeah, pretty strange comparing the F-35 and the F-16 lift producing capability by their ability to do a carrier landing.

[garrya]

Pretty sure F-22, F-15, F-16 cannot land on a carrier without redesign the wing

[Hummingbird]

Pseudo-science. You're doing this all over these forums. An F-16, by way of example, would not be capable of carrier landing approach speeds at appropriate angles of attack. The pilot would not be able to see properly over the nose. That does not mean the F-16 is inefficient or poorly designed, it is simply designed for a different purpose. Should the F-16 have been used in naval aviation, it would have required a redesign of its wing as well.

 

:huh:

 

That litterally makes no sense...

 

The F-16 is not capable of carrier landings by nature of its landing gear & structural design in general, in other words it was never meant to be carrier capable. Has ZERO to do with not being able to look over the nose or too small a wing, both those claims are laughable :doh:

 

Also I never picked the F-16 as a base for comparison, so don't know where you got that idea? I was talking strictly about the F-35. But if you wish an example we can pick the F-18, it's wing loading isn't any better yet just like the F-16 it enjoys the benefits of a blended wing body design and is thus overall a lot more efficient at generating lift than the F-35. End result = The F-18 doesn't need a +40% increase in reference wing area to operate from a carrier!

 

If you need to increase the reference wing area by +40% to be able to operate from a carrier then that's a very clear indication that you are not going to get the necessary lift from the original design irrespective of flap design.

 

Finally as to your accusation of pseudo science I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, also making such accusations without a single example to draw upon really is pathetic.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

Yeah, pretty strange comparing the F-35 and the F-16 lift producing capability by their ability to do a carrier landing.

 

I am not, you can pick the F-18 instead if you wish, it features a similar wing loading.

 

But since the F-16 is mentioned its' wing wouldn't need to be enlarged by +40% to make it carrier capable, infact it most likely wouldn't need to be enlarged at all. What it WOULD need on the other hand would be a beefed up landing gear and a strengthened structure, and probably also twin vertical stabs.

 

Only modification to the wing that would be needed as far as I can see would be fowler flaps really, that's it.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Hummingbird

[NineLine]

Share news and info on the F-35, no need for pointless debating.

[Shaman]

Here is some latest on F-35 development:

 

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/02/f-35s-terrifying-bug-list/125638/

 

Cheers,

Shamanski

[Sweep]

Not sure if cool music videos are alright for something of a news thread, but I found this a few days ago (also not sure if it was posted already...):

 

[Exorcet]

Hoping this is alright in the topic as it's on the F-35 only.

 

I'd think the C's wing is more a result of AoA and payload return requirements. The latter I haven't been able to find. Does anyone know if such info is available on the C?

[Basher54321]

Hoping this is alright in the topic as it's on the F-35 only.

 

I'd think the C's wing is more a result of AoA and payload return requirements. The latter I haven't been able to find. Does anyone know if such info is available on the C?

 

This might be useful on the USN design (Author Biog at very end)

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiWmqi4sNzKAhVJbz4KHeE9AiMQFggvMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.f-16.net%2Fforum%2Fdownload%2Ffile.php%3Fid%3D19105&usg=AFQjCNH2YFUIdUiDoJzNhF_NWe1f4Em5kA

[Fer_Fer]

DTOE Report over Fiscal year 2015

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/

[Hummingbird]

Hoping this is alright in the topic as it's on the F-35 only.

 

I'd think the C's wing is more a result of AoA and payload return requirements. The latter I haven't been able to find. Does anyone know if such info is available on the C?

 

Well AoA and lift go hand in hand, so yes I would agree with that :)

[Emu]

Hoping this is alright in the topic as it's on the F-35 only.

 

I'd think the C's wing is more a result of AoA and payload return requirements. The latter I haven't been able to find. Does anyone know if such info is available on the C?

May just be the short carrier landings, and taking account of travel direction and wind direction.

[Raptor9]

One of the improvements of the Super Hornet over the legacy Hornet was stated as more payload capability, and the ability to land on a carrier with more ordinace than the legacy Hornet. The Super Hornet's wing area is 25% greater IIRC, so I can see why this would be a logical conjecture regarding the F-35C.

[Hummingbird]

One of the improvements of the Super Hornet over the legacy Hornet was stated as more payload capability, and the ability to land on a carrier with more ordinace than the legacy Hornet. The Super Hornet's wing area is 25% greater IIRC, so I can see why this would be a logical conjecture regarding the F-35C.

 

The Super Hornet is also ~40% heavier in terms of empty weight. But the difference is not just the 25% either as the Super Hornet features substantially larger LERXs which adds a lot to the overall lift.

[Exorcet]

Well AoA and lift go hand in hand, so yes I would agree with that :)

To a degree. I see it more in terms of design speed. The A wing isn't a low speed wing. I sometimes forget that the F-35 has a terribly low AR (perhaps the low sweep angle throws me off). It's similar to that of the EF-2000. The F-18 has nearly double the AR, and even the F-16 has something like 50% more. Combine that with high internal fuel capacity and weapon capacity and the A wing could very well get to extreme AoA at carrier landing speeds. I don't think the A would have much issue landing on a carrier if lightly loaded though. On the fuselage, it's boxier than the F-16, but with air going in the front/out the back, it's not a box aerodynamically. Big LERX's are a plus for reducing landing AoA though.

[Emu]

So the latest anti-F-35 source - very dodgy source.

 

http://www.rstreet.org/2016/02/05/after-latest-f-35-setback-time-to-consider-a-replacement/

 

[Gilmore] lists off some of the problems facing…the current version of the F-35 Block 2B, including the fact that the F-35 is unable to deploy weapons or defensive countermeasures while flying at its maximum speed—pilots will need to slow down from the F-35’s max speed of Mach 1.6 to Mach 1.2 or less in order to fire.

[Fer_Fer]

So the latest anti-F-35 source - very dodgy source.

 

http://www.rstreet.org/2016/02/05/after-latest-f-35-setback-time-to-consider-a-replacement/

 

since when is the annual DoD report to congress considered Dodgy? its source is the same document i linked a few replies back

[Tirak]

DTOE Report over Fiscal year 2015

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22527

 

Reader's guide to the report, enjoy :lol:

[Fer_Fer]

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22527

 

Reader's guide to the report, enjoy :lol:

 

i have seen it pop up before and its a highly subjective annotation, which is more aimed to discredit the findings rather then offering any real explanation, rather then a objective one. So if anything, looks to me more like somebody trying to safe face then actually trying to make people understand what is written...

 

and i'll bet you an arm and a leg that the first concept version is a lot more harsh then the final report.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Fer_Fer

[Hummingbird]

To a degree. I see it more in terms of design speed. The A wing isn't a low speed wing. I sometimes forget that the F-35 has a terribly low AR (perhaps the low sweep angle throws me off). It's similar to that of the EF-2000. The F-18 has nearly double the AR, and even the F-16 has something like 50% more. Combine that with high internal fuel capacity and weapon capacity and the A wing could very well get to extreme AoA at carrier landing speeds. I don't think the A would have much issue landing on a carrier if lightly loaded though. On the fuselage, it's boxier than the F-16, but with air going in the front/out the back, it's not a box aerodynamically. Big LERX's are a plus for reducing landing AoA though.

 

Yeah I don't disagree with any of that :)

 

The two most common ways of making a fighter carrier capable disregarding all the structural strengthening & landing gear modifications which are needed basically boils down to using a different flap design (usually fowler) and/or increasing the wing area. However the latter is only done if the original design simply doesn't provide the necessary lift irrespective of flap design to allow a low enough AoA on approach.

 

Usually a different flap design suffices however, so that this wasn't enough for the F-35 says something in itself, albeit not enough alone to assume a general lack of lift, that suspicision first really starts to appear once you learn that the wing area had to be increased by a massive 40 or so percent on top.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Hummingbird
any 'of' that :)

[Tirak]

i have seen it pop up before and its a highly subjective annotation, which is more aimed to discredit the findings rather then offering any real explanation, rather then a objective one. So if anything, looks to me more like somebody trying to safe face then actually trying to make people understand what is written...

 

and i'll bet you an arm and a leg that the first concept version is a lot more harsh then the final report.

 

There are quite a few instances throughout this report of DOTE overstepping their mandate, misrepresenting facts and statistics. Yes, it has quite a few pithy comments, but the end result is that the DOTE report is written in such a way to cast maximum doubt on the program, while not accuratly representing what is going on by doing things such as regurgitating out of date information, or comparing current generation software against software that isn't scheduled for implementation until well after the time period that the report is meant to deal with. The report was written with a heavy heavy slant, and the guide is more there to remind readers of what that slant is.

 

Obviously reading only the cliff notes provided won't give you an accurate idea of what is going on, but when taken in conjunction with the report, you can gain some insight as to the actual progress of the program, rather than the "The Sky is Falling" and self aggrandizing stance the DOTE report brings.

[Fer_Fer]

There are quite a few instances throughout this report of DOTE overstepping their mandate, misrepresenting facts and statistics. Yes, it has quite a few pithy comments, but the end result is that the DOTE report is written in such a way to cast maximum doubt on the program, while not accuratly representing what is going on by doing things such as regurgitating out of date information, or comparing current generation software against software that isn't scheduled for implementation until well after the time period that the report is meant to deal with. The report was written with a heavy heavy slant, and the guide is more there to remind readers of what that slant is.

 

Obviously reading only the cliff notes provided won't give you an accurate idea of what is going on, but when taken in conjunction with the report, you can gain some insight as to the actual progress of the program, rather than the "The Sky is Falling" and self aggrandizing stance the DOTE report brings.

 

Page 1 of your Readers guide,

 

On the Bloc 2B commentary is factually wrong, and proves that the person writing it has poor reading comprehension.

 

"Deficient" to Block 3F, not 2B. This is the same as calling your kid's high school education 'deficient' because he's only a freshman.

 

No, failure to read, what the report says, several lines below

The program deferred deficiencies and weapons delivery accuracy (WDA) test events from Block 2B to Block 3iand Block 3F

 

meaning as my english allows it interpret it

Certain features and weapon integration have been moved from the 2B test schedule to later blocs, the capability is not on the bloc 2B F-35's, while the original testing schedule calls for integration and or testing of these capabilities.

 

logical conclusion, schedules will become tighter due to higher workload.

 

However, Block 3i struggled during developmental testing (DT), due to the inherited deficiencies and new avionics stability problems.

 

Apparently irrelevant in the "readers" guide. To me it seems more like an explanation why Bloc 3i is 8 months behind schedule.....

 

Based on these Block 3i performance issues, the Air Force briefed that Block 3i mission capability is at risk of not meeting IOC criteria to the Joint Requirements Oversight

Council (JROC) in December 2015

 

also apparently irrelevant. To me it sounds like the USAF tells Lockheed that they will not take a bloc that is not up to spec. Notable event, should be in a report.

 

Full Block 3F mission systems development and testing cannot be completed by May 2017, the date reflected in the most recent Program Office schedule, which is seven months later than the date planned after the 2012 restructure of the program. Although the program has recently acknowledged some schedule pressure and began referencing July 31, 2017, as the end of SDD flight test, that date is unrealistic as well. Instead, the program will likely not finish Block 3F development and flight testing prior to January 2018, an estimate based on the following assumptions:

 

Readers guide proceeds to complain about these. To anybody with common sense it seems they took the middle of the road. No massive successes or huge delays. hence, assumptions, especially for a project this complex, erring on the side of caution is never a bad thing. especially if the newly tested software is completely new or significantly more complicated than previous iterations of the same code.

apparently assuming not optimistically is a sin now, to me it seems the kind of prediction a half solid bookkeeper would do, which is to assume a middle of the road approach.

and it keeps on going like this, from top to bottom, its nothing but self centered, baby esque crying that evil outsiders are out to gut F-16.net precious little baby...... Its simply not true.

 

as for slanted, you are referring to the bloc buy. it merely presents the argument that is being made for it, and proceeds to point out that its not in line with previous DoD procurement of Fly before you buy. it does not, anywhere advocate the buy or argues against it. it goes to lengths to point out there is opposition to the buy, but the report in itself doesn't recommend anything of the sorts.

again, this is an annual report, and Lockheed's suggestion for a block buy is a significant event within said fiscal year.

 

so i fail to see how its slanted while for the most part, DOTE, does what they are supposed to do, which is to bring out objective information to the public.

 

to me, Slanted seems more akin to people getting salty of being told things they don't want to hear them malicious intend on part of the DOTE.

[Emu]

I've come to the conclusion that the aerospace press should be paying Lockheed for stories. If they had to pay royalties every time they mentioned it, they probably wouldn't bother as much.

[Basher54321]

There was a response from Lockheed on the report

 

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/2015-dote-report-public-response-statement

 

Although the DOT&E report is factually accurate, it does not fully address program efforts to resolve known technical challenges and schedule risks. It is the F-35 Joint Program Office’s responsibility to find developmental issues, resolve them and execute with the time and budget we have been given. Our government and industry team has a proven track record of overcoming technical challenges discovered during developmental and operational testing and fleet operations, and delivering on program commitments. A few recent examples of issues that are resolved include the F-35C tailhook, the F135 engine rub, and F-35B STOVL Auxiliary Air Inlet door. The F-35C has now “caught the wire” more than 200 times at sea, the engine rub fix is incorporated on the production line and delivered engines are being retrofitted, and the F‑35B has performed more than 1,000 vertical landings safely.