F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, it's not only them, it's also a dozen other air forces and governments. It's a goddamn conspiracy.
I think it's done through hypnosis, these people only have to see the plane to stand and applaud at the end
I think it's done through hypnosis, these people only have to see the plane to stand and applaud at the end
Last edited by a1bill; 24th Sep 2015 at 07:17.
Fodplod -
Here you go:
Ten Things You Should Know About the Air Force?s F-35 Propaganda Effort
It says more about the reasons why this extraordinary call to arms was issued at all, and how it makes the AF look, than about the arguments themselves. However, I don't see much in those arguments that hasn't been beaten to death here and in other forums. There are a few of what Huck Finn called "stretchers" in there:
Data collected by sensors on the F-35 will immediately be shared with commanders at sea, in the air or on the ground, providing an instantaneous view of multi-mission operations.
The “fusion” gives pilots the ability to see everyone and everything before an adversary knows we’re there.
It is too soon to draw any final conclusions on the maneuverability of the aircraft. (It's been flying for nearly nine years, remember.)
There's also a persistent tendency to compare the F-35 with "fourth-generation" fighters, where they should accurately say "US in-service fighters" which are 1980s variants of 1970s designs that have not been upgraded.
As the POGO piece says, the document reeks of desperation. The USAF is about to get lots of F-35s that won't be operational until 2019; yes, they'll get IOC with a few 3i-standard aircraft next year, but they have to focus on 3F in order to meet schedule. But the aircraft have to be operated, even if they're not operational, and this will hit readiness of the in-service fighters.
Here you go:
Ten Things You Should Know About the Air Force?s F-35 Propaganda Effort
It says more about the reasons why this extraordinary call to arms was issued at all, and how it makes the AF look, than about the arguments themselves. However, I don't see much in those arguments that hasn't been beaten to death here and in other forums. There are a few of what Huck Finn called "stretchers" in there:
Data collected by sensors on the F-35 will immediately be shared with commanders at sea, in the air or on the ground, providing an instantaneous view of multi-mission operations.
The “fusion” gives pilots the ability to see everyone and everything before an adversary knows we’re there.
It is too soon to draw any final conclusions on the maneuverability of the aircraft. (It's been flying for nearly nine years, remember.)
There's also a persistent tendency to compare the F-35 with "fourth-generation" fighters, where they should accurately say "US in-service fighters" which are 1980s variants of 1970s designs that have not been upgraded.
As the POGO piece says, the document reeks of desperation. The USAF is about to get lots of F-35s that won't be operational until 2019; yes, they'll get IOC with a few 3i-standard aircraft next year, but they have to focus on 3F in order to meet schedule. But the aircraft have to be operated, even if they're not operational, and this will hit readiness of the in-service fighters.
Last edited by LowObservable; 24th Sep 2015 at 17:20.
The 95 percentile spec is pretty tough, and may be excessive.
If anyone needs brain bleach after thinking about a nude 245 lb fighter pilot, sorry, but I didn't write the spec.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get back a little to performance ..... I don't recall anyone on this thread (correct me if I'm wrong) mentioning combat radius as a distinct problem with the F35. If we aren't using it for air superiority, but primarily as ground attack isn't its combat radius a real problem?
Royalistflyer To get back a little to performance ..... I don't recall anyone on this thread (correct me if I'm wrong) mentioning combat radius as a distinct problem with the F35. If we aren't using it for air superiority, but primarily as ground attack isn't its combat radius a real problem?
Courtney Mil ...several times over the last five years. I think the B model combat radius is barely sufficient for strike and for fleet defence
glad rag Indeed, however the real kicker is how do they operate on "the first day " without the carrier group having to close into range of shore defences?
"Ground attack" depnds on how you define it. If you mean longer range pentration strike like the F-111 or Tornado specialized in, then yes the F-35 will come up short in your comparisome. If you mean ground attack combat radius like the F-18, F-16, Harrier then the F-35 compares adequately. F-35 will never compare to long endurance CAP like a F-22 or Su-27, as it was never designed to do so.
It seems F-35 combat radius is adequate for most the customers- and on internal fuel. All versions will be able to carry external tanks (with reduced stealth). Surely a 450 mile radius is adequate for most US Marine Corps close air support profiles, and gives enough room for the UK carriers to park sufficiently offshore.
While more range/endurance is always nice, the F-35 seems to meet the range requirements of the many customers that have signed up, and few of those have large airborne refueling fleets. Seems Isreal and Australia have expressed interest in more range.
If you are flying the super long (for tactical aviation) sorties from carriers and land bases in profiles supporting ground troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then yes range is more of an issue. Most scenarios for carrier aviation, and tactical jets in general, are at shorter ranges.
Not sure what sources to believe, but it appears the B will have the shortest legs with a radius of @450 miles, with the A and C perhaps closer to 600 miles.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears the F-35 will have a combat radius greater than the F-16 (the aircraft it will replace in the largest numbers) greater than the Sea Harrier and Harrier, and similar to the F-18 series.
Not the F-35B, which has a similar fuel fraction to most current supersonic fighters but can't, at present, carry external fuel. It has a claimed 450 nm high-medium-medium-high radius of action with about 3000 lb of weapons; the AV-8B (says the manual) can manage 460 nm on a high-lo-high with 6 x Mk82s and two 300 gal tanks.
3694 AV-8B Harrier II Standard Aircraft Characteristics - October 1986
Not the F-35B, which has a similar fuel fraction to most current supersonic fighters but can't, at present, carry external fuel. It has a claimed 450 nm high-medium-medium-high radius of action with about 3000 lb of weapons; the AV-8B (says the manual) can manage 460 nm on a high-lo-high with 6 x Mk82s and two 300 gal tanks.
3694 AV-8B Harrier II Standard Aircraft Characteristics - October 1986
LO - The Mk 82 is a 500 lb bomb. Mission profile aside, does this mean that an AV-8B needs an extra 600 gallons of fuel in external tanks to carry the same weight (3,000 lbs) of weapons 10 nm further away than an F-35B?
Aren't stealthy conformal tanks planned for the F-35B?
Aren't stealthy conformal tanks planned for the F-35B?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the AV-8B (says the manual) can manage 460 nm on a high-lo-high with 6 x Mk82s and two 300 gal tanks.
But, my experience of flying AV-8B says otherwise. And therein lies the problem of measuring with a micrometer but only having an axe to cut with.
We'll just have to see how far it does go. It won't be that far off either way and I'd err on the lower side.
Best regards,
MSOCS
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO - The Mk 82 is a 500 lb bomb. Mission profile aside, does this mean that an AV-8B needs an extra 600 gallons of fuel in external tanks to carry the same weight (3,000 lbs) of weapons 10 nm further away than an F-35B?
Aren't stealthy conformal tanks planned for the F-35B?
Aren't stealthy conformal tanks planned for the F-35B?
Oh, has anyone had heard any engine news lately?
No CFTs planned (I'm not sure where they'd go, without reducing MMO to 0.72 or so).
FodPlod - Yes, it does need external tanks, but for the time being it's the max achievable range for both. And let's not forget that the Harrier is less than half the size (OEW) of the F-35B.
FodPlod - Yes, it does need external tanks, but for the time being it's the max achievable range for both. And let's not forget that the Harrier is less than half the size (OEW) of the F-35B.
Originally Posted by LowObservable
1. It Reeks of Desperation.
2. It’s a Cure for Insomnia.
3. It Doesn’t Include the Word “Congress.”
4. It’s Based on a $1.4T Assumption.
6. It Makes No Mention of the Actual F-35 Program.
7. It is Antithetical to Critical Thinking.
8. It Injures the Air Force Public Affairs Community.
9. It Will Make Things Worse.
10. You Weren’t Supposed to See It.
2. It’s a Cure for Insomnia.
3. It Doesn’t Include the Word “Congress.”
4. It’s Based on a $1.4T Assumption.
6. It Makes No Mention of the Actual F-35 Program.
7. It is Antithetical to Critical Thinking.
8. It Injures the Air Force Public Affairs Community.
9. It Will Make Things Worse.
10. You Weren’t Supposed to See It.
To call Pogo's comment "innuendo" is to stretch the meaning of the word. I don't think there's much to read between the lines; it's the fact that the AF has instantly damaged the credibility or news value of anything anyone in blue has to say about the subject. Why bother to ask the AF for comment when the script is already in front of you?
As for the use of "propaganda" - it's not really a buzzword, is it? It says what it means and means what it says, as it did when the Vatican first used it. "Adaptive", "emerging" and "contested", not so much.
As I said, I don't think this piece meant to go after the various arguments, but there are a lot of strawmen in there, and not much we haven't heard and debated before. A lot of statements to which the response is "but that's not the point" or "Oh really, says who?" or "Compared to what?"
As for the use of "propaganda" - it's not really a buzzword, is it? It says what it means and means what it says, as it did when the Vatican first used it. "Adaptive", "emerging" and "contested", not so much.
As I said, I don't think this piece meant to go after the various arguments, but there are a lot of strawmen in there, and not much we haven't heard and debated before. A lot of statements to which the response is "but that's not the point" or "Oh really, says who?" or "Compared to what?"
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35B Ski Jump Trials NAS Patuxent River 2015
Salty Dogs & Funky Jets October 2015 Mark Ayton
"...Ski Jump Trials
Her Majesty’s Ship Queen Elizabeth (R 08) is fitted with a ski jump like no other: a new design tailored to be used by very expensive new aircraft. Launching a 60,000lb F-35B off a ski jump requires some serious maths, engineering and testing.
The F-35B ski jump test campaign should have started in March of this year, but was delayed due to brutal sub-zero temperatures and snow that blighted Patuxent River at the time. Aircraft BF-01 was originally assigned to conduct the ski jump events but was unable to remain at Pax while the weather improved. It was already scheduled to deploy to Edwards Air Force Base, California to conduct wet runway and crosswind testing.
The test programme comprises two phases, the first of which eventually began on June 19 when BAE Systems test pilot Peter Wilson conducted the first take-off using the ski jump at Pax with F-35B BF-04. Sqn Ldr Edgell told AIR International: "Phase 1 is a risk-reduction phase designed to highlight any significant hardware or software updates that may be required prior to commencing the bulk of testing. It comprises 29 ski-jump launches.
"Phase 1 will ensure our models and predictions are correct. If anything needs addressing we can do so in a timely fashion and then go into the 140-sortie Phase 2."
The ski jump used on HMS Queen Elizabeth has a curved leading edge designed to simultaneously launch an F-35B upward and forward with a greater take-off weight and less end-speed than required for an unassisted horizontal launch aboard an LHD-class amphibious assault ship, such as USS Wasp (LHD 1).
The reader may be surprised to learn that the ski ramp built at Pax River is based on the type used on the Invincible-class aircraft carriers which is a little bit shorter (50ft) and slightly shallower (0.5º) than the ramp on Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. Sqn Ldr Edgell explained: "The Pax River ramp design process dates back to 2005 but, at the time, the Queen Elizabeth ramp profile was not known. Analysis conducted in 2005 showed we simply needed to use a ramp with a profile that allows us to stay just under the predicted F-35B ultimate loads and the Invincible-class ramp achieved this."
Pax River’s ramp allows the test team to make adjustments for different profiles and encompass everything below the ultimate loads of the aircraft. "Though the verification of our models during phases 1 and 2 we can tweak the control laws to work off other types of ramp, none of which are the same," said Sqn Ldr Edgell. When the aircraft comes off the end it is ballistic and accelerates to the fly away air speed, typically 10-20kts higher than launch speed, and therefore reduces ground roll.
"There’s a fine line between ensuring we have suitable gear loads and fly away speed," explained Sqn Ldr Edgell.
"We want lots of margin on both of those. To achieve margin for gear loads we need to be slow, i.e. start right at the bottom of the ramp. To achieve margin on minimum fly away speed we need to start towards the back of the run-up. We blend the two aspects together and meet in the middle to gain the safest launch spot. For the very first sortie, our spotting distance will be conservative and will launch the jet off the end of the ramp straight into a previously flown flight condition."
Such regimes have been flown several times during short take-offs at the field and STOVL departures.
Sqn Ldr Edgell explained an interesting fact about the take-off : "You can be lined up three, four, five hundred feet back from the start of the ramp and as you slam the throttle forwards, the jet doesn’t know it’s about to go up the ski jump. It waits for certain triggers to alert it to the fact it’s going off the ski jump, at which point its flight control system moves the horizontal tails and the nozzles into the optimum position. It needs to hit 45 knots going up the ramp.
"The throttle needs to be above 65% ETR, with 6 degrees of attitude and a pitch rate of 6 degrees per second. At that point it moves all of the effectors into the right place. Bear in mind the ski jump at Pax is only 150 feet long, so the aircraft hits all of those parameters with less than 100 feet remaining. By the time it goes off the edge of the ramp all the surfaces and the nozzles are at the optimum position, the aircraft rotates up to the optimum pitch attitude to fly away. It’s pretty clever stuff."
Sqn Ldr Edgell described the launch process: "You slam the throttle and guard the stick. There is no input on the stick required. As the aircraft moves down the tramline of the deck you track the centre line with your feet, just like any other carrier deck take-off, but there’s no pitch input required. The jet flies away. It’s effortless." In the event of any kind of malfunction, the pilot takes control and manually flies off the edge of the ramp, which is why he must guard the stick during the roll.
There is no significant part for the pilot to play in the take-off – the result of a design philosophy to minimise the pilot’s workload. A good example is tracking the centreline on a rolling pitching deck at night. That’s a challenge in a Harrier but in the F-35B it’s his only task so he should do a much better job. The administrative burden on the pilot has been significantly reduced: in this situation to an effortless level.
Phase 2 will introduce crosswinds, external stores, asymmetry, minimum performance (minimum deck) launches from the bottom of the ramp, and simulated performance degradation all to increase the aircraft’s flight envelope in Block 3F configuration. That’s imperative work for the UK which will undertake first-in-class flight trials on HMS Queen Elizabeth in the final quarter of 2018...."
Air International OCTOBER 2015 Vol.89 No.4
"...Ski Jump Trials
Her Majesty’s Ship Queen Elizabeth (R 08) is fitted with a ski jump like no other: a new design tailored to be used by very expensive new aircraft. Launching a 60,000lb F-35B off a ski jump requires some serious maths, engineering and testing.
The F-35B ski jump test campaign should have started in March of this year, but was delayed due to brutal sub-zero temperatures and snow that blighted Patuxent River at the time. Aircraft BF-01 was originally assigned to conduct the ski jump events but was unable to remain at Pax while the weather improved. It was already scheduled to deploy to Edwards Air Force Base, California to conduct wet runway and crosswind testing.
The test programme comprises two phases, the first of which eventually began on June 19 when BAE Systems test pilot Peter Wilson conducted the first take-off using the ski jump at Pax with F-35B BF-04. Sqn Ldr Edgell told AIR International: "Phase 1 is a risk-reduction phase designed to highlight any significant hardware or software updates that may be required prior to commencing the bulk of testing. It comprises 29 ski-jump launches.
"Phase 1 will ensure our models and predictions are correct. If anything needs addressing we can do so in a timely fashion and then go into the 140-sortie Phase 2."
The ski jump used on HMS Queen Elizabeth has a curved leading edge designed to simultaneously launch an F-35B upward and forward with a greater take-off weight and less end-speed than required for an unassisted horizontal launch aboard an LHD-class amphibious assault ship, such as USS Wasp (LHD 1).
The reader may be surprised to learn that the ski ramp built at Pax River is based on the type used on the Invincible-class aircraft carriers which is a little bit shorter (50ft) and slightly shallower (0.5º) than the ramp on Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. Sqn Ldr Edgell explained: "The Pax River ramp design process dates back to 2005 but, at the time, the Queen Elizabeth ramp profile was not known. Analysis conducted in 2005 showed we simply needed to use a ramp with a profile that allows us to stay just under the predicted F-35B ultimate loads and the Invincible-class ramp achieved this."
Pax River’s ramp allows the test team to make adjustments for different profiles and encompass everything below the ultimate loads of the aircraft. "Though the verification of our models during phases 1 and 2 we can tweak the control laws to work off other types of ramp, none of which are the same," said Sqn Ldr Edgell. When the aircraft comes off the end it is ballistic and accelerates to the fly away air speed, typically 10-20kts higher than launch speed, and therefore reduces ground roll.
"There’s a fine line between ensuring we have suitable gear loads and fly away speed," explained Sqn Ldr Edgell.
"We want lots of margin on both of those. To achieve margin for gear loads we need to be slow, i.e. start right at the bottom of the ramp. To achieve margin on minimum fly away speed we need to start towards the back of the run-up. We blend the two aspects together and meet in the middle to gain the safest launch spot. For the very first sortie, our spotting distance will be conservative and will launch the jet off the end of the ramp straight into a previously flown flight condition."
Such regimes have been flown several times during short take-offs at the field and STOVL departures.
Sqn Ldr Edgell explained an interesting fact about the take-off : "You can be lined up three, four, five hundred feet back from the start of the ramp and as you slam the throttle forwards, the jet doesn’t know it’s about to go up the ski jump. It waits for certain triggers to alert it to the fact it’s going off the ski jump, at which point its flight control system moves the horizontal tails and the nozzles into the optimum position. It needs to hit 45 knots going up the ramp.
"The throttle needs to be above 65% ETR, with 6 degrees of attitude and a pitch rate of 6 degrees per second. At that point it moves all of the effectors into the right place. Bear in mind the ski jump at Pax is only 150 feet long, so the aircraft hits all of those parameters with less than 100 feet remaining. By the time it goes off the edge of the ramp all the surfaces and the nozzles are at the optimum position, the aircraft rotates up to the optimum pitch attitude to fly away. It’s pretty clever stuff."
Sqn Ldr Edgell described the launch process: "You slam the throttle and guard the stick. There is no input on the stick required. As the aircraft moves down the tramline of the deck you track the centre line with your feet, just like any other carrier deck take-off, but there’s no pitch input required. The jet flies away. It’s effortless." In the event of any kind of malfunction, the pilot takes control and manually flies off the edge of the ramp, which is why he must guard the stick during the roll.
There is no significant part for the pilot to play in the take-off – the result of a design philosophy to minimise the pilot’s workload. A good example is tracking the centreline on a rolling pitching deck at night. That’s a challenge in a Harrier but in the F-35B it’s his only task so he should do a much better job. The administrative burden on the pilot has been significantly reduced: in this situation to an effortless level.
Phase 2 will introduce crosswinds, external stores, asymmetry, minimum performance (minimum deck) launches from the bottom of the ramp, and simulated performance degradation all to increase the aircraft’s flight envelope in Block 3F configuration. That’s imperative work for the UK which will undertake first-in-class flight trials on HMS Queen Elizabeth in the final quarter of 2018...."
Air International OCTOBER 2015 Vol.89 No.4
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 27th Sep 2015 at 16:44. Reason: 2manyspaces