F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Courtney Mil]

Depends where you measure it. It could be -3db, but the RCS model isn't a sphere so it's a bit like the definition of 'affordable housing'. That's why it's so easy to redefine... ...twice. So far.

[JSFfan]

"glad rag... So what is the difference between VLO and LO then? ."

It depends who said it and in what context, spaz's link "Anti Access refers to operations in regions with a threat level high enough to require Low Observable (LO) platforms."....would also include other LO platforms including the F-22..it can be a generic over-view term or can subdivide into LO-VLO-ULO

[Courtney Mil]

As I said, a bit like affordable housing.

[JSFfan]

I never use to but I'm leaning towards the term stealth...it gets rid of all the guess work and more people have heard of it

the Canadian webinar is now online Webcasts (http://ow.ly/kGQH3)

[Engines]

Spaz,

Excellent posts and thank you. They are a useful counterweight to the perception held by many in the UK that the F-35C was a 'no risk' solution compared to the F-35B. They also show that the business of arrested recoveries is a complex interplay between the aircraft and the arresting gear on the ship, with a healthy dose of pilot technique thrown in. The USN make it look easy, but that's because they are very, very good at it.

They also have a really excellent culture of open reporting and discussion, as shown by the link to the 'Paddles Monthly' you provided. I think it's a great example of how to identify, address and manage safety issues within a professional flying community, rather than relying on a massive regulatory structure to do it all. The UK should take note.

Your links also show progress on the F-35C tail hook issue - clearly, they have some work to do, but they look as if they are moving in the right direction. A couple of points. Firstly, from my experience on the programme, the tail hook design was subjected to close examination by the USN experts, and compared against all applicable standards and requirements. It passed. In particular, there was no standard for wheel to hook distance. Bottom line - they didn't 'get it wrong'.

Secondly, approach speed to the wire was the only CV specific KPP applied to the programme, and that recognised the fact that it's going to be a challenge for an LO aircraft that can't use many of the lift enhancing devices available to a conventional design, like slotted flaps. The 'half vs full flap' discussion you mentioned will be a live one if it increases the F-35C trap speed.

Finally, wire trampling and whipping is a well appreciated phenomenon, and LM and the USN will factor it into any solution. It's one of those pesky naval aviation thingies that land based aviators (understandably) don't know much about. Sadly, that lack of knowledge has led to some comment in the UK Press that bordered on the hysterical.

Best regards as ever to all those calm heads working the issues

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan, 'Stealth' is a similarly vague term these days, but no less appropriate. As you haven't seen the 3D RCS graphs (at any frequency or polarization) it's probably a good term to use. As for the 'webinar', I afraid I agree with you somewhat less. The following is far too much of a sell line...

With unmatched capabilities, interoperability with allies and the potential for billions of dollars in job-creating industry partnerships, the F-35 Lightning II is the right partner for a secure Canada.

Join us as an F-35 expert and F-35 test pilot discuss why the F-35 is the best solution for Canada, including:

Unmatched stealth and agility to protect Canada’s borders
Industrial partnerships with more than 50 Canadian companies
Full interoperability with allies for a more secure world

Oh good.

[Rhino power]

Quote: With unmatched capabilities, interoperability with allies and the potential for billions of dollars in job-creating industry partnerships, the F-35 Lightning II is the right partner for a secure Canada.

Join us as an F-35 expert and F-35 test pilot discuss why the F-35 is the best solution for Canada, including:
Unmatched stealth and agility to protect Canada’s borders
Industrial partnerships with more than 50 Canadian companies
Full interoperability with allies for a more secure world

Reads like a 'copy and paste' straight from the LM sales brochure!

-RP;)

[Courtney Mil]

there was no standard for wheel to hook distance

wire trampling and whipping is a well appreciated phenomenon, and LM and the USN will factor it into any solution

Two conflicting statements. And we know that LM (and the USN and anyone else that's involved) were alive to both. That makes this fault rather unfortunate.

And to follow LO's ridiculed point, you can't just force the hook down onto the deck a bit harder. Those sparks don't just need sunglasses, they indicate serious metal work - wear to the deck and the hook shoes.

[SpazSinbad]

'Courtney Mil' I do not see 'conflicting statements by 'Engines' as you say. As for my comment about 'sparks'. Metal on Metal (or likely THERMION covered Metal) will make sparks - no matter how gentle the contact. Have a look at night carrier landings to see the sparks fly. And why do you protect 'Low Observable'?

I thought I had made the point earlier about "...indicate serious metal work - wear to the deck and the hook shoes." This is a given. A4G maintainers either of their own accord through inspections or at request of deck gear chaps, would blunt the steadily sharpened A4G hooks. These hooks have a finite life also; to be replaced as required. Have you seen up close the state of a 'cats n'flaps' carrier metal deck?

I'll find a night DL video for youse..... No need to watch all this otherwise excellent video - the night deck sparks de hook are only at beginning - after that - fun/games.

F/A-18 $hit Hot Break

"Published on Dec 5, 2012 From CloudSurfProductions...
VFA-211 Super Hornets bringing the $hit Hot Break and bagging a few traps onboard the USS Enterprise. Also known as the "Triple Nickel" (Breaking 500', 500kts and .5NM BEFORE the boat). ***Not an Official Navy Video***"

F/A-18 $hit Hot Break - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AYeTVed-qAY)

The first two time lapse photos of 'bright sparks' NOT from the video - the third one is - click thumbnails below for bigga pickcha:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_USNnightDuskHookSparks.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/USNnightDuskHookSparks.jpg.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_USNnightDuskHookSparksToo.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/USNnightDuskHookSparksToo.jpg.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F_A-18hitHotBreakBrightSparkHookStill.png (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F_A-18hitHotBreakBrightSparkHookStill.png.html)

[SpazSinbad]

An informative blog post about all day every day 'wire abuse'.

Cross Deck Pendant – Redux December 12th, 2009[/b]

Cross Deck Pendant ? Redux (http://instapinch.com/?p=456)
__________________

Click thumbnail for a flight deck wear pattern photo example from: https://www.corrdefense.org/Academia%20Government%20and%20Industry/CharlesTricou-LongLifeNonSkid.pdf

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_WearPatternInLandingArea.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/WearPatternInLandingArea.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

Turkey purchases two F-35 Lightning II aircraft at IDEF '13 | 8 May 2013 /TODAY'S ZAMAN, ISTANBUL

Turkey purchases two F-35 Lightning II aircraft at IDEF '13 (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-314882-turkey-purchases-two-f-35-lightning-ii-aircraft-at-idef-13.html)

"Turkey's Undersecretariat for Defense Industries (SSM) signed an agreement on Wednesday with Lockheed Martin to make two additional purchases from the F-35 Lightning II family of aircraft, the world's only fifth generation multirole fighters, to be delivered by 2016...."

[JSFfan]

CM, you can lead a horse to water but...anyway I found test pilot Flynn who through EADS did the EuroFighter Typhoon, F-4 E/F, and Tornado, worth listening to from Webcasts (http://ow.ly/kGQH3)
Looks like old dogs can learn new tricks

[Engines]

Courtney,

Sorry if I wasn't clear there, but I don't think those two statements conflict. Happy to discuss, though. There was no standard for wheel to hook distance - I remember going through the various specs with the arresting gear design team.

A number of US naval aircraft have had challenges with hook location, especially single engined types where you can only put the hook underneath the fuselage as far aft as the structure will allow. (The F-8 was a good example).

Wire trampling and whipping was also well known to the F-35 design team, which resulted in early studies into wire/tailplane clearances as well as influencing choice of tyre.

There is definitely an issue with the hook, and that issue showed up in testing. That's what testing is for. The hook damper changes were there to stop the excessive bouncing found in early tests. Yes, it will increase the force between the hook and the deck - but like everything else in engineering, there will be a tradeoff and the test team will find the best point for that.

The F-35 programme is taking place in an open reporting environment, which allows anyone to state their opinions. That's a good thing. So are facts.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Engines,

No, no, not at all, my friend. My point was simply that, given the amount of detail available about the behaviour of the wire, I was surprised that there wasn't a better understanding of what problems might (and eventually did) arise with the F-35C mainwheel to hook shoe distance. As you say, testing is to find the problems as well as the good stuff.

Your comment about increasing deck/shoe wear is exactly to point I was trying to make. And, of course, the fact that increasing the downward force alone is clearly not going to solve the problem. I'm pretty confident that the engineers can find a way to make it work - after all, compared to a lot of the challenges in getting the programme this far, the hook design shouldn't be a show stopper for them.

As ever,

Courtney

[glad rag]

So, what did the F35 start out as, and if it did "change" it's classification when was that and why?

[SpazSinbad]

“...reproduce a radius on the toe of the hook with a 'rasp' after frequent contact with the deck wore it to a knife edge which, to the consternation of the 'Stokers' responsible for the 'trap', were required to replace arrestor wires which had been cut [knicked].” Ray ‘Dutchy’ Brauer A4G Maintainer VF-805

The first image of how the hook is going to change (to look more like an A-4 hook - added to original graphic - rather than a Hornet hook) is from this PDF whilst the second image shows the original F-35C hook gubbins:

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/awst_pdf/JSF_dod-quick-look-ahern-report.pdf

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35ChookImprovementGeometryA-4orig.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35ChookImprovementGeometryA-4orig.gif.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35ChookGraphicSTAMPsmall.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35ChookGraphicSTAMPsmall.gif.html)

[JSFfan]

It hasn't changed....the f-35 is a low observable platform and is also an all aspect VLO plane that has exceeded it's 'stealth' KPP
In house 'stealth' platforms are called LO, it's in the public domain things gets confused by those that aren't familiar with the terms and how they can be applied.
I remember there was public confusion a few years ago, but was clarified

expanding on my reference to the f-22 being a LO platform
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=lo+%22f-22%22+-VLO&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[Courtney Mil]

Glad Rag,

The F-35 was always supposed to be VLO, but was downgraded to LO in 2006. There followed a number of high level questions as to why and pressure to restore the VLO classification, which led to some hasty redefinitions and a return to VLO status. However, the issue wouldn't go away and suspissions led some to question whether the company was "watering down the low-observable characteristics of planes bound for non-DoD buyers". Burbage et al have always been a bit vague about answering that in public.

As it stood at the end of last year its RCS was accepted as being bigger than the F-22 despite being a smaller airframe. I don't think that was really news as it's pretty much what was expected. As for differences in export versions, again, we probably shouldn't be too surprised.

Courtney

[SpazSinbad]

'Courtney Mil' this furphy: "... As for differences in export versions, again, we probably shouldn't be too surprised." has been laid to rest already.

[JSFfan]

cm, please don't make things up...it has been repeatably said there is no RCS difference in export unless the customer changed the outer line by additions..there is no vagueness just naysayers woffle

[Heathrow Harry]

Engines wrote:- "Bottom line - they didn't 'get it wrong'. "


Actually they quite clearly DID get it wong - it didn't work

Maybe their methodology was, at the time, though to be correct but real life showed it wasn't

Like Courtney I'm just surprised that there is so little apparent research into such an important and obvious issue........ seems to be a "Suck it and see" approach

[glad rag]

Having been involved in certain UK projects AND knowing "the way things are" I will be very surprised if US aircraft do not have some particular advantage.

[JSFfan]

I wouldn't be surprised either, but what we are talking about is RCS and the RCS is the same on the planes. Unless the customer changes it by adding a drag shoot for example
why do you have so much trouble? it seems it doesn't fit what you want it to be.

CM I tried to source your 2006 reference and came up with WIKI? based on what APA clown club said and corrected by ADF
In 2006, the F-35 was downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", a change former RAAF flight test engineer Peter Goon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Power_Australia) likened to increasing the radar cross section from a marble to a beach ball.[132] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-133) A Parliamentary Inquiry asked what was the re-categorization of the terminology in the United States such that the rating was changed from "very low observable" to "low observable". The Department of Defence said that the change in categorization by the U.S. was due to a revision in procedures for discussing stealth platforms in a public document. Decision to re-categorize in the public domain has now been reversed; subsequent publicly released material has categorized the JSF as very low observable (VLO).[133] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-134)

[glad rag]

The problem, JSFfan, is the aircraft lineage and the changed specifications that have led us to where we are today.

Simple question, pit both a US 4th gen and a F35 together, both at their respective best fighting weights and pick your goalposts.

Would the F35 prevail?

[JSFfan]

mate, you will believe what you want to, there are enough facts in this thread if you want to read them...including the LER of 6:1 4 vs 8 advanced 4th gen

[SpazSinbad]

For 'Heathrow Hairy': "...Like Courtney I'm just surprised that there is so little apparent research into such an important and obvious issue........ seems to be a "Suck it and see" approach". Yes there is a lot of research, testing and redesign with further testing as indicated in the material below.

A Study of the Aircraft Arresting-Hook Bounce Problem By J. THOMLINSON, Ph.D. May 1954

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/2980.pdf

"SUMMARY: The kinematics of an arresting-hook unit are studied in order to determine, within the limits of the assumption of a perfectly rigid hook unit, the damper force necessary to control hook bounce. The necessity for a smooth deck and the desirability of small trail angle for the hook unit are demonstrated from several aspects. The design requirements for a hook damper unit are discussed in all their functional aspects and methods are given for determining the up-swing motion of an arresting hook unit immediately following engagement of an arresting wire. The behaviour of arresting wires after being depressed by the passage of aircraft wheels is also outlined...."
__________________

A Brief History of Tailhook Design 16 Dec 2011 by Tommy H. Thomason

http://thanlont.blagspot.com/2011/12/brief-history-of-tailhook-design.html [change 'blag']
___________________________

How hook arrangements change - First Skyhawk mockup with 'yoked' hook design:

http://a4skyhawk.org/sites/a4skyhawk.org/files/images/imagecache/gallery-display/137812m1.jpg
________________________

Som USN MilSpec re 'Arrested Landing Gear':

http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL+SPECS+(MIL-A)/download.php?spec=MIL-A-18717C.018182.PDF
__________________________

Unnatural Acts of Landing Patuxent River Naval Air Museum Association
The Kneeboard Mag'n Spring 2012

http://api.ning.com/files/8OBnZkm85rrIMYQKeV*ggLdFOJeVqjQZZd6TVym3edKjcGDND6Xeiz4Pmo1q dQel3UuSwHY4oOAYEPGPr3FYJaGwJlDafX1q/KneeboardSpring2012.pdf

-“For most people, the idea of flight testing means seeing how fast an airplane can go or how quickly it can maneuver. While answering these questions may be part of a flight test program, there is more to flight testing than speed and agility. Navy carrier aircraft must also withstand the stressful loads of repeated arrested landings (traps) that can exceed 6 Gs on the aircraft.

The landing gear must:
- Survive thousands of landing shocks
- Reduce the loads reaching the aircraft structures and crew
- Allow the pilot to stay in control of the aircraft’s behavior

Ground Loads Testing shows that an aircraft structure can withstand carrier operations at maximum takeoff and landing weights. Normal landings at these conditions are no problem. But testing must also show that an aircraft can absorb these loads when:
- Its sink rate (how fast it descends) is high (as much as 26 feet per second!)
- Its wings are not level when it lands
- Its tailhook catches an arresting cable to the side of the center line
- The carrier deck pitches and heaves...

...During Super Hornet development, Ground Loads Testing required 125 test flights, 370 catapult launches, 471 traps, & 3 years to complete. Incidents included blown tires & various airplane parts (other than the wheels & tailhook) hitting the deck."
&
"What Is a “High Trap”? Normally when an aircraft “traps” (lands on a carrier), its wheels contact the deck (or the runway during practice landings) just before the tailhook snags the arresting cable. But sometimes the tailhook will engage the arresting cable before the wheels touch down. This is known as an “inflight engagement” or “high trap.” Both the aircraft and the pilot are slammed down hard as the aircraft is suddenly snatched from the air. These are not fun landings.”

Click thumbnail for an unnatural act: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_ShornetUnnaturalLandingAct.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/ShornetUnnaturalLandingAct.jpg.html)

[Courtney Mil]

Simple question, pit both a US 4th gen and a F35 together, both at their respective best fighting weights and pick your goalposts. Would the F35 prevail?

The answer, unfortunately, is not quite so simple, though. Let me illustrate. If you went many v many wvr against, say, F-15C, the F-35 would probably not come off too well because of its max sustained g and the fact that it's not optimized for air-to-air and would have limited a-a weapons, et, etc. But that is also not where it is designed to fight. Moreover, it's multi-role so simply measuring it's a-a KILL RATIO isn't really meaningful.

In modeling or evaluation terms, putting 'blue' up against 'blue' isn't a recognized method. If you want to evaluate a number of types (let's say competitors for a defence contract), you devise your trials so that you put each type up against a fixed 'red' adversary and compare the results in terms of kill ratio and mission success. You use a variety of representitive scenarios, support assets and geolocations. The results expose the strengths and weaknesses of each type - provided the scenarios have been properly devised - the results aren't always what you'd predict.

Just for fun, the F-15C vs F-35B BVR fight would be interesting, though. The air-superiority ac will throw his slammer further, faster, higher and will produce better defensive manoeuvre. The MR jet only gets a couple of shots, but if it uses its LO properly may get first launch. For political reasons, no one would ever let that fight take place in public, certainly without stacking the odds for obvious reasons. And who could blame them?

[PhilipG]

Spaz, it would seem that there has been quite a lot of work on hook bounce etc, dating back as you show to the mid 1950's. It would seem slightly remiss of LM and whoever it was in the USN not to have taken heed of what the papers say.
What will the USN do if come the next set of trials the hook does not work? Will they be rejoicing that the carriers can remain lean manned as there will only be Hornets and Super Hornets, so less maintenance teams needed, or will they insist that the shape of the F35 is changed to accept a fit for purpose hook? I do hate to think what the cost of a total redesign of the rear end of the C would cost.
:confused:

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, PhilipG, hence my discomfort with the statements 'there was no standard for wheel to hook distance' and 'wire trampling and whipping is a well appreciated phenomenon' so close together in this context.

As for not getting it to work, well, it is only a hook and we've been building them for years. In this case, though, there a set of unusual constraints: the mainwheels are long way back because of the size of the weapons bays and the hook has to have a low RCS when stowed (presumably it doesn't matter so much when its lowered:)). The first of these makes it comparatively short and places the shoe close behind the mainwheels. As it's a Naval variant, the hook needs to be agile too in order to keep the ship's landing rate up.

None of that is to say that you're not right to ask the 'what if' question, PhilipG.

[PhilipG]

CM, I hear and fully understand what you are saying, I also appreciate why the hook is not catching the wire. I think my point was If the redesign does not work, what happens? Are LM obliged at their cost to redesign the rear end of the C so that there is enough room between the wheels and the hook and does this change of shape get carried forward to the A and B models? In my perception the time and cost to do this this late in the process would be astronomical.
Or does LM say to the USN "Sorry Mate its too difficult, we cannot get the carrier version to land on a carrier." This would make some contracts interesting.
If this is the situation, I suppose we Brits can breath a sigh of relief that we did not have the design of the Prince of Wales altered to have EMALS installed to launch the C, as well as having the wires installed to let it allegedly land back on.
Fingers crossed for the B and let us hope that the SRVL system works as advertised, by LM.;)

[Bevo]

It hasn't changed....the f-35 is a low observable platform and is also an all aspect VLO plane that has exceeded it's 'stealth' KPP


A few years ago I gave a briefing to a general audience about RCS "numbers". I'm sure many folks on this forum are very familiar with this info, but for those that are new to the subject here are a few charts from the brief.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide1_zpsba313f9a.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide2_zps8da417e9.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide3_zps94617b5e.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide4_zpsed00c6bf.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide5_zpsec82a5a4.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide6_zpsab607891.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide7_zpsff600d4b.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide8_zps32b7d945.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Bevo,

Useful for those not familiar with the subject, Bevo, I'm sure. I would add, we're increasingling into circular polarization now too, which also has some compatibility with the others...


PhilipG,

Yes, if the redesign does not work, what happens? That's what I meant when I said you are right to ask the question - it's a good one for discussion, although you may now just get spot jamming from Australia in an attempt to stifle any chat. Sorry I didn't answer it - I wouldn't know how!!!

Regards,

Courtney

[Engines]

HH, Courtney and others

Sorry to you if I wasn't clear - my comment was aimed those who inferred that LM had 'got the design all wrong' in terms of wheel to hook distance - they designed a hook system that met all the USN design guidelines and requirements (with the active involvement of the USN experts) but, as you correctly point out, it failed on initial tests.

My 'take' is that they will fix the issue with the point redesign and changes to the damper - but if those don't work, LM are on the 'hook' (sorry) to fix it. My guess for any next step would be some sort of extending hook system. that gets a greater wheel to hook point distance. The challenge they face is that there is not much structure back there to hang a hook from without getting it close under the end of the jetpipe.

Actually, the statement 'it's only a hook and we''ve been building them for years' might be a bit simplistic. First, this is an arresting hook system for use on board ships, not the simple emergency systems fitted to some jets - it's a complex and highly loaded piece of design, and the basic challenge is non-trivial. On top of that, this one has to be fully retractable inside a set of LO doors - that added another layer of challenges. Add in whipping wires and a very variable set of engagement conditions, and you have a complicated problem. As I've already sort of said, just because something looks simple doesn't mean it is.

Bottom line - LM will fix it because they have to. And the USN will make sure that they get it right.

Best Regards as ever to those who do the trapping

Engines

[LowObservable]

Bevo - Good stuff.

Personally I have never been too sure where the line lies between "LO" and "VLO", let alone "ELO", which I dislike because it gets "Mr Blue Sky" stuck in my head for an hour.

I think LMT and other JSF fans like to give the impression that the F-35 is exactly like the F-22, which it most probably is not. (Exhausts for instance, not to mention the lumpy Rosie-O'Donnell-in-yoga-pants lower-aft view.) And neither is going to be like a flying wing with nary a single part that it smaller than a VHF wavelength.

Hooks and why it got that way: I wonder if there was a standard-minimum mainwheel-axle-to-hook-tip distance? Hooks are called "tailhooks" for a reason and were traditionally attached to the aftmost end of the load-bearing structure. This naturally gave you the right answer on a twin, with a keel between the engines, and (before JSF) the last Navy singles were the T-45 and A-7 - with the T-45 hook attached behind the ventral fin.

I suspect they'd have had problems with the A-12, had they got that far:

http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/modernplanes/general-dynamics/general_dynamics_a_12_avenger-20112.jpg

They have had problems with the X-47B, but tinkering with the hook point worked.

On the F-35C, the significance of two factors: the mainwheels far aft, and the last full-depth bulkhead far forward (because F-35B), seems to have been missed. After one try, they may be down to the last not-horribly-expensive solution.

The next step might be Engines' extensible hook, but I suspect at that point that the Rhino-Growler Mafia will grab the C's collar in one hand, and their Winchester in the other, and head for the back of the barn.

[JSFfan]

"I think LMT and other JSF fans like to give the impression that the F-35 is exactly like the F-22, which it most probably is not."

no one I've seen said that..it's been the f-35 is second lowest LO to the f-22 being first...got a link to where LMT said it, or are you making it up through a vivid imagination?

[Bevo]

Personally I have never been too sure where the line lies between "LO" and "VLO", let alone "ELO", which I dislike because it gets "Mr Blue Sky" stuck in my head for an hour.
Agreed. Interestingly not too long ago (maybe still) it was considered classified to use the term ELO to describe a platform even though there was no open source definition of that term.

I think LMT and other JSF fans like to give the impression that the F-35 is exactly like the F-22, which it most probably is not. (Exhausts for instance, not to mention the lumpy Rosie-O'Donnell-in-yoga-pants lower-aft view.) And neither is going to be like a flying wing with nary a single part that it smaller than a VHF wavelength. You are correct. The F-35 all-aspect numbers are not as good as the F-22.

[Courtney Mil]

Engines,

Yes, I'm with all that. My comment about building hooks was aimed at 'proper hooks' like the F-4 etc. I remember my disappointment when I saw what they'd glued onto the back end of the F3. Mind you, the weak point there wasn't the hook, it was the rear fuselage, a point you make well in this context.

Courtney

[Courtney Mil]

You are correct. The F-35 all-aspect numbers are not as good as the F-22.

Quite, and we won't know completely how much different until the mods are complete (F-35C hook for example as well as internals) and someone can jack the final thing up in an anechoic chamber to measure it.

[cuefaye]

jack the final thing up in an anechoic chamber to measure it.


Which probably won't be done. And if it was, would be an inconclusive exercise.

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, you may well be right. But it would be mainly too late.

[SpazSinbad]

'PhillipG' & 'Courtney Mil' it does seem odd that thus far you both have chosen to ignore the success of the interim redesign tests of the F-35C hook, as outlined in this thread. Yes the redesigned damper needs to be tested WITH the redesigned successful hook. However success is success. Here is another snippet...

LM F-35 Fast Facts 31 May 2012 (unpublished)
“CF-3 performed a total of 18 success-ful roll-in arrestments [MK-7 (6 with risers & 4 with no risers) & E-28 (8 arrestments)] at Lakehurst from 80 to 100 knots ground speed....” (risers in this context would be the gizmos wot keep the wire off the deck/ground so in four MK-7 cases the wire was flat on the ground)

[Engines]

Courtney,

Excellent point well made - there is a whole world of difference between the F-4's hook system (stressed and designed for repeated engagements in a wide variety of attitudes, and able to be repeatedly raised and lowered) and the F3's emergency 'one time only' design. You also make the excellent point that you need a fair bit of structure in the aft fuselage to react all those hook loads back into the airframe.

LO, the aft frame location on the F-35 wasn't driven by the F-35B variant. It was driven by the need to develop a single common airframe layout for all three variants, at the lowest possible weight. The main aft frame also carries landing gear loads as well as engine thrust loads, plus taking the rear wing spar. That's a common arrangement these days.

No, there wasn't a standard-minimum wheel to hook distance. And tail hooks are attached to end of a load bearing structure that is specifically designed to take tail hook loads. That structure only exists to take the hook loads, and it's usually massive. F-35C is no exception, with many hundreds of pounds of extra metal down aft for that very reason. The keel between the engines on twin engined designs like F-18 was only there to take the hook loads - that's why Courtney's point about the F3 is well made - the F3 really didn't have much of a 'keel' because it didn't need one.

By the way, as massive as the structure is to handle the hook loads, it's as nothing compared to the tons of metal needed to handle catapult loads - but's that's another story....

I was involved with the T-45, and I can tell you that the additional longerons needed to handle the hook loads were very, very substantial. BAE couldn't use a single keel beam because of the engine removal panel.

The point I'm trying to get across is that this deck landing business is hard, and the systems and solutions needed to do it reliably and safely are hard to design. No, really hard. LM very clearly did not get this hook system right first time - but my bet is that they'll fix it.

Hope this helps

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 JSF Testers Report Progress, Problems By Guy Norris, Graham Warwick — With Amy Butler & Bill Sweetman in Washington; Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology; January 21, 2013

F-35 JSF Testers Report Progress, Problems (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article/PrintArticle.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_21_2013_p26-537603.xml&p=1&printView=true)

"...A new tailhook for the CV will undergo its critical design review within a month and is scheduled to be installed in test aircraft at Pax River by yearend. After the F-35C had problems catching the arrester cables, the hook point, shank and dampers were redesigned. The concept was demonstrated last August [2012] at NAS Lakehurst, N.J., when aircraft CF-3 made five successful engagements, McFarlan says....

...Ground and flights tests have demonstrated that the stealthy F-35’s radar signature is meeting design requirements, says McFarlan. “We have shown that if the aircraft passes the test in the [anechoic] chamber, it will pass in flight,” he says. “We are now in the mode of showing we can maintain the [low-observable] characteristics after a year in flight.”...

...Recent test highlights include hovering the F-35B for 10 min. “It was record, hovering at max performance with more than 5,000 pounds of fuel before doing a vertical landing,” he says. “We have done a lot of night flying to understand the helmet and DAS [distributed aperture system], and done night hovering as well.”..."

[SpazSinbad]

Talking Stealth: USAF Pushes for 5th to 4th 'Gateway' 09 May 2013 Amy Butler

Talking Stealth: USAF Pushes for 5th to 4th 'Gateway' (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a4ac8bd74-d81d-49c6-8c8d-ad28e0b566ae)

"USAF officials are preparing by year’s end to begin flight testing of a communications gateway technology designed to solve the vexing problem of allowing stealthy aircraft to communicate with legacy fighters, though they operate using different protocols....

...Because the gateway aircraft will host all of the 5th to 4th components, engineers do not envision having to add equipment onto fighter aircraft. This was a primary goal , as adding any antennas onto the F-22 or F-35 without compromising their radar evading qualities could prove troublesome and costly...."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/JETPack5thTo4th-USAF.jpg

http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/JETPack5thTo4th-USAF.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

The point I'm trying to get across is that this deck landing business is hard, and the systems and solutions needed to do it reliably and safely are hard to design. No, really hard. LM very clearly did not get this hook system right first time - but my bet is that they'll fix it.

Absolutely, Engines. I agree.

[SpazSinbad]

Navy carrier jets 'can't land in hot weather' 10 May 2013 Nick Hopkins

Navy carrier jets 'can't land in hot weather' | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/10/navy-jets-cant-land-hot-weather)

"Report warns of problems with Joint Strike Fighter and exposes costs of MoD U-turns.

The hi-tech jets that will be flown from the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers cannot land on the ships in "hot, humid and low pressure weather conditions", a report warns today.

The version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) that has been bought for the £5.5bn carriers is still in development but currently cannot land vertically – as its predecessor the Harrier jump jet could – in warm climates without jettisoning heavy payloads, the National Audit Office says.

Though the Ministry of Defence insists the problem will be overcome by the time the first carrier is ready for service in 2020, it is one of a number of concerns pointed out by the NAO over a project that has been bedevilled by delays and cost increases....

...Other hurdles must also be overcome, the NAO states, including the landing difficulties. "The STOVL is unable to land vertically on to a carrier in hot, humid and low pressure weather conditions without having to jettison heavy loads. The department advised decision makers of this risk but stated the solution it is developing will be ready by 2020."..."
_________________

UK Watchdog: Faulty Data Drove F-35 Choices for New Carriers 09 May 2012 ANDREW CHUTER

UK Watchdog: Faulty Data Drove F-35 Choices for New Carriers | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130509/DEFREG01/305090014)
_____________________________

Carrier Strike: The 2012 reversion decision 10 May 2013
The MOD acted promptly to revert to the decision to buy the vertical take-off version of the Joint Strike Fighter but will have to manage significant risks

Carrier Strike: The 2012 reversion decision | National Audit Office (http://www.nao.org.uk/report/carrier-strike-the-2012-reversion-decision/)

Downloads:
• Executive Summary (pdf - 117KB)
http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/10149-001-Carriers.Executive-summary.pdf

• Full Report (pdf - 332KB)
http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/10149-001-Carrier.full-report.pdf

[ORAC]

As I was saying concerning the issue of linking the F-35 to other types, and the ground, see the link below. You might squeeze it into MASC, but the LOS won't be great and there will be weight issues when MIDS/JTRS is added. The other options of a Global Hawk or new type compound the costs.

Talking Stealth: USAF Pushes for 5th to 4th 'Gateway (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:4ac8bd74-d81d-49c6-8c8d-ad28e0b566ae)

[SpazSinbad]

'ORAC': Same info with a pic no less BTM of previous page:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-116.html#post7834762

[ORAC]

I'll leave my post as the comment stands. What, when and how much? Can you take the F-35 into a mixed type/SAW environment until it can crosstalk?

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz,

Goodness, you're quick off the mark with the news! Fortunately for the programme, the NAO, IMHO, is good at stating the bleedin' obvious when it's all way too late. At least the report brings more of the issues we've seen being discussed here out into the open and more in the public eye.

In response, the MoD here have stated that they do not support the timelines in the report and that they will have it all operational by the end of the decade, or something along those lines.

[SpazSinbad]

From the main NAO PDF report there is this quote:

"...3.10 An important enabler of the UK’s STOVL Carrier Strike capability will be the ability to conduct Ship-borne Rolling Vertical Landings (SRVL). This landing technique will be necessary where a conventional vertical landing is less likely to be possible without jettisoning large weapons or fuel load when in hot, humid or low pressure weather conditions. [East of Suez when youse fall off the edge - there be dragons?] At present the technology is not proven with redesigns required to the carrier deck and aircraft software. The capability will be required for operations by 2020 and the Department included a provision to complete development as part of the cost of reverting to STOVL. The Department is confident it will develop the technique within the required timescale...."

I have seen many references to "East of Suez" and "hot humid conditions" in reference to the apparent inability of F-35B to do VLs according to KPP requirement (hence SRVL). [Otherwise for purposes of the KPP the F-35B does meet the requirements.] It seems to me that everyone in the UK knows what the temperature referred to means - would someone let me know what these 'East of Suez' conditions are please? All temps etc. would be at sea level or whatever deck height for CVF is appropriate. Thanks.

[Courtney Mil]

I'd never really thought about it before, Spaz, but had always assumed it was a rather vague expression to mean the hot places in the Empire once you get to the Middle East and beyond. I don't think it refers to a specific set of conditions, it's not an ICAO standard. At least, I don't think it is.

[eaglemmoomin]

I remember seeing something about 50 degrees (can't remember where) I've no idea if that was Celcius or Farenheit which seemed plenty hot enough for a VL with VL bring back muntions and fuel.

[Stitchbitch]

I seem to remember another hovvering war budgie that couldn't VL with stores in the heat. Not until it was upgraded. And then sold off.:E

QQ still have the VAAC Harrier if the navy needs to trial RVL'ing? :ok:

[SpazSinbad]

Some 'old' VLBB F-35B info with temps and current KPP with old 2002 conjecture below...

Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — April 2008

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html (0.3Mb)

"The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 [now 600] foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) & with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile = ["...2,200 lbs of fuel for an approach, vertical landing, and reserve (Killea) see below]."
_______________

The STOVL Variant of Joint Strike Fighter: Are its’ Tactical Compromises Warranted? Written by: Captain G.M. Beisbier, 01 March 2002

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA496827&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf (54Kb)

“...STOVL JSF DESIGN REQUIREMENTS [pages 5-6]
The design requirements for the STOVL JSF mandated a Vertical Lift Bring Back (VLBB) capability of 5,000lbs of fuel and ordnance on a tropical day. The STOVL JSF’s empty gross weight is 29,735 lbs, and it is equipped with a lift fan design capable of producing 39,800 lbs of vertical lift at sea level on a tropical day. An ability to produce 39,800lbs of thrust minus 29,735 lbs gross weight and 3,000 lbs of thrust to safely maneuver the aircraft equals 7,065 lbs of VLBB. As a result the STOVL JSF thirty percent more VLBB then the requirements document mandated (Killea). This means in a worst case, sea-based scenario the STOVL JSF is more than capable of conducting a vertical landing with 4,000 lbs, vise 2,000 lbs, ordnance, plus two 325-lb radar missiles, and 2,200 lbs of fuel for an approach, vertical landing, and reserve (Killea)....”
__________________________

Graphic from: Strike Fighter – From a Harrier Skeptic Captain A.R. Behnke, Mar 2002

http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada520417.pdf (129Kb) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_HarrierSkepticF-35Bkpp2002detailsBehnkeEDs.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/HarrierSkepticF-35Bkpp2002detailsBehnkeEDs.gif.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35bSTOVLloadLessED.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35bSTOVLloadLessED.gif.html)

[CoffmanStarter]

Interesting piece from British Forces News ...

Abandoned plans to switch the fighter aircraft for the Royal Navy's new carriers will cost taxpayers £74 million, according to a public spending watchdog.

More here ...

BFBS News (http://www.bfbs.com/news/uk/jet-fighter-u-turn-cost-taxpayers-%25C2%25A374m-63522.html)

Just love this phrase/quote from the article ...

Although the department "acted quickly" once it had realised the problems with switching, the decision made in the defence review was based on "immature data and flawed assumptions", and the subsequent work cost about £74 million, the National Audit Office (NAO) said.

When I was responsible for multi £m projects in the Private Sector I would have been sacked for even thinking of using those lines as an excuse :suspect:

[Engines]

Guys,

Perhaps I can help here on the subject of STOVL bringback.

This has always been a KPP for the F-35B, set so as to stress the STOVL design. The KPP was framed as a requirement to carry out a VL to a ship with a full internal payload of 2 1000lb JDAMs and 2 AIM-120, plus enough fuel to carry out a full IMC circuit and landing.

There are a number of conditions that apply to the calculation of the actual 'VLBB' value, not least the required operating temperature and pressure limits. I can't remember the actual figures (sorry Spaz), but the JSF JORD (which the UK signed up to) used a US Mil Spec definition of a 'tropical day'. That applies to this day, and the F-35B must be able to achieve a VLBB with the specified load on that 'hot day'. The actual VLBB number, though, has changed with changes to a number of other design parameters.

The VLBB target is actually pretty tough, as it also makes a number of pessimistic (or realistic, depending on your point of view) assumptions about achieved engine thrust and weigh growth.

However, in around 2002, the UK requested that LM look at the effect on VLBB when operating at even higher temperatures (and lower pressures), such as those that had been experienced in the Gulf in summer. These studies showed that there would be a shortfall in VLBB when operating outside the requirement, and the studies into SRVL started in around 2003.

So, the F-35B can do a VL with stores 'in the heat'. It just can't do it in 'even more heat'. In those extreme cases, the SRVL is being worked on as a solution, and in my view it's a sensible idea. the F-35B has outstandingly clever and effective control systems that give it very good handling qualities throughout the envelope right through transition, unlike the Harrier. It's also got a decent set of brakes. (again unlike the Harrier) Early assessments by the TPs were quite positive, and indicated a good increase in bring back for quite modest speeds over the deck, especially when the ship supplied a bit of WOD.

Hope this helps

Best regards as ever

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks 'Engines'. I have not followed the minutiae of eventual CVF and F-35B selection over the last decade, so a lot of terms, perhaps common to UKers, escape me. Onesuch is 'KUR' - I think that term can be found on the 'Beedall' CVF website; and I will follow that up. Anyhoo here are some temperatures defined:

"There are four specific "non-standard" atmospheric models that are defined in MIL-STD-210A. They each have their own temperature vs altitude profiles, but at sea-level:
(US, 1962)
Standard : 59 deg F
"Cold" : -60.0 def F
"Polar" : -15.7 deg F
"Tropical": 89.8 deg F
"Hot" : 103.0 deg F
____________________________

Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)
Queen Elizabeth Class Part 4

Navy Matters | Future Aircraft Carrier Part 4 (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-04.htm)

"Key User Requirements
Nine top-level Key User Requirements (KURs) for CVF have been laid out, which define the capabilities required. They are as follows:
- KUR 1, Interoperability: CVF shall be able to contribute to joint/combined operations;
- KUR 2, Integration: CVF shall be able to integrate with the joint battlespace to the extent required to support air group operations, command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) functions and survivability;
- KUR 3, Availability: CVF shall be able to provide one operational and available platform at all times;
- KUR 4, Deployability: CVF shall be able to deploy for operations worldwide;
- KUR 5, Sustainability: CVF shall be able to sustain operations;
- KUR 6, Aircraft operation: CVF shall be able to deploy offensive air power to the sortie-generation profile specified without host-nation support;
- KUR 7, Survivability: CVF shall be able to achieve a high probability of survival;
- KUR 8, Flexibility: CVF shall be able to operate the largest possible range of aircraft; and
- KUR 9, Versatility: CVF shall be able to operate in the widest possible range of roles.

Each of these is supported in more detail by a series of so-called user requirements documents (URDs), and there are typically 10 of these per KUR.

A solution is developed which meets each of these URDs but, almost invariably, the result is too expensive or too difficult to achieve. It is the responsibility of the IPT, in conjunction with the customer and the supply chain, to examine these capability requirements and seek a solution that would measure trade-offs, and meets the available budget. This is necessarily an iterative and lengthy process, requiring both analysis and synthesis of a complex set of variables...."

[dat581]

A quick question: If the F35B is used at a high operational tempo in a theatre so hot as to require SRVL's how long are the brakes going to last? How easy is it to change the brake pads? Can it be done easily with out removing the main wheels to do it or will the aircraft need to be struck down to the hanger deck and jacked up and have a fresh pair of wheels with new pads swapped in taking a fair bit of down time to do?

[SpazSinbad]

'dat581' on another thread this reply by 'Engines' seems to be a good one (carbon brakes etc.) although your other concerns not answered:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-31.html#post7160694

I'll guess that earlier concerns in 2010-11 have been fixed? Lots of aircraft at Eglin AFB now with no concerns about wet runways voiced so far....

DOD PROGRAMS F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) page 6

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/pdf/dod/2011f35jsf.pdf

"... - The program previously discovered deficient aircraft braking performance during landing on wet runway surfaces. The program tested new brake control unit hardware and software intended to improve performance. The program accelerated testing of the capability to stop the aircraft after landing on wet runway surfaces to 2011 to support the military flight release for aircraft ferried to the training center [Eglin AFB coastal subtropical wetness?]. Changes to the wheel brake controller improved this capability, but the program has not determined if the deficiency is resolved. Effective use of the latest design depends on the adequacy of simulations used to train pilots in maintaining directional control while activating differential braking. This requires precise control of brake pedal deflection, [twas ever thus - try braking an A4G on a wet 6,000 foot runway] which will be difficult if not impossible during non-instrumented flight...."

[SpazSinbad]

Stealth coatings on F-35 'easier to maintain' than on older jets 10 May 2013 Dave Majumdar

Stealth coatings on F-35 'easier to maintain' than on older jets (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/stealth-coatings-on-f-35-easier-to-maintain-than-on-older-jets-385731/)

"US Air Force maintenance troops working on the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter at Eglin AFB, Florida, say the stealth coatings on the new fifth-generation type are proving easier to work on than those on earlier low-observable (LO) platforms.

Maintaining the LO coatings on the new aircraft marks "a significant improvement", says Senior Master Sgt Eric Wheeler, a maintainer assigned to the 33rd Fighter Wing at the base. "Typically, [it] has not caused us a whole lot of downtime on this jet."...

...One significant recent development at Eglin AFB is that the maintenance is upgrading the autonomic logistics information system (ALIS) version 1.03 with the delivery of the base's first Block 2A configuration F-35.

The new system, which is also being used at MCAS Yuma in Arizona, Edwards AFB in California and Nellis AFB, Nevada, is able to handle classified data, unlike the older ALIS version."

[dat581]

The real test for the stealth coatings is when the F35B or F35C deploy for an extended period at sea. Super Hornets come back looking very shabby after a long deployment but seem to handle it better than the Hornets do. The Tomcats looked even worse. Don't know if it's better paint or better airframe materials in the Supers.

[peter we]

If the F35B is used at a high operational tempo in a theatre so hot as to require SRVL's how long are the brakes going to last?

They will be required to stop about 20tonnes at about 60mph. How long to truck or car brakes last? They are designed to work at three times that speed so will be under-stressed.

SRVL is also an emergency/exceptional use not standard operating.

[BBadanov]

Don't know if it's better paint or better airframe materials in the Supers.

I guess the Supers do have an improved finish, and probably other enhancements.

[SpazSinbad]

For 'dat581' as indicated earlier the stealth coatings are baked on and ruggedised already for sea / deck conditions...

Lockheed Gives a Peek at New JSF Stealth Material Concept by Amy Butler May/17/2010

Lockheed Gives a Peek at New JSF Stealth Material Concept (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253Ac61d80df-a87d-4909-8ae9-5b80e3609ae1)

"It is called "fiber mat," and Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is "the single, biggest technological breakthrough we've had on this program." He says that a new process to blend stealth qualities into composite material avoided the need for stealthy appliqués and coatings. Using a new process, Lockheed officials are curing the stealthy, fiber mat substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Burbage. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with Aviation Week in Fort Worth. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs. The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds. Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified...."

[dragartist]

Whenthese LO coatings get maintained (touched up or resprayed) do they need tocheck the RCS? I can imagine the porous nature picking up dirt (hence theshabby looking frames after a long detachment) this dirt probably carbon/ sootmust have an effect on the RCS.

[PhilipG]

SRVL is also an emergency/exceptional use not standard operating.
I am confused, as I understood it the B has to be able to land vertically with 2,000 of bombs and 2 AMRAAMs stowed internally, together with a specified amount of fuel.
I understood the RN/MoD did not think that it was a good move to have to dump such weapons systems as Storm Shadow, if it had not been safe or necessary to use the weapon, thinking that it weighs in at 2,700 lb, just about the total designed bring back weight for a VL.
It thus seems very sensible for the RN/RAF F35B force to be trained in SRVL, as well as having the deck layout of the QEC Carriers designed for it.
What the USMC is going to do with the unexpended ordnance is a question for them, without ski jumps of course the USMC aircraft cannot take off with as many weapons as the UK aircraft, so possibly it is not so much of an issue for them..

[dat581]

How did the A4G hold up at sea Spaz? I've never seen a photo of a RAN Skyhawk looking shabby.

[Engines]

dat581:

Perhaps I can help. The F-35's brakes are designed against a fairly tough set of requirements for repeated conventional touchdowns at high weights at very high ambient temperatures. That drove in some fairly massive brake units and wheels, which were revisited during the weight reduction studies, but still left as very substantial units. F-35B has always had slightly smaller brakes to save weight.

During the first SRVL studies in 2003, I remember that braking performance was looked at. The wheel and brake units were never an issue, as peter we quite correctly points out. The bigger issue was wet decks, which were being carefully analysed a while back. The modern computer controlled brake units offer very good performance, once the software is tuned, but there will be extensive trials before the aircraft gets anywhere near a deck.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

'dragartist' which aircraft do you refer to in your post?

If I can make a comparison to A4G brakes (quite good really but had to be controlled precisely with toe differential braking rudder pedals) with Sea Venom brakes. It was easy to burst a tyre (depending on tyre pressure) in the A4G. A4G tyre pressures doubled for embarked ops; when ashore from the deck things could be tricky (when working up for example [carqual]). Like most high pressure tyre aircraft it was also easy to aquaplane on water covered runways in an A4G - the wing spoilers were useful of course but if forgotten during first runway landing from embarked ops (not used on deck) then things got tricky quickly depending on w/x.

The Sea Venom had Girling Maxaret Brakes. These were excellent in any circumstance I encountered - but never embarked - the Venom was at the end of days when I flew them (second last RAN FAA sortie ever) only ashore. Sorties were banner tow, Delmar Target Tow and other Fleet Support with a bunch of sorties against A4G OFS students (as an aggressor) or whatever. I'm guessing the F-35s will have equivalent anti-lock capabilities for excellent brake performance.
_______________

'dat581' if you download the different sized examples of PDFs online you will see 'shabby A4Gs'.

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791

The early A4Gs had original dull paintwork that caught all the oil/hydraulic leaks and whatnots. However this original paintwork (anti glint) was not hard wearing so gradually the paint was changed with bits being painted in gloss to stop the paint peeling off. By the time the second batch of second hand A-4Fs converted to A4Gs arrived in their high gloss paint scheme it was decided this was the way to go. The high gloss paint was rugged (compared to dull) and it resisted the oil/hydraulic leak stains. They could still look shabby - especially underneath when embarked. Or when in later years when 'tram tracks' installed aft of the island so that A4Gs were parked their during landing ops, the funnel gas would quickly corroded the paint finish. Have a look at 'A-4 Alley Photos' for this especially:

The A-4 Alley - RAN A-4 Skyhawk Operations 1968-1984 (http://a4-alley.x90x.net/A4-Alley/RAN-Skyhawks.html)

http://a4-alley.x90x.net/A4-Alley/RAN/Images/A-4G-882-tramtracks.JPG

"“Down chains, off brakes, come ahead slowly !” Newly promoted LEUT ‘Bruiser’ Baddams RAN nervously applies generous throttle to get N13-154903 (side number 882) rolling forward as the ship (HMAS ‘Melbourne’ CVS-21) starts a roll to stbd, threatening to tip his lightly loaded (note the lack of external fuel tanks or armament) a/c backwards over the side. That single white line the a/c’s nosewheel is about to cross is the flight deck safety line (the edge of the landing path visible to the upper right), illustrating how narrow the ship’s flight deck was and just how far the WIDE wingspan of the RAN’s twin prop S-2G Tracker ASW a/c reached …That’s why the ship was modified to add what we called the ‘tram tracks’ jutting out over the ship’s side. These allowed a number of Skyhawks to be parked along (over) the ship’s side aft of the ‘island’ … which is also why they ended-up with that curious (and hopelessly ineffective) yellow paint all over their leading edges, as may be seen on 882). It probably also accounts for why 882 has another a/c’s nose cone … the ‘control’ part of corrosion control was almost non-existent aboard ship. (Text and Picture Laurie Hillier)."
_______________________

For 'Engines' the original "Spastic" Al Hickling is in the A4G overhead whilst that other lad is pretending to YAK (and he is 6 foot - to qualify for the 'six foot yak') on the radio:

http://a4-alley.x90x.net/A4-Alley/RAN/Images/PJT&A4GbeecroftRange.jpg

[peter we]

I understood the RN/MoD did not think that it was a good move to have to dump such weapons systems as Storm Shadow, if it had not been safe or necessary to use the weapon, thinking that it weighs in at 2,700 lb, just about the total designed bring back weight for a VL.

VLBB is about 4-5000lb. Which covers most the short range stuff you may have to return

You are not going to change your mind about firing a cruise missile, it can be re-targeted in difficult to perceive probability that it becomes unsafe to do so in the hour after leaving the carrier.

Most of the reasons to bring it back would be mechanical issues with the F-35. So give a 10% turnback rate during the life time (10years?) of the 900 Storm Shadows in UK, 99 would have to be returned to ship by SRVL.
Assuming all are fired from the F-35 (they won't) and all have to be returned during a hot day (most/all will be at night).

SRVL is a very nice to have - its not an obstacle or disadvantage. It just about closes the gap with the F-35C which can bring back 9klb and its more than the F-18 (7klb?).

[downsizer]

Never mind bringing back a stormshadow, they need to be integrated with the F35 and I've heard that isn't funded.....:bored:

[LowObservable]

The theory is that you seldom bring back a Storm Shadow, because the CONOPS is such that you don't take off with it unless you are going to use it. It's not like you're going to loiter around waiting for a bunker 200 miles away to pop up.

FiberMat - This is much misunderstood. AFAIK it replaces part of the stealth surface treatment - a conductive layer that deals with surface currents, which can otherwise cause scattering in undesirable directions. There are still spray-on coatings, aperture edge treatments and (most likely) RAS edges on the wings and empennage.

The other innovation is a RAM that has the same kind of base as helicopter blade anti-erosion coatings. That's the stuff (I believe) that is supposed to be damage-resistant and damage-tolerant.

[Backwards PLT]

Ellamy proved that there will be times when you bring back Stormshadow - more so in this brave new world.

I agree with downsizer - we need to worry about getting it on the jet before we worry about getting it off!

Also, it is hard to think of a scenario where our mighty "carrier strike" force of 12 JSF (how many of those will be doing fleet defence?) would be fighting that type of war without land based support. I would suggest getting more capability out of TLAM would be a better use of resources.

[JSFfan]

From what I've read, the radar/rcs reduction is mostly within the composite and bog, the spray coats mostly cover other parts of the spectrum, including IR.

[Courtney Mil]

how many of those will be doing fleet defence?

With two AMRAAMs, I would hope quite a lot.

[JSFfan]

Gee the budget must be tight if the UK can only afford to put 2 missiles on for air defence

[alfred_the_great]

Having read the NAO report; if the F35 is cancelled, then the RAF is ******.

[Courtney Mil]

Re the LO coating, LO (if you see what I mean), the stealth layer is, more of less, an integral part of the skin structure. It's good and it's tough, but it cannot easily be repaired or (as mentioned earlier) be resprayed between sorties. Now, I'm certainly not saying that's a bad thing, it will hugely reduce routine stealth maintenance, but it does make chips a lot more difficult to blend in. As the aircraft design has ad to accept so many compromises to ensure the stealth, it means that the stealth has to be well maintained.

[JSFfan]

The package is designed to remain stealthy in severe combat conditions, and tests have validated that capability. After obtaining baseline radar cross section (RCS) measurements from a highly detailed, full-scale Signature Measurement Aircraft (SigMA), a team of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman engineers intentionally inflicted extensive damage – more than three dozen significant defects – on the model. The damage represented the cumulative effect of more than 600 flight hours of military aircraft operations. RCS measurements taken after the damage showed that the stealthy signature remained intact.

“Even operating in harsh carrier-deck conditions, the F-35C will require no special care or feeding. In fact, its stealth adds very little to the day-today maintenance equation,” O’Bryan said. “We’ve come a long way from the early stealth airplanes, which needed hours or even days of attention and repair after every flight. The F-35 not only avoids that intensive level of upkeep, it will require significantly less maintenance than the nonstealth fighters it is designed to replace.”

[SpazSinbad]

Composites Machining for the F-35 Aug? 8/3/2010 Article From: Modern Machine Shop, Peter Zelinski, Senior Editor

Composites Machining for the F-35 : CompositesWorld (http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composites-machining-for-the-f-35)

"...The F-35 features “supportable” VLO. That is, the VLO on this plane comes with very low maintenance cost. Stealth aircraft of the past couldn’t make that claim. Because radar detects sharp edges, even small mismatches between exterior parts on past VLO planes were smoothed out using epoxy. The epoxy would dry, harden and separate in the field—meaning it had to be frequently inspected and replaced.
By contrast, adjacent parts of the F-35 match so fluidly and precisely that no epoxy is needed...."
_________________

THE F-35 LOW OBSERVABILITY’S LIFELONG SUSTAINABILITY: A REVOLUTIONARY ASSET FOR 21ST CENTURY COMBAT AVIATION

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=6065

"...Performance-wise, it is a very aggressive capability. From a design standpoint, it is a radical change from legacy systems. In legacy stealth, the stealth in effect is a parasitic application of a multiple stack-up of material systems done in final finish after the actual airframe is built and completed. In the case of the F-35, we’ve incorporated much of the LO system directly into the air frame itself. The materials have been manufactured right into the structure, so they have the durability and lifetime qualities. It makes them much more impervious to damage. It is a much simpler system with fewer materials to contend with....

...From day one, the supportable LO has been a key entity on the program and has had a profound influence on the very design of the airplane. In fact, the element that is manufactured into the skin was an initiative brought about by our LO maintenance discipline....

...SLD: The F-35 program is built around global partnerships and a globally deployed capability. What is the role of partners in the LO repair facility?
Bill Grant: The partners weren’t involved from the very beginning because our technology transfer agreements didn’t permit that for a while. But as of November of 2008, they have participated in what has become a real institution here. We have quarterly two-day hands-on familiarization courses where members from maintainers from all of the services and several partners come in and get some experience with the tools and the processes affecting the restorations and the repairs. That’s been a tremendous plus in terms of their input and shaping our understanding of what works and what doesn’t work, and we’ve modified our designs and our concepts accordingly. But mostly, they’ve provided a high-level validation that these tools and processes do, in fact, work for them, for both experienced and inexperienced LO maintainers, and that it’s doable in their environment.

SLD: So a lot of the LO maintenance will be done by the services and partners in the field?
Bill Grant: Yes indeed: we have no recognized need for any kind of return to depot or return to manufacturer for doing any type of LO maintenance. Our system requirement was for end of life, which means that throughout the 8,000-hour service life of the jet, it is to remain fully mission-capable. So we anticipated that the amount of maintenance that would be done over the life of the airplane and anticipated that in the design. So when we deliver the jet, it’s delivered with a significant margin of degradation that’s allowed for all of these types of repairs over the life of the airplane, again, without having to return to the depot for refurbishment. There may be some cosmetic-based reasons why the jet might go back to a facility to get its appearance improved, but from a performance-standpoint we recognize no need to do that. The unit-level maintenance will be adequate for maintaining the full-mission capability of the jet.

SLD: In entering the facility, I noticed you have a “door mat” of stealth that’s been there for some time. Can you comment on this “door mat?”
Bill Grant: Oh, the slab of stealth? That’s our welcome mat. Yes, we actually have one of the test panels that we use for assessing the stealth of the various materials. It represents a stack-up that’s consistent with the upper surface or the outer surface of the jet. It has the exact same structure and the primer and the topcoat system that you’ll find on the operational jets. And that gets walked upon every time somebody comes in or out of our lab area out there, the repair development center.

Occasionally, we take it up to test to see if there’s any electrical or mechanical degradation to the system and with around 25,000 steps across that system we have not seen any degradation whatsoever. So we have a great deal of confidence, however anecdotal that may be, that we have a very robust system."
____________________________________

The F-35’s Race Against Time Nov 2012 By John A. Tirpak Executive Editor

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

"...The F-35’s radar cross section, or RCS, has a "maintenance margin," O’Bryan explained, meaning it’s "always better than the spec." Minor scratches and even dents won’t affect the F-35’s stealth qualities enough to degrade its combat performance, in the estimation of the company. Field equipment will be able to assess RCS right on the flight line, using far less cumbersome gear than has previously been needed to make such calculations....”
________________________________

F-35 Stealth Coatings Applied to F-22 Shane McGlaun (Blog) April 7, 2011

DailyTech - F-35 Stealth Coatings Applied to F-22 (http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Stealth+Coatings+Applied+to+F22/article21321.htm)

"..."Some of the [low observables] coatings system and gap-fillers that the F-35 had an advantage on, we have incorporated into the Raptor," said Jeff Babione, vice president & general manager of the F-22 program for Lockheed Martin. Defense News reports that Babione claims that the new coatings don’t change the radar cross section of the F-22. The coatings according to Babione are simply to reduce maintenance costs. He said, "[The F-35 program] had some more robust materials that were more durable & we were able to pull those back on to the F-22. So our system is better, & the life-cycle cost of the F-22 is reduced."..."
_________________________

USAF praises early performance of Lockheed Martin F-35 06 Nov 2012 Dave Majumdar

US Air Force praises early performance of Lockheed Martin F-35 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-praises-early-performance-of-lockheed-martin-f-35-378578/)

"...Additionally, the F-35's stealth coatings are much easier to work with than those used on the Raptor. Cure times for coating repairs are lower and many of the fasteners and access panels are not coated, further reducing the workload for maintenance crews...."

[WhiteOvies]

There are panels of various F-35 LO coatings mounted on a beach in Florida (I think) to figure out how the maritime environment affects it. Both NAS Pax River and Eglin AFB are on the coast and LO was considered during Initial Sea Trials and will be looked at again for the next trials.

I'm sure the UK maintainers in the US are getting plenty of experience on LO maintenance, although obviously don't have the background on F-22, F-117, B-2 etc of their US colleagues.

[Courtney Mil]

...but of course, it would have been a tough assignment to keep checking the samples during spring break! :cool:

[SpazSinbad]

Earlier there was a bit of info about F-35C hook being redesigned IMHO to look like an A-4 hook and that the A-4 hook had to be unsharpened every now and then (depending on what the metal to metal abrasion effect was over time) to prevent what we see in this VF-805 LineBook page highlighting a frayed no.5 wire onboard HMAS Melbourne (which had 5 arrestor wires during the A4G/S2E-G era whereas earlier in the Sea Venom Gannet era there were 6 wires with the sixth ["JC wire"] removed).

I'm sure whatever the result of the F-35C hook redesign that the USN will continue to regularly inspect all aspects of their arrestor gear / hook / aircraft combinations for any maintenance required. Text of signal seen top right of linebook page repeated:

"2. Day
K. 1. During arrested landing, hook penetrated the strands of NO 5 wire, engaging two of the six strands. Although port tyre burst on touch-down, approach and arrestment considered normal. Film of landing showed first point of contact of hook was on or very close to wire"

Click de thumbs for big pic: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_Andy5wireStrandLineBookVF805.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/Andy5wireStrandLineBookVF805.jpg.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_UnsharpenA4GhookGOTCHA.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/UnsharpenA4GhookGOTCHA.jpg.html)

[Courtney Mil]

Back to LO (LO, the poster, not the stealth feature), the point I was making is that the LO application is not just an applied layer. It's actually built into the skin structure and "baked" on in such a way that it bcomes part of the structure.

The technology is't that new, but its use in this application is. Fairly. The issue for me is that any significant damage means there is not coating to reapply, instead it is maintenance work well beyond the flight line. As I said before, the good news is that minor damage or errosion is not going to be an immediate issue for the overall RCS, although there must come a time when there will need to be a deep servicing re-application.

[Courtney Mil]

I'm sure whatever the result of the F-35C hook redesign that the USN will continue to regularly inspect all aspects of their arrestor gear / hook / aircraft combinations for any maintenance required.

Of course, that's normal practice, even for shore-based ac. This aspect of the hook saga is realy nothing new and certainly not special to the F-35, or indeed the A4. Hook shoes wear (better than the runway/deck taking all the damage) and the leading edge sharpens. They replace the hook (or, better, just the shoe) and/or extend its life by reshaping it. I'm surprised thes is seen as something new.

[SpazSinbad]

'Courtney Mil' it seems to me that your 'significant damage' needs to be somehow quantified. I'll post some info about tests which damaged the stealth coating - only to be repaired successfully with the line tools available. Text about this 'humans banging on metal' testing in earlier posts.

My apologies URL for the PDF omitted inadvertantly earlier.
LINK for the PDF below [whence came graphic]: http://www.box.com/shared/3uo7o5qt25e2x6ylc294

navyleague2008PDF.pdf (3.2Mb) Created by (ELP) Eric Palmer 18 Jan 2012 FREE download

Click the thumbnail: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_ELPramF-35repairTolerance.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/ELPramF-35repairTolerance.gif.html)
________________

And 'Courtney Mil' "...I'm surprised thes is seen as something new." What does surprise you then? How to spell 'this'?

[JSFfan]

Spaz, this is about your pic....they say that represents 600 flight hours and with the damage not repaired, the RCS signature was up to spec
"The package is designed to remain stealthy in severe combat conditions, and tests have validated that capability. After obtaining baseline radar cross section (RCS) measurements from a highly detailed, full-scale Signature Measurement Aircraft (SigMA), a team of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman engineers intentionally inflicted extensive damage – more than three dozen significant defects – on the model. The damage represented the cumulative effect of more than 600 flight hours of military aircraft operations. RCS measurements taken after the damage showed that the stealthy signature remained intact. "and it is further said from your link
So when we deliver the jet, it’s delivered with a significant margin of degradation that’s allowed for all of these types of repairs over the life of the airplane, again, without having to return to the depot for refurbishment. There may be some cosmetic-based reasons why the jet might go back to a facility to get its appearance improved, but from a performance-standpoint we recognize no need to do that. The unit-level maintenance will be adequate for maintaining the full-mission capability of the jet.

CM, instead of guessing or making up what you want it to be, why don't you read up on it?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Gee Spaz..using Eric Palmer as a source? :eek:

[SpazSinbad]

'FoxTrotAlpha18' I digest information from any source. :sad: :E ELP published the recent South Korean F-35 LM Brief PDF FWIW. :}

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 Flight Test Update 10 By Eric Hehs Posted 11 May 2013 [Eric Hehs is the editor of Code One.]

Code One Magazine: F-35 Flight Test Update 10 (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=116)

"...23 March 2013: BAE test pilot Peter Wilson performed the first slow landing in an F-35B with external stores. The flight— BF-1 loaded with a centerline gun pod and six wing pylons, including two pylons loaded with AIM-9X missiles —occurred at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland...."

BIG PHOTO: (just before touchdown?) Photo by Andy Wolfe
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/F35_FTU_20130323_SL_loads_13P00105_12_1267828237_8310.jpg

Click Thumbnail (for cropped version): http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F35_FTU_20130323_SL_loads_13P00105_12_1267828237_8310crop .jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F35_FTU_20130323_SL_loads_13P00105_12_1267828237_8310crop.jp g.html)

[SpazSinbad]

From ELP PDF F-35 Korean Brief mentioned below.... F-35C 'A-4 like' New Hook Shape about to catch wire? Youse be the judge.

F-16.net (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17532.html) (2Mb PDF) [usual 'blagspat' hoohaa substitution required]
OR
http://elpdefensenews.********.com.au/2013/05/the-lastest-lm-f-35-marketing-spin-for.html

Click thumbnail: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35CnewHookShapePerhaps.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35CnewHookShapePerhaps.jpg.html)

[glad rag]

So after millions of bucks they have "almost but not quite" copied an older design??

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7010901248/h8F893211/

I guess you can only reinvent the wheel so many times...

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz,

I think your graphic may have come from the PR machine, SLD. Nothing wrong with that as long as we understand the caveats. But I don't think the representation of 600 hours of flight time is ready yet to demonstrate the required 8,000 hrs requirement without return to depot or manufacturer. A long way to go yet.

Scratches an damaged seals happen a lot on all airframes - these are the common, minor injuries that must be maintainable at first line. Larger impact injuries (say, hail stones, debris kicked up from the deck, cable breaks or even lesser battle damage) that get deeper into the structure MAY be a different matter and that's what I was interested in discussing. If such damage were to be repairable on board, in structural terms, my interest is whether those repairs would also be able to maintain the overall RCS.

As an aside, the business of repairing, for example, bird strike damage involves significantly different challenges for all composite structures, not just those belonging to the F-35. The need to maintain the LO qualities simply add an additional dimension.

Again, though, what is impressive is the aircraft's tollerance of minor damage and routine wear and tear. It certainly makes for a very tough surface.

Incidentally, it looks more like it's just missed the wire than about to engage it. But it's only one frame, I'll grant you.

[SpazSinbad]

'Courntney Mil' said: "I think your graphic may have come from the PR machine, SLD..."

My apologies - URL for the PDF omitted inadvertantly in the earlier post.

navyleague2008PDF.pdf (3.2Mb) Created by (ELP) Eric Palmer 18 Jan 2012 FREE download

LINK for the PDF - whence came graphic: http://www.box.com/shared/3uo7o5qt25e2x6ylc294

[SpazSinbad]

This wonderful weird world awaits the F-35C at some stage (with some earlier rollin tests with redesigned F-35C hook specific info [already posted via another report on this thread AFAIK])....

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2012 Issue

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=670 (2Mb PDF)

[F-35C] MISSION SYSTEMS AIRCRAFT (page 24)
"...CF-3 [F-35C] returned to Patuxent River after completing final finishes in Fort Worth in early March [2012] and continues to perform F-35C mission systems testing, as well as ship suitability events.... ...A tailhook dynamics evaluation was conducted while performing cable roll-overs and roll-in arrestments at NAS Patuxent River and NAES Lakehurst. A new hook point design was validated at speeds up to 100 knots, trapping on each attempt...."

SHAKE, RATTLE, AND ROLL TESTING (page 20) LT Matthew "Brasso" Davin
VX-23 Ship Suitability performs Shake, Rattle, and Roll (SRR) loads testing on aircraft, systems, and ordnance to ensure that items under test are able to withstand the high demands of shipboard flight operations. A standard "shake" includes both catapult and arresting gear tests at our unique shore based test facility. On the catapult, we build up to the maximum longitudinal acceleration and maximum off center launch bar engagement. Arrested landing tests are more challenging, and require much more difficult flying techniques.

At the arresting gear test site a shake typically begins with buildup to a high sink landing. Using a MK-8 Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (FLOLS), the glideslope is gradually increased from 3.5 degrees up to 5.5 degrees or beyond, until greater than 20 feet per second (1200 fpm!) is obtained on touchdown. A "free flight" arrestment is performed such that the hook picks up the wire before the main gear hit the deck, requiring a very shallow and precise approach. A "roll/yaw" test point is performed with greater than 5 degrees wing down and up to full opposite rudder pedal on touchdown. Maximum deceleration test points are achieved by targeting a specific ground speed, which depending on wind requires pilots to fly a non-standard angle of attack anywhere between 6 and 12 degrees. Finally, off-center test points require the pilot to target an 18 ft off-center engagement, hopefully without exceeding 20 ft off-center and downing the arresting gear...."

[LowObservable]

CM - Just to be clear: Any stealth surface treatment will have multiple layers and elements.

- conductive base level to avoid trips in the surface current
- surface absorber, possibly gradated, a dielectric absorber usually
- IR absorber, formulated to not **** up the RF characteristics
- Paint
- treatment (often a magnetic RAM) around door and control gaps
- joint sealants for joints that you don't open that much
- edge radar absorbent structure, comprising a radar-transparent skin and a gradated absorber

I have seen a B-2-related graphic showing how you have to remove seven layers of stuff in an inverse pyramid to conduct some Mx operations and then put them back and cure them, one by one. Aaargh!

I believe that the Fibermat built into the F-35 skin is the conductive bit and is separate from the absorber, which is a hard polyurethane, sprayed on by computer to very close tolerances and containing particles of Magic Disappearing Stuff.

The Fibermat may replace a layer that was sprayed on to the F-22 and had metallic content (silver?). Unfortunately, when it got wet it decided that it was a battery.

NB I have never had any kind of clearance so keep your black Omegas to yourself thank you very much

[LowObservable]

And that STOVL landing shot is a model of elegant design...

... well, compared to this it is.

http://www.afwing.com/intro/birdy/avs.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

LO,

For the stealth structure you describe the difficulty in rebuilding those layers as a repair in the field is no simple undertaking, which is part of the point I was trying to raise for discussion, so I thank you. Although any attempt at discussion here seems to prompt a barrage of quotes from the internet rather than an exchange of informed views and opinions.

LM have gone a step further by incorporating the functions of those layers into fewer, structural elements. Their concept being that real stealth is built into the aircraft, not applied to it, or some such. And they are right.

So, my interest here goes deeper. It's no longer an applied surface treatment, it's a part of the airframe structure. So, if damaged you have to do ABDR on it. And you connot simply use the method of "bond or cure" (other terms are available), you now have to know what layer to repair with what material, in layers, as you say. So homogenous patches and epoxy resin don't work anymore, even if you just want to repair the structure without worrying about the LO characteristics.

The aircraft's resitance to, and tolerance of, gouges and damaged seals, etc. is really good. I have yet to see answers to the question of more significant damage. Balistic damage being a particular issue as it's so difficult with composites even to analyse what the damage is.

[SpazSinbad]

Pardon us for being so ignorant and unhelpful. Perhaps you need to start a 'Stelf for experts' thread?

[Engines]

Courtney,

Perhaps I can help here, as I can supply some informed views.

The B-2 repair scheme LO describes is precisely what the F-35 team are moving away from. To be clear, I was never 'read' into LO while on the F-35 team, but I can confirm that the technology they are using to achieve the required level of signature while meeting the required maintenance targets is several years on from F-22 and about 20 years on from B-2, as you'd expect. I do know that they had heavy involvement from USAF, USN and USMC maintainers from the very early days of the programme on signature maintenance. That's not a guarantee that they got it all right, but they sure as hell have worked the issue. Very hard. And with money.

You are absolutely right that ABDR (as opposed to surface repairs) of an LO structure will probably present a real challenge. But, in truth, so would any 'ABDR' of a modern composite jet. In a service period of about 30 years, I saw ABDR grow massively and then fade away as the reality of trying to fix composites in the field dawned. If you have a big hole blown in an F-35, just like a Typhoon, it will be 'change the airframe part' time. If you have a small hole, my guess at the approach (and that's all it is, a guess) would be patch it, assess the signature degradation, and then allocate the aircraft to sorties that don't need the 'full monty' until you can get it back to a depot.

Courtney, you (or I) won't see any answers on details of LO signature maintenance any time soon. Sorry.

Different view of things - that shot of the F-35B slow landing looks great to me - mainly because I had the chance to work with some of the really clever Brits who have made that shot possible.

Best Regards as ever to those actually doing the work

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you, Engines. You have hit the exact points I was raising. And, yes, we shared the same concerns for composite ABDR with the Harrier and Typhoon. There, of course, we didn't face the additional challenge of maintaining the RCS. And that is my interest here.

As you rightly say, we won't see anything open source about it, but I thought it an interesting idea to to discuss - within the obvious bounds.

As to the landing, I was remarking on the engagement picture, not the B's slow landing.

[Courtney Mil]

This is a strange thing to post here, but it's a great illustration of what's involved in repairing a very simple composite aircraft structure. Try doing this whilst it's still part of the aircraft, with a much more complex stealth structure, on a ship?

This is why the question interests me..

Depot Repair - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=O06_PPc2WNo&NR=1)

[NITRO104]

Depot Repair - YouTube
Perhaps it's more efficient to just "wound" such an aircraft, instead of actually shooting it down.

[AtomKraft]

That was impressive.

Very tricky on the bench with great access and clean conditions.

Can't quite see it going so well in 'field' conditions....

[Stuffy]

??????

Time to cancel the F-35 (http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/03/time-to-cancel-the-f-35/)

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Stuffy...a two month old media report of a 6-12 month old report based on 12-18 month old information...and already discussed in length... :hmm:

[Stuffy]

I think the Senate finance committee or whatever they call themselves will have the final say.

Whether Lockheed will continue the project with the Japanese and the Europeans should prove interesting.

Challenging for the UK government if there are no aircraft for the two new carriers.

[LowObservable]

All the unbiased and objective reporting out of SLDInfo concerning a company that they advertise as their "Gold Sponsor"...

WhitePapers | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/)

... would be far more convincing had we not heard exactly the same song and dance number about the F-22, fifteen years ago, including the bit about "effects of defects", the idea of reducing the number of frequent-access panels and systems mature, and stealth MMH/FH in the low single digits.

[Stuffy]

There is always the danger that technology chases itself up it's own arse.

A balance between hi-tech and practical in the field operations?

[SpazSinbad]

F-35B performs first vertical take-off 12 May 2013 Dave Majumdar

F-35B performs first vertical take-off (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35b-performs-first-vertical-take-off-385757/)

"Sources say that test pilots at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, performed the first Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter vertical take-off on 10 May.

The US Marine Corps' short take-off and vertical landing variant had a requirement to perform vertical take-offs right from the outset of the JSF programme. However, the capability is not emphasised because the F-35B would not be able to carry a tactically significant payload in that configuration....

...The original X-35B prototype demonstrated the ability to take off vertically in 2001."

[Courtney Mil]

LO,

I remember well "exactly the same song and dance number about the F-22, fifteen years ago", although they probably had more to shout about then. But they didn't talk much about ballistic and medium structural and surface damage then either. One question that springs to mind is the difference between the complexity of repairs to significant damage to composite with mostly applied stealth and LM's new, rather better solution (even though to total RCS isn't as good).

There is a briefing on a similar subject next month, hopefully, so we may learn more.

[Bevo]

A couple of points. Comparisons to the B-2 are not very appropriate as that aircraft has coatings which have to cover a much broader frequency range than either the F-22 or F-35. The comparison to the F-22 is more appropriate and surly LM has had some time to get it much better this time.

Although penetration damage to the composite skin may be a major issue, I don’t see that occurring often enough to be an issue. I also like to see the repair processes to the seals on movable doors, such as the landing gear doors.

Does anyone know how the RN is planning to confirm on the ship that any repairs have been successful from a signature standpoint? It is very difficult to get static signature numbers with the aircraft on the deck and the gear down.

Finally, one of the issues of signature driven aircraft designs is how to dump the system heat overboard. With all access areas sealed little air flows through the structure. Early on the F-35 had heat rejection problems that required more fuel (one of the cooling mediums) be kept on the aircraft than would be required by the operational requirements. That obviously has some operational range implications.

[Courtney Mil]

All very good points, Bevo. To hit the stealth issue, first.

Comparisons to the B-2 are not very appropriate as that aircraft has coatings which have to cover a much broader frequency range than either the F-22 or F-35. The comparison to the F-22 is more appropriate and surly LM has had some time to get it much better this time.You are spot on in the sense that the F-35 stealth is targeted in a narrower waveband, specific to pre-defined threats - although there have been questions about the currency of the assumptions at the time. The threats have moved on (L band sensors in the PAK FA leading edges for example), but it would not do the programme any good to try to change the specs now or to keep changing them. It is one of the difficulties with a programme that runs so long and suffers so many delays - before the acolytes get all upset, this is nothing new to the JSF programme, it's happened many times before.

I disagree, though that we can discount penetration or ballistic damage on a warplane. It HAS to be a consideration and cannot be swept away by statements to the effect that we've tested it to 600 hours of flight time (non-combat) and put a few scratches on the surface - against 8,000 hours without being retunrned to depot or manufacturer.

Even LM's engineers cannot design into the airframe the fact that it won't be hit by anything.

You statement about measuring total RCS post-repair in the field is exactly right.

[SpazSinbad]

AFAIK (looking for online info) there is a portable field device to measure F-35 stealth. But anyhoo....

F-35 Flight Test Intentional Departure

"Published on May 13, 2013
F-35 Test Pilot Dave Nelson talks about intentional departure and recovering from stalls during F-35A high angle of attack testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Flight Test Engineer Lea Haubelt explains how the tests help define the F-35 flight control software."

F-35 Flight Test Intentional Departure - YouTube

[kbrockman]

Even LM's engineers cannot design into the airframe the fact that it won't be hit by anything.


They (LM and friends) surely seem to be betting on the idea that the F35 simply won't suffer from damage sustained during battle.
Not that the Pentagon is following the same logic;
Lockheed F-35 Should Get Safety Valve, Pentagon Official Says - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-13/lockheed-f-35-should-get-safety-valve-pentagon-official-says)
The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer is backing calls to restore a valve on Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 jet that improves the fighter’s chances to survive a hit from a high-explosive round.

Which sounds more than logical knowing that besides the normal CAS missions which where mainly performed with the F16 and F18's, the F35 also has to take over some, if not almost all, of the A10 missions.

For a program so far down the road (10+ years now) , with so many pre production, development and LRIP examples flying it certainly seems to be having issues with many very basic items.

[Lonewolf_50]

Ken, I will suggest that perhaps the A-10 mission, if it is to be taken over, will be assumed by rotary wing. There is a certain amount of doctrinal nonsense that somehow helicopter, airborne fires, don't provide close air support on the battlefield. Also, with the new guidance sysetms on weapons, that A-10 mission may not be delivered from comparatively low altitude, with a gun, should fixed wing be called on for close in fire support.

See also unmanned and armed aircraft. Reaper can bring you a 500 lb laser guided munition, among other things.

Think combined arms, in any case, and not just air superiority or purely air minded when establishing operational assumptions.

[SpazSinbad]

2-Star: Air Wing Has To Evolve 13 May 2013

2-Star: Air Wing Has To Evolve - Association of Naval Aviation in Virginia Beach, Virginia - Hampton Roads Squadron (http://hrana.org/articles/2013/05/2-star-air-wing-has-to-evolve/)

"Defense News, Navy Times’ sister publication, discussed the future of naval aviation with Rear Adm. Bill Moran, the director of air warfare, and his deputy, Rear Adm. Rich Butler. Excerpts, edited for space and clarity:...
...Q. Adm. Jon Greenert, chief of naval operations, was recently asked in the Senate what his biggest concerns are with the F-35. He said, “I need a tailhook, a helmet and a program that will deliver weapons equivalent to a Super Hornet.” Can you address those issues?

Moran. Absolutely. The tailhook had issues with snagging the arresting cable. The bottom line is that the design was flawed, so a complete redesign has been completed. A preliminary critical design is done. The engineers for the Navy have confidence in that design. We’re going to begin testing that.

Q. Is the hook being repositioned on the aircraft?

Moran. No. We changed the hold-down damper, and we changed the hook design, which previously was more of a blunt-nosed hook. It was kind of a bulbous nose and it wasn’t scooping. I know— it’s hard to defend this one.

Butler. When the [aircraft’s] wheels go over the wire, it bounces, and that bounce happened to hit right as the hook was coming over where the wire was on the deck. So it was a combination of the distance between the main mounts and the hook point, and the fact that the hook point wasn’t shaped quite right.

It wasn’t hugging the flight deck close enough...."

[Mach Two]

JSFfan, you calling Courtney Mil or anyone else a troll in this forum is a bit rich. I didn't see any "goal posts". If you view someone's points of view as such, it simply shows how defensive you are about a project that has a load of major faults and that you have adopted in public with no willingness or ability to post informed views of your own. But I do enjoy seeing your numerous selective quotes that we're all capable of reading elsewhere for ourselves.

Courtney Mil, I don't think you'll get many answers here about structure repair. We don't really understand what the composite or its qualities are. Flogging a dead horse. I love the idea of the portable stealth measuring device. I wonder if it unfolds to fit the whole aircraft in or if its like a radar flashlight that you shine on the repair. Or maybe a Star Trek Tricorder.

http://www.lcars.org.uk/tech/tricorder-2360.jpg

[SpazSinbad]

The F-35’s Race Against Time Nov 2012 By John A. Tirpak Executive Editor

The F-35?s Race Against Time (http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx)

"...When it comes to maintainable stealth design, the F-35 represents the state of the art, O’Bryan said, superior even to the F-22 Raptor, USAF’s top-of-the-line air superiority aircraft.

The F-22 requires heavy doses of regular and expensive low observable materials maintenance. F-35 stealth surfaces, by contrast, are extremely resilient in all conditions, according to the Lockheed team.

"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.

This, he went on, is true in part because the conductive materials needed to absorb and disperse incoming radar energy are baked directly into the aircraft’s multilayer composite skin and structure.

Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours.

Dramatic Stealthiness
The F-35’s radar cross section, or RCS, has a "maintenance margin," O’Bryan explained, meaning it’s "always better than the spec." Minor scratches and even dents won’t affect the F-35’s stealth qualities enough to degrade its combat performance, in the estimation of the company. Field equipment will be able to assess RCS right on the flight line, using far less cumbersome gear than has previously been needed to make such calculations...."

[Courtney Mil]

M2,

I so wish I'd thought of that. :D:D:D



Lonewolf,

It's not so much what might be better at taking on the A-10 role (and I agree with your point about attack helos), it's more to do with the idea years ago that "the F-35 will replace the US Air Force A-10s and F-16s, US Navy F/A-18s, US Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18s, and UK Harrier GR7s and Sea Harriers."




Spaz,

As one of the issues with the old hook design was trail angle, I think Moran and Butler may have missed a trick by not mentioning it in that interview (although possibly mentioned elsewhere in it). To be fair, given that the old hook wasn't missing every time, I hope it's reasonable to hope that the damper and shoe changes will do the trick.

Courtney

[LowObservable]

The F-35 is supposed to replace the A-10, AV-8B and Marine F/A-18, along with all the aircraft that partners use for CAS.

Whether this will happen depends to some degree on how CAS requirements change. I suspect there will be a move towards a lower-cost, more persistent platform staying out of "golden BB" range, using DIRCM and reduced IR signature to defeat MANPADS, and radar/IR/Brimstone-equivalent against heavier air defenses.

[SpazSinbad]

For 'Mach Two' some RVR: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-120.html#post7841682

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II)

"...Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets to verify the RCS after performing repairs...."[footnotes: 263, dead link]"

[footnote: 264] Brewer, Jeffrey and Shawn Meadows. "Survivability of the Next Strike Fighter", p. 23. Aircraft Survivability: Susceptibility Reduction via Joint Aircraft Survivability Program Office (JASPO), Summer 2006.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA529057 (PDF 2Mb)
OR
http://www.bahdayton.com/SURVIAC/asnews/AS%20Journal%20Summer%202006.pdf (2Mb)

"...The aircraft signature design is derived using lessons learned from legacy stealth aircraft. However, the F-35 will employ updated materials and design techniques to ensure that low signature is maintained while keeping the aircraft affordable and supportable. The F-35 team has designed in an unprecedented number of access panels not requiring special Low Observable (LO) restoration compared to legacy LO aircraft. LO maintainers in the past have struggled, replacing tape and seal systems after maintenance events. The JSF team has fought to keep these time-intensive repairs to a minimum. In fact, most routinely accessed panels do not require any LO restoration. Additionally, when performing a non-standard repair to the aircraft, the maintainer will have the option to use a Repair Verification Radar (RVR) to provide confidence in the RF performance of the repair. The maintainer will use the RVR to ensure that a proper repair was made and also to perform periodic inspections for potential non-visual defects. An advanced LO Health Assessment System (LOHAS) will prioritize LO restoration tasks based on maintenance tasks performed and defects recorded into the system to help the maintainer know what needs to be repaired for the next mission or what can be deferred to a later date. The JSF Team is working hard to eliminate unnecessary, or so called “recreational,” maintenance actions...."

[kbrockman]

Ken, I will suggest that perhaps the A-10 mission, if it is to be taken over, will be assumed by rotary wing. There is a certain amount of doctrinal nonsense that somehow helicopter, airborne fires, don't provide close air support on the battlefield. Also, with the new guidance sysetms on weapons, that A-10 mission may not be delivered from comparatively low altitude, with a gun, should fixed wing be called on for close in fire support

I fully realize that, I was commenting on how the F35 was initially conceived and sold which means, a CAS platform, something it most certainly is not.
At best it is a bomber, striker with limited A2A capabilities.

The best solution for countries like mine is not the F35 but a combination of UCAV (predator, X47 and TARANIS) and more importantly an ever growing list of potent stand off weapons, pretty much negating the need for the F35.
This point was already clearly made by Admirals and Generals in the US not too long ago.



Also I don't doubt that in time they will get all the bells and whistles working like they where supposed to be, the F35 will probably be no more different than any of the other complex weapon system in that regard.
That still leaves us with a fighter which is not a replacement for our F16 or F18, it is already completely compromised due to its complexity, price, operating costs and most important contractual limitations put on it by LM, Northrop and the US government.
BTW, this is what some high placed ex LM Skunkwork employees had to say about the JSF;
The Aviationist » Two former Skunk Works members seem to know why the F-35 program is a mess (http://theaviationist.com/2013/04/08/skunk-works-jsf-mess/)
Bob Murphy, who joined the Skunk Works in 1954, managed flight-test on the U-2 and became deputy director of operations, illustrated the troubles faced by the Joint Strike Fighter to Batey.

“Because of bureaucracy”, […] “once you get all these organizations involved-all the different Air Force bases across the country, and every contractor that makes a screw for the airplane-when they have meetings, everybody comes to every meeting, and nothing ever gets settled. It’s crazy! If you’ve got 300 people in a meeting, what the hell do you solve? Nothing,” Murphy stated.

But F-35′s cost overruns and slippage were are also due to the philosophy which brought to the three different F-35 versions, as explained again by Brown:

“In the mid-1960s, there was a proposal by the Secretary of Defense to combine the F-14 and F-15 programs, so we did some analysis”, […] “the Air Force wanted 200 F-15s and the Navy wanted 200 F-14s.

If you designed an airplane for each individual service to do what they wanted, each airplane would weight about 40,000lb, but if you combined them so one airplane could do the job that was needed for each service, the weight suddenly went up to about 70,000lb-and back then it was generally accepted that airplanes cost about a thousand dollars per pound of weight.
The cost savings on producing 400 of one airplane rather than 200 of two was about 10 percent, so it was clearly much more cost-effective to have two separate airplanes doing their own job best.

So how we manage, on the F-35, to suddenly reverse that idea is not clear to me.”

It’s a shame that the experience made on some of the most advanced and adveniristic projects ever made in aviation history did not guide LM and the U.S. Air Force and Navy through the development of the Lightning II.




Basically a new 70,000lbs fighter with a 43,000lbs engine is not a replacement for what was originally a true LWF like the F16.
Once the point of MLU is reached , it's anyones guess what is going to happen with the weight and level of complexity in this already compromised fighter.

[Courtney Mil]

I see a slight misunderstanding here, Spaz. I think your statement

I read they have test equipment to measure the RCS on ship after repair.

is what's caused the problem. The RVR, you're talking about, doesn't measure RCS. RCS is a property of the entire airframe. The RVR is a bit like M2's flashlight option (kind off), which simply looks at the properties of the repaired area and allows the user to compare it with the spec to see if the repair has changed the stealth material's properties beyond defined tollerances.

If you want to measure RCS you need to put the aircraft on a pole and examine it with radar energy appropriate to your chosen threats.

Hope that helps.

Courtney

[SpazSinbad]

Where's the Paddle? http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35upApoleUpSideDown.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35upApoleUpSideDown.jpg.html)

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

People mistakenly think CAS is solely about getting down and dirty in the weeds and mud...it's not!

With appropriate sensors, comms and weapons, CAS can and is done by strategic platforms from medium altitudes. I've seen B-1Bs and B-52s doing CAS in Afghanistan, and F-111Fs did CAS in GW1 (plinking). Today Predators do CAS from >10000 with Hellfire and GBUs, and AC-130s have been doing it for decades from >8000 feet.

Post A-10, the CAS domain will be divvied up between attack helos, UASs and LASs at the lo end, AC-130s and UASs in the mid, and F-35, UCAVs and other fast movers and bombers at the hi end.

[Lonewolf_50]

Courtney/Ken/LO: thanks. I don't think it's a matter of requirement creep or mismatch, or "one size fits all" (which looks good to a budget weenie but has SRFA to do with combat effectiveness). With the varied requirements laid on the air effort, to include CAS, the "best fit" with F-35 is going to warp in part due to the program taking so long to get fielded. The world and war keep changing, and I suspect that like the B-2, JSF will arrive late for the show. IIRC, Sopwith Snipe arrived right as WW I ended. ;)

Foxtrat Alpha: you said it more eloquently than I. :ok:

JSFfan: calling CM a troll ... come one, man! :uhoh:

[kbrockman]

People mistakenly think CAS is solely about getting down and dirty in the weeds and mud...it's not!

Nobody here thinks or believes that CAS is solely about getting down and dirty, the F35 would be terrible at that anyway.
The next generation CAS missions will be mostly dependant on future stand off weapon capabilities, the F35 won't be any better than the existing platforms in this regard.

Also the idea that down and dirty will no longer be needed is a fallacy as well, the technology to strike from a far distance might be very promissing, inevitably in turn it will also be (partly) negated by new technologies developped to protect against this SOW tech on the battlefield.

Fact is, the F35 was sold as the true Harrier/A10/F16 succesor for exactly these missions and while these kind of missions might be mostly fullfilled by helo's and UCAV's in the future, with the F35 we pretty much loose the option of doing this with a manned fixed wing fighter.

[APG63]

JSFfan, you are in no position to come here calling anyone a troll.

A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground.

Remind me where you fit in?

[Bevo]

Bevo (http://www.pprune.org/members/154809-bevo),
re B2, they have said the f-35 has a lower RCS but they haven't said in all or what bands.

I was not referring to the RCS levels. The discussion was the repair of OML materials. The point I was making is that because the B-2 has a much broader band signature reduction its material stack is more complex than the F-35.

[Mach Two]

Bevo, your point was well understood, mostly. JSFf won't get it if it's not on the internet, so don't be concerned.

There is an unfortunate truth in your post, however. The B-2 does have a very broad, but undisclosed, LO bandwidth, but the problem is that if the F-35 is to go alone and unafraid over sausage side as a four-ship with no support, it should probably require the same LO spectrum. And it clearly doesn't. And that isn't, or isn't planned to be in the VSIM evaluation for some reason.

Thank you, APG63 for your point.

A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground.

Remind me where you fit in?

[In Tor Wot]

Just a thought on the original question:

U.S. Navy's X-47B 'stealth drone' launches from an aircraft carrier for the first time - as critics warn it heralds the rise of 'killer robots' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324571/U-S-Navys-X-47B-stealth-drone-launches-aircraft-carrier-time--critics-warn-heralds-rise-killer-robots.html)

Although we'd have to get rid of the ski ramp first . . . .

[SpazSinbad]

OR... Youse could put an EMALS (curved to fit) up the ski jumperoonie? :} The arrestor wires would mess up the deck park plans but.... :ugh:

[Not_a_boffin]

Essentially the ASTOBAR configuration looked at in the concept phase. Less of an emb8ggerance for safe parking area than STOBAR, but still risky from PoV of nose gear loading and EM catapult development.

[JSFfan]

Bevo (http://www.pprune.org/members/154809-bevo) there hasn't been much said about any RP composites on the B2 but Schwartz said when talking about the B2 replacement come 2025..
"While the 20 B-2s in service are capable aircraft, their stealth technology is “80s vintage“ The reality is that the B-2 over time will become less survivable in contested airspace,

Do you think that the Chinese have established one of the world’s best air defense environments in their eastern provinces just to invest their national treasure — or, for that matter, that the Iranians have established integrated air defenses around certain locations in their country?”

[Bevo]

Bevo (http://www.pprune.org/members/154809-bevo) there hasn't been much said about any RP composites on the B2 but Schwartz said when talking about the B2 replacement come 2025..
"While the 20 B-2s in service are capable aircraft, their stealth technology is “80s vintage“ The reality is that the B-2 over time will become less survivable in contested airspace,

Do you think that the Chinese have established one of the world’s best air defense environments in their eastern provinces just to invest their national treasure — or, for that matter, that the Iranians have established integrated air defenses around certain locations in their country?”

And your point is?? The B-2 still has one of the best broad-band low signatures in existence. The F-35 is pretty much a high frequency only design, and then mostly from the front hemisphere. And yes the Chinese have a very capable IADS which will make it very difficult for an F-35 with its narrow band reduced signature to get anywhere close to Chinese targets. The best the US will have until the next generation bomber comes along will be the B-2.

[JSFfan]

well thank you for your opinion. I'll take onboard that you think it's "very difficult for an F-35 with its narrow band reduced signature to get anywhere close to Chinese targets."
Would you like to validiate it with a link?

As I said earlier it is reported that the f-35 has the second lowest RCS, although it doesn't state in all bands

"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.

[Courtney Mil]

Perhaps I can help, Bevo. Global Security and Air Power Australia made the point between them quite well in that the F-35 has a frontal RCS in the region of 0.0015m2,which is comparable to the B-2A. However, the RCS increases away from the head aspect - largely due to the aircraft shape, a problem not shared by the B-2A. F-35 LO design is optimized in the X and S-bands while Russian (post-Soviet) and Chinese designed IADS have been moving into L-band, UHF and VHF. The F-35 design strategy is consistent with defeating mobile battlefield short range point defence SAM and AAA systems such as -8 Gecko, SA-9, Chapparel, Crotale, Roland, SA-15, SA-19 and SA-22.

The massive increase in power output of engagement radars means agreater ability to track LO platforms off the head aspect in the X and S-bands.

Paraphrased assessment:

JSF can provide genuinely good stealth performance only in a fairly narrow ~29° sector about the aircraft’s nose, where the shaping of the nose, engine inlets, panel edge serrations, and alignment of the leading and trailing edges of the wings and stabilators results in the absence of major spikes in the radar signature. The ±14.5° angular limit is constrained by the principal reflecting lobe of the leading and trailing edges of the wings and stabilators. The signature degrades rapidly due to the influence of the lower centre fuselage as the angle swings past ±45° off the nose.

The beam aspect RCS is especially problematic, due to the presence of multiple specular reflecting shapes, specifically due to singly and doubly curved lower fuselage surface feature shaping. The Joint Strike Fighter has a complex lower fuselage shape as well as a wing and fuselage lower join shape, unlike any other aircraft designed with stealth in mind. The result of this design is that the beam aspect RCS will be closer in magnitude to a conventional fighter flown clean than a classical stealth aircraft. This is an inevitable result of clustering no less than nine unique convex specular scattering shapes in the lower hemisphere of the aircraft.

The aft sector RCS is also problematic, as a result of the use of an axisymmetric nozzle design. While the aft fuselage and tailboom shaping qualify as stealthy across the upper bands, the nozzle presents as a specular reflector in bands where the wavelength is comparable or exceeds the dimensions of the nozzle segments.

These are from unclassified sources doing analysis on highly classified issues.

A picture paints a thousand words. Here are 4,000 words for you.

http://ausairpower.net/XIMG/JSF-RCS-Qualitative-A-XLVHF.png

[Mach Two]

Quite a useful piece, CMil. It chimes with the Israeli report on F-35 that raised three main concerns,the first of which was:
A low radar signature in the X-band and Ka/K/Ku-band, the frequencies used in most current threats. This low signature is effective especially in a forward sector, but less so in other sectors. Its level of stealth is much lower against radar using lower frequencies (and the Russians are already developing such systems).

I would place the B-2's RCS at around 0.0001 m2 or -40dBm2 (head aspect so that we compare like with like compared to CMil's figure for the F-35). It appears that everyone here is using the US band designations, but to talk numbers, I would say that F-35 stealth optimization is in the 1.5 to (say) 10 GHz. There is a big difference between that region and large radars operating below 1 GHz, even down to 100MHz which would be classed as metric radar.

So, I would say that Bevo's comment regarding the difference between the secret RCSs of two very different aircraft would be difficult to dismiss, especially in the lower wavebands.

[Heathrow Harry]

If you give the opposition 15 years notice of what the damn plane look like it's no wonder they have time to develope countermeasures............

[LowObservable]

Goodness JSFfan - If you can't base an RCS calculation from "Internet photos" (which are of lower quality than regular photos, exactly how?) how come, back in the day, you'd find yourself assuming the position at the wrong end of an M-16 if you tried to get within telephoto range of TTR?

Believe me, sonny, back in those days the GRU would have killed for images like we have on the web today. Literally.

In our modern day, photos beget a wireframe and the wireframe begets a pretty good physical-optics estimate, and while there are other bits and pieces involved, PO is the Big Kahuna once the wavelength is shorter than most of the shape features on the aircraft.

And in PO terms (think optical glint) the F-35 is a step back from the F-22, because if you filled in all the valleys and flattened the hills you'd have worse weight and drag than you already do.

The relationship between wavelength and feature size, plus the need for all-round stealth, is why the B-2 is a big flying wing, because the P-14 Tall King ran in VHF (meter class) frequencies where fins and tails and such like get resonant. And it is why UCAVs (which can't dodge or shoot back) share the same kind of manta-ray look.

Meanwhile, openly available software can solve Maxwell's equations for complex shapes (which is what stumped all low-RCS aircraft efforts until the mid-1970s). So in fact there is no reason that APA should not have the numbers as close as you can reasonably get. And that's why the trolls have no counter except posting silly pictures.

HH - You're right of course. Except that by the time JSF is in service and able to do something useful, it will be nearly 25 years since the RCS objective was obvious.

[NITRO104]

well thank you for your opinion. I'll take onboard that you think it's "very difficult for an F-35 with its narrow band reduced signature to get anywhere close to Chinese targets."
Would you like to validiate it with a link?
You just don't get it, do you?
Everyone with 101 radio knowledge knows the size matters in respect to wavelength and RCS.
Why?
Because, (an)isotropy of a radio return (and scatter) depends on the size of the antenna (reflector), which are aircraft features in this case (wings, fins, intake mouth, etc.)
There's no fighter sized aircraft in this world, stealthy against low freq. radars, although the F117's geometry made the most progress in the class.
So yes, F35 is probably the stealthiest NATO manned aircraft after the F22, but it doesn't mean, EVEN BY A LONG SHOT, it can penetrate enemy airspace unobserved.
Read this link to get a clue what are strategic radars capable of doing today (some are even mobile!).
WILKENING-EUROPEANMISSILEDEF.PDF - download now for free. File sharing. Software file sharing. Free file hosting. File upload. FileFactory.com (http://www.filefactory.com/file/2l0mgqhd6p2b/WILKENING-EUROPEANMISSILEDEF.PDF)

About APA's figures...they conditioned their calculations with generic RAM, so actual material may produce differences in the final result.
Finally, about your claim one can't calculate RCS from a 3D model...
How do you think LM came up with the initial layout for the F35, in the first place?
I suppose you believe they built and scrapped actual plane after plane, until radar showed KPP values, right?

[APG63]

A perfect illustration of why a troll shouldn't turn up in front of a load of people who know their business and start spouting off like an expert, trying to be clever and generally behaving with a complete lack of respect.

JSFfan, you clearly have no understanding of this subject, so why not refrain from embarrassing yourself further?

[Mach Two]

Well said.



Military Aircrew: A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Air forces of the World, all equally welcome here.

[Lonewolf_50]

So much for stealth ...

[Courtney Mil]

...or is it? We still don't know how the wonder jet is going to go over the badlands without support and survive day one of the war. Whatever war that might be. We haven't discussed who's going to do air defence of the fleet for the Royal Navy and, far more important, how we're going to explain it away to the Bearded One when it doesn't work. Do we admit to yet another RAF conspiracy now or wait until it happens?

[Lonewolf_50]

Courtney, I was thinking, as I posted that, of the matter of system integration. The comments preceding it indicate certain RF spectra and aspect where the F-35 appears to be more difficult to detect, and others where it isn't as difficult. Most IAD systems have more than one sensor.

Sensor fusion, such as the CORT refit for the USN's FFG-7 class frigates (IIRC, Ingraham was the lead ship to get that refit) took the same basic sensors that got the frigates dubbed "Helen Keller" (deaf and blind) and by fusing the sensor suites (and using better computing equipment) made it a viable player in the NTDS link, in terms of track quality and confidence in tracking, particularly in the AAW/Air Defense role. That was going on 20 years ago.

It's not much of a leap to believe that other services in other nations try their hands at sensorand network data fusion to get rid of potential blind spots created by RF spectrum issues, lobes, scatter, and a dozen other detractors to RF signals getting the gain needed to separate valid from invalid returns.

[Courtney Mil]

You are spot on. And linking sensors brings another benefit in synthetic apature technology, which doesn't just offer amazing resolution, it also exploits the LO hotspots of targets. Mix that with radars of different frequencies, polarizations and PRFs and you have a system that is far greater than the sum of its parts. The Russians have been working in this area for decades and the Chinese have been 'researching' their technology too.

Just an example...

http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-S/Panorama-TsM-SADCP-1S.jpg

[Bevo]

You are spot on. And linking sensors brings another benefit in synthetic apature technology, which doesn't just offer amazing resolution, it also exploits the LO hotspots of targets. Mix that with radars of different frequencies, polarizations and PRFs and you have a system that is far greater than the sum of its parts. The Russians have been working in this area for decades and the Chinese have been 'researching' their technology too.

Absolutely correct. This is why it now takes a combination of EMC/com jamming, low signature aircraft, and cruise missiles to take out the fixed/less mobile radars, in order to have any chance of penetrating a modern IADS. Fortunately there aren’t too many IADS that match either the Chinese or Russian’s in their level of sophistication.

[Lonewolf_50]

CM, they are not my opinions, they are statements from people in the programme. http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...112fighter.pdf
FFS, JSFfan, when confronted with a well run IADS, you have to first suppress some of it to take other bits of it out. Then, as time and mission permit, you get rid of the rest of it piecemeal with advantageous engagements that you choose.

If you need a mental picture, envision peeling an onion.
Or, imagine that you roast one big elephant, and then cut it up into a bunch of bite sized pieces, and then eat it one peace at a time. You don't try to eat the elephant whole.

There Is No Silver Bullet.

The fantasy that F-35 is one size fits all (which is what your excerpt from that mag is) does not impress people who have been in the air warfare business as a career.

Also, please have the courtesy to get rid of the line breaks when you cut and paste the hot air and PR stuff. Better yet, please don't do that C & P thing. See above comments for why.

[Courtney Mil]

Anyway, ignore list reactivated and back to RCS. Lonewolf, I take your point and I too find it hard to accept the LM claims about the 4-ship, alone and unafraid with no EW, Elint or wide area surveillance support - let alone the airborne "gateway". And a thought occurs; if this really is the DoD's vision, why continue with the B2, F117, etc., programmes? There is something missing from this picture.

[APG63]

I'm guessing you're excluding the difference between tactical and strategic assets. That is a good point, though, and it does call into question any doubts about the validity of 'older' stealth platforms against the "silver bullet" F-35 claims.

[GripenInGee]

Why continue with the B2, F117, etc., programmes?

The F-117 is continuing?

[LowObservable]

F-117s are still seen flying around...

Some of the claims for the F-35 are a little silly. My favorite is still from 2008:

"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access - all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again."

Lockheed Martin · pr_aero_SettingRecordStraightonF- (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2008/september/SettingRecordStraightonF-.html)

And as I mentioned a few posts ago, the fact that the USAF is tipping billions into F-22 upgrades (and B-2 come to that) shows that the professionals know that these claims are invalid.

But to make them in public, with the goal of monopolizing the combat aircraft business, so that you make tons of money while combat pilots put life and limb on the line in a non-invulnerable jet that you bamboozled politicians to support... that's not good at all.

[Killface]

And as I mentioned a few posts ago, the fact that the USAF is tipping billions into F-22 upgrades (and B-2 come to that) shows that the professionals know that these claims are invalid.

So by the same logic the USAF by upgrading the F-15Cs shows that F-22 claims are invalid? B-52 upgrades mean the B-1 and B-2 are invalid as well?

[Killface]

"while combat pilots put life and limb on the line"

I wonder why so many combat pilots endorse it? I would also note your little description that lockmart also mentions "sensor fusion", so no they don't expect "just stealth" to win out over all. I assume (call me crazy) they will rely on multiple survival methods just like aircraft do now, with maybe some new stuff thrown in there as well:

Is There Too Much Secrecy? (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_03_2012_p02-521102.xml)

"you bamboozled politicians to support"

...With the help of lots and lots of continuous military endorsement of course. I guess its one thing to bamboozle politicians, but it is pretty amazing lockmart actually fooled so many professional military pilots and military experts from all around the globe, and continues to do so. They have them so bamboozled in fact, that they actually still fervently champion the aircraft despite all its issues.

I'm impressed. :D

[Courtney Mil]

Let me clarify. If the F-35 was expected to be so wonderful, why did the F-117 programme continue so long? Why were put into storage 'just in case' and, as LO remarked, why were they still seen flying at least two years after the so-called retirement date? Someone hedging their bets?

[BEagle]

I still cannot accept that any system which requires each pilot to be fitted with a $1M helmet is viable.

Perhaps those who signed up to the Lockheed black hole of funding weren't aware of this?

Short of a Romulan cloaking device, 'stealth' will always be vulnerable to advances in detection systems. Passive detection of the presence of an air platform is something of an unknown technology - if the atmospheric disturbance caused by an aerofoil can be detected by advanced technology, 'stealth' won't be worth a cent.

Skillful use of their systems by Yugoslav SAM operators downed an F-117 using their 'obsolete' SA-3 system - and it is rumoured that a B-2 has also been hit by AAA fire following detection with long wavelength radar.

Is 'stealth' worth its astonishing cost? Frankly, I doubt it.

Unless the UK changes its mind yet again, there seems little alternative to the F-35B for the new carriers, although Rafale's STOBAR capability merits closer study. But there are several alternatives to the F-35A (e.g. F-22) and F-35C (e.g. Rafale / F-18E/F/G).

[Killface]

"continue so long? Why were put into storage 'just in case' and, as LO remarked, why were they still seen flying at least two years after the so-called retirement date? Someone hedging their bets?"

There are thousands of aircraft put in storage "just in case"

Retirement from operational service does not inherently mean grounded and never to fly again. If you are really trying to clutch at these straws you are going to have to do better than that. SR-71s were also flown years after retirement. but if it helps the tinfoil hat-- yes they are keeping the fleet of a few aircraft "warm" in case a program that costs hundreds of billions and fields thousands of aircraft, doesn't quiet pan out so you can still go back to the old 40 year plane that has no qualified pilots left for it.

Older aircraft being upgraded means there is not faith in new aircraft? Aircraft being put into storage means expected failure? A few being flown around for research or experimental purposes is suddenly a reflection on the next plane? I don't drink the JSF kool aid but come on. We upgraded phantoms until the end, it didn't mean F-14s and F-15s were bad. And F-4s still fly. The JSFs biggest cheerleaders are upgrading their harriers, this doesn't mean they are cheering any less.

There is something about this aircraft that just brings out the stupid in people on both sides. You have fanboys that think its magic, and detractors that use arguments that could apply to many other aircraft as "proof" that it is poor.

[dat581]

With products like google glasses on the consumer market I wonder how long it will be before cheap (relatively!) technology becomes available to replace the £1M HMD? Of corse the HMD is much more complex and must be an order of magnitude more reliable but you get the idea.

As far as the F22 goes would it be better for the UK to just build more Typhoons? The RAAF has already tried to buy the Raptor but was blocked by the US congress. Who knows if they would change their minds if the RAF and the RAAF ganged up on them?

[Courtney Mil]

Oh good. Slightly aggressive first posts there by two 'new' members. I think I recognise the style. Time to expand the ignore list.

[dat581]

Jsffan acts quite a lot like a multi username poster in the war in Australia thread. Ignoring questions he doesn't like or just replying with dodgy one sided links or worse; extensive cut and paste posts that either don't answer the question or gloss over bad points.

[PhilipG]

For our "friends" who believe that the F35 is the answer to everything, is it worth comparing Stealth with Altitude?
The first generation of strategic nuclear bombers, B52, B58, Vulcan, Victor and Valiant as I understand initially used altitude as a means of protection, no fighter or SAM could reach them, they could get to their targets and drop buckets of sunshine or do whatever they wanted to. A certain U2 with Garry Powers on board brought the altitude is safety school of thought to an abrupt halt, the V bombers went lower level, which the Valiant could not do etc.
The moral as others have said is that one technological advance leads to another retaliatory advance. Implicitly a "radar" or other technology solution will be developed that will enable people to detect F35s, then the roundabout starts all over again, slightly similar to MAD....
Altitude worked for a while...
A particular type of stealth will work for a while...

[Courtney Mil]

PhilipG,

Is it worth comparing Stealth with Altitude? Yes, it is. I think the F-35 might be a bit pressed if forced to low level.

[Heathrow Harry]

Philip G has a very good point

The issue is of course that the F-35 has taken/will take so long to reach service in any numbers that the technology will have caught up

Reminds me of the Blenheim - a great step forward when first flown but by the time it came to use in action it was a dead duck

[Courtney Mil]

I don't think F-35's going to be a dead duck, but it will make interesting viewing as the technology race is run. More EW, perhaps?

[LowObservable]

Lower RCS is never a bad thing. F-35-level stealth - my educated guess, by the way, is that it is no better in that regard than the F-117, probably not as good from sides and rear - would have baffled most detection systems from the 1980s and 1990s. Also, if you employ standoff and escort jamming (the latter from UAVs like MALD-J) you can still benefit from low target RCS.

But is it worth the money and performance trade-offs across all the missions we expect fighters to do? When the F-35 was supposed to be cheaper than an F-16 and be otherwise comparable to anything out there, you didn't have to ask that question, but now you do.

If I had to plan a tactical-range force today, I'd use conventional RCS-reduced fighters with EW and cruise missiles and a few Neuron/Taranis/X-47-type things to give the defenders the twitch. Plus a few super-OV-10-type things for CAS/armed ISR when the longest-range threat is MANPADS and I don't want to burn fighter hours.

Killface - Something about never getting a second chance to make a first impression? As you should know perfectly well, B-52s and B-1s have their own mission niches, and quite modest upgrade costs. F-22 upgrade costs are enough to replace the entire force over the decade, and if F-35 would really score 6:1 over an adversary you'd do it.

[Stuffy]

I am shure the Blenheim analogy is incorrect ??

The F-35 will be able to deal with this ancient Russian ironmongery ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Sukhoi_T-50_Beltyukov.jpg

Sukhoi T-50 - YouTube

[Killface]

Oh good. Slightly aggressive first posts there by two 'new' members. I think I recognise the style. Time to expand the ignore list.

by all means please do, it was a poor argument, correlation does not equal causation, a few F-117s kept airworthy doesn't mean a "plan B" if thousands of JSFs don't pan out. No matter how many crumbs you cobble together it still isn't bread.

I'm neutral on the JSF. Its hard to get real information. But lame arguments, are lame no matter where you go. I watched the helmet increase from $1 million dollars to £1 million in 2 posts. I don't think we are all playing with a full deck.

Something about never getting a second chance to make a first impression?

Likewise, sorry my posts were not as dramatic as a vast international political industrial conspiracy with military complicity. I'll have to work on that, may I borrow your tinfoil cap for a bit?

[LowObservable]

It has nothing to do with conspiracy. The F-35 plan is being executed in broad daylight and on the record, albeit using a lot of resources to influence opinions. A lot of the "information" disseminated over the years, however, has proven to have been (to put it most kindly) highly optimistic.

You might want to read more deeply into this thread, and you might also want to develop some manners, and pigs might fly too. Ignore function GO.

[Courtney Mil]

I have to say, that is a beautiful looking jet. They need to get their programme moving, though, it makes the F-35 development look like a success story at the moment. You can bet that the airframe is put together like a brick-built sh1t house, only stronger. At least they will be able to be sure of a market for it.

You have to admire a country that puts mud guards on their fighter's nosewheels.

[Killface]

Ignore function GO.

The F-35 plan is being executed in broad daylight and on the record, albeit using a lot of resources to influence opinions.

I'm impressed your ability to consider alternate views, by hitting ignore. And where does the military fit into all this?

[Mach Two]

Killface (lovely name btw), as we've been swamped here with walts and trolls lately and you've suddenly turned up here punching and with no awareness of the months of discussion, it might help if you saved everyone a lot of time by offering a little more background than your profile offers. It may appear to some that might you could be yet another single-issue fanatic.

Just trying to help. It would be pretty pointless for youtaking the trouble to compose posts if everyone is put off by your entry and simply puts you into the ignore bin.

[Lonewolf_50]

Killface, if you haven't read the entire thread from start to this point, there is some interesting back and forth, and some utter dross, worth soaking in before jumping into the scrum. ;)

[Killface]

single-issue fanatic.

I am a single issue fanatic. My issue is I can't find the truth on anything with the JSF. The entire thing has taken on the air of a political side A vs side B and the same bad ideas that come from such arguing. Its frustrating, and doesn't help anyone learn anything.

:ugh:

I'm trying to research and everything seems nice and logical with other airplanes and then you get to the JSF and its a mess. you can't find anything that doesn't have somebodys "fingerprints" on it. everything has a twist or a bent to it, and people take those as facts

can we at least get an agreement on what the helmet cost?

[Mach Two]

Welcome to the forum. I'm a serving Royal Air Force pilot with a mostly air defence background. How about you?

[Courtney Mil]

My name's Courtney and I'm an aeroholic. Retired Royal Air Force Pilot with a strange mixture of roles, but pretty much an air defender. But I can stop any time I want.

[Engines]

Killface,

I can't help you on the price of the helmet, but a good place to get a point of truth on the F-35 programme is the US GAO website. A search there using 'F-35' or 'Joint Strike Fighter' will bring up a number of very clear and readable reports with accurate cost and schedule information.

The recent 'Quick Look' report (also called the 'Ahern' report after its senior author) can be found via the 'POGO' (Progress on Government Oversight') website. That gave an accurate, unbiased view of the state of the programme.

Best Regards

Engines

[LowObservable]

30+ years of open source research and analysis on stealth. Tracking JSF and its direct predecessors since 1986.

By the way, banging on about tinfoil hats is trolling. It is not an "alternate view".

You might consider changing that silly name. too.

Engines is right about the QLR and the GAO reports. You can also find Congressional Research Service reports online as well, which include an up-to-date potted history.

[Killface]

Thank you engines.

You might consider changing that silly name. too.

I thought you were ignoring me, Bill.

[Rhino power]

Whilst the Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA very much looks the part, certainly much more aesthetically pleasing than the F-22, surely the IR signature from that engine layout is going to be enormous?

-RP

[GreenKnight121]

Sorry, Engines, but calling any POGO report "accurate, unbiased" is of the same factual level as JSFfan calling LockMart press releases "accurate, unbiased".

They are opposite sides of spin.

POGO has an axe to grind, and it shows in their reports.


Like most things in this world the truth lies somewhere between the two, and only time will show which was closer to reality.

[henra]

Whilst the Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA very much looks the part, certainly much more aesthetically pleasing than the F-22, surely the IR signature from that engine layout is going to be enormous?

-RP

And looking at all those panels with perpendicular (and visible) edges I somehow doubt it will really have an RCS in the Ballpark of F-22 or F-35.
It might be a tad better than the Super Hornet but I tend to think it will not be by Orders of magnitude.
That said it looks like a more balanced approach, not putting all eggs into one basket. I expect the kinetic performance (also at higher Mach and altitude) to be excellent on that bird.

[Courtney Mil]

I have just reread the POGO report on the F-35A Ready for Training OUE and I have to say that it seems to be very well balanced report. Don't be tempted to imagine it's biased against the F-35A just because it exposes its considerable deficiencies - that is the point of conducting the evaluation and there would be some serious questions to answer had the team failed to expose actual and potential operational and air worthiness issues.

I would have loved to have seen this level of scrutiny published during the early days of a number of other programmes.

The purpose of any evaluation is not to say how well the programme is going, it is to discover faults and short-falls and make recommendations. This report does that very well. The fact that there are so many failings at this stage is, indeed, unfortunate. We now await some serious technological progress in order to rectify the issues and move the programme forward.

http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf

[eaglemmoomin]

Stuffy the PAK-FA/T50 is still in development we have no real idea how it will actually perform as a whole. Why does this aircraft on which there is very little public source information have an assumed 'superiority'. We'll just have to wait and see how it and the Chinese stealth jets pan out.

[Courtney Mil]

Engines' reference to David Ahern's report is also points to some interesting reading; mostly stuff we've been discussing here for the past year or more and the fact that it was published some 18 months ago the issues raised are largely the challenges that LM are still trying to fix today So it remains highly relevant.

Re the T50, as I said a day or so ago, it's a great looking jet, but the Russians need to get the programme moving. The one point that is worth noting is the flight envelope, which appears to have better 'natural' limits than the F-35 even at this stage. The rest remains to be seen.

[Killface]

Will the Navy Find a New Aircraft that Can Replace JSFail? (http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/04/will-the-navy-find-a-new-aircraft-that-can-replace-jsfail.html)

yeah they seem unbiased.

[glad rag]

X 47 once the price drops!

[Mach Two]

Oh dear, Killface. You really are another fanatic here. No one said POGO were unbiased, the only comment I saw here was CMil's judgement on two reports, nothing to do with the organisations or people that wrote them. Maybe give some credence to people that have been involved in these matters. If your interest is purely research on the grounds that you want to learn, maybe listen and read rather than judge and criticise.

You are already appearing to be an all to familiar troll. Thus far you are far more interested in expressing views than seeking answers, contrary to your stated aims.

[Killface]

rather than judge and criticise.

Ive felt that way since I got here and was declared a troll for disagreeing with the little pack of bromancing british men here. Never got a fair shake but who cares right?

You are already appearing to be an all to familiar troll.

judge and criticise.

[SpazSinbad]

Anyone here able to comment further please on this bit of info, already posted here earlier [ http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/514842-end-era-new-beginning-x47b-launching-george-w-2.html#post7849076 ] and repeated below for convenience? Thanks:

["...inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model..."]

The day of the unmanned aircraft. By Dave Majumdar on May 15, 2013

The day of the unmanned aircraft. - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/the-day-of-the-unmanned-aircra.html)

"...However, the X-47B did not carry out an arrested landing upon returning to Pax River. That could be because the unmanned jet was having difficulty making even that first trap it did the week before where the Navy showed off a video of the aircraft snagging a wire. Sources told the DEW Line, at the time of the earlier trap, the aircraft now had a 10 percent field boarding rate... So hopefully, this isn't an indication of a major problem. The X-47B guys have had to redesign their tail hook a number of times now due to the same inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model that was partly responsible for the F-35C's woes...."

[Courtney Mil]

This is totally off the top of my head, Spaz, but I can't help thinking that it's the same problem with the short distance between the main gear and the hook. At least in part. Would you think that's part of the issue?

[SpazSinbad]

I would have thought the 'other hook factors', not mentioned in the Majumdar quote above, have been well discussed/investigated/fixed by now. I have info on the X-47B hook fix (not a lot of detail - I'm not a current fast jet pilot; nor involved in either programs under discussion; nor apparently a '30 year journalist' etc....). It is the phrase: "...inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model..." that is of particular interest to me. Does anyone here know about the inaccuracies in this model and how that has affected both programs? Thanks.

As a casual reader may have gleaned from my posts I'm very much interested in all aspects of fixed wing Naval Aviation from olden tymes until today; and of course the possible future (from my previous golden experience in the RAN FAA with A4G back in the early 1970s).
___________________________

Fleet Readiness Center “hooks up” unmanned aircraft 05 Sept 2012

Fleet Readiness Center ?hooks up? unmanned aircraft | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation (http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5114)

“...To land on the flight deck of a carrier, aircraft need a tailhook to catch one of four arresting wires. When unsuccessful roll-in arrestment tests of the X-47B revealed the need for a modified hook point, the team needed to come up with a plan to make the modifications in order to perform arrested landings and catapult launches this fall....

...Since then, the X-47B successfully engaged the arresting gear with the redesigned hook point during three separate roll-in arrestment tests....”
_______________________

“The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator aircraft completes a successful roll-in arrestment with a modified arresting hook point designed and manufactured by Fleet Readiness Center Southwest (FRD-SW) Aug.14 [2012] at Patuxent River, Md. FRCSW delivered the hook point just 46 days after receiving a request from the Navy UCAS program office.”

http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/X_47_GCTV_Still.JPG

Compilation of above photo + still from a video mentioned on X-47B thread I think. Click thumbnail for big pic:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_X-47BhookCompilationX2.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/X-47BhookCompilationX2.jpg.html)

[LowObservable]

I have seen a lot of stuff about low trap rates on the X-47B, but not sure whether it was related to the current hook shape or to traps before last year's tip redesign. Navy people this week were pretty specific as to what remains to be done and why arrests were not on the cards in this at-sea periods.

Anyway, the issue should be resolved by the end of the summer, because if they're going to do arrests they have to do them before the $ run out. And better a problem on a $1.5 bn X-plane than on an SDD/procurement project burning $XX billion per year.

Oh BTW, I don't understand why anyone's rabbiting on about POGO bias. They're a leak path for government documents, and very useful ones at that. The QLR and training readiness reports are Pentagon products.

And we're starting to need some Troll-B-Gone around here...

[Killface]

Navy Rapidly Replaces X-47B Tailhook after Test Failure : The Lexington Park Leader (http://lexleader.net/navy-rapidly-redesigns-x47b-tailhook-test-failure/)

The Navy has been able to fix it faster, with less red tape and testing because there are fewer safety issues with a man out of the machine.

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks for the extra detail post (similar to Press Release earlier). And here is another similar story with also extra detail not in the others:

NAVAIR - Naval Air Systems Command (via noodls) / FRCSW Innovation Solves Navy UAV Problem (http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/15763167/navair---naval-air-systems-command/frcsw-innovation-solves-navy-uav-problem)

I guess I'm astonished that the USN does not have good "wire dynamics model"(s). I'll guess that is something being worked on now; or is it just too difficult to model wire behaviour accurately enough? Perhaps that is the issue - which makes practical testing the only way forward it seems.

[GreenKnight121]

No one said POGO were unbiased, the only comment I saw here was CMil's judgement on two reports, nothing to do with the organisations or people that wrote them.

I guess you missed Engine's claim of exactly that.
The recent 'Quick Look' report (also called the 'Ahern' report after its senior author) can be found via the 'POGO' (Progress on Government Oversight') website. That gave an accurate, unbiased view of the state of the programme.

[Courtney Mil]

No, GK. Both Engines and I said the report was unbiased, not that POGO are unbiased. As LO said, the report originated in officialdom.

[Killface]

Either way, thank you engines. :ok:

[SpazSinbad]

Lots of 'good/bad' sotospeak in this latest Oz Federal Parliament report. For me the 'good news' is that HMDS III is under development and from the RAAF viewpoint HMDS II is 'good enough' but RAAF will be getting HMDS III. Of course there is a lot more about software and other issues with an estimation on price URF $82-3 million Oz dollars but too much to summarise here - so go read it.

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade - 16/05/2013 - Department of Defence annual report 2011-12

ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/05/2013 : Department of Defence annual report 2011-12 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F fb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a%2F0002;orderBy=date-eFirst;page=0;query=Air%20Marshal%20Brown;rec=0;resCount=Def ault)

Beware the 'helmut' - this alternate spelling must refer to HMDS III :E :}

A 0.3Mb PDF of entire proceedings may be downloaded here however this URL may not work after a time [the first half of the PDF is not about F-35 matters]:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commjnt/fb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a/toc_pdf/Parliamentary%20Joint%20Committee%20on%20Foreign%20Affairs,% 20Defence%20and%20Trade_2013_05_16_1947.pdf;fileType=applica tion%2Fpdf#search=%22Air%20Marshal%20Brown%22

Some 'extra sauce' for those not interested in Oz perspective would be this quote about price:

"...There is now strong alignment between the aircraft acquisition cost estimates from the independent US Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office, the US F-35A Joint Program Office, and the Australian New Air Combat Capability Project Office. However, the aircraft costs are sensitive to US and partner nation purchase profiles. The actual costs for each successive low-rate initial production lot continue to be below the US congressional estimates. Our first two aircraft are expected to be around, or less than, the $130 million estimate that Defence has had since before 2011. Overall, in 2012 dollars and exchange rate at A$1.03 to US dollars, 72 F35As are expected to cost an average of A$83.0 million—unit recurring flyaway cost—if ordered in the 2018-19 to 2023-24 time frame.

The latest official US congressional F-35A cost estimates, sourced from the publicly available Selected Acquisition Report of 2011, are consistent with the Australian estimates and indicate the cost of the F-35A—unit recurring flyaway cost—reducing from a price of about $130 million in US then dollars for aircraft delivered in 2014 reducing over time down to about $82 million in US then dollars for aircraft delivered in the 2020 time frame...."

[LowObservable]

The "helmut" is the alternate design from EADS-Germany.

HMDS III, unless I am much mistaken, is the desired "end-state" in which the original and much tweaked VSI Magic Hat is induced to meet spec. HMDS II is the BAE Systems alternate, which has a better chance of working sometime soon but does not do everything required.

Ironically, developments in electronics and optics since this whole thing started now make it possible to combine a panoramic head-down "big picture" display with a HUD, which would have made life much easier for the helmet designers.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The RAAF has already tried to buy the Raptor but was blocked by the US

No, we didn't... :*

[Stuffy]

I think I will change my forum name to 'Patchy' - it's a goodun'. :)

[LowObservable]

I could try "SlaughterChops". It seems to impress the Walts.

[Killface]

I could try "SlaughterChops". It seems to impress the Walts.

^This isn't trolling? Didn't another famous bill mention something about a rose by any other name? For some reason the name Bill Sweetman doesn't impress. I wonder why? For some reason you seem to be fixated on my name. I could change my handle to "5th generation" if you would like, so we could be treated to one of your pedantic rants. When you can't win, you resort to semantics and snark.

Full disclosure: Sweetman is a personal friend and former co-worker at Jane's. As a military technology journalist, I have great respect for his vast and detailed knowledge of weapon systems of all kinds.

But Sweetman himself would tell you he approaches F-35 coverage unlike other journalists. I see my role as simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing my readers to draw their own conclusions. Sweetman approaches F-35 coverage from the standpoint of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop. That position is always going to create a tension with his traditional role as journalist.

Updated: Aviation Week suspends Bill Sweetman from F-35 story - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/aviation-week-suspends-bill-sw.html)

yes thats called a bias.

[Stuffy]

Ooh that is a nice touch Mr Sweetman ?

I wonder what Paul Beaver thinks ? Nice chap I thought, when I met him.

Take away Chinese kooky boy ?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01797/ChinaStealth_1797557b.jpg

[Mach Two]

Another, slightly strange post there KF. As a member here for a while, I wouldn't have said that LO is famed for (what was your phrase?) 'pedantic rants'. Makes me wonder if you're not such a new-comer to the forum, but rather one that's been here, but, for some reason, has had posting privilidges temporarily withdrawn and has decided to come back in another guise and ty to throw your weight around a bit whilst disrupting the conversation rather than adding to it.

Do keep up the good work.:mad:

[Two's in]

Curious how among all this schoolboy bickering about whether the F-35 is either the next miracle for Aviation or another gaping Black Hole for the taxpayer, nobody seems able to discuss what will be the only validation of the F-35 Program’s worth. That would be the threat. The F-22 has virtually dominated the category of "largely irrelevant" due to a lack of opportunities to display all that shiny new technology. Now some might argue it's because we have the technology that no-one takes a direct run at us, but the F-35 will be in a similar position. As a consequence of its lack of “pedigree”, every single problem with that aircraft is hailed as incontrovertible evidence that the Program is an unmitigated disaster.

If we end up supporting air ops over the South China Sea (to successfully repel hordes of advanced Chinese fighters on their way to Taipei) soon after the F-35 passes Operational acceptance, everyone in the "Yay" camp can give themselves a richly deserved pat on the back. If, conversely, the first half a dozen USMC aircraft are sabotaged or destroyed on the ground in some dusty hell-hole by insurgents armed with RPG-7's and headscarves, we might want to consider what they were doing there in the first place while the “Nay” camp hold a round of celebratory parties in DC under the theme of, "see - I told you so”.

There are a myriad of scenarios between the end points of the spectrums listed above that will either kill or cure the perception of the F-35 as a plane for every occasion. Until we know what that combat testing ground is, the arguments for and against it are vacuous at best and completely partisan at worst. Air power is all things to all men, but today the bottom line is the cost. If you can't justify LO technology or a BVRAAM because the guys you are fighting are throwing fireworks and rocks at you, you might have some explaining to do. If, on the other hand, all those gizmos and whizzbangs are not enough to defeat adversaries who can afford to lose 50 aircraft at a time, again you might have some explaining to do. Whatever happens, only when Governments and taxpayers have conclusive evidence of just what all that money got spent on will they be able to decide whether it is the Holy Grail or another White Elephant.

[SpazSinbad]

First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test

"Published on May 20, 2013
An F-35B test aircraft completes the first-ever vertical takeoff (VTO) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on May 10, 2013. While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance."

First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY&feature=youtu.be)

[Killface]

Another, slightly strange post there KF. As a member here for a while, I wouldn't have said that LO is famed for (what was your phrase?) 'pedantic rants'. Makes me wonder if you're not such a new-comer to the forum, but rather one that's been here, but, for some reason, has had posting privilidges temporarily withdrawn and has decided to come back in another guise and ty to throw your weight around a bit whilst disrupting the conversation rather than adding to it.

Do keep up the good work.

Its a big internet, there are other forums, and its not like it hard to find Bill Sweetman's opinion on things on the internet, in fact its his job to do so.

U.K. Thinks 5th Generation (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aa04297ca-c9d7-488c-b316-9cb1282d1bc9&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:e8b2966d-3d0c-4c36-b0ed-ca14ff6918f0)

(see comments)

I am more than happy to talk about the JSF, if we can get passed people trying to give me a hard time for my name, while accusing me of being an alternate handle of someone else, and deeming me a troll since the second I came aboard here.

I could try "SlaughterChops". It seems to impress the Walts.

what is that adding? Just so I'm clear on the rules-- all insults and off topic posts about me and my name are fair game and adding to the topic? Sorry I'm new, and double standards are tricky, and yes I will call you out on them.

Lets talk about this:


But to make them in public, with the goal of monopolizing the combat aircraft business, so that you make tons of money while combat pilots put life and limb on the line in a non-invulnerable jet that you bamboozled politicians to support... that's not good at all.

Multiple air arms around the globe have been involved with the JSF since day 1, and yet they are remarkably silent about the aircraft not working with their own lives depending on it? how odd. why? its fun to sell the evil dealings of corporations and politicos, but the problem is there are all these uniformed people too, and they kind of throw a wrench in that logic. Why do they still want the JSF? Why do they still fight for it in congress? Are the poor things that do this for a living, just not as smart as the internet aviation writers, without access to classified info?

discuss

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz, thanks for posting. The technology in that is very impressive, even the sceptics would have to admit. Still the jetpipe of a reheated engine bend through 90 degrees (almost, I know) and still maintain the airflow through the stages is a real masterpiece. Amazing to see.

[Courtney Mil]

Don't quite get the Bill Sweetman reference, btw. Aviation writer, some great books and years in Janes. Don't see the issue here.

Oh, and Chinese fighter is just all wrong.:cool:

[Killface]

If, conversely, the first half a dozen USMC aircraft are sabotaged or destroyed on the ground in some dusty hell-hole by insurgents armed with RPG-7's and headscarves, we might want to consider what they were doing there in the first place while the “Nay” camp hold a round of celebratory parties in DC under the theme of, "see - I told you so”.

Uh you aren't trying to paint a terrorist operation to destroy aircraft on the ground via infiltration tactics as a strike against a particular type of aircraft are you? the Harriers destroyed in afghanistan could have just as easily been F-16s or A-10s. Many Apaches were destroyed in Iraq when caught in the open by insurgents, but I wouldn't hold that as a strike against the Apache:

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/15/insurgents-used-cell-phone-geotags-to-destroy-ah-64s-in-iraq/

is that the apaches fault or the shutter bugs? I'm not blaming the aircraft on that.

Don't quite get the Bill Sweetman reference, btw. Aviation writer, some great books and years in Janes. Don't see the issue here.

Aviation week saw an issue:

"Aviation Week is committed to providing objective aerospace and defense journalism based on independent and balanced coverage. Following comments posted on his personal Facebook page, the editorial team has decided that Bill Sweetman will not be covering the F-35 program for a period of time. We will continue to hold our journalists to the highest standards of editorial integrity to best serve the aerospace and defense community."

I know its the old "he isn't biased when he's biased for me!" thing. but yes there is an issue there, whether you see it or not. Its more obvious than exploding concrete to me, and was for aviation week as well.

If we want to play the "his credentials are good enough that there isn't an issue" game I can post tons of LM pilot interviews by former military flyers with impressive history, including combat. No issue with that? Billie Flynn LM Test Pilot, some great experience, flown many aircraft types and years in the RCAF. Don't see the issue here. I could link to Loren Thompson if you would like as well. OR how about General Mosely, USAF Ret.?

Pentagon Should Investigate Fighter Options Beyond The F-35 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_01_2012_p58-500608.xml)

Bill Sweetman has become so toxic, they left his name of the above piece. I wonder why they would do such a thing? please don't try and convince me Bill is above bias, because not even his own publication thinks so. whether he is right or wrong is up for debate, but unbiased? no that case is closed.

[Bastardeux]

This is all getting very aggressive.

As for:
Uh you aren't trying to paint a terrorist operation to destroy aircraft on the ground via infiltration tactics as a strike against a particular type of aircraft are you?

I doubt it, I think he's making the point that if the next couple of decades continue on the trend of insurgent warfare, then the role that the hundred million dollar super super does-everything jet will fill could just as well be filled by a super Tucano and would be no less susceptible to enemy attack. I thinks it's a very important point, but unfortunately we won't be able to tell when the decision for yay or nay is actually made.

[NITRO104]

Multiple air arms around the globe have been involved with the JSF since day 1, and yet they are remarkably silent about the aircraft not working with their own lives depending on it? how odd. why? its fun to sell the evil dealings of corporations and politicos, but the problem is there are all these uniformed people too, and they kind of throw a wrench in that logic. Why do they still want the JSF? Why do they still fight for it in congress? Are the poor things that do this for a living, just not as smart as the internet aviation writers, without access to classified info?
discuss

I believe you're missing the point...there's nothing to discuss about from the quoted paragraph, except convincing one another of the strength of their respective faiths.
However, I don't think the objective of this forum is sacral but mundane, dealing with facts and experience.
Therefore, having neither may understandably pose a problem in superimposing one's opinion, but that's how it works.
For example, how would people here know why partner nations "fight" to keep the JSF and how are people supposed to discuss that in the first place, without going into speculation way more than required to keep the discussion within reason?
This kind of question is equal in silliness to the one asking someone to make an assessment on JSF's total combat capability.
Still, people here can (and do) discuss specific items and details based on experience and knowledge, but that's all there is...a point sadly missed by JSFfan, for example.

Hope this helps.

[Lonewolf_50]

Insurgent warfare isn't something new. As noted, all aircraft are at risk for it.

Killface:

the article, on page two, suggests a recompete while ODT & E are still underway. I am not sure the author actually understands how acquisition works. There are actually rules and laws that Congress gets very upset to see broken ... most of the time. :p

I don't disagree with the author's frustration on the program bloat.
He's not unique in his perspective there.

I don't understand how that article is toxic. :confused:

[Killface]

However, I don't think the objective of this forum is sacral but mundane, dealing with facts and experience.
Therefore, having neither may understandably pose a problem in superimposing one's opinion, but that's how it works.
For example, how would people here know why partner nations "fight" to keep the JSF and how are people supposed to discuss that in the first place, without going into speculation way more than required to keep the discussion within reason?
This kind of question is equal in silliness to the one asking someone to make an assessment on JSF's total combat capability.
Still, people here can (and do) discuss specific items and details based on experience and knowledge, but that's all there is...a point sadly missed by JSFfan, for example.

Hope this helps.

It does, thank you for this post. And for the record I say the military fights for the JSF as in they go in front of Congress or their respective civilian boards and argue for it, the american marines arguing most ardently for it. I will try to narrow my focus more to the trees rather than the whole forest

I don't disagree with the author's frustration on the program bloat.
He's not unique in his perspective there.

I don't understand how that article is toxic.

No what I am saying is its a valid argument, but his name is so toxic with the JSF he couldn't actually write it on the post, lest it be instantly dismissed. As you say many share this perspective, its an interesting article no doubt, why isn't someone's name on it? because Bill wrote it. And they can't say he wrote it, or it loses credibility. unless someone else wrote that and for some reason declined to put their name on it, which is odd because that story was a bombshell when it came out.

If you saw a book about WWII but the Author's name was Hitler would you bother reading it? if you did how seriously would you take it? Its not the subject, or the article, but the author that has become less than credible. HTH

just so we are clear. I will gladly tone it down, and relax when the 3 individuals who are picking on me drop it as well. I will not post anything controversial or personal unless provoked, from here on out. If you want to troll me, I will fall for it and respond. if not, lets let bygones be bygones

[FlightlessParrot]

If you saw a book about WWII but the Author's name was Hitler would you bother reading it?

When you Godwin the conversation so irrelevantly, it might indeed be time to "tone it down." And, of course, a book by That Man on WW II would be an instant best seller, so your point is self-defeating, in so far as it is intelligible.

[Two's in]

Insurgent warfare isn't something new. As noted, all aircraft are at risk for it.

Quite correct, except as Bastardeux correctly surmises I don't need a couple of hundred million bucks worth of otherwise unwanted technology in that case. I'll just arm up some turboprop trainers in the COIN role - hey wait a minute! What does COIN stand for again? And yet here we are in year 10 of continuous COIN ops and still no dedicated COIN platform.

To reiterate my main point, if the capability isn't tested and proven in Combat, it's going to be harder to prove it was ever relevant.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The F-22 has virtually dominated the category of "largely irrelevant" due to a lack of opportunities to display all that shiny new technology.

...or, the F-22's lack of opportunities thus far are more likely directly related to its incredibly narrow mission set, that is, of air dominance... something the US and its allies have enjoyed in their areas of operation since before the F-22 hit IOC. :rolleyes:

[clicker]

I'm a serving Royal Air Force pilot with a mostly air defence background. How about you?

Just a lurker, aviation minded though. :)

My name's Courtney and I'm an aeroholic.

Yep its an incurable trait. :ok:

===

Me, I know ferk all about the technical side of aviation so can't really comment too much and I do not know enough to counter any of the discussions here but I do wish that we could go back to real basics.

1/ Military say what they need, required specs and how much they can afford.
2/ Maker says they can build and quotes a price.
3/ If military agrees with price they pay, maker builds and all happy.

If something does not work or project runs late then maker fixes and no extra cost to military. Delays cost makers unless military ask and pay for changes.

[Killface]

a book by That Man on WW II would be an instant best seller, so your point is self-defeating, in so far as it is intelligible.

I assume if Aviation week was more concerned with sales than unbiased and independent reporting they would have kept Bill on. However they suspended him and gave a public statement as to why.

If they want to sell biased garbage, and become an aviation tabloid in order to make money that's their choice, but they don't seem to want to go down that road and their reputation seems important to them.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Fortunately AvWeek has Amy Butler and Guy Norris, both of whom more than live up to the levels of integrity and moderation we expect from aviation and defence journalists. :ok:

[kbrockman]

Some good news for the F35;
U.S. Air Force To Move Forward Target Date For F-35 Use - Carbonated.TV (http://www.carbonated.tv/news/us-air-force-to-move-forward-target-date-for-f35-use)

U.S. Air Force To Move Forward Target Date For F-35 Use
* Air Force aims for mid-2016 start

* Navy eyes mid-2018 date for operational use of F-35s

* Marines sticking to mid-2015 target date (Adds reaction, F-35B vertical takeoff)

The U.S. Air Force plans to start operational use of Lockheed Martin Corp.-built F-35 fighter jets in mid-2016, a year earlier than planned, using a similar software package as the Marine Corps, two sources familiar with the plans said on Monday.

The Air Force's decision to accelerate its introduction with a slightly less capable version of the F-35 software package means the planes will carry fewer weapons at first, although the software will later be upgraded to the final version, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.
....

The planes will run the F-35's 2B software, which will give the Marines an initial war fighting capability that includes some air-to-air skills, the ability to strike targets on the ground and carry several internal weapons, including laser-guided bombs.

[kbrockman]

And also some other news regarding F35,
another system that adds complexity and increases operational costs.
Talking Stealth: USAF Pushes for 5th to 4th 'Gateway' (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:4ac8bd74-d81d-49c6-8c8d-ad28e0b566ae)
Talking Stealth: USAF Pushes for 5th to 4th 'Gateway'
Posted by Amy Butler 12:15 PM on May 09, 2013

USAF officials are preparing by year’s end to begin flight testing of a communications gateway technology designed to solve the vexing problem of allowing stealthy aircraft to communicate with legacy fighters, though they operate using different protocols.http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/JETPack5thTo4th-USAF.jpg
The goal is to “network” combat air forces so that pilots of the F-22 — and in the future the F-35 — can share data with those flying legacy aircraft such as the F-15 and F-16 aircraft, says Lt. Col. Scott Hamilton, chief of the tactical datalinks program branch at the service’s Air Combat Command (ACC).
....
The 5th to 4th operational concept calls for the gateway to be hosted on a separate platform that can maintain line-of-sight with needed receivers. This means the host aircraft must be able to fly high enough — such as the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft — to connect with forces behind enemy lines. Or, the host could possess enough stealth to operate behind enemy lines. One ACC slide depicting the concept shows a Global Hawk as a host, but the Air Force is pushing hard to terminate the program and mothball the aircraft it has purchased. Hamilton says the Air Force has not yet made a final decision on what the host aircraft will be.

Because the gateway aircraft will host all of the 5th to 4th components, engineers do not envision having to add equipment onto fighter aircraft. This was a primary goal , as adding any antennas onto the F-22 or F-35 without compromising their radar evading qualities could prove troublesome and costly.

Hamilton says that developing the antenna system for the gateway and avoiding electromagnetic inference within the system could prove to be the most challenging piece of the JETpack project.

[FlightlessParrot]

I assume if Aviation week was more concerned with sales than unbiased and independent reporting they would have kept Bill on. However they suspended him and gave a public statement as to why.

If they want to sell biased garbage, and become an aviation tabloid in order to make money that's their choice, but they don't seem to want to go down that road and their reputation seems important to them.

Most magazines make their money from advertising, not sales of copies. Whether or not that is relevant in this case, I could not possibly know.

[Courtney Mil]

Interesting to see the datalink/network issue back again, Kbrok. I wouldhope that connecting new and legacy networks isn't thebiggest technological challenge in the world. Not having everyone on the samenet (or even stacked nets) clearly loses some of the benefits and functionalityof networking and will probably introduce some data latency. But, given this isa 'temporary' workaround to bridge the generation gap whilst F-15, F-16, A-10,etc are flown on until F-35 arrives in force, it's probably the most practicaland affordable solution.

The real downside to my mind is that the 'gateway' is a single node withplenty of emissions and, therefore, a single point of weakness making it agreat target. Normal networks don't have that vulnerable, single link.

[LowObservable]

CM - Also, from the CONOPS viewpoint, my quibble with an airborne gateway is that when the adversary's Vera-E or Chinese equivalent sees the gateway airborne and gabbling away, it's a cue to watch out for F-35s/F-22s.

By the way, on the USAF initial "operational" capability... I'm looking at a chart (which I would post if I had an online source) that says that Block 3F (that USAF won't get until after IOC) includes IFF Mode S certification and Mode 5 integration. How does that affect AA weapon usage in typical RoE? My guess is that most RoE will restrict employment of anything more lethal than a Nerf dart without IFF 5/S, but I could be wrong.

Also TBD - how much the focus on clearing 3I operationally for the USAF will affect the timing of 3F.

re: terrorist attacks on the ground. This may be a concern if you are in the kind of operation where you're running out of a small civilian airfield with a short runway (justification for the F-35B), since such things tend to be adjacent to towns, not all of whose residents may be fans of the US Marine Corps.

MANPADS could ruin your whole day as you come in for a VL or creeping VL, slow and committed with a nice big IR signature. Likewise guided rockets or mortars - the bad guy pulls the trigger just as you start final descent to touchdown. How fast can you taxi?

[kbrockman]

What's most interesting is that it is a line of sight system which begs the question on how close this gateway has to operate in topographically challenged environments.

What to do with missions deep behind enemy lines?
a series of gateways, sat-link, anything else???

What will all this mean for us, the smaller air forces?
Are we going to have to purchase, maintain and operate this extra feature to be able to make full use of our F35's abilities or are we only supposed to operate it in cooperation with the big boys (US, UK, ???), also undoubtedly we're going to have to go for every update, adjustment and serious maintenance issue to the original US (Northrop) supplier, most likely with the same legal limitations that come with the F35.

I'm sorry but this sounds like one more reason for us to invest in Stand off weapons , drones and a less complex fighter iso the F35 total package.


edit 4 spelling

[CoffmanStarter]

Chaps it now seems to go up and down :rolleyes:

First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test - YouTube

Quote from the RAF News Feed ... Just published ...

The UK's new, and only, stealth aircraft, the F35 Lightning, completed the first ever vertical take-off and landing.

I'm not FJ conversant/experienced ... so just a question of curiosity ...

What is the transition speed tolerance (from Engineborne vertical to Wingborne horizontal flight) for that damn great intake flap before it becomes a huge speed retarding spoiler ... does the intake flap have selective open/close settings or is it either fully open or fully closed ?

I still think it's an ugly looking aeroplane ...

Coff.

[PhilipG]

LO I find interesting that there seems to be the capacity to ensure the USMC can declare IOC with TR1 Hardware and 2B software at +/- the same time that the USAF declares IOC with TR2 Hardware and 3I software. With both of these configurations giving very much the same capability.
It is unclear to me if this means that all the presently available F35A's are to be upgraded to TR2 hardware to then have 3I installed or only new build aircraft when TR2 Hardware is available will be part of the IOC. Could get interesting in the training pipeline with the different software versions, yes I do know the simulator arguments.
It does make 3I a far more important software version than as I perceive it it was initially intended to be....

[Stuffy]

Who pays the piper, plays the tune.

[Engines]

Coff,

Perhaps I can help.

Yes, it goes 'up and down'. It's been doing that for some while, this was another step in the clearance programme from basic to operational flight clearances.

The aircraft transitions from pure jet borne (zero knots airborne) to pure wing borne flight (a lot faster) through a 'transition envelope' that reduces jet thrust as wing lift increases. As it does that, the lift fan intake door 'schedules' from the fully open position you see in that clip (about 80 degrees) down to a lower setting (around 30 degrees), which is maintained until the aircraft is ready to come off jet thrust altogether and shut down the lift fan. The door operation is fully automatic, as are almost all of the aircraft systems involved in executing the transition.

The lift fan intake door design was a major challenge, as the 'bi-fold' system used on the X-35 had some major drawbacks that appeared in flight test. The door needs to be able to allow maximum airflow into the fan in a variety of conditions, from the hover (from all directions without generating unwanted intake vortices) to around 250 knots, getting the air to execute a quick 90 degree turn down into the lift fan, again without excessive intake distortion. The solution was a team effort, but special mention goes to some very talented Brits who came up with the solution.

Sorry you think it's ugly - for my own part, I just see a beautiful solution to a tough problem.

Best Regards as ever to those doing their best to deliver the goods

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Good explanation, Engines. Thanks. Can I just clarify that the lift fan intake door isn't actually scheduling the power output from the lift fan, it's the guide vanes that do that, isn't it? During transition to conventional flight, the door is gradually closing to present a smaller surface area to the increasing airflow.

[Engines]

CM,

Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear, I was answering Coff's question abou the lift fan door operation, and excluded the thrust control aspect.

You're right. Lift fan thrust is controlled by operation of the lift fan inlet guide vanes. The lift fan exhaust vane box is also used to help control thrust (by varying nozzle exit area), as well as vectoring the lift fan thrust angle.

The door scheduling does two things. First, it reduces door drag, so reducing power requirements and also door loading (so less weight of structure required). Secondly, and just as importantly, it improves the lift fan intake 'capture efficiency' - at higher forward speeds, the air doesn't really want to turn 90 degrees and go down the fan - having the door at 30 degrees makes it do that. (That was one of the shortcomings with the X-35 'bi-fold' design - it didn't work as well at higher forward speeds).

Hope this helps

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you, Engines. Helps a lot.

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks Engines ... all very clear ...

My question was prompted from a wish to try and understand how quickly the F35 could zip off in conventional wingborne flight ... as the most vulnerable position for a VTOL pilot to be in is the hover/transition. The Harrier was able to do this quite quickly.

Glad to hear British "Brains" are at work :ok:

Best ...

Coff.

[Courtney Mil]

Glad to hear British "Brains" are at work http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Yep, both of them!!!

[Engines]

Coff,

The best answer I can give to your question (how fast can the F-35 get from jet borne to wing-borne flight) is 'actually quite quickly'. (Sorry, but I don't know the precise answer).

It's important to note that the aircraft will rarely go from a hover to forward flight in an operational sortie, except if it has to abort a hover landing. All operational sorties will use a STO, not a VTO.

In a STO, the actual transition is controlled by a single selection made by the pilot after leaving the ground, using a switch on the left hand control 'inceptor'. The vehicle control systems systems then take over and do all the clever scheduling/door closing/flight control stuff. That takes a fixed time, I think it's under 15 seconds. All that time, the aircraft is climbing away at a fair rate.

Vulnerability is an interesting issue - a STOVL aircraft's timelines from arriving in the overhead to landing, and from starting takeoff roll to up and away are really quite short, in most cases a bit shorter than a normally loaded conventional jet. Yes, it's going more slowly during the transitions, but it usually occupies less airspace to do it.

Best regards as ever

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Going back to the video that Coff posted, it looks amazingly stable in the hover. I can start to see how this is going very pilot friendly on and aroind the ship.

[eaglemmoomin]

Uh you aren't trying to paint a terrorist operation to destroy aircraft on the ground via infiltration tactics as a strike against a particular type of aircraft are you? the Harriers destroyed in afghanistan could have just as easily been F-16s or A-10s. Many Apaches were destroyed in Iraq when caught in the open by insurgents, but I wouldn't hold that as a strike against the Apache:

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/15/in...h-64s-in-iraq/ (http://defensetech.org/2012/03/15/insurgents-used-cell-phone-geotags-to-destroy-ah-64s-in-iraq/)

is that the apaches fault or the shutter bugs? I'm not blaming the aircraft on that.

Quote:
Don't quite get the Bill Sweetman reference, btw. Aviation writer, some great books and years in Janes. Don't see the issue here.
Aviation week saw an issue:

"Aviation Week is committed to providing objective aerospace and defense journalism based on independent and balanced coverage. Following comments posted on his personal Facebook page, the editorial team has decided that Bill Sweetman will not be covering the F-35 program for a period of time. We will continue to hold our journalists to the highest standards of editorial integrity to best serve the aerospace and defense community."

I know its the old "he isn't biased when he's biased for me!" thing. but yes there is an issue there, whether you see it or not. Its more obvious than exploding concrete to me, and was for aviation week as well.

If we want to play the "his credentials are good enough that there isn't an issue" game I can post tons of LM pilot interviews by former military flyers with impressive history, including combat. No issue with that? Billie Flynn LM Test Pilot, some great experience, flown many aircraft types and years in the RCAF. Don't see the issue here. I could link to Loren Thompson if you would like as well. OR how about General Mosely, USAF Ret.?

Pentagon Should Investigate Fighter Options Beyond The F-35 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_01_2012_p58-500608.xml)

Bill Sweetman has become so toxic, they left his name of the above piece. I wonder why they would do such a thing? please don't try and convince me Bill is above bias, because not even his own publication thinks so. whether he is right or wrong is up for debate, but unbiased? no that case is closed.

Oh dear oh dear. While I personally ignore Sweetman and Palmer at this point because the bias is overwhelming and often very selective. I prefer some of the other Wired/AV Week/Aviationist commentators. I have to say the inability to fact check the date on an article from three odd years ago or even mention the age of it really doesn't strengthen your case very much, if at all.

[glad rag]

So and with no wish to incite whatsoever, how many systems and subsystems have to operate "correctly" to enable the F35b to land ?

:ok:

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks again Engines ... I appreciate your time taken to explain in response to my questions :ok:

Best regards ...

Coff.

[Killface]

re: terrorist attacks on the ground. This may be a concern if you are in the kind of operation where you're running out of a small civilian airfield with a short runway (justification for the F-35B), since such things tend to be adjacent to towns, not all of whose residents may be fans of the US Marine Corps.

MANPADS could ruin your whole day as you come in for a VL or creeping VL, slow and committed with a nice big IR signature. Likewise guided rockets or mortars - the bad guy pulls the trigger just as you start final descent to touchdown. How fast can you taxi?

And If your aunt had balls... Couldn't all these critiques be leveled against the Harrier the last 40 years? or even helicopters? The marines could also be defending a friendly country and have the locals bringing them flowers and chocolates. :rolleyes: what if the locals don't like the USAF and the A-10? Or the US Army and the Apache? How does any of this apply specifically to the F-35B?

"justification for the F-35B" is also about operating from ships Including the UK's. :=

I liked your exploding concrete myth better. 1/10


Oh dear oh dear. While I personally ignore Sweetman and Palmer at this point because the bias is overwhelming and often very selective. I prefer some of the other Wired/AV Week/Aviationist commentators. I have to say the inability to fact check the date on an article from three odd years ago or even mention the age of it really doesn't strengthen your case very much, if at all.

I didn't think it mattered? we both agree he was biased then, and he is biased now. Did it disappear and his credibility was suddenly restored?

Vulnerability is an interesting issue - a STOVL aircraft's timelines from arriving in the overhead to landing, and from starting takeoff roll to up and away are really quite short, in most cases a bit shorter than a normally loaded conventional jet. Yes, it's going more slowly during the transitions, but it usually occupies less airspace to do it.

fine point

[eaglemmoomin]

Stuffy I imagine quite a lot.

In the same way that a huge amount of subsystems and software has to work together to keep any military jet since oooh probably the F16 actually in the air and flying..

[Lonewolf_50]

So and with no wish to incite whatsoever, how many systems and subsystems have to operate "correctly" to enable the F35b to land ?
Likely about as many subsystems as it takes to land a helicopter. ;)

[CoffmanStarter]

Further RAF PR just released ...

The F-35B Lightning II will place the UK at the forefront of fighter technology, giving the Royal Air Force a true multi-role all weather, day and night capability, able to operate from well-established land bases, deployed locations or the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers.

RAF F35 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35jointstrikefighter.cfm)

Let's see what the "Bearded One" says after he reads this bit ..

The RAF is the lead service for the operation of Lightning II and, like the Harrier before, the Joint Lightning II Force will be manned by both RAF and RN personnel.

Coff.

[Mach Two]

And If your aunt had balls...
"justification for the F-35B" is also about operating from ships Including the UK's. :=
I liked your exploding concrete myth better. 1/10

Sorry, Mate. I thought you were going to tone it down a bit. Please just read what you wrote there. It comes over as very aggressive. There is no need. We can just discuss, fella.

If you want to be angry, go somewhere else. If you want discussion, please stay and exchange views. WITHOUT attacking people because your view is not the same as theirs.

[Killface]

^You are right, I am sorry^

I will just say that those arguments could apply to any number of systems but for some reason the F-35B is specifically called out.