F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Lonewolf_50]

As with the V22, Killface, the F-35 is both expensive and in certain ways on the bleeding edge of tech, or at least the combination of various sorts of tech. When things are that expensive, they get more scrutiny than less pricey systems. Someone wants that funding to go to their pet project ...

It's politics, not aerodynamics. :p

[SpazSinbad]

On previous page of this thread 'CoffmanStarter' asked: "...I'm not FJ conversant/experienced ... so just a question of curiosity ...

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

Some public statistics....

F-35 Begins Year With Test Objectives Unmet [STOVL IAS Change] Jan 4, 2011 By Graham Warwick

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/01/03/AW_01_03_2011_p22-279507.xml

"...operation of the lift-fan door rescheduled to reduce airloads on the auxiliary doors during semi-jet-borne flight.

The lift-fan door was programmed to open to 65 deg. below 120 kt., and to 35 deg. above that airspeed. But with the large door fully open, loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors behind it are reduced, so the schedule has been changed to keep the lift-fan door open 65 deg. up to 165 kt. during a short takeoff, he [McFarlan] says...."
_____________________________

JSF programme to proceed with UK-specific land-based carrier trials Gareth Jennings 09 Jul 2012

JSF programme to proceed with UK-specific land-based carrier trials - Farnborough 2012 | IHS Jane's (http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/farnborough-2012/news/july-10/JSF-programme-proceed.aspx)

"...Wilson noted that the lift-fan door behind the cockpit does not affect the aircraft's handling when open for the landing and take-off phases of flight. "There are no issues in terms of drag," he said. "We can open [the door] up to speeds of 250 kt and you don't feel a thing in the cockpit."..."

[LowObservable]

Anyone know why you'd want to do VTO? Unless the last STO had wrecked the :mad: out of the runway and the Fuzzy-Wuzzies were swarming the fence?

[SpazSinbad]

:} 'Typhoid' :} crashes on only short runway attempting to carry out an unauthorised short landing, pilot ejects safely to face court martial later. F-35Bs unable to STO VTO to a disease free zone to 'weight up' for usual STOVL ops ashore. Substitute a Helo Crash on Deck for the :} 'typhoid' :} ashore for the VTO F-35B to translate to nearby suitable flat deck to carry on. To cheer ye all up here is a new version of the CVF animation video (wot no STOVL takeoff?):

Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers in Operation

"Published on May 21, 2013
A glimpse of what the finished ships will look like when fully operational"

Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers in Operation - YouTube

[Killface]

Anyone know why you'd want to do VTO? Unless the last STO had wrecked the out of the runway and the Fuzzy-Wuzzies were swarming the fence?

No its for airshows :D

[Finnpog]

Thanks for the YouTube Spaz.
Nice to see the Chinooks on it. If the CGI modelling is accurate (no reason to doubt it) the hanger space looks huge when they are bringing the mighty Wokka out onto the lift. A pity that they didn't digitalise the CHF onto it as well.

[Bismark]

A pity they didn't digitise CHF as well.

They did! Don't forget this video represents circa 2022.. The 100 year experiment will have completed 4 years previously and it's assets redistributed.

[Wrathmonk]

Bismark

The 100 year experiment will have been completed 4 years previously, been proven to be a huge success, and all the FAA and AAC FW and RW assets will have been redistributed to the RAF

Fixed it for you, no charge!:E;)

[John Farley]

LowObservable

VTOs worked well from Atlantic Conveyor.

A ferry sortie from a VTO offers real operational flexibility.

But you know all that.

JF

[LowObservable]

True enough, John. And as you say that, I recall that recently the Navy has been talking about F-35s from their Mobile Landing Platform, a logistics ship.

If you wanted to put an F-35-heavy wing on an MEU at sea, this would be one way of doing it.

What's odd is that I have never seen VTO mentioned once until now.

[Engines]

LO,

Perhaps I can help. VTO has been a requirement for F-35 since Day One.

However, as the guys writing the requirements were technically informed, they didn't try to make the aircraft do a VTO with an operational load, as they knew that this was beyond the laws of physics as they stood in 2000. However, they did want the ability to use VTO to reposition an F-35 from one deck to another. The 'Atlantic Conveyor' was a very pertinent example - and the US War Colleges have been using the Falklands War as a textbook example of tactical flexibility these past 30 odd years.

Re the speed limits for transitions - thanks to SpazSinbad for a really useful post. Thanks, wings.

Hope this helps

Engines

[glad rag]

. VTO has been a requirement for F-35 since Day One.

So were a lot of things Engines, so were a lot of things.

rgds

gr

[Courtney Mil]

But you can't deny that VTO appears to be one of them that's been neatly acheived, if not exceded.

[Engines]

Glad,

There were a very specific set of requirements set out in the Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD), with a small number identified as KPPs. Yes, that adds up to a 'lot'. The F-35 programme is doing its level best to meet them all.

Did you have any specific ones in mind? Happy to help explain where they are against them, as far as I can.

Best regards

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

For 'Engines' some more F-35B 'Doors of Perception' trivia....

F-35B - Doors (Pt. 2) by Graham Warwick Dec/9/2011

Blogs (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/aviation_week/on_space_and_technology/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog%3aa68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost%3a41e6d676-ad38-4c26-a670-b72068fabeae&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

“Dorsal auxiliary air-inlet doors, which open in STOVL mode to increase mass flow into the engine & generate an add-itional 7,000lb of vertical thrust, were found to flutter in semi-jetborne flight, causing premature hinge wear. The initial fix was to modify operation of the large lift-fan door forward of the auxiliary inlet to stay fully open to higher airspeed on short take-offs to ‘shelter’ the clamshell doors. Instead of closing to the 35° mid position at 125kt the aft-hinged lift-fan door now stays fully open at 65° to 170kt on take-off, & begins to open to 65° at 160kt on approach to landing.”
_________________

F-35 Flight Testing At Pax [excerpt] By Eric Hehs 15 October 2012

Code One Magazine: F-35 Flight Testing At Pax (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=110)

"...The test team at Pax is also exploring the maximum speed end of the STOVL portion of the flight envelope, which is 250 knots. “The buffet and noise is significant when we have the upper lift fan door all the way open, which is an angle of sixty-five degrees, at that speed [250 knots],” Faidley said....

...Some of the flight test aircraft have special software that allows the pilot to override the standard control laws that actuate the various doors and nozzle angles. The flight control laws for the STOVL variant have six modes that are associated with specific actuations. Mode 1 defines conventional flight. Mode 4 defines STOVL. The other four modes define transitional states between the two primary modes. “If a pilot loses a hydraulic system in Mode 2, we know that the doors associated with STOVL flight will be positioned a certain way,” Faidley explained. “We are seeing how well the airplane flies in those conditions.”...”

[SpazSinbad]

A selection of Vertical Takeoff Requirements quotes for the F-35B with a funny one at the start for our amusement.... :8:}:8

An Update on the F-35 Integrated Training Center At Eglin AFB By Robbin Laird 09 Sep 2012

An Update on the F-35 Integrated Training Center At Eglin AFB | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-on-the-f-35-integrated-training-center-at-eglin-afb/)

Col. Tomassetti: "...We have lots of visitors here at Eglin and we get a chance to put many of them in the simulators. And one of the things that we do with everybody is we let them do a vertical takeoff, fly around and come back and do a vertical landing, either at the field or at the ship...."

VIMEO Video Interview: Col. Tomassetti on the Progress in F-35 Training on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/48211330#at=0)
___________________

EAF enables JSF landing anywhere, everywhere 29-Jun-09

NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation (http://www.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.view&Press_release_id=4144&site_id=15)

"...Although the AM-2 matting is serving its purpose as vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) pads and a 1,900 x 96-foot runway for the EAF/STOVL testing, it also doubles as the run-up for a test “ski-jump” used in conjunction with JSF testing for the British Royal Navy. The AM-2 matting and the 12-degree ski-jump ramp were installed at the centerfield area last month...."
____________________

F-35B STOVL Testing Moving Ahead Rapidly Shane McGlaun (Blog) - May 17, 2011

DailyTech - F-35B STOVL Testing Moving Ahead Rapidly (http://www.dailytech.com/F35B+STOVL+Testing+Moving+Ahead+Rapidly/article21648.htm)

"..."The testing has been going very well over the last couple of months," said Marine Lt. Col. Matthew Kelly, an F-35 test pilot with an F/A-18 Hornet background. "We have performed all the vertical landings necessary to go out to the boat and do testing. We're at about 80 percent of the short takeoffs."

Pilots at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md have flown about 125 sorties with many of those dedicated to getting the aircraft ready for shipboard tests. Kelly notes that they are in good position to begin those ship tests this fall. The F-35B will also eventually be required to perform vertical takeoffs, but for now, the STOVL trials have been deemed more important...."
_________________________

Construction for JSF marks another milestone Dec 24, 2011 by CPL. AARON DIAMANT

Construction for JSF marks another milestone, construction, jsf, pad - News - YumaSun (http://www.yumasun.com/news/construction-75467-jsf-pad.html)

"Construction in anticipation of the Joint Strike Fighter's arrival in Yuma reached another first Dec. 8, as the first section of special, high-temperature concrete was poured at vertical takeoff and landing pad four on Marine Corps Air Station Yuma flightline. “This is a special, high-temperature concrete designed to handle the heat from the JSF,” said Marie Torres, president of MRM Construction Services, the company completing the project. “We've poured several test sections before, but this is the first time this particular mix has been used.”

The pad, which will be used for vertical takeoffs and landings, was designed to have a long service life, & is the first to be designed & con-structed specifically for the JSF..."

[dat581]

I'm surprised they didn't test the vertical take off when testing vertical landings. Barring any technical reasons for delaying the test appears to be just about a non event.

[SpazSinbad]

'dat581' you should set the program priorities to suit your proclivities for sure - otherwise this is the reason (as seen in above quote):

"...The F-35B will also eventually be required to perform vertical takeoffs, but for now, the STOVL trials have been deemed more important..."
__________________

ADDITIONAL QUOTE re VTO testing requirement:

F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance 16 May 2011 By DAVE MAJUMDAR

F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110516/DEFSECT01/105160302/F-35-Tests-Proceed-Revealing-F-A-18-Like-Performance)

"...Eventually, the F-35B will perform vertical takeoffs, but that testing has yet to be performed because other STOVL trials are of more immediate import, Kelly [Marine Lt. Col. Matthew Kelly, an F-35 test pilot with an F/A-18 Hornet background] said.

"There is a requirement for that and we do plan on performing vertical takeoffs," he said...."

[Engines]

Spaz,

Many thanks - very useful. The items you've posted are really useful, in that they illustrate the complexity of getting a powered lift vehicle to work properly through all points of the transition from hover to forward flight (and back again).

dat581 - The VTO is a great illustration of the fact that 'just because it looks like a non-event, it's really not'. Coming down to the ground from hover height will cause the airflows of hot and cold gas under and around the aircraft to set themselves up in a certain way, especially the cold air 'screen' between the hot exhaust and the air intakes. Staring with the aircraft on the ground will generate a different pattern of gas flows, some of which you might not want. These flows will also be affected by relative wind.

As ever with powered lift aircraft, you start with clever and thorough design, and then go into careful and thorough testing.

Hope this helps,

Engines

[ORAC]

F/A-18F CFT & Weapons Pod mockup in St Louis
(http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/fa-18f-cft-weapons-pod-mockup.html)

While it has been known for sometime that Boeing and the US Navy intend to fly a modified F/A-18F Super Hornet equipped with conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) and a weapons pod later this summer, some new details are emerging.

When the modified Rhino--as the Super Hornet is affectionately known--does fly in late August or early September over the Navy's Atlantic range with the new hardware, those CFTs and weapons pod will not be functional, says Mike Gibbons, Boeing's F/A-18 program manager. The idea is to test the aerodynamic qualities of those representative shapes, he says. Mark Gammon, Boeing's Hornet advanced projects chief, also notes that the aircraft will have a mock-up of an internally-mounted infrared search and track system mounted along with a slew of radar cross-section enhancement measures.

Gammon, who has worked on the Hornet since the first days of the original F/A-18A classic model jets, says that the CFTs won't add any cruise drag at high subsonic speeds, but it will have a negative impact on drag at transonic speeds--but the company has done a lot of engineering work to try mitigate that. In fact, Gammon notes, at low airspeeds, sometimes overall drag with the CFTs is actually lower than a clean aircraft's.

Configured with the CFTs and weapons pod carrying four AMRAAMs, the jet performs roughly the same as a Super Hornet carrying four external AIM-120s.
Anyways, Boeing showed off this brand new real F/A-18F equipped with mockup CFTs, weapons pods and other hardware.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/22/DSCN0273-v2.jpg

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/22/DSCN0263-v2.jpg

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/22/DSCN0268-v2.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Still looks cool.

[CoffmanStarter]

Our man on the job ...

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: the jet 'that almost flies itself'

Squadron Leader Frankie Buchler, currently testing Britain's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the US, speaks to the Telegraph about the jet "that looks out for its pilot".

Telegraph Interview : S/L F. Buchler. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10037800/The-F-35-Joint-Strike-Fighter-the-jet-that-almost-flies-itself.html)

Coff.

[LowObservable]

Interesting developments generally on the Advanced Hornet. Having clearly been told in 2010 to not promote the jet as an F-35 alternative (hence the "International Roadmap" title, now abandoned), Boeing is now feeling more able to pitch the jet as a bridge to the F-35C - or whatever comes next. By the way, it is not intended to meet JSF signature levels. The concept is that you have IDECM and work with Growler and standoff weapons, so you don't need to.

[glad rag]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/22/DSCN0268-v2.jpg

SmarT.

[Lonewolf_50]

By the way, it is not intended to meet JSF signature levels. The concept is that you have IDECM and work with Growler and standoff weapons, so you don't need to.
I hear that this method has been used with some success before. ;)

[Courtney Mil]

...and the argument still carries some weight now. Depends what you need, can afford and what your perceived threat is.

[LowObservable]

I am reliably informed that there have been some marginal improvements in the area of electronics since 1991.

In the EW world, digital RF memory and digital receivers - which listen simultaneously on all freqs rather than sweeping a band - have been important, along with phased-array antennas (much better directional accuracy) and interference cancellation.

Now add that to a weaker target echo...

[ORAC]

F-35 Cost Decline Due to Lower Labor Costs, Accounting Changes
(http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=feature&prod=145257&cat=5)

[Stuffy]

This will make things interesting:-
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/515617-warning-new-aircraft-carriers.html

[glad rag]

F-35 Cost Decline Due to Lower Labor Costs, Accounting Changes

Even with the improvement for the F-35 reported yesterday, the projected cost has increased 68 percent since the Pentagon signed its initial contract for the fighter with Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed in 2001. Ref From ORAC 's post F-35 Cost Decline Due to Lower Labor Costs, Accounting Changes (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=feature&prod=145257&cat=5)

[Courtney Mil]

In other words, "It's OK, I'm sure the cost of our workforce costs won't go up nearly as much as you think, therefore, the cost of the jet is bound to come down. OK?"

Someone's grasping at straws.

[LowObservable]

Most of the new stuff in the SAR is in sub-noise-level given that buys go out to 2037. However, the Navy/Marine buy rate has slowed, which may be good news for St Louis.

[The Mighty Fin]

I asked a question the other day regards to whether the RAF/Navy will go Loe Level with the JSF. Some one said it was rather an odd query, i dont think it's odd just maybe a little naive, as i know it is a stealthy aircraft but it's replacing the GR4 in a few years or so and the operational requirement for the Tornado is a LL aircraft.

[JSFfan]

The F-35 will fly above 90% of the group of ground weapons that caused problems with GR4 in Iraq. I would suggest reading the interviews on http://www.sldinfo.com/?s=interview for a good overview of how the F-35 will be used

@ CM, I think it would be based on man hours, rather than wages paid

[Wrathmonk]

ground weapons that caused problems with GR4 in Iraq

Which ones were these? The only ground based weapon that (sadly) caused the GR4 problems were American ones. And they weren't in Iraq either....

[JSFfan]

Did I get the model wrong? I was refering to the 6 lost to AA, most manpads are a problem for low level ingress too. It's not to criticise the platform, we just replaced our F-111 which we were very proud of. It's just that the era has passed.

[Backwards PLT]

Flying LL is not an operational requirement - it is (was?) a tactic used to avoid detection / engagement by SAM systems iot get in a position to drop a bomb. JSF uses stealth to achieve the same.

Ofc there are cases where you will need to go LL - SOP/SOF for example but it isn't quite the same.

LL is currently a dying tactic - I suspect it has only lasted as long as it has because a. It's the way we used to do it and b. It's fun. Never know, it might come back if stealth isn't all it is sold to be!

[Wrathmonk]

They were GR1. And not all were confirmed SAM shoot downs either. Have a read here (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/RAFTornadoAircraftLosses.cfm).

[JSFfan]

I was meaning more how on the initial missions it went in LL but that tactic changed quickly, didn't it?

[LowObservable]

Part of the original idea of stealth was to avoid having to fly where you can be detected by the Mk 1 Eyeball or the Lug-'ole Mod 0.

Some exceptions to this rule, but not fighters.

[The Mighty Fin]

So i guess LL will be a thing of the past when JSF enters service then?
:{

[JSFfan]

It's not that good now, even without opposing AEW&C which finished it

[glad rag]

most manpads are a problem for low level ingress too.

just to make sure the F35/jsf bull**** isn't lost to time et al etc.

[Courtney Mil]

The F-35 will fly above 90% of the group of ground weapons that caused problems with GR4 in Iraq.

You've seen the RAAF CONOPS for F-35? Very precise figure there, fella. More often than not, sortie profile is shaped by the mission, threat and available assets. Perhaps you mean there has been a planning assumption to that effect?

[Just This Once...]

The F-35 will fly above 90% of the group of ground weapons that caused problems with GR4 in Iraq.

Why does this bloke make stuff up on a forum stuffed with real military aircrew?

[JSFfan]

ok, I recall it was 90%, what percent of battle field weapons wont go above 20,000 ft would you estimate?

[Courtney Mil]

You recall what is 90%? Who has told you that's where JSF is going to operate in any given operation?

[The Mighty Fin]

Thats funny that JSF Fan, where i live the RAF still go LL, so i assume they still think it is well worth keeping on?other wise it would have been phased out after the last gulf war.

[JSFfan]

gee, thats a bit rough... it's the mission profile that the combat radius is speced for

flin, I'm sure it is, the same was with our F-111 and I can think of an over sea ingress where it could be still the first choice

[JSFfan]

what no bullet holes? the comment was in relation to low level, including ground hugging

[Backwards PLT]

Well depends where the bullets are coming from - I don't see small arms as a realistic threat to fast air. If you are talking about ZSU 23/4 and the like then valid point - a very nasty threat at LL, should've included it so up to 50%.

[JSFfan]

OK, I'm happy enough with 50% for this, you are a tough crowd, but I think the 90% was about volume ..more than the type...but the intent of what I meant still applies either way

[Backwards PLT]

I think the other guys were being a little hard - had a few BH Sunday night drinks, maybe , so feeling feisty!

The volume thing is what I mean by making stuff up to suit whatever you want to say. If you count every AK in countries we have fought in then yeah but a chipmunk flies above that threat!

[The Mighty Fin]

Hello JSF Fan, i hope i did'nt come accross as being a bit blunt with you, if so i do appologise. Do the RAAF Still go LL with the Super Hornet?

[JSFfan]

no worries, you were very polite to what I'm use to...I would imagine both the hornets and super hornets have LL on the books and the f-35 when it comes..BFM won't disappear either, regardless of what the LM power points suggest

[Courtney Mil]

Neither harsh nor impolite, JSFfan. You're always very quick to counter anyone's statement with a quote or a link to something. If you come up with a statement like that, it shouldn't surprise you if it's challenged - especially making military judgements on a military forum.

That said, it raises a very important issue. Two actually. How F-35 will fare in the LL environment would be interesting to explore. Same goes for doing close combat in an environment where it's manoeuvrability has been compromised by its other design requirements.

[JSFfan]

mainly when I read what I even know is nonsense and that's pretty sad when a pleb like me needs to post..well they wanted M1 at sea level for some reason,.. f-35a with 50 deg aoa and 700-750 kts, good hms and missiles...sounds ok to me

copy paste from someone years ago
"Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program, explained that critics of the F-35 simply do not understand the fundamental requirements and technologies behind the aircraft, nor have these critics been briefed about the true capabilities of the new warplane. The F-35 is "not designed for an air-show in Paris," Davis said referring to the thrust vectoring Russian Su-35 aircraft which regularly performs spectacular routines at air-shows around the world. Davis said that while the F-35 was not designed as a pure air superiority machine, the program has a requirement to defeat any threat aircraft today- or any projected threat aircraft in the future.
...
In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.
...
What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.
...

Beesley explained that the F-35 is different from legacy fourth generation fighters such as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, or even more modern aircraft such as the Eurofighter, in that the primary weapons load is stored internally. This arrangement means that there is no added drag to the airframe from externally carried weapons, fuel tanks, or sensor pods as in older aircraft types. The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters. Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft "felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel" but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts' performance."

[Courtney Mil]

Your quotes of Jon Beesley, Lockheed Martin test pilot, proves how great the aircraft is. I wonder how long his contract with them would have lasted if he'd said otherwise.

There's more to operating at low level than being able to do M1. And a lot more to visual combat than the sparse figures you quote.

I'm very pleased to see your experise in military aviation and operations hasn't been blunted by your absence.

[JSFfan]

I was going to post what did the f-35 do wrong to get WVR in the first place, but that would have ended any debate..heck it's not hard to get over my head with corner speed etc and I've never said different

although the RAF say as much as the RAAF when it comes to exercises...it will be interesting hearing about the RAF f-35 getting kills on planes that didn't know it was there and calling BS when they get the call that they're dead

[dat581]

The Mighty Fin

The RAAF do use the Super Hornets low level. An ex F111 Nav who is now on the Rhino told me they can and do fly the same profiles that the Pig flew except for the hard ride tfr mode which was 50ft ( you would need balls of steel to fly at 50ft at night in northern NSW ). He was sitting in A44-208 at the time with what appeared to be sand blasted paint on the wing leading edges. The jet had been in Australia for less than a month at the time.

[WhiteOvies]

It would be a sad lookout for 17(R) Sqn doing F-35 Operational Test if the most they ever do is draw a straight line from the ship to the target at 35k and back again! Just because you're in a stealthy jet doesn't mean you should ignore all the known SAM sites, fly round them if you can! Stealth is just another tool to help the pilot survive and successfully complete his mission.

With the jets at Nellis now I'm sure the USAF are working out how best to employ them in various scenarios. If low level fits the mission profile then great, if not, why stress the airframe?

We might have to wait a few years until an F-35B goes through the Mach Loop!

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The jet had been in Australia for less than a month at the time.

:*
...but had spent some months flying at NAS Lemoore prior to being ferried home and before that had been in storage for a few months at St Louis.

Re LL F-35 ops...without first-hand knowledge, it is far too early to speculate on what the RAAF or anyone else may or may not be thinking re this possibility. Off the top of my head I would suggest that, while LL may have limited application in certain environments, the majority of the F-35's Day 1 and Day 2 work will be performed well above 15,000'.

[Courtney Mil]

With the jets at Nellis now I'm sure the USAF are working out how best to employ them in various scenarios

I would hope that's the case, but I wonder how much operational work can be done with the systems still at such an immature state? We've all seen the recent reports. And that, really, is my point here; until the platform and its numerous, integrated systems (and the software) are more mature and proven, it's way too early to say what tactics will be employed and in what environments. We may have a pretty good idea what it's likely to look like, but it's too early to make sweeping statements yet.

[JSFfan]

CM, are you going to share why you doubt the F-35 will perform as it is said by the test pilots etc, besides they are paid by LM?
I am most interested to read your professional evaluation.

[Courtney Mil]

I didn't say I doubt the F-35 will perform as it is said by the test pilots, JSFfan, although read on and I may get close to it. As usual, just because I question such things instead of simply accepting the manufacturer’s promises, YOU are making the incorrect assumption that I don't think the aircraft will be a good front line asset. Unlike you, I have watched quite a few golden projects before, enough to know that requirements, planning assumptions and the wishes of those that will operate said beast don't always live up to expectations. I also know that threats and requirements move on.

I would go further. Many of our disappointments have come about because too many people were too complacent and trusted both the manufacturer and the MoD to deliver. It's only now that we have begun to hear, very publicly, that the stuff that was put out in the public domain was (being kind) a little glib. Plenty of us either in or close the projects, or on the receiving end of the product knew full well or soon found out when it turned up in our HASs.

I personally really want to see this programme succeed; we all have a lot riding on it. Unlike you, I understand that it is perfectly reasonable to question anything about it, discuss the shortcomings and ask 'why' when things go wrong - especially when there is so much riding on it. And also to want to how and if they will be fixed. Things do not always get ‘fixed’ properly – like for example drastic reductions in the sustained g or accel times.

So, to your point specifically, I don't doubt that F-35 is performing in the areas that it is declared as performing. I know it is not performing in the areas that have been officially reported as currently failing. I believe that a lot of those shortfalls will be rectified, in time. But I have NEVER seen a new aircraft brought into service that lived up to ALL the promises. And the more cutting-edge the system and the complex the systems, the more shortfalls there will be.

Understand this. The F-35 design principles are very heavily reliant upon a lot (no, a LOT) of complex, immature, expensive and (in some respects) delicate technologies. Some of the design requirements, the stealth for instance, have required compromises in other areas, meaning that if the stealth isn't perfect, those other areas of weakness will become factors. If it works in all wavebands and is perfect, then no worries; you won't have to question what it did wrong to get WVR.

If you think I'm anti JSF, then you are very much mistaken. I'm anti people being not willing to question the development, the processes, the major potential shortcomings and having a blind regard for what people on the LM payroll have to say.

If it helps, I was equally critical of the same people and the same issues when Tornado F3 and Typhoon were being developed and brought into service. Had it not been for people being willing to stand up and question the integrity of the process, they would have even worse than they were.

I hope that explains.

[Mach Two]

A long explanation, CMil, but I can see why. I think pretty much everyone here knows exactly where you're coming from. But I do understand that it needed to be said for the benefit of the hard of thinking.

[Courtney Mil]

Ooh look. A squirrel.

[Stuffy]

Objectivity does not sit well amongst huge corporate budgets.

[JSFfan]

Thank's CM, it's nice to read you weren't slagging hard working US/UK test pilots and I'd agree that they tend to present the positives
so there seems to be not much other that the public DOT&E main issues we all know about and agree need to be addressed for final DOT&E in 2017/18 or later if there is another slip
I do Listen to the ADF, Pentagon USAF and USMC where it relates to our LHD and f-35A, as well as LM ..I tend to be conservative on what I believe on forums.


one of the coments "Things do not always get ‘fixed’ properly – like for example drastic reductions in the sustained g or accel times" that I would like to clarify the fact. I think you are assuming it was a surprise when it has been said publicly in SAR since 2001 that some unspecified KPI's weren't being met

early model 240-3. is prior to the current 240-4 f-35 that was LRIP 1
It was reported that the early f-35a 240-3 sims had 61sec and 4.9g, and the model change 240-4 showed 63 sec and 4.6 in test flight, I don't know what the sims were for 240-4
so even before the first f-35 was built, it showed that it was never going to get those, they weren't a KPP, and they were chasing external weapon load, combat range and f-35b total weight..if the US/partners really wanted those accel/g parameters, they would have asked for it to be a KPP and shift other/s to a lower priority

I'll put up a link, but I don't recognise the mission or loads that he is associating to it and I think he may have mixed them up
F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html)

[ORAC]

. Had it not been for people being willing to stand up and question the integrity of the process, they would have even worse than they were. The Tornado could have been worse than the F2 with Blue Circle radar and engines which needed changing every 70 hours? :eek:

Lots of time to play bridge in the crew room in those days......

[Lonewolf_50]

Understand this. The F-35 design principles are very heavily reliant upon a lot (no, a LOT) of complex, immature, expensive and (in some respects) delicate technologies.
The same challenges and risks presented themselves to the Comanche program, with some bleeding edge tech, and some significant software challenges, none of which were mature. A variety of things led to that program being cancelled, but cost was a significant factor. Even in the mid 1990's, upper level officials (in an era of austere budget, Clinton era) seriously considered killing Comanche and funding other programs. It took another half a decade for the axe to actually fall.

The difference I see in JSF is that there isn't overlapping capability projected for the outyears. It appears to be "she's my only choice for a date, so I will be dancing with the fat girl. I want to dance at the prom."

[JSFfan]

well seeing those other girls cant even go transonic with the weapons and fuel for radius...I think I'd rather go with a girl that's good in the cot.

[henra]

well seeing those other girls cant even go transonic with the weapons and fuel for radius...I think I'd rather go with a girl that's good in the cot.

If it weren't for the

63 sec and 4.6 in test flight,


I mean: Come on, You wouldn't want to go out and do a turning fight against the trusty old Phantom with this kind of Turn performance...

[SpazSinbad]

'henra' - not having flown either the F-35 nor Phantom myself - perhaps you will find this article interesting? [replace 'a's in 'blagspat' with 'o's] Other parts may be of interest (not with Toom as an example).

The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change: Part 3 by SMSgt Mac (http://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866) 26 May 2013

http://elementsofpower.blagspat.com.au/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec_26.html

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz,

Not great links, fella. One took me to Che Guevara's shopping list and the other 'Page Not Found'. One of my favourite websites.

Henra,

You are completely right in that the example you have chosen puts the old F4 (bless her and all that flew in her) ahead. Of course, she'd have to get there first. And therein lies a tale, strangely. It's a guidance thing that may be missing from the discussion; probably better to come back to that later.

Anyway, the point you make is exactly what I've been saying about combat perfomance. If we need to go into the 50 degrees aoa and HOB weapons aiming, happy to comment. But rate/radius perfomance will always be an issue, as you imply.

It is, obviously, ridiculous to be making such a comparison.

[SpazSinbad]

Shopping List? http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_ElementsOfPowerF-35F-4sun26may2013.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/ElementsOfPowerF-35F-4sun26may2013.gif.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/ElementsOfPowerF-35F-4sun26may2013URLamended.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/ElementsOfPowerF-35F-4sun26may2013URLamended.gif.html)

[henra]

'henra' - not having flown either the F-35 nor Phantom myself - perhaps you will find this article interesting? [replace 'a's in 'blagspat' with 'o's] Other parts may be of interest (not with Toom as an example).

The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change: Part 3 by SMSgt Mac (http://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866) 26 May 2013

http://elementsofpower.blagspat.com.au/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec_26.html

Unfortunately I can't get the Link to work for me neither.

Yes I know the sustained 4,6g wasn't sea Level. I think it was 15kft and M0,8 which is probably a bit too low for the high wing loading.
At lower Level the high wing loading might hurt sustained turn rate a bit less.
I guess best sustained turn rate (and g) at S/L should be somehwere around 450kts or even higher for the A. At 15kFt that would push you deeply into the transonic region where drag and Center of Lift changes will hurt.
So this more practical figure will increase the spread between low and high wing loading designs. Obviously an aircraft with an already high wing loading will duely suffer for any weight increase in this area. QED.

So yes, I was exaggerating a bit. But still it adds some perspective to the (Non-) Progress achieved in 50 Years of aeronautical development.

[SpazSinbad]

More potential for F-35Bs to be purchased?

Japan Plans More Aggressive Defense 26 May 2013 By PAUL KALLENDER-UMEZU

"TOKYO — After almost seven decades of maintaining a limited defense posture, Japan should develop its amphibious and pre-emptive strike capability while bolstering sea- and ground-based ballistic-missile defenses, according to policy proposals by the country’s ruling party.
The proposals, obtained by Defense News and released to a select group last week ahead of widespread distribution, were drawn up by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). They also call for Japan to beef up its space-based early warning systems and invest in cyber defense.
The proposals were generated by several internal LDP committees led by former LDP Defense Ministers Shigeru Ishiba and Gen Nakatani, and therefore carry considerable weight, according to Narushige Michi****a, director of the Security and International Studies Program at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies here.

“They’re important,” he said....

...Most interesting and controversial is the proposed discussion of pre-emptive strike capability, which would require Japan to acquire Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), long-range refueling capability for its nascent F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and/or a naval platform for the F-35B jump jet, should Japan opt to purchase that variant.

The proposals make no mention of the KC-46 this time around. The Air Self-Defense Force, meanwhile, has steadily equipped its fleet of Mitsubishi F-2 multirole fighters with JDAMS. It is thought that the two 19,500-ton 22DDH-class helicopter destroyers planned for the Maritime Self-Defense Force can be converted to carry the F-35B...."

Japan Plans More Aggressive Defense | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130526/DEFREG03/305260004/Japan-Plans-More-Aggressive-Defense)
_____________________

A picture is always worth a thousand words for the problematic URL above will follow soonish....

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/ElementsOfPowerF-35F-4sun26may2013URLamended.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/ElementsOfPowerF-35F-4sun26may2013URLamended.gif.html)

[JSFfan]

CM are you talking 1 vs 1 or 4 vs 4 with your concerns?
are we talking guns, boresight missiles or hmd/hobs LOAL?
did I clear up for you that it was always going to be about 4.6g?

henra, it isn't the best sus turn, it's the one at 15k and m.8 level flight and you might see it at an air show...instantaneous, roll aoa, accel and corner speed probably counts more for WVR
cm might clarify it for us, instead of 3rd gen tactics

in the intrim, sus turn against HMD and aim-9x don't look good and asraam, 9x blk 2 will be even more bad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA


I think the 5.9g spooked 'em, so it was easier to not be able to swap the A for an O
personally I think he is doing it the wrong way, I would load up the comparison air frame to run the same mission as the f-35

[GreenKnight121]

SS's link worked just fine for me... I just right-clicked, then clicked "copy link location", pasted it into a new browser window url space... and then replaced the "a"s in "blagspat" with "o"s, just like SS said to, and it worked perfectly.

Read and follow all instructions... things work better when you do.

[Courtney Mil]

Simply comparing rate/radius/g/SEP graphs works for 2v2/many v many as well as it does for 1v1 - your coordination, tactics and ability become much bigger factors as the numbers grow.

As I said, it's somewhat ridiculous comparison in this instance, but no less fun. In the article The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change, the author uses a strange way of approaching it and some of his explanations are not quite right - not that those bits make any difference to his overall analysis. To be honest, a far more simple and less contestible argument would just be to put the rate/radius/g/SEP graphs next to each other, but I doubt we'll be seeing that for the F-35 anytime soon!

Do remember, though, that HMS, off-boresight weapons, AIM9-X/ASRAAM and lock-after-launch aren't exclusive to F-35. We could even do off-boresight in the old F4!

Anyway, a list of turn rates from one of the same sources as Spaz's link which gives the simple answer to comparative turn rates. All figures are degrees per second:

F-18E: 11.1
F35A: 11.3
Mirage 2000: 11.5
F-18C: 12.5
F-15C 13.7
F-16A: 14.3

[CoffmanStarter]

The "Bearded One" has been corresponding again with the MOD... and apparently not happy at being passed down the line for reply ...

He clearly doesn't like the F-35B ...

Sharkey's World Blog (http://sharkeysworld2.********.co.uk/)

[Courtney Mil]

Good to see that the poor old chap's still struggling on. Keeps his carer and nappie-changer in work.

You're right, Coff, he really doesn't like the F-35B, does he. Sadly, he's even further behind the issues than we are here in PPRuNe!

The Super Hornet is already operating with state of the art cutting edge technologies and aircraft sensors, certain of which will not be available to the F-35. It is also a true multirole aircraft that, according to both Lockheed Martin and Boeing, is almost as stealthy as the F-35.

And he was writing that to the Minister!

Anyway, a couple of things to help him out. Excuse me, but I'll need to shout for a mment, you know how the old bloke's hearing has been lately:

SHARKEY! HEY, SHARKEY, WAKE UP A MINUTE. I WAS READING YOUR BLOG. NO, YOUR BLOG! ALL THOSE THINGS YOU SAID WERE WRONG WITH THE F-35B, YOU COULD HAVE TALKING ABOUT SEA HARRIER. REMEMBER THE SEA HARRIER?

ALSO, YOU ACCIDENTALLY USED THE F-18A COST ESTIMATES TO BUILD YOUR CASE FOR BUYING F-18E. READ THIS THREAD AND YOU'LL SEE WHERE MANY OF YOUR POINTS ARE WRONG.

NOW DRINK YOUR MILK AND GET NURSE TO PUT YOUR RUG ON YOUR KNEES.

Silly old sod.

[Courtney Mil]

Ooh, it keeps getting better. Just got to the but about


When our then Defence Secretary, the Right Honourable Denis Healey MP, decided that Britain no longer needed Strike Aircraft Carriers and cancelled the new carrier project CVA01, he did so on the explicit advice from the Royal Air Force that “the RAF could and would provide effective air defence for the Fleet throughout the oceans of the world and therefore Strike Aircraft Carriers were not needed.” The Defence Secretary accepted this forcefully presented argument which was supported by totally misleading/false data concerning what land-based air could actually do many miles from shore or from friendly airfields.


It makes me feel all warm and glowing inside to know that the RAF's conspiracy over the decades is still managing to bring so much angst into the Bearded Idiot's declining years.

[Lonewolf_50]

We kept our carriers because our Admirals fought back against the kind of parochial crap the RAF pulled on Mr Healey (if the narrator there is accurately depicting how it all went down ... )

We had to fight again with the Air Force after Gulf War "roles and missions" debates ran wild over whose rice bowl would get kicked over. They once again wanted to do away with A-10, but the other three services backed them down. Good thing, the Hawg is still flying, and doing great things.

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, the way it's told is sort of how it happened, Wolf. Although, in reality, the RAF were actually just trying to be dead mean to the Navy because they didn't like each other and the Navy had been calling the RAF names and telling tales. The RAF even managed to get the Army to give the Navy a chinese burn once and take their lunch money.

[JSFfan]

Simply comparing rate/radius/g/SEP graphs works for 2v2/many v many as well as it does for 1v1 - your coordination, tactics and ability become much bigger factors as the numbers grow.yes, the chart doesn't change
in bold is what I've read f-15 pilots saying... it's a dumb idea to get into a turning fight and it's up to your wingman/others to save your arse

Do remember, though, that HMS, off-boresight weapons, AIM9-X/ASRAAM and lock-after-launch aren't exclusive to F-35. We could even do off-boresight in the old F4!agreed and is why it's said it's a dumb idea since the '80's, it's just with HMD asraam and 9xblk2 [and allowing the opposition a similar weapon] it's even dumber now

F-18E: 11.1
F35A: 11.3
Mirage 2000: 11.5
F-18C: 12.5
F-15C 13.7
F-16A: 14.3 do you have the link please, I'd like to read it for my interest
I'm happy to continue with the 4.6g f-35a but the f-35c has 5g sus turn
for an apple apple, lets use the f-35a strike mission with 50/60% fuel fraction left for a2a and add the targeting pod etc

it was f18c and f-16/50 but no matter, I though the f-15 would of been the match but its 28/32k empty / 13k fuel
when you add the extra fuel/pod for a 590nm strike, I think even that would come back to the sus of a f-35...I don't have the knowledge to do the drag maths of 2x2000. 2xaim120 and flir pod. ingress alt
if you could be bother to do it..it would add to the debate:D

just for interest..the original f-35a was going to be 450+nm 25k empty and 13k fuel, till they wanted to extend mission, being able to weapon load 18k day 2 didn't help either

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, the numbers came from the same ******** site as Spaz's link and, therefore has the same issue with putting the link here. It's

http://elementsofpower.blagspat.co.uk/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html

and again copy the URL into your browser's address line and change the As to Os in blagspat.

[JSFfan]

ok, off the chart there.. thanks
as to the rest of my post?

and you still havent commented on the ~4.6g being from around 2001

[Courtney Mil]

Well, just on the g issue for a moment, to be honest ~5g sustained for a modern 'fighter' is very poor - I'm guessing that was what prompted Henra to think about the comparison to the F4. 20 years ago, I was teaching USAF F-15 students BFM where they would be expected to employ max available g - in that case 9g - and they would be expected to maintain that until forced to slow down at the combat floor (or base height if you prefer).

While you are generally quite right about the importance of g/rate/radius becoming more apparent once WVR, it does also have an effect at range when exchanging BVR shots. You want the bad guy's missile to see a big, rapid increase in sightline rate to force it to burn energy by making a BIG navigation turn (make his missile's constant of proportionality work for you)either to re-establish the collision or to avoid being somewhere it doesn't want to be. The best way to do that is a max performance turn using best sustained g once your first shot is in the air.

We don't have enough information available to do the calculations about turn perfomance and drag on the F-35. But just consider the subjective issues. The airframe is a drag machine to start with, given that big frontal area because if the internal weapons, the wing loading is high, it has a very powerful motor. So, in a turning fight, it starts with a lot of drag, overcome by a lot of thrust. Assuming they don't plan to try to fight at 50 degrees aoa (just because they can) I think its perfomance will not be too badly affected by the relatively small additional drag index of a couple of pylons with some extra AAMs strapped onto them.

Yeah, I know the max sustainable g was reduced a long time ago. I used it as an example because, it's one of the performance areas that often gets eroded during the develop, production and in-service phases of aircraft. I think LM were lucky to be allowed to let that one slip by. Remember that the key performance parameters don't usually go down to that level of detail, so sustainable g was never likely to be one. KPPs tend to be more like sortie generation rates, combat radius, weapons load, survivability, etc. Sustainable g would than become one of the factors that influences 'survivaility'. If you see what I mean.

[glad rag]

Japan Plans More Aggressive Defense

and how are they planning to pay for it?

[Lyneham Lad]

and how are they planning to pay for it?

Especially at $32,000 per hour to operate... Details on Flight Global today. (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-estimates-f-35-will-cost-32000-per-hour-to-operate-386430/)

[Courtney Mil]

How are some of the other JSF customers planning to pay for it? Or anything else for that matter.

[JSFfan]

CM, can you point out my pleb mistake? other than I'm using c and adding weight to make it an E
it has to be there because this doesn't make sense [i haven't forgotten your post, but I'd like this cleaned first]

I found the f-15a/c manual
TO 1F-15A-1 Flight Manual USAF F-15 Series A, B, C, D Block 7 and Up, Change 5, 01-Mar-1986 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/94648410/TO-1F-15A-1-Flight-Manual-USAF-F-15-Series-A-B-C-D-Block-7-and-Up-Change-5-01-Mar-1986)

the f-15E is about 32k op empty
eqiv f-35a 50% fuel load 9k assume same gpm, I think this is to the f-15 advantage
total weight 41k

page 391 for 41k weight
15kft m.8
sus ~ 5.2g
deg/sec ~12

[Courtney Mil]

I'm not sure what maths you're trying to do there; I don't think you'll be able to calculate sustained g by using the F-15C and adding weight. The C and E are very different aircraft. For example, the E has internal structural changes, considerably bigger engines (sorry, more powerful and, therefore different fuel flows), more fuel, and (obviously) a much bigger payload.

I've never flown the E, but I know that stripped down into a standard a-a role, its performance is similar to the C (which could also carry the CFTs) and fully loaded for its Strike mission it will go somewhat further than a F-35 (also fully loaded).

If you're trying to add F-15E to the list of turn rates, though, none of the above will do it I'm afraid. Similarly, I'm not sure you'll be able to do any kind of combat effectiveness, range or survivability calcs. Although I haven't looked for them, you may find some of that info in the public domain already calculated, but do be aware that it may not be based on the same set of assumptions that the earlier figures used.

Hope that helps.

[kbrockman]

U.S. Navy Details Amphibious Ship Mods Required For F-35 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_05_29_2013_p01-02-582896.xml&p=1)
Interesting piece about the changes that are needed to make the F35B work on the US "small" carriers;
Navy officials say the modifications “are intended to offset the increased stresses associated with JSF exhaust. The exhaust patterns and flight characteristics of the F-35 required the shielding, relocation and removal of vulnerable systems that could sustain damage during flight operations, such as antennas, life rafts, life rails, safety nets and JP-5 fuel stations.”

Additionally, the Navy says, “The unique heat signature of the F-35 has required reinforcement of the flight deck to alleviate stresses from the heat of the jet, as well as modifying the flight deck coating to reduce erosion caused by jet exhaust associated with increased thrust. Specific system modifications that are unique to F-35 will also require the installation of new voltage regulators and rectifiers. Expanded mission capabilities of the F-35 have also required enhanced munitions throughput and systems capabilities to facilitate increased ordnance delivery and aircraft associated support equipment.”

Some of the detailed modifications include relocating or shielding features such as the Phalanx close-in-weapon system and Rolling Airframe Missile and NATO Sea Sparrow missile launchers, and protecting fueling stations.

The WSC-8 satcoms antenna will also be moved, and the aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) system is being expanded.

The changes confirm that Lockheed Martin and the Marine Corps issued erroneous statements in early 2010 regarding the environmental effects of the F-35B’s exhaust. At that time, a company spokesman said that “extensive tests” had shown that “the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B.”

....

The mission for VFA-121 and other early F-35B units is uncertain. Out of the weapons cleared in the Block2B/3I software standard, only the laser-guided bomb is considered useful for close air support (CAS), which is the primary mission of embarked AV-8Bs, and none of the 2B weapons are suitable for use against quickly moving targets or for a situation in which the risk of collateral damage is high. (The centerline gun pod is not included in 2B/3I.)

The F-35B lacks the Rover (remote video receiver) technology, developed since the requirement for the aircraft was written. Rover has been defined as minimum essential equipment for CAS in some theaters; according to some military sources, the Marines have explored the idea of adding a Rover-equipped external targeting pod to the F-35B until an internal solution is available.

[henra]

Well, just on the g issue for a moment, to be honest ~5g sustained for a modern 'fighter' is very poor - I'm guessing that was what prompted Henra to think about the comparison to the F4.

Indeed!
And after having also been able to open @SpazSindbads Link (:O) I still feel it is rather in the F-4 ballpark of sustained performance than in the F-16 ballpark.
Due to the latest lowering of the KPP's it is a rather un- daring assumption that the Low figure in the linked document applies to the Real World F-35(A). And that effectively puts it into F-4 territory (yes, the slatted one but still even the lighter and somewhat more maneuverable German F-4F are completely outclassed by F-16s in BFM).

So when nitpicking (eqializing fuel weight) you might find that the F-35 has some small advantages in turning fights against an F-4 (does that even hold true for the F-4F?) but that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of its WVR capabilities.

[ColdCollation]

A question, arising from kbrockman's post: the F-35 is supposed to be stealthy, and yet I'm reading about an engine which runs so hot it'll melt ships. I'm also reading about a large engine which is needed to push a draggy shape around the sky, and which is very noisy.

Erm... stealth?

[kbrockman]

Just as a FYI, comparing the F35 with one of its contemporaries, the French Rafale.
It has a couple of soft sustained G-limits, 9.0/-3.2 for A2A, in the A2G role with a heavy load (up until 21000lbs) at MTOW it is limited to 5.5/-3.2G.
Mind you these are all soft limits, in all regimes it can be pushed to +11G's if the need arises.
BTW it also has a 30°AoA limit in A2A or 20°in heavy A2G, without loosing altitude (demonstrated AoA during flight test is +100°).
The F35 might have 50°AoA but I somehow seriously doubt it will keep its altitude anywhere past 20°AoA.

That is only the Rafale, I can only imagine what a Eurofighter might do, certainly with the max 23,000Lbs emergency war power setting.
Let alone an F22 with its enormous lift generating (clean) body and 2D vectoring massively powerful engines.

The F35 certainly seems to be in a disadvantaged position with most of these fighters, I can only guess what will happen once external weapons, pods or fuel tanks are needed, which I guess will be fairly often given the F35's limited bays (unlike the F22).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-22-weapons-2006.gif

[LowObservable]

Cold Collation - It doesn't "melt" ships, but the combo of blast and heat/cool cycles raises fatigue issues. As for the back-end IR signature, there are things you can do with a round nozzle in military power, but basically not very much. If you're serious you go 2D, but the weight penalty eats your lunch. Just as well that the F-35 is faster than any known advers... wait, what?

I hope nobody spent too much time following SpazSinbad's link. I've skimmed that a couple of times and can't figure out the guy's point. But in the country of the blind... the fankiddies think he's an authority of some kind.

Nobody should be surprised about the F-35's kinematics. The goal was always "comparable to legacy" which always raised doubts - if you were an F-16 at the high speed end and an F-18 at low speed, that was good; the other way around, not so much. And of course many slow-witted people have been suckered by the "fifth-generation" flimflam, which carries the subliminal message that all "Gen4" aircraft are the same.

[Backwards PLT]

To be fair g limits on their own mean very little. If you did 2 v 2 A-A F-35 v F-16/Rafale/Typhoon/F-18 in a permissive RoE environment I suspect the Kill:loss would be about 50:0. In a less permissive RoE environment the legacy types will probably get a few kills so maybe 20:1?

Everything else has been sacrificed for stealth and, for the -B, VSTOL. You can't have everything (although they are trying hard)!

Will it look as cool at airshows? Will it impress small boys with g figures? No and no, but they aren't in the requirements afaik.

[henra]

If you did 2 v 2 A-A F-35 v F-16/Rafale/Typhoon/F-18 in a permissive RoE environment I suspect the Kill:loss would be about 50:0. In a less permissive RoE environment the legacy types will probably get a few kills so maybe 20:1?



Hmmm, given the fact that in mock combat things haven't always gone x:0 for the much more capable and stealthy F-22, people throwing around (purely hypothetical - F-35 is still pretty much a paper plane wrt combat performance) figures like these make me scratch my head: LM spokes person or over- enthusiastic fan?

[JSFfan]

LO you have a short memory, you put up a link on 1/4 and were explained what was going on
are you really going to believe that clown sweetman over greenknight?
GreenKnight121 (http://www.pprune.org/members/146987-greenknight121) Indeed... the modification to the MV-22 on-deck engine-running procedure for idle running in excess of 10 minutes requires shutting down one engine and either putting a portable heat-shield under the running engine or parking the aircraft with the running engine over the catwalk rather than the deck... thus the need to relocate or protect the items on the catwalk & deck-edge.

These mods are for MV-22 operation, NOT for F-35B operation!

Nearly every heat-related modification to USN LHA/LHD/LPD/LSDs is for MV-22, not F-35B.
Since the MV-22 issues have been known and the "fixes" finalized for several years, one might ask why these changes weren't made earlier in LHA-6 construction.

The answer is, simply, money. This question has come up before in regards to all sorts of changes on all sorts of ships (the instance I remember was changes to the LPD-17 class unrelated to aircraft), and those with experience pointed out that in the modern era of pre-outfitted modular construction, making changes during construction was about twice as expensive as making the same changes after construction was completed!

[Courtney Mil]

In fairness, LO was saying that the eflux doesn't melt ships, but mentioned the effects of heating cycles on metal decks.

If you did 2 v 2 A-A F-35 v F-16/Rafale/Typhoon/F-18 in a permissive RoE environment I suspect the Kill:loss would be about 50:0. In a less permissive RoE environment the legacy types will probably get a few kills so maybe 20:1?

Those are very precise figures there. Love to know where you got them. Given that F-35 hasn't done any operational manoeuvring, training or evaluation yet, I'd say your crystal ball is highly advanced.

You are right that g limits alone are not complete indicators and that was why we started with g/rate/radius/SEP graphs and why I said the best way to compare on paper is to put those graphs side by side. However, I would say that given even just similar characteristics, the higher g is usually going to turn inside the lower g jet. Unless one needs 600 knts to pull 9g whilst the other can only do 8, but at 300.

[LowObservable]

Since the comments in the cited article came directly from the CNO or were an official on-the-record follow-up to the CNO's remarks, it seems fairly clear that the mods have :mad:-all to do with the V-22, where the heating problems are different (lower energy, longer exposure) and seem to have been solved procedurally,

As for the melting decks, many shills and trolls have been challenged to identify one JSF critic who said it would do that, and so far none has ever done so. It's a strawman argument that works on the ill-informed, and we know who they are.

[JSFfan]

CM, I found a f-15e one,
yes the f-15 will burn more fuel for the same distance traveled, but to keep it simple and is close enough for this, to have 1/2 a fuel load of a f-35 = 9klb for A2a and the trip home
I didn't include the 4 missile weapon weight on the f-15
it still comes out +1g to the f-35 when you consider the g is non liniar, not much and the deg/sec ~12 is very close, which is more relavent to the turn

I'm very surprised or I have the wrong end of the stick...value your input on this

TO 1F-15E-1 Flight Manual F-15E Aircraft (http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3703)
the f-15E is about 32k op empty
f-35a 50% fuel load = 9k
weight 41k
page 521

15kft m.8
sus ~ 5.5g
deg/sec ~12

@LO, anything sweetman says, I'd want the original eval to see what was really said ..do you know who did the original OT&E USN lhd 6 report?

[Killface]

The changes confirm that Lockheed Martin and the Marine Corps issued erroneous statements in early 2010 regarding the environmental effects of the F-35B’s exhaust. At that time, a company spokesman said that “extensive tests” had shown that “the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B.”

Ah, the problem with definitions. In this case the word "significant"-- The authors' definition differs from the spokesperson, thus it is an "erroneous statement"

When an F-4 can point the nose post stall like an F-35 we can compare the two.

[glad rag]

When an F-4 can point the nose post stall like an F-35 we can compare the two.


http://thumbsnap.com/s/GaULSBOY.jpg

a somewhat generous illustration at that....

[Courtney Mil]

Simple answer, JSFfan. You've got a very old TO-1F-F15E-1 (know as the Dash One) there - did you really expect to find the current one on the internet? One of the big differences is in the smallish print at the top of the page you're using. It's for the old jet with F100-PW-220 engines. Current standard is F100-PW-229. You'd be short by around 16,000lbs, which is a sod of a lot.

I think I can see what you're trying to get at here. Unless you can be absolutely sure that the data for each type is built on exactly the same circumstances and assumptions and that you've got the right data, you won't get a terribly meaningful comparison, I'm afraid.

If your quest was to compare F-35 vs F-15E turn rate/radius/g/SEP, it's fairly intuitive. Why would you want to put an F-15 up to do just the air-to-air role? Well, I suppose you can turn it into that config in the air - very quickly if you need to - so no tanks or bombs here. Using similar, representitive combat weights,

F-15, low wing loader (auw/608), 58,000lbs thrust.
F-35, high wing loader (auw/480), 43,000lbs thrust.

The F-15 will turn better. It can also do HOBS launches.

As for fuel consumption, I deliberately said the F-15E with the bigger engines would be different to the F-15C, not necessarily higher. At max thrust, it will be higher, but that isn't necessarily the case for cruise, endurance, etc.

[NITRO104]

JSFfan,
1g sustained turning capability is more important from the SEP point of view than the rate of turn, because the rate of turn difference of 1°/sec would after a minute of turning, still keep the target within your vertical acquisition brackets.
High SEP however, allows you to rapidly change energy levels, which makes it easier to engage and disengage and gives you larger margin for errors and when push comes to shove, you usually get the last word in vertical.
Since today almost everyone has HOBS missiles, the people wouldn't want to come close in and slow down, so the SEP imperative is perhaps even higher.
In BVR combat, it's like CM said. High SEP allows rapid energy recovery to maintain the vector, which is a good way to kill the missile right at the start.

[Courtney Mil]

Glad Rag,

Assuming the F-4 is the bigger circle there, I note it is now in a very good firing position against the other aircraft there. A nice lag Fox 1. F-4 wins again! QED.

[glad rag]

Yep! you can have all the spangliest cabs but if they're flown by monkies......:ok:

[henra]

When an F-4 can point the nose post stall like an F-35 we can compare the two.

Are you really sure you want to be flying around at <<200kts in a supersonic stealth fighter in an actual aerial combat?
Because that is where you will be within seconds when doing really high AoA stuff.
That might be an option when going up 1v1 against an F-4. For any other scenario I'm not that confident that this will end well for you...

[Rhino power]

The other jet in the image glad rag posted of the F-4E (hard wing)'s generous turn radius is an F-16, just in case anyone was wondering...

-RP

[JSFfan]

CM, Nitro I want to thank you both helping me get the gist of it, this is how much of a pleb I am, I tried looking up SEP with maneuverability and only found september... is 'energy' similar and is along the line I'm thinking?
when the NATOPS manual for the f-35 is online..it's going to be a lot easier, but that's not this year

I know it isn't the conop of a f-15 and I doubt it is of the f-35 either, it is just an arbitrary M.8/15kft number before the contract was even awarded
the f-15 snots the f-35, but I honestly thought it would be by a much greater margin
CM, it's just a rough look at a generic strike f-15, the new one would be better again. The only reason I'm using 41klb is that's just the chart.. it is the same as a empty f-15 and 9k fuel ..didn't count the weight of missiles
the other charts are thousands too different
sorry I should have said.. my example was that the f-15 had dropped his 2x2000 and they were gps preloaded so he didn't need ir/laser targeting pod ..saved some weight for the trip home

[Courtney Mil]

SEP is Specific Excess Power. Energy can mean all sorts of things, but generally think altitude and airspeed. For a given weight/config/altitude/g loading if the number is positive, the aircraft is accelerating and/or climbing, if negative it's slowing down and/or descending. So the zero SEP line gives you sustained g. Of course, for combat, sustained turn, may not be the one you need. If you're willing to descend or fight at a lower altitude, you'll get to best g/turn rate and can go to the structural g limit. That's the thing that makes Typhoon such a potent jet - in that regime it's really awesome.

[JSFfan]

thanks, I get it now..so thinking energy was close and I wasn't arse wrong..I think I'm slowly learning
agree with the sus not being the beeall..it's just when everything T/W/L/D is balanced

[ORAC]

Boyd again..... Energy–maneuverability theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–maneuverability_theory)

[Courtney Mil]

Orac, good link.

JSFfan, that's about right.

[JSFfan]

Backwards PLT (http://www.pprune.org/members/150728-backwards-plt), it's early days and when the f-35 is flown in exercise, we will get an idea
for me, I won't be surprised if the f-22's computer geek little brother gets free internet and cable

thanks orac, I'll do some reading

[Courtney Mil]

One thing we definitely won't see on the internet is anything to do with data relating to the capabilities of the F-22 or the F-35. It's fun to see all the openness about past aircraft, but current types are treated very differently. That's one of the reasons we see so much opinion, speculation and heavily restricted 'statements'. And quite right too.

It wasn't that long ago that you'd have been burned at the stake for even thinking some of the stuff that gets out there now.

[JSFfan]

I hope the natops aren't too close and like the aim-9x missile vid I put up, I'm surprised it's public
I doubt if the real classified stuff will get out, like what they call the 2 f-35 systems that aren't officially named yet.. other than classified every second sentence, the turkey request from the full reply to congress

Like the diving depth of subs, it's nowhere near what it is but you have to write something down,
there is just enough to keep the fanboys happy chatting..

if we really want to know, it seems we have to ask the chinese geek hackers.

[Courtney Mil]

You may rest assured that it won't be released. Even the stuff you'd love to know. That's how it is.

[glad rag]

if we really want to know, it seems we have to ask the chinese geek hackers.

yep!

BBC News - Chinese hackers 'compromise' US weapons systems designs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22692778)

"The compromised US designs include those for advanced Patriot missile systems called PAC-3, an Army anti-missile system known as Thaad, and the Navy's Aegis ballistic-missile defence system, according to the Washington Post.
The F/A-18 fighter jet, V-22 Osprey aircraft, Black Hawk helicopter and the Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship were also compromised.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons system ever built, was also cited on the list."


bet they don't try to back engineer the F35 though....

[JSFfan]

CM, I made a pleb mistake that you missed, I didn't allow for the CFT, that brings the base empty to 37klb, plus the 60% fuel 10.8 [I was too lazy to work out and went with 50% before] etc brings us into the next chart ..now that's is near enough the same as the f-35, still haven't added the weight of missiles, might need ir pod and the fuel burn to make some of the other 4klb up too


f-15
M.8 15kft
sus 4.7g
deg/sec 8

f-35
sus 4.6
deg/sec 9.7

[Courtney Mil]

So have have you put the extra 16,000 lbs of thrust back into the equation? CFTs are an interesting piece of science. Their drag index is is a bit vague in that they do some area ruling magic. For the C model, they actually improved range in some areas of the envelope, so once empty they represented a small mass penalty, but the drag difference was not really an issue. Apart from the stuff hanging off them, the CFTs aren't going to make big difference.

It doesn't really matter anyway because we don't have any real figures to compare for the F-35. There is still a long way to go. It is not an Air Superiority fighter, so don't hold your breath.

A couple more big issues to deal with, but they will have to wait until tomorrow.

[dragartist]

Re run of PAC from 20th May being shown on Parliament Channel now. CH 81 Freeveiw.

Discussing Costs, Time and Technicals.

Should be on the Comedy Channel like Ursula discussing Cats and traps in Nov 2011.

Bernard not looking 'appy.

[JSFfan]

I knew the f-15 was magic :D looking back, it's a shame we didn't swap the f-111 back in the 90's for them, it was getting old then
for interest I would put the thrust on but ..no chart..we don't know what thrust the f-35 is getting in block 6 yet either

I think I might need a sar map,better add the radar pod to the f-15 too, but i think the 16k thrust will be king

no wonder apa plays Janes specs, it's fun:ok:

no, I'm not holding my breath for supersonic, it is another story, but subsonic it's looking better
in my plebness, I think of a car in second gear, lots of go but revs out early

if you are going to get your calc out, can you run the f-16c/50 numbers?
it's a different chart and I might be making a pleb mistake
https://publicintelligence.net/hellenic-air-force-f-16cd-flight-manuals/
page 209 F-16C/D SUPPLEMENTAL FLIGHT
I'm getting deg/sec less than 4 clean @ 22klb...20klb and 2klb fuel

[Courtney Mil]

We've discussed quite a few issues associated with BFM and WVR combat, but one area that, frankly leaves me slightly perplexed is the business of extreme aoa manoeuvring (maneuvering if you're that way inclined). Apart from airshows and to demonstrate the excellence of that area of the F-35 flight control system, what's it for? This is a genuine question.

My confusion starts at the point where the pilot 'back-stops' the stick. If he's doing much more than cruise speed, the aircraft would (if the software allows it) snap to a very high number of gs as the aoa increases and the drag is going to go through the roof. If this was started from slower speed, you'd get the result we've been seeing in the high aoa testing vids.

What next? If the pilot maintains the aoa, the aircraft will have almost stopped and is now going to go in just one direction; down. At very slow speed, the F-35 will have become a strafe panel in the sky and a virtually non-evading missile sponge.

Someone claimed that it could be used in combat to slow the aircraft down suddenly. We know this is a fantastic BFM because Maverick did something similar in Top Gun, only he used the speedbrakes. From all the stuff we know about corner velocity and sustained rate of turn it's clear that the one place you don't want to be in a fight is low and slow - you cannot manoeuvre and you cannot escape.

Another claim was that it allows you to point the nose very quickly to take a shot. Why bother if you can do HOBS already? What would the airflow be like underneath the aircraft for a missile launch at 50 degrees aoa? I don't buy that one either.

And then there is the idea that it's some sort of substitute for thrust vectoring. See this:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8484/8201070010_1c7dfd2eec_z.jpg
The vid of the aircraft doing the high aoa tests did not show it "changing direction". All you really get is an enormous amount of drag for the thrust to overcome and a stalled wing that isn't even creating enough lift to maintain level flight.

And, of course it's nothing new. The Su-27 at Le Bourget in 1989 demonstrated Pugachev’s Cobra at low level, taking the aircraft past 90 degrees aoa at low speed and low altitude.

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/su-27_cobra_2b.png

Even the Saab J-35 did it (without canards or vectored thrust).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWOINzyCLL4&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Has anyone here seen this used as a successful combat manoeuvre?

So my question is, what's it for?

[ORAC]

I suppose it's one way to check your six......

bWN3-s9ACpw

[Courtney Mil]

Hell of a video, Orac. Thanks.

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

I think you're misreading the graph. On page 209, if you follow the "Ps = 0 fps" curve (that's the zero SEP line) you'll see it peaks at about 14 degrees per second at around 7 g. For a clean F-16 with the big motor, that sounds much more likely to me.

[glojo]

I have been away for a while but do have a few questions that relate to this thread.

There have been some excellent posts that have discussed the stealth aspect of this amazing aircraft but how stealthy will the thing be when carrying external ordinance? When taking off from a carrier will either be carrying external fuel pods, have a limited or very limited range or have a garage in the sky carrying much needed fuel and I doubt that beast is going to be that stealthy.

Heat signature when on the flight deck
I have been reading a number of papers that are talking about high temperatures and whilst this might not be an issue on ships that are converted to take this aircraft, will it be an issue when cross decking? I ask this because an airfield will possibly have a lot of concrete on top of maybe hard core whereas a ship has a fairly thin flight deck and then underneath that will be working spaces, accommodation or machinery rooms. All of which might not appreciate excessive heat and having said that I was under the impression this was not going to be an issue.

The F35B may be the all singing, all dancing aircraft we are told it is but I cannot help asking myself questions about the many roles it is being asked to fulfil. Marines talk about Close Air support and yes we are told this is an excellent aircraft for this role but is the definition of close air support the exact same one as those grunts on the ground are expecting?

As a carrier based aircraft is this the all singing weapon of choice with a decent range and decent stealth characteristics?

As an air to air fighter, is it capable of taking on the World's best without more suitable aircraft being present?

when paying the sums of money being asked should we expect the very, very best or should we settle for something that is moderately good at everything but not outstanding in any specific role?


Has anyone here seen this used as a successful combat manoeuvre?Would I be correct if I suggest that the air to air confrontations during the Falklands dispute might possibly help answer that query? :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

Welcome back, Glojo.

Ah, the old 'viff' manoeuvre eh? My thinking is that it's a bit of a last-ditch tactic when you're already in the poo and unlikely to make things any worse. Did anyone viff in the Falklands? That sounds like an openning for a tasty answer or two! ;)

[dat581]

I'm pretty sure the answer is no viff used during the Falklands War. I'll check whatever resources I can dig up but I don't think there was ever a situation where it was required. The Argies did not try particularly hard to get into a fight with the Sea Harriers and the various attack aircraft went for ships and other ground targets or just ran away from the "Black Death". (Black Death with a beard?)

[Courtney Mil]

I think the same, Dat.

[Romulus]

Heat signature when on the flight deck
I have been reading a number of papers that are talking about high temperatures and whilst this might not be an issue on ships that are converted to take this aircraft, will it be an issue when cross decking? I ask this because an airfield will possibly have a lot of concrete on top of maybe hard core whereas a ship has a fairly thin flight deck and then underneath that will be working spaces, accommodation or machinery rooms. All of which might not appreciate excessive heat and having said that I was under the impression this was not going to be an issue.

The issue comes from having the auxiliary power unit exhaust angled downward.

When we were looking at required works for airfields the holding areas were a key concern as the APU would melt the bitumen (we're a bit cheapskateish compared to the yanks when it comes to military airfields) so they would have to be upgraded to concrete.

I'm guessing same thing is an issue for carriers.

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, Romulus. We had to do the same work in the early days of the programme - the first time we were buying the B model. My guess is that doing STO and rolling landings is going to mean the jet eflux is never going to loiter on any one point on the dek. Problem solved.

[LowObservable]

CM - I take your point about the high-alpha stuff bleeding off energy (which of course it does) but it leaves me with one doubt:

The Sovs/Rooskies didn't/don't design fighters for air shows but have nevertheless spent the past 40 years (since the genesis of the MiG-29/Su-27 designs) trying to make fighters that are predictable and controllable at high alpha and low speed, culminating in the Su-35, which is going to water people's eyes at Paris if the plan to display it stays on track.

Why?

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, LO. I think the point is that the Ruskies build aircraft to a pretty standard design these days. It's just that the shape gets refined, smoothed, stealthified, etc and the engines made ever bigger. The shape they have is inherently controllable (through software) with canards, huge wing surface area AND tailplanes/stabs/tailerons/whatever AND thrust vectoring (in some cases).

The 360 degree 'flip' in Orac's vid is impressive, but still a low energy manoeuvre. Is it tactical? I don't know. I can't deny it would be surprising to watch that happen in a fight, but it doesn't present much of a navigation challenge to a missile and I doubt it gives the Ruskie pilot much time to select a target. lock and shoot during the manourve.

[JSFfan]

It's confusing me when you switch from ability to turn, roll etc AOA and a pitch up cobra or balistic flip/spin etc, aren't the 2 very different,
as to what's good about 50 deg turn/roll aoa, is like what's good in 25 deg over 10 deg for what you have flown CM, isn't it?

thanks about the chart, I was reading it so wrong:(

[PhilipG]

Regarding the melting concrete etc etc, does anyone know if there are plans yet to build a dummy Aircraft Carrier Deck, with Ski Jump at Marham? If this was done as I understand it only this area would have to be of the required standard to absorb the downdraft from the F35. It might of course also help training for carrier ops.

[LowObservable]

It would be a good question to ask at Paris if one can get past the FSB minders and the Armenian gangsters. What the Su-35 brings to the party is 3D vectoring and integrated flight/propulsion control, which allow them to dump the canards (which imposed a speed limitation) and the airbrake (saving weight and volume).

Now back in the late-80s/early-90s there was a flurry of interest out of WPAFB in "agility" as an add-on quality to "maneuverability". Some defined the latter as being a matter of limits and sustained g/speed/altitude envelope, while "agility" was the ability to go from one maneuver state to another under full control. That was the root of the X-31 program, the Herbst maneuver (which is not something that you use when someone is choking)...

Herbst maneuver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbst_maneuver)

... and a few other things.

Maybe the Rooskies take the view that the Su can blast out of a low-speed state so quickly that "thou shalt not lose thine energy" is no longer a commandment.

And as they were the first to have HMS and HOBS missiles (R-73) - which in the real world have sub-hemispheric coverage - I wonder whether giving you more shot opportunities is the idea.

[TEEEJ]

Courtney Mil wrote

Did anyone viff in the Falklands?

Courtney,
Sharkey has covered that question.

AVM Johnson: During the campaign I read newspaper reports about the Harrier's VIFFing tactic, and some correspondents claimed that if you saw an enemy fighter astern you could VIFF vertically upwards or downwards, and if the enemy helpfully carried straight ahead you easily manoeuvred into a good attacking position. Was this tactic used in the Falklands?

Cdr Ward: No. Although the Harrier is capable of VIFFing it is not a good combat tactic because you lose a lot of energy. The Harrier's success was due to its great manoeuvrability and our sound training.

-- The Story of Air Fighting Air Vice Marshal J.E.`Johnnie'Johnson CB,CBE,DSO and two Bars, DFC and Bar ISBN 0-09-950330-1

[glad rag]

Indeed LO.

I doubt that they would be pulling vertical doughnuts in combat but it would be arrogance of the highest degree to discount the airframes ability.

I wonder if the Free Scottish Air Force will be able to afford a squadron or three?

http://rlv.zcache.com/fishing_worm_round_stickers-rfd427b56cd4b4b099c869c4f35342af0_v9waf_8byvr_216.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Thanks, TEEEJ. As I thought. But I'm amazed that the Bearded Wonder would allow himself to sit in the same room as as an AVM. Unless, of course, the AVM wa writing a book that was going to include his words.

[LowObservable]

Maybe the Russians are after the air-combat equivalent of the bootlegger turn - stop, 180, and blast into the adversary min-range envelope with GSh-301 smoking.

[Backwards PLT]

The Harrier's success was due to its great manoeuvrability........


hahahahaha - good one Sharkey, some people don't get your humour but don't worry some of us do!

[exMudmover]

Another gem from Sharkey:

“The Harrier's success was due to its great manoeuvrability and our sound training.”

From my experience the Harrier was a poor combat manoeuvring aircraft because of its high wing loading and low maximum speed.

However, if the opposition aren’t making much effort to avoid you (basically because of lack of training), then you don’t need much manoeuvrability - or skill - to get kills, especially using a magic piece of kit like the 9L.

[dat581]

Sharkey achieved quite a lot during the war so it's a shame his behaviour since has turned him into a comical figure for our amusement.

As far as viffing is concerned is the F35B even capable of performing it? The dust bin lid looks like it would rip straight off at any meaningful combat speed.

[henra]

Has anyone here seen this used as a successful combat manoeuvre?


You mean converting your 30 ton Mach 2, 9g Fighter aircraft into a 30 ton hovering Helicopter during aerial combat at a time of 60g HOBS heaters?



So my question is, what's it for?

Might be of some limited value when your down to Guns. in that case the nose pointing ability might be useful to some extent.

So, once the Su has shot off all its 10 missiles and still survived it could even make some use of its Gun if the oppeonent has also emptied his missiles without success.
Does that sound a plausible scenario?
Decide for yourself....

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The Sovs/Rooskies didn't/don't design fighters for air shows but have nevertheless spent the past 40 years (since the genesis of the MiG-29/Su-27 designs) trying to make fighters that are predictable and controllable at high alpha and low speed, culminating in the Su-35, which is going to water people's eyes at Paris if the plan to display it stays on track.

Why?

Similarly, one could ask why, after looking at it closely with the X-31 and various F-15 and F/A-18 TV/HA mods, the US hasn't pursued it. Perhaps because there is little tactical return for the investment?

[LowObservable]

FA-18 - The answer to why the US did not go that way is fairly simple. The USMC made a priority out of STOVL, the USAF and USN decided in 1991-93 that the next thing they needed would be more A than F, and the USAF was going to get 440-some F-22s, more than enough to groin-kick any conceivable adversary for a while.

Then Clinton/Aspin/Perry emerged, waved their wands and shouted JOINTERIUS LOWCOSTICUS! which drove improved air-to-air farther to the back of the bus than before. Next, the Professor-General Nordens (http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html) of industry pulled out their wands and yelled EODAS INVINCIBILITAS! to convince more people that "maneuvering is irrelevant."

Read that Clarke story, by the way...

[SpazSinbad]

Is this story about the F-3 'Fact or Fiction'?

THE WILLIAMS FOUNDATION: FACT versus FICTION: (pages 1 & 2)

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/FvsFiction%20Final%2024Mar1.pdf (82Kb)

“...Fiction
The superficially impressive manoeuvrability and power-to-weight ratio of Soviet-designed aircraft such as the Su-30 and MiG-29 confers a potentially decisive advantage over Western fighters during within visual range (WVR) combat.

FACT
It has been incorrect for some 20 years to equate WVR potential with platform agility alone. Since the 1991 Gulf War, manoeuvring to achieve a kill has been done by air-to-air missiles, not by platforms. No manned fighter aircraft can compete with missiles that attack at over twice the speed of sound and manoeuvre at 60 ‘g’. (A manned fighter involved in WVR combat typically flies at less than half that speed and manoeuvres at a maximum of 9 ‘g’.) No less important than the missile is situational awareness. The classic case study here comes from 1993 and concerns the (British) RAF’s Tornado F-3 air defence fighter.

By the standards of the late-20th century the F-3 was a mediocre performer, handicapped by its modest agility and poor acceleration. Despite the high quality of RAF pilots, the F-3 regularly sustained a loss rate of around 3:1 in exercises against the West’s best fighter of that era, the USAF’s F-15. The turnaround came during an exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base in the United States when, for the first time, the F-3s were fitted with Link 16 data links. The shift was dramatic. Overnight, the F-3 became an F-15 killer, reversing the loss ratio to 3:1 in its favour. Situational awareness, not manoeuvrability, was the key. In short, for WVR combat, platform agility is a secondary consideration. It is the system, and in particular situational awareness and the missile, that count....”

[JSFfan]

Malaysia has mig 29 that we train with and the classic hornet still squats the mig more times than not
we had the Indo su-3o here last year, sorry LO this drum banging is BS

[LowObservable]

Spaz - It's sponsored by LockMart (indeed, IIRC, when it was published LM and Chemring were the Williams Foundation's only sponsors).

It's also quite old, including such howlers as:

Additionally, modelling and simulation have developed to the point where the F-35 program can complete a great deal of testing on the ground, where it is cheaper, safer, and easier to fix problems. F-35 flight testing will be conducted largely to validate models, rather than to ‘discover’ what the aircraft will do in flight, as used to be the case.

This claim was dubious in the extreme at the time, and people who had read the Clarke short story linked above knew better:

There was a bombastic tone in Norden's voice that made us suspicious of his claims. We did not know, then, that he never promised anything that he had not already almost perfected in the laboratory. In the laboratory - that was the operative phrase.

Since then that bogus claim has been exploded entirely, as a major cause of overruns and delays, and was one of the major issues identified by Frank Kendall as "acquisition malpractice".

Other things - the Tornado F3's imposition of what the internet kiddies call SURPRIZE :mad:SECKS over the F-15 was done with JTIDS, not L16, and while great fun for all involved depended on an overconfident adversary.

Also:

No manned fighter aircraft can compete with missiles that attack at over twice the speed of sound and manoeuvre at 60 ‘g’.

A missile can pull a lot of g as long as the motor's burning. A coasting missile can't, for very long.

One big miss here is the blurred distinction between BVR and WVR. So-called WVR missiles have a lot of range, while supersonic agility, EW and missile-warning make the BVR picture more dynamic.

As for the rest - I don't know what it brings to the argument that hasn't been discussed here.

[Engines]

exMud:

Sorry, can't let that one go. (And I'll declare my interest here - I served in the FAA as an air engineer and was in the Falklands in 1982, alongside 801 Squadron).

You say that in your experience, the Harrier was a 'poor combat manoeuvring aircraft' - I respect your experience, but compared to any other UK combat aircraft in 1982, how 'poor' was the Sea Harrier exactly? I absolutely agree that compared with the US fighters at the time, it was not a first rate machine, but how about compared to the F3? Or the Jag? Or even the F-4?

You then add in the observation that:

'if the opposition aren’t making much effort to avoid you (basically because of lack of training), then you don’t need much manoeuvrability - or skill - to get kills, especially using a magic piece of kit like the 9L.'

OK, I'll bite. According to the FAA pilots I knew (and still know) the Argies were plenty agressive and 'good stick and rudder merchants' (their phrase, not mine) but tactically poor. They made plenty of efforts to avoid the SHARs, mostly unsuccessfully.

Your observation about the 9L being an excellent weapon is well made. But to use it effectively in the Falklands, flying from small decks in poor weather at maximum range, needed highly trained, agressive and very, very skilled pilots. Fortunately the Fleet Air Arm had them.

Actually, you want to know the key thing you need to get kills? To be at the war and to engage the enemy. That's exactly what the FAA has done since WW2, and that's why FAA pilots have got the kills. (Oh, and I include the RAF guys serving with the FAA down there).

I apologise unreservedly for a slight case of spleen venting, but these were brave pilots doing a great job. Slagging them off like this is, IMHO, 'not on'.

Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the stuff for real,

Engines

[Just This Once...]

Where did he criticise the FAA or RAF pilots?

[Engines]

JTO,

I think it was the 'you don't need much skill' bit I picked up on...

Regards

Engines

[Just This Once...]

I'd step away from the outrage as a wise man lets the missile do as much work for you as possible. The skill is day-to-day operating in hostile conditions and coming back alive.

[Engines]

JTO,

Good advice. Agree and thanks.

Yours

Engines

[JSFfan]

Relevant to the current missile harrier discussion and further to the Russian stuff, the RAAF like RAF say bugger all publicly, but I found this USMC piece on classic hornet c/d on exercise, It also needs to be remembered that Malaysia also run the C/D hornet, so it's not as if they don't know them
mig 29 vs hornet C/D
Hornet v. MiG | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine (http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Hornet-v-Mig.html)
“The Americans have better radar, better weapons,[comparable to Malaysian hornets] so we try to get in close,” says Major Patricia Yapp Syau Yin of the Malaysian air force, recounting a one-on-one engagement she had against a Hornet. “Try to defeat their radar capabilities by doing aggressive moves—zooming in. We have to try to roll in behind them, not roll in front of them. Weapon-wise, software-wise, they are one up. But power-wise, we are one up.” The MiG-29N that the Malaysians fly has a top speed of Mach 2.3 and a climb rate of 65,000 feet per minute; the F/A-18D’s maximum speed is Mach 1.8 with a climb rate of 50,000 feet per minute. The Hornet, however, is a more maneuverable aircraft, with a fly-by-wire control system and more advanced avionics and cockpit displays.

By the end of Air Warrior, the Marines had won virtually all of the air-to-air fights (with a few draws). But the Malaysians say they appreciate even the losses. “Every year we learn something new from the Americans,” says Major William.

[SpazSinbad]

'Low Observable' my question was specific about the F-3 story. Your response to that question seems to indicate that JTIDS was responsible - not Link 16. Anyone else have a response to the F-3 story (I did not ask for a critique of the Williams Foundation nor the rest of the text in the PDF nor do I require same). Thanks. :}

http://tinyurl.com/mu24zso

[LowObservable]

I think the F3 versus F-15 story is recounted somewhere hereabouts. It involved using silent shooters and "eyeballs" operating to the rear.

(I did not ask for a critique of the Williams Foundation nor the rest of the text in the PDF nor do I require same)

In that case I will waive the normal fees.

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks for the update 'Low Observable' and thanks for the earlier relevant input. If I take up any of your time I do not apologise however.

Thanks 'JSFfan' for your link to the story about. A sidebar pointed to this little snippet about hook issues (let us not wish any of these on the F-35C) and some great anecdotes about Neil Armstrong in F9F Panthers and other tidbits - only go there if interested and do not consider your time being wasted....

Panthers At Sea By David Noland | Air & Space magazine, June 2013

Panthers At Sea | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine (http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Panthers-At-Sea-208172511.html)

"U.S. Navy Panthers weren’t highly evolved, but they could shoot. And they were air conditioned....

...The Grumman F9F Panther was a conservative design; it had straight wings, a conventional tail, and the rugged structure for which Grumman had earned the nickname “Iron Works.”...

...When the Navy took over testing of the Panther, the jet suffered an embarrassing moment hardly in keeping with Grumman’s reputation. During its first arrested landing, on a runway at the Navy’s test center at Patuxent River, Maryland, the sudden jolt to the tailhook pulled off the entire tail section. The engine was still firmly attached to the forward fuselage and running normally. The pilot, believing he had simply missed the cable, applied full power for a go-around. Alerted by radio to his predicament, the pilot aborted the tailless takeoff. (Subsequently, Grumman strengthened the tail attach joint.)

The Panther entered the fleet in 1949, and landings continued to present problems. “I flew the Panther during my first cruise on the USS Boxer,” says Robert Morris, a former Navy pilot who lives in San Diego, California. “I would end up in the barricade a number of times because of a faulty tailhook. The Panther had a bad hook dashpot [a hydraulic cylinder that dampens movement]. The hook would bounce up and down across the deck.” The Boxer, like other carriers, had a barrier that would catch an airplane in case of just such a problem with the arresting gear. On one trap, Morris put his Panther down in perfect position, but “the hook was skipping right over all the wires. On one of my barrier encounters, the canopy came off its hinges and hit me on the shoulder.”..."

1st Photo Caption: "If its tailhook failed to catch an arresting wire, a landing aircraft would be halted by a barrier. (National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)) Photo from: "Panthers At Sea""
&
2nd Photo Caption: "Four months into the war, accidents weren’t uncommon. The F9F in the foreground was hit by another Panther that could not catch an arresting wire."

http://media.airspacemag.com/images/Panthers-At-Sea-Korean-War-715-5.jpg
&
http://media.airspacemag.com/images/631*477/08_Panther.jpg

http://media.airspacemag.com/images/Panthers-At-Sea-Korean-War-715-5.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/08_Panther.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/08_Panther.jpg.html)

[JSFfan]

spaz:Thanks 'JSFfan' for your link to the story

sorry I can't find one about the su-30 here last year, the anti's like to beat it up, but it's not with over a 1/3 fuel
the known sus 4.6g of the f-35 wirh 50% fuel load/fraction @ 15kft and M.8 [end of life engine] is very comparable to the to the others including the legacy f-15,16/50,18c with full internal and CFT's and maybe a tank as well to get the fuel fraction, as CM will show us when he gets the time. especially when you add all the pods for a tough air/ground mission

spaz like cm you would have the knowledge to uses the flight manuals to come up with a comparison too, if you get the time

as to LO's current infatuation with the su-35, it's a su-27 with a FCS
"Unlike the Su-27M (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35_su-27m/) and Su-30MKI (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-30/), the new Su-35 features the same aerodynamic configuration as the basic Su-27, but with larger wings and engine intakes. The Su-35 is not fitted with canards. The flight performance and manoeuvrability will instead be improved by the advanced KSU-35 fly-by-wire system."

[LowObservable]

When you near the round-down and you see Wings' frown
You may safely assume that your hook isn't down
A bloody great barrier looms up in front
And you hear Wings' joyful shout, "Cut your engine, you

[half beat pause, no more and no less]

fool!

[JSFfan]

jsffan : if we really want to know, it seems we have to ask the chinese geek hackers.

glad rag (http://www.pprune.org/members/185079-glad-rag)
yep!


BBC News - Chinese hackers 'compromise' US weapons systems designs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22692778)

"The compromised US designs include those for advanced Patriot missile systems called PAC-3, an Army anti-missile system known as Thaad, and the Navy's Aegis ballistic-missile defence system, according to the Washington Post.
The F/A-18 fighter jet, V-22 Osprey aircraft, Black Hawk helicopter and the Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship were also compromised.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons system ever built, was also cited on the list."

bet they don't try to back engineer the F35 though....

I think we have upset their sensibilities, looks like we have found a way to counter it
Chinese Hacker Complains About ?Perverted? American Military (http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/06/chinese-hacker-complains-perverted-american-military/)
Chinese Hacker Complains About ‘Perverted’ American Military

[glad rag]

Glad you can an the amusing side to it.

[JSFfan]

I can't seem to find a reference to the Super Hornet F/A-18E/F in the last couple of pages, it seems to be about the old classic or legacy Hornet the F/A-18 a-d

Like your last paragraph. The points being made seems to be to not take the Janes specs at face value, sometimes it's what's under the skin and training, weapons that's important.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

...as to LO's current infatuation with the su-35, it's a su-27 with a FCS

Incorrect! It is so...SO much more!

And, as for Malaysian MiG-29s having a ROC of "65,000 fpm"!!! :eek: Hmmm...

[JSFfan]

and the fa-18c has a climb rate of 55kft per min, somehow I think something got lost in the translation

seems the usual stuff, take a su-27 design and tart it up, only this time it's the KnAAPO plant, remembering my post was in reference to maneuverability
the real design money it seems is being spent on the PAK-FA and that's running late

I'll put the full link rather than going through the site from what I quoted from before
MILAVIA Aircraft - Sukhoi Su-35 (Su-27BM) "4++ Generation Flanker" (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35/su-35.htm)
The designation Su-35 had already been used from 1992 onwards to market the company's modernized Su-27M "Super Flanker" (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35_su-27m/) (bureau designation T-10M). Developed in the late 1980s for the Soviet Air Force, the Su-27M (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35_su-27m/) incorporated a modified aerodynamic configuration, uprated engine, and upgraded avionics. Sukhoi realized by 2002 that it would no longer be able to compete with comtemporary and future foreign fighters. The single-seat Flanker needed to be drastically upgraded, including a major redesign of its airframe. Furthermore, the Sukhoi-owned KnAAPO plant had been struggling to compete with its Su-30MK2 (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-30/) against the more advanced Su-30MKI (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-30/) derivatives of the Irkut Corporation, its rival Flanker producer which is only partially owned by Sukhoi.

Unlike the Su-27M (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35_su-27m/) and Su-30MKI (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-30/), the new Su-35 features the same aerodynamic configuration as the basic Su-27, but with larger wings and engine intakes. The Su-35 is not fitted with canards. The flight performance and manoeuvrability will instead be improved by the advanced KSU-35 fly-by-wire system. It also lacks the larger vertical tails of the Su-27M (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35_su-27m/). Internal fuel capacity has been increased by redesigning the airframe internal volumes. The Su-35 can carry 11,500kg of fuel, which can be increased to 14,300 kg using two underwing drop tanks. Like previous Su-27 derivatives, it has also been fitted with a retractable refueling probe. The new Su-35 lacks the Su-27's large upper air brake owing to advanced rudder control by the KSU-35 system.
Perhaps the most significant improvement is the extensive use of titanium alloys, which increases the aircraft's service life from 4,000 to 6,000 hours, with the time between overhauls growing to 1,500 hours. Another significant improvement is the use of radar absorbing materials (RAM) in various parts of the airframe reducing the fighter's X-band radar cross section within the +/- 60° sector.

[Finnpog]

...the real design money it seems is being spent on the PAK-FA and that's running late


The sense of irony is strong in this one:ok:

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

I had him on ignore but I saw that CM and others were continuing to engage him and started sounding a little more reasonable, so I un-ignored him to see if he'd come round a little...he hasn't! :ugh:

[JSFfan]

yep, Russia's no different to anyone else with that one, the su-27 variant replacement has been going on for a long time, even before the collapse of the USSR. With the current GDP being less than the UK it's been an uphill battle and you could argue the baton is being passed to China for sole-country, non-western planes in the future.

[Courtney Mil]

Having been away for a couple of days, I feel I should comment on some of the stuff posted here in the last couple of days.


Harrier manoeuvrability.

First, remember there are big differences between SHAR, GR1/3 and GR5/7/9, so the term 'Harrier' means something very different today from 30 years ago. Anyway, as you were talking about the Falklands, let’s stick to first generation Harrier. As has been stated, it was a high wing loader with dry power only and, therefore, did not turn well. We seemed to do pretty well against it in theF4, which also had a high wing loading. As I have said before, beware fighting blue against blue to evaluate capability against an enemy.

As for viffing, it falls into the same category as the 50° aoa manoeuvre, unless your adversary has really screwed it up, you should die before the manoeuvre is complete. The only situation where I ever saw it used effectively was in a rather non-representative,1v1 guns-only fight as a last ditch to try to defeat a tracking guns shot. Henra’s comment at post #2659 is correct.

During the Falklands, however, none of this was particularly relevant. The Argentinean pilots were based 400 miles or more from the fight and had neither the fuel nor the inclination to get tangled up in a fight with the Harriers. Also, their weapons and pilot training/experience were inferior. I don’t think exMudmover was being at all insulting in his comment. The AIM9L is a pretty straightforward weapon to operate and the Argentinean pilots were simply flying as fast and as low as they could (that was very fast and very low in most cases) to try to stay away from the Harriers whilst getting to and from their targets. That meant radar and visual engagements, but not much air combat of the'turning and burning' kind. Those facts in no way detract from the skill and bravery of the RN and RAF pilots involved inthe Falklands war – I certainly don’t think stating those facts is ‘slagging’ anyone off.


Fact versus Fiction.

Not a brilliantly written piece, maybe a bit of a curate’s egg. A couple of points that people here seem to have focussed on.

First, JTIDS/Link 16 confusion. Some clearly don’t understand, so to clarify, JTIDS is the bearer system, Link 16 is the NATO message specification, which is carried by JTIDS. It’s a bit like the difference between the World Wide Web and the Internet. JTIDS/Link16 worked well in the case of the “(British) RAF’sTornado F-3 air defence fighter” (WRONG! Air Defence INTERCEPTOR) because we were the only players in those exercise that had it. That soon changed. Also the tactics used became less effective with time. That said, and as I have said before, the F3 was a very capable INTERCEPTOR in its adulthood. I just took a while to get there.

Second, the 60 g missile. What happens to a missile when it is forced to turn at 60 g? It slows down. The more it slows down, the more lead it requires to achieve an intercept and, therefore, the further it has to turn – look up proportional navigation. And that it the trick to defeating the long range shot and why (see my earlier poston the subject) single or multiple high-performance turns by the target are so effective – not just an f-pol manoeuvre. As an aside, that is also why ‘all-round’ stealth is necessary, not just desirable – if the LO technology is optimised head on, any crank, f-pol manoeuvre or turn away will instantly expose the higher RCS to the bad guys.

With any modern fighter, it is the entire system that’s important, not just selected features on a platform such as stealth, agility, power, weapons, etc.

[t43562]

Of interest - hope it hasn't been posted already:
4zB0ZxBurRc

What interested me was that they claim large control surfaces are bad for stealth which makes me think of the FLAVIIR project although the people at the BAE stand at Farnborough strenuously denied that stealth was of any consideration at all.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/09/27/article-0-0B5E7A7F000005DC-775_634x286.jpg

[Bevo]

What interested me was that they claim large control surfaces are bad for stealth which makes me think of the FLAVIIR project although the people at the BAE stand at Farnborough strenuously denied that stealth was of any consideration at all.

Lots of “marketing” being done by both LM and Boeing. Designing control surfaces on a low signature aircraft requires some consideration but the main issue is the impact on signature when the control surfaces are deflected. The other issue is the “gap” between the control surface and the fuselage. On the F-22 LM/Boeing used a tapered concept which seems to work pretty well. And if you look at the F-22 I would say it has some fairly large control surfaces.


http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/7/4/1/3/0/a610943-78-f-22-raptor%20control%20surfaces.jpg?d=1128757705

[SpazSinbad]

U.K. test pilot completes first F-35B vertical landing 03 Jun 2013

U.K. test pilot completes first F-35B vertical landing | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation (http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5373)

"... Royal Air Force Squadron Leader James Schofield completed the first vertical landing by a United Kingdom military test pilot May 28, 2013 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Schofield flew F-35B Lightning II test aircraft BF-1...."

[ORAC]

Ares:

JSF Gets A Schedule After Three Years (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:e1439298-8f0a-47e0-b530-ca32c95911c3)

The New Era of Good F-35 Feelings (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/03/the-new-era-of-good-f-35-feelings/)

[John Farley]

I remember when a young James Schofield asked for advice on tackling his ETPS application.

Great when the good guys win in the end.

[Lonewolf_50]

Assuming the F-4 is the bigger circle there, I note it is now in a very good firing position against the other aircraft there. A nice lag Fox 1. F-4 wins again! QED.
Lord love an old Phantom jockey. :ok:
IIRC, cornering velocity for F-4 was 450 kt and 6.5 G, but I also seem to recall that q would bleed like a stuck pig.
The F-4S with the leading edge slats would, per an old Phantom jockey pal of mine, given you a good turn at 450/7.5 ... one last look at a sweet shot before you broke it of/unloaded, or departed ... hehe.

Speed and altitude is where Phantoms had an advantage for a while, but the Eagle (and its better wing loading and thrust to weight) took it to the next level. Likewise the Viper. ORAC: you beat me to the Boyd reference, it's a good one.

Then Clinton/Aspin/Perry emerged, waved their wands and shouted JOINTERIUS LOWCOSTICUS! which drove improved air-to-air farther to the back of the bus than before.
Don't get me started on the "it must be better if it's Joint" crap all rooted in the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986. :mad::mad:(ad infinitum)

Next, the Professor-General Nordens of industry pulled out their wands and yelled EODAS INVINCIBILITAS! to convince more people that "maneuvering is irrelevant."
I seem to recall that "guns weren't needed" when the F-4 arrived, and they had to backtrack and add a gun to the Tomcat when they found out that it just wasn't so in the air battles over Viet Nam.

Some good stuff, and a shame F-22 production run was so short.
:mad::mad:(yet again)

[Courtney Mil]

450 KCAS it was, Wolf. 450 KCAS and 19 units and listen to her rattle. Ah, happy days. Strangely enough, on my first trip in the Eagle at RTU I did some high aoa manoeuvring and the new girl rattled exactly the same as the old girl. Same MacAir stable, I guess.

[Bevo]

Time magazine has started a five part series on the cost of the F-35. This is from part 1 and the series should be an interesting read.

There’s been a rash of recent reports that the U.S. military has wrestled the F-35’s cost growth to the mat. They come from some heavy hitters: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Air Force Lieut. General Christopher Bogdan, the F-35′s program manager, and the Pentagon’s latest Selected Acquisition Report. ………………………………….

In fact, Wheeler — a longtime military-cost analyst on Capitol Hill (where he toiled on both sides of the aisle) and the Government Accountability Office — says the plane’s $159 million purported per copy price in that latest Pentagon SAR — continues to rise, and is actually well north of that sum.

He promises to walk us as gently as he can through a forest of Pentagon data searching for the truth each day this week. We invite you to tag along.

How Much Does an F-35 Fighter Really Cost? | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/03/how-much-does-an-f-35-fighter-really-cost/)

[orca]

Courtney,

I'm guessing the 19 units from the F-4 wouldn't be counted as hi alpha in the F-15 (A?;)) would it?

[Courtney Mil]

Units are an arbitrary measure of aoa. 19 units, or 19.2 depanding on K or M and in what situation, represented CL max. So best turn and best lift/drag on approach. Beyond 19 units there be dragons.

F-15 was different. It was 'naturally' spin resistant and you take it pretty much to whatever aoa it could give you. I don't know what it was in degrees, but we were taught and used to teach a last ditch, quick reversal manoeuvre called a pirouette. See some of the other high aoa stuff for an explanation. Or come back to me.

[orca]

CM,

Please pardon lame banter, twas nothing more. More than happy with high AoA stuff cheers Courtney - current steed likes it at the higher end - so to speak, in fact, some would say it's the only part of our flight envelope where we can compete!

We also practice the pirouette - almost as if the F-15 and F-18E have some lineage in common! (If you look closely enough).

Cheers and regards.

[Courtney Mil]

D'oh. Missed it completely. Can't believe it. Lesson, always look at the names of posters before answering. Soz.

[LowObservable]

The pirouette seems to be like a pretty good example of what some would dismiss as an "air show maneuver", but that has a tactical application.

[kbrockman]

As far as the original question goes, F35 cancelled, then what?
For Canada, the possibility of a return to the F35 has increased with the Gripen NG leaving the evaluation.
http://nosint.********.be/2013/06/advantage-f-35-as-saab-pulls-out-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+********/fqzx+%28Naval+Open+Source+INTelligence%29
“Saab followed the discussions in Canada with interest [but] at this time and stage of the evaluation process, Saab has decided not to take part,” the company said in a June 3 e-mail to select media outlets.

[Ricorigs]

We'd Brits buy something capable but cheaper,I hope.

Potentially another U-turn on the carrier cat/traps decision if that happens.

[Bevo]

Part 2 of the "Times" F-35 cost series.

The cost of an F-35 is currently increasing, more than likely to remain high, and very unlikely to even approach the low levels being articulated by Pentagon managers and documents.

But F-35 costs are clouded by the calculating ways that the Pentagon reports them.

The applicable empirical data – the most informative — have been obscured. They also call into question the long-range projection just made by the Defense Department in its new Selected Acquisition Report that total program costs for the F-35 will come down by $4.5 billion. The detailed F-35 SAR, made available by the Project on Government Oversight last week, is widely viewed as the gold standard of a weapon program’s cost. ……………………………..

– The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) divides the total acquisition expense, including research and development (R&D), procurement and military construction funds, by the total number of planned test and operational aircraft (2,457)………………………………….

The SAR also lists something called Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) costs. The URF does not include the support and training equipment, technical data, initial spare parts or even the gas and lubricants to make an F-35 useable. It also does not include the upgrades and fixes that testing and other flying experience reveals to be needed.

Bottom line: the unit recurring flyaway cost will not get you an F-35 you can fly away, not for combat, not for training, not even for the delivery hop.

A favorite of F-35 lobbyists and marketers, the URF for the F-35 aircraft is $65.9 million. Want an engine? Make it $76.8 million; that’s in base year dollars; the SAR doesn’t do the calculation in the slightly higher then-year dollars. Moreover, that ridiculously understated $76.8 million is only for the Air Force’s A version; the pricier C model for the Navy has a URF (with engine) of $88.7 million, and the Marines’ B model (with engine and lift fan) is $103.6 million.

In fact, the average F-35 unit cost will be more than the $135.7 million then-year APUC, and it will even be more than the $159.2 million then-year PAUC. Those numbers are grounded in analytical quicksand.
Alphabet Soup: PAUCs, APUCs, URFs, Cost Variances and Other Pricing Dodges | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/04/alphabet-soup-paucs-apucs-urfs-cost-variances-and-other-pricing-dodges/#ixzz2VFqhiLWj)

[Bevo]

Part 3 of the "Times" F-35 cost series.

– First, contemporary F-35 unit costs are today in excess of $200 million, well above the Average Procurement Unit Costs (APUCs) and Program Acquisition Unit Costs (PAUCs) that the military’s Selected Acquisition Reports report to be unit costs for the complete F-35 program. It should also be noted that contemporary unit costs are literally a multiple of the commonly cited Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost ($78.7 million—for the F-35A) or of the $85 million envisioned in the future by the program manager, General Bogdan. (See my second post for a discussion of these acronyms and the flawed cost calculations they represent.) The program has a very, very long way to go to even begin to approach the learning curve reductions that the official documentation for the program predicts.

– Second, by the end of 2014, the F-35 will have been produced in significant annual amounts for seven years. The statement of Vice Admiral David Dunaway of the Naval Air Systems Command that the F-35 is now a “fairly mature air vehicle” is accurate—regarding production. There has been ample opportunity for the learning curve to have demonstrated some level of decreasing unit cost—for Lockheed and its major subcontractors to have worked out the kinks associated with manufacturing any new complex piece of hardware.

– Third, there is a discernible trend in F-35 fabrication costs: they are increasing. As figure 3 clearly shows, they have been rising since 2011 (or since 2012, if the comptroller’s reports are wrong and the 2011 unit cost was $218.5 million, not $199.8 million).
The Deadly Empirical Data | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/05/the-deadly-empirical-data/)

[Courtney Mil]

And did anyone really ever think for a moment that the most expensive mil procurement ever could really come in at a comparable price to gen 4/4.5 platforms? But I doubt any of the governments that are in the JSF market were taken in by the public spin any more than the US gov have been. This is only 'news' to those of us that weren't on the inside of keeping the programme alive. I doubt this will be a killer, shocking though it may seem.

[JSFfan]

first he complains about a cost system that's been used for every project
then he uses a short time period, where there is a lot of infrastructure spending which is a component of the average PAUC and claims some extreme price

sounds like the usual stuff from Wheeler, we really need a good term for an internet shock jock

meanwhile in the real world

UK set to procure first F-35 Lightning II squadron (http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065978652)
The UK is expected to obtain authority to procure its first squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) before the end of 2013, IHS Jane's was told on 18 April.
Speaking at BAE Systems' Warton production facility in Lancashire, Craig Smith, the head of F-35 Sustainment Programme Development UK/EU, said that military officials with industry support are working on the Main Gate 4 approval process for the procurement of an additional 14 F-35Bs to stand up the UK's first squadron in 2016.

and another nonpartner, Korea looks like making their choice this month, with the f-35 preferred, does anyone want to say it wont be the f-35?
South Korea Nears F-X Phase 3 Decision (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_03_2013_p24-583039.xml&p=2)

[Heathrow Harry]

Since the Koreans might need their aircraft sooner rather than at some indefinite time in the far future I'd suggest they buy F-15's......................... they have to buy 'merican

[SpazSinbad]

Delivery schedule to affect fighter buy 21 Apr 2013 Kim Tae-gyu

Delivery schedule to affect fighter buy (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/04/116_134335.html)

"...The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said Sunday that it will ask the three bidders whether they will be able to meet the delivery date of between 2016 and 2020....

...According to another military source, there are fears that the actual delivery time may be delayed to between 2017 and 2021 because the purchase decision was delayed by more than half a year....

...Representatives from Lockheed Martin and EADS said they have no problem meeting the 2016 deadline if they win the bid...."

[Courtney Mil]

The price thing isn't really that surprising, is it? Let's face it, if the true, final price were revealed at the start of a program, none of them would ever get off the drawing board. That said, this is the time when governments really do need to know the full price, with everything included. How else are defence budgets going to accommodate them?

As for the Lockheed Martin/EADS quote.

Representatives from Lockheed Martin and EADS said they have no problem meeting the 2016 deadline if they win the bid.

What else could they have said? DAPA say the ability to deliver is crucial to their decision to buy, LM are hardly going to rule themselves out of the competition by saying they can't meet the deadline. Better to say they certainly can even if they have doubts. It'll be too late once they get to the delivery phase and they're late.

[cuefaye]

But I doubt any of the governments that are in the JSF market were taken in
by the public spin any more than the US gov have been.


The 2001 Australian Government most certainly was.

[JSFfan]

I have no doubt they can deliver a block 3i in 2016 and 3f by 2020, if they are happy with that. 3f is said to be 2018 and this gives a 2 year slip

"The 2001 Australian Government most certainly was."
do you think this is our first BBQ? we bought the f-111 and the fa-18ab, if you have spare time have a read of the history, cost more and late is standard stuff and to a large extent this was taken into account.
we are still within our original budget, but 2 years behind delivery

[cuefaye]

Thank you JSFfan. The first part of your final sentence is incorrect. That said, a rational discussion is clearly not within your vocabulary so I'll not bother you further.

[JSFfan]

we have a budget of $16B/$160m ea, we have just costed it at $140m ea, so we are still under budget,

[kbrockman]

Can't quote from a link but word on the Tarmac ( CANSEC 2013) is that the Canadians are seriously considering the new Super Hornet in addition to the JSF whereby they can keep their original goal of operating 86 fighters.
F35's would then be delivered starting in the late 2020's after the SH are delivered (from 2016-17 onwards).

The Brazilians also are leaning towards the SH, which means production well into the 20's.
http://skiesmag.com/news/article_files/751560272648931.jpg

[JSFfan]

I can't see it myself, even though aussies have 24sh and a dozen growlers
canada have decent life left in their classic hornets and the cost of running 2 platforms exceed any benefit of the $10m URF difference between the sh and f-35.the extra capabilities are a bonus

[Kitbag]

Leaving aside the pros & cons of selection for an uncertain future can anyone tell me who will manufacture the aircraft? I have seen recently a report that Turkey is expecting to do $12B worth of component manufacture, Israel will integrate their own EW and weapons suites, Japan will build their own wings. As a layman I see that the UK has invested a lot (several billion $) and been told it can't have access to certain technologies. Not a Daily Mail reader, but should I be trying to get on an outrage bus?

[SpazSinbad]

For 'cuefaye':

Australian Federal Parliament House of Representatives Thursday, 16 May 2013

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2011-12 (Public)

F-16.net (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17588.html)
OR
Long Form PDF: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commjnt/fb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a/toc_pdf/Parliamentary%20Joint%20Committee%20on%20Foreign%20Affairs,% 20Defence%20and%20Trade_2013_05_16_1947.pdf;fileType=applica tion/pdf#search="committees/commjnt/fb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a/0000"

SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR: Welcome. Although the subcommittee does not require you to give evidence on oath, I should advise you that this hearing is a legal proceeding of the parliament and therefore has the same standing as proceedings of the respective houses. The giving of false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as contempt of parliament. The evidence given today will be recorded in Hansard and will attract parliamentary privilege. I invite you to make opening statements.

JONES, Vice Admiral Peter, Chief, Capability Development Group, Department of Defence:
"...From a cost perspective, the approved AIR 6000 phase 2A/B stage 1—that is, the 'first 14 aircraft'—remains within budget. The unapproved AIR 6000 2A and 2B stage 2—that is, the 'next 58 aircraft'—remains within its Defence Capability Plan provision.

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

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

The sustainment costs are high but reducing, and we should see further refinement of these costs now that the F-35A has been fielded at several units in the US. This area is a particular focus of the US JSF Program Office at present, who have been implementing initiatives such as improving the supportability of high-value and high-usage aircraft components; opening up greater competition for sustainment work; and further developing programs to reduce the cost of ownership of F-35A support equipment....

...In conclusion, the New Air Combat Capability Program is progressing within the cost and schedule buffer available and Defence plans to bring forward a submission in 2014 for government consideration of the second pass approval for the next 58 F-35A aircraft...."

[kbrockman]

I think you are seriously underestimating the cost of ownership difference between the SH and the F35, certainly when we talk about those countries already operating the Hornet.

Besides the training and implementation which will be substantially cheaper for both ground and aircrews, there is also the fact that all of the weapons in stock remain usable, AAR infrastructure that needs no changes, much of the infrastructure that needs little change.etc... .

Also it would put the 1 vs 2 engines debate to rest and the avionics on the latest SH are at least equal to the F35 with the added benefit of having buddy to buddy refuelling option and the Growler upgrade.

Operating 2 types does make sense starting from a certain number of planes.
they basically can put one type on each base and build its infrastructure around it while keeping an operational centre for the other type on the other base(s).
Arctic patrols with SH aided by the A310's makes a hell of a lot more sense than doing it with the F35.
Also landing on emergency airfields or suitable roads, frozen rivers, etc... will be much more doable with the SH wich basically has the NAVY specced gear.

Also the SH has a lot of growth left in it, the engines are now 22,000lbs but can easily deal with 20%more power.
It can also load up to 8T of weapons and with the new stealthy weapon pod it has the added benefit (contrary to the f35) that it can jettison superfluous loads (tanks, weapon pods, bombs) when it needs to so it can bravely but quickly and light leave the battle-scene heroically to fight another day.

If it was up to me I would go all SH, but the Canadians seem to be holding on to the F35 jobs program no matter what.
This is basically the only way they can keep their position in the F35 program while at the same time keep a credible and sizeable air force.

Besides all that,
It seems that the US Navy is still not giving up on the idea of scrapping the F35C altogether.
Averting the Navy's Tactical Aircraft Crisis | U.S. Naval Institute (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-06/averting-navys-tactical-aircraft-crisis)

[SpazSinbad]

'kbrockman', I guess a USN Ensign knows the 'F-35C for USN' score - however I do not have a subscription to the USNI article you have linked. Care to elaborate.

Averting the Navy's Tactical Aircraft Crisis by Ensign Anthony C. Robinson, U.S. Navy Proceedings Magazine - June 2013 Vol. 139/6/1,324

Also your statement above [quote] needs some explanation I think:

"...[Shornet] it has the added benefit (contrary to the f35) that it can jettison superfluous loads (tanks, weapon pods, bombs) when it needs to so it can bravely but quickly and light leave the battle-scene heroically to fight another day...." [cannot the F-35 dump internal/external loads?]

[JSFfan]

Janes said the aussies costed the 24 SH at $24k and the 75 f-35 at $21k per hour
when we had 24 sh we were getting rid of them ~2025, because 24 wasn't viable. now with the added growlers we are keeping to ~2030

If they wanted heavy landing, they'd buy the C

the USN isn't supporting the SH after 2030, so canada will have to foot the R&D upgrade bill for 20 years, it may be shared with brazil if they buy.

[Lonewolf_50]

he USN isn't supporting the SH after 2030, so canada will have to foot the R&D upgrade bill for 20 years, it may be shared with brazil if they buy. JSFfan, I am skeptical of your assertion there. In that amount of time, program decisions can change. It is now 2013, with FY 2014 around the corner. A wide variety of aircraft were extended well beyond projected retirement dates (SH-2, T-2, F-4, F-14, among others) as program decisions changed over time.

We shall see.

[kbrockman]

"...[Shornet] it has the added benefit (contrary to the f35) that it can jettison superfluous loads (tanks, weapon pods, bombs) when it needs to so it can bravely but quickly and light leave the battle-scene heroically to fight another day...." [cannot the F-35 dump external loads?]

A SH, like most other fighters besides the F35, can pretty much clean up, meaning optimize performance by minimizing drag and weight by jettison unwanted loads in the heat of combat when all things start going wrong and a quick exit strategy is needed.
The F35 can lose its loads also but it will still be a very drag prone fighter that, even without weapons and such.
It's like the saying goes, "all that empty space certainly adds a lot of weight and volume".

....SNI article you have linked. Care to elaborate.....
It basically shows that it would be cheaper for the US NAVY to buy F35A's iso F35C and have money left to buy an equal number of NG SHornets.
The SH's would be deployed and the F35A's sold of later to other customers.
This would mean that the original production numbers don't need to go down and money can be saved by the US NAVY because they operate with a much cheaper fighter for which all infrastructure is already in place.
No need for ship mods, base mods and a separate training line (F35).
Basically acc to the study it would be cheaper owning both the F35A and F18SH, while only using 1 of both operationally.

[kbrockman]

the USN isn't supporting the SH after 2030, so canada will have to foot the R&D upgrade bill for 20 years, it may be shared with brazil if they buy.
I think you misread that somewhere.
The F18A/D in the NAVY is supported by Boeing up until 2030, the international F18A/D support is guaranteed by Boeing beyond 2030.
they (Boeing) are not talking about the Super Hornet which will likely be supported at least as long as the EF, meaning at least 2045-2050.

Additionally, current modernization and service life extension programs for U.S. Navy fleets are planned through 2030 and international F/A-18A-D Hornet fleets are plannedbeyond 2030

BTW,
The MYP-II contract ran from 2005-2009, and was not renewed because the Pentagon intended to focus on the F-35 fighter program. When it became clear that the F-35 program was going to be late, and had serious program and budgetary issues, pressure built to abandon year-by-year contracting, and negotiate another multi-year deal for the current Super Hornet family. That deal is now final. This entry covers the program as a whole, with a focus on 2010-2015 Super Hornet family purchases. It has been updated to include all announced contracts and events connected with MYP-III, including engines and other separate “government-furnished equipment” that figures prominently in the final price.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/super-hornet-fighter-family-myp-iii-2010-2013-contracts-06392/


You guys realy think support only lasts until 2030 for the SH?
The geriatric TORNADO is still getting a final upgrade to be able to operate until at least 2019-2022 as we speak, almost 40 years past its IOC

[JSFfan]

nope, that's the boeing dream, australia is getting rid of classics ~2020, canada is looking at extending to around 2025? date needs to be confirmed, it was one of the options presented to this rethink and is on the net.
usn has stated they want a SH replacement by 2030

usn support meant to be upgrades R&D after 2030, not that there wont be any USN sh flying after 2030

[Not_a_boffin]

It seems that the US Navy is still not giving up on the idea of scrapping the F35C altogether.
Averting the Navy's Tactical Aircraft Crisis | U.S. Naval Institute

Averting the Navy's Tactical Aircraft Crisis by Ensign Anthony C. Robinson, U.S. Navy Proceedings Magazine - June 2013 Vol. 139/6/1,324


It basically shows that it would be cheaper for the US NAVY to buy F35A's iso F35C and have money left to buy an equal number of NG SHornets.
The SH's would be deployed and the F35A's sold of later to other customers.
This would mean that the original production numbers don't need to go down and money can be saved by the US NAVY because they operate with a much cheaper fighter for which all infrastructure is already in place.
No need for ship mods, base mods and a separate training line (F35).
Basically acc to the study it would be cheaper owning both the F35A and F18SH, while only using 1 of both operationally.

I'd be really careful about ascribing USN policy to a USNI article written by an Ensign.

[Lonewolf_50]

It basically shows that it would be cheaper for the US NAVY to buy F35A's iso F35C and have money left to buy an equal number of NG SHornets.
kbrockman, the A isn't carrier capable. There is no point in the Navy buying the A's. At all.
There was in fact no reason for the USAF to ever buy A's, as this was supposed to be a JOINT strike fighter. You can fly C's from carrier or land base, but the same can't be said of the A.

[LowObservable]

The current Boeing push towards the Navy seems to involve (1) extending the SH/Growler with the aid of FMS, until the JSF is ready for prime time and (2) developing the upgrade package, which is all retrofittable to most SHs (not the early jets with the C/D front fuselage) and all Growlers.

Let's remember what the shills don't - the F-35C was not planned as an SH replacement, but as a replacement for the last C/Ds. The Navy has already put plans in place for nearly 700 SH/Growler and has 340 F-35Cs on the books, so the type will be flying well into the 2030s, and its OSD depends on plans that haven't been formulated.

Consequently (argues Boeing) it makes sense to upgrade the jet. CFTs are very nice for the Growler, and the claims are that an engine upgrade is self-funding because the improved engine is more durable. This does not entail scrapping the F-35C - the ASH/Growler is complementary.

Mind you, if the C flunks its carrier tests next year, all bets are off again, and I suspect that Boeing and the Navy's Rhino/Growler mafia are lighting candles in church and sacrificing goats to Cthulhu in hopes that it will do so.

LW - The C is 5500 lb heavier (OEW) than the A, even without an internal gun, and with its monster wing its acceleration is much slower than the A. Jointness my :mad:.

[Not_a_boffin]

Lonewolf

According to Mr Brockman, the Ensign who wrote this "piece of USN policy" which appears in the USNI based it on buying F35As to avoid dropping the overall production numbers and thereby increasing the unit costs. He appears to believe the USN could then sell them on to other nations, rather than operate them. The money recouped buys more Rhinos.......

A procurement genius in waiting....

[LowObservable]

Mind you, when the Noggies quoted a $52 million unit cost for JSF, there were those who suggested that they should buy 1700 of them at that price and sell them back to the USAF at a 100 per cent profit margin.

[Tinman74]

So in a round about way the choice for B was correct?

[Courtney Mil]

The most expensive model.

[LowObservable]

Tm 74 - Let's just say that the MoD had painted itself into a corner in a way that makes these guys look like Einsteins.

http://www.staffordcarson.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/4-300x224.jpg

[cuefaye]

Australian Federal Parliament House of Representatives Thursday, 16
May 2013

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND
TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2011-12 (Public)


Short recollections throughout this thread! None of these figures applied in the seductive year of 2001 with Angus and John. Quite a difference. How things evolve!

[Lonewolf_50]

LW - The C is 5500 lb heavier (OEW) than the A, even without an internal gun, and with its monster wing its acceleration is much slower than the A.
I fully understand that. The whole JSF concept is so rife with internal contradiction it makes my head swim. The aim of one size fits all remains rooted in a political theory aimed at allegedly saving money as priority 1. The T-6 Texan II was likewise a goat rope.

[JSFfan]

Short recollections throughout this thread! None of these figures applied in the seductive year of 2001 with Angus and John. Quite a difference. How things evolve! as I said it's not our first BBQ, the price hasn't doubled yet, like it did with the fa-18ab, we have never increased our budget for the f-35a it has always been $16b for 100

I'll let you have the fun of looking at the f-111 price creep, but if you have trouble finding it
1965 Initial contract target price $2,067.2
Current contract target price $4,657.1
Government estimate of price at completion $5,344-o
australia placed order in 1963



@LO,
USN hasn't had any interest in the uprated engine for the SH, that's been offered for ages and they still don't, nor have they any interest in the proposed changes to the SH, or they would fund it

the wing issue of the f-35c was known since the wind tunnel tests, if it was a no-go they would have said so 10 years ago and handed it back to the engineers to come up with something else

[Engines]

Lonewolf and others,

I've posted this before, but it might help to repeat it.

The JSF/F-35 programme was a US Department of Defense (DoD) response to a series of failed tactical aircraft programmes in the 1970s and 80s. (NATF, AX, A-12, etc.) The military (and their DoD technical advisors) came to the conclusion that as long as the USAF and USN were trying to buy large twin engined aircraft, the risks of weight growth, and associated cost growth, were just too great. The F-22 programme just served to underline the fact that even the USA could not afford to build large aircraft of this type.

The solution developed (within the DoD's OSD) was to force the next generation tactical aircraft to a single engined single seat configuration to constrain weight and therefore cost.

This policy was implemented via a series of steps which included the STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) project for the USMC, CALF, JAST and on to JSF. The main technology enablers included a next generation engine (lighter and more fuel efficient) and fully networked mission systems with ab highly advanced sensor suite.

You can disagree with their reasoning, and point out where you might think they've gone wrong, but that's basically what happened. In this case, I don't think you can pin the blame on the politicians.

The USN, by the way, have consistently (since around 1997) declared their policy of buying Super Hornets until the F-35C comes along, and then operating a mixed force. And they've always said they'll flex numbers to fit the F-35C programme. In retrospect, they have done a good job a managing their tactical aircraft fleet (Incidentally, don't forget how many times the Super Hornet came under the spotlight with flight test issues)

The USMC will manage their AV-8B fleet as best they can (buying up the UK fleet helped them a lot) until F-35B comes along. It's later than they wanted, but they'll suck it up.

In my view, the USAF are in a bad corner as their F-15 and F-16 fleets are ageing fast and aren't going to last much longer. This doesn't get much reporting, but they've spent billions on two attempts to extend F-16 fatigue life with not much to show for it. They have already lost early F-15s to fatigue failures. Doesn't necessarily make them bad aircraft (I think they're great aircraft) but they are not getting any younger.

Hope this helps

Engines

[glad rag]

came to the conclusion that as long as the USAF and USN were trying to buy large twin engined aircraft, the risks of weight growth, and associated cost growth, were just too great.

Thanks Engines for pointing out the irony here.

;) gr

[SpazSinbad]

F-35A completes 1st in-flight missile launch 06 Jun 2013

"6/6/2013 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- An F-35A conventional takeoff and landing aircraft completed the first in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 over the Point Mugu Sea Test Range, June 5.

It was the first launch where the F-35 and AIM-120 demonstrated a successful launch-to-eject communications sequence and fired the rocket motor after launch -- paving the way for targeted launches in support of the Block 2B fleet release capability later this year...."
F-35A completes 1st in-flight missile launch (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123351580)

CAPTION: "An F-35A conventional take-off and landing aircraft completed the first in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 over the Point Mugu Sea test range on June 5, 2013. (Courtesy F-35 Program Office)"

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2013/06/130606-F-FJ123-001.jpg (3.5Mb)

Click thumbnail for edited photo: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35Aaim120fireFirst130606-F-FJ123-001.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35Aaim120fireFirst130606-F-FJ123-001.jpg.html)

[JSFfan]

glad rag, the hornet ab price doubled
I'll let you have the fun of looking at the f-111 price creep, but if you have trouble finding it
U.S. GENERAL accounting office GAO 1973
1965 Initial contract target price $2,067.2
Current contract target price $4,657.1
Government estimate of price at completion $5,344-o
australia placed order in 1963

the 70% f-35 increase is a bargain compared to past efforts that australia has bought

why don't you have a look at the UK f-4 and let us know how that went?

[glad rag]

How bizarre you are.

Rhymes that does.

[JSFfan]

In 1963, the US Air Force estimated -the unit cost of the F-111a to be $3.57 million.
At 1969 the US Air Force's unit cost estimate was $13.2 million


just a tad of a price rise
bizarre is people suggesting that the f-35 is some how unique in its price and time

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

...the avionics on the latest SH are at least equal to the F35...

Sorry, but I can't let that one go...even on paper the nacent Advanced Super Hornet 'concept' (which is yet to fly) is still short in terms of integration and growth capacity of what the F-35 offers, let alone the current Block II Super Hornet.

...Janes said the aussies costed the 24 SH at $24k and the 75 f-35 at $21k per hour...

The F-35 should not be compared to the artificially high Australian cost of operating the Super Hornet. The F/A-18Fs were originally acquired as a bridging capability and a higher than normal level of contractor support was contracted because the plan was to keep them for only about a decade. In short, Boeing is doing VERY well out of the arrangement.

The F-35s will be in service far longer and, as such, they will require a higher degree of uniformed support and warehousing etc. Although more expensive to set up than the Super Hornet 'turn-key' arrangement, this should work out cheaper over the life of type.

A more accurate comparision would be with the classic Hornet due to a similar number to be operated and an anticipated similar life of type period.

...the price hasn't doubled yet, like it did with the fa-18ab...

*sigh* The classic Hornet price increased (but didn't "double") mainly due to the decision to build all but four of them in Australia from increasing levels of local content, and then scrap the production facility and component supplier streams and tooling rather than try to recoup some of the in-country manufacturing costs as was planned.

[kbrockman]

Whatever the F35 turns out to be, the Norwegian (Kongsberg) JSM certainly promisses to be a very potent weapon.
150Nm range.
PICTURES: Why Norway wants the Joint Strike Missile - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/06/pictures-why-norway-wants-the.html)
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/assets_c/2013/06/during%20560-thumb-560x329-177898.jpg

[SpazSinbad]

JSM TEST VIDEO:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=355_1370431877

[kbrockman]

Could this be the infamous the G12 weapon?
ziZHoCaZ1Fs

[reacher]

I've heard it destroys everything but the fillings in their teeth (and boy don't we need that spare change right now)

[LowObservable]

Engines - That's pretty close to how it happened, with a few caveats.

Anyone who thought that simply mandating single-seat/single-engine would automatically constrain costs was being simplistic. There was a hope that the JSF would be in the Classic Hornet weight bracket but it went out of the window pretty quickly, with the result that the aircraft is in the Super H class, nudging up against the F-15.

Of the technology enablers, the lighter-engine bit did not pan out and networking could be built into any platform. However, a very important enabler was the "every weapon a precision weapon" concept of JDAM, which was well under way by 1996. This was what allowed the operators to accept a basic two-bomb internal load (down from 12 klb in the A-12, about 6-8 klb in AX and 4 bombs in A/F-X).

Also, while F-35B is sold as maintaining the Marines' sea-based air and their ability to operate off any 3,000 foot stretch of runway that has a 100-foot-square slab of continuously reinforced refractory concrete next to it, it's actually replacing the F/A-18 Classics first.

[Engines]

Glad, LO,

Thanks for coming back - perhaps a short response can help.

Glad, what I didn't make clear was that the 'weight growth' I was referring to was the 'Design To' weight - that's the target weight for the concept you've arrived at. The problem the DoD faced was that these weights were going up all the time as the desired aircraft got bigger and more complex. The F-22 is a decent example of that problem.

By contrast, the 'weight growth' problem with the F-35 was more to do with a failure to keep close enough to the 'design to' weight - and it took the USN weight experts to tell LM that the aircraft was badly overweight.

LO, I agree that the 'single engined single seat will cut costs' argument might appear simplistic, but I'm probably guilty of expressing the DoD's thought process in a simplistic way. They had done a fair bit (actually a hell of a lot) of work that underpinned their conclusion that any twin engined aircraft the USAF or USN came up with would be too big ever to be affordable. The single engined concept was made possible by advancing technology (i.e. F135) that allowed an aircraft of the desired weight with a single engine.

LO, not sure I quite understand your reference to a 3000 foot runway and the special concrete for the F-35B. The aircraft can operate off a 1,500 foot runway with the specified load for that mission, and the special concrete is for a specific VTOL training pad. There are a number of techniques that can significantly reduce the thermal footprint of the B, including a creeping landing. (JF may be able to help here - I think that this was a technique used on Mexepads in the 60s). However, happy to be corrected. And the F-35B's replacing the AV-8Bs first, as far as I understand the programme.

Best Regards as ever to those who have to do the hard sums for real,

Engines

[Lonewolf_50]

If you look at the program from a meta perspective, B was also hoped to feed (and up production runs) the "not quite a carrier" carrier fleets of folks like UK, Italy ... et al, (I'd need to check on Spain, can't recall if they've gone for a similar capability) who have carrier borne aircraft but no catapults.

Engines, I appreciate your technical perspective on that, but will suggest to you that the "If it's Joint it must be better" attitude did indeed originate on Capitol Hill. As previously noted, JPATS/T-6 Texas II is one such goat rope.

Joint Acquisition in selected sectors is actually a good idea. Beans, boots, common comms suites, and more all benefit from economies of scale and reduced duplication.

Enough on my personal peeve, the services adapted to the Political Requirement (Congress writes the cheques) because they had to. A whole lot of kicking and screaming went on internally, not all of it for public dissemination. :p

[LowObservable]

Engines - The Marine Corps always talks about 3000 foot runways, which does seem long for a STOVL - but I suspect that they have realized that they are not always going to be able to operate without an airborne logistics line provided by KC-130s, particularly in hybrid-warfare situations where land routes will be targeted by insurgents.

As for creeping and rolling VLs: I await the demonstration of true improvised-base ops with great interest.

[ORAC]

but will suggest to you that the "If it's Joint it must be better" attitude did indeed originate on Capitol Hill F-111 Aardvark (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-111-history.htm); TFX Scandal. (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6250)

[Courtney Mil]

The whole "creeping and rolling" thing needs to be understood for what it is. It's this simple, the jet can do VL, BUT it can do damage to surfaces that aren't prepared to accept it. This is important as it's another piece of F-35 capability creep (in reverse). "Yes you can land vertically as long as you don't hang around over the same piece of landing surface too long, so move around a bit."

[John Farley]

LO

I know you realise this but others may not.

There are two basic types of landing:
1 where you can hover
2 where you are too heavy to hover

With 1 you may not necessarily choose to land vertically. If you can hover but you choose to move forward for the touchdown then you are doing a rolling vertical landing. An example would be when you do not wish to make the surface hot. We must always remember that heating effects depend on both temperature and residence time. The pilot has no control over the temp element but he has total control over the residence time. Even walking pace forwards makes the residence time negligible. (I am not talking about blast effects just temp ones). Of course residence time can be high if people insist on landing on a specific spot to show how good they are or because (say) the deck is painted that way. Another reason for having forward speed is if the surface is loose and will blow about. In this case you need to move forward sufficiently fast that the bow wave of debris (be it stones, earth, water, snow or sand) stays just behind the intake. With the Harrier family this required 50 kt ground speed in still air. Clearly a good head wind helps to reduce this speed. I don’t know what it is for the B but it will be determined by the fan efflux since we already know that the fan efflux prevents the hot stuff from spreading forward.

With 2 you are doing what is properly called a slow landing. With the Harrier I wing you needed some 90kt before you carried much extra weight in. With the Harrier II wing 50kt – 60kt really helped.

The B produces real lift at low speeds hence the business of "shipboard rolling vertical landing". Which if you strip the politics out of it is of course no such thing - it is just a very slow slow landing.

[Engines]

Lone,

We can actually both be right here - there was certainly a great deal of political attractiveness in 'Joint' solutions' (the F-22 was originally pushed as joint programme, with Lockheed claiming it could operate off a carrier!), which the programme architects certainly wanted to exploit. The DoD sources I knew (fairly highly placed) were ready to share with the UK the very large amount of technical study they had done to indicate that a single engined single seat solution was practical. I'd suggest the two came together to produce the programme.

LO, again I'd like to suggest that we may both be right. The F-35 has a spec sortie to be able to deploy to a 1500 foot bare strip, shut down and wait orders to launch for a sortie, do the job and then recover to the ship. You might think that's a rubbish scenario - hey, we can all have opinions, that's a good thing. But the fact is that you need just 1500 feet to 'operate' an F-35B in that particular scenario. More if you use another one.

I'm glad you're interested in the improvised-base ops demos - so am I. One thing to note, that builds on JF's excellent post. This aircraft has a level of stability and control in the hover and transition that is a whole generation on from the Harrier. There are a variety of potential landing and takeoff modes that the test team are working through, with the able assistance of some excellent Brit TPs. I'm sure that the USMC will find ways to exploit them.

On the prepared surfaces stuff - I had a great time managing a whole set of surface erosion trials at Warton. These were far beyond anything ever attempted for Harrier, and delivered a ton of data to the programme. happy to give more info over PMs if anyone's interested.

Best Regards as ever to those fine STOVL folk

Engines

[John Farley]

In my experience the interests of the squadron pilot are not always given the priority they deserve when it comes to procuring the aircraft they will use to fight wars on our behalf. I would like to discusses some piloting factors during takeoff and landing that I feel should be taken into account when choosing a combat aircraft. In particular I will try to explain the limited potential of Slow Landing to provide safety and operating site flexibility. In concentrating on these piloting issues, I fully accept no account has been taken of such matters as inter-service rivalry, company self-interest, industrial partnerships or politics. While history shows there are good reasons for supposing that such non-piloting matters are likely to seriously effect the acquisition of an aircraft, surely that is no argument why all concerned should not clearly appreciate what is at stake for the pilots if such considerations are allowed to unduly influence matters

A case can be made that future landing needs would be satisfied by providing a conventional or slow landing capability on land or an arrested landing at sea. There are piloting reasons why this view should be questioned. To clarify this, the advantages that result from being able to hover before landing are listed below. The reasoning behind these points is explained later. It is important to note that the term "hover" has a specific meaning here. It refers to a hover in free air outside ground effect. It should not be taken as necessarily implying that a vertical landing or vertical takeoff capability also exists, or indeed is needed for the hover under discussion to be worthwhile. Following such a hover, the pilot may choose to step forward into a ‘rolling vertical’ landing at low forward speed to avoid hot gas recirculation, foreign object damage (FOD) or damaging the surface with the exhaust efflux.

An aircraft that can hover offers the following advantages:

(a) Operating site choices are increased on land and at sea increasing operational flexibility and effectiveness.

(b) Peacetime landings provide valid training in the event that restricted site operations become necessary in wartime.

(c) Weather is less of a problem on the approach.

(d) The landing surface can have standing water, ice or snow that would preclude a safe short landing.

(e) A landing can be made with aircraft defects that would require ejection in the absence of a hover capability.

(f) The landing is easier for the pilot.

An examination of the reasons underlying these assertions involves the following topics:

Pilot workload
Size of operating site
Weather effects
Training
Aircraft defects and combat damage
Operational flexibility
Safety

I am happy to put these up (perhaps one at a time as I dunno wot a max length a post should be?)

[GreenKnight121]

And the F-35B's replacing the AV-8Bs first, as far as I understand the programme.


That USED to be the plan, but thanks to the gift the UK gave us* (USMC) we can now keep the AV-8B around for far longer than originally planned.

Thus, the USMC is now replacing its Hornets first.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/515878-harriers-go-2030-a.html
US Marine Corps studying Harrier enhancements (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marine-corps-studying-harrier-enhancements-386224/)
USMC hopes new method for tracking fatigue life will help extend Harrier to 2030 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usmc-hopes-new-method-for-tracking-fatigue-life-will-help-extend-harrier-to-2030-372797/)

Also, while F-35B is sold as maintaining the Marines' sea-based air and their ability to operate off any 3,000 foot stretch of runway that has a 100-foot-square slab of continuously reinforced refractory concrete next to it, it's actually replacing the F/A-18 Classics first.


And for LO... what in this in any changes or invalidates the plan for the F-35B to maintain the USMC/s ability to operate off LHA/LHDs and short runways?

To me, this actually means that it will enable the USMC to strengthen that capability faster than originally planned, by getting rid of the strike fighters that couldn't do those things first!



* 72 complete Harrier II aircraft with more remaining airframe hours than the average USMC Harrier II, plus the RAF's entire stock of spares, for a bargain-basement price.

[John Farley]

PILOT WORKLOAD

A slow landing differs from a conventional landing in that ground roll is greatly reduced however important piloting problems remain so long as the aircraft cannot hover. During the approach to a slow landing, the following constraints apply:

(a) A minimum speed set by limits of lift or control.

(b) A maximum speed set by stopping ability and the strip remaining at touchdown.

(c) The approach path angle must be within narrow limits.

(d) The track over the ground must be accurately aligned with the strip in the final stages or the aircraft will leave the side of the strip shortly after touchdown.

(d) In order to avoid an undershoot or an overrun, very little height variation is allowable as the strip is reached.

Considerable pilot effort and skill can be necessary to fly within these constraints. This workload increases rapidly as the landing strip dimensions are reduced towards those needed by the aircraft when it is flown perfectly.

We all know that an inability to stop, whether on foot or in any vehicle, brings with it a fundamental need to plan ahead. In the case of an aircraft, any minimum flying speed limit requires the provision of overshoot and diversion procedures, together with the fuel reserves to carry them out. These procedures bring air traffic control problems and lead to repositioning sorties and logistic complications.

Because of these issues, pressure on the pilot is further increased at the very time that he is expected to perform at peak skill levels leading to the possibility of reduced accuracy and increased risk of failure. Even worse, the pilot may continue towards an inevitable accident because, under this pressure, he subconsciously rejects all options other than the approach in progress, despite the fact that the approach is beyond his capabilities or those of his aircraft.

Given a hover capability, these demanding requirements do not apply and the pilot just needs to establish a hover with the landing spot in view. This fundamental change reduces his workload for several reasons:

(a) The approach speed can be varied to suit external factors such as poor visibility or the need to fit in with other aircraft in the air or on the ground.

(b) Any descent path angle can be used so long as it is above local obstacles.

(c) The direction of the approach is not linked to the landing.

(d) Aircraft height at the end of the approach needs only to be above any obstacles and below any cloud.

(e) Because it is easy to adjust position over the surface once in the hover, acceptable position limits for the end of the approach can be measured in hundreds of metres to the left, right, forwards or backwards.

It is important to note that any trial results aimed at comparing pilot workload during different types of landing will only be valid if the landing sites chosen are equally limiting. Vertical landings on the small aft platform of a ship or in an urban car park may only be properly compared with slow or conventional landings made on a strip with a bomb crater or other genuine limit at each end. It is misleading to rely on measured short landing data obtained on a runway that is much wider and longer than aircraft performance alone would dictate. As discussed later, peacetime flying from an oversize runway is also inadequate training for any wartime restricted strip case.

[John Farley]

SIZE OF OPERATING SITE

Since the area required for a landing from the hover is small, it is clearly easier to provide or find suitable locations for this as opposed to a short landing strip. However, it is sometimes suggested that, because a short takeoff strip has to be provided for a VSTOL aircraft to take off at max weight, then the existence of this takeoff strip means that it can be used for short landing and hence STOL is all that is necessary. This view takes no account of several reasons why an STO, even at maximum weight, can be safely carried out from a much shorter and narrower strip than is acceptable for a slow landing even at a lighter weight. First consider factors affecting strip length:

(a) An aircraft can be positioned for takeoff at the very beginning of the strip and the subsequent ground roll required to unstick can be very accurately predicted (as a function of weight and thrust), making it acceptable to plan to unstick close to the end of the strip. On the other hand, some distance will be needed for a landing at both ends of the strip to allow for scatter in touchdown position and stopping performance.

(b) The acceleration available for takeoff may well approach 1g and be unaffected by a wet or icy surface but it is difficult to design for a similar level of deceleration throughout the ground roll when landing, even in good conditions. Given slippery conditions, wheel braking effects can all but vanish.

(c) The use of full power on takeoff maximises the lift effect of thrust, reducing the speed needed to fly at a given weight. However, in order to have a go around capability when landing, some power margin must remain at touchdown. This results in a reduction of the lift element from thrust on a slow approach, compared to that available during a STO. Replacing this powered lift with V squared aerodynamic lift can need a surprisingly large increase in V at the lower approach speeds of short landing aircraft, countering the advantage to be expected from reduced weight at the end of the sortie.

A narrower strip is acceptable for takeoff compared to landing because:

(a) An aircraft can be lined up very accurately before a takeoff, whereas there is a need to allow for lateral scatter when landing.

(b) Direction can be controlled relatively easily during the slower first part of the takeoff ground run and then the quality of aerodynamic directional control improves as speed increases. The opposite applies when landing and the use of brakes, aerodynamic devices and reverse thrust all tend to degrade directional control and stability. This stems from the use of large forces to slow down quickly on the ground and so quite minor asymmetries in those forces can cause the aircraft to veer. Experience shows that such asymmetries can also result from crosswinds interacting with the complex flow patterns around an aircraft using high power or aerodynamic devices for deceleration.

Provision must be made at the end of a strip used for landing for the aircraft to turn round and backtrack or clear the strip at the side, whereas places for landing from the hover can be provided some way away from the short takeoff strip, thus easing flow control on the ground through the land/hide, replenish/takeoff sequence. When the same strip has to be used for both takeoff and landing, a larger and more complicated site layout becomes necessary. Even in the orderly peacetime world of civil aircraft operations, the advantages and smooth traffic flows that result from using different runways for takeoff and landing are apparent for all to see.

[Squirrel 41]

Mr Farley -

Fascinating, very many thanks.

S41

[John Farley]

My pleaure Squirrel 41

A couple more sets of reasons...

WEATHER EFFECTS

In the absence of full autoland, pilots need time to make final visual corrections to an instrument approach before landing. The length of time taken to carry out these corrections can be shown to depend on the size of the approach error, the manoeuvrability of the aircraft, pilot skill, ground speed, crosswind, turbulence and the accuracy of touchdown required. Provision of this time interacts through any minimum speed of the approach to determine the lower limits for cloud base and visibility. The greater the time needed then the higher the cloud base and the better the visibility must be.

Given a hover capability, speed on the approach can be reduced to suit the visibility, avoiding a minimum visibility cut off below which a landing will not be possible. Similar relaxations apply to cloud base considerations with the additional advantage that a hovering aircraft need not be constrained to a shallow approach path angle but can descend more steeply once it has passed obstructions in the chosen approach sector. Indeed the approach sector may be deliberately chosen to avoid obstacles as the aircraft is not constrained to line up the approach with any ground roll.

Crosswind is of little concern to an aircraft that can hover because it can be yawed around in the hover to point into wind for the actual touchdown. If a rolling touchdown is required, then the optimum starting position can be set up accurately while in the hover, before stepping forward for the landing. This avoids approach errors caused by crosswind being carried forward into the ground roll on a narrow strip.

Turbulence has adverse effects on the stability and control of all aircraft. Because the extent of these effects depends on the ratio of the local gust velocity and the aircraft lifting system velocity, the lower the lifting velocity the greater the distortion of flow around the aircraft for a given gust. In the case of a jet lift aircraft in the hover, the lifting system velocity is that of the jet efflux. Since this velocity is very high when compared to gust velocities, the hovering jet lift aircraft hardly reacts at all to turbulence levels that seriously degrade the control of other fixed wing aircraft and helicopters.

Water, snow, ice or sand contamination of the landing surface causes fewer problems for aircraft that can hover because of the slower nature of their touchdowns. In addition, such aircraft do not have to rely on surface friction for control of direction and speed on the ground but have reaction controls and reverse thrust to back up brakes and nosewheel steering. In many cases jet lift aircraft can use their own efflux to clean an area before takeoff or landing.

An example of poor weather capability if you can hover was provided during the Falklands war when Sea Harriers crawled up the wake of their ship in poor visibility and very low cloud base just by following flares thrown onto the water, indicating the way to the deck (like a motorist in fog lucky enough to have cats eyes leading to his garage). In this case, the only flight path limits that had to be observed were to remain above the sea, below the cloud and clear of obstacles. Since the ship was an obstacle, the top of which was in cloud, the landing pilots kept to port of the flare centreline and corrected to the landing spot once in the hover alongside the deck. Put even some of these circumstances, let alone the radio silence needed because of the submarine threat, into the recovery of conventionally arrested naval aircraft and it becomes likely that some, or even all, would have been lost when operating non-diversion.

TRAINING

Because of the scatter in conventional landing performance (whether this scatter is caused by aircraft characteristics, pilot performance or ambient conditions is immaterial), operators only clear aircraft to land routinely on runways that are much wider and longer than perfect performance requires. An acceptable peacetime accident rate is quoted as the reason for this conservatism. Common sense in the face of reality would be another way of putting it. What price the landing accident rate for the Hawk and Tornado, the F-16 or the MiG-29 if the runway width and length normally available was only that needed with man, machine and the elements all on top form?

In some quarters (although not crew rooms), it is felt that things will be routinely achievable during war without constant practice in peacetime or that accidents would be the least of people’s worries. Put another way, attrition in war will only occur due to the additional element of enemy activity and that an unacceptable peacetime accident risk will not carry over to wartime.

In fact nothing could be further from the truth. If a procedure is unacceptable in peacetime due to the risk of accident and attrition, then in war it carries an even higher risk due to the extra pressures present during hostilities.

Because of the increased chance of an accident, there is no precedent in RAF or RN operations for conventional fast jet operation into limiting sized landing sites other than with the use of arrester gear or when the aircraft can hover. It is not clear what aspect of a short landing capability is going to change this in the future but, without such a change, where will be the peacetime training of the wartime case? Only a hover capability can permit this critical training.

[John Farley]

Last lot.

AIRCRAFT DEFECTS and COMBAT DAMAGE

A landing from the hover is tolerant of many defects that make a forward speed landing hazardous. Indeed, where the option exists, it is the landing of choice in the event of any malfunction or suspected problem with gear, brakes, steering, tyres and flaps. There have been several cases of wheels up vertical landings in Harriers with only cosmetic damage and none with any injury to the pilot. This fall out from a vertical landing capability becomes a significant force multiplier and cost saving in the real world of operating aircraft.

All systems associated with deceleration and steering of a short landing aircraft on the ground have to be fully serviceable to achieve minimum distances. The operation of some of these (e.g. lift dumpers, reverse thrust, parachutes, tyres and auto configuration changes dependent on weight on wheels switches) cannot be fully checked in flight before landing. The need to rely on such systems is one of the reasons why commanders will not approve routine training into performance limited sites unless the aircraft can hover.

In the limit, the pilot of a Harrier (not an F-35B of corse) only needs power, a variable nozzle angle and reaction controls to come to the hover.

Therefore, as soon as combat damage is suspected and, while remaining at cruise speed, the ability to land vertically can be confirmed by simply opening the throttle to check rpm response, momentarily pulling the nozzle lever back to check nozzle rotation and by moving the stick and rudder with the nozzles deflected to check reaction control response. As previously mentioned, flaps, airbrakes, gear, steering and tyres are not necessary in order to carry out a safe landing. No other type of fast jet can offer such damage tolerance and still land safely.

OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY

In addition to the operational flexibility that stems from being able to operate from smaller sites, the ability to hover provides further operational advantages.

Such an aircraft can, if required, operate in the VTOL mode. Whilst restricted in payload/radius of action, the VTO mode is always the ultimate in flexibility so far as dispersal, quick response time to airborne or even ease of moving aircraft between theatres are concerned, for example, Atlantic Conveyor in the Falklands.

These days Commanders rely on flight refuelling to give them operational capability in many roles from air defence to tactical strike. Few would disagree with this point of view which is why flight refuelling close to base following VTO provides a unique flexibility of operation.

Some proposals exist based on short landing aircraft being able to return to base and land between the craters. How will the length of these strips be ascertained by the pilots? How will they be defined? Will they land between the craters regardless of FOD from small debris or just on the clean areas? How will they be marked so that the pilots can identify them? Will they be able to taxi from the isolated strip to the hide/dispersal/hardened aircraft shelter (HAS) or will they be on the ground exposed and unable to taxi due to having no safe route?

A hovering capability eliminates all these problems as it allows an aircraft to land at the entrance of any serviceable HAS. When required it can also emerge from a HAS, VTO at once and deploy to the nearest available weapons or fuel if the HAS cannot be supplied for any reason. Only such an aircraft can take itself to supplies or engineering resources that have become trapped in the rear echelons. This sort of flexibility provides a force multiplier factor that is beyond value in times of disarray and tactical confusion.

SAFETY

Easier tasks tend to produce fewer mistakes so the reduced pilot workload when landing from the hover can be expected to result in fewer pilot error accidents during the landing phase, in both the lack of skill and error of judgement categories. However, if a landing accident should occur despite this, the situation is inherently safer than during a short landing because the energy remaining at touchdown is less. (The dents, scratches and lost pride associated with car accidents at city centre speeds compare favourably in most people’s minds with the aftermath of high speed motorway pile ups.)

Safety also reduces attrition and the exchange rate between attrition and operational cost effectiveness is a high one.

CONCLUSION

To land from the hover offers many piloting advantages compared to doing a short, arrested or conventional landing.