F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
GreenKnight: thanks! I could probably have looked some of that up. What my ship driving brethren who knew anything about that told me, back in the 80's, was that the program kept getting "approved, unfunded" in successive budget allocations. Sort of the old IPTL and not quite able to make the "cut line" and eventually, as you point out, the program got funding starved and went the way of the plains buffalo. Too bad, as the accuracy issue was most likely something fixable with improvements in FC systems (similar to things like CORT in the FFG-7 class) or guidance packages like Copperhead.
WEB, I see we agree, more or less. Thanks for your expanding on that thought. Then again, one would hope F-35 would be considerably more capable than Harrier, it's had the benefit of a lot of tech improvements over the last 30 years.
@ not a boffin: I'll provisionally agree, given that the upgrades also included the deck launched Tomahawk, helicopter facilities upgrade, and of course comms suite upgrades for C4I.
The NGFS was still a capability, but you are more correct than I about why the BB's were reactivated when they were.
WEB, I see we agree, more or less. Thanks for your expanding on that thought. Then again, one would hope F-35 would be considerably more capable than Harrier, it's had the benefit of a lot of tech improvements over the last 30 years.
@ not a boffin: I'll provisionally agree, given that the upgrades also included the deck launched Tomahawk, helicopter facilities upgrade, and of course comms suite upgrades for C4I.
The NGFS was still a capability, but you are more correct than I about why the BB's were reactivated when they were.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th Mar 2013 at 13:44.
LHA-8 and subsequent (after Tripoli) revert to the well deck.
The big problem with the "mini-carrier" argument is that there is no AEW, no EA, no persistent surveillance and no tanking, which gets important when your jet has the fuel fraction of a clean F-16, or if you have enough jets on board to worry about a fouled-deck situation.
However, I believe the main reason for cutting off the no-well-deck class at two ships is that the amphibious function gets problematic.... You have a whole load of Marines, vehicles and gear and, mostly, small-cabin V-22s to get them anywhere.
The big problem with the "mini-carrier" argument is that there is no AEW, no EA, no persistent surveillance and no tanking, which gets important when your jet has the fuel fraction of a clean F-16, or if you have enough jets on board to worry about a fouled-deck situation.
However, I believe the main reason for cutting off the no-well-deck class at two ships is that the amphibious function gets problematic.... You have a whole load of Marines, vehicles and gear and, mostly, small-cabin V-22s to get them anywhere.
LO: if it hasn't got a well deck, is it really an amphib? 
Philosophical argument, I suppose.
There's quite a bit of heavy equipment for a MEU/ MEB, etc, that you can't transport via Osprey, and even CH-53E can't lift it all. It takes LCAC to get a Main Battle Tank ashore ... I note from a little googling that a follow on to LCAC called SSC (ship to shore connector) got a contract awarded in 2012 for an IOC of 2019 ... we'll see how that works out.
Philosophical argument, I suppose.
There's quite a bit of heavy equipment for a MEU/ MEB, etc, that you can't transport via Osprey, and even CH-53E can't lift it all. It takes LCAC to get a Main Battle Tank ashore ... I note from a little googling that a follow on to LCAC called SSC (ship to shore connector) got a contract awarded in 2012 for an IOC of 2019 ... we'll see how that works out.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th Mar 2013 at 15:38.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just can't see the USMC, with their political lobby and public following using an amphib as a purely FW platform or even a FW heavy platform....because essentially that would mean leaving the marines (the crucial bit, the fundemental bit, the marines bit) behind.
And once you leave something behind once you do it twice and that road leads to fewer marines - at a time when there are still CVNs around and I think we all agree that in FW terms they 'bring a little more' to the party than an amphib.
Please also bear in mind that these Harriers would have to come from somewhere and the helos would have to go somewhere - in a way more efficient than just moving a CVN - unless you genuinely think an amphib would sail in that config...which is about as likely as the Sahara freezing over and the camels coming home on skates.
And once you leave something behind once you do it twice and that road leads to fewer marines - at a time when there are still CVNs around and I think we all agree that in FW terms they 'bring a little more' to the party than an amphib.
Please also bear in mind that these Harriers would have to come from somewhere and the helos would have to go somewhere - in a way more efficient than just moving a CVN - unless you genuinely think an amphib would sail in that config...which is about as likely as the Sahara freezing over and the camels coming home on skates.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the most positive message for the f35
F-35 Report Warns of Visibility Risks, Other Dangers | Defense News | defensenews.com
F-35 Report Warns of Visibility Risks, Other Dangers | Defense News | defensenews.com
Originally Posted by Rulebreaker
Not the most positive message for the f35
F-35 Report Warns of Visibility Risks, Other Dangers | Defense News | defensenews.com
F-35 Report Warns of Visibility Risks, Other Dangers | Defense News | defensenews.com
From that report....
.....“An example where maintainability needs to improve is engine replacement. One unscheduled engine removal and replacement occurred during the OUE, which required 39 hours of elapsed maintenance time,” according to the report.
“For the five unscheduled engine removal and replacements that have occurred in the F-35A fleet, the mean elapsed maintenance time for this task is 52 hours".........
Is this why they chose to call it the Lightning II
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rulebreaker & Geeram
We don't know of course whether the numbers quoted are correct or even comparable.
Let us hope they are indeed correct and comparable as going from a 1-5 average of 52 to 39 for No6 is a very reasonable learning curve that bodes well for the future after the procedure has become standardised and the troops well trained and experienced in the operation.
We don't know of course whether the numbers quoted are correct or even comparable.
Let us hope they are indeed correct and comparable as going from a 1-5 average of 52 to 39 for No6 is a very reasonable learning curve that bodes well for the future after the procedure has become standardised and the troops well trained and experienced in the operation.
Last edited by John Farley; 6th Mar 2013 at 19:04.
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
I seem to remember some people here saying that we should wait and see what the regular pilots think once they flew their new toy.
From the looks of it they are not uniformly positive ,to say the least.
From the looks of it they are not uniformly positive ,to say the least.
Pilot Comments Less Than Stellar
The most attention-grabbing part of the report features comments from the pilots who flew the initial OUE training flights. Each student accomplished six flights and one taxi-only maneuver in a Block A-1 configured F-35A.
Pilots identified a number of issues, many of which stemmed from the immaturity of the aircraft.
All four pilots commented that there was poor visibility from the cockpit, which appears to be the result of design flaws.One pilot said he had difficulty seeing other aircraft due to the location of the canopy bow, while others identified the lack of rear visibility as a major, potentially deadly, flaw.
“The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” commented one pilot quoted in the report. “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time.”
“The majority of responses cited poor visibility; the ejection seat headrest and the canopy bow were identified as causal factors. ‘High glare shield' and the HMD cable were also cited as sources of the problem,” reads the report.
Most worrisome for JSF supporters is this conclusion: “Of these, only the HMD cable has the potential to be readily redesigned.”
Another common complaint involved the failure of the radar system.
“The radar performance shortfalls ranged from the radar being completely inoperative on two sorties to failing to display targets on one sortie, inexplicably dropping targets on another sortie, and taking excessive time to develop a track on near co-speed targets on yet another sortie,” according to the report.
All of the pilots had issues with the helmet-mounted display (HMD) at some point in their training flights. While acknowledging that the JSF program is working to further develop the helmet, the authors of the report say the pilot comments make it “clear that some of these issues have the potential to significantly hamper more advanced combat training and operational capability in the future if not rectified.”
Not all complaints were unanimous. One pilot complained about the touch screen interface used to control the radios, saying it “is not readily accessible, requires more channelized attention, has no tactile feedback, and is error prone - particularly during demanding phases of flight or under turbulent flight conditions.”
Other pilots did not publicly share any concerns they had with the touch screen, which the report says could be because it was not an issue raised in exit interviews.
The most attention-grabbing part of the report features comments from the pilots who flew the initial OUE training flights. Each student accomplished six flights and one taxi-only maneuver in a Block A-1 configured F-35A.
Pilots identified a number of issues, many of which stemmed from the immaturity of the aircraft.
All four pilots commented that there was poor visibility from the cockpit, which appears to be the result of design flaws.One pilot said he had difficulty seeing other aircraft due to the location of the canopy bow, while others identified the lack of rear visibility as a major, potentially deadly, flaw.
“The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” commented one pilot quoted in the report. “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time.”
“The majority of responses cited poor visibility; the ejection seat headrest and the canopy bow were identified as causal factors. ‘High glare shield' and the HMD cable were also cited as sources of the problem,” reads the report.
Most worrisome for JSF supporters is this conclusion: “Of these, only the HMD cable has the potential to be readily redesigned.”
Another common complaint involved the failure of the radar system.
“The radar performance shortfalls ranged from the radar being completely inoperative on two sorties to failing to display targets on one sortie, inexplicably dropping targets on another sortie, and taking excessive time to develop a track on near co-speed targets on yet another sortie,” according to the report.
All of the pilots had issues with the helmet-mounted display (HMD) at some point in their training flights. While acknowledging that the JSF program is working to further develop the helmet, the authors of the report say the pilot comments make it “clear that some of these issues have the potential to significantly hamper more advanced combat training and operational capability in the future if not rectified.”
Not all complaints were unanimous. One pilot complained about the touch screen interface used to control the radios, saying it “is not readily accessible, requires more channelized attention, has no tactile feedback, and is error prone - particularly during demanding phases of flight or under turbulent flight conditions.”
Other pilots did not publicly share any concerns they had with the touch screen, which the report says could be because it was not an issue raised in exit interviews.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I would agree with John that things should improve it does make you wonder if there running before they've learned to walk.
I did find the visibility criticism odd kbrockman especially as there has been much talk of the ability to be able to look through the jet.
I did find the visibility criticism odd kbrockman especially as there has been much talk of the ability to be able to look through the jet.
About touch screens: an overhyped invention.
I used to have a cell phone that operated with buttons. My new cell phone uses touch screen, but also has a sliding keyboard. (Voice activation is of course a very handy feature ... if you like to use that app). I entered numbers a lot faster on the old 4x3 keypad than on a touch screen. I did it by feel.
With my new phone, I find the difference similar. I enter data faster, and with less visual field attention that with a touch screen.
As that pilot noted, touch screen requires too much attention as compared to tactile senses aiding your visual senses in keying in information or data into a system.
If you set up a 4x3 pad for radio freq selection, it is easy to key in numbers without having to look at them. Same is true with switching pre channelized freqs by feeling the number of clicks as you go up or down a channel selector.
Simple stuff, none of which requires visual field task sharing.
Further comments
I used to have a cell phone that operated with buttons. My new cell phone uses touch screen, but also has a sliding keyboard. (Voice activation is of course a very handy feature ... if you like to use that app). I entered numbers a lot faster on the old 4x3 keypad than on a touch screen. I did it by feel.
With my new phone, I find the difference similar. I enter data faster, and with less visual field attention that with a touch screen.
As that pilot noted, touch screen requires too much attention as compared to tactile senses aiding your visual senses in keying in information or data into a system.
If you set up a 4x3 pad for radio freq selection, it is easy to key in numbers without having to look at them. Same is true with switching pre channelized freqs by feeling the number of clicks as you go up or down a channel selector.
Simple stuff, none of which requires visual field task sharing.
Further comments
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th Mar 2013 at 20:24.
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
Just for information purposes
This is what Northrop said about arguably the best piece of the JSF pie.
https://defensenewsstand.com/index.p...&limitstart=20
also
Apparently it was an issue for those that are going to have to fly it on a day to day base, maybe they are not expecting to be able to rely solely on the data provided by the sensors alone.
This is what Northrop said about arguably the best piece of the JSF pie.
https://defensenewsstand.com/index.p...&limitstart=20
Northrop: DAS Could See Action On Other Platforms Before F-35 Hits IOC
Inside the Air Force - 02/22/2013
With development of its next-generation Joint Strike Fighter sensor package essentially complete, Northrop Grumman is receiving requests to adapt its Distributed Aperture System to other platforms and keeping a close eye on its performance as related to the F-35's sometimes-troublesome Helmet-Mounted Display System.
Inside the Air Force - 02/22/2013
With development of its next-generation Joint Strike Fighter sensor package essentially complete, Northrop Grumman is receiving requests to adapt its Distributed Aperture System to other platforms and keeping a close eye on its performance as related to the F-35's sometimes-troublesome Helmet-Mounted Display System.
I did find the visibility criticism odd kbrockman especially as there has been much talk of the ability to be able to look through the jet.
6th Mar 2013 21:56
6th Mar 2013 21:56
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe - just maybe - they were all ex viper drivers and have been used to no canopy bow for a while. I'm not sure poor rearwards vis gets you gunned every time but I take the point.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian LPDs and fixed wing ops
Hello JSFfan; re your #1226 post.
There is heaps of imagery and text stuff referring to STOVL potential for the Australian Canberra class LPD and the F-35B gets mention in some DoD material.
The JSF is looking more like a dead duck each day and it is only the American politicians who are not yet coming to grips with the reality of a very flawed project that is likely to cause the US huge political embarrassment.
If Australia is going to be able to afford reasonable air combat capability, then it cannot realistically be the very costly unproven F-35A for the Air Force, let alone F-35B for the Navy.
There has been a project ongoing in Navy circles for a time considering the OV-10 for operation from the Canberra class flat tops. Methinks not a very good option, although Super Tucano would be a good alternative; if a naval version is developed, as mooted in some quarters. A simple arrestor system could be easily retro-fitted to these ships.
Whatever is embarked on these LPDs, the escort requirements are going to be very costly for the smallish ADF.
There is heaps of imagery and text stuff referring to STOVL potential for the Australian Canberra class LPD and the F-35B gets mention in some DoD material.
The JSF is looking more like a dead duck each day and it is only the American politicians who are not yet coming to grips with the reality of a very flawed project that is likely to cause the US huge political embarrassment.
If Australia is going to be able to afford reasonable air combat capability, then it cannot realistically be the very costly unproven F-35A for the Air Force, let alone F-35B for the Navy.
There has been a project ongoing in Navy circles for a time considering the OV-10 for operation from the Canberra class flat tops. Methinks not a very good option, although Super Tucano would be a good alternative; if a naval version is developed, as mooted in some quarters. A simple arrestor system could be easily retro-fitted to these ships.
Whatever is embarked on these LPDs, the escort requirements are going to be very costly for the smallish ADF.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
except that the f-35b isn't a conop on it and never was and support will be from off board including f-35's. From what I have heard the ADF say if gov want a fixed wing option they need to buy extra ship/s for that conop.
the point I was making is that even though we could, we wont even run f-35b on our LHD, let alone AEW/EA.
As current air AEW/EA is off board for US LHA and it comes down to systems, not everything is on one platform
the point I was making is that even though we could, we wont even run f-35b on our LHD, let alone AEW/EA.
As current air AEW/EA is off board for US LHA and it comes down to systems, not everything is on one platform
Last edited by JSFfan; 7th Mar 2013 at 06:35.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will be very interesting to see what happens over the next few months, this is out of the Wall Street Journal:
Plus the US house of reps just passed a bill that is likely to get through the senate, which doesn't reverse any of the cuts, but just gives the military discretion over how and what it cuts...who else sees the elephant in the room??
Gen. Bogdan also warned that the across-the-board sequester cuts could slow acquisitions and drive up costs. "If sequestration happens the way it is planned to happen, it could very well break the program," he told The Wall Street Journal
Last edited by Bastardeux; 7th Mar 2013 at 09:05.
Bushranger, stronly suggest you look at UAV's for the OV-10 role and function. Cheaper and easier to operate.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
New Pentagon super fighter will get pilots shot down, warns report - Washington Times
The U.S. Air Force version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has shortcomings that will get pilots shot down in combat, according to a leaked Pentagon report evaluating combat testing of the plane.
“The out-of-cockpit visibility in the F-35A is less than other Air Force fighter aircraft,” states the report from the Defense Department's Directorate of Operational Test and Evaluation, referring to a pilot’s ability to see the sky around them.
Test pilots’ comments quoted in the report are more blunt.
“The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” said one. “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned [down] every time” in dogfights, opined another.
“The out-of-cockpit visibility in the F-35A is less than other Air Force fighter aircraft,” states the report from the Defense Department's Directorate of Operational Test and Evaluation, referring to a pilot’s ability to see the sky around them.
Test pilots’ comments quoted in the report are more blunt.
“The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” said one. “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned [down] every time” in dogfights, opined another.