F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[kbrockman]

With the advances in Avionics technology I seem to recall that the GR7 to GR9 upgrade actually lightened the aircraft whilst increasing the capability. Which was handy when the requirement to carry Sniper, a Terma pod and a useful weapon load was essential. Weight growth over the lifetime of an airframe is not a given, but more thrust is always good.

More thrust is indeed always good provided it doesn't mean less reliability and substantial higher fuel consumption, the F135 is probably scoring positive on all these fronts.
However the F35 airframe-strrength is already pretty much stretched as far as it can go for now, more power will probably mean more structural integraty needed.

Also for a 60000-70000 lbs it is very doubtfull that substantial weightloss can be achieved in the avionics department like in your GR7-9 example, certainly not looking at the complexity of the F35 in this department.

As an example it might be best to look at its predecessors, the F16 for one was specifically conceived with the idea that weightgain would have to be minimal over its complete lifetime.
It had intentionally very little empty room left in the beginning ,,2cu ft in comparison the F15 had about 15 cu ft of empty space in the beginning.
As a general rule fighters gain about a pound per day due to added complexity and added capabilities, the F16 scored pretty favorably on that point , the weightgain was limited to about 0.5lbs per day over its lifetime but even than it still managed to grow from a block 10 15600 pound fighter to a 19200pound block 50 fighter.

There is absolutely no foundation to believe that the F35 will not gain substantial weight over its lifetime.
A more powerful engine will inevitably mean some weightgain even further degrading the performance of the F35, wingloading is pretty terible at the beginning of its life and will further degrade when it becomes inevitably heavier.
Maybe the NAVY's proposal of going for the C iso A for the USAF wasn't such a bad idea at all, the larger wings will accomodate more fuel negating the need for something like CFT's in an already very bulky and draggy F35A.

Substantial weightloss for the Air Force C version could still be made by using a lighter landing gear , lighter arrestor hook+reinforcements needed to cope with carrier ops and using a boom-refuel point iso a heavier and more complex hose refuel system, also they could redo the gun and go for the lighter 27mm mauser single barrel iso the heavier 25mm gatling the A has now.
Less ammo would be needed also.

[Easy Street]

sorry guys, I'm not in a hole..it seems you can't accept that the f-35 goes M1.2 in dry

Sigh... yes it can, but it will be decelerating [slowly] and will continue to decelerate until subsonic, because it cannot supercruise. The LM spin machine is using the apparent fact that it takes 150nm to decelerate to subsonic speeds to hoodwink casual observers into believing this equates to supercruise - with apparent success.

Read Lt Col Griffiths' quotes carefully - it needs reheat to get supersonic, and will not stay there in dry power!

[ORAC]

Wired: If the Military’s Future Stealth Jet Fails, the Navy’s Got a Backup Plan (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/navy-stealth-plan-b/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Wired%3A+Blog+-+Danger+Room%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

[HalloweenJack]

wouldn't this be a moot point anyway? as on day 2 the wing tabs are pulled off and the F35 would have as much stores as she could slapped on ; and IIRC the typhoon can carry more anyway?


anyway - canapés at FL 600 @ M2 supercrusing vs any mil aircraft thank you ;)

[Stuffy]

McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II)

[LowObservable]

The definition of supercruise varies a lot - according to which bunch of LM shills has the floor. One argument is that the JSF can't supercruise, but neither can anything else except the F-22 because the "definition" of supercruise is M>1.5 sustained without A/B. The other is that that the JSF can supercruise based on second-hand misinterpreted statements about persistence at M=1.2 at "minimal" burner.

A bit of history: The Marines may have been involved in Tripartite Kestrel/XV-6 but the lead service in the US was the Army. All that work was winding down inconclusively as the Tarawa-class (basis of Wasp and America) was designed. When the contract was let, the USMC was only at the beginning of its renewed Harrier acquisition, which had started in Sept 1968 with an informal visit to HSA at Farnborough.

So it is entirely correct to say that the ships are primarily amphibs and that their design does not provide the fuel volume &c that is optimal for fast jets. Hence the kludged design of LHA-6/7 (America and Tripoli).

As for the landing environment: The current contracts for the construction of heat-resistant landing pads are based on Navy engineers' data, which show that a single F-35B VL on standard concrete may cause spalling (that is, near-explosive breakup due to subsurface moisture turning to steam). This data appeared in late 2010, IIRC, and was pooh-poohed by LockMart (and its cheerleaders) on the grounds that tests had shown the ground environment to be no worse than Harrier. Despite this, the same NavFac specs are still in force and the pizza-oven concrete is still specified in construction contracts. And I have yet to see a land VL performed on anything other than AM-2-shielded concrete or the specially built pads.

[SpazSinbad]

'LowObservable' said: "...And I have yet to see a land VL performed on anything other than AM-2-shielded concrete or the specially built pads."

However photos show F-35Bs VLing on AM-2 matting laid on asphalt, testing the AM-2 matting (indicated on previous pages). Video shows the X-35B more than a dozen years ago now vertical landing at the same site. PhotoBucket scrunches the original .MP4 video down to 2.7Mb (click on 2nd image below).

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/NASpatuxentRiverAM-2asphalt.jpg:original

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_X-35BvlAM-2asphaltPaxRiverHiQmusic.jpg (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/X-35BvlAM-2asphaltPaxRiverHiQmusic.mp4)

[JSFfan]

LO, it seems that you are the one misrepresenting what was said
It seems some are really upset that the f-35 can "cruise" with min AB and "maintain Mach 1.2" without AB

[glad rag]

Once again, play the ball, not the player JSFF.

although the eu would class it as such

Really. Tedious.com

But no longer.

[JSFfan]

what are you on about? the US call supercruise M1.5+, EU calls supercruise M1+

[servodyne]

I think the essential point is missed, it does not matter what the definition of Supercruise is be it M1.5 or greater than M 1.0 the aircraft quoted (F-22 or typhoon) can MAINTAIN those speeds and therefore Cruise. The F-35 continues to decelerate and thus does not CRUISE without afterburner 'nuff said.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Are all these figures people quote on here open source?

[JSFfan]

yes, both cruise with min AB and maintains M1.2 without AB is open source
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.pdf

although the spec for f-35ac is 700kt speed limited to M1.6, it's been reported that the f-35a does 750kt and speed limited to M1.6, so the alt is important too and there is no mention of it in any statement

further to that, Hog who said it cruises with min AB. also on f-16net is said to say when asked, the f-35A does M1.25 without AB

[SpazSinbad]

VIDEO: History of the F-35 by Skunk Works inventor (3 parts)
By Stephen Trimble on March 22, 2010

VIDEO: History of the F-35 by Skunk Works inventor (3 parts) - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/03/video-history-of-the-f-35-by-s.html)

"The DEW Line is pleased to offer a three-part video showing a fascinating (albeit poorly-lit), 1hr lecture on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, presented last week by Skunk Works engineer Paul Bevilaqua at Johns Hopkins University's applied physics laboratory in Laurel, Maryland.

Bevilaqua is credited with the invention of Lockheed Martin's shaft-driven lift-fan, the core technology allowing the short-takeoff-vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35B...."

39 second VIDEO snippet (5.3Mb) at PhotoBucket shows the 'cool' temperature during an F-35B VL simulation. Otherwise go to the webpage above to view 3 videos which make up the presentation. Quote approximation: "concrete spalls at 1,000 deg F whilst concrete temp under F-35B exhaust is 600 deg F".
_____________

Additional text added here to explain video.

'LowObservable' said on page 75 of this thread [ http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-75.html#post7767529 ]

"...WhiteOvies - Wheeler raises a perfectly valid point. As you note, the VL pad at Pax is AM-2 mat, but laid over concrete as a heat-shield rather than as a structural surface over dirt or cr@ppy asphalt. The VL pads at Yuma and Beaufort are made of heat-resistant concrete. There's some notion of a "creeping vertical" landing but there is no word as to when that will be demonstrated at all, let alone on the equivalent of a 3,000-foot-somewhere-ending-in-stan runway...."

'LowObservable' said on page 77 of this thread [ http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-77.html#post7769356 ]

"...As for the landing environment: The current contracts for the construction of heat-resistant landing pads are based on Navy engineers' data, which show that a single F-35B VL on standard concrete may cause spalling (that is, near-explosive breakup due to subsurface moisture turning to steam). This data appeared in late 2010, IIRC, and was pooh-poohed by LockMart (and its cheerleaders) on the grounds that tests had shown the ground environment to be no worse than Harrier. Despite this, the same NavFac specs are still in force and the pizza-oven concrete is still specified in construction contracts. And I have yet to see a land VL performed on anything other than AM-2-shielded concrete or the specially built pads."
______________

Reference recent photo of AM-2 matting on asphalt at NAS Patuxent River (+ old video of the same site) here (2 places):

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-77.html#post7769396 & http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-75.html#post7767601

Best hear the video clip to understand the 'cool' 600 degree F temp on concrete during a VL - similar to Harrier. Similarly USS Wasp and tests at NAS Patuxent River on the AM-2 matting during F-35B VLs confirm the environment is similar to the Harrier. Click second graphic for video - first graphic is a screenshot showing 600 degree F concrete temperature during VL.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/600degFconcreteTempF-35BvlSim.png:original


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_BevilaquaJSFlectureConcreteSimHiQ.jpg (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/BevilaquaJSFlectureConcreteSimHiQ.mp4)

[Shackleton Mark 3]

Some nice thoughts here but please don't be under any illusion that the F-35 aircraft programme might yet be cancelled by the DoD or that the UK might yet dump its committment to buy the F-35B. That isn't going to happen - not under the this Coalition, a potential Labour Coalition or even if we end up with a one party government post the next General Election. This programme is sacrosanct on both sides of the 'pond' even if numbers of aircraft remain open to question.

Like many of you I would also love to see a new British designed and British built replacement aircraft for Harrier but it just isn't going to happen. We do not have the political, financial or industrial capability to achieve this but worse is that in a risk averse world driven by short term thinking neither do we have the will. Rest assured though that for good or bad, for better or worse F-35B will come and despite the prospect of even more damage to UK defence as a likely result of SDSR 2015 I believe that we will retain both new aircraft carriers. For now, my fear is that we might see a further drive towards base and personnel cuts in the Royal Air Force and merging of additional Royal Air Force and Royal Navy operational capacity and support services.

As to a future 'new' maritime capability committment - best put that dream back its box.

[glad rag]

Nice video, everybody nod your heads together.

[LowObservable]

Bevilacqua has not been part of the JSF program for some years and most of the graphical material included in that presentation is old. Note that the video shows the pre-2004 split-top fan doors.

Below, Navy engineers from 2010.


For landing, VL (or VTOL) pads will be used. This pads will be exposed to 1700ºF and high velocity (Mach #1) exhaust. This exhaust will melt the top surface of asphalt pavements, and is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL.
Therefore high heat resistant materials are required for the pavement and for the joint sealants. At the present time there are no identified sealants that can survive a significant number of VLs, and the pads shall be constructed
using continuously reinforced concrete (CRC)... with continuous reinforcement in both directions to insure that all cracks and
joints remain closed.
High heat resistant materials for the pavement have been identified but are still being tested.

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/NAVFAC/INTCRIT/fy10_01.pdf

Those specs still appear to be current, the main change having been that a suitable concrete has been selected. This is from last September, almost three years after the LockMart spokesmen and USMC commander were assuring everyone that the ground environment was Harrier-like:

Navy prepares more contracts for work related to F-35 | Beaufort News | The Island Packet (http://www.islandpacket.com/2012/09/22/2220357/navy-prepares-more-contracts-for.html)

Made from an advanced, high-temperature concrete that can withstand the heat from the new jets' engines, the surface will be used by pilots to practice taking off from and landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier using the plane's short takeoff and vertical-landing capabilities.

Maybe "creeping vertical" can alleviate some of these effects. However, I'm not aware of any schedule for testing F-35B on low-quality surfaces, nor is it a KPP to my knowledge.

Also, as for "asphalt" and "concrete" we should not get tied up in terminology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt_concrete

AM-2, by the way, is not solid so it will have a heat-shield effect on either standard or asphalt concrete. The JSF's ability to land on an unprotected surface has nothing to do with AM-2-shielded demos.

[Stuffy]

Shackleton Mk 3,

Nothing is certain in politics, in this case history seems to be repeating itself.
Cameron and Osbourne remind me of Heath and Barber in 1973/74.

Osbourne's sub-prime Ponzi scheme a la Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, is bound to end in tears. Assuming they last until 2015? A date they claim is set in stone.

The bottom of this recession/depression will be 2014/15 approximately.

The F-35 is too expensive for what it does.

A navalised Typhoon will only need an arrester wire. It's power allows it to take off with the aid of a ski ramp. As the Sukhois do on the Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetzov.

2014/15, and the UK will not be able to afford the F-35.

The political scene could also be very different then.

Your analysis may well be correct, I just don't see where the money is coming from?

I would also like to see the argument that the F-35 has no equal? I don't see the point of STOVL ?

[Milo Minderbinder]

Stuffy
Have you seen a photo of an aircraft launching from the Kuznetzov ski ramp actually carrying any payload?

[Stuffy]

Kilo,

Good point. It is unlikely the Russians or Chinese would waste their time if it were not possible?

Perhaps this thread should be called 'The Dog's Dinner'.

As ever, time will tell.

The Coalition spent £700 million to find out that we couldn't have the F-35C.

Perhaps - 'The Expensive Dog's Dinner' ?

President Eisenhower warned about the 'Military Industrial Complex'.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

[Milo Minderbinder]

Stuffy
the Chinese are just learning how to run a ship
the Russians have taken their carrier out of service and are completely rebuilding it in preparation for the delivery of their Mig-29K fleet. Their ski-ramp SU-33 fleet have been (or are in the process of being) withdrawn. They were big aircraft and the suggestion is they were too big to fly from the deck loaded.
Theres even a rumour that when (if?) Kuzetsnov reappears it may have catapults. It probably depends on what the Indians discover.
India are getting their Mig-29K's first. The big question is whether they can be flown with a payload. These are smaller and maybe capable of STOBAR with a payload. However the Indians haven't sent them to sea yet as their Russian built carrier is not yet in service.
But....all the videos I can find of the Mig-29K prototypes flying from russian ships shows them unarmed.

And.... the fact that only a year or ago India were still discussing Sea Griffin and Seaphoon suggests all may not be well with the Russian aircraft.
There isn't a STOBAR aircraft in service which has shown it can launch with a payload

[Just This Once...]

But....all the videos I can find of the Mig-29K prototypes flying from russian ships shows them unarmed.

There isn't a STOBAR aircraft in service which has shown it can launch with a payload

Back in the CCCP the STOBAR aircraft carried a fair few missiles on their wings…

Nostalgia is not what it used to be:

Aircraft Carrier Tbilisi (Soviet Film) - YouTube

[Stuffy]

Milo,

Sound information, I had been quoting a site promoting the Sea Typhoon.

The Queen Elizabeth class carriers are powered by diesel and gas turbine, apparently steam catapults are not possible ? The electro-magnetic catapults have problems of their own, allegedly.

Can the UK afford any of this ?

But back to the original question.

What is to be done if the F-35 is cancelled?

The Germans and French don't want it. What about India?

Posts wax lyrical about the F-35. But as yet, nobody has addressed the issue.

Cancellation and the alternatives.

No country is too big to fail. No currency or bank is too big to fail and likewise no project is too big to fail.

[eaglemmoomin]

That's the thing Stuffy there's a lot of 'oh we will just do' Seaphoon going around on the net. However it doesn't meet the realities of defence procurement and how these projects are specified and then built. It would not be some quick turn around whatever hopeful mutterings there are on the net.

Ignoring the difficulties of using Stobar from a training point of view, as has been pointed out the concept of operations of the pre-existing STOBAR carriers is not so much strike and more fleet protection and CAP.

Even if the basic top level technical requirements are somewhat brief and generic they will become ever more specific as they get atomised down, it takes years to get to that stage and everything has to be signed off.

Compound it with the fact it's an aircraft and there will all sorts of safety hoops and certification to get through all of which costs lots and lots of money. People get very very thorough when it's their name on safety certificates.

Stuffy, it has been addressed if the F35 is cancelled out right (never going to happen) then odds on are is that we will have two very big LPH's without davit's and off loading options and no maritime strike at all. You don't just magic away the money that has already been spent and all of the intellectual and industrial workshares. It would be monumentally stupid from an industrial capability point of view. The unit orders may well go down and the individual price will go up and we will end up buying later and later in the production cycle.

[SpazSinbad]

For 'LowObservable' quotes above - here are some more for the collection....

Corps preps for F-35 with landing pads, hangars By James K. Sanborn - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Dec 6, 2011

Corps preps for F-35 with landing pads, hangars - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/12/marine-corps-preps-for-f35b-with-landing-pads-hangars-120611/)

"The Marine Corps is pushing ahead with infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the anticipated arrival of the F-35B.

The recent announcement of a multimillion-dollar project to build five pads for vertical landings at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, S.C.,...

...The new pads will “consist of a combination of advanced high-temperature concrete material, standard runway grade concrete and asphalt materials,” according to the pre-solicitation, posted Nov. 22 on FedBizOpps.gov.

Despite plans for the vertical landing pads, the F-35B has not proven as unwieldy as critics of the program initially predicted. Some said, for example, that the F-35B would damage decks and injure crew aboard ships.

But successful sea trials conducted aboard the amphibious assault ship Wasp in October proved them wrong. The trials were the first to see the aircraft land on a ship while underway and went without a hitch.

“There was no special pad required for the initial ship trials,” according to Victor Chen, a Naval Air Systems Command spokesman in Patuxent River, Md...."
_______________

F-35C first flight (and heat and noise concerns...) June 14, 2010

https://cencio4.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/f-35c-first-flight/

“...Lockheed Martin spokesman John Kent responded to the story this morning, saying, without providing any documentation, that the documents “cited in your story are out of date and incorrect. The information presented in those documents was based on worst-case analysis before extensive testing of the actual F-35B aircraft was conducted during January through March 2010. Results of the aircraft testing show that the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of AV-8B is very small and is not expected to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B....” [quote near the end of initial post above]
______________________

http://ve.ida.org/rtoc/open/SIP/jsf.html [no longer working URL]

“…Lockheed Martin has developed a STOVL lift system that uses a vertically oriented Lift Fan. A two-stage low-pressure turbine on the engine delivers the horsepower to drive the STOVL Lift Fan. The Lift Fan generates a column of cool air that produces nearly 20,000 pounds of lifting power using variable inlet guide vanes to modulate the airflow, along with an equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft. The Lift Fan has a clutch that engages for STOVL operations and a telescoping “D” -shaped hood to provide thrust deflection. Because the lift fan extracts power from the engine, exhaust temperatures are reduced by about 200 degrees compared to traditional STOVL systems….”
______________________

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE & TRADE | Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 | 20 MARCH 2012

House of Representatives Committees – Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/hearings.htm)

“...Mrs GASH: [Who shall not be ditched] I have a very naive question — I am a female after all. How do we handle the bad publicity that you guys are getting on this aircraft? How do you expect us to handle that when we do not know all the ins-and-outs like you do? I come from HMAS Albatross [NAS Nowra, South Coast, NSW Australia], and you have got a place down there, and I get this regularly — not on a daily basis, but it is fairly regular. How do I answer that?...

...Air Cdre Bentley: I think the urban myths get out there and stay out there, and it is very hard to get rid of them. One of those urban myths, for instance, was that when we landed on an LHD the downwash would blow people off the deck and it would melt the deck. Neither of those things were true. However, we were seeing comments that the aeroplane had scorched the deck, because there was a black mark on the deck. It is very hard to try to convince the sceptics that these things are not happening, and the proof of the capability is being put out there. When you have urban myths on the internet they are always there; you cannot remove those myths from the internet despite what you say....”
______________________

Navy Sees Few Anomalies in F-35B Ship Trials Oct 31, 2011 by Amy Butler Onboard the USS Wasp

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/10/24/AW_10_24_2011_p30-384427.xml&headline=Navy&next=0

...Thermal impacts to the ship’s deck have been a concern leading up to these trials. Though formal data haven’t yet been analyzed, Tom Briggs, the integrated test team engineering lead at Patuxent River who is helping to oversee the ship trials, says the aircraft is performing as predicted by the models in terms of heat ingestion on the ship. Officials had been concerned that the F-35B would reingest its own hot exhaust, im-pacting performance of the propulsion system and potentially damaging hardware. There are no such perfor-mance impacts thus far, Cordell says. “We feel like we are running where we intended to crawl.” Additionally, there is “nothing mysterious” about the thermal qualities of the F-35B on the deck, says Ansis Kalnajs, a test director for Naval Sea Systems Command who is leading the effort to study the aircraft impacts on the ship.”
_____________________

Aviation Week & Space Technology October 3, 2011; pages 31-32
Vertical Validation by GUY NORRIS | LOS ANGELES

"Positive handling test results underline a turnaround in progress of F-358 trials...

...Tasks also included evaluations of two areas of potential concern to F-35B shipboard operations: measurement of the impact of the hot exhaust on the landing pad and deck environment, and hot gas ingestion into the inlet. Vertical landings at Pax River have been conducted on two pads made from standard extruded AM-2 aluminum tile mats measuring 120 ft. and 150 ft. square, respectively.

“We’ve been recording the points on the pad where the nozzle is pointed and, after initial landings, removed the specific tile and tested it for strength. There was no loss of strength,” Wilson says. “Now we’re waiting for 10 vertical landings on one specific tile before we do the next strength test.” As of late September, fewer than half of the required number of landings on the particular tile had occurred. Overall, results of the testing to date “give no cause for concern for AM-2 compatibility,” Wilson says.

Additionally, ground personnel have gradually moved closer to the pad for each vertical landing, as part of systematic efforts to determine the safest proximity to the touchdown area. Wilson says that so far these tests indicate safe distances similar to those of current Harrier operations...."
_______________________

Continuing to “Work” the Problem By Ed Timperlake | August 30, 2011

SLD Forum: Debating the Future (http://www.sldforum.com/2011/08/way-ahead/)

“...The story ‘Under Fire’ treats the issue of the future of naval aviation from the perspective of the Tac Air memo we cited earlier....

...With regard to the article, we were surprised to see the only photo in the story as showing an F-35B landing on AM-2 matting at Pax River. And here we learn that “Aluminum matting is used to protect the surface from the F135 engine exhaust.”

Having watched many Harriers land on AM-2 matting last week at an airfield in North Carolina, we were surprised to learn that AM-2 matting in the photo was being deployed for engine exhaust of another aircraft.

So we decided to call the USMC HQ specialist on the matter Major Brad Alello & he told us that “AM-2 matting has been used by the USMC since BEFORE the Vietnam War.” But for Av Week’s imaginative purpose they make this a modification for the F-35B. Perhaps some facts checking in the rest of the article might be called for....”

[glad rag]

SpazSinbad. I'm sure we all appreciate your efforts to keep us informed with the latest developments.
However the fact may be that any information related to or coming from those who benefit may well be viewed as less than "robust" by some members.....

[SpazSinbad]

It is nice to 'apparently' be "appreciated". Must be APRIL FOOL DAY?! :cool:

[eaglemmoomin]

LO.

The flight 0 America class are aviation focussed ships they've been after doing this for a long time witness the original LHA's. You can argue that it's not successful or whaTever but the fact is they keep trying to implement it. Doctrinally air sea manouver is seen as important, island hoping in the pacific and all that. I don't see any sign of that going away.

Maybe I'm missing your point here but really really I don't see how planning assumptions from multiple decades ago flow into current planning assumptions. By that logic (I'm exagerating I know) we should break out HMS Tremaire and the flat boats cos the RN managed successful beach landing amphib operations during the Seven Years war in 1761?

There are also clearly big proponents of having a well deck available so the next flight will certainly have them but they will be smaller, personally I think the next flight will end up being a couple of 1000 tonnes in displacement heavier again in the same way the flight 0's are heavier than the Makin Island 'sub class' LHD.

There are more high hat maintenance areas, workshops in the back for maintenance duties, much more storage for aviation fuel and additional bunkerage for ammunition doesn't really sound like a lash up to me?

[glad rag]

Whatever mate, the arguments have become obscured and the pertinent facts so clouded it's hard to sit back and be constructive TBH.

:bored:

[Milo Minderbinder]

Stuffy
OK, lets take your question at face value and look at the options if the F-35B is cancelled
Assuming the decision is to maintain fixed wing you have two basic choices.
STOBAR
Catapult

If STOBAR the only available off-the-shelf aircraft is the Russian Mig-27K (the SU-33 is not in production) - assuming it works. I can't see the Russians letting us have those, and there may be a few other political problems....
Of the other possible aircraft - Typhoon, Griffin, Rafale, for all STOBAR is a pipe dream, years away if ever.
I suppose you could buy a few prop driven COIN aircraft and just use the carriers for bush wars......but that would hardly be efficient use of them.

If you want catapults then you have several options
You're right in saying the turbines and diesels won't produce steam, but in theory there were going to be spaces left for steam generation gear. Assuming there really are, you'd have to cut the ships open to fit multiple steam gennys, fit miles of high pressure steam pipes and massively rework the beast
Or you could go cap it hand back to General Atomics and ask for a new slot in the EMALS supply chain. But that would mean a delay until (I guess) 2025 and the problems inherent in the design are still there.
Or you could go back to Converteam (Alsthom as was) cap in hand and ask them to restart the cancelled EMCAT system. But as Converteam are now USA owned I think we'd get a USA-government instructed rebuttal, even though the work would be in the UK and France
Either of those two electrical systems would require heavy engineering to the deck, and radical redesign of the ships electromotive propulsion system.
Or you could go down the madcap route of ICCALS - "Internal Combustion Catapult Launch System" - which is exactly what it sounds like and would need combustion chambers to restrain the explosions.

The choice of aircraft is irrelevant. It could be F-35C, F-18, Rafale. The problem is, whatever is purchased theres no way of launching them without massive construction delays and massive remedial work to the vessels.

[JSFfan]

glad rag....This is a new point, So we should disregard anything the US, partners, Israel, Japan and probably Singapore and Sth Korea say because they will benefit from the f-35?

I don't know how valid the point is, It doesn't work for me

[eaglemmoomin]

JSFFan I think it's fair to say yearly audit reports and so on are the best source of information. Lets not pretend because there has been one year that corrective actions taken in recent years have started to bear fruit that it's been a bed of roses. It clearly has not and there have been c*ck*ps of epic proportions. I still think binning the F136 engine was myopically short sighted.

[Milo Minderbinder]

I'm still trying to get my head round something.
Is it the current belief that the F-35B does or doesn't cause scadding and spalling to conventional runway surfaces?
Because if it does cause that, then we won't be able to deploy them overseas, other than on the ships, or a surface prepared in advance.
Makes a nonsense of "rapid deployment"

[SpazSinbad]

'glad rag' whatever your interest perhaps may explain your level of knowledge and willingness to cut through to a more realistic appraisal of some of the items on this forum thread. I do not have the time to investigate them all - NOR the interest. However my previous NavAv experience (allbeit a long time ago in a galaxy far far away) means that (notwithstanding our RAAF purchase of the F-35A) which usually meant I had no interest whatsoever, the possibility of having F-35Bs on our new LHDs sparked my interest and I'm playing catchup. Yes - now I realise that any 'visiting LHD F-35Bs' will be from the several other countries likely to buy them; and they will only visit our LHDs to get a few VLs and SkiJumps under their belts. I look forward to the videos and detailed public reports.

Being a longstanding civilian today I rely on news reports and not some claimed inside information. There is good and bad. To characterise all the quotes above as being from LM is silly - if you read them - but nevermind. I just expect a few people to bother to look at the entire articles from which only a few selective quotes have been lifted. Anyone can play that game and I'm willing. :ok:

And yet... Relying on only a few sources (which may be incorrect - based on old information as pointed out) then it is worthwhile to add to the more recent bunch; if only for the record. People search the internet and find this stuff - which is a good thing. I'm sitting at a computer on the outer western fringes of Sydney Australia. I'm never likely to see an F-35B carry out any ski jumping or other 'running, jumping, standing still' tricks. Oh well... It is interesting nevertheless.

Good luck with your F-35B job lot on the CVFs. Perhaps new innovations will come from the RN FAA (oops forgot the RAF - but hey - any air force is always easily forgettable if you have ever been in the FAA - RAN for the use of). :}

BTW most of my material is contained in the PDFs I make freely available online - once again your interest will motivate you to download them - or not. Nevermind.

[eaglemmoomin]

My understanding is that there were major concerns about the possibility of it. Which to me is the point of an integration testing program you test for the worst case envisaged to see what mitigations you may or may not need.

It appears that the more histronic fears are just that and they have already done the testing and have generated some required alterations but not at the level of the worst case scenario. All that said I had thought on land the standard operating procedure would be a conventional landing or some variant of a rolling vertical landing anyway.

[Stuffy]

If the last few posters want to use the word 'Never'.

Never underestimate the stupidity of those in power.

[JSFfan]

I'm still trying to get my head round something.
Is it the current belief that the F-35B does or doesn't cause scadding and spalling to conventional runway surfaces?
Because if it does cause that, then we won't be able to deploy them overseas, other than on the ships, or a surface prepared in advance.
Makes a nonsense of "rapid deployment"

If it's a runway, the f-35b will do a normal runway landing..if it is an austere base that needs to land on a pad made with the standard AM2, or may do a slow rolling landing, because it will have to be about 700-1000ft long, so the f-35b can take off

For LHA, the V-22 is a bigger problem than the f-35b, either way there will be a long life durable surface used
there will also be long life durable pads for training vertical landings on home bases.

[Stuffy]

Armchair warfare mentality.

Things are never the way you want them.

[SpazSinbad]

For 'JSFfan':

F-35 Introduces Change Across the Maritime Fleet Oct/31/2011

　

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-introduces-change-across-the-maritime-fleet/ (http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-introduces-change-across-the-maritime-fleet/)

　

"During the visit to the USS Wasp on October 18th, the NAVSEA 05 Engineering Director provided an update on both the preparation for tests aboard the USS Wasp as well as a sense of test results and the relationship between the tests and the way ahead. Ansis Kalnajs, the NAVSEA 05 Engineering Director, made it clear that the ship was well instrumented to determine impacts of the F-35B on the ship. And in some cases the changes being tested aboard the USS Wasp are being put in place to shape new cap-abilities down the road. One key example is the new surface coating [THERMION] which is being laid down for F-35B tests. It must be remembered that many changes which are being made with the introduction of the F-35s are really being down to enhance capabilities across the fleet. The new shipboard surface is a case in point.

　

SLD Question: Presumably this change in the flight deck, the material that you’ve laid down might be applicable to other amphibious ships?

Kalnajs: One of the reasons we are looking at the non-skid surface on the USS Wasp for the tests, is the deck coating tends to break down after six or seven months of activity. The materials [THERMION] we are looking at now may be able to last for years and give us a new longevity for the surface of the Amphibious fleet. Not to have to change that nonskid every 6-12 months would be a big gain.

　

The NAVSEA official provided insight into the types of sensors inserted on the deck to inform the F-35 program about test results.

　

Kalnajs: On the deck, we have thermacouples on the underside, and we also have the sensors to measure the deflection and also screenings. That enables us to understand what the thermal effects are and what the resulting stresses are on the underdecks. And we also instrumented the ship with acoustic sensors. And our updated collection is very repeatable, which give you good predictions.

　

Kalnajs was asked by a reporter on board the USS WASP the following question: Have you been able to see any of the data and thermal data to determine yet if there are any effects that are out of the norm?

　

Kalnajs: We have real time data, but it’s not anything out of the norm. So, we’re pretty confident that there’s nothing mysterious going on that will affect us at this point.

　

Of course, NAVSEA has seen this process before with the MV-22 & shipboard testing.

　

SLD Question: You went through this with the V-22, right?

Kalnajs: The V-22 was a big lesson learned for us because the V-22 was a new thermal environment to the ship, so based on that knowledge that we have now, we were evaluating it’s total effects as well. It’s not just a matter of real loads anymore, it’s a matter of thermal effects as well."

[SpazSinbad]

'John Farley', 'Engines' and other worthies have mentioned this aspect of how the F-35B will VL on two columns of air (I recall the Farley InfraRed photo - those relevant posts are excellent IMHO) but I do not recall this snippet being on the forum.

The Ultimate Fighter? Air & Space magazine, February 2012 By Richard Whittle

The Ultimate Fighter? | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine (http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/The-Ultimate-Fighter-166000926.html?c=y&page=2)

"...Now the F-35B can hover or land on two columns of air, one hot, one cold (by thermodynamic standards), and each moving fast enough to provide about 18,000 pounds of lift. Two far smaller streams of exhaust funnel down ducts to a small nozzle under each wing called a roll post, providing roughly 2,000 more pounds of lift apiece plus side-to-side balance and control. Unlike the Harrier, whose pilot has to manipulate the aircraft’s stick, throttle, and controls to swivel the nozzles by hand, the F-35B has flight control computers to do all the work of balancing the airplane atop its thrust.

Part of the lift fan’s genius is that it allowed designers to put the F-35’s engine at its rear, the best placement in a non-STOVL aircraft as well, says Paul Park, who left Lockheed last year after three decades but previously led the team of engineers who determined the outer shape, internal arrangement, and other major aspects of the F-35. Having two equally powerful columns of vertical thrust is yet another big advantage in a STOVL plane, Park adds, for in designing such an aircraft, “the number-one challenge is not just the lift, it’s getting the vertical lift balanced around the weight.” That’s why the Harrier’s engine is in the center of the fuselage, he says. The cool air coming from the F-35B’s lift fan also “shields people around the airplane from the hot exhaust in the back,” Park says, and helps prevent the engine from ingesting its hot exhaust, which could cause it to stall...."

[JSFfan]

Thanks for that. Yes, the THERMION is looking good and went well on the shipboard testing

[SpazSinbad]

At the risk of being boring heheh... Here is some more old THERMIONIC news & cool environment hoohaa.

Marine Corps demonstrates F-35B at sea 18 Oct 2011 Dave Majumdar

Marine Corps demonstrates F-35B at sea - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/10/dn-marine-corps-demonstrates-f35b-at-sea-101811/)

"...The team started off the flights by using the flight envelop cleared for the AV-8B Harrier as a starting point before expanding into new territory, Cordell said. From that initial envelope, the testers expanded it up to 30 knots of headwind and down to 10 knots of headwind. They also flew the jet with a 15-degree crosswind....

...Cordell [Col. Roger Cordell, naval F-35 test director] said that one piece of good news is that the “outflow” from the jet’s exhaust while hovering is less intense than expected. “It’s counterintuitive, but the jet has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 feet than it does at 100 feet,” he said. Engineering models had predicted the outcome, but skeptics — Cordell included — had doubted those conclusions.

The hazard zone around the jet therefore has shrunk to about the same size as that of a Harrier, he said.

Similarly, the “outwash” on take-off is far less harsh than anticipated, Cordell said....

...NAVSEA also used the F-35B trials onboard the Wasp to evaluate some non-skid material on one of the deck spots on the giant vessel, Kalnajs said. The new material [THERMION] was tested on a 90 square foot spot, said Navy Capt. Brenda Holdener, commander of the Wasp.

The rest of the flight deck is covered in standard material, however parts of it look different because it is newer, she said. Observers had questioned why portions of the Wasp’s flight deck had a different hue than other parts of the deck surface.

Non-skid materials have and continue to be a vexing problem for the Navy, breaking down after only six or seven months, Kalnajs said. He said the Navy hopes the newer material being evaluated will last for years at a time...."

[SpazSinbad]

For 'Milo Minderbinder' earlier "Catch 22" F-35B Runny or VL question:

"I'm still trying to get my head round something. Is it the current belief that the F-35B does or doesn't cause scadding and spalling to conventional runway surfaces? Because if it does cause that, then we won't be able to deploy them overseas, other than on the ships, or a surface prepared in advance. Makes a nonsense of "rapid deployment"."

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical By Philip Ewing 07 June 2011

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won (http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=198269#198269)

“A Marine Corps photo set this week shows a squadron of veteran AV-8B Harriers at work in Afghanistan supporting troops on the ground, and it brought to mind one of the capabilities the Marines’ F-35B Lightning II will have that the Harrier doesn’t. Everybody knows that the B can “transform,” like a Decepticon, for short takeoffs and vertical landings on Navy amphibious ships at sea. But unlike a Harrier, the B also can land like a conventional airplane, said Lockheed Martin vice president Steve O’Bryan at the company’s big media day last month.

So what, you might say. Well, the Harrier doesn’t land conventionally: Every time it comes back, even to a ground base, it needs to do a vertical landing or a rolling vertical landing, O’Bryan said, burning fuel and working its jet nozzles more or less the same way. But if a Lightning II pilot wants to, she’ll be able to land down a runway like a normal fighter jet, without engaging the lift fan or all those other ports & hatches & bells & whistles.

If many — or most — of the flights that a fighter makes over its life are not under operational circumstances, because pilots are training or ferrying their jets, that could mean that a typical B won’t need its vertical landing capability most of the time.

“I don’t want to speak for the Marine Corps, but as we do analysis for the STOVL variant, [we think] most of the landings will be conventional landings — you can come back and land on a normal 8,000-foot airstrip without stressing all those components,” O’Bryan said. “Of course it’s up to the operational units, but why would I stress those if I don’t have to? ...That is an option that’s not available on the current generation of STOVL airplanes.”
_______________

For 'glad rag' - what is not to like?

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts December 11, 2012

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/F-35-Fast-Facts-December-11-2012.pdf

“On November 30, BF-1 accomplished the longest duration F-35 hover at 10 mins.

On December 3, BF-1 accomplished its 200th vertical landing at PAX & completed maximum weight hover, vertical landing & 90 degree translation on Dec 6.

On December 6, BF-4 flew the 1st STOVL mode night ops, including night hover.”
_____________________

An Update from Eglin on the Arrival of the F-35 17 Jul 2011

An Update from Eglin on the Arrival of the F-35 | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-from-eglin-on-the-arrival-of-the-f-35/)

SLD: As a Harrier pilot, could you comment on the potential arrival of the F-35Bs? | 17 Jul 2011 [at Eglin AFB]

Col. Tomassetti: It is ultimately disappointing constantly to see in the news all of the things that the F-35B hasn’t been able to achieve yet or can’t do & people completely missing what we’ve already achieved.

The fact is that we have a STOVL airplane that every pilot who has flown it says that it’s easy to fly. In 60 years of trying to build jet airplanes and do this, we’ve never ever been there before. We’ve never had a STOVL airplane that was as full spectrum capable as it’s conventional counterparts. We’ve never done that before in 60 years of trying.
It’s an amazing engineering achievement; [what] we’ve already accomplished is completely being missed by some observers.”

An Update from Eglin on the Arrival of the F-35 | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21300) [Colonel ‘Art’ Tomassetti [USMC] flew the X-35B on the STO - Supersonic - VL mission a decade ago, 30 July 2001. Now he is vice-commander 33rd Fighter Wing Eglin. http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/archive/55.html]

[Obi Wan Russell]

All models of Harrier were perfectly capable of conventional runway landings. What is this guy smoking?:eek::=

[JaseAVV]

Really? As in 120+ kts conventional landings?

[JSFfan]

Just have plenty of outriggers to swap :\...It would be a USMC conop that it can't, rather than it really can't

[LowObservable]

Note that our resident shills are engaged in the time-honored Internet tactic of drowning the discussion with repetition and irrelevant data of dubious accuracy.

Nobody here is denying that the JSF has a cool(er) front exhaust that keeps HGI in check.

Nobody's saying that AM-2 has not often been used to permit jet ops on poor surfaces. That's what it's for. Protecting good surfaces on a CONUS base is something different.

Nobody is saying that heat/blast is an unfixable problem for carrier deck operations (although it is true that the USN was concerned about fatigue).

And no informed critic that I know of has ever said that the F-35B will "melt decks". That's a silly and dishonest straw-man that the shills raise all the time. Spaz, can you quote an informed critic (that is, not some TV reporter) saying anything of the kind?

And I count $XX million Navy contracts as more convincing than anecdotes provided by phony think-tanks on the LockMart payroll...

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

The hard facts remain that the B appears to have (among its other limitations) a real issue with VL on normal surfaces, and that nobody has shown that "creeping vertical" will solve the problem, particularly on come-as-you-are forward strips. Moreover, the B is 3000 pounds heavier than the A, which already lands pretty hot, so conventional probably means a fast landing.

[JSFfan]

why would it do a "creeping vertical" on a normal surface 'runway' it would land normally.
vertical or "creeping vertical" is for ship, as well as austere landing conditions and training.

no one is saying the permanent home bases won't be of very durably long life material to vertically and rolling landings, but it will be for training

no one is saying there wont be semi-permanent concrete runways that consideration for the V-22 and fast jet will need to be taken into account and being worked on

It's doubtful the USMC is just going to put down a 700-1000ft takeoff runway for a f-35b, they will make the AM2 longer for transports to use as well, but a f-35b can vertically "creeping vertical" and conventionally land on the standard 'normal' AM2 mat

[LowObservable]

Given the date, can't JSFfan make an iota of sense for once?

[Milo Minderbinder]

So...... basing at a remote austere short runway is out. There goes any concept of mobility or flexibility.
Pretty much renders the aircraft pointless as surely the whole point of having a V/STOL fighter is that it can fly from austere thinly prepared sites close to the action......? Wasn't that the whole rationale of the Harrier?

[kbrockman]

Unconventional conventional landing for a Harrier, seems perfectly fine to me,
the question remains however, why would they do this in the first place, apart from a technical failure there seems to be no need/benefit for/from such a landingtechnique.

ONn2tlePz40

Don't know if this isa 100% conventional take off(nozzle position) but the landings seem to be pretty conventional to me;
TScS46-bfWE

[uffington sb]

kbrockman
When I was an air trafficker at a Top Secret, Top Gun, GW1, GW2 hero airfield not far south of Stamford, a conventional landing was treated as an emergency as the nozzles were stuck aft after a failure.
As regard to taking off. Why use more fuel getting airborne on nozzles when the wings will get you up anyway.

[Courtney Mil]

cruise with min AB

Do you understand what cruise actually means? I really doubt your credentials now and your shifting arguments that seem to be in line with a lot of stuff that is available online makes we wonder just where you're coming from. Would you care to enlighten us all as to just what your role is?

Seriouslt mate, your posts do not appear to be supported by any credible background if you are getting so many basics wrong.

[JSFfan]

In my ignorance, I assume Hog means "M1.25" dry is without AB and "cruise with min AB" is M1.5, being that Super-cruise is M1.5+
I assume he is talking about this being at the same altitude

I also assume O'Bryan says what he means when he said
"The F-35, while not technically a “super-cruising” aircraft, can maintain
Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said"

I also assume maintain, sustain "dash of 150 nm" used with the f-35 is the same as "dash of 100 nm" used with the f-22 and other jets "dashes" and part of a mission requirement and doesn't mean winding a jet to top speed and then cutting AB to see how long it takes to drop out of supersonic

[Stuffy]

Where there's a lot of money involved, there are always 'Shills'.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill#section_5 (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill#section_5)

[SpazSinbad]

The AV-8B NATOPS is available from: http://info.publicintelligence.net/AV-8B-000.pdf (36Mb)

The article about F-35B conventional landings makes this reference to AV-8B Harrier conventional landings "...working its [AV-8B] jet nozzles more or less the same way [as VL or RVLs]...". Attached are clickable thumbnails to the relevant AV-8B NATOPS pages describing such a conventional landing with 'nozzle use' highlighted. Text excerpt is from same NATOPS:

"...7.6.7 Conventional Landing
A standard CL, Figure 7-7, requires substantially greater distance to stop than a SL or RVL. Landing distance available is a critical consideration when performing a CL. The brakes are designed primarily for V/STOL and are marginal for a CL without PNB; therefore, No PNB CLs should be used only as an emergency procedure. Refer to Performance Data, A1--AV8BB--NFM--400, for stopping distance with and without PNB...." PNB = Power Nozzle Braking

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_AV-8BconventionalLandingNATOPS2.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/AV-8BconventionalLandingNATOPS2.gif.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_AV-8BconventionalLandingNATOPS1.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/AV-8BconventionalLandingNATOPS1.gif.html)

[LowObservable]

Another nail in the coffin of the "deck environment just like an AV-8B":

Other Program Issues

The LHA 6 will incur an estimated $42.4 million in cost growth due to post-delivery rework of the ship's deck to cope with exhaust and downwash from the Joint Strike Fighter. In October 2011, the Navy began at-sea testing on USS Wasp to determine how LHA 6 may need to modify its flight deck and found that approximately 43 items require relocation, shielding, protection, or other modifications. According to officials, modifications include adding below deck stiffeners, moving antennae, weapon systems and other equipment, and adding a cover to fueling stations.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf

And this is on a new ship built from the keel up to handle JSF - so will the same mods suffice for the older LHDs? Lies and the lying liars who tell them...

[Tourist]

Kbrockman

That was not a harrier doing a "conventional" landing.

That was a Harrier landing.

When they land wing borne it is more sporty.

[Courtney Mil]

It seems you assume a lot, JSFfan and a lot of you're saying doesn't make much sense in aviation terms. None of it answers any of the currently debated issues nor the question I have asked you.

This debate is meaningless if it is simply based on your interpretation on internet stuff you seem to spend a lot of time seeking out if you lack the credentials to bring it here and preach it as fact.

Please answer my question. Tell us your credentials in all this. I do so hope you're not just another troll.

[kbrockman]

I wasn't too sure about the second video (RED FLAG start+recovery) but the first one with the MARINES AV8B seems like a conventional landing , nozzles are down for braking but that's after touch down I assume.

Could be wrong though, haven't seen conventional landings myself so I have no point of reference, only go by what is described in the first video which clearly states conventional landng.

[LateArmLive]

Not sure why it's really relevant here, but we used to practice conventional (ie nozzles aft until on the ground) landings fairly regularly on the Harrier. Kbrockmans first video may be a CL in a lightweight fit 1 jet but it's not possible for me to tell at that resolution. There seemed to be a flare before touchdown - a CL was the only time you'd flare the jet.
Reasons for a CL? Any fire or hot gas leak - the thought process was that you didn't want to energise the reaction control system by moving the nozzles and potentially worsening the fire/leak. Nozzles stuck aft could be another potential cause, but it never happened in my time.
Flying the CL was never a big deal - "it's just a big Hawk" was the chat on the OCU. Stopping it was the real pain, especially at heavy weights, as the brakes were not really much use above 50kts.

As for a CTO - we did it once on the OCU, and once only. It was a terribly inefficient way of getting airborne and wouldn't work at heavier weights without reaching tyre limiting speed!

[JSFfan]

I don't know why it only mentions the f-35 in regards to the mods on a ship designed from 2001
It's been reported that the V-22 is giving the most problems with heat and it has a similar weight and a bigger heat footprint with 2 engines wide apart and a large blade clearence, which I assume is the reason the antennas need shifting, most of these mods look more for the v-22 than the f-35b

v-22
Empty weight 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)
Max takeoff weight 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)

f-35b
Empty weight 32,300 lb
Max takeoff weight 60,000 lb class (27,300 kg)

[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.

[GreenKnight121]

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!

[WhiteOvies]

We had V-22 visit us on HMS Ark Royal in 2010, no special mods required. SOP was for the Osprey to slightly move it's nacelles forward and back, spreading the heat. No issues apart from the chains got a bit hot, certainly no melted flight deck, but it wasn't a regular thing.

F-35B sea trials had 1 spot painted with thermion and 1 not. The deck was back in use by AV-8Bs with no repairs needed shortly after the trials were completed, even on the non-Thermion areas.

The trouble with all the posts is that people will believe or disregard what they want. Dismissing various well qualified DoD and military individuals within Navair and the F-35 programme as 'paid advertisers for Lockheed Martin' makes no more sense than believing everything published by other individuals in Think Tanks who have no hands on experience of the programme.

A reminder of recent UK milestones:

The UK has purchased 4 F-35Bs, 2 of which (ZM135 and ZM136) are currently flying regularly in Florida. UK pilots are being trained. RN and RAF maintainers have been gaining hands on experience with the F-35B (and briefly the C) for nearly 5 years at NAS Patuxent River. The first UK engineering courses have taken place at Eglin. The Test and Evaluation Sqn has picked up the 17(R) nameplate. The MOB has been selected and publicly announced (again). The first RAF non-Test Pilot is qualified on the jet (to add to the 3 British industry TPs and 1 RAF TP) with the first RN non-TP pilot to follow shortly. The USMC and RN/RAF are working side by side on VMFAT 501, the Pax River ITF and in other places providing mutual benefits to both sides.

Surely this is good news for the UK? Or does it come too late and at too high a price for the majority of contributors? What would it take to be convinced otherwise?

[JSFfan]

"What would it take to be convinced otherwise?"

there are a couple of problems

1. don't confuse me with facts, my minds made up and I will twist anything to make the plane look bad

2. it's not fair, UK designed and built the harrier, now we have to fly some US plane

3. Uk designed and built the typhoon, now we have to fly some seppo plane

4. it's not fair that we don't design and build a plane in the UK that's all ours, now we have to fly some US plane

5. in our hearts we know the US plane is better but our nationalistic pride wont allow it

6. europe is out of the major fast jet design, build and sales market and we really don't like it that seppo's have it

7. we got really excited when there was going to be a real air craft carrier like in the 1960's built and not the jump jet rubbish that we went back to.
we long for the days when we sang Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves

[Finnpog]

Shock! Horror!

JSFFan in Ad Hom attack.
That is probably the most faecetious post yet. You do have a flair for the (melo)dramatic.

WhiteOvies & GK - good updates. Thanks.

[JSFfan]

guess you don't get sarcasm with a lot of truth in it, it's not directed to anyone personally, unlike LO's last reply to me a page or 2 back.
also I think I deserve a thanks for my post about the V-22 too

[Nimbus20]

...now that the crayoning and personal attacks have started, I'm off. Thanks to those who have genuinely sought to inform, less so to those who sought to opine and no thanks to the xenophobes, the industry trolls and the plain rude & ignorant.

One thing is sure - only time will tell.

[t43562]

The discussion on here has turned me into a sceptic. There's a religious quality to it rather like the phone-fanboy arguments one finds on forums. I'm only a programmer and I knew one mobile platform from working for the company that made it but supporters and opponents both had ridiculous arguments about it. Some points were valid and some totally erroneous from both sides. I imagine that it must be similar for all discussions "on the outside" and even within a company or even a team, nobody truly has the whole picture of an immensely complex thing.

None of this matters though because it wasn't the discussed issues which really determined the outcome. Or they were only the symptoms of what was good or bad about the company.

At some point, often repeatedly, you get to the decision to kill something or spend more.

I've certainly seen good things get bulleted. I've also seen many things pushed through at great expense and become good-ish after much time and money but at a point where people thought "who cares anymore?"

My takeaway, FWIW, is that you shouldn't spend so much on one idea, especially one group of people, that you can't pursue other competing ideas at the same time. You also need to throw ideas away and start again with the benefit of the insight gained. Anything you do that commits you in the very long term to one architecture or idea is very risky. Does this apply to Engineering? I can't say - it seems like it might.

[Courtney Mil]

there are a couple of problems

1. don't confuse me with facts, my minds made up and I will twist anything to make the plane look bad

2. it's not fair, UK designed and built the harrier, now we have to fly some US plane

3. Uk designed and built the typhoon, now we have to fly some seppo plane

4. it's not fair that we don't design and build a plane in the UK that's all ours, now we have to fly some US plane

5. in our hearts we know the US plane is better but our nationalistic pride wont allow it

6. europe is out of the major fast jet design, build and sales market and we really don't like it that seppo's have it

7. we got really excited when there was going to be a real air craft carrier like in the 1960's built and not the jump jet rubbish that we went back to.
we long for the days when we sang Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by JSFfan; 2nd Apr 2013 at 07:18.

Dislike.

Well, your puerile, petulant, teenage outburst certainly answers my question about your credentials. Despite your claim of sarcasm and your rather sensible edit to tone it down, it’s easy to see exactly where you’re coming from and your complete lack of credibility. You’ve certainly dragged this thread down to rock bottom and it doesn’t surprise me that some have decided to leave as a result.

[JSFfan]

I though it was over LO's comment.... Lies and the lying liars
"And this is on a new ship built from the keel up to handle JSF - so will the same mods suffice for the older LHDs? Lies and the lying liars who tell them..."

I also find it strange that when LO calls american septics..it's fine
when I say seppo..it's the end of the world, but I agree it was over done
after a google search of this forum, I think your criticism is hollow
"site:ht*p://www.pprune.org septic OR septics "

what I think you're most upset about is that the problem is more with the v-22 and not the f-35b

[LowObservable]

N20 - And that's exactly what the pro-JSF crowd want. Vandalize a discussion with enough aged spam and fact-free rantings and the reasonable people go away.

Yes, I get heated sometimes because of the systematic lying and misinformation (such as the "melting decks" canard), but mostly I stay on the factual track for many reasons.

t43562 - Up to a point.

But this isn't a phone. It's a question of whether the vast bulk of US+allied air combat investment from 2015 until Cthulhu knows when should go to a single aircraft type, which...

is basically a bomber with a certain, mostly fixed degree of stealth, and flight performance which (at the very best) is comparable to the standards set 40 years ago,

costs so much that smaller AFs will be cut down to a couple of dozen jets,

and by design and intent, eliminates the ability to create a future replacement or substitute without enormous effort and risk.

If that is the wrong answer we are :mad:ed at many levels.

[eaglemmoomin]

Another nail in the coffin of the "deck environment just like an AV-8B":

Other Program Issues

The LHA 6 will incur an estimated $42.4 million in cost growth due to post-delivery rework of the ship's deck to cope with exhaust and downwash from the Joint Strike Fighter. In October 2011, the Navy began at-sea testing on USS Wasp to determine how LHA 6 may need to modify its flight deck and found that approximately 43 items require relocation, shielding, protection, or other modifications. According to officials, modifications include adding below deck stiffeners, moving antennae, weapon systems and other equipment, and adding a cover to fueling stations.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf

And this is on a new ship built from the keel up to handle JSF - so will the same mods suffice for the older LHDs? Lies and the lying liars who tell them...


LO I'm not sure you're helping with some of the more emotive language picks.

Anyway modifications to the older amphibs are in the order of $68 million per ship and there is information about that in the public domain.

I'm pretty sure the quote was about using the F35B in the same manner of the AV8s from a procedure point of view, how that gets interpreted through the chinese whispers of the internet doesn't make someone a liar. Certainly not it my book.

[LowObservable]

Well, EM, this was the official response after the Navy engineers released the landing-pad specs: Lockheed Martin said that it was based on "worst-case" data and that "extensive tests" conducted with prototype BF-3 in January 2010 (after the report was completed) showed 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."

Qualifies as deceptive at the very least, since the specs remain unchanged.

Thanks for the hint on the older amphibs, link here:

U.S. Amphib Skirts Major Deployments for 8 Years | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120618/DEFREG02/306180002/U-S-Amphib-Skirts-Major-Deployments-8-Years?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

In any event, however, I still think that the impact on improvised-base ops is more important. As in the case of the AV-8B, I predict that the Marines will do it once per war with a full Public Affairs battalion in support, and a second in reserve.

[SpazSinbad]

Amphib Wasp to get combat system upgrade By Christopher P. Cavas 30 Jun 2012

Amphib Wasp to get combat system upgrade - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/06/navy-marine-wasp-combat-system-upgrade-063012d/)

"...After some modifications, Wasp conducted two weeks of flight tests with the F-35B last October, but no further flight tests are scheduled until 2013. An overhaul to begin receiving more extensive shipboard modifications to fully support the aircraft is scheduled to begin this fall, with more flight tests next summer.

But later in 2013, the ship will be upgraded with the Ship Self Defense System Block II, a significant improvement over ACDS that will effectively coordinate the ship’s self-defense. SSDS is installed on all aircraft carriers and amphibs, and ties together a ship’s Rolling Airframe Missiles, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles and Cooperative Engagement Capability system.
Sims wasn’t able to provide a cost estimate for the alterations, but one source said it would cost $170 million just to upgrade Wasp’s combat system.

In 2014, with the SSDS installation complete, Wasp will return to the regular amphibious ready group rotation schedule, Sims said."

[JSFfan]

No LO, you will find it's was a GAO interpretation of what was said by the "Navy engineers released the landing-pad specs" the GAO do make mistakes in their reports and this is one of them.

GreenKnight121 confirmed what I read about the V-22 being the bigger issue and if you can land a v-22 on a deck material with weight bearing, heat resistance and clearance, you can land a f-35b, but even if it was one or two of the 40 things is for the f-35b..what's the big deal?

[SpazSinbad]

F-35B For United Kingdom Makes First Flight 02 April 2013

Lockheed Martin Corporation : Third F-35B For United Kingdom Makes First Flight | 4-Traders (http://www.4-traders.com/LOCKHEED-MARTIN-CORPORATI-13406/news/Lockheed-Martin-Corporation-Third-F-35B-For-United-Kingdom-Makes-First-Flight-16601440/)

"FORT WORTH, Texas, April 2, 2013 - Monday, the third United Kingdom Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II sped down the runway at Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base embarking on its first flight. The aircraft, known as ZM137, departed at 10:16 a.m. with Lockheed Martin F-35 Chief Test Pilot Alan Norman at the controls. ZM137 will complete a series of company and government checkout flights prior to its acceptance by the U.K. Ministry of Defence. ZM137 will join U.K. aircraft ZM135 and ZM136 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., later this year where it will be used for pilot and maintainer training...."

BIG 2.6Mb JPG here: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/photos/press_photos/2013/april/ZM137_F35.jpg

[TBM-Legend]

The F-35 can't be cancelled. According to the Korean Herald to;

The deployment came after Washington sent a series of its strategic weapons systems including the B-52 aircraft, B-2 stealth bombers, F-35 radar-evading fighter jets and nuclear-powered Cheyenne submarine for the allied drills here that end on April 30.
:eek:

[eaglemmoomin]

Nah outside chance of an F22 maybe. I thought I saw some footage of F117's recently on some report which is odd as I thought they were all in storage and deactivated.

[LowObservable]

Sssh - It's all classified. In order to cover the deployment to Korea of a JSF equipped with the dilithium-crystal-powered CommieMarmelizerTM, they faked an emergency landing in Lubbock three weeks ago.

How do we know? Because it is clearly impossible that such a mature, highly developed Gen5, C5ISR, integrated warfighting enabler would be unable to get its fat rear end out of a civilian airport under its own power for three weeks...

Faulty F-35 Stuck in Lubbock Since March 11 (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/143872/faulty-f_35-still-parked-in-lubbock.html)

[JSFfan]

Hey, at least it had a warning light to land








The crew of a Su-30 fighter that crashed earlier on Tuesday in Russia’s Far East reported an engine fire before the crash, a spokesman for the Main Military Investigative Directorate said.

The Su-30MK2 fighter jet crashed 130 km northeast of Komsomolsk-na-Amure during a post-construction test flight. Both pilots ejected safely, although one of them was hurt on landing.

“While executing acceleration to a maximum speed, the first pilot reported a fire in the right engine,” the spokesman said. “The flight controller immediately ordered the crew to eject.”

[TBM-Legend]

First Aust fighter aircraft in production
BY:MAX BLENKIN, AAP DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT From: AAP April 03, 2013 3:52PM

[Cancelled eh? Still seem to be building 'em!}

AUSTRALIA'S first two F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft are progressing down the US production line and approaching the stage where they will be recognisably aircraft rather than a collection of components.

David Scott, Lockheed Martin's director of F-35 international customer engagement, said the two, designated AU-1 and AU-2, were on schedule for delivery in the US in 2014.

He said the wings were under construction at the Lockheed Martin plant in Forth Worth, Texas.

Forth Worth is also constructing the forward fuselage, while the centre and aft fuselages are under construction at separate Northrop Grumman and BAE plants.

"Those two airplanes will come together through the mate-and-delivery process and be delivered to the Commonwealth in the middle of next year," he said.

[Mach Two]

JSFf, what was the relevance of the bit about the Su-30 here? Did I miss something?

[Darren_P]

JSFf, what was the relevance of the bit about the Su-30 here? Did I miss something?

Perhaps the Su-30 heard about its invisible supercruising potential adversary with a 6:1 kill ratio and topped itself on first flight.

[Courtney Mil]

That must be it, Darren! :D

I did find something interesting from a while back in LM's photo archive. A photo of the F-35 in which it doesn't look ugly!!! Actually a very cool photo.


http://materials.open.ac.uk/images/JSF-delivery.jpg

[Mach Two]

Right, Darren_P. Unfortunately, it died in vain then, given that it can't supercuise, is only stealthy in the right waveband and the 6:1 kill ratio was in a simulation scenario constructed using the stage 2 (updated) design performance figures, nothing to do with the real aircraft. It also had the F-35s playing as Blue Air, so they had all the support assets (AWACS and so forth) and were close enough to base not to have to worry about fuel. It was all a bit lop-sided, if I'm honest.

Nice picture there!

[eaglemmoomin]

Ah that'll be because it's one of ours. The plane looks much better from some angles than others.

[LowObservable]

True. For instance, Su-35 pilots like this view...

http://www.regjeringen.no/imgpreviews/00/00/03/34/33465_img___1361733803.jpg

[Rulebreaker]

Notice for possible sale to Korea of 60 f15s. 2.4b dollars

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-11.pdf

Notice for possible sale of 60 f35s. 10.8b dollars

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-10.pdf

I'm having some difficulty understanding the price difference here I assume they cover roughly the same sort thing. F35 better be bloody gd at that price

[Courtney Mil]

The F-15 package looks like a very good deal. Proven technology and a complete, supportable package. Actually quite a good deal for both partners, including some interoperability with certain of their close neighbours.

The F-35 package doesn't, as you say, Rulebreaker, look anywhere near as inviting. Looking at the list of included equipment, I wonder why they don't specifcally mention a radar. I'm not sure that this over-priced, under-performing techno-marvel is really what ROK actually need, given their location, likely adversaries and likely future ops.

[WhiteOvies]

Depends a bit on what's left of the North Koreans IADS if the current escalation continues!

Japan is planning on buying F-35, maybe that will be enough to convince the Koreans....

ZM136 (BK-2) did indeed look good at the acceptance ceremony for ZM135 (BK-1)! LM certainly know how to stage a PR event!

[Courtney Mil]

Depends a bit on what's left of the North Koreans IADS if the current escalation continues!

Depends how the "stealth" works against their ground-based radars - not in the optimized band. And remember it was downgraded from 'very low observable' to just 'low observable' years ago.

Japan is planning on buying F-35

Except they threatened to cancel their buy altogether if the price went up. More likely that Japan NOT buying F-35 will influence ROK in the same direction.

I can see how the fully up-to-spec (original spec, not the one we have now after coutless downgrades) would have been an appropriate platform for a lot of scenarios (including our own), but I'm yet to be convinced that it's what ROK needs.

[peter we]

I'm having some difficulty understanding the price difference here I assume they cover roughly the same sort thing.

Its a gift, the price should be over $100million each. I assume they will deliver next week, complete with aircrew and a new paint job.

Look how much the Saudis had to pay

BBC News - US sells $30bn in F-15 jets to Saudi Arabia (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16358068)

[PhilipG]

Notice for possible sale to Korea of 60 f15s. 2.4b dollars

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36...orea_13-11.pdf (http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-11.pdf)

Notice for possible sale of 60 f35s. 10.8b dollars

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36...orea_13-10.pdf (http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-10.pdf)

I'm having some difficulty understanding the price difference here I assume they cover roughly the same sort thing. F35 better be bloody gd at that price
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=7775056)
I think that the major difference in the prices is taht the F15 airframe etc is not included in the $2.4Bn, it is notice of sale of high end technology to put on the F15s that are being bought under a different contract.

[BUCC09]

Shredding Services for F-35 Program Office (JPO) (http://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=62c322b5b75cf41f6e464e2f896b9f11&tab=core&_cview=0)

•JPO 4th floor 4 consoles
•JPO 5th floor 5 consoles
•JPO 6th floor 4 consoles
•JPO 10th floor 2 consoles
•JPO 11th floor 1 console
•JPO 14th floor 4 consoles
•Century 1 8th floor 5 consoles
•Polk (NC2) 4th floor 3 consoles
•Polk (NC2) 5th floor 3 consoles

Thirty one shredding machines in F-35 Program Offices from the fourth floor, up to the fourteenth floor. That is a lot of consoles.
Given the current state of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, it seems international partners engaged with this project will need
all the consolation they can get. :E

[Courtney Mil]

Absolutely right, PG, as the notice of potential sale clearly says. But F-15 airframes aren't very expensive and it fits well with their F-15Ks and their F-X programme. The inventory included in that proposed sale includes a lot of good kit.

[Courtney Mil]

Just seen the shredder post. 31 does make it look like they have a lot of secrets to keep. But then you would hope so with such a programme. As you imply (or do I infer?), I wonder how many secrets are for keeping from the enemy and how many from the potential customers.:cool:

[Rulebreaker]

PhilpG

Thanks. I would however agree with Courtney Mil the airframe can't be that expensive as the fms covers most of the rest of what you need for it. F35 was supposed to be as cheap as an f16 at one point wasn't it?

[Courtney Mil]

This is really off the top of my head now, but the Japanese F-15s were built in Japan, by the Japanese, under license. The license cost the same as the price of an F-15, I THINK, $1,000,000 each.

[WhiteOvies]

Courtney, when did I become WhiteOlives?? ;)

As for the shredders...Security is not a dirty word...

I seem to recall Boeing pushing the Silent Eagle concept in the Asian direction, particularly on the back of the US rejection of a Japanese F-22 buy, although surely with a view to South Korea also. Although that concept gives up all the conformal fuel tank space to weapons, so the range is going to be poor by some comparisons. Not that SK needs much range heading North, particularly if the DPRK forces are heading south :oh:

[Courtney Mil]

Oops. Er, um, I was talking to WhiteOlives, not you. You know him, nice bloke, big moustache, lovely wife.

Anyway, you're right about the Silent Eagle (oh, Slam Eagle) project. I also think the F-35 buy was suggested by the Americans on the grounds that their lack of EW support assets indicated its need. One could argue that F-35 would be at its best WITH all the electronic support assets. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.

[SpazSinbad]

For 'PhilipG' and 'Rulebreaker': A few big ticket items [FMS in a building + reprogram centre building at least with costs] are included in the F-35 bid including other items for the use of. ACURL info for Oz/UK/other (CanUK?) reprogam centre cost below Korean info. The FMS cost may be somewhere else inferred from US costs lumped together.

Korea – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft 03 Apr 2013
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-10.pdf (109Kb)

Quote:
"WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea for 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $10.8 billion.

The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion...."
______________________

Management of Australia’s Air Combat Capability — F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition [ACURL = reprogramming center]

http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Audit%20Reports/2012%202013/Audit%20Report%206/201213%20Audit%20Report%20No%206%20OCRed.pdf (4.7Mb)

Quote:
“...2.63 Mission data reprogramming for Australian, Canadian and United Kingdom F?35 aircraft is to be conducted at a yet-to-be-developed Australia–Canada–United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory (ACURL). The ACURL is currently planned to be located at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, USA, and operated collaboratively by approximately 20 personnel from each of the ACURL partner nations, with the support of approximately 50 US personnel. The ACURL’s acquisition and sustainment costs are to be split equally between the ACURL partner nations.99

99 The United States will operate its own reprogramming laboratory for its own significantly larger F-35 fleets.

2.64 At the time of the audit, the NACC IPT was collaborating with Canada and the UK to develop a Statement of Requirements for the JSF Program Office to design and construct the ACURL. The NACC IPT was also developing a Statement of Requirements for Australian in-country reprogramming for unique capabilities not provided by the ACURL. The remaining elements of the situational-awareness system, such as F-35 sensor suite integration, dis-played data fusion, and development of the Helmet Mounted Display system, remained under close managerial scrutiny by the JSF Program Office....
&
“...4.8 As of 2008, the Partner Reprogramming Laboratory was estimated to cost some US$500 million (then-year dollars), and was scheduled for development between 2009 and 2017. Each partner nation committed US$610,000 as its share of costs for the first two years, with cost shares for remaining years yet to be determined. By June 2012, AIR 6000 spend under the Partner Reprogramming Laboratory Annex was US$620,000.

4.9 The Partner Reprogramming Laboratory for the Commonwealth partner nations (namely the UK, Canada and Australia) is to be known as the Australia–Canada–United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory (ACURL). A recent Non Advocate Review by the JSF Program Office has reaffirmed the requirement for reprogramming laboratories, and the JSF Program Office has initiated a design review process that will lead to a refined cost basis. The outcome of this activity, and therefore the final ACURL costs, will not be known until mid-2013. As at August 2012, the latest estimated cost of the ACURL was US$600 million....”

[CoffmanStarter]

Our No 3 has just undertaken it's maiden ...

http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/18924_10151529738474885_1235725242_n.jpg

The third Joint Strike Fighter destined for the United Kingdom has taken its maiden flight.

On the 95th Anniversary of the RAF the F-35 Lightning II, serial XM137, took the first of a series of check flights piloted by Lockheed Martin Test Pilot Alan Norman. On completion of testing the aircraft will be handed to the Ministry of Defence whereupon it will join the first two UK aircraft at Eglin Air Force Base. At the Florida base XM137 join the pool of F-35s being used for pilot training.

The third aircraft is the first production example for the UK, the two currently in service being configured for testing. RAF Squadron Leader Frankie Buchler became the first overseas operational pilot to fly the Lightning II on 19 March.

The fifth-generation fighter aircraft combines stealth technology with fighter performance and will equip both RAF and Fleet Air Arm squadrons. The land base for the UK F-35 fleet of aircraft will be based RAF Marham where the first squadron is expected to arrive in 2018.

Coff.

Source RAF Tw@tter

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz,

Thanks for reposting what we've already read and commenting upon. Perhaps just make whatever point you're after a bit briefly? I really don't get the point and I am interested to hear it.

[GeeRam]

On the 95th Anniversary of the RAF the F-35 Lightning II, serial XM137, took the first of a series of check flights piloted by Lockheed Martin Test Pilot Alan Norman. On completion of testing the aircraft will be handed to the Ministry of Defence whereupon it will join the first two UK aircraft at Eglin Air Force Base. At the Florida base XM137 join the pool of F-35s being used for pilot training.

The third aircraft is the first production example for the UK, the two currently in service being configured for testing. RAF Squadron Leader Frankie Buchler became the first overseas operational pilot to fly the Lightning II on 19 March.


Confusing with Lightning serials :E..... XM137 was a proper Lightning

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1050652M.jpg

[WhiteOvies]

I think the point he is making is that Korea would be paying for its own re-programming centre, which are expensive given the cost for the joint UK/Aus/Can effort.

Met WhiteOlives down the pub...his sister is gorgeous! ;)

Coff, ZM137 - I think XM137 was probably a Lightning 1...(GeeRam beat me to it! Do the RAF News also do the tw*tter?? )

The link between ZM135 and XM135 was absolutely deliberate.

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, I see. Why not just say that? Thanks for the translation.

His sister's name is Lisa. Quite a honey, eh?

My point isn't so much about what they get for their cash in either deal, it's whether the F-35 is the deal thay need. I know it says they asked to buy it, but the truth is that the US "stongly recommended" it as the solution to their problems. Interested to hear opinions on that.

[Waddo Plumber]

Back in the 1980s, I idly wondered what would happen after we got to ZZ999. Somehow I don't think I'll live to find out.

[WhiteOvies]

The link between SK and Lockheed is pretty strong with the KAI T-50, which will be rebadged as an LM product for USAF T-X competition. Suspect there is a lot of high level sales effort going in, but as you say it's the 'recommended' solution.

If Singapore buys F-35 as well then politically could SK be seen as a leading regional power without it? China will have the J-31 eventually so SK looks to be a poor relation without a 'stealth' jet. That is a whopping price tag so I suspect it'll come down to the size of their defence budget.

[Rulebreaker]

SpazSinBad

That's all well and gd but I guess they think they need those faciilities to operate the jet effectively so there included in the price. If the other jets in for the contract needed those things they'd be included in there offerings as well.

It's a much bigger bill than it was ever meant to be and clearly a reason why people are looking again at numbers and if it still does what it says on the tin.

[Courtney Mil]

Some very good points there, WhiteOlives. Would that mean they'd be buying to be in the club or because it could really serve their defence needs? I guess governments have bought aircraft for worse reasons.

RuleBreaker, your points are well made. It would be good to see what it does say on the tin now. Compared to what it used to say.

[LowObservable]

DSCA notifications can be a bit untrustworthy because even apparently similar deals don't always include the same things, and because AFAIK you have to go back and start again if the negotiated price at the end of all the BAFOs is higher than what DSCA told Congress.

On the other hand it seems that the ROK would get the 3I software package - which would mean another (unstated but no doubt healthy) bill for the 3F upgrade.

[JSFfan]

If you guys think the f-15 price is right, I've got a bridge to sell you
There is no way in hell you can buy 60 f-15 for 2.4b dollars or $40m ea

[Just This Once...]

Good maths.

:rolleyes:

[JSFfan]

klmnop, the maths ok, it's the letter that was wrong, but enjoy

[NITRO104]

JSFfan,
The proposed sale will include 60 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets, 60 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS), 60 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems, 60 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems, 132 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) secure radio with HAVE QUICK II, 69 Link-16 Terminals and spares, the Advanced Display Core Processor II, Joint Mission Planning System, various support equipment items, GEM-V GPS airborne receiver module, and communication security; software development/integration, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contract engineering and logistical personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.Where have you seen F-15 here?

[SpazSinbad]

Perhaps this article will answer some questions?

US reveals details of F-15SE, F-35A bids for South Korea (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-reveals-details-of-f-15se-f-35a-bids-for-south-korea-384180/)

[GreenKnight121]

Yes, the actual F-15SE airframes are not included in the FMS notification price.
Apparently, neither are the engines.

Also not included are all the things that are already in SK to support the F-15s the SKAF (Yes, I know... RoKAF) already has... maintenance facilities, parts, supply chain, test & repair equipment, simulators, training programs, etc.

Yes, there will be some differences for the -SE, but they will be changes to existing support & training infrastructure, not a "blank-sheet program" like the F-35.

NONE of this exists in SK for the F-35, so all of that has to be included in the FMS sale & notification price.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Something LO conveniently doesn't mention in his...posts but which I'm sure he full well knows is, the F-15 AESA sets mentioned in the DSCA notice will likely extend to just the antennae and a few associated odds & ends.

The F-15K fleet's current APG-63(V)1 radars were delivered with the (V)2 & (V)3 AESA upgrade in mind, and hence have the requisite back-end hardware and associated plumbing & cooling to accommodate the AESA antenna.

As GreenKnight correctly states, the DSCA notice is for the bespoke gear required to bring the ROKAF's current fleet of F-15E-like F-15Ks up to a standard similar to that of the Singaporean SG plus a few additional Saudi SA bits also thrown in. No airframes, no engines, no GSE, no sims, no trainers, no training, no initial support, and only equipment specific tech pubs...

I would guess that both DSCA notices are under consideration by the RoK - it's not an either or, it'll probably be both. They'll upgrade their F-15Ks, AND they'll buy F-35A or B to replace some of their older F-16s.

[CoffmanStarter]

WO, GR ... Good spot chaps ... I missed that one first time round ... So did the RAF Tw@tty Editor.

Coff.

PS. Well done Blunty ... I assume you picked up the edit error and had your Team correct same :D

Current post ...

On the 95th Anniversary of the RAF the F-35 Lightning II, serial ZM137, took the first of a series of check flights piloted by Lockheed Martin Test Pilot Alan Norman. On completion of testing the aircraft will be handed to the Ministry of Defence whereupon it will join the first two UK aircraft at Eglin Air Force Base. At the Florida base ZM137 join the pool of F-35s being used for pilot training.

[JSFfan]

foxtrot that makes sense, $40m for the hardware to a MLU which will run to a higher total

[Courtney Mil]

I think you may have misunderstood, the F-15 deal is not a mid-life upgrade. The $2.4b F-15 equipment package is all the support equipment and electronics for South Korea’s potential purchase of 60 Silent Eagles , not an upgrade for their F-15K Slam Eagles. ROK are not looking to buy both F-35 and F-15, the competition is still on (and includes Typhoon, which I would think is a very unlikely contender), but I think they’re a way off a decision yet.

So, just to clarify, the two sales in the documents are:

60 conventional F-35As and associated support equipment for $10.8 billion (including ALL the stuff that SpazSinbad listed in Post #1630)

60 radars, DEWS, target pods, IRSTs, comms, parts, training and logistical support, etc. to equip 60 F-15Es (which are included in a separate deal) for $2.41 billion (not including the airframes). It has not been announced yet what the other part of that deal will cost.

The reason that notification of the potential sales has been made now is to save time later when ROK make their decision to buy ONE of the three contenders.

[LowObservable]

CM - Exactly. FA18 and JSFfan have the wrong end of the stick, to our great surprise. This is a deal for new aircraft vs. new aircraft, but the airframes, engines and subsystems are covered by a direct commercial sale. This saves money on negotiating USG bureaucracy and probably makes it easier to take account of the fact that KAI already makes the forward fuselages and wings of all F-15s and is design/engineering partner on the conformal weapons bay.

However, this does raise the point that an F-15SE buy would allow ROK to upgrade their 60 F-15Ks to the SE standard or very close to it.

Neither does an F-15SE buy take Korea out of the JSF market, because they have F-16s to replace, and they can buy fully developed aircraft off a 200-per-year production line when the F-35 has become a smashing success. :E

[JSFfan]

Courtney yes, they haven't made up their minds about the new plane and I don't have a firm opinion either way, but I haven't seen a part sale like this before.
I wouldn't be surprised to see another total new buy f-15 price including the aesa etc. and this one is for a MLU.
A week or two will tell us what's happening



..LO I'm amused by your first sentence followed by you considering it as an option

[Mach Two]

After Gen Bogden's little outburst earlier this week, I'd be surprised if too many new customers are going to be encouraged to sign-up for F-35. Although they're only a Level 3 partner, Australia seem to be wavering a bit now too (who can blame them when Bogden has just said they'll cost them $90m-$92m each?), Italy and Netherlands (Level 2) are looking at reducing their order and Japan won't tollerate another hike, which can't be good for the program.

The Korean F-15 offer must be looking fairly attractive right now.

[Courtney Mil]

JSFf,

It's not an uncommon way of doing things. Some overseas hardware sales have to go through FMS, other bits can go through direct sales (avoiding a lot of red tape and additional expense). All the F-35 stuff will have to go through the FMS route, which is very unfortunate for the programme, but a lot of the F-15 can be sold directly - so splitting the sale in this way it knocks a fair bit of the price and saves time.

[JSFfan]

Okay, if you have seen it done like this before, it may well be

yes, the f-35 will be a JPO FMS as S Korea has nothing to do with the programme

[eaglemmoomin]

However the reports state F15SE which as of yet still doesn't exist does it and is in development. I thought Boeing had a wind tunnel model and that was about it?

[Courtney Mil]

Yep, not being part of the programme is the key here.

[JSFfan]

neither was Japan..I wouldn't put too much on it

[SpazSinbad]

Here are some excerpts from a 'how to construct a VL pad these days' PDF...

High Temperature Vertical Landing Pads – Pavement Materials 2012
Authors: L. Javier Malvar 1 (corresponding author) Paul Rossetti 1

https://transportation.wes.army.mil/tsworkshop2012/submission%20by%20number/065/065%20Paper.pdf (400Kb)

"ABSTRACT
The F-35B or short take-off and vertical landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is predicted to subject airfield pavements to extremely high exhaust temperatures, velocities, and heat fluxes during vertical landings (VL). These thermal loadings are much greater than what a conventional Portland cement concrete can withstand, resulting in a high foreign object damage potential from explosive spalling....

...Successful formulations were also tested under V-22 Osprey, F/A-18 Hornet, and AV-8B Harrier exhaust exposure and proved satisfactory as well.

INTRODUCTION | BACKGROUND
Short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, such as the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), V-22 Osprey, and AV-8B Harrier, can subject an airfield pavement to extreme exhaust temperatures during vertical landing (VL) events. In addition, modern aircraft and internal or auxiliary power units (e.g. F/A-18) produce relatively high sustained thermal loads on pavements. Previous studies showed degradation of conventional PCC pavement surfaces from repetitive thermal exposures after a few months of service with maximum pavement surface temperatures as low as 325°F (163°C) [1,2]. Pavement failures can be attributed to the following causes:

1) The creation of large compressive thermal stresses parallel to the surface, which would produce not only concrete crushing, but also a bulging instability, similar to buckling, of the top layer. These horizontal compressive stresses are accompanied by vertical tensile stresses that start to build up below the surface [3].

2) A significant reduction of the concrete strength due to spilled oils which decompose the cement paste at high temperatures [4, 5, 6]. Coupled with the thermal stresses these can result in surface spalling after a few months of repetitive exposures to F/A-18 (or B-1) auxiliary power unit (APU).

3) At higher temperatures, such as those generated by the AV-8B or the JSF core (main) engine exhaust (during a VL) the very high internal pressures caused by the heating of entrapped water, water vapor, and air, can result in immediate spalling [1, 7]. This third failure mode has been reported to occur when the pavement temperature reaches the critical point of steam around 705ºF (374ºC) and the generated pore pressures increase dramatically [8]. Previous research by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Engineering Service Center (ESC) showed that spalling could occur even prior to that, around 500ºF [9]. Spalling from trapped water is expected to be a primary mode of failure for JSF VL operations.

4) For such high temperatures, a fourth mode of failure can be aggregate or paste decomposition, if the aggregate is not heat resistant, or if the paste cannot sustain the high temperature.

PAVEMENT MATERIALS | Approach...

...2) Materials developed in-house were assessed for suitability. In particular lightweight concrete mixes used previously for the AV-8B were assessed. While these mixes had shown deterioration under actual JSF engines, this deterioration was very superficial.

...- Since spalling from trapped moisture is expected for concrete temperatures starting around 500 to 705°F (260 to 374°C), and 500°F could develop at depths as low as 0.04 inches, very thin layers of pavement are expected to spall at each cycle, until aggregates are dislodged.

- While spalling is expected approximately within the projected nozzle area, the heat flux is at a maximum along the edge of the projected nozzle area, and spall initiation could be expected there....

...REINFORCEMENT
Standard airfield concrete pavements are typically constructed with small concrete slabs separated by joint sealants which allow for temperature and curling movements. For the JSF no known joint sealant has been found that can survive the main engine exhaust temperatures during a VL. Hence, the 100 by 100 ft (30.5 by 30.5 m) pads, which were constructed as five 20 by 100 ft (6.1 by 30.5 m) lanes do not include any joints (except for the construction joints between the lanes, which are kept closed) (Fig. 3). Instead this area is constructed of continuously reinforced concrete (CRC) in both directions (Fig. 4). This prevents the possibility that the jet exhaust could get into a construction joint and erode the subgrade. This is also a concern because a pressure differential of 1 psi will lift a 12-inch thick concrete slab. The VL pad is surrounded by a 50-ft wide safety zone which is constructed with standard jointed concrete slabs. In the safety zone ablative joint sealants are used, which can survive a limited number of exposures to VL landings – this is deemed sufficient since the aircraft is not supposed to land there except in an emergency. The safety zone is surrounded by a 10-ft shoulder (Fig. 3 and 5)....

...CONCLUSIONS
High temperature pavement materials were developed which can withstand 500 exposures to the main engine exhaust of the JSF. An Engineering Technical Letter (ETL 10-4) and an interim Unified Facilities Guide Specification (UFGS 32 13 99) were developed which summarize the materials and VL pad construction requirements."

Photos/diagrams of plan, construction and finished product are in the PDF.

[LowObservable]

That's one big-:mad: wind tunnel, EM.

http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Silent-Eagle-weapon-launch.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

The Japanese situation is similar to when they originally bought F-15, or rather built them under license. They were looking for a similar deal with F-35, without being involved in the development phase (or perhaps I should say 'development activity' due to concurrency). While that worked with F-15, the restrictions on certain F-35 technologies mean that they will have to by some sections fully assembled.

I think the Japan sale will be an interesting one to watch as it could well have an influence on other countries in the region that are potential F-35 customers, but all of of whom are currently uncommitted/undecided to some degree or other.

[SpazSinbad]

VERTICAL LANDING PADS FOR THE F-35B

http://www.proconstructinc.com/jobs/TEAM/Vertical%20Landing%20Pads%20MCASB/N6945012R1758P442_FINAL_RFP_VOL_1_OF_4.pdf (10.5Mb)

'How to build' - and where - 5 VL pads at Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, SC with many diagrams and photos to guide us.

[Courtney Mil]

with many diagrams and photos to guide us.

Why? Do you think when customers are buying F-35B they're going to need to get airfield construction instructions from the internet?

[SpazSinbad]

Do I have to put smiley faces on my posts. I thought youse BRITS had a sense of humour but not you I guess. :}

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, I see. Very good. Carry on.

[PhilipG]

How to build 5 VERTICAL LANDING PADS FOR THE F-35B
VERTICAL LANDING PADS FOR THE F-35B

http://www.proconstructinc.com/jobs/...VOL_1_OF_4.pdf (http://www.proconstructinc.com/jobs/TEAM/Vertical%20Landing%20Pads%20MCASB/N6945012R1758P442_FINAL_RFP_VOL_1_OF_4.pdf) (10.5Mb)

'How to build' - and where - 5 VL pads at Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, SC with many diagrams and photos to guide us.
Is this the USMC's process and procedures document for establishing an austere base? If it is let us hope that the conflict is a long one to give enough time for the base to be constructed..:D

[SpazSinbad]

First Night Vertical Landing 02 April 2013

Code One Magazine: First Night Vertical Landing (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_news_item.html?item_id=1019)

"US Marine test pilot Maj. C.R Clift performed the first vertical landing at night on 2 April 2013 at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The mission was performed in F-35B BF-4 Flight 177."

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/1stF-35BNightVerticalLanding02April2013.jpg:original

[eaglemmoomin]

LO thats the demonstrator that flew three years ago. They only did wind tunnel tests last year. Seriously that's the same as saying the X35 was a finished production ready aircraft, and I know you wouldn't do that.

It's a development mule thats all.

[kilomikedelta]

Regarding the F-35: to paraphrase Marlon Brando in 'On the Waterfront', 'I(t) could have been a contender.'

[Bevo]

LO thats the demonstrator that flew three years ago. They only did wind tunnel tests last year. Seriously that's the same as saying the X35 was a finished production ready aircraft, and I know you wouldn't do that.

It's a development mule thats all.

I believe it is MUCH closer to the production aircraft than was the X-35. All the avionics and software integration is complete, which are items still being accomplished on the F-35.

[JSFfan]

didn't I read that boeing stopped their initial funding f-15SE a while ago that someone would have paid big to develop. They are going to just offer some of the mods, aren't they?

[eaglemmoomin]

Bevo are you sure about that? I can't seem to find anything that indicates that. The closest I can find is evaluation of a new helmet last year.

[eaglemmoomin]

Interestingly looking at an international briefing set of slides about the F15SE it seems to have it's navigation, IRST and Sniper pods all hanging off the bottom of the plane. I'm not sure how all of this qualifies as VLO/LO from the front aspect? It also does not appear to employ any RAM coatings, just a somewhat vague statement about stealth from the frontal aspect?

The weapon bay appears to be the conformal fuel tanks and can only fit the same amount as the F35B, is there any fuel capability left in the tanks, which seems slightly unlikely looking at the design of the 'tanks'.

It all looks like a bit of a management driven lash up to be honest, which I'm slightly suprised at given you would have thought there might be some crossover from the X32.

[GreenKnight121]

Is this the USMC's process and procedures document for establishing an austere base? If it is let us hope that the conflict is a long one to give enough time for the base to be constructed..:D

No, PhillipG... apparently you failed basic reading comprehension.

'How to build' - and where - 5 VL pads at Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, SC with many diagrams and photos to guide us.

This is a Request for Proposal issued to contractors to bid for the contract to build the PERMANENT FACILITIES AT THE PERMANENT "INSIDE-THE-US" MARINE AIR BASE AT BEAUFORT SOUTH CAROLINA!


It has nothing whatsoever to do with "austere bases", "forward bases", or anything other than a permanent airfield!

[Courtney Mil]

I'm not sure how all of this qualifies as VLO/LO from the front aspect? It also does not appear to employ any RAM coatings, just a somewhat vague statement about stealth from the frontal aspect?

I’m not sure you’ve understood the F-15SE concept, in fact I’m sure you haven’t. To start with, given the basic aircraft form, it’s never going to be a VLO platform, even Boeing aren’t claiming that in their marketing bumf. Their latest statement says it will only have the level of stealth permitted by the US Government for export – an important issue for all stealth exports, by the way – and the level of stealth will only be comparable to fifth generation aircraft ‘such as the F-35’ from the frontal aspect. In other words, it’s only LO (not VLO) and only then in the head aspect and (these are my words only and I could be wrong) optimized against the air-to-air threat. Regarding the export issue, I think they were granted a license last year.

To achieve that level of RCS reduction they apply RAM to the airframe ‘on key surfaces’ and install the equipment listed in the DCSA notification to Congress, which we’ve all seen (http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-11.pdf). There are some other airframe changes from the standard F-15E including ‘other 5th generation-type stealth imprvements’. I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on the canted tails as I don’t think Boeing found that to be effective enough to make it worthwhile. That’s not to say they wouldn’t offer it as an optional extra!

That produces an ‘advanced F-15E’ with reduced RCS that can now be employed in two modes, LO or conventional. Its LO (frontal) mode is ‘for day 1 operations’ and requires them to remove all the external stores and replace the CFTs with CWBs. That looks like this:

http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/silent_eagle_1.jpg

By all accounts that is where it offers the frontal RCS equivalent to F-35.

The ‘day two onward’ mode is where they hang the full option of F-15E weapons, sensors, pods and tanks on the jet and revert to full-up Strike Eagle mode as the obvious expense of the frontal LO. It would look a lot like an F-15E

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-15E_Flare_lg.jpg

So, I think you’re quite right, eaglemmoomin, if you’ve seen a picture with stuff hanging off it, it’s not LO. As for ‘a bit of a management driven lash up’, not really, just an upgrade to the F-15E designed to offer a much lower cost option to the full stealth platforms that are coming. As for crossover from the F-32, some of the technology is linked, but the basic F-15 airframe is, as I said before, never going to look like today’s concept of a LO/VLO aircraft.

I hope that makes sense and explains roughly what the concept is about.

Courtney

[SpazSinbad]

1st F-35B Night Vertical Landing Video:

F-35B Jump Jet Makes Its First Vertical Landing At Night (VIDEO) (http://defense.aol.com/2013/04/04/f-35b-jump-jet-makes-its-first-vertical-landing-at-night-video/)

[JSFfan]

Their latest statement says it will only have the level of stealth permitted by the US Government for export – an important issue for all stealth exports, by the way – and the level of stealth will only be comparable to fifth generation aircraft ‘such as the F-35’ from the frontal aspect. In other words, it’s only LO (not VLO) and only then in the head aspect and (these are my words only and I could be wrong) optimized against the air-to-air threat. Regarding the export issue, I think they were granted a license last year.I doubt the f-15se will be the same as the f-35, do you have a Boeing link for that?
I can only find that they aren't claiming it on slide 5
F-15 Silent Eagle Media Briefing - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/03/f-15-silent-eagle-media-briefi.html)
The F-35 is VLO according to DoD, I can give a link if needed

[Courtney Mil]

Good vid, Spaz. Shows the heat and power really well. Thanks for posting.

In the accompanying article theys said "But if the Harriers have to retire before the F-35B can replace them -- or if the F-35B is cancelled -- that pocket carrier capability goes away, and the amphibs are limited to launching helicopters and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors."

When they say the capability goes away, I'm assuming (and hoping) that really means a capability gap UNTIL the Harriers are replaced and not a permanent loss. Could any of the American posters here comment on that?

[JSFfan]

"But if the Harriers have to retire before the F-35B can replace them -- or if the sky is falling -- that pocket carrier capability goes away, and the amphibs are limited to launching helicopters and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors."

fixed it for you and yes, if they retire and the f-35b isn't ready ..they wait till it is for the LHD/A etc

[PhilipG]

This is a Request for Proposal issued to contractors to bid for the contract to build the PERMANENT FACILITIES AT THE PERMANENT "INSIDE-THE-US" MARINE AIR BASE AT BEAUFORT SOUTH CAROLINA!


It has nothing whatsoever to do with "austere bases", "forward bases", or anything other than a permanent airfield!
GreenKnight I can and have read the document quickly, my point was that if the work schedule described in the document was necessary to ensure that a permanent inside the USA base can operate F35Bs safely, this base being one that I assume had previously had Harriers operating from, then the work necessary to ensure that F35Bs can operate safely from anywhere other than an Amphib, would be somewhere in the same order.

[Courtney Mil]

JSFf,

Slide 5 compares conventional Eagle with 5th gen. Slide 19 compares SE with 5th Gen. In any event, I tend not to put too much faith in manufacturers' glossy brochures I would rather base my opinions on defence analysis.

I wonder if, in this case of the ROK sales bid, they're comparing the head aspect RCS with the US F-35 or the version that Korea would get (and you guys, come to that). What do you reckon?

[Courtney Mil]

fixed it for you

JSFf,

if you're going to quote me, please do not alter my words. In any event, I was quoting your source not expressing my views.

[SpazSinbad]

'PhilipG', earlier recent posts have highlighted the use of AM-2 Matting and probably soon some new updated version of AM-X Matting or whatever it may be called then, to be used as a temporary surface for VLs, or Runny Landings if AM-2 runway long enough. An entire USMC base called '29 Palms' in California is made out of this stuff (I'm guessing to test the AM-2 in all the variations of use).

Here is a thread start: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-75.html#post7767535

Today the USMC want to become MARINES again, operating from Sea Bases/Operational Maneuver From The Sea (OMFTS) and other acronyms. Here is a recent news blog article about their wish to NOT be a second Land Army (whilst temporary close to shore FOBs are in the mix to give options/variations of use but mainly use flat decks at sea for F-35B ops). Last year an Ex. Bold Alligator highlighted this new 'back to the future' MARINE direction:

Marine Corps Will Push for Return to Maritime Roots (UPDATED) - Blog (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1093)

[JSFfan]

Ok Boeing is claiming 5th gen, no mention of the f-22 or f-35
I think it will be the same as Japan and at this stage ROK doesn't know the f-35 RCS. It was only be disclosed after the contract was signed and not included in the money Japan paid and assume the ROK too payed to consider the f-35

[Courtney Mil]

I think when Boeing themselves were making any claims about it they actually said "an aircraft that can match the frontal-aspect stealth profile of any fifth generation fighter in configurations cleared by the US government for export release.".

[JSFfan]

OK, the frontal RCS will be nice then and re the quote,I looked it up andyou didn't add to it but it wasn't my link

[eaglemmoomin]

Thanks CM. But I'm still not all that convinced.

Your first day of strike F15SE no longer has it's navigation pod, IRST or sniper pod attached to it when performing a strike mission. To carry all of it pretty much appears to break any kind of frontal aspect LO.

It looks like to offer the electronics capability of the F35 you end up with in effect an F15E so why buy the F15SE? To offer stealth you end up with a much more 'basic' avionics.

Seems to me to perform any strike missions which to me is the whole point of the Joint Strike Fighter you'd need several 'day two' F15SE's datalinked to several day one F15SE's to actually acheive the same effect has half the number of F35's would be able to acheive. I'm not saying that's wrong as surely that's not all that disimilar to the current status quo? To me the avionics and sensor fit is what makes the JSF a fifth generation platform not it's performance figures which are just 'ok' and it's those systems that enable missions to be performed differently using less assets or with a 'stealthy' swing role edge. Or at least thats the theory. I guess we'll see.

As I said to me it appears like a bit of a lashup to be able to keep a production line and revenue stream going much like the F18 update that Boeing were touting a while back, which would be a management driven strategy as opposed to an engineering led strategy imho.

[HaveQuick2]

The technology behind, and the stability of the vertical landing phase looks superb.

However, where exactly do the two roll posts efflux out of the wings for stability? Do under wing stores positions have any impact on these roll posts effectiveness, or does the efflux impinge on what stores can be mounted on which pylons?

Just an engineering curiosity on my part that hopefully someone with a better understanding may be able to shed some light on.

[LowObservable]

EM/CM - The SE and JSF are very different as far as development is concerned. The main new bits on the SE are the conformal weapon bays. The external aerodynamics/mass &c are the same as the existing CFTs, so testing an F-15E and firing an AMRAAM does help clear up the remaining unknowns. I suspect that other RCS measures have been tested here and there.

Otherwise, a lot of the new stuff on SE - AESA, Mk 2 helmet, BAE EW system - is already extant or in full-scale development for Saudi.

EM - How use would the Sniper or JSF EOTS be today?

Weather Forecast - North Korea, KR - Local & Long Range | Weather Underground (http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/North%20Korea.html)

Note... that is just a snapshot for April 5. But it drives home the point that this ain't Iraq.

HQ - The roll posts are located at the wing-body junction. Supposedly they don't interfere with the inboard pylons... but then, the F-35 KPP does not call for the ability to VL with anything other than internal stores. Some interesting questions have been raised about an asymmetric hung-store case and whether the roll posts have the authority needed to counter that and provide control.

[Courtney Mil]

eaglemmoomin,

Don't really know enough in that area to offer an opinion either way, I'm afraid. I know a Stike Eagle can get where it needs to go with its internal nav kit, but (although they seem to offer a lot) I wouldn't know what kit they might want for day 1 air-to-ground as I haven't seen the specs they're looking at for the ROK sales pitch (well, none of us have).

The only thought I can offer is that if it were the case that it couldn't at least claim to do the day 1 stuff the Koreans want, they'd have kicked it out the door in 2009.

I'd be more interested to see the crew keep all the threats head-on so that they're not displaying the barn-door radar reflector (even with canted tails)!

LO, agreed. The APG82, HMS and DEWS do look like nice kit.

It ain't Iraq in terms of weather OR threat.

[SpazSinbad]

'HaveQuick2' store station 2/10 and 4/8 (as per graphic) carrying capacities were reduced to being able to carry only a maximum of 1,500 lbs during the SWAT (weight reduction process). I'll imagine that the 'emergency jettison' function will take care of any hung stores including the pylons being jettisoned if need be.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35bSTOVLloadLess.gif:original

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz, useful graphic. How do those stations impinge on the roll posts?

[JaseAVV]

I'm having trouble with the F-15 having a low frontal radar cross section.
Don't intakes give a clear view of the fan blades?

[Courtney Mil]

My understanding is a radar baffle in the intake. They'd have to do someting to it, you're right there!

[JSFfan]

It will be interesting when and if Boeing releases a total cost on the ROK offer. When the f-35 clean-sheet total buy of $180M ea is very similar to 4+ gen packages

I guess the F-15se will have similar to the SH in the intake

[Courtney Mil]

No idea. The only figure I ever read was $100m all in, but I think that was in the days of the single, complete package, not the split FMS/Direct Sales proposal. To be honest I'm sure they've ever deliberately revealed a figure. Interesting that they don't even feature it on their regular web site, but I guess it's specifically designed and targeted at a very specific group of potential customers.

[JSFfan]

I can't see it being cheaper than a SH and that's at about $150 now and that's a full production plane, there are a lot of development costs in getting the SE on the flight line

[SpazSinbad]

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BpylonRollPost.jpg:original

Some info on roll posts: F-35B - Roll Posts (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog%3Aa68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost%3Ae8c32907-7096-4ffc-a72c-d1925abcbdfa)

Underneath graphic:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/04_XtoF_Bottom_1267828237_8824.jpg

[CoffmanStarter]

Some cool footage of the first Night Vertical Landing (2nd April 2013) :eek:

First F-35B Night Vertical Landing - YouTube

Coff.

[HaveQuick2]

Thanks for the roll posts info. I reckon that a twin store side by side configuration on stations 3 and 9 may be a bit tight though.

You can see the outlets clearer on this photo, not too sure about the polo mint roundel though!!!

http://www.ukserials.com/images/ukimages/zm137.jpg

[JSFfan]

I don't think it specs for external weapon bring back on vertical landing, they might get away with clean pylons and an aim-9

[Mach Two]

Just confirm that you really meant NO external bring-back?

[JSFfan]

vertical land has a ~5,000 lb load, split it anyway you want to, just not on the inner pylon I think

[eaglemmoomin]

EM/CM - The SE and JSF are very different as far as development is concerned. The main new bits on the SE are the conformal weapon bays. The external aerodynamics/mass &c are the same as the existing CFTs, so testing an F-15E and firing an AMRAAM does help clear up the remaining unknowns. I suspect that other RCS measures have been tested here and there.

Otherwise, a lot of the new stuff on SE - AESA, Mk 2 helmet, BAE EW system - is already extant or in full-scale development for Saudi.

EM - How use would the Sniper or JSF EOTS be today?

Weather Forecast - North Korea, KR - Local & Long Range | Weather Underground (http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/North%20Korea.html)

Note... that is just a snapshot for April 5. But it drives home the point that this ain't Iraq.

HQ - The roll posts are located at the wing-body junction. Supposedly they don't interfere with the inboard pylons... but then, the F-35 KPP does not call for the ability to VL with anything other than internal stores. Some interesting questions have been raised about an asymmetric hung-store case and whether the roll posts have the authority needed to counter that and provide control

I'm not sure what your point is here LO the JSF has EO/IR and SAR/GMTI modes so hence that all aspect thing, having all of them gives you an all weather capability.

[Mach Two]

eaglemmoomin,

I don't think he was talking about what the JSF might or might not have. He was responding to the sub-thread on F-15SE and indicating what that has. It seems that mentioning anything good about another airframe is seen by the JSF Religious Fanatics as an attack on the one that can do no wrong.

Calm down.

[Courtney Mil]

Well, yes, I must admit that there is a lot of defensiveness when we mention another aircraft that might be seen as a competitor. F-15SE is a very different platform. I certainly have never proposed F-15 as an alternative in any theatre apart from ROK, and I'm only posting about it in that context to answer questions or explain what I know about it. I'm certainly not pushing it.

That said, I do wonder why a handful of folks here see the need to push the F-35 so hard as the solution to every region's needs.

[eaglemmoomin]

No I'm perfectly calm.

I don't think you understand. I made the point that to make the F15SE stealthy you apparently have to take off all the extremely useful pods etc that enhance the aircrafts capabilities. LO made the point that it's wet and misty in Korea.

This is an odd point to make. The whole point of fitting multiple sensors to an aircraft be it surveilance or otherwise is to give you an all aspect all weather capability. Synthetic Aperture Radar and Ground Moving Target Indicator (ie for pattern of life) modes are not effected by the weather, day light etc, an EO/IR sensor on a aircraft can 'see' a suprisingly long way away and is clearly useful for other purposes. I would also think taking the laser designator off of a strike aircraft is an odd thing to be wanting to do.

It was a very odd comment to make about an extremely useful capability, surely you want to maximise the utilty of your platform, 'taking' stuff off seems err backwards.

[Mach Two]

In your terms it's no more backward than only carrying the internal weapons on F-35 when you want the LO fit.

[eaglemmoomin]

In your terms it's no more backward than only carrying the internal weapons on F-35 when you want the LO fit. The F15SE has the exact same internal weapons capability as the F35B but on the JSF the sensors and kit are already part of the airframe, you don't have to take them off to maintain your day one 'stealth' such as it is and the capabilities that those bits of kit give you. Whereas with the SE's strike capability for day one 'stealth' you have to take all that useful 'stuff' off to maintain 'stealth'.

[Mach Two]

There you go again. It all has to be about how much better the F-35 is than anything else. Apart from a converted F-15E, the SE doesn't even exist, so don't worry about it. You don't know what sensors might be inbuilt. Not much is my guess. There is a baseline case though with LANTERN, so wait and see.

[Just This Once...]

Before we get too carried away with the in-built EO/IR and SAR/GMTI capabilities on the F-35 they do come with limitations.

The SAR/GMTI capabilities are relatively short range and have no post-flight exploitation capabilities beyond the generic ability to record what the pilot has selected on his display at the time. It will be fused with everything else and considering it is a tactical sensor it is way beyond anything we have fielded before. As with everything that goes through the fusion engine the first challenge will be the lawyers. Don't forget your rabbit's ears either!

The EOTS limitations are as per the pictures we have all seen - can you see through the facetted windows? Yep, it is only transparent to IR. For all of you who like long range high res TV to spot your bad guys to the RoE level required get used to only having an IR picture to a level slightly below that of the current gen IR pods. Time to brush-up on the thermal dusk/dawn considerations too whilst respecting the limited look-up capabilities when used in sudo-IRST mode. USMC is considering a pod as they are kinda keen on delivering ordinance close to the blokes they share a boat with.

The DAS is amazing, but it uses 6 relatively low res IR pictures stretched over a full sphere. The plus is getting full sphere, but don't expect the latest NVG acuity when delivering your weapons.

The F-35 has an amazing array of technologies crammed into a shortish, space and weight critical package that has LO capabilities to the fore. As a result the pure performance of some systems is compromised, but the idea is that the fusion of these systems and off-board information will make it better than the sum of its parts.

Still got to get all the multination platform-agnostic automated and integrated fusion engine past the 'sovereign kill-chain' lawyers so we can actually go and whack someone with it!

[eaglemmoomin]

There you go again. It all has to be about how much better the F-35 is than anything else. Apart from a converted F-15E, the SE doesn't even exist, so don't worry about it. You don't know what sensors might be inbuilt. Not much is my guess. There is a baseline case though with LANTERN, so wait and see.

No the SE doesn't exist right now all we have to go on are Boeing briefings about the aircraft and some videos of a demonstrator that Boeing built as a proof of concept 3 years ago. I was hoping not to have to come over all SpazinBad and pull out the bucket o links but fine have it your way, see slide 17

Silent Eagle Media Brief.Doc (http://www.slideshare.net/TheDEWLine/silent-eagle-media-briefdoc#btnNext)

[eaglemmoomin]

Before we get too carried away with the in-built EO/IR and SAR/GMTI capabilities on the F-35 they do come with limitations.

The SAR/GMTI capabilities are relatively short range and have no post-flight exploitation capabilities beyond the generic ability to record what the pilot has selected on his display at the time. It will be fused with everything else and considering it is a tactical sensor it is way beyond anything we have fielded before. As with everything that goes through the fusion engine the first challenge will be the lawyers. Don't forget your rabbit's ears either!

The EOTS limitations are as per the pictures we have all seen - can you see through the facetted windows? Yep, it is only transparent to IR. For all of you who like long range high res TV to spot your bad guys to the RoE level required get used to only having an IR picture to a level slightly below that of the current gen IR pods. Time to brush-up on the thermal dusk/dawn considerations too whilst respecting the limited look-up capabilities when used in sudo-IRST mode. USMC is considering a pod as they are kinda keen on delivering ordinance close to the blokes they share a boat with.

The DAS is amazing, but it uses 6 relatively low res IR pictures stretched over a full sphere. The plus is getting full sphere, but don't expect the latest NVG acuity when delivering your weapons.

The F-35 has an amazing array of technologies crammed into a shortish, space and weight critical package that has LO capabilities to the fore. As a result the pure performance of some systems is compromised, but the idea is that the fusion of these systems and off-board information will make it better than the sum of its parts.

Still got to get all the multination platform-agnostic automated and integrated fusion engine past the 'sovereign kill-chain' lawyers so we can actually go and whack someone with it!

From a generic point of view I'd assumed based on the appetite for imagery data there'd be a way to 'get' the recorded imagery and meta data into an image analyst workstation post mission and then do your post processing there then distribute it to reference libraries and where ever else from thence?

[SpazSinbad]

'eaglemmoomin' said: "... I was hoping not to have to come over all SpazinBad and pull out the bucket o links...".

I'm mortified. :} :D

[Just This Once...]

From a generic point of view I'd assumed based on the appetite for imagery data there'd be a way to 'get' the recorded imagery and meta data into an image analyst workstation post mission and then do your post processing there then distribute it to reference libraries and where ever else from thence?

Great idea but no. There is no system on-board that records the meta, ephemeral or indeed any type of underlying data. The US are nuts when it comes to locking-down everything with crypto and anti-tamper systems - everything on F-35 sits in a walled garden. The only exception is for trials where a crate is carried in the righthand bay but everything remains locked down and the system does not work normally with the crate sucking point-to-point data from the fibre.

The US have worked very hard and spent lots of money to ensure no nation has the ability to do the stuff that we would really like to do with the jet. On the plus side, should one be left in an unfriendly state the capability is not compromised.

[SpazSinbad]

Security is paramount for the F-35, however, already Israel is being allowed a way to add their own gizmos via an interface (I could look it up) that is likely to be shared - if allowable. On the web this NATO bumpf gives a hint to what recording may be possible in the F-35? "MP-HFM-169-02.doc" Search on that doc file name to find it.

F-35 Embedded Training
"ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of Embedded Training (ET) in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). This paper will cover early ET concept development, the implementation of ET in JSF, now F-35 Lightning II, the pilot perspective of the ET training syllabus, and future development of F-35 ET. In the JSF concept development phase the training system solution included the deployable training device and added ET training capability built into the aircraft. ET was brought to the forefront with fighter pilots’ heavy involvement in extended periods of aircraft deployment to international theaters of war. During these periods fighter pilots were away from continuation training opportunities. In response, the JSF training system concept integrated the ET Virtual Training Model (VTM) in the synthetic training environments to support “anywhere/anytime” interactive combat training while in-flight.

The objective of F-35 ET is to enhance and maintain fighter pilot proficiency. ET is implemented by functionally partitioning the aircraft integrated core processor (ICP). ET consists of the VTM hosted in the ICP and the P5 Combat Training System (CTS) contained in P5 Internal Subsystem (IS). Both VT and P5 CTS provide brief and debrief capabilities. [Other possibilites here?]

From the pilot perspective, VT is an overlay of constructive simulation on the real world to provide an enhanced training environment to the pilot. VT mission planning data is inserted in the aircraft via the preloaded portable memory device (PMD). A coordinated data link distribution of VT provides synchronization between a four-ship flight of F-35 aircraft. Pilots may train to a coordinated attack against virtual targets with appropriate threat reactions and kill responses that are shared across participants. All participating aircraft follow the same realistic, virtual pre-planned training scenario.

Following the event, the pilot takes the PMD back to off-board mission support for debriefing. The result is combat team training in live flight supplemented and enhanced by a virtual combat environment...."

[LowObservable]

EM - My point is that you can and will use SAR/GMTI for some attack missions, whether on a JSF or an F-15SE, and that when the weather goes to poo so do your EO systems. Clearly, too, you don't use radar indiscriminately in either case, but in an LPI mode to eliminate target location error.

And while the SE is not flying, most of the bits and pieces are either in service or in full-scale-development for Saudi (since 12/11). Indeed, the first SA just flew:

Fly-By-Wire F-15SA makes first flight (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123339926)

The SE adds the CWBs, new cockpit displays from Elbit (a company with a good rep for on time delivery) and various RAM/RAS features, but a lot of expensive stuff is being done on the Saudi riyal.

JTO - The US have worked very hard and spent lots of money to ensure no nation has the ability to do the stuff that we would really like to do with the jet. Wow...

[eaglemmoomin]

Great idea but no. There is no system on-board that records the meta, ephemeral or indeed any type of underlying data. The US are nuts when it comes to locking-down everything with crypto and anti-tamper systems - everything on F-35 sits in a walled garden. The only exception is for trials where a crate is carried in the righthand bay but everything remains locked down and the system does not work normally with the crate sucking point-to-point data from the fibre.

The US have worked very hard and spent lots of money to ensure no nation has the ability to do the stuff that we would really like to do with the jet. On the plus side, should one be left in an unfriendly state the capability is not compromised.

That seems to be a definite missed trick in that case. That is a shame. I would have thought that would be an extremely useful capability to have (not to mention, groan, yet more money to fork over for the workstations and other associated tat) and as a foot in the door for other systems that do similar stuff.

[eaglemmoomin]

Spaz the PMD sounds interesting as a way of getting stuff off but then again several hours of imagery is a lot of storage space to eat into depending upon the resolution and then where ever that is would need to be hooked into the PMD to copy the data to it. I guess it's probably quite limited in what can access it and vice versa based upon what Just This Once mentioned.

I'd have also thought the virtual mission simulation data probably wouldn't be anywhere near as large so the device might not be big enough anyway for several hours of footage say.

[SpazSinbad]

I'll admit to only knowing what is reported in the public realm but here goes. I'll guess the Israelis will want to export their F-35 addons to any other F-35 interested users.

Israel To Buy F-35s With Cockpit Mods 27 Aug 2010 by Alon Ben-David (AvWeek Story originally)

http://list.freeman.org/pipermail/freemanlist2/2010-August/013664.html (http://list.freeman.org/pipermail/freemanlist2/2010-August/013664.html)

"..."The aircraft will be designated F-35I, as there will be unique Israeli features installed in them," a senior Israel air force official tells Aviation Week.

Israel's initial batch will be almost identical to the international JSF offered to other countries, with one difference: The F-35s manufactured for Israel will include several cockpit interfaces to accommodate the air force's command, control, communications, computer and intelligence systems. The F-35 main computer will enable a plug-and-play feature for Israeli equipment...."

____________


Israel, U.S. Agree To $450 Million In F-35 EW Work 06 Aug 2012 By Eshel David, David Fulghum

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_08_06_2012_p28-482027.xml&p=1 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_08_06_2012_p28-482027.xml&p=1)

"...In the F-35, all core avionics are integrated and fused; therefore, accessing part of the system requires integration with all associated systems. Having different air forces using different versions of core avionics would render such integration more complex and costly.

The avionic architecture of the F-35 solved this by introducing two separate integration levels. Customers can access the high level, introducing country-specific services, libraries or updates on their own, outside the aircraft software-upgrade cycles. The lower level is proprietary to the U.S. Joint Program Office and accessible only by Lockheed Martin. This level manages flight and mission-critical services, including flight controls, CNI and display, sensor management and self-protection. It also relates to the sensitive low-observable envelope of the F-35, an issue passionately guarded by the U.S.

Replacing core avionics with new systems at such a profound level of integration is unlikely, as it would require extensive testing by all F-35 operators with no obvious gain for the developer. The IAF is moving toward a different approach—the implementation of so-called integrated modular avionics (IMA). The concept has been in development under an Israeli Defense Research and Development Directorate program for several years and is currently being implemented under several pilot programs.

The architecture employs three layers for the integration of new applications—unified hardware, comprising a powerful general-purpose processor (GPP) and large memory bank, and a library of devices and services made available to developers, similar to a software developer kit...."

[eaglemmoomin]

EM - My point is that you can and will use SAR/GMTI for some attack missions, whether on a JSF or an F-15SE, and that when the weather goes to poo so do your EO systems. Clearly, too, you don't use radar indiscriminately in either case, but in an LPI mode to eliminate target location error.

And while the SE is not flying, most of the bits and pieces are either in service or in full-scale-development for Saudi (since 12/11). Indeed, the first SA just flew:

Fly-By-Wire F-15SA makes first flight (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123339926)

The SE adds the CWBs, new cockpit displays from Elbit (a company with a good rep for on time delivery) and various RAM/RAS features, but a lot of expensive stuff is being done on the Saudi riyal.

JTO - The US have worked very hard and spent lots of money to ensure no nation has the ability to do the stuff that we would really like to do with the jet. Wow...

Thank you for clarifying LO. Personally my feeling is that you have a choice of picking the conditions for missions or any other stealth 'jolly' so the EO/IR sensor being degraded in bad weather is somewhat under control, the question is what percentage of degradation and I imagine that no one would put that information in the public domain.

As for the wall garden approach I can understand it, while I'm suprised a little that the UK and Australia don't benefit from the ITAR 'special relationship' waiver that I'm pretty sure was passed in to law by the USA. Maybe I've mis remembered.

[SpazSinbad]

For 'eaglemmoomin': US ratifies agreements for exporting arms to Britain and Australia | Atlantic Council (http://www.acus.org/natosource/us-ratifies-agreements-exporting-arms-britain-and-australia) 01 Oct 2010

[Stuffy]

To actually answer the original question.

If the F-35 is cancelled, which for financial reasons, is quite possible.

The US will not be so bothered, they have updated versions of F-18.

The UK have the problem. They need the F-35B for their carriers.

Oh dear.

[JSFfan]

As for the wall garden approach I can understand it, while I'm suprised a little that the UK and Australia don't benefit from the ITAR 'special relationship' waiver that I'm pretty sure was passed in to law by the USA. Maybe I've mis remembered.
eaglem, although UK/AU have people embedded with the core system that stays inhouse, no nation gets the code of the core system and only UK/BAE had a real whinge about that

Israel didn't get anything that isn't available to everyone else, they asked for more, got knocked back and then internal PR said we won

Like Israel as per spaz's last link, customers can plug and play, coms, regional library, mission requirements etc.
Israel nor anyone else gets the same access level to tech stuff that's shared between the us/uk/au and canada that far exceeds anything on a f-35

[SpazSinbad]

'HaveQuick2' on page 85 of this thread enquired about roll posts ("...does the efflux impinge..."):

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-85.html#post7777988

The closest view of the outlet of one that some will get to see one day:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/f_35b_hover_08_1267828237_9911.jpg

The MLG door provides protection for MLG, whilst the roll post door provides protection, to some unknown degree, for any weaponry on any pylons on the other side of it.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/f_35b_hover_08_1267828237_9911.jpg:original

[JSFfan]

So far the f-35a looks to be similar in package cost to the SH cost , How those that said different must be changing their game plan

LowObservable (http://www.pprune.org/members/81203-lowobservable), Pilot may say..Dam the fog lifted, it's a shame we don't have the option to run the other toys in LO, the SE is only comparable when basic stuff on the f-35 can't be used and how much did it cost again?

I've said it sounds good and let the se export the same as f-35 slip as I don't have links to show it's wrong, but I will point out that Boeing made similar claims for the SH block 2 to Australia back in 2007, even going so far as to call it 5th gen

getting back on the f-35b, I was amused by this persons post and old Sweetman dribble...he has gone quiet lately and leaving it all to wheeler and Co
More shocking Reporting - editorials this time :: F-16.net (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-23560-start-30-sid-5c55dd59e06dfb7610303c3dcb35c736.html)
"Honestly I'm a little torqued because its frustrating to see an aircraft that was never going to come off probation land without the excitement of throwing large chunks of tarmac around. I feel kind of ripped off, really."

[glad rag]

Bit like Sheldon, you don't "get" sarcasm, do you.

2/10, must try harder.








[bit like the F35 just to keep it on topic]

[eaglemmoomin]

Stuffy the USN would be ok they are purchasing F18E/F/G to replace some the more clapped out airframes so could extend their buy

The USMC and USAF would be a bit more stuffed as the F35 is more tied to their concept of operations and they are replacing several types of airframes with the JSF and cutting manpower by going single seat (I don't know if weapon officers would be phased out or if they will just 'get' a JSF as it were as I guess the retraining burden for BFM and all the other stuff would be fairly costly).

[Mach Two]

As usual, the JSF acolytes read things the way they want them to be. The ITAR agreements are worded very precisely - note the repeated use of the word "certain". In the case of F-35 and all the associated equipment and programmes this one will be no different to any that went before. IF any of you are suggesting here that JTO's (JustThisOnce) points in his post concerning security issues all go away as a result of ITAR legislation, you are sadly mistaken and clearly do not understand how these things work with the USA. They are, quite rightly, extremely guarded about the release of technology and, in particular, intel generated data and software.

Partners at various levels will have massive restrictions on access (already do, but that's outside the scope of this forum). Working within these limitations are usually quite acceptable and need not necessarily impinge on operational effectiveness. You just have to accept that the US will always hold the knobs and levers. A few, embedded personnel will have additional clearances and access where required, but for the most part, the rest will get only what they need in terms of information and access.

As to the technology that other nations get on their aircraft, be that F-35 or anything else, you are unlikely ever to know what the differences really are - especially if your only source of information is the internet.

Again, I am amused by your over-defensive responses to anything good anyone has to say about any platform other than the focus of your blind faith and wishful thinking.

And, by the way, JSFfanatic, there isn't always a link to an internet site to back-up everything says that you don't like. Tough.

[APG63]

I agree with the above. Well said. It's an immovable object so learn to live with it. The technology that really will be guarded will be in the radar and defensive aids. That's if they ever get the radar to work properly, which is providing a massive challenge at the moment. It's nowhere near the spec that some early assumptions were based upon.

I was thinking of updating my username, but APG63 (plus various "Vs") seems quite comfortable for now.

[Courtney Mil]

Moomin,

I have to agree with Stuffy in the main, but I do take your point that the USMC would also be screwed. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

I have to throw my lot in with the others on the security firewall (or "garden wall", which is rather a neat expression) discussion. Some that I know, that are involved, are in the usual position with that. It's not a show-stopper for them, but this programme is clearly no different to any other - as someone here said, quite rightly.

[eaglemmoomin]

Mach 2, what I'm sugesting is that it's suprising to me that being able to connect a RAID to the data processor in a JSF post mission via fibre and pulling off recorded imagery from the sensors is not supported which is what was implied. I'd have thought that you would want to be able to do that for many reasons. Taking that FMV and meta data and sticking it into an IA workstation and exploiting it again seems to be something you would reasonably expect to be able to do. I don't see how UK armed forces use of that would be breaking ITAR rules if standard NATO formats were used , more so if Lockheed were the ones supplying the workstations and transfer kit as opposed to them giving the interface and control specifications to a UK subcontractor as that would neccesitate transfering IP.

Seems like a bit of an unfortunate problem.

[Mach Two]

You would be absolutely right, eaglemoomin, to expect that customers would want that capability. However, I think it's obvious that non-US users will have to live within the limitations. The real question is where the garden wall sits and what levels of data will be able to be made available. You certainly won't get the answer to that here and it would probably be foolish to try to go into that one any further.

Before JSFfan jumps in with some more of his links and quotes from glossy brochures about how great the aircraft is and what is can do, this is not about what the system can do, it's what foreign users will be allowed to do. Sorry if it turns out not to be what you want it to be, but I'm sure you'll eventually find some tenuous link to an online document that refutes everything you don't like. Something for you to do when you're back from your paper round.

[eaglemmoomin]

You are right Mach2 it's a subject that does fascinate me. But it is what is.

I'll stop asking about that before I get the rozzers round and tea with no biscuits.

[JSFfan]

eaglem, I thought I was clear when I said
"although UK/AU have people embedded with the core system that stays inhouse, no nation gets the code of the core system and only UK/BAE had a real whinge about that"

Mach Two, RE ITAR, spaz's link should be clear enough for an overview

[LowObservable]

Some very interesting stuff emerges here, mostly above the comprehension level of the shills.

And the "walled garden" is defended by paranoid flying rottweilers...

[Mach Two]

Mach Two, RE ITAR, spaz's link should be clear enough for an overview

Thanks for trying to teach grandma to suck eggs. It's part of my job.

As you raise it, I'll demonstrate what I meant and what you have accidentally overlooked as it obviously doesn't live up to your wishes.



Certain combined military and counter-terrorism operations;
Certain cooperative security and defense research, development, production, and support programs;
Certain Mutually agreed security and defense projects where the end-user is the Government of the United Kingdom or the Government of Australia; or
Certain U.S. Government end-use.
Just so can see the way these are worded. You should pay more attention to your reading and writing classes.

[Courtney Mil]

You make your points as elequently as ever, Mach Two. But I do have to admit that you do make them and, sometimes, they are valid.

I've not heard much about the radar recently, does anyone have any open source on the progress there? I know about the cooling issue, but would be interested to know if that's the main issue. Again, maybe not something we can expect too much detail on here, but any unclass news from those in the know would be good to hear.

[APG63]

Not too much detail CM for obvious reasons. Some progress, but it's a train of events with loud echoes of the Eurofighter programme. I think it's safe to say that cooling is a publicly-known problem (A la Eurofighter in the early days) and the narrow band 'radome', which is there for good reasons, is limiting. But the bigger issues persist. There is a lot of good work going on and fingers are crossed.

Sorry if that's vague. Don't give up hope on the current fit, but equally don't hold your breath for upgrades. Do remember, it was never supposed to be air dominance.

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you. I see where you're coming from. We did overcome some of the problems on EF, but it's always a shame when the core design turns out to be the biggest issue; the problems that can be worked around, but not fixed. As you say, not air dominance, and I guess thet may be why that part of the system has never been simulated. We may have to wait a long time before we know what the real kill ratio is.

Fingers crossed for improvements.

[LowObservable]

APG63...

Do remember, it was never supposed to be air dominance.

But what about...

U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market. (emphasis added)

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

Please tell us that we are not being told porkies. That would be upsetting.

[Courtney Mil]

I'm sure he must be wrong then. Those F-22 guys must feel pretty silly now. :ok:

Mind you, that 6:1 kill ratio must have them worried. Remind me again what the F-15 kill ratio is?

[JSFfan]

It must be a conspiracy by the US and allied air forces in their quest for globalism


The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.

[Courtney Mil]

OK, go ahead and explain exactly what those two lines mean in aircrew terms and in in tactical terms.

[Mach Two]

Not a hope! How about explaining what the parameters were in that evaluation and, what the adversaries and weapons loads were and where the actual results of the trial were posted in the public domain.

Edited to add: Remember I was a part of the original trials.

[Courtney Mil]

Even more to the point, tell us what the

standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance


is exactly. Just something you read or something you actually know about?

Edited to add: Remember that simulation was my job for three years. Not as current on it as M2, but you'll have to deal with that.

[JSFfan]

It was a quote from LO's link that I thought you would like to see, from past experience here, opening links isn't a priority

[Courtney Mil]

No, JSFf, you're avoiding the questions. Have a stab at Posts 1744 - 1746. Some answers rather than your usual "ingore the bits that are too difficult or over your head".

[Mach Two]

I see, you were quoting someone else without really knowing what it means. Do you have any idea what any of this is about?

[JSFfan]

It's not too hard to get over my head and I haven't said otherwise.
I do take people like this seriously
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 20/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb 4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0000%22)
"Gary Liberson, who is on his right, has 22 years of experience as an operations analyst and research engineer with McDonnell Douglas, the RAND Corporation, and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. He has extensive experience with combat analysis, methodologies and analysis techniques. He is considered an expert in Brawler, Thunder, Suppressor, SeaFan and PacWar constructive simulation tools. His areas of expertise include combat aircraft systems and tactics as well as advanced threat analysis. "

[Courtney Mil]

That would be the same RAND corporation whose evaluation you recently rubbished, would it? The one that "dissed" the F-35, remember?

Not good enough. Let's try them one at a time. What is the "standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance"?

[JSFfan]

No, that would be the same RAND that said they had nothing to do with Stillion repsim apa clown club and co's rubbish, sticking a RAND logo on something doesn't make it RAND's

[Courtney Mil]

What is the "standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance"?

[JSFfan]

LO's link didn't say and I don't know..do I need to keep quoting this for you?
It's not too hard to get over my head and I haven't said otherwise.

[Courtney Mil]

OK, let's try another. Do you know what parameters were used in the trial and EXACTLY what the outcomes were? Be careful here because the science in these trials is very specific and easily misinterpreted, misunderstood or (worse) misused in the public forum for various reasons.

[JSFfan]

It's not too hard to get over my head and I haven't said otherwise.
??????????????????????

[Courtney Mil]

In that case, perhaps time to stop this incessant spouting of internet quotes that you clearly do not understand. It can still be a good debate, but please don't keep selectively quoting stuff that we can all see, but understand that it's just public domain stuff. There is way more to this than that AND people's lives will depend on the outcome. It's not just an internet hobby.

[JSFfan]

I'll wait patently till you and M2 decide to share your information with others in a forum way, instead of being pompous

[Courtney Mil]

It's not for sharing, kid.

[JSFfan]

I take nothing away from your past experience, but haven't you said you have nothing to do with the f-35 sims?

[Courtney Mil]

I have nothing to do with F-35 sim or any of the evaluation sims any more.

[SpazSinbad]

IF this long shot idea eventuates 'only F-35Bs for USN & USMC' (notwithstanding the many objections from the USN &/or others) what will this mean for the RN/RAF? I'll take it as read that the USN would likely prefer to have F-35Cs on their CVNS (with some help from USMC F-35Cs as agreed already). And what would be the likedly modifications to the F-35B to make them suitable for CVNs? The SRVL would be used I'll imagine but what else is required? Anyhooo....

Questions Remain Over Navy’s F-35 Interest 05 Apr 2013 by Bryant Jordan

Questions Remain Over Navy (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/05/questions-remain-over-navys-f35-interest.html)

"...The focus will return to the Navy's variant on April 10 at the Sea Air Space 2013 Symposium when Vice Adm. David Dunaway, the head of Naval Air Systems Command, leads a panel discussion on the future of the Joint Strike Fighter....

...as the Navy's F-35 program officials assess the Navy's future needs, defense analyst and author John Gresham says it's critical they ponder just how much they need the JSF variant....

..."If you have to kill [one model] which one would it be? It would have to be the carrier" version, he said.

Gresham says he is an advocate of the F-35, but believes the Navy can have a completely capable version by modifying [? why?] the B-model that is now being tested by the Marine Corps....

...If the Navy [USN] were to consider adapting the B-model to its fleet, it would not only quicken the pace of getting the planes into service, but also increase the size of the Navy's carrier fleet because many more ships could accommodate them.

"I'm not trying to second guess NavAir, or the Chief of Naval Operations or the Department of the Navy, but being a naval analyst/observer since the early '80s, I've seen quite a few aircraft come and go," he said. "And let's not kid ourselves -- this is going to be the last generation of manned fighters."

[JSFfan]

well those that do say from my link may have a point then
Air Cdre Bentley : If I can talk to simulations, and then Gary can—he probably talks best to simulations—I would say this. You can only truly represent what the F35 is capable of and what other fifth generation and other fourth generation aeroplanes are capable of when you have all of the classified information. Trying to simulate something that you do not fully understand is based on false assumptions and false ground rules. If you go in with false assumptions and false ground rules, you will get false answers.

[LowObservable]

"Parameters in the original evaluation" included the stipulation that all Red pilots had grocery bags over their heads. But don't pass it on because it's vewwy vewwy secret.

Spaz - Lamesauce story, sorry. CV Navy does not want STOVL on CVs because it is a huge complicating factor with no upside. And people who write stories should include who's paying the people they quote.

[peter we]

In other words, they’re about to buy another 12 F-15SGs as F-5 replacements and grow their fleet to 36, instead of buying 12 F-35Bs that won’t be useful until 2018 or later.

Singapore’s RSAF Decides to Fly Like An Eagle (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/singapores-rsaf-decides-to-fly-like-an-eagle-01141/#more-1141)

[oldmansquipper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=atdre1joRsY

:ok:

[SpazSinbad]

Despite dismissive comment from 'LowObservable' my question(s) stand on this - after all - 'what if' forum thread "F-35 Cancelled, then what ?" I would gather the IPP location being changed may be an issue for CVNs if the idea is taken up however this IPP already is OK for CVFs.

Yes it will be interesting to know who is being paid and for what however this is only an idea (without legs most likely) yet I'm interested in the practicality (good or bad) of this idea 'F-35Bs only on CVNs etc.). If there are no answers then OK - there will be no problem having F- 35Bs on CVNs.

[LowObservable]

To reiterate: Nobody in CVN world wants STOVL/CATOBAR mixed ops. Think for two seconds about this. What are the difficulties? The rewards? Dismissive? Yes, because the idea makes no sense.

[SpazSinbad]

This obviously old USMC AV-8A on USS F.D. R. in 1977 experience points to benefits nevertheless. There are other stories about it out there.

AV-8A Harrier Tests [onboard USS F.D.R. 1976-7]
　
http://ussfranklindroosevelt.com/?page_id=2264 (http://ussfranklindroosevelt.com/?page_id=2264)
　
"From June 1976 to April 1977, VMA-231 deployed with 14 AV-8As aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42). This deployment demonstrated that the Harrier could be completely integrated into normal CV air operations. Almost every conceivable takeoff & recovery option was flown: upwind, downwind, crosswind, and before, during, and after re-spots. The Harrier demonstrated not only that VSTOL operations could be conducted within the rigid framework of cyclic operations, but that because of VSTOL’s inherent flexibility, a carrier can launch & recover at any time and steam wherever desired while achieving a combat capability that does not exist when using only conventional aircraft. A STOVL jet is unrestrained by launch/recovery times & mission permitting, could fill in gaps created by the CV cycle. On 13 January 1977, two other Harriers made bow-on approaches and landing aboard the carrier, marking the first time a fixed wing aircraft had made a bow-on, downwind landing aboard a carrier at sea."
　
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/AV-8A_landing_USS_Roosevelt_1976.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/AV-8A_landing_USS_Roosevelt_1976.jpg)
_____________

Tailhook? We don't need no stinking tailhook... 24 Jul 2012 By Tommy H. Thomason
　
http://thanlont.********.com.au/2012/07/tailhook-we-dont-need-no-stinking.html (http://thanlont.********.com.au/2012/07/tailhook-we-dont-need-no-stinking.html)
　
IF ******** replaced by "'blagspat' - replace the 'a' with 'o'" link will work.

"...One very non-traditional Marine Corps squadron deployment took place on the last cruise of Roosevelt. VMA-231, flying AV-8A Harriers, was assigned to Carrier Air Wing 19 for its cruise in the Mediterranean from October 1976 to April 1977. Also aboard were two squadrons of F-4Ns and three of A-7Bs, along with detachments of E-1Bs (for the last deployment of this type), RF-8Gs, and SH-3Gs.
　
In the mid 1970s, the Navy was seriously evaluating a transition to V/STOL aircraft for all sea-based, manned, tactical air missions instead of building more big aircraft carriers equipped with catapults and arresting gear. In early 1976, the CNO briefed OSD on a tentative plan to do so. The assignment of VMA-231 to the Roosevelt’s air wing was intended to provide insight into the feasibility and benefits of a operating a V/STOL fighter/bomber at sea.
　
The Harrier had been in service with the Marine Corps since 1971 and had already been evaluated in an extended series of at-sea trials aboard, among others, the amphibious assault ship Guam (LPH-9) that was serving as an Interim Sea Control Ship. This resulted in the development of a corrosion control plan for an extended deployment among other operational procedures. However, there were still concerns about the Harrier’s maintenance requirements, hot exhaust, lack of endurance, etc.
　
VMA-231 worked up to the deployment via a series of mini-cruises aboard Franklin D. Roosevelt beginning in late June 1976. These established operating procedures and familiarized the ship’s company with the unique characteristics of the Harrier, like the downward-directed engine exhaust in VTOL mode.

V/STOL advocates considered the experiment a virtually unqualified success. Complying with standard carrier cyclic operations (90-minute flight period for the conventional takeoff and landing airplanes) proved to be unnecessary since the Harriers could land in any open space during a launch/land cycle. Benefits demonstrated early on included no time or crew required to hook up to the catapult for takeoff, virtually no waveoffs (and zero bolters), and the ability to back into a designated parking space. The Harriers could also land with the ship steaming out of the wind in conditions that precluded the operation of its conventional airplanes.
　
Rolling takeoffs were a bit more problematical in some wind over deck conditions but a vertical takeoff was almost always possible. Flight time, however, was limited to 20 minutes by the reduction in fuel required.
　
Over 2,000 sorties and landings, 15% at night, were accomplished by VMA-231 during the deployment. There were no aircrew or aircraft losses, a non-trivial accomplishment given the accident rate of carrier operations. The promise of V/STOL seemed to have been clearly demonstrated and V/STOL aircraft welcome aboard."

U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings October 1977 [USS F.D.R. deck plan graphic]
http://2.bp.********.com/-SUQNES5a0vA/UA7pvhQV7RI/AAAAAAAACOo/rHOHwD2zpeE/s1600/Roosevelt+Spots+Cropped.jpg (http://2.bp.********.com/-SUQNES5a0vA/UA7pvhQV7RI/AAAAAAAACOo/rHOHwD2zpeE/s1600/Roosevelt+Spots+Cropped.jpg)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/RooseveltSpotsCroppedEDsm.gif:original

[ORAC]

Trying to simulate something that you do not fully understand is based on false assumptions and false ground rules. If you go in with false assumptions and false ground rules, you will get false answers. All models are wrong, but some are useful

[Finnpog]

@SpazSinbad - Have I read that correctly? Ditch the C entirely as opposed to an idea to amalgamate the Catapult launch bits of the C bird (front undercarriage and strengthening to the fuse ec) into the B and then binning the C entirely?

I suppose that the only real reason for the C is out of doctrine or habit. Enough folk have pointed the different fuel landing states out as 'balancing' those Top Trump style statistics.

I can imagine how a Franken-Dave option would mean that it could launch from ski-jumps, cat carriers (at higher take off weights) or flat top Amphibs and also land back on anything. It would take out that dangerous arrestor gear landing malarky as well.

I suppose it could also mean that a cat carrier could launch jets (sorry, outrageous Bridges at Toko-Ri reference) even if it's cats have gone Tango Uniform.

That seems way too much like common sense to ever be achieveable plus there would surely be some weight penalty.

Perhaps just killing the C is more sensible.
It would also crush the various B or C /// CVF threads dead.

Edit for poor spooling and tie-pin.

[SpazSinbad]

'Finnpog': As I recall there was no 'modification to the B' mentioned in the article - hence my curiosity just what that might mean (modify the B to make it acceptable on the CVN). Perhaps the text should have read 'modify the CVN' for the B. And yes the idea was to ditch the C completely in favour of USN operating Bs and yes an all B USMC. Does seem a far fetched idea though.

[Finnpog]

Sorry SS - I think that I was making a leap of creativity after reading your link.
The flaw in the plan was having three versions, as opposed to one version used by all.

I was obviously having a brain-fart and was re-imagining the concept.

[Courtney Mil]

Carrier ops is not my field, so the article raises a few questions that I hope some here might be able to clarify for me.

My first is about the statement

The F-35C is designed with more stealth capability, Gresham said, and that means more maintenance hours between missions. The fact the plane will be living "out in salt water 24/7 for most of its life" will also mean longer maintenance times unique to that version.

I can see haw the C model spending its life at sea will incur a maintenance penalty, but if you ditch the C and keep the Bs at sea for their whole life instead, why does the same not apply to them? Or does he mean they won't keep the Bs embarked, in which case surely that's a reduction in capability/readiness?

Second one,

Gresham says he is an advocate of the F-35, but believes the Navy can have a completely capable version by modifying the B-model that is now being tested by the Marine Corps.

Do the differences in range and payload between the two models really make the B as useful (capable, in his words) as the C? I also have to ask, 'what modifications' and would that mean all the B models have a changed design (would that suit the RN, for example) or would we then be talking about two standards of the B model?

Maybe too many questions for one post, but just pick the one(s) you want to comment on.

[glad rag]

Indeed, money makes the [Litening l l ] world go round!!

[SpazSinbad]

It seems the author of the article perhaps has misquoted Gresham. Because as 'Courtney Mil' points out there are some odd statements attributed to Gresham. My question was about 'what modifications would be required to the F-35B to operate from CVNs?' I'm baffled.

Otherwise the sea going aircraft are the same as the A model in most respects; except for the obvious well known model differences. The A shares the same engine as the C. Any salt protection will be the same - same same stealth. Stealth designed for the ocean environment so the A model benefits also.

Perhaps Gresham said some sensible things which have been muddled by Jordan. I was not concerned about the muddle - just the curious statement about 'modifications to the B etc.' Perhaps the whole article is too muddled to bother much about. And I think Gresham has probably said that the CVN will need some modifications to operate the F-35B which is the case with the LHAs.

[eaglemmoomin]

CM fairly sure both B and C models have been treated for life at sea I remember reading something about the composite shell's being intended to provide better resistance to saltwater rather than having to be painted on and messing with the RAM.

Can't say I know either but from I've read I don't expect anyone actually knows what the range penalty really works out to be apart from comparing the headline figures. The C has additional requirements for fuel remaining on returning to the carrier while in theory the B could return with several minutes of fuel remaining and still land in higher sea states than the C model (whether it ever would is another question). I saw somewhere that it's ferry range is close to 1000nm and combat range is 450 to 460nm (I doubt anything apart from the range is in the public domain).