The F-35 Thread

[probad]

the sensationalistic writing disgusts me more than anything.

[Emu]

Next up with an opinion on stealth aircraft, Manfred von Richthofen.

[ФрогФут]

2 pilots - 7 opinions.©

[Darkbrotherhood7]

why ask someone that's 6 decades out of date about the F-22.. lol...

 

Clickbait.

[Emu]

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/qualitative-advantage-1091

 

 

[Emu]

https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/documents/RIAT-16-UK-Brief.pdf

 

[Emu]

 

[HiJack]

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by HiJack

[Emu]

[tflash]

F-35 passes data to Aegis site: http://uk.businessinsider.com/f-35-aegis-integration-2016-9?r=US&IR=T

[Phantom88]

Some F-35's Grounded

 

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/16/air-force-grounds-13-f35s-it-deemed-ready-for-war.html

 

Though Air Force officials touted the Joint Strike Fighter as ready for combat just weeks ago, it now says the F-35A Lightning II has suffered a major setback.

 

The service on Friday said it ordered a temporary stand-down of 13 out of 104 F-35s in the fleet, "due to the discovery of peeling and crumbling insulation in avionics cooling lines inside the fuel tanks," according to a statement from Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek.

 

The issue, discovered during depot servicing, will affect a total of 57 aircraft, Stefanek said. The statement did not disclose when the problems were initially reported.

 

Of the 57 aircraft, 13 are in the fleet, two belong to foreign buyers, and 42 are still on the production line, according to a statement from manufacturer Lockheed Martin. Ten are at Hill Air Force Base, Utah; four are at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, including the two non-U.S. Air Force aircraft; and one is at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.

 

Engineers with the Joint Program Office and Lockheed, along with Hill Air Force Base maintenance airmen, have conducted "inspections of eight aircraft and are currently developing procedures to resolve or mitigate the issue prior to release of affected production aircraft to the field and the return of affected operational aircraft to flight operations," Stefanek said.

 

The Air Force wants to mitigate the situation quickly to minimize negative impact on operations, training and readiness.

 

The stand-down may overshadow next week's Air, Space & Cyber Conference, organized by the Air Force Association, outside Washington, D.C., where officials such as Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle, Air Combat Command commander, and Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35's program manager, are expected to speak on the stealth jet's initial operating capability.

 

On Aug. 2, Carlisle emphasized the need for the fifth-generation aircraft, the same day Lockheed and the Air Force simultaneously declared it ready for operations. The cost of the program has reached nearly $400 billion for more than 2,400 planes.

 

"Given the national security strategy, we need it," Carlisle told reporters during a briefing. "You look at the potential adversaries out there, or the potential environments where we have to operate this airplane, the attributes that the F-35 brings -- the ability to penetrate defensive airspace, the ability to deliver precision munitions with a sensor suite that fuses data from multiple information sources -- is something our nation needs."

 

However, lawmakers have concerns about the endless challenges the F-35 program has faced in the 15 years since Lockheed Martin was awarded the contract.

 

Sen. John McCain, the outspoken Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has repeatedly slammed the F-35's roller-coaster history.

 

"The F-35 program's record of performance has been both a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule, and performance," the Arizona senator said at a Joint Strike Fighter program hearing in April. "And it's a textbook example of why this committee has placed such a high priority on reforming the broken defense acquisition system."

[Phantom88]

[tflash]

F-35 burst into flames on runway

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/23/f-35-bursts-into-flames-on-the-runway/

[Phantom88]

[Phantom88]

F-35 Starts on Fire

https://warisboring.com/another-f-35-stealth-jet-caught-on-fire-while-starting-its-engine-fe300018bc5c#.is5x4yylf

 

"A single high-tech F-35A Joint Strike Fighter costs nearly $150 million to buy, and all together should comprise the bulk of the U.S. Air Force’s combat power for decades. But one very serious and now recurring problem is the plane’s propensity to burst into flames.

One F-35A did just that on Sept. 23 while starting its engine at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, according to Defense News. The pilot escaped the plane and no one was seriously injured, according to the paper.

It’s unclear what caused the fire or whether the jet was damaged.

"

[Emu]

Sealant leak, easily remedied.

[Emu]

This came from BAE brochure of ASQ-239

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwix2P-C4uPPAhWFWhoKHbAwDZwQFgghMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baesystems.com%2Fen-us%2Fdownload-en-us%2F20160718215911%2F1434583878736.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG0lru4BJHco6Zoa4cP6SzJ0n_i1A&sig2=femGPVvkL5Kc1NPVqzvpjQ&bvm=bv.135974163,d.d2s

Seem like that not only F-35 can carry towed decoy (aka ALE-70 ) but ASQ-239 also has a separate jamming capabilities separated from APG-81

 

It looks like the USN did put a contract out in April 2014 that has caused some confusion.

 

 

http://archive.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=5255

 

These two Budget docs provide a lot of clues... still digging

 

http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2017/Navy/U_P40_0182_BSA-1_BA-1_APP-1508N_PB_2017.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2017/AirForce/U_P40_76_BSA-4_BA-7_APP-3010F_PB_2017.pdf

 

The program is buying 318 of them in FY2017 and has been buying them for yeays (search the budget docs for "ALE-70" and you will see them going back to 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

ALE-70 = Towed Decoy ($50k each)

MJU-68/69 = Flares http://www.chemring.co.uk/~/media/Files/C/Chemring-V2/PDFs/introduction-to-chemring-for-investors-oct2014.pdf

CCU-168 = Impulse cartridge for the flares https://govtribe.com/project/13-pn-8385852-2-ccu-168b-impulse-cartridge/activity

MJU-61/64 = also flares (4 differenc kinds?)

 

Absence of chaff info is odd....

 

This tidbit from the FY2017 budget (looks like the ALE-70 is in Block 2B/3i already:

(14) ALE-70 FY 2015 quantities increased from PB 2016 to accommodate F-35B IOC. FY 2017 quantity change from PB 2016 due to revised F-35B delivery schedule.

 

 

Upon closer look , we was able to find where the flares and towed decoy bay located on F-35:

A = Fiber optic towed decoy (ALE-70) dispenser door

F (x2) = Flare doors

 

 

Here are some photos of F-35 with flares bay door open , you can see that the door open vertically and flares ejected vertically

 

 

Here are some photos of F-35 with towed decoy bay open and when the launcher is removed , you can see that the bay open horizontally

 

Zoom in BAE brochure of ASQ-239 reveal even more interesting information , the aperture of the system seem to be consist of various Vivaldi antenna next to each others, what could be the reason for that planar array configuration ? electronic beam steering ? ( so ASQ-239 itself is also an AESA jammer ?)

Now on to the discussion part :

How many flares and towed decoys do you think F-35 can carry ? , it seem to be that it can carry about 4 towed decoys probably about 10 -20 flares.

 

Second question (this one for someone interested in electromagnetic physics or math), can a VLO aircraft achieve same effect using terrain bounce jamming vs normal aircraft using direct path jamming ?

[Emu]

[Pocket Sized]

 

https://youtu.be/p3gQjan9StI?t=80

 

F-15: You're in a spin!

F-18: You're in a spin, which is undesirable. Here's the control movements you must make to recover.

F-35: *sigh* You're in a spin, stupid. Let go of the stick and let me take care of it.

 

In all seriousness that spin recovery looked really, really fast.

 

Apparently the F-35 also has some impressive control authority at high AoA... can't imagine how much RnD it took to make the control algorithms work so damn well.

[Emu]

The F-35 carries 48 flares.

 

Two sides where each side of the bracket holds a 6x4 grid of flares.

 

 

 

 

On the Decoy estimate, by bet is 4 since the canister is twice as tall as it is wide then the 4 alignment markers make sense in the above photos.

 

[Pocket Sized]

I just realized something...

 

If the lift fan could be used in forward flight (impossible unless you rotated it 90° or added a massive intake/exhaust deflector) you could increase the planes loiter time by an absolute ton, it'd effectively be a turboprop

[probad]

i think you meant turbofan, but its more likely all the crap you need to add to make anything like that workable will wind up adding on enough weight to more than offset any advantages you hope to gain.

[mvsgas]

I just realized something...

 

If the lift fan could be used in forward flight (impossible unless you rotated it 90° or added a massive intake/exhaust deflector) you could increase the planes loiter time by an absolute ton, it'd effectively be a turboprop

It is used in forward flight ( to a point) and no, it would not increase loiter time, it would decrease it by a ton.

 

i think you meant turbofan...

I think he meant lift fan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/cdp/lockheed/manufacturing/cdp_loc_manf_001.jpg

Edited October 29, 2016 by mvsgas

[Bushmanni]

I think the point was that if you could vector lift fans thrust backwards it would act as a turbofan, theoretically increasing efficiency in slow speed flight. The question is if you can make the thrust vectoring in a manner that doesn't cause reduction in efficiency. And I suspect the theoretical increase in efficiency isn't much as the lift fan is quite small in comparison to the engine spinning it. You generally have much more bigger fan driven by a much smaller engine in highly efficient turbofan engines.

[mvsgas]

I think the point was that if you could vector lift fans thrust backwards it would act as a turbofan, theoretically increasing efficiency in slow speed flight. The question is if you can make the thrust vectoring in a manner that doesn't cause reduction in efficiency. And I suspect the theoretical increase in efficiency isn't much as the lift fan is quite small in comparison to the engine spinning it. You generally have much more bigger fan driven by a much smaller engine in highly efficient turbofan engines.

 

I think we are getting confuse here. The lift fan thrust (AFAIK) can be vector backwards and forwards by the bottom fins. Also, the F-35 engine (P&W F135) is a turbofan engine, why do you need the lift fan to change that? Are you guys confusing high bypass turbo fan like a PW4000-94 or a TF34 with a low bypass turbofan like a F100 or a F135? If you could bolt or attached the lift fan to the front of the F135 it still would not increase the engines "efficiency", it would only increase the pressure on the low pressure compressor (N1) since the engine does not have large enough bypass.

 

Here you can see the bypass ratio

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pw.utc.com%2FContent%2FF135_Engine%2Fpdf%2FB-2-4_F135_SpecsChart.pdf

 

AtqXfzHz_b8

 

Edited October 29, 2016 by mvsgas