Which will make the best JSF?

[Decision Altitude]

Just wondering what the concensus is:

1) Lockheed X-35 or Boeing X-32??

2) Are we doing the right thing?

3) Will it be better than Harrier?

4) Should we favour STOVL?

Thanks for any input,

DA

[chiglet]

P1154 or perhaps
TSR2

[massingbird]

I suggest a re-lifed VC10 but with noisier engines. And an extra navigator.

[Decision Altitude]

Far be it from me to respond to "harmless banter" but I was actually looking for a sensible answer, it is of current affair related interest for those of us going to OASC, but hey, never mind eh?

Cheers anyway, it was worth a go.

DA

[slim boy fat]

Sensible answer?

Don`t ask boring questions!

[Jackonicko]

You ask unanswerable questions, to which the only real answer can be 'It's simply too early to tell'. There isn't sufficient information to make an informed judgement, so you are unlikely to obtain a consensus.

1) Lockheed or Boeing?

Remember that long before the winner is chosen, you need to ask if a production JSF will happen at all. The entire programme may yet be binned by the Bush administration, since it's not a priority to any of its domestic customers -except the Marines, who don't count. The Navy don't need it, cos they've got F/A-18E/F, the USAF don't want it if it threatens the F-22 or even the B-2C, and who may even prefer to try to reverse the proposed retirement of the B-1B.

Which aircraft will win remains to be seen. Suffice it to say that cost effectiveness and price will be more important than which aircraft is 'best', and political considerations will be even more significant.Then you need to ask yourself who will most need the work? Lockmart or Boing!? Ask yourself which company has the most clout and which has the support of the most influential senators? There's no easy answer unless you're a very well-informed Pentagon-watcher, but those are at least the questions!

Personally I'd hope that the Lockheed aeroplane wins, 'cos it 'looks right', whereas the Boeing X-32 looks horrid - and got worse-looking when they went from tailless Delta to tailed configuration.

2) Are we doing the right thing?

Tied up with the other questions. If we need a 'Harrier Carrier' then yes, a STOVL JSF is the only realistic option. But is purchase of JSF the right thing for the RAF? Is it even the right thing (long-term) for UK plc (I know that BWoS have bought into the programme, but with no guarantees of workshare)?

The aircraft is stealthy, but lacks payload, and has been very much designed to cost. In many respects the aircraft might be less attractive than a stealthy intaked 'Block 70' F-16, or even the proposed 'Super Gripen' - especially if the only variant available is the USAF CTOL version.

3) Will it be better than Harrier?

Great efforts have been made to make it easier to fly than Harrier, so that the present training penalty will be lost, and so that 'lesser mortals' should be able to operate it safely. The buzz-words being used are all about 'inceptors' - the number of separate controllers required to achieve VTOL.

It will be stealthier than a Harrier and more modern. An aircraft designed and flown now is bound to be 'better' than one designed in the 1960s. But does it mark such a massive technological leap forward?

4) Should we go down the STOVL road?

JSF's only unique selling point is that it will be available in a STOVL version - unless that variant (for the USMC and RAF/RN only) isn't cancelled.

That version looks extremely vulnerable to US budgetary cuts and we cannot keep it alive alone.

In a perfect world, STOVL is great, not least cos it's easier, safer, blah blah to stop and then land, than to land and then stop. But in the real world, STOVL still imposes a variety of penalties - fat fuselages, the dead-weight of jet lift systems, complexity, cost, etc.

The STOVL version of JSF is perhaps of limited relevance except in allowing a slightly smaller carrier. I'm not sure that the old Cold War Harrier force 'operating from Supermarket car parks' scenario is all that relevant today. And if we end up with a big STOBAR carrier then other alternatives offer themselves for consideration - including a marinised Eurofighter, F/A-18E/F, etc. And if we don't proceed with a carrier at all, then we don't need JSF, we just need a Tornado F3/Jag replacement (Eurofighter) and a Tornado GR4 replacement (FOAS - which could also be an EF derivative, though it could equally be a JSF variant). But see previous threads on the relevance/need of/for a carrier, and about the FOAS debate.

[sprucemoose]

Jacko:

Lockheed's aircraft might "look right", but I think it's about time that the US acquired another butt-ugly aircraft - the F-16, F-15, B-1B, B-2 and others are all very nice to look at, while things like the A-10 look much more business-like! Or is the idea to get the enemy to stand there saying "Ooohh, pretty!" while you bomb the pants off him?

Long live the X-32's basking shark design!

And now for the serious response:

If (and it could well be a big if) the programme does go ahead, the best version will be the one that the US services introduce - whatever anyone tells you, no-one else's aircraft will have all the bells, whistles and necessary weapons to match them.

[massingbird]

Well excuuuse me! I forgot for a moment that we have to give serious answers when the wannabes demand them.

You're right though. Perhaps with 2 extra navigators.

[Decision Altitude]

Slim Boy Fat,
I don't consider the question to be boring in the slightest. Maybe I worded it in a way which didn't seem interesting enough. This is after all a military FORUM, by definition a place to discuss military matters, of which this is undoubtedly one. Finally, if it was so boring, why waste your time responding to it ?

Massingbird.
This has got nothing to do with a "wannabee" demanding an answer, I was merely wishing to begin a discussion about a current, relevant (to me) topic. An appearance at Cranwell looming, this was an attempt by me to grasp a feeling for a forthcoming (or not, we will see) project from the men and women who will ultimately operate it.

Jackonicko
Apologies, I didn't realise this was an unanswerable question. Your post is exactly how I envisaged the thread to run; opinions and discussion of a future defence issue, thanks.

Spruce
Same applies, thanks for the input.

I'm no doubt going to be flamed for this, I'm really not bothered, I only thought this would be the perfect place to ask the question.

DA
Nomex donned

[Red Snow]

Good on ya', DA

Concur with much of the above, but its worth noting that the US usually choose a low-risk design (X-35) against a high-risk (X-32) design in these competitions. Ergo, if the X-32 design works, it should be better.

HOWEVER, and I think why Jacko says its an unanswerable question, is that the final decision rests on a whole raft of factors which are nothing to do with how the X-32 and X-35 fly during their tests. What may be best in the air may not necessarily be chosen.

It's also worth pointing out that the JSF designs don't offer any significant improvement over F-16/F-18 in terms of performance/manoeuvrability, although the range is supposed to be a lot better. The real advance (ignoring STOVL for the time being) is in the systems, which (if they work) are truly astounding - at least a full generation beyond Eurofighter and F-22.

Good luck at Cranwell!

[Decision Altitude]

Red Snow,

Cheers mate. Interesting stuff, the more, the merrier.

Regards

DA

[Sadbloke]

Having flown US ac in RAF service, US ac on exchange and Brit ac in Brit service - go with whatever Uncle Sam gets and ensure you receive the same software updates that Uncle Sam decides is necessary in his whizzofighter (Canadian F18's lagging far behind their US/Australian equivalents having opted to 'do their own software updates') If you can build the whizzofighter in the UK and Brit PLC benefits - all the better. In my limited experience, the Brit/Euro designed jet will need a hundred mods/operational clearances once the balloon goes up - Uncle Sam's jets will simply strap on some weapons and go. No choice here - hang on to Uncle Sam's coat tails! We got in on the ground floor - ergo have a 'say' in development (UK TP's flying the prototypes) - lets stay in and buy some!

[massingbird]

+3 navs, but that's my final offer.

[slim boy fat]

DA

Aren`t you the smart a*se! This is a RUMOUR site for PROFESSIONAL military aircrew, which is why I read it.

I wasted my time answering `cos you wasted my time by posting this thread.

Why don`t you open a military current affairs network for over-zealous OASC applicants
-or something.

[Decision Altitude]

I am not saying anything.....Ill leave it up to others to decide what sort of a person you have just made yourself look like..........

[St Johns Wort]

DA....good call, if you dont ask the question you wont get an answer...keep asking! :)

Massingbird...You've got a deal mate. Could you use the navs on SH first? :)

[DelMar]

Why all the hassle?

This site is an INVALUABLE resource for many future RAF Officers, and without it I, as well as many others wouldn't have been successful at OASC.

Candidates who have the initiative to use this resource should be encouraged by all RAF personnel - WE ARE THE FUTURE!!

I'm sure I speak for all us wannabies when I say thank you to all the people who continue to offer information, advice and support.

[Low and Slow]

Just a few points that the great and good always seem to miss when talking about JSF.

1. Low cost, low risk designs are the absolute future of military aircraft. The super threats are not out there and are unlikely to be for the foreseeable future. Air power is always going to be in a near Asymmetric warfare environment, unless we go to war with Israel, India, or the US. Even then only the Israeli's would worry me.

2. The idea that low cost low risk is bad, is a TOTAL MYTH. You can develop highly effective modern combat aircraft for half what the JSF program cost.

3. The JSF is an A-6 INTRUDER replacement. Pure and simple. It's had a few wizzies and bangs added but that's basically it. JSF will carry a 13-16K payload, compared to the 14K of the A-6. It has a greater radius of action and can bring back a higher percentage of its payload. Its about the same size, Its got the same role, Its faster, Its stealthy, etc, etc.

Now personally speaking, I believe the RAF should be a lead customer, along with the RN, BOTH BUYING THE SAME MODEL. Eg. The CVTOL version.

It would also be good if we could shoe horn as much EFA Buffoon avionics into UK JSF as possible and bin all the Spam avionics (except possibly the radar)

Just an opinion.


[This message has been edited by Low and Slow (edited 16 May 2001).]

[Nick Mahon]

Delmar, I totally agree. This is an extremely useful source of information for us wannabes, and when seeing wannabes asking relevant questions, 9 times out of 10 they are helped tremendously by serving aircrew from all three services. I personally am grateful for those who have!!!

What isn't needed is people like slim boy fat who wasted THEIR OWN time posting negative threads which are of no use to anyone.

I would have thought that most serving aircrew would like to discuss the new kit that will be coming in to service in the near future.

On a lighter note - DA, good luck at OASC matey!!!

[This message has been edited by Nick Mahon (edited 16 May 2001).]

[Red Snow]

L&S
Interesting opinions - not quite sure about the A-6 analogy, though, but then there would be a single v two-seat argument again.

I would also take issue with the development cost of JSF - yes, it's big, but spread over 3000+ aircraft its very very low, and so is the unit and through-life cost.

Why Eurofighter avionics? Do you not want look-through-the-floor infra-red? Or fuzed offboard sensor information? Or display screens as big as your telly? Or AESA radar that jams/receives passively as well? etc etc?

[John Farley]

DA

Red Snow made the point that the X-32 B is a higher risk concept than the X-35 B But perhaps a little extra gen might help you at OASC (and there you had better care about JSF whatever you say here)

The Boeing aircraft is pure jet lift which means all the engine power is available in combat – good point.

The Lockheed aeroplane uses a fan to hold the front up which cannot be used in combat (no way to get the air round the corner and into it a significant forward speeds) – bad point.

The Boeing aircraft has got to succeed in keeping the hot jet lift out of the intake at very low speeds – difficult, yes they have a cool jet screen but it has yet to be proved to cut the mustard full scale – bad point.

The Lockheed fan is very efficient in the hover and produces a lot of lift and is going to do a good job in stopping the rear hot air coming forward – good point

That is one for and one against each. So now you have something to talk about.

Good luck

JF

[Jackonicko]

But, Lord Farley of Harrier Hall neglects to mention that these opposing concepts will be irrelevant when the CTOL version is the only one procured!

We have plenty of examples of reasons to distrust UK avionics systems, but we should be cautious about expecting every US platform to be as successful as the F-16. This is, after all, the nation that brought us the world's first self-jamming bomber (B-1B), the ARGGH-64, and others.

And why we should assume that the production JSF (whose price is pegged so low) will have avionics two generations ahead of even the F-16/60, let alone EF is beyond me. This will be cheap and cheerful.

[John Farley]

Relax Jacko I was just trying to help a young lad

[Low and Slow]

Red Snow. I agree that JSF is cheap/cost effective. That is exactly my point, but I believe you could get 90% of the capability for even less of the cost.

I could talk about the A-6 concept at length but I'd become boring. You rightly note, that the JSF is Single engine and single seat, but don't get me started! :)

[Red Snow]

OK, JN. Fair(ish) point about avionics, but only IF they don't work. That's the only assumption I was making. The DESIGN capabilities have been widely broadcast and are very impressive, and beyond those of EF or even F-22. Remember that another 10 years of development are in the JSF suite, which has not only resulted in more capability but has made everything a lot cheaper.

The way I see it the biggest problem (assuming the whole thing goes ahead which is the biggest assumption of all) for the US is releasing all this funky kit for export (UK excepted). It would be all too easy to downgrade for export, but it will have massive ramifications when it comes to Allied Force-style multinational ops.

[grodge]

I've been watching the JSF programme very closely for over 4 years, some of that time in a professional capacity. Thought you guys might find some other angles interesting. Jackonicko, bear these in mind.

I hear a lot of fears that the programme will be cancelled. I think not. Why?

Point 1: If they cancel the programme, what else have the US got to build and export? F-16s? F-15s? F/A-18E/F? All these now getting close to or past sell by date and vulnerable to Ef or Rafale.

Point 2: The USN will build E/Fs until the JSF is ready. That's the Congressionally approved position.

Point 3: The USAF would LOVE to have the F-22s, but it's my bet that they'll struggle to build more than 100. The GAO website (www.gao.gov) has some illuminating reports on the programme, which has cost increases that make BAES look like saints!

Point 4: The USMC want it. Jackonicko, they DO count, and in spades. Their clout is enormous, but they'll use it once they get the V-22 back truly safe. Don't count them out.

Now some technical stuff (and I have to be a bit circumspect). The aircraft (both Boeing and LM) are carrying out an experimental programme that is just stunning. Their flying rates and test achievments are the result of a very rapid and affordable ($8bn to date) RISK REDUCTION programme. Why. it's almost 'smart procurement'! The technology they have lined up for full development is quite awesome, but already tested. AESA is a good example: air tested, going into F-15s and F/A-18, by the time we get it it will have around 9 years in service.

Carrier debate: STOBAR is dead, and was never alive. Navalised EF was always a dead duck, and the choice is now CV or STOVL. A tough one to call, but it's well known that STOVL allows smaller carriers. Smaller carriers will cost less, and a programme that has a bit more financial headroom has to be attractive these days. But as I say, a very tough call.

Finally, JSF against current aircraft? No contest, this will be an exceptional strike fighter. Tons of power, stealth, good payload and above all AFFORDABLE and AVAILABLE. As the Yanks say, 'what's not to like?'

I'll be accused of swallowing US propaganda. Could be so, but there are some very impressive facts out there.

[Low and Slow]

Grodge.

CV verus STOVL. Question: Could the STOVL JSF be catapult and hook capable.
Might make a big difference if it was.

The Big difference would be flexibility. It can't be that much of a technical or conceptual challenge. I know this sounds very mad, but give it a second or twos thought.


[This message has been edited by Low and Slow (edited 17 May 2001).]

[grodge]

Low and slow, basic answer is, in my opinion, no. To make an aircraft capable of being hauled off the deck at 140kts by its nostrils, then hauled out of the sky at 130 kts by its rear end demands BIG BONES to take the stresses. You also need bigger wings and tails to get the approach speeds you need, plus the launch peformance. Both the LM and Boeing CV designs are the least common of the three variants.

STOVL actually has its own answer. Ramp for launch gives most STOVL designs a HUGE advantage for low cost. The ski jump is the nearest I've ver seen to something for nothing. For recovery, rolling vertical landings are an option that might already be being looked at.

[Red Snow]

Grodge
When you say the Boeing CV has the least commonality of the three, do you mean structurally? Certainly from an aerodynamic point of view the STOVL is the odd one out in the Boeing lineup. At last count it was also a few inches shorter than the other two!

[Decision Altitude]

Firstly let me say thanks to all of you who have taken the time to reply to the thread. Its certainly turned into an intersting discussion.........IMHO !.

As a defense "hot potato" of the day, it most certainly is relevant, especially to those of us who may (or may not) encounter it at a Cranwell board.

Im not going to dwell on whats already been said, I think the posts have spoken for themselves. It is interesting to note however, that one person who considers himself to be a "professional", a Military Pilot by profile would lower himself to be so derogatory to those of us who aspire to join him, how elitest can one person be?

On a more positive note, thanks once again and long may the discussion continue, lets not be put off from asking questions, its nice to know there are some professionals who are happy to relay an opinion without slumping to holier than though remarks.

Thanks to you all, regards

Decision Altitude

PS Esp Del Mar and Nick, best wishes guys.

[ChristopherRobin]

My 2-cents' worth is that the Lockheed aircraft may have certain advantages that put it ahead.

Although as John Farley says, the "Lockheed aeroplane uses a fan to hold the front up which cannot be used in combat" and that power cannot be used to augment forward speed, it is a clutched fan so presumably when it's de-clutched all the compressor power is available to the main engine itself (although I do concede the fan then becomes dead weight)

The Boeing aircraft also has a complicated array of ducts similar to the harrier to balance it in hover, whereas the lockheed jet has a simpler system.

Just some thoughts from someone who is an interested helo pilot. Final thing for me though is this:

If you were to go to war in a fighter, would you want it to come from the stable that produced the F-117, the SR-71, the F-105 (and reverse engineers all the alien spacecraft at area-51 - don't think I don't know!)....or would you want it to come from a company that specialises in very comfortable airliners?

...oh and the Lockheed plane does look good, doesn't it Jack?

------------------
Christopher Robin

[John Farley]

ChristopherRobin

Thanks for pointing that out. Bit too much short hand on my part. I should have said something like “can’t vector/use all it’s installed thrust so effectively in combat”

In other words like the VIFF (vectoring in forward flight) that the USMC invented with the Harrier. In the right hands VIFFing has really made a difference in ACM training. I don’t believe it has ever been used in actual combat. Although the threat of its use (in the Falklands for example) may, I repeat only may, have made some Argentinian pilots less inclined to mix it. Sensible fighter pilots usually avoid doing manoeuvres that would play to any specific strengths that their enemies are known to possess. (eg a Lightning would never mix it slow and tight with a Hunter, but would only carry out high speed slashing passes)

The version of the common engine used in the Lockheed aircraft clearly has some limited “turboprop like” running characteristics when it is powering the fan.
(ie higher power extraction from the turbines than is necessary to just turn the LP and HP compressors) Whether the necessary provision of that capability in any way effects the up and away reheated turbo fan type engine (even when the clutch is disconnected) compared to the engine used in the Boeing aeroplane I am not privy to. And if I was I guess I would not be able to tell you, at least not without killing you afterwards.

JF

[Jackonicko]

My perception may be skewed by the belief that three separate JSF variants will not enter service, and that the first to die woill be the expensive, difficult one wanted only by the USMC (who cares?) and RN (ditto).

[Roc]

Christofer Robin,

Two corrections, Lockheed built the F-104, not the 105, and since Boeing bought out McDonnell Douglas a few years ago, Boeing has all the engineering talents of the builders of the F-4 Phantom, F-15, and F-18 hardly comfortable jet-liners.

[ChristopherRobin]

Of course Roc, how silly of me. But I bet I get more girls than you do.


------------------
Christopher Robin

[ChristopherRobin]

JF - I see what you mean, but as the Lockheed aircraft has a vectored tail pipe will this not mean that manoevrability will still be considerable in ACM? (Although possibly not as much as something capable of VIFF)?



------------------
Christopher Robin

[grodge]

Catching up on a few replies.

While Boeing seem to have got a more 'common' design than Lockheed, the structural bits required to take CV launches and recoveries will be substantial, if below the skin.

Jackonico, interested in yr belief that the STOVL will go first, and why. The point is that the USMC has considerable clout 'over there'. From my reading of the defence reviews going on, the US appear to be polarising to long range air power (possibly B-2s), or expeditionary forces at the other end, for the 'early intervention' stuff. The STOVL aircraft and the CV both look Ok in this scenario. The USAF are struggling to afford the F-22, and I believe that the JSF is in fairly good shape. The discussion to watch is the US Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) that will take place over the next few months.

JF, nice to swap chat again. It will be interesting to see how the two designs stack up, but just from the JSF page, it appears to me that the Boeing direct lift system is certainly no more complex than the Lockheed's shaft and clutch, plus other systems required. I believe that the Boeing can vector in flight (useful for some points of the manoevre envelope, possibly), while Lockheed's tail pipe will probably be fixed in forward flight.

This is a good thread, on an important topic.

[West Coast]

Must agree with Grodge, anyone who is familier with Washington politics knows how influential the Marines are there. Suprised someone like Jacko believes otherwise.

[CleanScope]

Hell, I'm only a pilot, what would I know!?

Errr, the "Sailor Inhalor" or a baby F22, Hmmmm, tough one.....NOT.

If it looks good......

Scope

PS: Harrier, point in case!

[John Farley]

CR

By now you will have noticed Grodge's remark re use of the main nozzle in forward flight.

JF

[Jackonicko]

Being forced to give up their low-houred -18Cs, struggling to find funds for AV-8B remanufacturing, etc. etc. etc. Hmmm. The sure signs of an influential service?

[Roland Pullfrew]

Here is a much cheaper solution and would get the SHAR replacement in twice as quick.

Licence build two Charles de Gaulle carriers in Britain. This would give a much needed boost to the ship yards, also most of the cost of a new ship is Research and development and as one of these vessels is already at sea this would mean huge savings.
The downside would be the French!!! Politics and all that.

The F-18E/F is a vast improvement on the older C/D model, although not as advanced as the JSF, it would more than meet our needs. OK its not STOVL but who needs it anyway. Also the RAF would no longer be required to go to sea. :)

[West Coast]

Which service lost the least during downsizing, which service has pushed the Osprey as far as it has today despite all its problems?(amazing considering Cheney, the then master of the puzzle palace and now veep tried to kill it, his words to the Marine Corps, "o.k., just dont jam it down my throat") The F18 program was NEVER a favorite of the Marine Corps past the late 80's. Yes, the Corps does live in the reality of finite budgets, both in blue and green dollars, all things considered, they have done quite well.

[grodge]

For Roland:

Licence build two CDGs? Probably not, when the French can't even afford one!

The CDG design is, in the opinion of many, badly flawed. The French used two submarine nuclear plants to cut costs instaed of the one big one they should have developed. As a result the ship is thought to be slow and short of space.

It's really too small at around 40,000 tonnes to be a decent CV carrier, and would have REAL trouble handling the E/F EFFECTIVELY (ie at max weights).

E/F is not a bad bird, but the costs to get a relatively small improvement in performance over the C/D have been HUGE. The USN have done very well to keep it going, but have hammered their other aviation prgrammes to do so.

Finally, the whole POINT is to get the RAF to sea, when it's the right thing to do. They are the best strike pilots in the world: put them in JSFs on the CVF and the UK moves to the VERY FRONT of the world 'kick ass' queue. The whole reason we (and by we I mean the RAF and the RN) are getting the JSF is because of the CVF. 'Joint' can actually work for us all.

[Roc]

Christopherr Robin,

You may be right, I'm sure you do get more "girls" than I do, I prefer women!!!!!