F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry Spaz
I couldn't quite work out why, on the one hand he was criticising you for posting mostly positive articles on the F-35, and then, on the other was criticising the article you posted... I mean, what would a RADM 'Navy’s director of air warfare' know anyway...???
As you said, the negative side of the argument has been well catered for here in these pages, although perhaps not as much as it used to be... could that be because there is more positive news coming out of the program these days.
Yeah LO, I know...."at last...", "...it's about time..." n'all that! I'm sure you and your cadre will conjure up more negatives in the new year...I hear they have a long (but ever shrinking) list!
I couldn't quite work out why, on the one hand he was criticising you for posting mostly positive articles on the F-35, and then, on the other was criticising the article you posted... I mean, what would a RADM 'Navy’s director of air warfare' know anyway...???
As you said, the negative side of the argument has been well catered for here in these pages, although perhaps not as much as it used to be... could that be because there is more positive news coming out of the program these days.
Yeah LO, I know...."at last...", "...it's about time..." n'all that! I'm sure you and your cadre will conjure up more negatives in the new year...I hear they have a long (but ever shrinking) list!
As you said, the negative side of the argument has been well catered for here in these pages, although perhaps not as much as it used to be... could that be because there is more positive news coming out of the program these days.
I think also many people have forgotten that the OP was about the F35B in particular !
I have not changed my views on the F35B at all - I still think it is a very bad design,and also we will end up with a 'wastospace' carrier that is big enough for 'real' aircraft but is going to be limited by the vstol/ski jump cul de sac - a missed chance !
I did laugh when wastospace put in the horrendous price for converting them to be 'real' carriers and also was bemused by the fact that people still believed that the ski jump carrier would be completed at the original price
Once again wastospace win and our forces end up with a bad 'Rolls Royce' solution that we cannot afford anyway - I say good luck to the poor technicians who will have to service them - but at least they will not have to do any heavy maintenance on them because wastospace will have that sewn up as well
Last edited by longer ron; 1st Jan 2014 at 17:55. Reason: adding 'will'
I think it is just awesomely fantabulous news that (according to a reporter who's been quite solid lately on Navair news) the Navy director of air warfare is talking about
when it enters the U.S. Navy’s arsenal in large numbers in the 2030s.
OK, that might just be a typo. On the other hand, Manazir goes on to explain that the Navy has a specific role for the F-35, as an armed ISR platform; and that, having already told the JSFPO where to stuff the Block 3I compromise, the Navy now sees a long-range, LPI/LPD datalink, not yet defined, let alone included in Block 3F, as essential.
Also, the talk about "datalink modifications" suggests that just strapping a gateway like NGC's JetPack on to a Hawkeye is not the solution the Navy's looking for, nor is the MADL daisy-chain approach.
Oh and PS - the fankiddies were perfectly ready to dump all over Majumdar when he wrote about the F-35B's (and by extensio, the A's) super
ingawesome supersonic performance...
An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards.
when it enters the U.S. Navy’s arsenal in large numbers in the 2030s.
OK, that might just be a typo. On the other hand, Manazir goes on to explain that the Navy has a specific role for the F-35, as an armed ISR platform; and that, having already told the JSFPO where to stuff the Block 3I compromise, the Navy now sees a long-range, LPI/LPD datalink, not yet defined, let alone included in Block 3F, as essential.
Also, the talk about "datalink modifications" suggests that just strapping a gateway like NGC's JetPack on to a Hawkeye is not the solution the Navy's looking for, nor is the MADL daisy-chain approach.
Oh and PS - the fankiddies were perfectly ready to dump all over Majumdar when he wrote about the F-35B's (and by extensio, the A's) super
ingawesome supersonic performance...An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Interestingly this last sentence was omitted from the Majumdar paragraph quoted by 'LO' above:
F-35B sea-trials aboard the USS Wasp 30 Aug 2013 Dave Majumdar
F-35B sea-trials aboard the USS Wasp - The DEW Line
F-35B sea-trials aboard the USS Wasp 30 Aug 2013 Dave Majumdar
"....The kinematics are basically F/A-18C-like, though that was apparently exactly what was expected."
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daisy-chaining MADL is a poor way to network critical data. One plane/node out of position/destroyed, and there goes your net - not to mention a waste of limited F-35C platforms. Satcom will probably be an interim solution for the 2020's, however hobbled by latency and bandwidth. No doubt by the 2030s, there will be a new datalink / waveform, though not limited to F-35Cs - probably retrofitted to most tacair platforms like UCLASS, Growlers, and SH as well as E-2s, P-8s, Triton, etc.
Last edited by Maus92; 2nd Jan 2014 at 14:31.
SS - Specifics>Generalities
Maus - I agree. Staying LPI/LPD while remaining timely, responsive and reliable is a challenge in a flight-of-four scenario and starts to get much more interesting beyond that. Discussions that I have heard suggest that stealth operators so far are wary of committing to anything that tries to go outside the "red bubble".
Meanwhile, both the Russians and Chinese are working very hard on TDOA intercept systems that can also function as passive radar, while ERA - who made the Vera back in the WarPac days - is still very much alive, paying the bills with commercial ATC systems and improving its defense products.
As for Satcoms - it's been hard enough to do LPI/LPD, high-bandwidth, two-way satcoms on the B-2 so far...
Maus - I agree. Staying LPI/LPD while remaining timely, responsive and reliable is a challenge in a flight-of-four scenario and starts to get much more interesting beyond that. Discussions that I have heard suggest that stealth operators so far are wary of committing to anything that tries to go outside the "red bubble".
Meanwhile, both the Russians and Chinese are working very hard on TDOA intercept systems that can also function as passive radar, while ERA - who made the Vera back in the WarPac days - is still very much alive, paying the bills with commercial ATC systems and improving its defense products.
As for Satcoms - it's been hard enough to do LPI/LPD, high-bandwidth, two-way satcoms on the B-2 so far...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Rutowski 'in the Corridor or otherwise' Explanation Please - Thanks 'LO'
Perhaps 'LO' you would be kind enough to explain what is meant by all of this then please. Thanks.
F-35B sea-trials aboard the USS Wasp Dave Majumdar on 30 August, 2013
F-35B sea-trials aboard the USS Wasp - The DEW Line
The F-16.net discussion starts on this page: F-35's max speed conundrum - General F-35 Forum
F-35B sea-trials aboard the USS Wasp Dave Majumdar on 30 August, 2013
"...An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards. The kinematics are basically F/A-18C-like, though that was apparently exactly what was expected."
The F-16.net discussion starts on this page: F-35's max speed conundrum - General F-35 Forum
It means that Mach 1.6 is not in the practical envelope for the F-35B, so that its tactically useful maximum is somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4. How different this is from a Marine F/A-18C (heavier than an A but with the same -400 engine and frequently seen with a Sniper on centerline), I cannot tell you.
Also, the most sensitive instruments known to science could not detect, let alone measure, my level of interest in what the repulsive crew of Walts, toadies, sciolists, sociopaths, frauds, pseuds, dimwits, basement-dwelling pizzavores and rhymes-with-bankers at some other board thinks about this subject, or indeed anything else.
PS - Ecclesiasticus 13:1
Also, the most sensitive instruments known to science could not detect, let alone measure, my level of interest in what the repulsive crew of Walts, toadies, sciolists, sociopaths, frauds, pseuds, dimwits, basement-dwelling pizzavores and rhymes-with-bankers at some other board thinks about this subject, or indeed anything else.
PS - Ecclesiasticus 13:1
Last edited by LowObservable; 2nd Jan 2014 at 20:14.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nifty looking new toy that looks pretty useful, certainly on the carriers.
https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/9655
https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/9655
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'CM' I won't get excited either because I see no 'fanboys' (of any aircraft) included in the 'LO' spray / dummy spit above. Still and all I would like an explanation for the fakery in the 'roll in arrest' photo on recent previous pages.
OK, no problem. I'll have a look back in the morning and do so. I shall attend to it as you request, Spaz. Although I don't recall commenting on roll-ins.
BTW, I did know it's not a screen wash trolley. I just thought it was a good caption.
BTW, I did know it's not a screen wash trolley. I just thought it was a good caption.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'CM' thanks for your consideration but it was the comment started here by 'LO' that I had in mind:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8231703
Further addition: 'LO' has responded via PM so case closed.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8231703
Further addition: 'LO' has responded via PM so case closed.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 2nd Jan 2014 at 23:22. Reason: Addition about PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: LEEDS
Age: 49
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if this has been posted before? Apologies if it has
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5
A rather scathing, and seemingly biased, but interesting article about the F35.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5
A rather scathing, and seemingly biased, but interesting article about the F35.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither is
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress....ual-report.pdf
"The program completed two of the eight planned system-level ballistic test series.
-
The first series confirmed the built-in redundancies and
reconfiguration capabilities of the flight critical systems.
The second series indicated that ballistic damage
introduced no measurable degradation in the F-35B
propulsion system performance and that the damage
would be undetectable by the pilot. Ongoing analysis will
evaluate whether these tests stressed the vulnerabilities
unique to ballistic damage to the F35 (e.g., interference
or arcing between 270 Volt, 28 Volt, and signal lines
and or damage to lift fan blade sections).
-
The first test series confirmed Polyalphaolefin (PAO)
coolant and fueldraulic systems fire vulnerabilities. The
relevant protective systems were removed from the
aircraft in 2008 as part of a weight reduction effort. A
Computation of Vulnerable Area Tool analysis shows
that the removal of these systems results in a 25 percent
increase in aircraft vulnerability."
Along with
"The program’s most recent vulnerability assessment showed that the removal of fueldraulic fuses, the PAO shutoff valve,
and the dry bay fire suppression, also removed in 2008,
results in the F-35 not meeting the Operational Requirements
Document (ORD) requirement to have a vulnerability posture
better than analogous legacy aircraft.
There seems there has been quite a lot of both redundancy and survivability sacrificed on the alter of weight saving [from that report].
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress....ual-report.pdf
"The program completed two of the eight planned system-level ballistic test series.
-
The first series confirmed the built-in redundancies and
reconfiguration capabilities of the flight critical systems.
The second series indicated that ballistic damage
introduced no measurable degradation in the F-35B
propulsion system performance and that the damage
would be undetectable by the pilot. Ongoing analysis will
evaluate whether these tests stressed the vulnerabilities
unique to ballistic damage to the F35 (e.g., interference
or arcing between 270 Volt, 28 Volt, and signal lines
and or damage to lift fan blade sections).
-
The first test series confirmed Polyalphaolefin (PAO)
coolant and fueldraulic systems fire vulnerabilities. The
relevant protective systems were removed from the
aircraft in 2008 as part of a weight reduction effort. A
Computation of Vulnerable Area Tool analysis shows
that the removal of these systems results in a 25 percent
increase in aircraft vulnerability."
Along with
"The program’s most recent vulnerability assessment showed that the removal of fueldraulic fuses, the PAO shutoff valve,
and the dry bay fire suppression, also removed in 2008,
results in the F-35 not meeting the Operational Requirements
Document (ORD) requirement to have a vulnerability posture
better than analogous legacy aircraft.
There seems there has been quite a lot of both redundancy and survivability sacrificed on the alter of weight saving [from that report].