F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[WhiteOvies]

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

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

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

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Originally Posted by dat581

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

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

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

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by WhiteOvies

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

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

[JSFfan]

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

[Courtney Mil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that explains.

[Mach Two]

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

[Courtney Mil]

Ooh look. A squirrel.

[Stuffy]

Objectivity does not sit well amongst huge corporate budgets.

[JSFfan]

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


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

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

I'll put up a link, but I don't recognise the mission or loads that he is associating to it and I think he may have mixed them up
F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed

[ORAC]

. Had it not been for people being willing to stand up and question the integrity of the process, they would have even worse than they were.

The Tornado could have been worse than the F2 with Blue Circle radar and engines which needed changing every 70 hours?

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

[Lonewolf_50]

Understand this. The F-35 design principles are very heavily reliant upon a lot (no, a LOT) of complex, immature, expensive and (in some respects) delicate technologies.

The same challenges and risks presented themselves to the Comanche program, with some bleeding edge tech, and some significant software challenges, none of which were mature. A variety of things led to that program being cancelled, but cost was a significant factor. Even in the mid 1990's, upper level officials (in an era of austere budget, Clinton era) seriously considered killing Comanche and funding other programs. It took another half a decade for the axe to actually fall.

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

[JSFfan]

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

[henra]

Originally Posted by JSFfan

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

If it weren't for the

Originally Posted by JSFfan

63 sec and 4.6 in test flight,

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

[SpazSinbad]

The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change: Part 3

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

The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change: Part 3 by SMSgt Mac 26 May 2013

http://elementsofpower.blagspat.com....g-spec_26.html

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz,

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

Henra,

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

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

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

[SpazSinbad]

Shopping List?

[henra]

Originally Posted by SpazSinbad

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

The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change: Part 3 by SMSgt Mac 26 May 2013

http://elementsofpower.blagspat.com....g-spec_26.html

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

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

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

[SpazSinbad]

Japan MAY Purchase F-35Bs in Future?

More potential for F-35Bs to be purchased?

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

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

“They’re important,” he said....

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

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

Japan Plans More Aggressive Defense | Defense News | defensenews.com
_____________________

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

[JSFfan]

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

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

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

You Tube

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

[GreenKnight121]

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

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