F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[ORAC]

Our hornet pilots knew bugger all about the true capabilities of the f-111 and visa versa. I won't accept "I'm a pilot of x, so I know" I'm starting to become an advocate of post-natal abortion. :ugh::ugh:

[ORAC]

Report: Lightning a Threat to JSF; Cutting Weight Erodes Safety (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-39.html)

Despite undergoing regular test flights, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, called the Lightning II, remains vulnerable to its namesake — lightning.

Additionally, attempts to lighten the JSF by 11 pounds may have left the fifth-generation stealth fighter more vulnerable than the aircraft it will replace.

Those are among the findings of a new report from the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation office (OT&E), first obtained by Time magazine. Test flights are “not permitted” within 25 miles of known lightning conditions due to a needed redesign to the On-Board Inert Gas Generating System (OBIGGS), which maintains correct oxygen levels in the fuel tank. The system is crucial to protecting the engine from exploding in case of a lightning strike.

A poor design for the fuel tank venting system also means that when the single-engine jet is below 20,000 feet, its descent rate is limited to no more than 6,000 feet per minute.

“Neither restriction is acceptable for combat or combat training,” according to the report. The program is redesigning the OBIGGS system to compensate for these deficiencies...........

[Bastardeux]

I don't see most of the posters here having a grasp of 5th gen...I won't accept "I'm a pilot of x, so I know"

Are you on glue!?

[Courtney Mil]

and you know that the sims are using the 2001 data? try again, the redesign was 2005 and I'm sure they ran the numbers and entered the right data, as was said its the 9 top air forces in the world that are running the sims, it's not LM locked in a cupboard making up numbers

Wrong. As I said, neither of us KNOW what data they're using and the air forces can only use what is supplied to them. But I'm pleased you are SURE, even without knowing. It doesn't look to me like you haveany experience of simulation of this type. I do.


but think what you want, you may even think how fast, high it goes the better with a WW1 plane vs plane dogfight mentality

Those are both vital ingredients in the simulation because energy at launch has a MASSIVE effect on missile suuccess and missile evasion. But, again, we don't know what figures they used in the experiments.

The sims are conservative which is why you get better numbers when it is piloted

Again, you are showing your ignorance here. My expeerience with manned, multi-station simulation supports what you say, but it still comes down to the data they are using for the dynamic modelling, which AGAIN we don't know.

Your supposed evidence is unsupportable, Fella.

[glad rag]

the redesign was 2005 and I'm sure they ran the numbers and entered the right data

Perfect summation......;)

[glad rag]

Those are among the findings of a new report from the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation office (OT&E), first obtained by Time magazine. Test flights are “not permitted” within 25 miles of known lightning conditions due to a needed redesign to the On-Board Inert Gas Generating System (OBIGGS), which maintains correct oxygen levels in the fuel tank. The system is crucial to protecting the engine from exploding in case of a lightning strike.

Hmm, did they really mean to say that?

Or is it just another reason to give it the :\chop'ity:\ chop, :\chop :\if they can't even describe the basics correctly?? [fuel tank inerting]:}

[hval]

Orac,

I am in total agreement with JSFfan.

What right do you have to comment on the JSF? After all the aircraft you flew worked. Well, mostly.

JSFfan, simulators are interesting products. Particularly when the actual aircraft, as opposed to the simulator, is under development. The simulator is a "simulated" version of what the development company would like the real aircraft to be. Initially the simulation is totally unrealistic. With time, as the real aircraft reaches that time for introduction to service for active duties, both the simulator and the air craft should fly as alike as is possible.

Unfortunately, due to development issues with all versions of the JSF, for financial reasons and for political reasons the simulator does not match the current flying version at all well. The simulator is overly optimistic.

The JSF project is unlikely to ever meet its original stated aim and objectives; most certainly not without large amounts of time, resources and development.

Many countries who were/ are going to purchase the aircraft are reaching their limits of financial viability for the project. They may not allow the aircraft to be developed as it could be to attain full functionality.

Unfortunately, it would appear that some fundamental and basic mistakes were made at the start of the project with respect to a number of design features and in attempting to create three different aircraft from one.

[hval]

Glad rag,

Perhaps the aim is cessation of the aircraft with a certain immediacy in order to reduce embarrassment. :E

[Willard Whyte]

The JSF project is unlikely to ever meet its original stated aim and objectives; most certainly not without large amounts of time, resources and development.

Oh, I don't know hval. There are plenty of letters left in the alphabet after A, B & C...

The only question is whether the projected out-of-service date will be before or after the letter Z.

Perhaps they need to outsource the software development to somewhere with cheap labour. China, for example.

[hval]

Willard Whyte,

Just hope the Chinese are not going through the same problems with their version the J-31. Having written that, since they stole all the files for JSF I suspect hey may well be aware of the issues and have worked around them.

I bet the Chinese get their aircraft in service before JSF appears.

That would be an embarrassment. Perhaps that's why the Americans won't give up on the project? I reckon we will be on Double Z plural alpha before we get a working one

[cornish-stormrider]

All i know is this has become a top read - the fact is that if this Dave EVER gets into real time life and actually out on a, what's the word, squadron. Thats the bugger. on a squadron the crews will not be allowed to fly it for fear of breaking it, the lineys will be kept in a cage miles away and the super graduate techs will be employed in strict rotation after making sure their guard, ccs, fitness and all the other triv is done so that a simple task like a BF has to scheduled in weeks in advance.

Then Hal will say he's not happy about the pod bay doors and demand to be internet conected to LM - the sortie gets scrubbed and the interface unit (pilot) loses his months flying pay.

When he does eventually get airborne for his fifth and last flying hour of the year the weather will be crap.

He will have to land away whereupon Hal will complain about the pod bay doors again - there will be no special line for him to talk to the head meddler at LM - so he's going to have to connect via wifi - Hal gets a virus and refuses to work ever again - the chinese or the koreans got a bug into the software somehow and we end up with the worlds most expensive gate guardians......


G limits and transonic accel times are irrelevant.

[John Farley]

It seems to me that the level of personal abuse on this thread is remarkable even by PPRuNe standards.

In addition none of those involved in this slanging are even remotely trying to answer the thread topic.

[LowObservable]

JF

It makes more sense if you put JSFfan on your ignore list. He's a troll - a sort of inverse Tribble who thrives on being abused.

There are about 20 pro-JSF trolls (some with multiple identities, including JSFfan). They're not interested in anything except vandalizing discussion threads where the program's many and serious challenges with cost and schedule are being aired.

Luckily we have only one of them here. Until the Mods squash him - jam on!

LO

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Our hornet pilots knew bugger all about the true capabilities of the f-111 and visa versa.

Really? Any experienced Hornet driver worth a damn learnt very early on what a Pig could and could not do. We knew it could shoot its wad and run away very fast, and we knew we could bingo it very quickly if we could get it turning...

Conversely, the Pig guys knew that if we were in the area, they were likely to die....that's all they needed to know.

I'm generally pro-F-35, but that's because I have looked inside the paper bag and I like what I see...despite the seemingly endless programmatic woes!

But JSF fan, your childish and unsophisticated endorsements based on what you've read in the press or heard on other forums are doing the cause no good whatsoever...

[Willard Whyte]

In addition none of those involved in this slanging are even remotely trying to answer the thread topic.

Well John, F-18 was mentioned in the first reply to the OP...

40 pages of fun since then.

[John Farley]

LO

I don't disagree with what you said in your last post but this thread should not be about JSF at all. Only what we can/should do if it is cancelled.

JF

[BEagle]

Only what we can/should do if it is cancelled.

Sea Harrier F Mk 3!!

[kbrockman]

I'm still advocating a split buy, something like a Gripen /EF mix or Gripen/ Rafale or Gripen/F18SH, with many commonality possibilities EJ200 or GE F414 engines, similar radar architecture (Northrop AESA radars or Selex based ones) ,a common weapons arsenal ,BK27mm gun, Meteor, IRST, bombs smart ones dumb ones and even smarter ones, things like Brimstone , SCALP/StormShadow, etc. ... . a good data-link and interchangeable pods, screens, everything down to the flight suite and helmet with HMCS would be a very attractive package as I see it.

The only thing we really give up on is the deep rooted stealth as used in the likes of the F35, it compromises the whole package too much and there are better alternatives for first day strike (cruise missiles/UAV next gen).

The whole stealth idea for a long term project like the F35 clearly (rumours of using it 60 years) is a foolish idea anyway.
Just look at how fast the F117 became obsolete, new radar, sensor and computing technologies will do exactly the same with the F35 and it will take a lot less time than anyone envisaged at the birth of the JSF stealth idea, it is the old conundrum all over again, what is best armour or ammo, in this case Stealth or detection technology, it will always be much quicker and cheaper to develop a new sensor defeating or largely negating stealth while it will be virtually impossible to change a whole aircraft once its shape and materials are set in stone.

After reality caught up with the F35, it will still be a big fat overweight and draggy bird which keeps on consuming too much fuel, costing too much to operate and will not offer any substantial advantage when it comes to low observability.

Luckily we're still at a point(but time is fading quickly) when we can safe that what is good about the JSF, namely its separate systems, the Radar, the optical and IR-sensors, the engine and yes in time even the helmet.
All of which can be used by most, if not all, of the legacy fighters and latest Euro Canards.

For us Europeans this could be even better than joining the JSF project, we can make ourselves a good couple of fighters keeping the technology in house or for those that wish to team up with our American friends maybe go in an alliance with a good third partner (like Boeing or Northrop) and use and further develop one of the American fighters.

Personally I would love to see us (Belgium) teaming up with the Dutch, Danish, Swiss and even the Norwegians, if they can be swinged away from their infatuation with all things American, and go with a split Eurofighter/Gripen NG buy with EJ230 or 260 engines.
Teaming up with Bae/SaaB we can build something great which can serve us for many decades in sufficient numbers without bankrupting us in the long run.


my two cents.

[JSFfan]

Really? Any experienced Hornet driver worth a damn learnt very early on what a Pig could and could not do. We knew it could shoot its wad and run away very fast, and we knew we could bingo it very quickly if we could get it turning...

Conversely, the Pig guys knew that if we were in the area, they were likely to die....that's all they needed to know.

I'm generally pro-F-35, but that's because I have looked inside the paper bag and I like what I see...despite the seemingly endless programmatic woes!

But JSF fan, your childish and unsophisticated endorsements based on what you've read in the press or heard on other forums are doing the cause no good whatsoever...

so in effect you agree that the pilots of the hornet knew next to nothing about the EW we got from israel for the f111, wouldn't have a clue about the true capabilities of many of it's systems and visa versa, as it's not on their need to know list. They are based on subjectively observing its flight parameters, joint mission briefs and 19th hole bar talk.

You are also up the wrong tree if you think our hornet guys know about what's under the skin of the the super hornet.

I actually take the f-35/f-22 pilot interviews on SLD quite seriously, you don't have to share my interest in what they say.

[Bastardeux]

Why would an F 18C pilot with a DV be so out of touch with what the F 18E/F is, or is not capable of?

Also, I would rest assured that there have been pilot cross-overs from the F111 force to the F18 force, and information has been shared at least once in the F111's history...

[JSFfan]

The pilot crossovers have a chinese wall, they will not disclose to the other pilots about their old ride, other than bar talk that counts for nothing. Like wise our F-22 exchange pilots don't come home and spill their guts to the group. It's not the way any air force works.

[kbrockman]

JSF,

Far for me to attack you on a personal level but first stating this;
I actually take the f-35/f-22 pilot interviews on SLD quite seriously, you don't have to share my interest in what they say.

And subsequently saying this
The pilot crossovers have a chinese wall, they will not disclose to the other pilots about their old ride, other than bar talk that counts for nothing. Like wise our F-22 exchange pilots don't come home and spill their guts to the group. It's not the way any air force works.

Is contradictory to say the least.
You put a lot of faith in some website where active duty pilots are publicly interviewed on their experiences with their fighter jets but seriously doubt that the same pilots pass any valuable info on to their comrades in the privacy of their briefing rooms, clubhouses or wherever else they gather.

If anything you should put little value in what any active military says during an interview, they pretty much say whatever their superiors decide they can and must say, that's the way the military work.

[JSFfan]

Where did I even suggest that pilot interviews spill their classified guts and there is indeed miscommunication if this is what you took from what I have said ?

The pilots interview disclose unclassified overview of platform and 5th gen system stuff in interview, that I find is of a much higher order than the nonsense you will read on AV Week.

[Just This Once...]

This is getting painful. Please make him stop.

[Just This Once...]

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

[flighthappens]

Pretty big call claiming you "know" who has a "need to know"

[Willard Whyte]

2012 F-35 Year in Review - YouTube

So, was a certain forumite involved with this puff piece?

[Squirrel 41]

WW,

Possibly. Perhaps his fee is the first of the savings.

Having watched the puff piece, I was surprised that the B achieved all of the 2012 test points by June. To the uninitiated (ie, me) this suggests either a level of underprogramming, or an expectation that they would take a lot longer than was the case. Does anyone know* which, or which combination, of these it was?

Thanks

S41

*JSFfan: this probably excludes you.

[Willard Whyte]

I did like the "amazing news" that, to paraphrase, the program hadn't been cancelled.

[Very Sneaky]

Not sure if this has already been addressed, but LM released a response to the DOT&E report.

Lockheed addresses Pentagon F-35 DOT&E report (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-addresses-pentagon-f-35-dote-report-381218/)

Also, just an observation, but it's interesting to see an incredibly negative attitude toward the F-35 here on these forums, which is in stark comparison to some other forums I've read through in which current serving members of industry have conveyed a very optimistic and positive attitude toward the program..

[Kitbag]

...interesting to see an incredibly negative attitude toward the F-35 here on these forums, which is in stark comparison to some other forums I've read through in which current serving members of industry have conveyed a very optimistic and positive attitude toward the program..


The difference between realists and optomists?

[ORAC]

and optomists? Those viewing the world through rose tinted glasses? :p

[Very Sneaky]

The difference between realists and optomists?

or pessimists masquerading as realists ;)

[Engines]

Whether you're a realist, an optimist, wearing rose tinted glasses or just way cool shades, there's one thing that does stand out from the video that we might all agree on. The number of Brits associated with the test programme.

From personal experience, I know that there are many highly talented people out there, young and older, who are working damn hard to bring the F-35B through its flight test programme. And 2012's programme was demanding from the outset. (Answer to S41). In that clip, you saw any number of Brits who are making a decisive contribution to a hell of a tough task. That level of involvement in a highly classified US defence programme is a testament to talent, persistence and mutual respect on the ground for the UK's years of leadership and expertise in designing and fielding STOVL combat aircraft. I'm proud as hell of the job they are doing.

I absolutely respect the right of anyone to come on a forum and say anything they want - but just occasionally, it would be nice if people gave a little thought to the talented individuals out there who they are effectively 'slagging off' in public. This forum does, I'm sorry to say, lose credibility when opponents (and proponents) of the programme lash out with opinions that lack any factual basis.

I suppose what I'm saying is 'let's all try to play a bit more nicely', and give smart people a measure of respect.

And, to play by the rules and address the thread's question - I think the chance of the F-35 being cancelled is extremely low. There will probably be future reductions, but look at the alternatives for the US - make more F-18s, F-16s and F-15s. That would put the USA in the 'second tier' of combat aircraft designing nations. Honestly, I can't see that happening. The USMC are solidly behind the B, the USN needs the C, and the USAF has to get the A.

If the F-35 were to be canned, the UK would be in a very bad place for any future combat aircraft apart from Typhoon derivatives - and I've posted my thoughts on that prospect before. It would also mean the end of the Uk's aspirations for maritime strike. But as I've said, i see that as a remote prospect.

Best Regards as ever to all those just getting on with a tough job,

Engines

[Willard Whyte]

That brings a tear to the eye.



Or I could just be standing outside in the cold wind.

[LowObservable]

I am sorry, Engines...

But I started reading your post in the voice of Graham Chapman's Colonel and could not stop.

Yes, there are dedicated and good people working on the program for all the right reasons.

Unfortunately, too many of the people in charge at the top level over the past few years have done their level best to cover up real problems and to discredit groups and individuals who have been trying to raise the alarm. In some cases they have caused real damage. The contractors have also paid third parties to write complete :mad:s about the program, simply to muddy the waters.

Which is to say that you may be an upright and honorable or wing commander, but if your generals and air marshals are liars and bullies you are going to have a tough ride.

Also, a rational assessment of the program's problems back in 2007-08 would have placed it in much better shape today to ride out the coming budget storm.

[Engines]

OK guys, not entirely unexpected responses.

Best Regards as ever to everyone

Engines

[BEagle]

Surely it's time to conduct a feasibility into the cost of STOBAR modifications to the QE carriers in support of operating Dassault's Rafale?

Rafale continues to acquit itself well and has now been selected by India. BWoS would probably whinge like crazy, but if F-35 is indeed cancelled, surely Rafale M would suit the UK's need - if not politics?

[Lonewolf_50]

Kelly Bott is so hot. (The engineer about half way through the puff piece).

And a puff piece it is, but I would like to second the points that Engines made: some very good people are doing their best to make this a success. I hope they do.

JSFFan:

FFS, do you not realize that your are interacting with people who actually know a thing or two about military aviation?

EDIT: Ok, I wandered through the L.M. reclama to the critique, and discern an IOC of 2017.

FFS, that's four years from now.
I was working some mid to low level JSF related training projects in 2001 and 2002. The program had been underway for some years at that point. (Won't get into the noise abatement issues we had to address, separate issue that just makes me ill)

*shakes head*

Getting an aircraft into the field just in time for it to be old news seems to be a habit ... see the B-2. :mad:

[WhiteOvies]

Perhaps the people who actually know where the programme is becasue they are working on it every day have given up commenting?

It seems rather like the US gun debate: with both sides completely entrenched and shouting so loudly they cannot hear even the slightest element of what the other is saying. One side will not believe anything positive in the media about F-35 but will leap on everything negative, whilst the other will exaggerate everything positive without recognising that there are issues that need to be overcome.

F-35B is fielded with an operational Squadron at Yuma but not with it's full capabilities. Was Eurofighter or Tornado F-3 any different? FFS when Eurofighter was need to drop bombs for real after how many years of dvelopment etc it had to rely on buddy lasing and as for Blue Circle...!

Unless you want a hugely elongated capability gap caused by starting from scratch and the loss of any maritime strike aspirations then, like it or not, F-35B is the UK's only option. Cancellation of F-35 would also probably bancrupt BAES and LM with associated massive loss of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic, I really can't see the politicians wearing that.

Expecting incoming....:rolleyes:

[Bastardeux]

But it's another 6 years before the mission capable software is integrated...the high price we're paying for an existing elongated loss of capability is IMHO, people's biggest gripes...and it obviously leads to the question of how much longer until full capabilities are integrated...

With regards to a permanent loss of maritime strike, have they already made the compartments for PoW that would need to be altered? I would think the timing of any adjustment or cancellation would be the biggest factor. If it happened this year, I would say super hornets are the likely alternative.

[kbrockman]

Man in white ovies,

I don't think you'll have to fear a lot of incoming for your comments because they actually make sense and pretty much sum up what all this has lead to.
The US and UK are pretty much forced to go with the JSF not because of its merits but mostly because of ulterior motives like the faith of Marine corps and fleet air arm fighter jet long term faith, combined with the faith of LM and in a lesser degree Bae.

Doesn't mean we have to follow suit into the abyss, for many of the other nations there are alternatives who make a hell of a lot more sense.

[ORAC]

EDIT: Ok, I wandered through the L.M. reclama to the critique, and discern an IOC of 2017. The latest SAR quotes an earliest date of 2019, with a probable additional slip of 18 months into 2021.

Which date would you be prepared to put money on?

Lagging JSF Software Development Worries Pentagon DOT&E (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_01_14_2013_p0-536481.xml)

........Software problems are part but not all of the reason for slow progress with weapons integration, along with optimistic and inaccurate assumptions about the need for margins and the availability of instrumentation and range support. “The impact of these delays will potentially require an additional 18 months added to the schedule for weapons integration events,” the report warns.

The report adds to the uncertainty surrounding the F-35’s initial operational capability (IOC) dates. Last summer, Congress added language to the 2013 budget that called on the U.S. Air Force and Navy to name IOC dates for all three versions by year’s end — then changed the deadline to June 1 at the last minute. The most recent Selected Acquisition Report disclosed that Block 3F initial operational test and evaluation, a necessary event for IOC, would not be finished until 2019 — and that does not include any additional weapons integration time.

[AtomKraft]

Lockheed (Martin) are a brilliant company and if anyone can pull off the JSF, it's them.

But, to me they got the basic concept wrong right at the start. OK, with the utterly brilliant resources at their disposal, they might be able to work their way out of it- a bit like Porsche did with the 911- but there's no getting away from the decisions made right at the start of the program.

There were some great minds involved in the Harrier, and at that time a great deal of effort was expended by the worlds leading aviation brains in other countries, trying to solve the problem of a VTOL fighter.

HS pulled it off with the P1127/ Kestrel/ Harrier/ AV-8C series. Everyone else got either nothing or a clunker.

I think the coupled lift fan thing is a dud- for the same reason that the other VTOL aircraft apart from Harrier were duds. Dead weight- and let no-one say that JSF doesn't have weight problems!

If they simply had to have a new jet, they should have maybe started by redesigning the Pegasus, and worked away from there.

You can't polish a turd- even if you're as good as L-M.

[kbrockman]

AtomKraft claimed,
You can't polish a turd
which is clearly not true;)
yiJ9fy1qSFI

[Kitbag]

The difference between realists and optomists?

Bugger, should have tried harder at school :*, but I do like ORACs definition. Anyone got a number for the OED?

[Just This Once...]

Those viewing the world through rose tinted glasses?

Or those viewing the world through a 150-millisecond latency requirement?

[kbrockman]

F-35B Flights Suspended Following Fueldraulic Failure | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130118/DEFREG02/301180020/F-35B-Flights-Suspended-Following-Fueldraulic-Failure?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)
F-35B Flights Suspended Following Fueldraulic Failure
Jan. 18, 2013 - 03:32PM |
By AARON MEHTA

The DoD office in charge of the Joint Strike Fighter suspended flight operations on the F-35B (STOVL) variant Friday for precautionary reasons after a problem was discovered with the fueldraulic system in the jet, officials confirmed for Defense News.

All STOVL variant aircraft operating at Eglin Air Force base, Fla., Marine Air Station Yuma, Ariz., and Lockheed’s production factory in Fort Worth, Texas, have been grounded while engineer teams review data on the jet.

The office made the decision after a 10:00 a.m. CST test flight at Eglin was aborted by the pilot during a conventional takeoff roll. There were no injuries to the pilot or the crew.

The abort occurred because of a failure to a propulsion fueldraulic line, which enables movement in the actuators for the STOVL’s exhaust system.

The F-35A (conventional) and F-35C (carrier) variants are unaffected.

[glad rag]

I don't think that anyone is belittling the engineers who are working to a set program of development. Period.

Will the overall LO characteristics of the airframe "last" the for it's full service life?

If not, then all we have are extremely expensive targets.

[airsound]

According to DefenseNewsThere were no injuries to the pilot or the crew.That's a relief, then. Specially for the crew. It's difficult enough being crew on a single-seater.

airsound

[airsound]

On a slightly more serious note, I was a bit bemused by "fueldraulics". If anyone else is thinking 'wtf?', I've teased out a smidgeon of explanation from Wiki.

Apparently the vertical thrust bit of Dave B (well, actually anything other than straight fore-and-aft thrust) comes from two things. The first is the forward lift fan - a sort of vertical, ducted turboprop in the centre of the fuselage. But the other is a bit more complicated. It's at the back, and it vectors the full thrust of the P&W135 engine anywhere between straight back and vertically down (or even a bit forward).

The major bit of this gizmo is the three-bearing swivel module (3BSM to its mates). That has to take the full force of the hot exhaust gases and point them in the right direction. To do that, it uses actuators that would perhaps in a more conventional machine, be powered by hydraulics. In Dave B, to save weight, they use fuel instead of hydraulic fluid. That saves weight and complexity, apparently. And they've christened it "fueldraulics". Not very elegant perhaps, but kind of self-explanatory.

Sorry if I'm telling you things you already know. It puzzled me.... But that's not difficult.

airsound

[LowObservable]

Fueldraulic actuation within the engine is not uncommon:

Aviation Fuels with Improved Fire Safety: A Proceedings (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5871&page=61)

[SpazSinbad]

Above 'glad rag' asked: "...Will the overall LO characteristics of the airframe "last" the for it's full service life?..."

The F-35: Creating a 21st Century Fighter A White Paper By: Lockheed Martin

The F-35: Creating a 21st Century Fighter | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the-f-35-creating-a-21st-century-fighter/)

"...As Bill Grant, Lockheed Martin F-35 Supportable Low Observables Integrated Product Team leader, has put it:
From day one, 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. We’ve also had a profound influence on the selection of the materials and then once they were decided upon, we helped refine the properties to make them more workable for field use.

And Grant added:
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 F-35’s Race Against Time | Nov 2012 By John A. Tirpak Executive Editor

The F-35 (http://www.airforce-magazine.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...."
____________________

F-35C STEALTH ON THE CARRIER DECK MEANS HIGH PERFORMANCE, LOW MAINTENANCE

http://www.jsf.mil/news/documents/20080318LM_CARRIER.rtf

"...The F-35 achieves its Very Low Observable stealth performance through its fundamental design, its external shape and its manufacturing processes, which control tolerances to less than half the diameter of a human hair. Special coatings are added to further reduce radar signature.
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.”
_______________________

Production techniques gear F-35 for stealth

http://www.navy.mi.th/nrdo/jane/dev_w/productionJuly48.pdf [link no longer available]

"...In addition to machining advances that allow LM to achieve high manufacturing tolerances, advances have also been made in the composition of the radar-absorbent structure (RAS) of the aircraft. This Linhart said, is "complete-ly different" from earlier RAS materials in the way it is resistant to chipping, even in the face of bird-strikes...."
_____________________

New Stealth Concept Could Affect JSF Cost By Amy Butler - May 17, 2010

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/05/17/10.xml&headline=New%20Stealth%20Concept%20Could%20Affect%20JSF%20Co st&channel=defense [Link no work now]

"FORT WORTH — As the debate rages about Joint Strike Fighter life-cycle cost, Lockheed Martin officials are raising a previously unheard point to bolster their low-price claims — a new low-observability (LO) substance called fiber mat. Lockheed officials avoided the need to use stealthy appliqués and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for the company. 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. 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. The F-35 is about 42% composite by weight, Burbage says, compared to the F-22 at 22% and the F-16 at 2%. Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified...."
________________

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

Blogs (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ac61d80df-a87d-4909-8ae9-5b80e3609ae1) [Link no work now]

"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. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin offic-ials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators...."
___________________

The F-35 Low Observability’s Lifelong Sustainability: A Revolutionary Asset for 21st Century Combat Aviation

The F-35 Low Observability’s Lifelong Sustainability: A Revolutionary Asset for 21st Century Combat Aviation | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=6065)
_____________________________

Graphic of F-35 damage/repair from:

https://www.box.com/shared/3uo7o5qt25e2x6ylc294

navyleague2008PDF.pdf (3.2Mb)

CLICK Thumbnail for large version: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/th_F-35damageRepairNavyLeague2008brief.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/?action=view&current=F-35damageRepairNavyLeague2008brief.gif)
_________________

Permanent download sites for RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk / Fixed Wing / Helo FREE Material here:

https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0BwBlvCQ7o4F_aDhIQ0szeVJFY0U
OR
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791

[ORAC]

that come with a zero cost guarantee?

[Just This Once...]

I think Glad Rag was referring to how long the LO characteristics, even if maintained to the 'as designed' state, would remain relevant.

The LO characteristics are reasonably fixed but the threat continues to evolve. We are already seeing tracking and targeting systems switch to different parts of the EM spectrum and multi-spectral systems with digital processing is rapidly becoming the norm. One of the great gambles with LO aircraft is judging how long it remains relevant - 10 years? 20 years? Anyone want to go higher?

Of course with JSF the obsolescence clock started ticking some time ago and this clock pays no respect to IOC slips.

[glad rag]

Thank you to SpazSinbad [!] for those intriguing insights.

Indeed, getting the "meat" of the RCS reduction into the structure of the airframe is, once you step back, a no brainer really, it HAD to be done.:D

However I go back to my original précis. Once the RCS element of overall LO reduction is overcome we are left with what?





One thing that has become more relevant to this western guy [me] with increasing years, is the arrogance of our mindsets to the capabilities of the East.

There are quite literally many millions of bright intellects that are being moulded and trained, given the resources, it will be only a matter of time before technological parity in even the most advanced disciplines are reached.

Look at graphene and who has the highest patents recorded for it's use.

BBC News - Graphene: Patent surge reveals global race (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20975580)

To surmise, IMO, overall, the F35 is 7 years late, 20 years behind in performance and may well lose it's radar stealth cover <10 years, overall, a pretty poor investment.

Unfortunately.

[Rhino power]

Didn't the RR Speys in RAF/RN F-4s use 'fueldraulics' to power the nozzle actuators?

-RP

[LowObservable]

Spaz - Minimal maintenance LO is clearly a laudable goal. Indeed, if you didn't have dramatic improvements in that area, you might as well reassign the F-35B/C to 309AMARG right now and save a few pennies, because no previous LO design would be maintainable through a cruise without installing a very large, climate-controlled facility on the boat.

On the other hand, Mr O'Bryan's statement that the F-35's LO is better than anything except the F-22 has raised eyebrows here and there.

By the way: Interesting, n'est-ce quoi, that O'B considers that it is safe and noncontroversial to imply that the F-22's RCS is lower than that of JSF. Security-wise, that surely means that it is considered obvious, and indeed it is. But when Air Power Australia reached this conclusion the fans had a meltdown.

The "built into the skin" piece of the LO system, by the way, is a conductive element. There is a sprayed coating on top of that, which is described as resembling the anti-erosion polyurethanes used on helo rotor blades. It had better last a long time because it sounds like it would be a real :mad: to remove and replace.

[susanlikescats]

One thing that has become more relevant to this western guy [me] with increasing years, is the arrogance of our mindsets to the capabilities of the East.

I've always thought that the most effective way of spending a tiny portion of your western military budgets would be to train 20% of your mid-ranking officers in Mandarin Chinese then send them off on a three month backpacking trip around China and SE Asia.

Have them walk around with their eyes open. Encourage them to speak with the people they meet. Then see how many return confident that the west still retains a qualitative advantage in most fields.

F-35 Cancelled, then what?

Hmmm, perhaps the Chinese would welcome new partners on Snowy Owl?

[peter we]

"Security-wise, that surely means that it is considered obvious, and indeed it is. "

Never mind obvious, didn't the USAF specify the difference?

Warplanes: F-22 Stealth Ability Revealed by USAF (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx)

I seem to remember they relaxed the F-35 requirement even further, to a beach ball sized RCS and started using the term Low Observability instead of Stealth.

[LFFC]

More problems.

Lightning will ground F35 fighter jet known as the Lightning II (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9813125/Lightning-will-ground-F35-fighter-jet-known-as-the-Lightning-II.html)

[hval]

LO was compromised by theft of the drawings by the Chinese. There are a number of things that can be done to negate theft of drawings and documents, but possibly not enough to prevent negation of low observable design through the theft.

[Willard Whyte]

Warplanes: F-22 Stealth Ability Revealed by USAF (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx)


'Interesting' cost figures in that article. Hopelessly optimistic or hopelessly out of date?

[peter we]

Hopelessly optimistic or hopelessly out of date?

Both, its from 2005. But I guess it was just under the price of a F-18 at the time, inflation, eh..


may well lose it's radar stealth cover <10 years, overall, a pretty poor investment.

It won't lose anything, it will always be more difficult to detect and track. Why make it easy?

On topic, if the F-35 is canceled we can start another development that will be massively over budget, late and fail to meet expectation, while fighting with aircraft designed 60 years ago.

I find it impossible to believe that the defense industry will suddenly discover a method of developing new weapons on time and on budget, so its pointless to dwell on it.

[hval]

Peter we,

I find it impossible to believe that the defense industry will suddenly discover a method of developing new weapons on time and on budget, so its pointless to dwell on it.

Unless companies invest in technologies at their own cost and not as part of a project being paid for by a government. Rarely happens these day. R & D does pay for itself; it may take a while; but it does pay for itself.

When I write developing technologies, I do not mean developing a complete aircraft, just the packages involved. An example might be engines to be used for vertical take off, or a rather posh helmet that does everything. Off course there will be a requirement for integration in to a complete package int he future, but at least the basic technology should be there.

[Bastardeux]

I find it impossible to believe that the defense industry will suddenly discover a method of developing new weapons on time and on budget, so its pointless to dwell on it.

I totally agree, but a 25 year development cycle? How long is its replacement going to take to develop...half a century?

[GeeRam]

I totally agree, but a 25 year development cycle? How long is its replacement going to take to develop...half a century?

Probably just in time to use the last drops of oil :E

Makes the mere 102 days period from contract signing to prototype roll-out of the NA-73X (what was to become the P-51 Mustang) seem frankly astonishing - even for 1940.

[ORAC]

On topic, if the F-35 is canceled we can start another development that will be massively over budget, late and fail to meet expectation, while fighting with aircraft designed 60 years ago. Two points.

1. The short term option is more F/A-18E/F/G and F-16/F-15 with the updates offered at low/no cost.

2. The next generation is essential to keep the design teams together, even of not put into mass production. In fact a strong recommendation is to keep designing prototypes and buying 1-2 Sqns of each for exactly that purposes, so the skill is there when you need it.

The USN has already started (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-issues-fa-xx-rfi-370806/) on the next generation.

[ORAC]

That whole RVL is just so....yesterday..

UyhmrunQPA0

0ffCFlbNa3c

[peter we]

The USN has already started on the next generation.

It will be ten years late, cost 500Milllion each and be below specification.

Probably best to cancel now and look at its replacement, which will be a disaster too.

The F-35 is the best the USA/UK can do at this time, it isn't going to be any better next time.

Makes the mere 102 days period from contract signing to prototype roll-out of the NA-73X

Beat this, less than 90 days

Heinkel He 162 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162)

[Willard Whyte]

US Navy issues F/A-XX RFI (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-issues-fa-xx-rfi-370806/)

Did someone use a buzz phrase generator in writing that piece?

[Archimedes]

Is there a precis of that in English, by any chance?

[Willard Whyte]

I shouldn't think so. Written by a Major, on behalf of a Bird Colonel and bucking for Lt Colonel him/her self?



Hmm, must have my cynical hat on today. Normally works well though.

[hval]

With a specification written like that I am surprised that anyone doesn't end up with a train or a coal mine or some such

[Willard Whyte]

"trade space refinement activity"

Jesus.




"All we're looking for is information," says Rear Admiral Donald Gaddis, the Naval Air Systems Command's (NAVAIR) programme executive officer for tactical aviation. "This particular AoA [analysis of alternatives] is going to be a long one," he adds.

Future career: sorted.

[Madbob]

Will somebody please remind LM just how long (quickly!) Ed Heinemann took to design, build and fly the Douglas A4?

Nearly 3,000 were later made and proves (at least to me) the merits of KISS. (keeping it simple, stupid!)

Seems like a lot of people have forgotten this..........would 2,000 cheaper and simple ac be better able to do the jobs required of them than the 100 or so we will eventually receive? At least all our eggs whould not be in one or two baskets and we would be able to deploy them much more flexibly.

MB

[Courtney Mil]

I know a lot of folks here are considering the F-18, should we lose the F-35, but going back to a 1950s jet?

[ColdCollation]

CourtneyMil:

By '1950s jet' do you mean the A-4?

The only real 'advantage' I can see to the F-35 is that Day One penetration of hostile airspace could be manned. Arguably, that's not necessary even with the current generation of smart(er) weapons.

If we went F-18, we could arguably be a Day Two operator (which we are already anyway). But F-18 with the appropriate stand-off weaponry is a (much less expensive?) Day One proposition.

It might not satisfy some people's shiny toy obsessions but it's pragmatic. And if by Day Two all (or most) of the really nasty stuff has been taken care of, a larger fleet of F-18s is going to be able to put a lot more stuff in a lot more places at the same time.

More and more, F-35 looks like a dud. And - dare I say it - the chariot of choice for medal-hunters.

[kbrockman]

I know a lot of folks here are considering the F-18, should we lose the F-35, but going back to a 1950s jet?

Maybe not the F18 but why not go for the typhoon and develop it to its full potential.
Contrary to the F35, it seems like they got the basics right, the aircraft itself is very decent with tons of growth potential.
Apart from the baked in stealth it basically is an F22 performance wise, it has the potential of having a top of the line radar, has good MMI and Helmet and the towed decoy(DaSS), Pirate, ESM-ECM,etc... all of witch can be upgraded over time.



For those that want to work on technologies which are on the cutting edge, maybe a bit of a stretch for now but the following could very well be already in the pipeline;

Forget about Stealth, the longterm research (DARPA) of the US DoD are also putting their emphasis on acitve defence systems iso of relying on Stealth for protection.

This basically frees up a lot of constrictions on the design mandated by stealth.
With the Germans as partners (Rheinmetall) they have a similar technology available putting it right on the edge again.

Rheinmetall Successfully Tests 10-kW Laser Weapons | Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News (http://defense-update.com/20111128_rheinmetall-high-energy-laser.html)
http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/130594_1.jpg
DARPA is working on derivatives of this project to build an active "shield" for their aircraft;
High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) Programme - Airforce Technology (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/high-energy-liquid-laser-programme/)

[ColdCollation]

kbrockman,

...but you won't get Typhoon off a carrier.

I agree that Typhoon fully kitted out should be a way to go but we'd still need something for the QEII and PoW, surely?

Edited to add: on the non-structural stealth front, I seem to recall speculation (it must be over a decade back, now...) that the Russians were exploring plasma generators to confound radar, rather than limiting an airframe aerodynamically by shaping it to guarantee low signatures.

Are we, once again, doggedly continuing to hammer on the front door instead of checking whether the side door or back door are open?

[LowObservable]

For those saying that the industry has to learn to develop aircraft in less than 20-25 years: What we have to do is forget how to take 20-25 years, which is strictly a post-1980 phenomenon.

The F-4, F-15 and F-16 went through life-cycles that looked like this: 2-3 years from contract to first flight; another 3 years or so to IOC; major upgrades 5-6 years after IOC. The F-4 was produced for about 20 years after first flight and is still in service. The F-16 and F-15 have not been replaced, although they would probabably have been superseded in production a long time ago had not the main source of funds been pre-empted by F-22 (20 years from prototype contract to IOC) and F-35 (probably 23-24 years).

One trouble with taking more than 7 years or so from serious money to IOC is that electronics change vastly over that time. (The first BlackBerry smartphone was released in 2003.) Another is that it is impossible to maintain design expertise or an industrial base.

[John Farley]

...but you won't get Typhoon off a carrier

I beg to disagree. Anything with wheels can roll off the edge. Getting it on is another matter though.

[Biggus]

Who says you have to get it back on...? :ok:

CAM ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship)

[ColdCollation]

John Farley - yup, fair point!

Biggus - but that we could afford to throw them away like super-annuated Hurricanes.

:}

The fleet numbers we're looking at with F-35 means we'll barely be able to afford to look at them in a funny way, much less send them anywhere nasty.

:(

[Heathrow Harry]

" 2. The next generation is essential to keep the design teams together, even of not put into mass production. In fact a strong recommendation is to keep designing prototypes and buying 1-2 Sqns of each for exactly that purposes, so the skill is there when you need it."

This what the RAF did 1919-1936 - not sure it worked all that well in practise

[Bastardeux]

I agree that Typhoon fully kitted out should be a way to go but we'd still need something for the QEII and PoW, surely?

Didn't France pull out of the Typhoon programme because of the lack of carrier capability?...and then went on to win that nice big Indian order?

Hindsight is of course, a wonderful thing.

[Justanopinion]

it has the potential of having a top of the line radar, has good MMI and Helmet and the towed decoy(DaSS), Pirate, ESM-ECM,etc... all of witch can be upgraded over time.

As the Super Hornet already has, not to mention significant extra growth potential.

[Not_a_boffin]

Didn't France pull out of the Typhoon programme because of the lack of carrier capability?...and then went on to win that nice big Indian order?


I think they pulled out because fundamentally they wanted a lighter aircraft, although the carrier requirement probably didn't help.

The Indian MMRCA is not for their carriers AFAIK.

[kbrockman]

I realize that the VTOL concept has some big advantages but as an alternative, STOBAR is still a possible (intermediate to full CATOBAR maybe) option, no?
According to the Indians and the people at Eurofighter, the changes needed would be minimal and it could go off deck @ MTOW with minimal wind over deck ,heck even the Russians can launch their Su33's at 0-wind with a 190m weighing 38.000kg (4 tons over the max for the US Navy boats IIRC)

From a Chinese forum;
The Soviet Su-33KUB twin seated fighter-bomber weights in at 38 tonnes. This is a weight not seen by US carrier planes. The A-5 was the nightmare of US carrier weighting in at 34-36 tonnes. The yak-44e in planning also reached 38 tonnes. Can these planes really take-off from carriers?

From the 3rd take-off position at 195m, under 0 airspeed, Su-33 can still take-off with 35000kg weight with no dip in take-off profile. On leaving the bow of the ship the plane reaches a speed of 179km/h, reaching the apex height of 30m after 4 seconds, and glides for 6 seconds more before recovery at 312km/h

At 38000kg, the take-off profile is an inverted s shape, with maximum point at 27.4m and minimum height of 20.2m. A recovery glide time of 11 secs and recover speed of 400km/h.

So I don't see why they couldn't use the EF ,which has a better T/W ratio and lower wingload than both the 33T SU33 and optional 38T version.
Certainly if they(EF) would install the stronger engines (up to 26KLbs) and TVC system.
They would need ,at worst, about 550ft feet of runway at 0 wind and MTOW, much less even when doing missions that don't need the AC be loaded till MTOW (BARCAP or FORCAP).


The biggest challenge doesn't seem to be the technical side but rather the contract negotiations which would need to be done with cost in mind ,like not giving the supplier a blank development check and time frame.
I'm not holding my breath on that one.


PS Purely hypothetical a STOBAR carrier could even be equipped with something like a Do228 type of VSTOL-AEW platform or Transport with some extra beef-up to strengthen the frame to allow for more powerful engines, a bit of extra fuel and the hook.

[kbrockman]

As the Super Hornet already has, not to mention significant extra growth potential.

I agree but I was giving an example of an option (the Typhoon) which wasn't based on a 70's design like somebody pointed out a few posts before.

[ORAC]

Didn't France pull out of the Typhoon programme because of the lack of carrier capability? The French requirement was for an aircraft sized so it could operate of their current carrier - Foch - which gave a maximum aircraft size which didn't meet the range/payload requirements of the other members of the consortium.

[Justanopinion]

70s design perhaps, but already more capable than where the Typhoon is aiming and no work required for carrier capability

[Courtney Mil]

Didn't the RR Speys in RAF/RN F-4s use 'fueldraulics' to power the nozzle actuators?

I had to scratch my head about that too, but I'm pretty sure it was a separate pressurised oil system - its own hyd system, if you like. It used fuel to cool the oil.

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

Didn't France pull out of the Typhoon programme because of the lack of carrier capability?

France pulled out of the Eurofighter programme for a number of reasons. Indeed, lack of carrier capability is one.
Others were:
- as said above, wanted a lighter aircraft (carrier was an issue for wanting a lighter aircraft, but not the only one) ;
- more emphasis on the AtoG role (Fighter/Bomber) than on the AtoA (Fighter) role that was prevalent for UK ;
- Dassault's & SNECMA's weight ;)

[Rhino power]

It used fuel to cool the oil

Ah, must be that i got mixed up with!

-RP

[West Coast]

And I bet it used oil to warm the fuel...


Heat exchangers, a beautiful thing

[Willard Whyte]

Didn't France pull out of the Typhoon programme because of the lack of carrier capability?

Perhaps they only joined Eurofighter to **** things up enough to ensure Rafale got a head start.

[Courtney Mil]

WW,

You're not the first person to consider that idea. Some did say at the time that they joined the programme, imposed almost intollerable restrictions on it (most notably size and mass) and then left. Only to produce their excellent aircraft well ahead of ours. Of course they weren't in a consortium then to slow things down.

But that's all just a flight of fancy. What a lovely jet they made too.

[WhiteOvies]

As John Farley eloquently pointed out I am sure that EF could take off from QEC given the right conditions. However, having seen the BAES pitch to sell marinised Typhoon to the Indians, the back end of the fuselage structure needed alot of work to beef it up enough to regularly take a wire.

BAES have some excellent people and technically they could make it work I am sure. But for how much...? Balance that against loss of income from the UK pulling out of F-35 and I'm not sure BAES would advise the D of T&I and MOD that it's a good idea. Of course if the programme gets axed by the US then there is no choice but I truly believe that will not happen.

[Finnpog]

Courtney :ok:
The Rafale is a very pretty, and apparently very useful, aeroplane.
The fact it is so AtoG capable unfortunately makes theTyphoon look a bit Johnny-come-lately to the party.

[ColdCollation]

WhiteOvies,

Surely the choice then becomes F-18?

I'm not an unashamed F-18 advocate but I'd suggest that it (or perhaps Rafale) is a much more likely choice than a navalised Typhoon.

[keesje]

I think after Bosnia the french realized AtoG was a more urgent requirement then intercepting russian bombers. So they changed the requirements and created a complete two seater that has become the main variant for the French airforce.

The German also saw the requirements changing but felt the pressure not to change the Typhoon contract. They tried to sneak out but couldn't..

The insight that air to ground, range and a two man cockpit was needed grew slow, very slow in the UK. Tranche III, if accepted, on this interceptor would make it a very expensive, large RCS, agile, short range, single cockpit attack aircraft..

Maybe keep the Tornado's some longer and work on something more suitable for the next 20 yrs?

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

The requirements weren't changed "after Bosnia". The Rafale was from the start thought as a multirole (or omnirole, as Dassault sells it).
The first aircrafts to replace were:
- the Jaguar for the AdlA (pure striker, hence the AtoG importance from the start)
- the Crusader for the MN (pure fighter, navalised)
... and then, all the fighters/bombers in the French inventory.

BTW, the 2 seater doesn't seem that much needed. Indeed, after several years of use, France choosed to have "only" 1 pilot for most missions (even in 2 seaters aircrafts) be it AtoA or AtoG. The exception being the nuclear strike (pilot+WSO), and the conversion course (student+FI). Perhaps also some "high profile" raids, with long-range weapons (SCALP), but it's not a "requirement", more a consequence of the specialist squadron for that kind of weapons being the nuclear-able 1/91 Gascogne with its WSOs.

[LowObservable]

The French wanted carrier capability, which restricted both size in general (note that the Raf has no folding wings) and radar antenna size in particular because of over-the-nose visibility.

The French were also more keen on the ability to carry a big external payload (eg, two effin big tanks and a nuclear missile) than on supersonic maneuver, which was a big part of the UK-German requirement.

Finally, the Frogs intimated later that they did not like the very high degree of pitch instability in the Anglo-German concept, which is how the Phoon does supersonic maneuver without being F-22-sized and which did indeed cause some trouble. But the Frogs did say that after the Typhoon had hit trouble, so they may have just wanted to sound smart.

What about Sea Gripen, anyway? Not sure of STOBAR range-payload - but I bet it can do 450 nm HMMH with 2 x 1000 lb + 2 x AAM...

[ColdCollation]

Would Sea Gripen, in these straitened times, not fit the same buffers as Sea Typhoon - in that it's not available in the flesh yet?

(Not saying it's not a lovely option, mind...)

[Lowe Flieger]

Having read the deliberations of the great and the good, the knowledgeable and the clueless, I have opened a book on the various fall-back options.The latest prices on all the runners:-

1. Typical Cynical Brit: 1/5 on.Fav. (Whatever we buy will be years late, over-budget, under spec and a quarter of the number needed)
2. Sweet Fanny Adams (F***- all) - 3/1
3. Miss Dewire (F35C) - 35/1
4. Ready, Willing and Able (F18 SH) - 40/1
5. Oh Bad Luck, Admiral! (F35A) – 50/1
6. Cool-Fanned Luke (F35B) - Is withdrawn after being found to be not all it has cracked up to be.
7. ‘ello Matelot (RafaleM) - 125/1
8. Wistful Warton (Sea Typhoon) - 250/1
9. Take a chance on me (Sea Gripen) - 350/1
10. Peggy’s Sussed It (Super Harrier ++) - 500/1
11. McEnroe’s Assertion (MIG 29K) - 500/1
12. Who ate all the Pieski? (SU 33) - 500/1
13. Norfolk & Chance (Taranis III armed UCAV) - 1000/1

I am firmly established in the clueless observer category, but were F35B to bite the dust, then my selection of the most likely winner would be runner no. 2 - Sweet FA - as it would be the most economically affordable choice. I think it would beat the favourite, Typical Cynical Brit, which I suspect will get more outings in future.


LF

[LowObservable]

Lowe Flieger wins 2 free Internetz.

[Lonewolf_50]

Norfolk and Chance is an attractive bet ..

[Violet Club]

No. 7 reminds me of Miles Kington's great motto for the French Navy...

'To the water. It is the hour!'

(A l'eau. C'est l'heure!)

[walbut]

Courtney,
Your memory is correct, the Phantom Spey reheat nozzle had its own dedicated oil system. In fact there were four separate oil systems, engine, reheat, constant speed drive and the starter. I had a look in my cupboard full of things I was supposed to throw away and my Phantom and Buccaneer aircrew manuals are still there. I think the Avon in the Lightning had a fueldraulic driven nozzle which may have contributed to its propensity to catch fire at the back end. I guess the dynamic seals on a set of fueldraulic actuators next to a very hot jet pipe would be a pretty challenging design requirement.
Walbut

[Courtney Mil]

Thanks, Walbut. And, yes, fuel next to a burner nozzle does seem like a strange mix. Brings to mind a sign I saw on a local store out in the sticks in the Southern States once. "Beer and Ammo", it said. Do they mix well?

One of my early sim trips on the F4 OCU, the instructor announced that, amongst other things, we were going to cover eninge fires. Not amused when I told him I thought jet engines were supposed to be on fire.

[LowObservable]

http://static.neatoshop.com/images/product/80/780/Alcohol-Tobacco-Firearms-Whos-Bringing-The-Chips_3023-l.jpg?v=3023

[keesje]

The requirements weren't changed "after Bosnia". The Rafale was from the start thought as a multirole (or omnirole, as Dassault sells it).

Wiki:
Initially, the Rafale B was to be just a trainer, but the Gulf War and Kosovo War showed that a second crew member is invaluable on strike and reconnaissance missions; thus, in 1991 the Air Force switched its preferences towards the two-seater, announcing that 60% of the Rafale fleet would be made up of the variant.[31] The service originally envisaged taking delivery of 250 Rafales, but this was revised downwards to 234 aircraft, made up of 95 "A" and 139 "B" models";[28][32] this was further reduced to 212 aircraft.[31] T

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rafale-fighter/images/rafale_9.jpg

The Germans thought so to but by then the politically negotiated industrial programs was so heavy no one could stop, or even adjust it anymore. The French had to negotiate with their own industry only, that is traditionally close.

[Finnpog]

That seems like an outbreak of common sense. L'Armee de l'Air in '2 brains can do twice as much work as one brain' shocker!

[LowObservable]

I believe that the AdlA has backpedaled to some degree, having been convinced that the Rafale's AFCS/automated systems management is such that more missions than they had expected can be carried out by one pilot.

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

@ keesje: Indeed, sorry I miread your previous comment as "Rafale AtoG was prioritized after Bosnia", which is not what you wrote. My bad.
The Wiki quote is spot on... or close enough:
- If the decision to make the B something "more than just a trainer" was made as ealry as 1991, then it was from Gulf's lessons, not Bosnia's nor Kosovo's ones.
- There was only one Rafale A ever: the demonstrator. Since then, it's Rafale B (Air Force, 2 seaters), Rafale C (Air Force, 1 seater), or Rafale M (Navy, 1 seater). The requirement for a Rafale N (Navy, 2 seaters) was cancelled at some point, can't remember when exactly.
Finally, as LowObservable and I noted, since then the AdlA found that one pilot was enough for most missions. :)

[Courtney Mil]

Wouldn't it be a beautiful irony if we were to find that Rafale M was the answer to our carrier strike requirements when the navalized Typhoon prooves to be a non-starter. Or even a good time to resurect the N. All those Tornado navs might have a future after all. :E

[kbrockman]

While it's true that a lot of missions can be done with 1 pilot, there are enough missions that are getting done by 1-pilot crews out of necessity.

The main reason is that it is becoming ever more difficult for the French AdlA to get their hands on enough viable candidates to man their fighter jets.

The difficulties of recruiting enough technical personnel are even worse, that's why they are now making big efforts in adopting the Swedish model, meaning less personnel needed to service/maintain, fuel, load, etc... .

As an example, in 2011 they had a recruiting session for 1000 jobs in the AdlA beginning immediately.
For the administrative jobs they had 10 viable candidates for every position, there where enough candidates to fill in the officer-pilot positions but way too few where deemed viable candidates to even get through the initial recruitment process.
For the tech positions they had 1 viable candidate per 3 positions.

the way things are going they are going to have to get robot mechanics before they get UAV/UCAV's.

For the interested;
3yFM7RI2ex0

[Courtney Mil]

Where do I send my application?

[kbrockman]

Ministry of Defence
14 Rue St Dominique
F-75997 Paris Armées
France


By the by, they have enough Generals and Admirals, somehow they always overlook those when reforms and lay-offs are in effect.

[The Helpful Stacker]

By the by, they have enough Generals and Admirals, somehow they always overlook those when reforms and lay-offs are in effect.

The French and British have so much in common....

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

Wouldn't it be a beautiful irony if we were to find that Rafale M was the answer to our carrier strike requirements
Honestly, from the PoV of military forces on both sides of the Channel, I think a deal like "(FR) planes vs (UK) carrier" would have been a nice thing.
Perhaps it would even be nice on the (military) value for money PoV.
Now, about politics, that's another question. Too bad.
Can't comment about industry capabilities and jobs, too much politics in there to assess realistic figures IMO.

The main reason is that it is becoming ever more difficult for the French AdlA to get their hands on enough viable candidates to man their fighter jets.
Uh? Where did you found that?
I don't know about engineers, but this doesn't match with the number of pilots going out of CZX... and having to wait to be assigned to a front line squadron. ;)
OTOH, budget constraints certainly could have played a part. Of course 2 brains & 4 eyes are always better than 1 and 2. But with a Rafale, it seems that the aircraft is good enough for that not being a game changer anymore. The question is then: do France need that extra-capability? Can France afford it? Is it worth it? AdlA's answer is no (except for nuclear missions, and by extension some cruise missiles missions). Noteworthy is that MN pilots are alone (and have been in much older jets) even for nuke strike.

[Courtney Mil]

AZR, a nice thought. That would have changed a few threads around here. :E

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Yahoo! News Canada - Latest News & Headlines (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-says-talking-five-manufacturers-201042713.html)

The public works ministry, confirming earlier leaks from senior government officials, said in a statement on Friday that Ottawa would talk to Lockheed Martin and four other companies:
- Boeing Co (NYSE:BA (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/q?s=ba) - News (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/q/h?s=ba)), which makes the F-18 Super Hornet
- EADS (Paris:EAD.PA (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/q?s=ead.pa) - News (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/q/h?s=ead.pa)), which makes the Eurofighter
- Saab AB , which makes the Gripen
- Dassault Aviation (Paris:AM.PA (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/q?s=am.pa) - News (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/q/h?s=am.pa)), which makes the Rafale

[keesje]

I thought the Canadians traditionally had a preference for twin engined fighters, but obviously that's something of the past..

[TheWizard]

Cancelled??! Not according to the Royal Navy who have it all planned out.
http://c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com/512fb1c910044d51a836fe3856d5620f-0x0.pdf

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

True.
The question is, why was this dropped for the F-35?
The only other SE option is the Gripen. I note none have been lost through engine failure so far.

[LowObservable]

I have an apology to make.

Clearly I and many others have been judging the performance of the JSF program by entirely unreasonable standards.

“I think we should be surprised when aeroplanes work, not go wrong. They’re so complex and sophisticated,”

LMT-UK CEO Stephen Ball (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9830504/Lockheed-Martin-invests-its-fighting-spirit-in-Britain-by-securing-major-contracts.html)

[Just This Once...]

I bet he is even more surprised that we paid him and his company a hefty premium to ensure that JSF would buck the historical norm, just because he said it would!

The LockMart shareholders will cast a bronze statue in his honour.

[JSFfan]

Nice spin.:ok:
He was actually referencing a Boeing product in that quote, but it is universal.


That, he says, is why people should not be so surprised by the issues that Boeing is facing with its 787 Dreamliner. All 50 of the aircraft have been suspended after incidents reported by Japanese airlines triggered safety concerns over batteries used in the Dreamliner.

“I think we should be surprised when aeroplanes work, not go wrong. They’re so complex and sophisticated,” says Ball. “I think these aeroplanes are incredibly complex animals and so I think it is inevitable that you’re going to have technical issues.

“The technical issues we are seeing [with the 787] are not fundamental problems with the concept, they’re issues that can be solved by doing some more engineering to fix them.

What is a point is that they are going to fly US unemployed workers to work in the UK defense industry.


Winning major contracts comes with challenges in the defence world, with companies often needing to draft in significant numbers of skilled workers at short notice to service them.

“The most expensive way to address it but the quickest and easiest is to pull people on an aeroplane from the US and fly them to the UK.

[GreenKnight121]

And going back to the actual F-35:

http://http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/28/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE90R0PE20130128

Manufacturing problem likely caused F-35B engine failure: sources

By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON | Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:06am EST

(Reuters) - Pentagon and industry investigators have pinpointed a manufacturing quality problem as the most likely cause of an engine failure that led to the grounding of the Marine Corps version of the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet, sources familiar with the investigation told Reuters.

Pentagon officials are expected to finalize the finding and the proposed fix at a meeting on Monday, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly. They said the F-35B should be able to resume flights as soon as the "nonconforming" parts supplied by a unit of Parker Hannifin Corp are replaced.
The grounding did not affect the Air Force or Navy versions of the radar-evading new fighter since they do not use the same part.

The Pentagon grounded all 25 F-35B jets on January 18 after a propulsion line associated with the B-model's exhaust system failed just before takeoff during a training flight at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The part in question enables actuator movement for the exhaust system associated with the B-model's engine. Instead of traditional hydraulic fluid, it uses fuel as the operating fluid to reduce weight.

An initial inspection discovered a detached propulsion line in the rear part of the engine compartment, and subsequent tests showed the line was not built to specifications by Stratoflex, a unit of Parker Hannifin. "It wasn't built to specification as it should have been," said one of the sources. "But there's a very small population of the tubes, and the problem should be fixed soon."

Stratoflex is a subcontractor to engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, which builds the engines for the single-engine, single-seat fighter jet along with Britain's Rolls-Royce Plc. No comment was immediately available from Stratoflex.

The speedy conclusion of the investigation is good news for the F-35 program, which is racing to complete an aggressive schedule of flight tests this year.
The F-35 program has completed about 34 percent of its planned test flight program, but Lockheed is already building production models of the new warplane.

Lockheed is building three different models of the F-35 fighter jet for the U.S. military and eight countries that helped pay for its development: Britain, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia and Norway.
The Pentagon plans to buy 2,443 of the warplanes in coming decades, although many analysts believe U.S. budget constraints and deficits will eventually reduce that overall number.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

[Courtney Mil]

Hang on. Check of understanding. Stratoflex Products Division is part of Parker Hannifin and is a subcontractor to Pratt & Whitney who is part of United Technologies Corp who build the F-35B engine with Rolls-Royce Plc. (Parker Hannifin would be the company that built the faulty 737 rudder actuators some time back.)

Anyway, I've found out what the engine runs on.

http://chucksfootnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/F-35-Money-4-copy.jpg

[orgASMic]

Er, shouldn't the cash be going in at the top and nowt but hot air coming out of the bottom? That one looks she is making dollar bills from fresh air, which is pretty awesome alchemy!

[Courtney Mil]

Very true, ASM. I just saw it and thought of all of you here at PPRuNe.

[The Helpful Stacker]

.....and is a subcontractor to Pratt & Whitney who is part of United Technologies Corp who build the F-35B engine with Rolls-Royce Plc......

Hang on, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the fault on the F135 engine? If so, what part of that do Rolls Royce build?

My understanding is that Rolls Royce build the 'vertical lift module' (shaft-driven fan bit at the front) and were involved in the development of the alternative F136 engine.:confused:

[ORAC]

Hang on, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the fault on the F135 engine? If so, what part of that do Rolls Royce build?

The Rolls-Royce LiftSystem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_LiftSystem) comprises four major components:[2]

LiftFan
Engine to fan driveshaft
Three-bearing swivel module (3BSM)
Roll posts (two)

The configuration of the propulsion system is somewhat like a vertical ducted turboprop embedded into the center of the aircraft's fuselage. The three-bearing swivel module (3BSM) is a thrust vectoring nozzle at the tail of the aircraft which allows the main turbofan cruise engine exhaust to pass either straight through with reheat capability for forward propulsion in conventional flight, or to be deflected downward to provide aft vertical lift.

Detached Fueldraulic Line Grounds F-35B (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ad0792a60-8667-454e-831b-068911c0dc4e)

....Officials at Pratt & Whitney, which manages the propulsion system, say the fueldraulic line in the aft portion of the engine compartment had become detached near the bearing swivel module. Rolls Royce provides these modules.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Thank you 'ORAC' for clarifying that for me.

It is interesting how this is phrased though,

....Officials at Pratt & Whitney, which manages the propulsion system, say the fueldraulic line in the aft portion of the engine compartment had become detached near the bearing swivel module. Rolls Royce provides these modules.

[ORAC]

JSF-Centric Warfare (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:c6fbf6fe-72f1-4989-a805-74616d02f09b)

.........Another piece this week makes an F-35B-centered pitch for the JSF, from retired Adm. James A. Lyons, now a defense consultant. What’s interesting is that both are placed on the political right. Lyons’ story is in the Washington Times, and AEI is not trying to sway any San Francisco or Boston Democrats.

This is aimed at cheap hawks of the Teapartyish and other persuasions – people who may be ready to believe that government shilly-shallying is to blame for overruns and that Air Sea Battle is an Obama-administration way of getting out of paying for real armed forces. So you wonder: are people getting worried about a bipartisan attack on the JSF?

[Finningley Boy]

So what's the chances of this F35B caper collapsing? And how much of the ill-advised pursuit of it has been caused by Air Staff Paranoia about all FJs winding up on Carriers?

Although it is advanced with unbridled enthusiasm by the likes of Sharkey and Lewis Page, would it not be for the best to simply replace the GR4 and provide for the carriers with a slightly bigger number of F18Fs? With a view to F35As/Cs further down the line?

Sorry for the heretical language!:ouch:

FB:)

[LowObservable]

FB - Exactly, and if you go a year back in this thread you will find some of us making what I believe is still an important point:

With the UK carriers now (increasingly) irreversibly STOVL, the F-35B is now vital to the UK's force-projection capability and to its Navy fleet planning. But despite the arguments of the Marines and their supporters, the F-35B is not so vital to US strategy or fleet planning; the AV-8B can deliver CAS to the Marine group, if needed, out to 2025, and the LHA/LHD primary mission (carrying Marines and vehicles, helicopters and landing craft) does not change.

Result: If the F-35B is bacon and eggs, the US is the hen and the RN is the pig. As they say, the hen is involved and the pig is committed.

[John Farley]

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Nice to get back to the topic.

Since the UK is making the back end of every F-35 then UKplc would lose a stack of work/jobs.

Since Rolls are providing every lift system for any B variants then work/jobs (not all in UK) would again take a hit.

As to our armed services position following cancellation they will in the end have to have something else.

What that something else should or will be is going to depend on several factors namely our economic situation, our party political pushing and shoving, our disgraceful inter service rivalry and last (and very much least - sad to say) what jobs our armed services might have to do in the next 25 years.

All the above is bloody obvious but still seems to be ignored by some. If one does accept the above then it is quite impossible at this stage to predict what will happen in the short term because until the F-35 IS cancelled it is all hypothetical and the true position of the various parties will never become clear.

However that does not stop US here having a ball discussing the operational needs of the UK in isolation.

Assuming our Typhoon force can look after our air defence needs at home, my view is that the support of any deployed troops does not need stealth or supersonics but significant numbers of high subsonic and ultra reliable jets that normally only need replenishment not maintenance for say 10-15 sorties. Plus they should have good operating site flexibility.

I do realise such aircaft would be seen as so old fashioned and un-sexy that they will never happen. But that does not mean the notion is wrong.

Hey ho.

[Courtney Mil]

Typhoon force can look after our air defence needs at home

Keep up, fella. Tornado AND Typhoon have been doing the sort of out of area stuff you mention. Some Typhoons can even drop bombs now, you know.


significant numbers of high subsonic and ultra reliable jets that normally only need replenishment not maintenance for say 10-15 sorties

Anything in mind? That is, after all the purpose of this thread. I know what it can never be.

Other than that, I agree with you completely.

[dervish]

Plus they should have good operating site flexibility.


It is a long long time ago, but IIRC it was the RN themselves who agreed to ditch the requirement for operating site flex, assuming you're talking about SHAR operating from temporary sites ashore. About 1993 I reckon. They had a landing aid for just such ops and decided to scrap it to save money.

[cuefaye]

How very dare you Mr CM!

[Courtney Mil]

Oh dear. What have I done now? Or, as I used to say to my Flight Commander, what have you found out about now?

[Squirrel 41]

JF makes a persuasive case for something that could look like a modernised Hunter FGA9. Not a bad idea at all - what would the collective wisdom of Pprune do to a a fresh Hunter airframe as a modern FGA airframe? First step, replace Avon 200 with unreheated RB199 or EJ200.

S41

[John Farley]

Courtney Mil

I do not say that Tornado and Typhoon cannot be used in the way you describe - just that they should not be used thus. Too expensive too big a support trail and so on.

I am trying to raise the debate above crew room banter.

[kbrockman]

Aren't you guys just describing basically a new A10 or something like the A7CorsairII or A4Skyhawk, simple to operate, fairly economical and with all the weapons in sufficient numbers anyone can dream of?

[orca]

Skyraider. Armed with a toilet.

[peter we]

The Hawk is cheap.

[keesje]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_S1Gu2hX9S6c/SlKYiCW8JPI/AAAAAAAALi0/LmfkfdPv3yE/s800/gripen-ng-2.jpg

EconPapers: Military Industrial Cooperation: Saab, BAe and JAS 39 Gripen Joint Venture (http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/fthmiddec/58.htm)

[LowObservable]

JF makes a good point. Fighter performance (9 g and supersonic) results in high cost.

The practical counter-argument (in many years of following debates about A-10s, Su-25s and more or less hypothetical things like A-16s, Mudfighters, SABAs and Rutan-Tutan Areses) is that you have to have fighters and they can do CAS, so why not use them?

The argument goes back and forth with technology and circumstances. Today's targeting pods make fast-jet CAS more practical, but a long campaign (as opposed to a rapid intervention) gets very expensive indeed, so you have an economic argument for a low-threat, low-cost aircraft.

And by low-threat I am thinking that the bad guys have nothing more serious than MANPADS and AAA. Once you get up to the Pantzyr level, it gets more serious, and besides, someone with that sort of kit may have other things that cause you problems.

[Milo Minderbinder]

for low threat, why not build something like this?

Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano)


Presumably they could fly from the carriers without catapults.....
Anyone ever ski-jumped a single prop aircraft?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

I'll lay better than even odds that we NEVER see a "Grippen" (sic) operationally loaded like it is in that concept pic!

[Justanopinion]

my view is that the support of any deployed troops does not need stealth or supersonics but significant numbers of high subsonic and ultra reliable jets that normally only need replenishment not maintenance for say 10-15 sorties. Plus they should have good operating site flexibility.

Did we not have that very aircraft, had around 10 - 15 years life left in it and called Harrier?

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, you just had to, didn't you?

[Finnpog]

It was a (yuk) [Management BS mode] "low hanging fruit" [/mode]

[keesje]

I'll lay better than even odds that we NEVER see a "Grippen" (sic) operationally loaded like it is in that concept pic!

It can carry a lot, because it was developed from the outset to take over all roles from the different Viggen variants. The Gripen NGs for Swiss will have significantly more thrust and fuel capacity and be able to carry even more.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/Saab-gripen.gif

It seems Saab has done good business during the last decade, enabling them to launch the NG with a glass cockpit, more fuel, AESA etc.

It could have the same role as the Jags, F5s, Mirage5, A4's, Su-17s etc.

So coming back to the opening post, if could be an alternative if JSF should fail. BAE / the Brits are already heavily involved. Its far more multirole then the Typhoons were ever promised to be,

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8005/7189048920_5a9da66276_z.jpg

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Sure, maybe...how many Gripen E/F NGs are flying now? No, not the demo D with a few glass panels added...

[cuefaye]

Oh, you just had to, didn't you?


And why not? In the context of this debate, it's a valid comment. Regardless of your anticipated and obvious response - (neither are Hunters, A7's, Skyhawks or Skyraiders).

[LowObservable]

Foxtrot - Well, the JAS 39E is supposed to enter service in 2018, and it comes from this funny place where there are elks and blondes and flat-pack furniture and the tomtens work overnight building airplanes and usually deliver them on schedule. Weird!

[SpazSinbad]

Cancel? What cancel?

Navy Under Secretary not worried about F-35B grounding by Mike Hoffman on January 30, 2013

http://defensetech.org/2013/01/30/navy-not-worried-about-f-35b-grounding/

"...Work [Navy Under Secretary Bob Work] said he was not concerned with the grounding and pointed to the vendor, Pratt & Whitney, as the source of the problem. He made sure to point out that the F-35B is also off probation.

“The F-35B is off probation. It’s doing well. Probably heard about a recent grounding. It’s going to be an issue with the vendor, it was a vendor issue, a problem. The plane is doing well,” Work said Tuesday.

Both Navy and Pratt &Whitney officials expect the crimp in the lines to be fixed soon and the F-35B to continue its testing regimen.

“The team continues to work diligently toward completing the investigation and implementing corrective actions with the supplier,” Partt & Whitney spokesman Matthew Bates said in a statement. “We anticipate a return to flight” soon.

As for the F-35B’s place in the Navy. Work said the service remains committed to the massive fleet planned for the F-35B to go along with the doubling the number of aircraft carriers in the U.S. Navy.

“Because of [the F-35B] we’re going from 11 aircraft carriers to 22,” Work said."

[Lonewolf_50]

As for the F-35B’s place in the Navy. Work said the service remains committed to
the massive fleet planned for the F-35B to go along with the doubling the number
of aircraft carriers in the U.S. Navy.

“Because of [the F-35B] we’re
going from 11 aircraft carriers to 22,” Work said."
Typical pol, playing fast and loose with terminology.

The American Navy typically assigns the term "Amphibious Assault Ship" to what other countries call "helicopter carriers" whereas an 'Aircraft Carrier" has to be able to launch and recover jets that don't hover.


Tarawa class (LHA)
USS Tarawa (LHA-1) [I]
USS Saipan (LHA-2) [I]
USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) [I]
USS Nassau (LHA-4) [I]
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) [A]
America class (soon to be on line)
USS America (LHA-6) [P] **
USS Tripoli (LHA-7)
Amphibious Assault Ships (LHD)
USS Wasp (LHD-1) [A]
USS Essex (LHD-2) [A]
USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) [A]
USS Boxer (LHD-4) [A]
USS Bataan (LHD-5) [A]
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) [A]
USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) [A]
USS Makin Island (LHD-8) [A]

** = Ages ago, I served on CV-66, USS America. I am disappointed that a CVN was not named America as the new ones were being put together ... grrrrrrrrr

Anyhoo, the civ noisemaker in question attempts to claim a non Cat and Trap aircraft carrier as an aircraft carrier.

In the USN, it just ain't so.

[kbrockman]

I was under the impression that the powers that be also silently cancelled any further LHA's without well-deck after the 2 first ones, the next ones are going to be like the old ones again, so much for the MARINES carrier fleet I guess.

Also isn't the F35B grounded because of some ongoing structural issues on one of the forward bulkheads? (not100%sure about this)
The engine problem was an unforeseen (supplier quality) problem I think.

[LowObservable]

Surprised to see a comment like that from Work. Maybe he's "demob-happy" - he's on his way out.

As LW notes, there are not 11 large-deck amphibs today, but nine - eight Wasps and the shagged-out Peleliu. I believe that if Navy shipbuilding plans hold to course (which is most unlikely) we get to 11 some time in the late 2020s.

These "aircraft carriers" can carry six F-35Bs before they have to start offloading helicopters (which are necessary to transport and support the Marines on board). The V-22 and JSF presumably strain the Wasps' support capacity - hence the mods to the LHA-6 Flight 0 ships, which have no well deck, and replace the ballast tanks (associated with the well deck) with more JP-5. However, as noted this has been abandoned for LHA-8 and subsequent ships.

Meanwhile, the quest for a scenario or an adversary that requires a small force of supersonic stealth fighters, but does not call for AEW, EW or tanker support, continues. (Clue: There isn't one.)

[SpazSinbad]

It is like playing 52 card pickup here. The title of this thread is:

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

N.B.
"...As for the F-35B’s place in the Navy. Work said the service remains committed to the massive fleet planned for the F-35B..."

Despite the other baubles and colour and movement - the message is as shown. And bring your money with you...

[JSFfan]

The American Navy typically assigns the term "Amphibious Assault Ship" to what other countries call "helicopter carriers" whereas an 'Aircraft Carrier" has to be able to launch and recover jets that don't hover.

I take your point and agree with it, but you just made this forum wince
So what are you calling the 2 UK flat tops? By your definition they aren't aircraft carriers.

LO, As you have been show and I take it you are having a memory lapse.
The Wasp have a normal 6-10 Harrier load and CONOPS for sea control with about a load of 25 Harrier aircraft

[Willard Whyte]

The F-35B is off probation. It’s doing well. Probably heard about a recent grounding. It’s going to be an issue with the vendor, it was a vendor issue, a problem. The plane is doing well,” Work said Tuesday.

Said in a Dustin Hoffman voice from Rain Man it makes perfect sense.

[ORAC]

AW&ST: .......As the Boeing 787 fleet remains grounded due to safety issues with it's lithium-ion batteries, the Joint Strike Fighter program office is not saying whether the issue will prompt any review of the F-35's electrical system, which incorporates lithium-ion battery that is larger and higher-voltage than the 787's and has a once-per-sortie charge/discharge cycle. Made by a U.S. subsidiary of France's Saft, the JSF battery is the only onboard means of starting the fighter's integrated power pack, which starts the engine. It is also the second backup source of electrical power to flight controls and avionics, in the event that the engine-mounted starter-generator and the power pack both fail......

Lockheed Martin spokesman Mike Rein says that the F-35's battery "has undergone extensive destructive testing...... The F-35's batteries are not provided by Yuasa, therefore we expect no impact to the program."

Yuasa manufactures the 787 battery, but the investigation of the 787 issue (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_01_29_2013_p03-01-542123.xml) has not yet concluded that the battery design or manufacturing issues are to blame.

[HalloweenJack]

May I be so bold as to ask a question of your fine gentlemen?

Reduced F-35 performance specifications may have significant operational impact (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/)

read the above today - now , should it be a cause of conern that the `new` F35 has less turning ability than a phantom?

[keesje]

What are the sustained turn rates of the mig29, Su27 and J10?

[Courtney Mil]

I would say, "YES". I does matter from both a lethality and survivability viewpoint - I'm talking air-to-air here as that will be a very important role for this platform.

The ability to get to high altitude and high speed has a massive effect on energy at launch for, say, AMRAAM. That should be ONE of the big advantages of F35B over the old Harrier/SHAR. Any reduction in that will adversely affect lethality and "first kill".

Sustained g affects the aircraft's ability to evade/defeat incoming air-to-air missiles and SAMs. I'm not talking about close-range stuff here (although that is obviously an issue too, should you choose to go in close and "mix it"), I'm talking about long range f-pol and a-pol manoeuvre, designed to deny or defeat the enemy's firing solution or to defeat the missile at range, soon after launch, kinematically. Unless you really believe that stealth will truly keep you 100% safe.

[LowObservable]

Spaz - "The service remains committed to the F-35B" means what it says, but what it means does not mean what you think it means.

It means "The F-35B acquisition is current policy and is set above my pay grade."

Because the F-35 is a joint program (and because of its enormous size) neither the Navy nor the AF - not even the CNO/SecNav or the CSAF/SecAF - is authorized to terminate it or cut their orders. Even the decision to constrain B production until jets can be delivered without known mechanical flaws (which stands, the "off probation" brouhaha notwithstanding) had to be taken by the SecDef.

[LowObservable]

CM - As a JSF team guy told me, "maneuvering is irrelevant". Firstly, because stealth. You will detect, track and close to high-AMRAAM-Pk range of your target without being detected.

If any of your hapless, dumb Gen4TM adversaries do survive, you blow through them while the all-round EO-DAS infrared system tracks them all with sufficient tenacity and consistency to maintain ID and guides HOBS missiles on to them, in lock-on after launch mode if necessary, over a 360 degree engagement zone.

Then bomb your target and home for tea and medals. Simples!

[Wrathmonk]

As a JSF team guy told me, "maneuvering is irrelevant"

Must have been on the F3 development team before hand then!!!;):E

Ducks and dons helmet....

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

ah, but if the F3 got a 180 by zip, it could blow through without being engage-able. I'm not sure the F-35 has that turn of speed/acceleration.

If one is going to "run away bravely", it behooves one to be good at it!

[Lonewolf_50]

I take your point and agree with it, but you just made this forum wince So what are you calling the 2 UK flat tops? By your definition they aren't aircraft carriers.
No, they are not, by the conventional definition, and neither were the carriers the Soviets used to deploy with using the Forgers.

The Royal Navy used to have cat and trap carriers. The Royal Navy chose not to maintain that capability. The Italians had, or have, Harrier capable carriers. VSTOL carriers certainly have a place in power projection (see Falklands 1982) but also have significant shortcomings as compared to cat and trap carriers. You get a fast jet capability, but it is modest.

The French Navy still has cat and trap carriers. (Or are they back ton 1). It is certainly an expensive capability to maintain.

LO, As you have been show and I take it you are having a memory lapse. The Wasp have a normal 6-10 Harrier load and CONOPS for sea control with about a load of 25 Harrier aircraft
When's the last time any LHA or LHD deployed with 20-25 Harriers on board? :confused:

[SpazSinbad]

'LO' - so in other words the F-35B is safe then.

[John Farley]

What are the sustained turn rates of the MiG29, Su27 and J10?

Not a simple number I fear.

The answer will depend on weight, config, power, height and IMN/IAS. The number may be surprisingly small if all the conditions really are sustained.

I remember Victor Pugachev arrving at Paris in 1989 in a clean Su27 and doing a prolonged yank through 360 deg in the circuit in a tad under 10 secs which had a few people stupified. But I am sure it was not sustained.

Given that for good truly sustained g you need to have a modest induced drag (comes with a high aspect ratio) plus all the poke you can muster then I would guess that the order of merit for the aircraft you mention is likely to be 27, 29, 10.

[kbrockman]

As a JSF team guy told me, "maneuvering is irrelevant".

Which begs the question, why build a fighter jet to begin with?

[LowObservable]

Spaz - The F-35B is safe from Bob Work because (1) he never had the juice to kill it and (2) he's on his way out.

Whether the Marines' lobbying machine can keep it safe from budget realities, its own costs and Obama/Hagel remains to be seen.

LW50 - I would be kinder to the QEs than that. They are at least designed to deploy an air wing capable of providing multiple air warfare missions (CAP, strike, CAS, AEW, ISR) to a task force.

[Lonewolf_50]

LO:

ISR Yes
CAP Yes
Strike Yes
CAS Yes
AEW Really? What has really changed?

My standard for AEW capability is the E-2. I note that the French decided to go that route as well.
I am open to considering that capability in other forms that are Vertical lift or VSTOL. Various Helicopters have the kit to do some AEW, certainly. Heck, I used to provide a modest AEW capability for the cruisers and destroyers I deployed on with an SH-60B. The APS-124 and the associated data link could provide some air to air picture extension to organic ship sensors, though I don't know if some of the software and processing upgrades we suggested in the early 90's to improve on that were adapted in the R.

[LowObservable]

The SKASaC seems to have a pretty good radar and control suite, if platform-limited.

Not an E-2 by any means, but much better than nothing against an ASCM threat.

[Lonewolf_50]

Nice piece of kit. (http://www.raf.mod.uk/83eag/903eaw/skasac.cfm) :ok:

MTI very handy upgrade.

[orca]

Hmmm,

Lots of interesting points and questions.

F-3 chaps. I hear your blow through argument. It is (was) all well and good if you don't (didn't) suck up a weapon in the face just prior to it and the other guy's turn and stern WEZ don't (didn't) come and get you afterwards.

F-35 types. I like the notion of not being seen - but can you really not be seen by anything? Because if you can someone can launch at you. And given the length of time this programme is taking we are giving the opposition enough time to develop things as out landish as fighters launching on link tracks provided by surveillance or even IR sensors...ground, air or space based.

So whilst you can probably rely upon beating a Fulcrum who is using the I and J band to try to find you - are we really convinced that those exploiting other parts of the EM spectrum will have the same issues?

Courtney - whilst I completely agree with your BVR thinking it seems a shame to spend so much on this aeroplane, and in particular making it LO and then operating it in a legacy mindset which will (think tropopause;)) result in every man and his dog being able to see the thing.

Turn performance you say. Give me 9X and a Joint Helmet and I won't even bother looking in the tactics manual for what your figures are!

[Just This Once...]

If you don't understand your own energy management and that of your opponent then you are going to get hurt. Shooting a missile off boresight does nothing for its energy. If your opponent is more careful with his energy you are looking at the silver medal position.

Detecting an F35 is not hard - lots of nations have been able to do that for decades. Tracking and hitting it is more tricky but the EM spectrum is quite large and we forced the market to look 'above and below' the typical modern threat band quite some time ago. We shall see what the adversaries come up with but the F35 delays have given them quite a head start!

[orca]

In traditional BFM with low off boresight weapons - I agree. With the modern stuff I'm not sure I do.

[keesje]

It seems AEW for vertical take-off has been on the wish list for time.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ca15/scan0002-1.jpg

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.nl/2012/08/giving-eyes-to-aircraft-carriers.html?m=1

[ORAC]

Now that's a joke. No downward coverage due to the fuselage, none forward due to the blades, limited to the rear due to the tail. Best coverage would be when on the deck - in which case eliminate the airframe.....

a sensible option would be the Vigilance pods/configuration (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/11/lm-vigilance-pod/) proposed.

Then there's the issue of the F-35 only being equipped with the the MADL, which is a directional Ku band formation link (multiple aerials, point to point). So the platform also has to have a MADL/MIDS/L16 translator and aerials...

I am looking for a job by the way.....

[Engines]

Guys,

Perhaps I can help here.

The 'V-22/Invincible' picture shown here dates from the 80s, when BAe were teamed with Bell/Boeing to push the V-22 for maritime use. I recognise this as a very early 'marketing' picture. IIRC the radome was supposed to elevate as per the E-2, so as to reduce 'wooding'. The 'Vigilance' pod solution was many years away then.

Hope this helps

Engines

[LowObservable]

Wooding?

About 5-7 years ago, some people in the Office of Force Transformation tried to sell the Marines on SKASaC radar installed in the back of a V-22. Total lack of interest from the Corps... I don't know why, unless either (a) they truly believe that networked F-35 sensors will do it for them, or (b) they secretly realize that they will never go into any scenario with serious Red air or ASCMs without CSG backup.

The trouble with (b) is that it cuts the requirement for a supersonic, stealth Marine jet off at the knees.

[John Farley]

it cuts the requirement for a supersonic, stealth Marine jet off at the knees

This requirement in my view was never a reasonable one. That is where the whole thing went wrong.

Up until the late 70s early 80s it was very reasonable for all Ops Requirement Staffs to have every new technical possibility on their 'must have' list whether they were Airforce, Navy or Marine. 10 years later given the capability of smart weapons plus modern nav and comms I think things changed and you did not need to have every capability in every aircraft. It was time to think about the detailed use of each platform and therefore what it really did need to accomplish its MAIN role.

So far as the USMC expeditionary task goes I believe they needed superb reliability and real operating site flexibility with a negligible support trail beyond replenishing their people with food and the aircraft with fuel and weapons. The near total reliability I have in mind would have to be designed in to any aircraft - it would not happen without compromises in many other matters. Stealth and supersonics especially would be bound to reduce reliability, put up cost and reduce numbers and so on.

As it happened when I was still at Kingston in the 80s I proposed a development of the Harrier that would be ultra reliable with minimum maintenance due to a complete redesign of the airframe systems and structure, full FBW to remove the need for any piloting skill/training/currency except when over the target, 0.9M on the deck in the aircombat config plus very good legs. People larfed and said what about stealth and supersonics? They of course were just people who wanted to do that for their own purposes. After all call yourself a designer if you don't do the lot (whatever the lot is at the tiime).

So we have what we have today because of key people not wanting to be associated with anything other than the latest and the best of everything.

Sorry for the rant.

[glad rag]

As it happened when I was still at Kingston in the 80s I proposed a development of the Harrier that would be ultra reliable with minimum maintenance due to a complete redesign of the airframe systems and structure, full FBW to remove the need for any piloting skill/training/currency except when over the target, 0.9M on the deck in the aircombat config plus very good legs.

Very interesting indeed, thank you for sharing that.

[dervish]

Engines


Would you explain the "wooding" please?


I remember when Future Organic AEW (FOAEW) was part of the CVS IPT at AbbeyWood in the early 00s. They were looking for staff and turned down anyone with AEW/ASaC experience on the grounds that it was completely irrelevant to FOAEW. None of them even got an interview. Osprey was one of the candidate platforms. So was Merlin, despite the RN rejecting it in favour of a Sea King upgrade.

[Not_a_boffin]

Wooding is essentially the obstruction of a radar field of view by "stuff". Usually used in connection with ships, but also applicable to aircraft if you're trying to mount a 360 degree FoV radar, in proximity to an airframe.

Think how high above the wings and fuselage the radome is on an E3. You can't get that on an E2 (hangar height) but you try to make it as high as you can. The E2 radome lowers slightly once aboard for stowage. IIRC the original reason was to allow stowage in the old CV-41 hangar (lower deckhead height than CV59 onwards).

[LowObservable]

This requirement in my view was never a reasonable one. That is where the whole thing went wrong.

Exactly. The first problem in selling a Harrier III in the 1980s, though, was that the RN clearly wanted F-16-like agility and supersonic. So did the Marines, because they expected to be taking on Soviet flank forces in places like Norway. Hence the US-UK ASTOVL parameters set in 1986.

However... between the Powered Lift Conference in 1987 and 1990, the Brits in particular noticed a disturbance in the force: The US side was clearly up to something under the cover of secrecy. This was Lockheed's STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF), which was stealthy.

It led by 1991 to the origins of the JSF: The key was that the STOVL operators could not only get stealth, but they could get it for free, because by swapping the lift fan for a gas tank you could create the longer-range, stealthy Multi Role Fighter that the USAF wanted.

But then when it really went wrong was the decision to bet all of TacAir on that idea before it had been demonstrated, and here we are.

[dervish]

Not a Boffin

Thank you. Understood.

[Heathrow Harry]

This weeks "Flight" has some pointed remarks from US flyers around the point that with the latest downgrade in "acceptable" performance on the F-35 you might as well be flying an F-4 or F-5

[Lowe Flieger]

The relaxation of the specification is a bit of a worry. Of the three basics you would like from any military procurement - on budget, on time and on spec, only the last was still up for grabs. It seems F35 now has the full set of undesirables. I wasn't entirely sure if this is a permanent downgrade, linked to the development and test period, with clearance to revert to the original parameters to be reinstated later - presumably not?

All aircraft have their strengths and weaknesses, with tactics developed to play to the strengths and minimise the weak points. But it is concerning that this far into a programme that promised so much, compromises are still eroding desired capabilities. From the outside, it seems huge effort is having to be expended to take three steps back for every two forward. Having to develop more and more tactics to offset performance losses is putting workload back on the pilot when a lot of money has gone into making his/her life so much easier.

As the UK will have to use F35 for air-defence, does this have knock-on operational constraints? If the UK were acting in isolation, does this now mandate at least one if not two T45s to provide protection? Will we have enough ships to protect the carriers (a long standing personal concern)? Can Sea Ceptor be fitted to POW/QE? I don't believe it is currently planned but I may be wrong.

F35 numbers have been vague these last 3 years. Officially still 138, then mooted to be 50-ish initially, with hopes that we will eventually get 'about 100'. All to be debated in SDSR 2015. But what will we know in 2015 that gives confidence to order in numbers? As capabilities reduce would it not be sensible to order small lots to find out whether it will work for us? If it does buy more. If not, don't add to the problem

If F35B falls over entirely, then there are only two realistic candidates to replace it for carrier operation - Super Hornet or Rafale. Both would require (apparently) costly modifications to the carriers. In my view there would be a very real risk that scrapping the whole deal would be a favoured economic option - no F35, no Hornets, no Rafales and no carriers - saves a bundle. So, I am really hoping that F35B comes through for us - we are in a right mugger's buddle if it doesn't. Yet the bad news just keeps on coming. Depressing.

LF

[Heathrow Harry]

The sustained turn rates of the three variants was reduced to 4.6 g for the F-35A, 4.5 g for the F-35B, and 5.0 g for the F-35C.

The acceleration performance of all three variants was also downgraded, with the F-35C taking 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2.

This was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower performance level than expected from a fourth generation fighter

43 seconds longer than an F-16 for heavens sake - I hope the stealth works otherwise those guys are going to be sitting ducks

[Ivan Rogov]

All this money and they produce a stealthy A-7, or have they reduced the LO spec too? :ugh:

[LowObservable]

LF - It was three years ago this week that SecDef Gates fired the JSF program office director. At that point, USAF IOC was officially set for 2013 (with Block 2, but a combat-effective Block 2).

It's increasingly clear that Gates' Admiral Fixit, Dave Venlet, subsequently opened the lid on Pandora's can of snakes, an apocalyptic FUBAR somewhere between the Charge of the Light Brigade and the Raft of the Medusa. Something had gone colossally wrong with the execution of the program - what that was, is now only slowly coming to light.

Even now, the best guess is that IOC is in 2020 - that is, it is still four years further off than it was supposed to be, three years ago. And software development is still wobbly.

[Courtney Mil]

From experience of running COEIAs - including F35 models - the appraisal is only valid and, therefore, the suitability of the system in question to meet the operational requirement confirmed, IF the system confoms to the standards used to create the models. Any changes to specifiacations immediately invalidate the trial and the only way to confirm that the changes are "acceptable" is the re-model and re-evaluate. Believe me, relatively small changes in specs can have disproportionate effects on the overall operational effectiveness. This hasn't been done in this case.

So, unless anyone believes that we should blindly support the project by accepting the changes to the specs without thoroughly re-evaluating it to see if it meets our needs, we should now be "on hold" pending a complete appraisal of the new capability on offer. It looks pretty obvious now that we have here a platform with piss poor performance - way worse than a lot of platforms we've operated before. The remaining strength, stealth, may not be enough to carry the day.

Is this about the UK's investment in the system or procuring the system we really need for our carriers?

Time to stop and do a thorough re-evaluation.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Would you explain the "wooding" please?

That's the 'top gun' detection system: "they must be close, I'm getting a hard on"

Seriously.... How much longer is this train wreck of a program going to last?

[Courtney Mil]

Before the "hard-over" pros and cons answer you, Captain, my concern now is now if the programme survives, but weather it's what we need. I pray we don't buy a 4.5g, underpowered, range and payload-limited just because we want to be in the club.

I find it hard to see how it can be what we need.

[Ivan Rogov]

COEIA was a new one for me

www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/weiss.pdf

I knew there was a process but not how it worked, thanks CM :ok:

Definitely time to stop and reassess our options :confused:

[LowObservable]

CM - Good point.

I have said here and elsewhere that the USAF's core requirement was for something like an F-117, but that would be (a) able to survive in daylight, (b) not limited to clear air bombing and (c) able to find and attack moving targets. The F-35A should be able to do that, if at a high price.

The USAF also wanted something that could be loaded up to do an F-16 job on "Day 2" (I am aware that is a figure of speech). But that's not as urgent because there will be lots of upgraded AESA-fitted Vipers until 2030, on current plans.

The Navy core requirement was for a stealth bomber, with the Super H/Growler doing everything else. Again. that's doable, as long as there are no nasties lurking between here and carrier qualification.

But if you want a fighter that does everything fighters do, and considering the range and payload limits of the B model, and if your budget is not bottomless...

Capt: It is remarkable how long train wrecks can continue in this business, because some of these trains are about 3000 cars long...

[Just This Once...]

Courtney, you are right to be worried about raw performance of the aircraft once stealth is eroded by time. But having seen the figures I would not use he term 'underpowered' as above and especially below the transonic region the jet accelerates like a scalded cat.

I readily accept though that the acceleration from 0.8 to 1.2+ is a real shocker for AIM-120 tactics and if you start kicking the aircraft around in the transonic region it just pisses energy.

Spending so long in burner at night in a supposedly LO platform will not be fun.

Just plain awful really.

[Courtney Mil]

Under-powered in the sense that the aircraft today (and the revised specs) do not match the the specs used in the evaluation that showed that it met the operational requirement. I chose my words carefully.

[Just This Once...]

Understood.:ok:

[LowObservable]

43,000 lbst is a lot to play with in the subsonic regime. But the combined effects of stuffing a 4500 lb capacity weapon bay into the midriff, ramming a THING the same diameter as a regional jet's engine into a hole behind the cockpit, and keeping the beast short enough to fit on an elevator that was designed in the 1960s for helicopters, sort of catch up with you as you pass 0.9.

[A A Gruntpuddock]

F-35Bs grounded after engine problem discovered - Top Story - Northwest Florida Daily News (http://www.nwfdailynews.com/military/top-story/f-35bs-grounded-after-engine-problem-discovered-1.90485?tc=cr)

“It hasn’t really affected our ability to do anything other than fly,”

Not a problem then, I'm sure the new missiles available can be launched whilst it is still on on the ground.

[Courtney Mil]

AAG,

Hopefully that will be the only effect it will have on the front line when it gets cancelled.

[Mk 1]

Happened 3 weeks ago. The fault has been analysed, and a fix is in the works.

Chances of this jet (Dave B) being cancelled is a bit less than zero.

[Bastardeux]

Mk 1, you're not by any chance a reincarnation of 'JSFfan' are you?

[M609]

"A" formation

http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2013/02/130201-F-zz999-805.JPG

Edit: Made it a link instead

[HarrySpotter]

Ok.... I know this thing has power to burn etc etc but when you look at it, it just doesn't seem to be aerodynamic enough to be supersonically efficient.

Back in the good old days the designers caught onto the idea of area rule and 'waisted' fuselages. This aircraft just doesn't seem to conform so where does it's supersonic capability come from? Is it really just down to raw power?

[Courtney Mil]

M609,

Nice picture. Can you make it a bit smaller?

Looks like they're on their way into Pensacola. I think that's the entrance to Mobile Bay in the background.

Courtney

[Jet Jockey A4]

Of an ugly aircraft (just my opinion).

[The Helpful Stacker]

HarrySpotter - There is an old saying that might apply in part here.

Proof that with a big enough engine even a brick could fly....and the F-4 needed two!

[Roadster280]

Eglin Air Force Base - Home (http://www.eglin.af.mil)

Photo is on the front page.

[Courtney Mil]

Jet Jocky A4, yes it really is, isn't it?

[Not_a_boffin]

http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/cdp/boeing/x32b/cdp_boe_stovl_004.jpg

And of course the alternative didn't fall out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down........ fdump, fdump, fdump.......did it?

[Courtney Mil]

That's even worse!!

[Jet Jockey A4]

Fugly for sure and yes even worse than the newer version! :eek:

[glad rag]

How can you say that if you can't even "see" it? :}

[LowObservable]

That's the reason for the secret ultra-stealth treatment that Boeing planned for the F-32...

http://www.bags99.com/files/image/bigproduct/Shopping_Gift_bag/shopping/grocery%20shopping%20paper%20bag%2005.jpg

http://www.bags99.com/files/image/bigproduct/Shopping_Gift_bag/shopping/grocery%20shopping%20paper%20bag%2005.jpg

[Ivan Rogov]

Since the X-32 has entered the thread, did the wrong design win?

I know in the past the US used competing designs run in parallel for longer to ensure a backup and keep the pressure on the companies to produce the goods, but obviously that has an obvious up front additional cost implication, in hindsight was removing that concept a mistake?

Was the X-32 a worse design and/or Boeing a more risky company, I know it looked ugly but was it more likely to mature in to the required platform?

[kbrockman]

It was a lot lighter, had a very revolutionary one piece wing and the method of VTOL was certainly a lot less complex than the one used in the F35, more like the Harrier type, meaning that it also could be used during flight (no mess with doors , extra fans gearboxes/shafts etc.)

The wing-load was spectacularly low compared with the F35, 85lb/ft² vs 130 for the F35 (both at MTOW).
Therefore contrary to the 35 it had some serious growth potential both for fuel-load growth and MTOW growth.

I suspect that for the Navy and Air force versions (and also the MARINES if the CoG would've allowed for it) the cockpit would probably placed a few foot further forward like happened with the F22 production vs the YF22 which would have made it a lot prettier as an added bonus.

Because of the lighter weight, the inherent strength of all thing triangle shaped (like this Delta was), it would have come out a lot cheaper I strongly suspect.

The prototype VTOL version had some issues with hot air coming into the inlet while hovering, but I fail to see why that would have been a difficult issue to solve either by lengthening the inlet, repositioning the forward thrusters or feeding air partially from a topside inlet port.

All the equipment could be at least the same as todays F35, the sensors, avionics, Radar etc..., so that's basically a non issue.

Just imagine a 50,000lbs 590sqftwing vs a 60,000/70,000 lbs 460/670sqftwing fighter, a lower Vapp for carrier ops, more weight margin for the VTOL, more place for internal bays for the F32 2xside + 1 under the fuselage like in the F22 which means 6 AMRAAMS or 2 AMRAAMS and 2x2000lbs bombs.

I suspect that the choice was made for the F35 (even if the USAF clearly preferred the X32) because LM had nothing left to build in the longrun contrary to Boeing who still had the SH an F15 combined with all the other programs that where still having long term potential.
The MARINES got lured by the higher top end speed of the F35 and the NAVY was less outspoken as to which platform they preferred but they had a slight preference for the X35.
I wonder how much the last 2 regret their choice nowadays knowing that raw performance is exactly where the F35 under-performs consistently on all 3 variants mostly because it's too heavy, too bulky(draggy) and structurally at its limits.

All this in hindsight off course so purely academic I admit.
Doesn't take away the fact that in my opinion the X32 is a lost opportunity, I believed that ever since the X35 won by what I suspect was a mainly political decision to keep LM relevant, the fact that the UK was so deeply involved with RR probably also helped.

[WhiteOvies]

X-35 and X-32 are both in the air museum at Pax River so it's easy to compare and contrast these days, at least on the looks...

At the time of the decision LM were still supposed to be building lots of F-22 so not sure about the company politics argument. Personally I suspect thst LM won it as they already had experience of building a '5th Gen' fighter. A lot of people on the programme are ex-F-22, ex-F-117, experienced Skunk works personnel.

Also the decisions were being made by fast jet mates, when style and ego are all important which would you rather be seen stepping out of??:E

[Mk 1]

JSF Fan - No.

Just a realist. I think the program has been poorly handled, is overbudget, and is trying to turn a pigs ear specification wish list into a silk purse. On the other hand they seem to be largely succeeding.

- The unit cost is no-where near as bad as most of the media detractors suggest.

- The kinematic performance is probably its worst aspect (compromised by the design requirements making it short and fat).

- The avionics and SA provided by EOTS and DAS is a strong positive.

- The LO (VLO) nature of the airframe will bring advantages.

- The airframe in the US inventory will be replacing a handful of airframes that are rapidly running out of air hours and approaching obsolescence. As such I don't believe it will suffer the same magnitude of cuts from orders to numbers accepted as the F-22 did.

- It's a new developmental airframe - as such it will encounter problems - and usually the problems will be overcome (eg: Dave C's tailhook) some won't be - transonic acceleration target 9at least until they uprate the donk). I cannot think of any other complex manufactured product of any sort that does not have issues (car recalls, 787 Li-Ion batteries, F-111's well documented issues etc).

The problem is there is an aspect of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' here. The airframe's (very) average kinematic performance seems to be being compared with other 4th and 4.5th gen contemporaries and it comes up short in most yardsticks (I think APA used the term 'clubbed like a baby seal'). Yet, advances of the sensors, sensor fusion and LO characteristics are supposed to well and truly turn the tables on the contemporary opponents. As the generic you and I don't have access to the classified performance data of this airframe and sensors, we need to accept the Lockmart's line on this. Or, trust that the senior people in the defence forces of 8 of the best airforces in the world have made the correct choice. Call me an optimist, but I believe you don't get to senior ranks in the ADF for example, without knowing a thing or two about air combat and how these jets will be employed. These are the same people who do have access to the classified stuff and have decided that this aircraft, despite the cost and kinematic issues is well worth buying over existing 4th and 4.5th gen options.

I suppose my yardstick for comparison is when we grunts had our trusty L1A1 SLR's replaced by the F88 Steyr in 1988. My initial skepticism was replaced by admiration that the little space age looking plastic gun was a better weapon for most infantry purposes than the old trusty SLR. I still have a soft spot for the L1A1, but realize that there are better weapons available today.

So, not a blind fan of the 'Dave', but accept that as I am not privy to all of the info of the beast I have to trust that the people that have the access and are selecting the airframe know what they are doing. They certainly know more than most of the uninformed commentary I have seen (APA, certain haters on other websites etc).

[LowObservable]

Mk 1...

"The unit cost is nowhere near as bad as its media detractors suggest".

Not sure which detractors you are talking about, or which definition of cost you're using, but as a generic statement this does not mean much. Unit production cost of the B (under discussion here) is by any definition about three-quarters of what RAND estimated the F-22 would have cost in continued production, if everything goes to plan and at triple-digit total F-35 production rates.

The F-35A is still much more expensive than the Super Hornet in production costs, whether total procurement, flyaway or (LockMart's favorite) tow-away (no engine). All this is in the latest official estimates, the 2011 SAR.

"We need to accept LockMart's line on this... trust the professionals in the air forces."

Er, no. Not when progress has been retrograde since 2008 (IOC now appears to be further in the future than it was then) and the projected US acquisition bill (R&D and procurement) has gone up $40 million a day in constant dollars since the SDD contract was signed. Or when people who were briefing 2013 IOCs in 2009 are still employed.

Also - I would try to avoid terms like "haters" around here. Save it for the sites infested with hairy-palmed basement-dwelling pizzavores, where BTW you will find much more spluttering invective aimed at JSF critics than the other way around.

[kbrockman]

Anxiety remains in the DoD about the effects of the upcoming across-the-board spending cuts, the F35 is still one of the main targets.

Budget cuts would reduce flying hours, F-35 orders: Air Force | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/us-usa-budget-airforce-idUSBRE91516120130206)

WASHINGTON | Wed Feb 6, 2013 3:18pm EST

(Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force will have to curtail its orders for Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet, restructure a $52 billion tanker contract with Boeing Co and reduce its flying hours by 18 percent if lawmakers do not avert impending across-the-board spending cuts, the service told Congress on Wednesday.

The Air Force, in a draft presentation to Congress, said it faced shortfalls of $1.8 billion in war funding and $12.4 billion overall if Congress does not forestall the cuts, known as sequestration, which are due to take effect on March 1.

[Heathrow Harry]

Just finished re-reading Bill Gunston's chapter on the MD A-12 Avenger in "Jet Bombers"

talk about deja-vue!! It was going to replace the A-6 and various other strike aircraft on a "Better than one-to-one basis"

of course it ran wayyyyyyy over budget and was going to be well under spec so they cancelled it - and TBH it didn't affect matters very much

[NoHoverstop]

Since the X-32 has entered the thread, did the wrong design win?

Was the X-32 a worse design and/or Boeing a more risky company, I know it looked ugly but was it more likely to mature in to the required platform?

It may be worth remembering that the X-32 and X-35s were X-planes, that is concept demonstrator aircraft (CDA) built for very limited flying lifetimes, rather than aircraft to put into operational service in large numbers. However, the concepts that these aircraft were supposed to demonstrate were clearly meant to carry across to production aircraft. So the aircraft that Boeing and LM proposed for production were called "preferred weapon system concepts" (PWSC), which in the case of LM at least, looked somewhat like the CDA (the Boeing less so, unless one looked from directions where the horizontal tails on their PWSC weren't visible). So although comparing X-32 with X-35 may be useful, one would need to compare the respective PWSC submissions to decide which to pick. Probably though, with a degree of "risk assessment" informed by what had been learned from the CDA activities.

I am in no doubt whatsoever that the right PWSC won. Boeing's initial concept was simple, but, in my view, not up to the job. So the design for the X-32 showed a lot of painful development to turn an over-simple concept into a workable aircraft (i.e. Boeing kept finding problems and having to add things to the design to fix them, resulting in a design that got more and more complex). The final aircraft aircraft could be called many things, but in comparison to the X-35, "elegantly simple" would not be one of them. In my engineering judgement anyway. The PWSC also seemed to get more complex as it progressed, notably so when presented for the final assessment. The usual game was "aren't there more pipes and nozzles than last time?", but that wasn't the only game as "so how does that actually work then?" was also fun.

So, "Harrier-like"?, well not really since the Harrier doesn't have a conventional jet-pipe that can be closed off with a massive diverter valve to shunt the exhaust out of other big nozzles for V/STOL. "No mess with doors"? it certainly had doors to do V/STOL (covering/uncovering the main lift nozzles as well as elsewhere). "A lot less complex than the one used in the F35"? Well, count the nozzles. X-35B and F-35B have four, to do lift, propulsion and control. I have actually forgotten how many the X-32B had (you can probably find some graphics on elsewhere on the internet), or the PWSC (may have been the same number, but certainly not all doing the same thing so I think it ended up as a different number again), but in both cases it's a lot more than 4. The Harrier has a lot more than 4 also (4 lift/propulsion and then a herd more for control, with associated, very clever, piping). So, just 4 nozzles to do everything. Elegantly simple.

[glad rag]

Sorry, not convinced.

[John Farley]

Over 40 different jet VSTOL concepts flown around the world have taught us one thing:

For it to be successful the design/layout of any jet lift aircraft must keep the hot engine efflux out of the intake

This is not a ‘nice to have’ performance enhancing thing but is as important to STOVL as not having wings that drop off is to ordinary flight.

The X-32 incorporated a dam of cool air exhausting down behind the intake that it was hoped would keep the hot air from moving forward towards the intake. It worked at model scale but not at full scale.

The X-35 deliberately had more flow from the front fan than the rear nozzle which stopped the hot efflux moving forward.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/JSFexhaust.jpg

[susanlikescats]

From where we sat, far away in another land, quite an interest was taken in the 32/35 contest. Being on the other side of the fence, so to speak, we were quite relieved when the Lockheed submission was chosen. The Boeing bid, while of the face of it simpler, was technologically more advanced - the thermoplastics for the wing and the overall wing design were particularly innovative.

Mr Farley is, as ever on these matters, quite correct. Hot gas ingestion in an aeroplane in the hover is never a desirable attribute. But having established that simulation data did not translate into the real world, we believe that Boeing were well on their way to resolving this issue. Why they weren't given the opportunity to implement this was beyond our understanding

In truth, the 32 was killed by its looks. So instead of an aircraft with 20 years development potential you now have the opportunity to purchase the phenomenally expensive bastard child of the F-22 with questionable performance characteristics (which get worse by the day...) and a myriad of problems which were entirely foreseeable but ignored because 'it looked good'.

Have you ever wondered why the Chinese, despite having access to most of the 35's program data, have thought it wise only to copy selected elements of its design?

[kbrockman]

John,

Far be it from me to doubt that the lift-fan was a good way to deal with the potential danger of hot air ingestion but I seem to remember that the X35 also had similar issues, most notably on one of its final proving flights right before the DoD decided in favour of the F35 when on the last vertical landing it also suffered an engine stall right before touch down.
I think it also happened on the hover tests initially executed over the specially constructed pit.

As far as the RR lift-fan goes, even up until today it is a very complicated and far from trouble free system with more than one part with limited life-expectancy performance, shaft, gears and bearings come to mind here, we're not even speaking about the 3,000Lbs of death weight it comes with and a life expectancy for the whole engine set up only half that for the normal engine ,4000 iso 8000, lift-fan only 200hrs.

The Boeing design also could use its simple 2D exhaust, coming from the VTOL version, on the entire range of models and use it as a 2D nozzle in flight, a simplified F22 system.
The hot air ingestion was somewhat of a design challenge, but nowhere near unsolvable within an acceptable time-frame.
Also the way I see it, and comment would be more than welcome, the X32 system would be a lot better than the 35 when used in slow forward speed regimes,no more barnyard sized doors, complicated rear swivelling nozzles and extra potential of engine/fan troubles when ingesting the inevitable bird(s) passing by, that lift-fan is basically just one extra oversized airsucking hoover.
I doubt that operating it in a similar fashion (improvised forward operating bases ) as the old Harrier will be such a good idea, something the MARINES ceratainly plan on doing, no?



All in all the X32 , in my (fairly worthless) opinion, is a typical example of 'a future lost through a lack of vision'.

[SpazSinbad]

For 'kbrockman' X-32 JSF first vertical (hover) landing

X-32 JSF first vertical (hover) landing - YouTube

"Uploaded on Mar 16, 2007
The X-32 (Boeing's entry into the Joint Strike Fighter competition) can be seen here landing vertically like a helicopter (or, rather, like a Harrier). As we all know, Lockheed won the competition with the X-35/F-35, but Boeing's airplane is still very cool, as you can see. For more X-32 videos (including VTOL, or hovering flight), go to:

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=BoeingX32JSF

Looks like the X-32B had some Hover Pit Troubles. Click thumbnail for big pic: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/th_X-32BhoverPitTroubles_zps5600045e.png (http://s98.beta.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/X-32BhoverPitTroubles_zps5600045e.png.html) Pic from Video mentioned above.

[peter we]

even up until today it is a very complicated and far from trouble free system with more than one part with limited life-expectancy performance, shaft, gears and bearings come to mind here, we're not even speaking about the 3,000Lbs of death weight it comes with and a life expectancy for the whole engine set up only half that for the normal engine ,4000 iso 8000, lift-fan only 200hrs.

The lift fan has the same lifespan as the engine, used 5minutes every two hours

The hot air injestion problem is a show stopper, but the lift fan also produces twice the vertical lift for the energy used.

So the 2700lb dead weight is easily outweighted by the 'free' 10,000lb of lift it produces. That 7000lb is the entire VLBB and spare that the X-32 could never have. The C require's more 'dead weight' to land on a carrier the old fashioned way...

I'd say the lift fan is a brilliant solution to two major problems with vertical landing.

[kbrockman]

First, nobody said it isn't a brilliant piece of technology.
But ,as the F version, it still needed a complete redesign for it to be anywhere near useful and even up until today it's got some big issues.

the lift fan also produces twice the vertical lift for the energy used.
So the 2700lb dead weight is easily outweighted by the 'free' 10,000lb of lift it produces.


So much for the law of conservation of energy.


Btw, the fact that it actually needs every single pound of that massive amount of vertical thrust is more a testimony of the overall state of the F35 and its obesity problems.
The death weight lift-fan isn't a small part of the vicious circle the F35 has seemed to spiral in to.
A common design -> space needed for the lift-fan +weight -> bulky design needed -> Extra weight to build a strong enough frame to compensate for all that extra weight -> Stronger thus heavier engine needed -> more fuel needed to achieve range , extra weight -> repeat circle.
they should have called the F35 the F35 Hippopotamus, it can be used on land and water, packs a good punch but is quickly out of breath, needs an enormous amount of food is rather bulky and weighs a ton (or 2 or3).

Structural issues remain to be a problem up until today and even with the most powerful engine available used in any of the fighters worldwide still doesn't make it anywhere near as nimble as the fighters it is supposed to replace.

PS I fully understand that the system used in the F32 (with the redesigned and much lighter tail) was also going to be a challenge for the VTOL version because of the lower amount of vertical thrust at hand but it still would've been a better solution even if it might not have gotten as much payload available as the F35, certainly not when solely used as a VTOL rather than the usually V/STOL it in reality really is.
More wing=lift and lighter Aircraft combined with the strong engine and the Ramp present at the UK CVG (and Italy, and Spain/Australia) would've made for one hell of a F32B, iso wanting the F35, the MARINE corps should have opted for fitting their LHA/D's with ramps (eg like the one used on the JUAN CARLOS which doesn't protrude too much into the available deck area ) and be done with it.
MARINES/NAVY carrier politics bit them both in the ass again it seems.

The way I see it is that the MARINES/UK needs where too much of a factor in the choice between the F32 or F35 ,this again combined with the knowledge that the F35 was Lockheed's last opportunity to remain a fighter constructor in the long run ,the F22 by then already was on the chopping block with 339 iso the original 750 with prospects on more reductions ahead.

[Courtney Mil]

the F35 Hippopotamus, it can be used on land and water, packs a good punch but is quickly out of breath, needs an enormous amount of food is rather bulky and weighs a ton (or 2 or3).

Nice one. :ok:

[John Farley]

kbrockman

but I seem to remember that the X35 also had similar issues, most notably on one of its final proving flights

I was unaware of that. Having talked to the pilots of both I feel that the event you describe happened with the X32 not the X35.

As to your concerns about about the conservation of energy the ability to hover some 25% more weight using the same basic engine results from a difference in propulsive efficiency between propellers and jets at low speeds.

[kbrockman]

As to your concerns about about the conservation of energy the ability to hover some 25% more weight using the same basic engine results from a difference in propulsive efficiency between propellers and jets at low speeds.

I did get that, it was a tongue-in-cheek kind of comment, maybe I should have used the obligatory smilie that comes with it :).

I was unaware of that. Having talked to the pilots of both I feel that the event you describe happened with the X32 not the X35.

Seems I got that one wrong, I got the wobble/wind issue on the last X35 flight combined with what I read about the redesign of the lift-fan post X35 mixed up with the X32 events, sorry about that.

Still I seriously doubt it would be a show stopper, keep in mind that the X32 was only a prototype, as far as I remember it didn't have the extra overhead auxiliary vent doors for the regular engine when used in hover like on the X35.
They got the Harrier working , I fail to see why the F32 wouldn't have worked out.
Overhead doors, a longer inlet ala F8 Crusader or even an emergency water injection system (for a minute or 2) are all possible (just some random ideas at the top of my head), the Boeing/P&W engineers probably know a whole lot more possible solutions.


F-35B - Lift Fan (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost:3cb0d3a7-41e6-47eb-9591-1bd43742a6b2)

[Lowe Flieger]

LM has reacted to the performance issues following the recent relaxation of some performance specifications.

IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-hornet-382078/)

Their point is that the performance of a tooled-up 4th gen aircraft will be inferior to a clean F35, with internal weapons. Now, if the UK's F35B's are in the strike role, they will be trying to evade using their low-observable advantage. But if they are in carrier defence mode they will have to engage, and ideally BVR. AMRAAM is being cleared for use, so is that what the UK will have to use, unless Meteor can be shrunk to fit? And either will limit your internal weapons load. Or you carry more externally and accept both stealth and performance penalties - which is not the point. So, in defensive mode, might the UK's F35's be out-gunned, even if not out-flown? Less of an issue for the USN who will have other fighter defence options with Super Hornet; but the UK will not; and the USMC may not either if they don't have any USN carriers close by.

Maybe smaller longer range weapons will be developed so stealth can be maintained and enough missiles carried - but that must be a demanding technical challenge.

So I am not particularly reassured by FM's response. Strikes me as more spin than substance but I hope I am wrong.

LF

[Courtney Mil]

Pretty much the point I was exploring in my post 976 http://www.pprune.org/7677549-post976.html

Even relatively small changes to the spec CAN have disproportionate effects on operational effectiveness. The only way to find out is to re-run the trials using the new parameters. I cannot (and am not) saying that the aircraft no longer meets our requirements, I'm saying we don't know whether it does or not. But I would be very surprised, given the magnitude of the downgrade, if there weren't a huge change in overall effectiveness.

[JSFfan]

I wouldn't lose too much sleep, if I were you, How many planes fly at M1.2 dry with nearly 5,000 lbs of weapons?


F-35 May Miss Acceleration Goal | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120118/DEFREG02/301180013/F-35-May-Miss-Acceleration-Goal)

The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said.
But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, Burbage said.

“What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally,” Burbage said, the F-22 Raptor notwithstanding.
Even fully loaded, the F-35’s performance doesn’t change from its unencumbered configuration, he said.
In the high subsonic range between Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.9 where the majority of air combat occurs, the F-35’s acceleration is better than almost anything flying.

Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith, director of operations at the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and F-35 test pilot, said that flying the aircraft is a thrilling experience.
“I can’t even explain the adrenaline rush you get when you light the afterburner on that thing,” Smith said. “The acceleration is much better than an F-16.”
But the F-35’s aerodynamic performance is not what makes the jet special, Smith said. The F-35 powerful sensors and data-links and how that information is fused into a single coherent and easy to use display are what will make the jet an effective warplane.
Burbage added that while the F-35 is designed as a supersonic fighter, it’s not optimized for the extremely high supersonic speeds that the Raptor was designed to operate at.

[Courtney Mil]

I wouldn't lose too much sleep, if I were you, How many planes fly at M1.2 dry with nearly 5,000 lbs of weapons?

I've always read your posts with great interest, JFSfan, and you always raise some interesting points in your articles. BUT that quote (above) is crass. The effectiveness of ANY weapon system cannot be objectively assessed by the fact that it can go quite fast carrying some weapons. The only OBJECTIVE assessment that we can do just now would be as I have said (and you have ignored) before is to run the simulations to check that it can do the job. Unless, of course, you have a brain the size of a planet and can work these things out in your sleep.

I am very pro getting the new system onto our inventory. But only if it really can deliver what we need.

Thank you for sharing the SUBJECTIVE impressions of a number of third parties with us. I don't know what they prove.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on an objective review on where we stand with this now.

[ORAC]

How many planes fly at M1.2 dry In the case of the F-35C I believe that quote refers to the fuel tanks once M1.2 has been reached...... :hmm: