Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 10th Jul 2015, 14:04
  #6701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Is the reevaluation of the 2,443 buy quantity because of the cost per copy, or because it is becoming more recognized the F-35 is incapable of accomplishing its mission?
I don't know, and neither do you. However, I believe neither of your speculations are correct. I believe a more likely answer is that after evaluating the actual threat (rather then the threat estimated years ago when the 2443 number was established) it was determined that 2443 is excessive, especially in the face of the fairly recent decision to keep the F-15 flying for another few decades, rather than retire them. In addition, priorities have changed in the intervening years. Tactical aircraft procurement is no longer at the top of the list of priorities.

The customer asked for these attributes in the early stages of the program definition, demands only come later when you are in deep s**t having accepted the order when you haven't produced what you promised,
With due respect, this statement shows gross ignorance of the history of the JSF program. You appear to be uninterested in historical facts, but I will provide a (over simplified) synopsis for those who are interested.

Two forerunners of JSF were JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) program and ASTOVL (Advanced STOVL - the Harrier replacement) These two SEPARATE programs were merged at the direction of Congress in 1994. This was a political decision, and not one proposed by industry

JAST/JSF was also heavily influenced by the A-X program. This was a Navy program to develop a stealthy twin-engine, two-crew attack aircraft after the ATA and NATA programs failed. USAF decided to join this program and make it joint. This was a pure attack aircraft along the lines of a stealthy A-6. Congress (not industry) got into the act and required by law that this program also produce a fighter and it became A/F-X. The law also required a dem/val phase that included flying prototypes. Another program with a big influence on JSF was MRF (multi-role fighter). This was to be a small, cheap lightweight fighter to replace the F-16 and the Harrier and would include a conventional version and an ASTOVL version. Congress (not industry) directed that all these programs be merged. USN was very unhappy that their twin-engine, two-crew airplane was being forced by Congress to be single engine, single crew, but USN was not able to overcome the political pressure.

There were FIVE contractor teams competing for what would become JSF. Lockheed was a team member (but NOT the prime) on three of those teams. The five teams were reduced to three, with McDonnell Douglas the prime for one of the three. But MDC's proposal failed the next cut when its STOVL proposal failed to meet tCogress's requirement, even though its CTOL and CATOBAR proposals were superior in many ways to those of its competitors. It was only after the teams were reduced to two that Lockheed became the prime for one of those teams (Boeing was the other, with MDC joining Boeing). And by the time the teams were reduced to two, the major specs were cast in concrete. The airplane (by LAW) had to be single engine, had to be single crew (Congress' way of attempting to keep growth in check), and had to have CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL versions (Congress' way of maximizing commonality between the services.) And like A/F-X, there had to be a dem/val phase that included flying prototypes. And BTW, the basic kinematic performance of both the Boeing and the Lockheed prototypes was fairly firmly established during dem/val. So this whole "less than stellar in-close dog fight performance" has been known for literally over a decade. This latest blog post is nothing new.

The absolute prerequisite to run a successful Concurrent Engineering program is that you not only must have a properly staffed organization setup that differs from traditional program organizations, but one where the designated participants know more about what they are developing than they don't know. For L-M, the scales tipped to more of what they didn't know having the most weight.
You fail to realize that those scales were equally tipped against every other contractor. I highly ambitious development program is NOT a candidate for a highly ambitious concurrent engineering program. But Congress directed it. And Congress both writes the laws and signs the checks, so they almost get their way.

Too bad you stopped fly fast jets so soon, those like the F/A-18E/F. Had you stayed longer you would have flown on two engines that were designed developed and produced using the risky process of Concurrent Engineering.
Oh please. Now you're just being juvenile, while remaining utterly clueless about history. The F414 engine in the Super Hornet is an uprated development of the F404 engine in the Classic Hornet. Indeed the original design goal was to make the F414 fit an F404 installation so F404s could be replaced by F414s. Clu4U, programs that upgrade mature products are ideal candidates for concurrent engineering. Programs that are developing multiple new technologies that are still in their infancy are very poor candidates for concurrent engineering. And if it has escaped you, JSF/F-35 is attempting to integrate more new tech in a single airframe than has ever been attempted before.

Now that you are on the other side of the fence at Boeing (assuming that is true)......
Yet more juvenile rantings.

I had some really good engineering experiences with both MD on the military side and Boeing on the commercial side helping them with items we were doing that they could do to reduce costs, lead times and improve performance. Should you ever get into a position dealing with the US DoD, as the famous C&W song goes "Know when to hold them and know when to fold them", don't try to BS them as L-M did on the F-35 program…
How precious! I'll be sure to keep your sage advice in mind......for the next 30 seconds or so.
KenV is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 14:09
  #6702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Think his experience is good or bad on the F-35 program?
Probably good. Certainly not bad. But nothing in his resume speaks to concurrent engineering. NOTHING.
KenV is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 14:16
  #6703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 470
Is "Concurrent Engineering" a well understood practise in the production of military jets that anyone could be expected to have experience in?
t43562 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 15:01
  #6704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Since Ken is once again following his "With due respect" by a string of insults, let's review his history lecture.

"Two forerunners of JSF were JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) program and ASTOVL (Advanced STOVL - the Harrier replacement)"

Wrong. ASTOVL was long dead. It had been superseded by CALF, a nascent DARPA project already aimed at Marine, RN and USAF needs.

"Congress (not industry) got into the act and required by law that this program also produce a fighter and it became A/F-X. The law also required a dem/val phase that included flying prototypes."

It was never close to being funded.

"Another program with a big influence on JSF was MRF (multi-role fighter). This was to be a small, cheap lightweight fighter to replace the F-16 and the Harrier"

MRF could barely have been described as a program. In any case it was AF and CTOL only.

"USN was very unhappy that their twin-engine, two-crew airplane was being forced by Congress to be single engine, single crew, but USN was not able to overcome the political pressure."

It was the JAST office that reached the conclusion that a single aircraft could meet all service needs. This was actually an idea that originated with Boeing's internal studies.

"There were FIVE contractor teams competing for what would become JSF."

Wrong again. Initially, it was Northrop, Macs, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Northrop threw in its lot with Macs before proposals went in.

"MDC's proposal failed the next cut when its STOVL proposal failed to meet tCogress's requirement"

False. There was no Congressional requirement in that area that Macs failed to meet, although there was customer prejudice against LPLC.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 15:11
  #6705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 48
Posts: 505
KenV,

I'm going to be as polite as possible and ask you to do the same in return and refrain from commenting about smoking habits or belittleling my understanding of the 'history of all things JSF'

You make it sound that it is solely the fault of the politicians that the JSF turned out the way it is today (said it before, I don't think it's a turkey but it has some serious flaws<= disclaimer) and I don't follow you in that reasoning.

It was the wish of the MARINES to have a supersonic follow up for their HARRIERS and it was LM that sold them the solution against the advice of the congessional comittee that deemed the DARPA STOVL project (an LM project) promissing but far to immature to work.

They pressured the congress and used those that still believed in the Mc NAMARA doctrine to get their way, enough blame to go around , certainly from every party involved congress, partnering nations(UK), the industry (LM) and to a far lesser extent the military top that was too weak to avoid this bad idea.

Furthermore I'm sorry to say this but you seem to be rewriting history on some of the initial JSF selling points, it was sold to us (maybe not the USAF, MARINES, NAVY and UK), the smaller partners as the next gen F-16/ F-18 and likewise aircraft , not just as a very advanced A but also a very capable F, there are no other ways of explaining this.

I won't even comment on the very onorthodox contracting about upgrades, shared work ,property rights and acces to all the software, I've seen some of the initial offerings and they are very strange to say the least, we will basically be tied hand and feet on LM and whatever they come up with (and associated costs) during the lifespan of the F35, no more in house MLU program, very little possibilities on doing some customer specific upgrades without handing all design over to LM/NORTHROP/Bae/ELBIT/PW and paying them for integration.
I'm almost rooting for us to step in as a OTS buyer like Udvar Hazy proposed, financially that might give us more room to haggle and offset in JSF work is worthless anyway, better to get some work that is worth someting from another project.

finally , and I think you know this, I was not really advocating for a stealthified GULFSTREAM, I just used it to make a point about the JSF's shortcomings.


Respectfully, and I mean that from one dutch speaking aviation lover to another, BTW like the 748, flew LH 2 weeks ago and it was like the 744 but better.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 15:43
  #6706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Oh dear

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no-...r-5508913252dd

Two dozen Chinese J-11 fighters brought nearly 250 long-range missiles to the mock fight. The same number of F-35s carried fewer than 100 AIM-120s. Beijing’s jets easily overwhelmed the Americans.
Oh dear indeed. From the cited blog:

In any air-to-air duel, the pilot who spots his target first and shoots first is, nine times out of 10, the victor.
Dead on.

To this end, the F-35 does have a high-tech radar, high-fidelity cameras and other advanced gear that can detect airplanes. But foremost, Lockheed optimized these sensors for spotting targets on the ground — and at relatively short distances. The F-35 can see great. It just can’t see all that great into the air. At least not compared to modern Chinese- and Russian-made jets — the planes the F-35 is most likely to face in battle in some future war.
An absolute crock!! F-35's AAQ-37 DAS has successfully tracked ballistic missiles. As has the F-35's APG-81 radar. And incidentally, the APG-81 is a direct descendant of the APG-77 in the F-22 Raptor and retains ALL of the APG-77s superlative air-to-air capabilities while improving on them and adding air-to-ground capability. OK, the author of the article is ill-informed, but you guys citing him claim to be knowledgeable about air-to-air combat. Surely you guys know this obvious truth about the APG-81 radar. But if so, why on earth would you cite this grossly ill-informed article?!!

While the specific details remain secret, Kopp estimates the APG-81 can detect an aircraft with a radar cross-section of three square meters—a MiG-29, for example—just over 100 miles away. Russian radar-maker Tikhomirov claims the Su-35’s Irbis-E can spot a similar-size target at greater than twice that distance.
Hilarious. Even assuming this "estimate" vs this "claim" is accurate (a HUGE assumption), the F-35s radar cross section is a tiny fraction of the MiG-29's "three square meters", with the J-11 being significantly larger than the MiG-29!

But wait, it gets better. The missiles have terminal radar guidance. How well will a radar guided missile do against a stealth target vs a non stealth target? So even if thru some miracle the J-11s radar detects the F-35s first, how will their missiles lock onto their targets? "Oh dear".

OK, the author of the article is ill-informed, but you surely you air-to-air knowledgeable folks are aware of the radar equation, which states power at the receiver is a directly proportional to radar cross section and inversely proportional to the square of the range, times 2! In short, radar cross section is a HUGE deal in radar detection, radar tracking, radar intercepts, and radar terminal homing. But if you do know this, why on earth would you cite this grossly ill-informed article?!!

But it’s possible radar range is irrelevant. In an aerial battle between stealthy jets — with each side trying to stay undetected as long as possible — it’s likely that none of the opposing pilots would even want to activate their radars at all. That’s because most fighters carry gear that can sense radar waves and pinpoint their origins.

Instead, modern planes in a high-tech war would probably rely on their undetectable, “passive” infrared sensors to locate each other in the air.
Really? "Would probably" not use radar? The author of this article failed to include that the F-35's APG-81 radar has all of the APG-77's LOD (low probability of detection) and LOI (Low probability of intercept) characteristics. Meaning the F-35 pilot can leave his radar on and remain pretty damn stealthy. In addition, the F-35's stealthy MADL datalink means the F-35s will be linked together into a network. Meaning they can share sensor data in real time and effectively enlarge the effective aperture of their individual sensors. And (what a coincidence!) sensor range is directly proportional to aperture size. "Oh dear" indeed.

But let's assume the F-35 pilots are all stupid or very poorly trained and don't take advantage of their superior radar, nor network their radars, and instead turn their radar off and rely solely on passive sensors.

The F-35 has a damn sophisticated passive RF system that can detect the Russian built radar emissions at more than twice the range the radars can detect targets (that pesky radar equation raises its ugly head again.) So things get even better (or worse, depending on who's side you're one. Our local "experts" seem to be on the side of the Chinese and Russians.) when using passive RF sensors. Because the F-35s are networked, this enables them to use their passive sensors to compute a highly precise 3D location of the emitter(s), and not just a bearing to them. Precise enough to provide launch guidance to their radar guided missiles. That means the F-35s can use just their passive RF sensors to launch their radar guided missiles. "Oh dear."

What happens if the opposition stops emitting RF? Great. Let's look at IR.

But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. Highly stealthy planes such as America’s B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter both boast flat engine nozzles that spread out their exhaust plumes, cutting back on the telltale IR signature.
Hilarious. The Chinese/Russian engines nozzles are......wait for it....round also! "Oh dear!"

The F-35 has an IR detector (actually it has 6 to provide full spherical coverage around the F-35) that can track a ballistic missile at considerable range. But let's ignore that and assume both sides' IR sensors are equally sensitive. The F-35's sensors are networked, effectively increasing their aperture size, and thus their detection range. "Oh dear!" And that networking gives them a passive 3D picture precise enough to provide targeting data for radar guided missiles. A picture all fused together on their helmet displays. The F-35 can launch a radar guided missile with their aircraft radar turned off and guide them to the target area where the missile switches on its own radar. "Oh dear!" The J-11 is limited to a short range IR missile with it's aircraft radar shut down. "Oh dear!"

And since this discussion is all about long range air-to-air, what matters here is forward aspect IR signature. And the F-35s forward aspect IR signature is even lower than the F-22's, never mind the J-11's So in a long range engagement (which is what this discussion is all about) the F-35's IR emissions are far below their target's emissions. "Oh dear!" And their IR sensors are fused and networked. Oh dear.

There's plenty more (like the F-35s built-in RF jamming capability), but this will suffice. Perhaps it would be wise to peruse web sites with just a modicum of veracity and that don't have an axe to grind.
KenV is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 15:59
  #6707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
You make it sound that it is solely the fault of the politicians that the JSF turned out the way it is today.
Ummmm, no. There's lots and lots of blame to go around. My point was to rebut your (utterly false) assertion that the government had little or no responsibility, when in fact they carry the biggest burden of blame. Congress put the contractors AND the armed services into a box they are struggling mightily to live with.

And my apologies for the tone of my post. I will endeavor to fix that.
KenV is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 17:06
  #6708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,153
KenV,
Oh please. Now you're just being juvenile,
Yet more juvenile rantings.
How precious! I'll be sure to keep your sage advice in mind......for the next 30 seconds or so.
Clu4U, programs that upgrade mature products are ideal candidates for concurrent engineering. Programs that are developing multiple new technologies that are still in their infancy are very poor candidates for concurrent engineering. And if it has escaped you, JSF/F-35 is attempting to integrate more new tech in a single airframe than has ever been attempted before.
Well KenV, do you have any more insulting words of non-wisdom you would like to throw out? We need to be told.
In case you missed it, I said in a couple of posts that you have to know more about the project than you don't know to do a successful Concurrent Engineering program.
I guess heaving insults is all that you have left.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 17:13
  #6709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
post 6715

"There's plenty more (like the F-35s built-in RF jamming capability),"


Ken, how can it be stealthy if it's a Jammer?

Never heard of HOGE before??

rgds

gr.
glad rag is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 17:31
  #6710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Originally Posted by KenV
In any air-to-air duel, the pilot who spots his target first and shoots first is, nine times out of 10, the victor.
Dead on.
Absolutely not true. For so many reasons. For example, the guy that takes a low energy, max range shot against a high, fast target that subsequently manoeuvres, shoots and cranks (at high g and high energy) is likely to have his missile defeated kinematically and take one in the face a few seconds later.

And that also illustrates what I've been saying before about F-35's energy manoeuvrability. The extra 43 seconds acceleration time, relatively low top speed, OK rate of climb and poor (and reduced) sustained g all become relevant in the example above - hopefully you don't need me to explain that.

Yes, it's important to consider the second shots, but that gets a bit complex for a short post.

No doubt you will now want to come back with numerous personal insults, as is your recent habit in this thread, and you will want to challenge the relevance of that example. On that subject, I would like to add my voice to previous posters about your attitude. Like many others here, I like to debate with you, but I am finding your aggressive, unpleasant personal attacks inappropriate for this forum and rather detracting from the discussion. Please lighten up a bit and behave better. You never know, people may then read your posts so that your points actually reach their targets.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 17:35
  #6711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,905






___________
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 17:40
  #6712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
(Our local "experts" seem to be on the side of the Chinese and Russians.)

My goodness, Ken, would you mind elaborating on this? Which "local experts"? If those experts are "on the side of the Chinese and Russians" are you suggesting that if they're not Chinese or Russian, they're actively disloyal to their home nations?

Please clarify, because the common word for that is not a nice one.

Also, DAS did not, as far as I know, detect any ballistic missiles. It did image a Falcon 9 space launch vehicle, much bigger than even an ICBM and two orders of magnitude larger than many TBMs - or rather, it detected the 3000 lb of fuel/LOX combustion product coming out of its back end every second.

Last edited by LowObservable; 10th Jul 2015 at 19:16.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 20:37
  #6713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Since Ken is once again following his "With due respect" by a string of insults, let's review his history lecture.

"Two forerunners of JSF were JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) program and ASTOVL (Advanced STOVL - the Harrier replacement)"

Wrong. ASTOVL was long dead. It had been superseded by CALF, a nascent DARPA project already aimed at Marine, RN and USAF needs.
Oh my. I said at the outset that my synopsis was oversimplified. ASTOVL was the publicly acknowledged portion of the black project SSF (STOVL Strike Fighter) that was a collaboration between NASA and Skunk Works. SSF ran from 1987 thru 1994. ASTOVL/CALF ran concurrent with the later stages of SSF (93-94) and in various quarters CALF was also called JAF (Joint Attack Fighter). ASTOVL/CALF came into being when Skunk Works successfully got USAF and USN to collaborate on SSF, and SSF started moving out of the black. In short, the white world cover story for the black world SSF program was called ASTOVL and was headed up by DARPA. And note that these are all programs for an aircraft optimized for the attack role, not dog fighting.

It was in 1994 when Congress passed the 1995 budget allocation legislation that Congress declared that ASTOVL be immediately merged into the JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) program. JAST was effectively the forerunner for JSF, with a huge difference. JAST was a technology development program, designed to mature and do risk reduction for new technologies that would be applied to whatever program (whether USAF or USN) developed a new attack airframe. But by merging ASTOVL with JAST, what resulted was an aircraft development AND technology development program. It was this Congressional action that effectively killed ASTOVL and SSF, and moved everything out of the black world and into the public eye.

So the characterization that ASTOVL was "long dead" is both false and absurd. ASTOVL, JAST, and SSF all existed in 1994. Congressional legislation that year directed the merger of ASTOVL/SSF with JAST and did so by name, and effectively removed the black program cover from SSF. And it was that merger that effectively created JSF. And contrary to your history, all of this was was influenced by both MRF (which lasted until late 1993) and A/F-X, which lasted until Dec 31, 1993. Both MRF and A/F-X were merged into JAST in late 93/early 94. These were non-STOVL programs. Then CALF (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter), another STOVL project, was merged with JAST. CALF was unique in that it started out as a STOVL design but then Paul Bevilaqua of Lockheed noted that when stripped of the lift fan, it would make a great conventional fighter. JAST was then merged with ASTOVL in late 94. The 93/94 period was extremely pivotal in the gestation of JSF, a program that effectively merged all those programs under a single umbrella. Indeed JSF inherited its dem/val fly off phase directly from A/F-X.

As for the rest, let's just say I disagree with the interpretation of history that was presented, much of which was as far off base as the above. For example MDC's loss. MDC's design was similar to what became Lockheed's design in that the STOVL variant had a swiveling main jet exhaust and a separate lift fan. The big difference was that MDCs lift fan was gas coupled and Lockheed's was mechanically coupled. The gas coupling scheme failed and MDC, with no time left to go to a mechanical coupling, proposed a separate lift engine for the STOVL variant. This proposal violated the "single engine" requirement imposed by Congress and MDC was out. Another example is the teaming. JSF initially also inherited the five teams that had been brought together for A/F-X, which were:

Grumman/Lockheed/Boeing
Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics
McDonnell Douglas/Vought
Rockwell/Lockheed
General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas/Northrop

These teams eventually dissolved and/or were absorbed with all the aerospace mergers that were going on back then. This was whittled down to three for the first competition phase. In that phase the MDC/Northrop/BAE team got a late start, only agreeing on an aggressive high risk configuration after the other two had begun testing theirs, and they lost. And Lockheed won with what many called the lowest risk approach of the three. And clearly in this case "lowest risk" is very much relative because in absolute terms, the program was exceptionally ambitious and high risk.

Last edited by KenV; 10th Jul 2015 at 23:31. Reason: corrected several typos and added "lowest risk" statement
KenV is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 20:43
  #6714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
My goodness, Ken, would you mind elaborating on this? Which "local experts"?
The local experts that agree with the "War Is Boring" web site which clearly advocate that Russian/Chinese air forces will decimate Western air forces. And no, I did not mean to convey the idea that they literally "support" either China or Russia, although I understand in retrospect that one could have read what I wrote that way. And for that I apologize.
KenV is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 20:48
  #6715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,475
It was the JAST office that reached the conclusion that a single aircraft could meet all service needs. This was actually an idea that originated with Boeing's internal studies.
Well, how'd that work out for Boeing ... uh, not so good. Fruits of the poisoned tree, perhaps?

Also, JAST didn't occur in a vacuum.

ASTOVL merged with JAST merged with CALF and we eventually got the correct acronym out of the deal: JSF. Alphabet soup. Let's remember that this was going on as the Aspin Dec Def reign began -- oops, that only lasted a year -- and Clinton had replaced Bush, and the increased reductions in defense spending (the slope of the ramp down increased form the original Cheney-Bush model) hit the operating and acquisition systems, and programs, with increasing savagery as the 90's went on. The Roles and Missions wrangling that came after the Desert Storm deal were still alive and well in the mid 90's. I got involved in the air power/air doctrine wars to a modest extent for a few years during that period, and you could argue that the one thing the services could NOT agree on was ... anything.

Heck, as modest a program as JPATS (Now the T-6 Texan II) was a stew of epic foulness.

The JSF (as a program) was a child conceived in a clusterfcuk. No wonder it's got issues. Jast sayin' ...

PS: it's a testimony to the people in it, and their efforts, that it is still alive and growing.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 23:46
  #6716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
No doubt you will now want to come back with numerous personal insults, as is your recent habit in this thread,
Guilty as charged. I've got plenty of excuses why I allowed myself to slip into this posting mode, but that's all they are. Excuses. Point taken and accepted. And my apologies to all.
KenV is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 00:04
  #6717 (permalink)  
O-P
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Ken,


Thank you for that. This thread was in danger of slipping into a "Cat calling diatribe".


I have never been known for my diplomacy, as those who know mw will attest!


Can we now (all parties) leave the insults, however guarded, behind and concentrate on the details of this project.


I understand that the F35 is a very polarizing topic, I just hope we can all remain civil.
O-P is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 02:58
  #6718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 246
I contend that the ASTOVL program resulted in McDonnell Douglas being forced to merge with Boeing.

At that time of ASTOVL both P&W’s F119 engine and GE’s F120 engine were in competition also. There were two main propulsion concepts that were submitted. McDonnell Douglas submitted concepts for both gas-coupled lift fan and shaft-coupled lift fan which were both rated as top proposals, while Lockheed submitted a shaft-coupled lift concept. DARPA awarded two contracts, one to McD for the gas-coupled lift system for the F120 and one to Lockheed for the shaft coupled lift fan for the F119. That decision sealed the fate for McD as the F119 was selected to power the JSF and McD was told it would have to include the development cost of the F120 in its JSF cost estimate. As a result McD had to find lower cost alternative lift system and eventually teamed with Northrop who had developed a separate mid-mounted lift engine. The separate engine was considered unacceptable by the Marines.

With the loss of the JSF program, McD was left with no new fighter program and felt it had to merge with Boeing.
Bevo is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 03:28
  #6719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,153
t43562,
Is "Concurrent Engineering" a well understood practise in the production of military jets that anyone could be expected to have experience in?
Yes, I would expect that would be the case. Here are a couple of papers relative to Concurrent Engineering, the first being the development leading to production of the Navy F/A-18 E/F and F414 engine that dates to 1997.

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td1801/white.pdf

The second US Government report discusses the role of Concurrent Engineering in weapon systems acquisition that dates to 1988. I think there is no rigid model of Concurrent Engineering structure that every company has to follow, but there are certainly some very good control and measurement processes that need inclusion for the overall process to work its best. There must be an ironclad commitment to the process from the organization top down and the people in the process must be the most knowledgeable of the product, processes and technologies required for the program to be successful.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA203615
Turbine D is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2015, 03:43
  #6720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Midwest
Posts: 8
F135 engine, 28,000lbf military with a TSFC of .9lb/lb/hr.


F-35B internal fuel, 14,000lbs, likely reduced to 10-12,000lbs when they realize they cannot put GBU-53 in and have to go with the old cheap stuff (GBU-12/38/49/54) lying around in the dump or even newer kit (Brimstone/JAGM/APKWS) which happen to all be forward fire.


Pylon kits cost weight and drag and so a 2,000lb fuel penalty may be generous, especially hot'n'hi, when you consider that gas is also a refrigerant for the extremely hot EHAs and various other heat exchanger goodies.


Flight Idle = 60% IRT. 28 X .6 = 16,800lbf X .9 = 15,120lbs per hour. Twelve thousand pounds divided by two hundred fifty two pounds per minute = 47.61 minutes of flight time. If you assume you need at least 5 minutes of naval reserve at the boat, and 10 minutes over the target area, that's a total of 16 minutes each way.


Sixteen minutes at 400 knots (which is beyond generous for a jet with external stores at flight idle) = 107nm radius of action.


The very notion that the aircraft is going to be useful, even to a beachhead or SPOD seizure mission thus requires the acceptance of the idea that 8 jets delivering 1 mission per hour as a 'detachment' on an LHD is somehow a better investment than the modern equivalent of this-


LCT(R)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...28R%29_459.png


Equipped with Spike-NLOS, Netfires/Jumper or even Hoplite.


The F-35 is not a 440nm machine. Even if you assume a 100% error in my math due to changing cycle effects on TSFC as the throttle is pulled off, it is going to be a 200nm jet, at best.


Add to this the fact that it cannot take off while helicopters are spotted, bringing back casevac and loading second wave assaulters (both more important than CAS to sustaining ops tempo as the prevention of being shoved back into the waves) and that the V-22T and LHA-6 class as 'CVE not LHD' are _unpaid for_. And you have a royal mess.


Because the Marines want to be a replacement Air Force for the Nuclear Navy (having realized the end of SWA meant the end of funding SUW for bush beating wombat hunts while tacair is a goldplate glory hound mission 'all the time') but the Marines cannot figure out how they are going to do that without TWO carriers in their ARG, one a gator freighter and the other an SCS wannabe with all of 25 jets onboard.


Which is to say, each deployment will cost more with the USMC solution to airpower than the USN/CVN equivalent and will be MORE vulnerable to ICD/A2AD because the minidecks have to come that much closer in to deliver effects (barely over the radar horizon if you want to seriously stage an amphibious assault, say 35-50nm in the greenwater).


If this isn't a 'shortfall' I don't know what is because you would NEVER equip an interdictor with a .9 TSFC engine. That overfanned monstrosity is in the jet, sucking fuel and fattening the fuselage, solely because they need the torque generator to run the SDLF lift module.


And with the SDLF and no tanker (and likely no EFT, given how the thing wobbles, sinks and then climbs back up off the Wasp in clean configured videos) the F-35B has less legs than the Harrier II /even accounting for/ the fan water to boost landing thrust.


What a joke.
Glaaar is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.