My apologies, you are correct.

Adding the figures above to the original kpp acceleration requirements gives the following transonic acceleration times from M0.8 to M1.2 at 35K:

F-35A: 63 seconds.

F-35B: 81 seconds.

F-35C: 118 seconds.

The source of the above does note that that the A and B figures above beat all configurations of the F-16, and the C about half.

I’d post a link but it has a bl*gspot in the URL.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0245056c0.jpeg

Which does remind me the F-35 was designed as a bomb truck with essentially the same dynamic performance as the F16 as a cheap to operate replacement. Accepting that it is rarely expected ever to go supersonic, I can see where limiting the envelope is a cost effective saving.

Dubious about the explanation for not addressing the hydraulic system issue though. It hasn’t blown a tyre in the wheel bay so far so we don't have to worry about it?

Salute!

So we finally get real numbers. The 8 seconds was an increase in the time to go from "x" to "y", and not total time to get there.. Whew. And sounds reasonable for a one gee st-and-level profile. Actually, total time sounds a bit weak, but whatthehell. I wanna see the actual configuration. Most of us did not sit there on AP and wait, but bunted over slightly and zoom. Once above the big drag hump, climbing at 1.2M or so was comfortable. But we never did it! We did not practice zipping in above the mach.

I never flew a Viper with a drag index of greater than 150 to my knowledge. Best I recall was at Red Flag with two x drops, centerline ECM pod, 6 x MK-82 and two by AIM-9L. Would have to look up what that DI was. I cruised most of the way in at 480 KCAS , but 540 for the final run-in. Burning about 9,000 pounds per hour at 90% power, and had a bit over 9,000 pounds of gas when approaching the IP for the bomb run.

I am not all that sure that the JSF concept back in early 90's was for a cheap bomb truck to replace the Viper. Seems to me it was to be the eventual replacement for the Hornet, Harrier and Viper. But stealthy. So the Harrier aspects meant less commonality, but what the hell. I am also not that sure the air superiority mission was a big driver. That is 'cause USAF was fighting like hell to build more Raptors, and a good way to cut the procurement was to tout the Stubbie as a great interceptor. Reminds me of the Viper versus the Eagle, where they wouldn't let us be capable of a BVR missile. Good topic someplace else.

The biggest change in the F-35/JSF development that I saw involved the advanced avionics compared to the initial requirements. I feel that the super duper avionics added a healthy 5 years from contract award thru development and finally an operational jet on the ramp at Hill AFB. And from all the folks I have talked with and available data, the machine is in a class by itself.

Aerodynamically, it does things like the Hornet and Migs/SU's. But it's major attributes bringing to the fight are LO and unbelieveable avionics. Its radar can be used as a jammer, as well as Wild Weasel enema threat detection system. Its ground map capability is amazing. Of course, it can zoom in and not use the radar except in a passive mode and exploit the 360 deg coverage in various E-O wavelengths.

Finally, having a hydraulic line bust from debris when a tire blows is not rare. The gear on a smaller plane is not like you see on a 787, or AB 330. Things are smaller and closer together. As long as you don't lose the other side or both hydraulic systems or NSW steering, no biggie.

Gums sends...

Configuration quoted was clean, internal AA Mx load.

The hydraulic line issue is that both lines run alongside each other and anything that cuts one is liable to also cut the second. They solved the issue by rerouting one of the lines on the C, but were unable to adopt the same solution on the A and B and have decided to live with the risk.

Gums - I don't think the question is will the 35 do a job - but more is it all it could have been?

I think the A and C model have been seriously aerodynamically compromised by the VSTOL B model. - think the very wide shoulders for the lift fan and the wave drag that implies.
The lack of acceleration is a result of this.

I think the 35 was supposed to be a bit of everything to everyone - and now kind of hides as a attack aircraft with limited A2A.

Partly this is from the US services eroding their great position in the 80s - with a very capable high low mix

USAF F-15 and F-16
and USN F-14 and F/A-18

But the USAF didn't get enough F-22 to replace the eagles - so now the F-35 has to take up more slack as the lo part of the mix

and the USN have never replaced the F-14 so they are going to field to aircraft that are essentially both the low mix - F-18E and F-35.

Yes there are lots of good gizmos on the F-35 (expensive and late they may be) but what if you had fitted them on your A-7 instead?
How much worse would that have been than the F-35?

I certainly think the avionics could have been fitted to a better airframe (not compromised by a VSTOL model) and ended with a better and cheaper result.

And certainly the cheap economy of scale hasn't delivered with the F-35.

You might want to double check that requirement. From memory it was with 2x AIM-120 and 2X 2k bombs. Some specs are with 60% fuel and 2 x AIM-120 only

It could never have been anything more than a compromise, given the political requirements behind the "Joint" Strike Fighter concept. F-22 is ample evidence of that. But it is well to remember that the original F-22 buy was much larger, but for reasons that still get my blood pressure up, the F-22 buy was curtailed. That was the air superiority fighter to replace the F-15.

Given the thrashing about that was the roles and missions fight after Desert Storm, F-35 was the politically acceptable way to move forward while achieving alleged "savings" by using a "common design."
Another way of looking at this is that what could be expected, and what we got, was well foreshadowed by the F-111 clusterfkuc.

"I think the 35 was supposed to be a bit of everything to everyone - and now kind of hides as a attack aircraft with limited A2A."

Is this the same F-35 that had a LER of 20:1 at the 2019 red air?

Take your point but I'd suggest there is a difference between sniping against packages on the Flag and being an air superiority fighter.

Somewhere in the MK1 thread were pages about a modeling study of the Chinese numbers taking advantage of the F-35's lack of pace and lack of shots.

Salute!

The Red and Green Flag exercises are the largest bunch of planes in the air at one time since Desert Storm, and they "scaled" to get some semblance of reality. In truth, the mass gaggles we flew in Linebacker II in 1972 had about the same number of airframes as what I saw in 1984. The adversary A2A threat in 'nam was not the biggie, and I can guess that PVNAF(?) only put up two dozen Migs on any of our day's strike package. Hell, they knew our times and routes from years of experience, and we could only throw in a few wrinkles. We still lost more planes than we should have, but we learned.

What Red Flag does, and did when I was there, is give a huge advatage to the RED by their ability to re-generate in mid-air, not have their bases attacked by cruise missiles or B-2's, no attacks on their supply lines, etc. that could limit their later days. Just think about that? Maybe the "flag" scenarios today use first day results for the next day, but I haven't heard about that. Up to me, I would have a 5 or 6 day event and have cumulative losses and get the logistics folks, back shop folks, airlift folks, refueling folks, etc. more involved.

In DS, the other guys had trouble just getting their planes off the ground when the horses came outta the gates. So maybe on day one, hour one or so, we see this giant air battle with 200 hundred planes heading one way and maybe 120 headed the other. One gaggle can see the other way out there, and the other cannot. Many missiles in the air, but few kills until they get closer. Could be a good theme for a techno-thriller, huh?

Good discussion fodder for another thread, huh, regardless of the F-35 whines?

Gums sends..

That sounds like the Stillion, RepSim and APA powerpoint. That used RANDS name and got Stillion sacked. I would look further into the F-35 and the systems it works in. Other than the F-22, there is currently nothing else out there.

I though the real issue with the ship-bourne F-35 is lack of range - the knock-on effect being you need to move the CVN's closer into land......

If that was the case, there would be a push for drop tanks in block 3. There are 2x 5,000 lb wet points,
Also the USN uses A2A tanker and buddy refueling. It is also going to continue to fly with the fa-18's, which block III with CFT. Will put it on a similar mission radius as the f-35c on internal fuel.

Salute!

post may have been mod review, so later response re: range later

This new attack jet has better range numbers than the Bug or Super Bug and won't be seen by enema radar until it's too late

Gums sends....

It was such a foolish waste of billions of R&D to limit the F-22 acquisition for the sake of the "cheaper" F-35. We should have amortized that investment with several hundreds of F-22.

Salute!

I do not tink the F-22 cut was strictly to get the F-35. The JSF program was not nearly as significant on the international sales aspect as the "sale of the century" was in 1975. The administration of the 90's was not a big proponent of keeping the military very strong and capable. BFD. And then we had 9/11.

Back in mid-90's, USAF, USN,USMC and a NATO country or two knew they would need a new airframe in ten years, knew the acquisition process would be that long. Two U.S. administrations After 9/11 chose to spend $$$ on other stuff and then a never-ending deployment of forces to the mideast.

From talking with high-ranking folks in USAF back then, I go with the cuts by the administration of the 90's and not them trying to make room for the JSF.

I am not a fan of the one size fits all aspect of a new plane, but there have been a coupla successes between services and countries.

Back to the range of the new plane versus legasy attack platforms. New post to ensure I am not moded out.

Gums sends...

Salute!

A second range post due to 'net problems or a mod deletion.

If you can find an attack jet nowadays that launches from a carrier and flies 600 N.M. out, hits a tgt, and returns without needing to hit a tanker, be my guest. Even the Intruder and Sluf would have trouble competing, and both would be visible on enema radar a hundred or more n.m. from feet dry or the enema task force IAD ring of ships plus CAP planes. The Hornet, aka "Bug", would need gas about 30 minutes from lurch and then maybe coming home, plus having the radar visibility problems. That thing is about as bad as the Double Ugly for fuel consumption, and has been since I first met a Bug pilot at Hill in the mid-80's.

The new jet has great range numbers compared to previous jets, and most of us would take it right now, sight unseen.

Gums sends...

The Berlin wall marked the downfall of many programs. Even the eurofighter was put on the backburner and delayed for years. Water under the bridge, I think a clean sheet and start again would have been better. Now there is an EU division in the Euro 5th gen. With Germany and UK going their own way. A division of development money, that all are going to find hard.

As well as eating a lot of money. The ME isn't peer and even the obsolete gunned A-10 gets a run. We will need for China to get its act together. Before it kicks off in the pacific and real money is spent on platforms. Australia is trying to get an across the board modernisation, by 2030's. That's without looking at what it will be like after covid. That could be another can of worms.

Gums

I agree about the current situation but it seems perverse to have a fleet of jets whose lack of range means either you have to invest in tanking (and where are the specialist tankers?) or you have to put your base closer to the enemy shores just at the time when they are developing long (-er) range anti ship missiles.

Stealth is all very fine but you still need to actually reach the enemy.

you could have the B model...

Asturias from Italy, does have the B model. The legs on the f-35c is fine. I think it's something he heard, than what he read from a USN briefing.

Mind you, they do get good range out of this

One of the things everyone admits is that the range of current western tactical jets was designed around a war in Central Europe and, looking at China, is inadequate for the Pacific theatre. That is being addressed. To quote Greg Ulmer, vice president and general manager of the F-35 program at Lockheed.

“We talked to several customers about how do we extend the range of the airplane,” Ulmer told reporters during a briefing. “We're looking at conformal fuel tanks as well as external fuel tanks on the airplane to increase the range by about 40 percent”.

Whilst the external tanks can be dropped before ingress 8 presume the conformal tanks will preserve the stealth signature - though what it might do to the drag index and acceleration is unknown. (Doesn’t have to increase, might actually reduce it.).

I doubt either is a real possibility for the F-35B unless you throw the external tanks away every trip and/or every landing is a RVL.

P&W are, of course, offering 2 stages of engine thrust growth and an eventual new higher thrust engine, though where the heat we go is a problem.

Lots more money to throw at the program yet.....

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...e-report-says/ suggests its a real issue.

"The committee notes that the aircraft carrier air wing has been optimized for striking power and sortie generation and believes that it may not be configured to support the long-range strike required by current and future threat systems. While the introduction of the F-35C will significantly expand stealth capabilities, the F-35C could require increased range to address necessary targets. "
also:-

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cf4922d041.jpg

That will put his mind at rest. Though it is an idea from a LM spokesman and not from JPO, USFA, USN or any partners or buyers mouths. All options would be on the table. Including the Boeing UAV tanker and what I've previously said on refueling. There is nothing from JPO. There are no plans for CFT at this stage. I would assume the 2X 5k wet points would be first. I think Israel is looking at drop tanks?

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine....ities-for-f-35

As ORAC says - external tanks make stealth a bit tough - never mind the additional costs

I guess if the F-35 has been under development so long the actual threat has changed significantly. It may change back over the life of it's service or it may not

Relax, you may have missed ORAC's post. As well as tanker and buddy refueling and proposed UAV. As well as the 2X 5k wet points. LM is proposing CFT. It might have too much fuel now and no room for weapons. Gosh, another problem to solve.

Then there is the Super Hornets III with CFT, I mentioned posts ago. That work with the F-35 and with Supers with CFT, will have a similar radius as the f-35C on internal. I think the Super Hornets actually set the mission radius from a boat without refueling.

"As well as tanker and buddy refueling and proposed UAV"

All well and good but more space used up on deck and down below, more maintenance and more cost

The A2A refueling tankers are a bit big to keep on board, but I take your point. Running a flat top costs money. A real lot of money. I don't know what the budget for Italy and UK will be, but it will be a lot.

more highlighting it seems strange to complain about the range of the C off a boat, when the B is significantly shorter.

Salute!

It's always easy to add new performance requirements and measures of merit to any system that takes longer than a year ot two to develop and field nowadays, especially in the software/CPU/memory fields. Yeah! We need a better camera on the new laptop, and the speaker sounds tinny, battery life needs to be longer without adding weight or size, and then..........

Changes in military threats are inevitable over the years and ages. And as pointed out, the lengthy deveopment and testing of systems these days can and do encounter changes to the original threat and maybe new threats arise that were not envisioned when the original specs and requirements were laid out. Big deal!

I went to the U.S. budget source document that the "ARSTechnica" blurb referenced, and the quote from the congressional cmte was accurate, additionally, the cmte mentioned the A-12 program from the mid 80's( page 46) . That stealthy plane was supposed to have another 200 miles more range than the F-35 , if I read their numbers right. I took note as I was the guy assigned to develop the armament system controls and displays for one of the competing prime contractor teams ( no kidding). It was basically a subsonic design, for what it's worth, and I was not privy to the A2A performance specs, just the weapon loadouts and general employment parameters - a very compartmentalized program, lemme tellya.

The chart posted by Asturias with "strike ranges" for carrier wings cannot be very accurate for the 60's thru 90's unless the number of Intruders and Slufs dominated the wing composition, or they didn't count Tomcats. As attack planes, the Double Ugly and Bug guzzled gas, whereas the Intruder and Sluf did real well on range, just slower and not much A2A capability. When the two slow, ugly bomb trucks phased out, you can see the dramatic decrease in range. Find a Bug jock and ask them when they have to get gas from a buddy tanker or big one if the target is more than 300 miles away.

This new "strike" fighter will do just fine on range, and not all missions after the first few days will require the full exploitation of the LO capabilities inherent in its design.

I recommend the folks here interested in discussing the F-35 visit the F-16.net forums dedicated to the new jet. It is not dominated by Brits, so be advised only a few will recognize a lotta slang and reference to RAF and RN units/personnel.

Gums sends...

If I may follow up on gums' post in part: the day that any of you rely on The Economist for military specific info is a day to reveiw what you are drinking and how much.

Salute!

For those who "trust" all the hype and claims and critical stuff, but have never reached out and "touched the elephant", I show a graphic from a publication depicting the actual combat capability of my bomb truck back in 1972-1975. The 354th TFW deployed to Korat in October of 1972, and flew CAS, CSAR and strike over Vietnam, Laos and Combodia. Don was one of the infamous C-flight pilots, and later flew strange machines outta Groom Lake, including Shamu.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d0fd0c757a.jpg
re-print of 1973/1974 publication graphic

I flew 80 or 90 missions with that load, and it is a very accurate depiction of our range. It is actually a bit pessimistic about the shorter missions to South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as we burned a lotta gas climbing for those runs way up north. On those we carried two x 2,000 pounders, 2 x ECM pods, 2 x tanks and 2 x AIM-9E We also came back from the S. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodian missions with less than 2,300 pounds unless WX was really crappy.

For the trips "downtown" during the 1972 Christmas blitz, we took off last and sometimes landed first because we did not refuel going or coming. The Double Uglies and Thuds tanked while we climbed, then escorted or went in for SEAD/CAP

It would be nice to have someone of that era that flew those missions in something other than a Sluf comment here. And a USN aviator out on a boat in the Gulf could add to the stories.

Gums sends...

Working with the constraints off of a carrier, makes things hard. USN were the driver of the specs. The elevators limited the length, It had to be shortened. A USN requirement was that it carried 2 internal 2k bombs, Originally USAF and USMC were happy with 1k. The USN also wanted a large munition load, which is 18k, I don't recall what the USAF requirements were. The B also put limitations. It had to be single engine. It also needed to have the performance of a F-16 and F-18. So we have performance, load and range. Pick 2 and put up with the 3rd one. I've seen said before. Then add a size limitation.

It's funny that no one complains of the F-22 range, which is shorter on internal fuel. Drop tanks aren't a deal breaker either. The same applies to the eurocanards.

"If I may follow up on gums' post in part: the day that any of you rely on The Economist for military specific info is a day to review what you are drinking and how much."

It was a graphic at hand - the numbers come from the CSBA (Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments) in Washington - which I think is a reputable source? :ok:

The main Author is Bryan Clark - Non-Resident Senior Fellow - Prior to joining CSBA in 2013, Bryan Clark was Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations and Director of his Commander’s Action Group, where he led development of Navy strategy and implemented new initiatives in electromagnetic spectrum operations, undersea warfare, expeditionary operations and personnel and readiness management. Mr. Clark served in the Navy headquarters staff from 2004 to 2011, leading studies in the Assessment Division and participating in the 2006 and 2010 Quadrennial Defense Reviews. His areas of emphasis were modeling and simulation, strategic planning and institutional reform and governance. Prior to retiring from the Navy in 2007, Mr. Clark was an enlisted and officer submariner, serving in afloat and ashore submarine operational and training assignments including tours as Chief Engineer and Operations Officer at the Navy’s nuclear power training unit. He is the recipient of the Department of the Navy Superior Service Medal and the Legion of Merit.

https://csbaonline.org/research/publ...carrier-air-wi

has the report and some decent slides

Interesting breadcrumb trail here on "sources", don't you think?
The graph is labeled "Center for a New American Security" and the attribution was The Economist, but the original link in the post is from arstechnica and you have found its origin at yet another non governmental foundation (think tank?) with a last "analysis" date of 2016 on the graph.
Hooray for the internet.
Something to ponder: hasn't the USN since 2016 settled on a new carrier borne tanker?
(1) There's the UAV Tanker initiative (but I don't think that's IOC (MQ-25) as of this writing) and there is also, I think, a tanking role for the V-22.
(2) I am puzzling over whether the CMV-22B has a tanking capability, but I think that only the USMC V-22B will have that for the F-35B.
I think I need to check on that, what I am seeing about the V-22 has me a little puzzled.

CVW ops for about 40 years included organic tanking. I will suggest that the graph (of whatever source) presented above may reflect a loss of organic tanking in the CVW. That's been (IMO) a running sore for quite a while.
The S-3 sundown happened in .... 2009. And the S-3B tanker capability was not quite as robust as KA-6D tanker IIRC.
They retired the Tomcat in 2006 -; love her or loathe her had a substantial fuel capacity. The Hornet has always been problematic as regards fuel: I remember the F-18As in the 80's being a whole new ball game in fuel management at the BG level. (Granted, the E/F has a bit more gas/range, as did the C/Ds).
But nothing like the A-6.
OK, just ran through 80+ PPT slide. (Which is two years old)
So they agree with me, and I don't need to be paid millions per year to run a think tank.

Wolf - someone was sniffy about using the Economist for a source - I was trying to show a relatively decent think tank was involved - and whats a couple of years when the F-35 has been planned for since ..... and a CVN takes 8 years plus to build? And you have to post publicly available documents - posting anything else is likely to bring round the Organs of the State............

As you say the issue goes all the way back to the idea they didn't need organic tanking and retired the S-3 - I never really understood why they thought they could do without them. The USMC have been trialling a V-22B for over a year I think but I've never heard that the USN had plans

" I don't need to be paid millions per year to run a think tank" - but it would be nice wouldn't it????? Sitting in a comfy office, writing what the hell you like, no responsibility, no come-back -even better than being a Consultant !!! :ok:

Although as the SLUF in AF service is woefully under-represented in literature, more SLUF-based comments would be great...

Salute!

Went the the original document that the think tank fellow used for his presentation. Decent report. Classic RAND, CATO, etc document with many confusing statistics, monte carlo battles, heh heh. He is not a tactician with real world experience, best I could tell, and some of that shows in the report.

He shows a typical CVW for each of the eras in that graphic we are looking at. And as I expected, the long range years existed when the Intruder and Sluf carried the pig iron. And then USN air wings became mostly Bugs and the strike range from our carriers torpedoed!

@ Wolf-man , et al..... He has organic air refueling by various platforms on all his air wing configurations. His F-35C numbers seem low, so maybe the Bug mafia is ruling more than we are aware of.

I do like the idea of the drones for tankers, and as anyone here knows that has hooked up with the drogue, that plane in front just needs to be real stable, smooth for your probe.

Oh well, the naysayers will keep naysaying and pseudo experts like Sprey will continue to amuse us.

Gums sends...

P.S. The F-16.net has several posts about the Sluf, mostly by me ( heh heh) , as well as great comentary about other planes of different eras.

Regarding tanking:-
US Navy awards Boeing $84.7m for three more MQ-25A unmanned refuelling tankers

(On Flight Global last month).

That's a nice step forward. Thanks for saving me a bit more digging around. :ok:
For Not_a_Boffin:
ABMD is a valid requirement that also supports "from the sea" maritime ops. (Covering selected ports and "beach heads" with ABMD platforms provides any amphibious operation with longer viability ... but AMBD is hard no matter how you slice it)
The Zumwalt class circus, maybe not as much. :p Quite the money pit, those three.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/...deployment-uk/

US Republican senators are reportedly seeking to deter the stationing of 48 F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter aircraft in the UK.

The Telegraph reported that the proposed action is being led by Arkansas senator Tom Cotton and tied to the association of Huawei in the UK’s 5G network.

In January, the Chinese firm was allowed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to ‘build non-core parts of the UK’s 5G networks’.

According to scheduled plans, the F-35A aircraft are expected to be permanently stationed in the UK from next year.