The F-35 Thread

[marcos]

Dear Balkan friends,

 

 

What on earth has the Yugo conflict to do with the simple fact that Northrop Grumman developed a quite amazing piece of kit with the AAQ-37, that simply puts "labels on" possible targets? If someone would fly labels on in Lockon you would all cry foul. Are you seriously going to claim that it is not useful to be able to determine where a shot comes from? It's the kind of technologies everyone in the industry is pursuing for all the good reasons.

Especially useful if it comes from a stealth fighter too.:)

[wilky510]

He, he, he ... You are absolutely right. But, GGTharos decided to bring NATO use of military over Yugoslavia in this discussion. There are many kids here who don't know the whole story and can easily believe everything GG says. That's why I challenge GG's spin on some events over Yugoslavia.

 

And, again it wasn't me, who brought this discussion up. When GG stops spinning, I'll stop responding.

 

Also, I am amazed with the the AAQ-37 capabilities. However, it is not perfect, and it can be fulled.

Spinning of what? Saying the USA didn't fold because a stealth aircraft was shotdown..?

 

I'm pretty sure most of us by now know that every stealth aircraft is detectable... at a certain range, even if it's by a small amount and a big amount. Noone claimed it invincible. Only the other side did to make their success even more successful in the media.

 

Stealth aircraft is really an easy concept, it was designed to slip in 'radar nets' by lowering the overall range these radar nets, if you place it in the path of the aircraft, of course the stealth aircraft was detected. Zoltán knew the routes and exploited it. There was also zero offensive jamming support in the air to help the F-117's that night... luck was also on his side.

 

Obviously the job of the HARM worked. Zoltán said he only turned on his radar for few seconds at a time, and guess what made him think twice about keeping it on...?

Edited February 12, 2013 by wilky510

[aaron886]

^ Rep for first use of common sense in... many pages.

[marcos]

Typhoon pilot says Billy Flynn is talking bollocks.

 

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/

 

In an interesting piece by Flight’s Dave Majumdar, Bill Flynn, Lockheed test pilot responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for the F-35 claimed that all three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter will have better kinematic performance than any fourth-generation fighter plane with combat payload, including the Eurofighter Typhoon (that during last year’s Red Flag Alaska achieved several simulated kills against the F-22 Raptor) and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

 

“In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter,” Flyinn said.

 

According to the Lockheed pilot, (besides its stealthiness) the F-35 features better transonic acceleration and high AOA (angle-of-attack) flight performance than an armed Typhoon or Super Hornet.

 

As Majumdar says in his article, such claims are strongly disputed by other sources. Among them an experienced Eurofighter Typhoon industry test pilot, who tried to debunk all Flynn’s “theories” about the alleged superior F-35 performance.

 

Here’s what he wrote to The Aviationist:

 

No doubt the F-35 will be, when available, a very capable aircraft: its stealth design, extended range, internal carriage of stores and a variety of integrated sensors are definitely the ingredients for success in modern air-to-ground operations.

 

However, when time comes for air dominance, some other ingredients like thrust to weight ratio and wing loading tend to regulate the sky. And in that nothing comes close to a Typhoon, except an F-22 which has very similar values. The F-35 thrust to weight ratio is way lower and its energy-manoeuvrability diagrams match those of the F/A-18, which is an excellent result for a single engine aircraft loaded with several thousand pounds of fuel and significant armament.

 

But it also means that starting from medium altitude and above, there is no story with a similarly loaded Typhoon.

 

Transonic acceleration is excellent in the F-35, as it is for the Typhoon and better than in an F/A-18 or F-16, but mainly due to its low drag characteristics than to its powerplant. That means that immediately after the transonic regime, the F-35 would stop accelerating and struggle forever to reach a non operationally suitable Mach 1.6.

 

The Typhoon will continue to accelerate supersonic with an impressive steady pull, giving more range to its BVR (Beyond Visual Range) armament.

 

Angle-of-attack is remarkably high in the F-35, as it is for all the twin tailed aircraft, but of course it can not be exploited in the supersonic regime, where the limiting load factor is achieved at low values of AoA.

 

Also in the subsonic regime, the angle-of-attack itself doesn’t mean that much, especially if past a modest 12° AoA you are literally going to fall of the sky! Excessive energy bleeding rates would operationally limit the F-35 well before its ultimate AoA is reached.

 

Eurofighter superb engine-airframe matching, in combination with it’s High Off-Bore-Sight armament supported by Helmet Cueing, has already and consistently proven winning against any angile fighter.

 

Last, the F-35 is capable of supersonic carriage of bombs in the bomb bay, but the fuel penalty becomes almost unaffordable, while delivery is limited to subsonic speeds by the armament itself as is for the Typhoon.

 

it is in the facts that while the Typhoon can do most of the F-35 air-to-ground mission, vice versa the F-35 remains way far from a true swing role capability, and not even talking of regulating the skies.

 

Provided that the F-35 will be able to solve all its problems, and that the raising costs will not lead to a death spiral of order cuts, both the British RAF and the Italian Air Force will be equipped with both the JSF and the Typhoon.

 

Mock aerial combat training will tell us who’s better in aerial combat.

 

[marcos]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/02/typhoon-test-pilot-responds-to.html

 

Anyways, the Typhoon has always been an aerodynamic sports car of sorts, so I'm not particularly surprised by what Cenciotti's source had to say. But, until we know more about the F-35 from the operational testers at Edwards and Nellis, it's hard to say for sure how the jet really performs in an operational setting. Read that story here

 

I remember talking to the Luftwaffe's Col Andreas Pfeiffer, commander of Jagdgeschwader 74, in Alaska last year during the Red Flag-Alaska exercises, and he was telling me about how the Typhoon could maintain Mach 1.2 or so (if I remember right, it was definitely at a good supersonic clip though) without afterburners even with the two external tanks, pylons and what not they were carrying. And if there is one thing you can say about the Typhoon, it's that it's fast.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Spinning of what? Saying the USA didn't fold because a stealth aircraft was shotdown..?

 

I'm pretty sure most of us by now know that every stealth aircraft is detectable... at a certain range, even if it's by a small amount and a big amount. Noone claimed it invincible. Only the other side did to make their success even more successful in the media.

 

Stealth aircraft is really an easy concept, it was designed to slip in 'radar nets' by lowering the overall range these radar nets, if you place it in the path of the aircraft, of course the stealth aircraft was detected. Zoltán knew the routes and exploited it. There was also zero offensive jamming support in the air to help the F-117's that night... luck was also on his side.

 

Obviously the job of the HARM worked. Zoltán said he only turned on his radar for few seconds at a time, and guess what made him think twice about keeping it on...?

 

+1

[wilky510]

No doubt the F-35 will be, when available, a very capable aircraft: its stealth design, extended range, internal carriage of stores and a variety of integrated sensors are definitely the ingredients for success in modern air-to-ground operations.

Sounds like the USAF got the aircraft they were seeking.

 

 

The problem with the JSF was it was suppose to have 750+ raptors to back them up. With little more than 150 raptors, the JSF has to fill in the air superiority role that raptors were suppose to do.

 

In my honest opinion, if the F-35 fails, i don't really blame anybody except someone trying to make 3 aircraft in 1, and a jack of all trade aircraft... which is a master of nothing.

 

 

Correct me if i'm wrong Macros, but wasn't the Tiffy made as a pure air superiority aircraft, and then later changed to the ability of dropping AG weapons later in it's career (just like the F-22)?

Edited February 12, 2013 by wilky510

[marcos]

Sounds like the USAF got the aircraft they were seeking.

 

 

The problem with the JSF was it was suppose to have 750+ raptors to back them up. With little more than 150 raptors, the JSF has to fill in the air superiority role that raptors were suppose to do.

 

In my honest opinion, if the F-35 fails, i don't really blame anybody except someone trying to make 3 aircraft in 1, and a jack of all trade aircraft... which is a master of nothing.

 

 

Correct me if i'm wrong Macros, but wasn't the Tiffy made as a pure air superiority aircraft, and then later changed to the ability of dropping AG weapons later in it's career (just like the F-22)?

You're at least half right. The UK can't really afford the luxury of dedicated role fighters, same goes for most other EU countries but the Typhoon was designed predominantly for air superiority, with Tornados covering most ground attack until the JSFs get here. That's why they've not exactly rushed things along with the A2G weapons qualification for the Typhoon. So far only EPW II (1000lb DMLGB) is qualified unless Eddie has an update. Eventually (:doh:) it will include Paveway III/IV, GBU-24, JDAMs, ALARM and later Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Taurus. Future possibilities include SPEAR and I think the Germans have some other weapons like Apache, HOSBO and HOPE that they may qualify.

 

I'm not sure what the future holds. We're currently committed to at least 48 F-35B with the intent to expand that to '3 figures'. The intention being to rotate them between carrier and land to increase longevity. Whether the Tornados will stay I have no idea. I'd love to see them replaced with F-35As but the budget says that's unlikely.

 

The F-35 is a great aircraft, it's just that some people try make it out to be better than great.

 

The real A2A potential of the F-35 has been sorely missed with all this debate on acceleration and manoeuvrability. The real advantage is in the fact that it's a stealth aircraft with 360 degree EOST and SAIRST and HMCS and probably AIM-9X and ASRAAM when it gets here I'd imagine. Now that not only gives it an advantage WVR over the F-22, it could also mean that it gets first detection!

[Kaktus29]

@marcos.. do you know how and what will UK navy pilots fly onboard the french carrier? There was this proposal of sharing the french carriers with britz..

 

so, we've got french carrier, with rafale's and incoming JSF?.. are the british navy JSF built for a ramp carrier or catapult via steam or magnetic pull carrier deck? .. if latter, how will they launch from french carrier? .. what a mess)) ..

 

The italians, are they going to replace their navy fighter with JSF also?.. they must have them for ramp then..meaning less range, less ammo for the fighter..

 

to some extent i can see why JSF is one cluster$$$ of a programme ..

[GGTharos]

With little more than 150 raptors, the JSF has to fill in the air superiority role that raptors were suppose to do.

 

And 180 golden eagles. The JSF itself will have pretty good air to air capabilities. You deal with the more rare, high-performance threats via F-22's, leave the rest to GE's and JSF's.

 

In my honest opinion, if the F-35 fails, i don't really blame anybody except someone trying to make 3 aircraft in 1, and a jack of all trade aircraft... which is a master of nothing.

 

But it isn't a jack of all trades. It is what it is because it is designed primarily as a strike aircraft.

[wilky510]

And 180 golden eagles. The JSF itself will have pretty good air to air capabilities. You deal with the more rare, high-performance threats via F-22's, leave the rest to GE's and JSF's.

Even with the Golden eagles counted in, they are still way less than what they had.

 

I agree, the F-35 will be a great air to air fighter, and it's lack per say in the TWR department can be improved in the near future with uprated engines.

 

edit: GG, have you heard about the golden Falcons too? I remember reading an article a while ago about 300 odd f-16's getting upgrades (AESA's mainly) because of the apparent slight delay on F-35 IOC.

Edited February 12, 2013 by wilky510

[marcos]

@marcos.. do you know how and what will UK navy pilots fly onboard the french carrier? There was this proposal of sharing the french carriers with britz..

They will fly Rafale Ms and there are several on-board the Charles de Gaulle already trained for a 'Falklands scenario'. Equally some French pilots have been trained to fly Typhoons.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/double-first-for-french-and-british-fast-jet-pilots

 

so, we've got french carrier, with rafale's and incoming JSF?.. are the british navy JSF built for a ramp carrier or catapult via steam or magnetic pull carrier deck? .. if latter, how will they launch from french carrier? .. what a mess)) ..

They are F-35B STOVLs.

 

I'm not sure whether the French Carrier sharing is only a stop gap until the QEs come out. There is a close co-operation between French and British forces right now, so whether there is an F-35B/Rafale M carrier sharing future or not I don't know.

 

The italians, are they going to replace their navy fighter with JSF also?.. they must have them for ramp then..meaning less range, less ammo for the fighter..

They only have a ramp capable carrier - the Cavour 550, so my guess would be F-35Bs for their navy too. They also plan for F-35As to replace AMXs and Tornados.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120515/DEFREG01/305150010/Italian-AF-Navy-Head-F-35B-Showdown

 

to some extent i can see why JSF is one cluster$$$ of a programme ..

STOVL was always going to complicate things. God knows why the F-35A couldn't simply have been a Raptor with bigger internal bays. Maybe a Strike Raptor is in the future somewhere.

[marcos]

And 180 golden eagles. The JSF itself will have pretty good air to air capabilities. You deal with the more rare, high-performance threats via F-22's, leave the rest to GE's and JSF's.

The F-35 will have similar BVR advantages (except for supersonic manoeuvrability) and far better WVR ability within 50km. Arguably it's debatable who would see the other first, an F-35 or an F-22? Both RCSs are low enough to give EO/IR a clear advantage over radar and only the F-35 has EOST and SAIRST.

[marcos]

[marcos]

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-flying-white-elephant-8091

 

The Flying White Elephant

 

It’s been a bad month for American aviation. The 787 Dreamliner, our premier airliner, remains grounded due to safety issues. Now Wired is reporting that the F-35 Lightning II, intended to serve as America’s fighter-bomber of the future, has had its performance requirements downgraded. The Pentagon is admitting that the aircraft will be delivered “heavier, slower and more sluggish” than it had hoped. The Lightning II will be more vulnerable and less capable in combat.

 

Worse, these are hardly the F-35’s first problems—it’s endured a litany of technical and budgetary issues. Acquisition plans have been dramatically scaled back—while America originally intended to have nearly 1,600 aircraft in operation in 2017, it now aims for just 365—and the aircraft has been temporarily barred from operating near thunderstorms amid fears that a strike could cause it to explode. Some are even skeptical that it’s stealthy enough to operate in a modern threat environment. The aircraft was designed to be used by multiple countries and multiple armed services while retaining many of the same features and parts. Instead, the F-35 may be a jack of all trades and a master of none.

 

Understandably, foreign buyers are cutting back on their purchase plans, and the project is facing ever-increasing scrutiny from lawmakers and the media. The United States needs to ask itself several questions.

 

First, are cost overruns, performance issues and long development periods a necessary element of modern fighter development, or is there something wrong with the development and acquisitions process? There’s no denying that the F-35 has some extremely sexy technology on board—among other things, its advanced helmet allows the pilot to see in any direction (including through the aircraft, thanks to cameras). Getting such technologies to operate smoothly on their own and with each other was always going to be a complex and time-consuming process.

 

The complexity is compounded by the fact that this is a combat aircraft, so it will need both high reliability and relatively quick, simple maintenance to avoid becoming a liability in war. Still, it is somewhat boggling to see other heavy industries turning around projects quickly, Chinese aircraft manufacturers (historically regarded as third-rate copycats) spewing out prototypes, and advanced technologies being swiftly adopted throughout the economy even as the F-35 struggles to become operational in less than two decades. The Empire State Building was built in a little more than a year; the GBU-28 bunker buster was developed in a few weeks in 1991, and an adapted version is still in use. Has innovation really gotten so much harder?

 

Second, are politics at play? It’s hard not to see a political-economic factor in the mediocrity: the program’s defenders regularly tout the number of people it employs as an argument against cuts, and components of the aircraft are manufactured in forty-eight states and around the world. Any legislator voting against the project would thus face accusations of killing jobs in his own state; any legislator defending it can tout the in-state jobs she’s saved from the axe. This reduces the political risk to the program, warping incentives to make the aircraft quickly and cheaply. Defense spending may be an inefficient way of propping up the economy, but it’s an efficient way of propping up incumbents.

 

Third, are we approaching a decision point with the F-35, or have things already gone too far to try a new tack? The average age of America’s tactical aircraft fleet has been steadily increasing for two decades, and the capabilities of potential enemies like Russia and China have been improving. At some point, our current large fleet of older aircraft might be less effective than a small, mediocre but modern fleet of F-35s. That’s not certain, though—if the F-35 turns into a true logistics and maintenance nightmare, or if its stealthiness only provides a marginal increase in survivability, it could be less effective than our current set of aircraft. Still, if we can’t find a way to develop good aircraft in a short time, backing out on the F-35 could see us using forty- and fifty-year-old fighters.

 

Fourth, is this really the aircraft of the future, or are there alternatives? Modern air defenses can be defeated by stealth, but they might also be defeated with massive swarms of cheap drones or, as the Israelis have repeatedly shown the Syrians, with advanced electronic-warfare capabilities. In low-intensity conflicts, modern jet aircraft might even be inefficient—the high speeds and powerful engines they need to survive against other combat aircraft leave them unable to linger and observe. The F-35’s unclear survivability in spite of its advanced technology suggest a new philosophy is worth exploring.

 

Fifth, what does all this portend for our ability to maintain military supremacy? If America’s political system and economy, when working together, are simply incapable of deploying new military technologies quickly and in a useful form, our enemies will make relative gains as advanced technologies become more accessible to lesser powers. Washington will find its options constrained.

 

The struggles of the F-35 may be an omen of American military decline. In this case, at least, our virtues have been overwhelmed by our vices. Let’s hope our leaders heed the warning.

 

John Allen Gay is an assistant editor at The National Interest. His book (co-authored with Geoffrey Kemp) War with Iran: Political, Military, and Economic Consequences will be released by Rowman and Littlefield in early 2013.

[Kaktus29]

i agree with you marcos ..

 

F-35 symbolises the decline in professionalism in the military, in the industry in politics..

 

the degradation can be seen as military industrial complex shows no anxiety as problems mount for it knows how the game is played.. the more problems there are the more money will be thrown into their pockets to rescue the project.. they know that f-35 is TOO BIG TO FAIL like the banks who messed up the economy, like the criminals running them.. they are all too big to fail, or too big to jail.. one way or another they are too big )) ..

 

F-35 looks like a project that will ram the US economy to the ground.. not really, but it is a prima balerina in this role..its the pride of the corruption, the showcase of how not to do things..

 

i think such processes will only accelerate in the future.. US is caught in a quagmire of epic proportions.. putting themselves in a position where they are basically in war with every nation of the world (apart israel of course, may god love israel and we all bow down to israel).. in such a position it seems only superior force can fight the ever increasing number of barbarians at the gates.. this reminds me of germany in 2WW.. their Tiger tanks were much more superior than Russian T-34.. better armour, better firepower, better penetration for the gun, better range of the gun... but the tank was ahead of its time, to complex, to heavy, to hard to maintain, to difficult to produce in great numbers.. in the end it was the wrong choice to build..

 

US is going down the path of the paranoid one.. until they declare bankruptcy of course..

[marcos]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-f-35-programme-may-have-to-be-restructured-under-sequestration-382243/

 

The entire Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme may have to be restructured if the Pentagon budget undergoes the full 10 year effects of sequestration.

 

Under the Congressional sequestration budgetary maneuver, the US Department of Defense's coffers would be automatically cut across the board by 10% every year for 10 years. That is on top of the $487 billion that has already been cut from the spending plan.

 

If the full sequestration were to take effect, "we're going to have to look completely at the [F-35] programme," US Air Force chief of staff Gen Mark Welsh told the Senate Armed Services Committee on 12 February. "It's going to be impossible to modernize."

 

The consequences operationally would mean that the US Air Force would not be able to operate as effectively in contested airspace as it had planned. "Our kick in the door capability would be impacted," Welsh says.

 

For the US Navy, the consequences of the full sequestration are as dire. Adm Mark Ferguson, vice chief of naval operations, told the Congress that if the USN had to suffer the effects of nine additional years of sequestration, the service would lose two carrier strike groups and a "proportional" number of amphibious strike groups.

 

The US Marine Corps may also have to "cancel major multi-year procurements such as the [bell-Boeing] MV-22 and incur greater cost and program delay in future program buys," USMC commandant Gen James Amos says in his prepared testimony.

 

Sequestration is scheduled to come into effect on 1 March. Thus far, Congress and the executive branch have been in deadlock with no resolution in sight.

[Kaktus29]

@sierra99 ..what i meant was decline in professionalism in the military as generals who oversee this projects, or many generals in pentagon overseeing this project.. they have allot of power and sway but use it to prolong the corruption.. this is a sign of a decline in professionalism.. i didn't mean decline of professionalism of some regular soldier..usually the soldiers remain the most stable force in the army.. the higher the expensiveness ladder you go the more corruption one usually finds..

 

With F-35 we have a situation of a doctor getting millions of dollars to see you come to him every time.. in such a situation i think the poor patient is sadly be continue to come to the doctor for its in doctors best interest to see his favourite patient again and again..

 

i mean can you imagine.. 1 Trillion dollars.. jesus christ.. one would think US is developing 10th generation fighter..

[GGTharos]

@sierra99 ..what i meant was decline in professionalism in the military as generals who oversee this projects, or many generals in pentagon overseeing this project..

 

I believe Lockheed Martin has already faced some problems due to corruption accusations, but I didn't follow up.

 

With F-35 we have a situation of a doctor getting millions of dollars to see you come to him every time.. in such a situation i think the poor patient is sadly be continue to come to the doctor for its in doctors best interest to see his favourite patient again and again..

 

i mean can you imagine.. 1 Trillion dollars.. jesus christ.. one would think US is developing 10th generation fighter..

 

Actually F-15 was also a very expensive project in its time, and so is the F-22.

 

Also consider the AIM-120. It faced a very long and risky development, because of the difficult technological challenge posed at that time by the requirement to fit an active radar into a 7" missile, among other things.

There were problems, doubts, reviews, etc ... but today it's the best medium range missile in the world, maybe with exception to the meteor - it gets a much larger Rtr but costs twice as much, IIRC.

 

The F-35 is basically going through these types of problems. High-tech fighter jets are not cheap, and that's all there is to it.

[tflash]

Video of F-35 simulator training, landing on carrier: http://news.google.be/news/url?sr=1&ct2=us%2F2_0_s_0_1_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNGDU3A0uWIvwOZE9-X84i-pDm_0rQ&cid=43981999440215&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nwfdailynews.com%2Fmilitary%2Ftop-story%2Feglin-s-f-35-flight-simulators-integral-part-of-pilot-training-video-1.96767&ei=aqIgUYjHH9KU8gPCkQE&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=8011659311482963619&sid=b23a89405f50e96

[marcos]

The truth of the matter is that the US DoD is so invested in this project that they don't have any alternatives. Lockheed Martin know this and are exploiting it. In the '60s this wouldn't have happened, a) because there were more defence contractors and more options, and b) because the CIA would have head-tapped them or at least they would been sufficiently concerned by the prospect.

[strikeout]

Australia and the JSF debacle

 

Hi,

 

ABC Australia TV documentary about the JSF aired tonight.

 

Follow link for details and program information.

 

MONDAY 18TH FEBRUARY 2013

It's been billed as the smartest jet fighter on the planet, designed to strike enemies in the air and on the ground without being detected by radar. But after a decade of intensive development, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is over budget, a long way behind schedule and described by one expert as "big, fat and draggy".

The JSF project could cost Australian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Is this plane a super fighter or a massive waste of money?

 

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/18/3690317.htm

 

 

Thanks.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/18/3690317.htm

 

Wow! This F-35 problem is getting serious.

[aaron886]

Kind of two-year old story, isn't it? It's not as if it's "getting serious."

 

Also I love the "wargames/simulations" that are the equivalent of shooting dice.

Edited February 19, 2013 by aaron886

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Kind of two-year old story, isn't it? It's not as if it's "getting serious."

Problems with flying close to electrical storm and reduced g's are definately not two years old.

 

This documentary is airing all over Australia now. There might be some political pressure to reevaluate the F-35 program in Australia.