F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rhino,
I've mentioned this before, but it might help understand the weight issue. The F-35B's weight issue comes from two factors.
The first was a failure by LM to control the weight of the basic design. This issue affected all three variants, and led to a major redesign of the aircraft in late 03/04 to get around a ton and a half out of the airframe. The problem affected the B most of all, which is why the first redesigned F-35 was BF-01, the first F-35B. To repeat, so I'm not labelled as a 'fanboy' - LM let the F-35 weight get out of control early in the programme. It took them a lot of work to get the toothpaste back into the tube.
The reason the B was the worst affected was the second factor - it's a powered lift aircraft. It is required to perform a VL at specified weights and conditions, and requires the installation of a lift system. This lift system adds weight and consumes volume, and is the reason why the B has to take a performance penalty compared to the A model.
This was recognised n the JORD, where the targets for the B's payload, range and manoeuvre were all less demanding than those for the A.
Simply put, all powered lift aircraft have a very demanding weight challenge. This applies to rotary wing aircraft as well. Tight weight margins are a fact of life on STOVL aircraft, and should not be seen as a failure.
Rhino, you're quite correct on the frame redesign - it will very probably be eating into the margins that are always tight. Sometimes, airframe redesigns can avoid weight increases if it's a matter of optimising load paths. Sadly, more often the only route available is more material - and that means more weight.
Best regards as ever to all those watching the pounds,
Engines
I've mentioned this before, but it might help understand the weight issue. The F-35B's weight issue comes from two factors.
The first was a failure by LM to control the weight of the basic design. This issue affected all three variants, and led to a major redesign of the aircraft in late 03/04 to get around a ton and a half out of the airframe. The problem affected the B most of all, which is why the first redesigned F-35 was BF-01, the first F-35B. To repeat, so I'm not labelled as a 'fanboy' - LM let the F-35 weight get out of control early in the programme. It took them a lot of work to get the toothpaste back into the tube.
The reason the B was the worst affected was the second factor - it's a powered lift aircraft. It is required to perform a VL at specified weights and conditions, and requires the installation of a lift system. This lift system adds weight and consumes volume, and is the reason why the B has to take a performance penalty compared to the A model.
This was recognised n the JORD, where the targets for the B's payload, range and manoeuvre were all less demanding than those for the A.
Simply put, all powered lift aircraft have a very demanding weight challenge. This applies to rotary wing aircraft as well. Tight weight margins are a fact of life on STOVL aircraft, and should not be seen as a failure.
Rhino, you're quite correct on the frame redesign - it will very probably be eating into the margins that are always tight. Sometimes, airframe redesigns can avoid weight increases if it's a matter of optimising load paths. Sadly, more often the only route available is more material - and that means more weight.
Best regards as ever to all those watching the pounds,
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 23rd Mar 2016 at 14:19.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist
I think to make that comparison valid Maus you would have to add in the costs and time of the first Hornet development. They may be very different, but the earlier Hornet certainly helped as a prototyping stage.
@KenV - All variants of F-35 are within a few hundred pounds of their NTE weights as far as contract compliance / KPP goes. The info is readily available in the DOT&E reports and news articles. It is generally understood that interior volume in the JSF is at a premium because everything from fuel to ord to electronics needs to be carried internally to retain signature.
JSF proponents throughout the blogosphere have been attacking the Super Hornet program with renewed interest. I can only surmise that since the Navy has expressed interest in more Super Hornet orders to mitigate their strike fighter shortage (in lieu of comparable numbers of F-35C,) that the JSF fan club feels they must disparage the Super Hornet in order to place the JSF program in a better light.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is generally understood that interior volume in the JSF is at a premium because everything from fuel to ord to electronics needs to be carried internally to retain signature.
Last edited by KenV; 23rd Mar 2016 at 14:31.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
So when is IOC not IOC?........
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Full F-35 Combat Capability Will Be Four Months Late
WASHINGTON – The F-35 will not get its full combat capability package until late fall of 2017, a delay of about four months from the original plan, according to a top general.
Testing of two earlier versions of the F-35 software, Blocks 2B and 3i, took longer than expected, Joint Program Office (JPO) Chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan wrote in his March 23 written testimony before the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces. The Marine Corps declared initial operational capability (IOC) with Block 2B last summer; meanwhile, the Air Force needs Block 3i to declare its jets operational this year.
Testing of Block 3F, which will give the jets full warfighting capability, started later than planned because the program office had to spend more time fixing Blocks 2B and 3i, Bogdan wrote. As a result, Block 3F will likely be completed about four months late, and will be delivered in late fall of 2017, Bogdan told lawmakers. However, Bogdan noted that this delay is an improvement over the JPO’s projection a year ago, and is not expected to impact the Navy’s ability to declare its F-35C jets operational in 2018. The four-month delay will also have no impact on coalition partners’ capabilities, he wrote.........
Success of Block 3F mission systems hinges on the program office resolving the problems with Block 3i, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore wrote in his written testimony. The stability and functionality problems in the initial versions of Block 3F, inherited from Block 3i, were “so significant that the program could not continue flight test,” he wrote.
While Bogdan stressed the Block 3F delays will not impact IOC, he acknowledged they could affect how ready the jets are for the formal initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) phase of development, currently planned to start in 2017.
Gilmore estimated Block 3F capabilities will not be ready for IOT&E until 2018 at the earliest. “The Block 3F schedule, even with significant improvements in software stability, deficiency resolution, and flight test rates, still appears to extend into 2018 before the capabilities will be ready and certified for IOT&E,” Gilmore wrote.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Full F-35 Combat Capability Will Be Four Months Late
WASHINGTON – The F-35 will not get its full combat capability package until late fall of 2017, a delay of about four months from the original plan, according to a top general.
Testing of two earlier versions of the F-35 software, Blocks 2B and 3i, took longer than expected, Joint Program Office (JPO) Chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan wrote in his March 23 written testimony before the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces. The Marine Corps declared initial operational capability (IOC) with Block 2B last summer; meanwhile, the Air Force needs Block 3i to declare its jets operational this year.
Testing of Block 3F, which will give the jets full warfighting capability, started later than planned because the program office had to spend more time fixing Blocks 2B and 3i, Bogdan wrote. As a result, Block 3F will likely be completed about four months late, and will be delivered in late fall of 2017, Bogdan told lawmakers. However, Bogdan noted that this delay is an improvement over the JPO’s projection a year ago, and is not expected to impact the Navy’s ability to declare its F-35C jets operational in 2018. The four-month delay will also have no impact on coalition partners’ capabilities, he wrote.........
Success of Block 3F mission systems hinges on the program office resolving the problems with Block 3i, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore wrote in his written testimony. The stability and functionality problems in the initial versions of Block 3F, inherited from Block 3i, were “so significant that the program could not continue flight test,” he wrote.
While Bogdan stressed the Block 3F delays will not impact IOC, he acknowledged they could affect how ready the jets are for the formal initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) phase of development, currently planned to start in 2017.
Gilmore estimated Block 3F capabilities will not be ready for IOT&E until 2018 at the earliest. “The Block 3F schedule, even with significant improvements in software stability, deficiency resolution, and flight test rates, still appears to extend into 2018 before the capabilities will be ready and certified for IOT&E,” Gilmore wrote.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Due to the lack of bomb carrying ability, will the F-35 impact the rate at which Americans kill people around the globe?
http://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two
http://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two
Due to the lack of bomb carrying ability, will the F-35 impact the rate at which Americans kill people around the globe?
Study: U.S. regime has killed 20-30 million people since World War Two -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net
Study: U.S. regime has killed 20-30 million people since World War Two -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net
Wow Thelma, with your linked "study" containing such zingers such as "The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation.." I think I found a new source to line the bird cage.....
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, folks are getting hung up entirely on the stealth configuration. This jet is so much more. So we're well aware that stealth internal configure is 2 x 1000 (or 2000) pound GBU + 2 x missile or 8 x SDB size + 2 x missile. That's not a huge load for stealth but this isn't a B2. Now, if you don't need VLO then you add pylons externally and add on to the above loadout another 4 weapon and 2 SRAAM stations for up to around 18-20,000lb of expendable stores.
So, given it ain't a Mud Hen, I totally disagree with your statement Thelma.
So, given it ain't a Mud Hen, I totally disagree with your statement Thelma.
MSOCS, Once again, folks are getting hung up entirely on the stealth configuration. This jet is so much more. So we're well aware that stealth internal configure is 2 x 1000 (or 2000) pound GBU + 2 x missile or 8 x SDB size + 2 x missile. That's not a huge load for stealth but this isn't a B2. Now, if you don't need VLO then you add pylons externally and add on to the above loadout another 4 weapon and 2 SRAAM stations for up to around 18-20,000lb of expendable stores.
Agree. I often note that many pictures of tactical western jets engaged in current conflicts often show them with only 2 precession weapons and perhaps 2-4 air to air missiles for self protection (often in theatres where the air to air threat is negligible), and no one seems to complain about the small amount of weapons. In many case they return with ordinance not having found a good target. Common to see F-16's, F-18's, Harriers, Super Entendards, Tornado's with only a few precision bombs and lots of external tanks. Sure more bangy stuff would be better in some cases, but F-35 will carry them on the wings eventually when first day of war stealth is not a requirement.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, folks are getting hung up entirely on the stealth configuration. This jet is so much more. So we're well aware that stealth internal configure is 2 x 1000 (or 2000) pound GBU + 2 x missile or 8 x SDB size + 2 x missile. That's not a huge load for stealth but this isn't a B2. Now, if you don't need VLO then you add pylons externally and add on to the above loadout another 4 weapon and 2 SRAAM stations for up to around 18-20,000lb of expendable stores.
So, given it ain't a Mud Hen, I totally disagree with your statement Thelma.
So, given it ain't a Mud Hen, I totally disagree with your statement Thelma.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gr. No. F-35A is 8xSDB I as an option. SDB II comes in Block 4.x. I wasn't being variant specific but I wanted to clarify your loaded question.
F-35B will take a number of internal SPEAR 3 weapons in Block 4.x.
Sandiego, good to see someone else out there sees the bigger picture.
F-35B will take a number of internal SPEAR 3 weapons in Block 4.x.
Sandiego, good to see someone else out there sees the bigger picture.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, and entire fleets of stealth aircraft are wasteful since the stealth capability is only required at the beginning of a conflict. Perhaps a subset of stealthy/disposable UAS are what's actually required for the first days of war.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maus, a disposable stealthy platform is, in its very nature, wasteful, given the cost of stealth and the development costs associated with designing an LO UAS. I actually believe there is a niche for such a UAS but it isn't disposable and wouldn't be cheap. Moreover, LO combat platforms with external stores are still multiple orders of magnitude more stealthy than non-LO platforms with the same external stores so it isn't all doom and gloom when you carry more 'boom'. That's just plain physics.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Thelma, with your linked "study" containing such zingers such as "The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation.." I think I found a new source to line the bird cage.....
That's the same as saying the've travelled the world when in fact theve been in a 80,000 ton metal coffin seeing the world and flattening it!
How sad is that comparison of US foreign policy to totatarian communist states!!!
Trump for the win something has got to change!!
Freedom!
Moreover, LO combat platforms with external stores are still multiple orders of magnitude more stealthy than non-LO platforms with the same external stores so it isn't all doom and gloom when you carry more 'boom'. That's just plain physics.
I hate to break it to you, but the old Scottish guy who told you that wasn't really James Clerk Maxwell, but one of many impersonators.
I hate to break it to you, but the old Scottish guy who told you that wasn't really James Clerk Maxwell, but one of many impersonators.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you sayng that a platform with VLO properties has the same signature as a non-VLO platform when you add identical external stores, LO?
Compromising an LO OML isn't binary, but, if you think it is, I'm not sure there's any point convincing you. Perhaps your new employer - having built the B2 - may have more success in teaching an old dog new tricks.
Compromising an LO OML isn't binary, but, if you think it is, I'm not sure there's any point convincing you. Perhaps your new employer - having built the B2 - may have more success in teaching an old dog new tricks.
Re-read the forum rules, MSOCS. They apply to you, irrespective of whether you think you know something or not, or whether you've been infected by the insane obsessions of some forum members.
No, I'm not saying what you say that I am saying.
However, it is fairly bleeding obvious that any aircraft carrying 2 x GBU-31s externally, for instance, has an RCS equal to or greater than 2 x GBU-31s, which have enough body-of-revolution shapes and orthogonal bits, even discounting the pylons and other naughty bits, to have an RCS which won't be orders of magnitude below an aircraft.
Which is why the B-2, to name but one example, doesn't have hardpoints.
No, I'm not saying what you say that I am saying.
However, it is fairly bleeding obvious that any aircraft carrying 2 x GBU-31s externally, for instance, has an RCS equal to or greater than 2 x GBU-31s, which have enough body-of-revolution shapes and orthogonal bits, even discounting the pylons and other naughty bits, to have an RCS which won't be orders of magnitude below an aircraft.
Which is why the B-2, to name but one example, doesn't have hardpoints.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B2 doesn't have external hard points because of the mission and volume of weapons it was designed for. It was/is designed to remain stealthy. F-22 does have external hard points. F-35 the same, because it's not just about the stealth. Stealthy fighters are so much more.
As for your desire to pull out the "forum rules" card, I'd remind you that it's also equally against such rules to post links to other Aviation websites. That happens here too, quite a lot. Probably a lesser offence in your mind or perhaps it doesn't apply to you?
You've perfectly twisted the point I was making around. I'll bring it back. A stealth aircraft with non-stealthy external weapons is, as a whole, more stealthy (by some order of magnitude) than a non-stealthy aircraft with the same external stores.
As for your desire to pull out the "forum rules" card, I'd remind you that it's also equally against such rules to post links to other Aviation websites. That happens here too, quite a lot. Probably a lesser offence in your mind or perhaps it doesn't apply to you?
You've perfectly twisted the point I was making around. I'll bring it back. A stealth aircraft with non-stealthy external weapons is, as a whole, more stealthy (by some order of magnitude) than a non-stealthy aircraft with the same external stores.
Last edited by MSOCS; 26th Mar 2016 at 18:24. Reason: sp
You've perfectly twisted the point I was making around. I'll bring it back. A stealth aircraft with non-stealthy external weapons is, as a whole, less stealthy (by some order of magnitude) than a non-stealthy aircraft with the same external stores.
...any aircraft carrying 2 x GBU-31s externally, for instance, has an RCS equal to or greater than 2 x GBU-31s, which have enough body-of-revolution shapes and orthogonal bits, even discounting the pylons and other naughty bits, to have an RCS which won't be orders of magnitude below an aircraft.
Also, I'd suggest that outing someone on PPRuNE should be avoided unless you're happy to tell everyone your own identity also - some are, most aren't. Posting links to other forums? Not such an indiscretion.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The applicability of the rules, as written, are equal. Regardless of what you or anyone "suggests".
I'd suggest that the rules are applied with equity and left to the Mods, unless you are one?
On the subject of the aircraft, it seems we're now saying that a few pylons and weapons (as an entity) aren't an 'order of magnitude' less than an entire clean MiG-29 or Su-3X. Ok.....
I'd suggest that the rules are applied with equity and left to the Mods, unless you are one?
On the subject of the aircraft, it seems we're now saying that a few pylons and weapons (as an entity) aren't an 'order of magnitude' less than an entire clean MiG-29 or Su-3X. Ok.....
Last edited by MSOCS; 26th Mar 2016 at 19:14.