F-35 First Flight Comments...

Kurt Plummer

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies...

>>
WASHINGTON: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the costliest weapons procurement project ever, is set to make its maiden test flight next week, a U.S. general running the project said on Tuesday.
>>

Most spent on a 'cheapest fighter'. Snort.

>>
"I am optimistic that we will see the airplane fly as early as Monday" at Lockheed Martin Corp.'s Fort Worth, Texas, test site, Marine Brig. Gen. David Heinz, the Pentagon program office's deputy director, told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington, D.C.
>>

The F-16's first flight was actually a high speed taxi test in which the pilot induced a roll oscillaiton so severe that his only alternatives were to lift off or accept a ground loop.

We should be so lucky this time.

>>
At a projected $276.5 billion, the planned family of radar-evading warplanes represents the Pentagon's priciest planned purchase -- more than 2,400 aircraft by 2027 for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
Three single-engine F-35 models are to replace aging F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and a range of other fighter and strike aircraft for the United States and its friends over the next 30 years.
>>

DEWs based on COIL technology are workable as 'single shot' throwaway systems with today's technology. In ten years _whether we do it or not_ China and France will likely have working diode pumped 'all electric' weapons systems. And the value of airpower will be inversely proportional to the amount of money lost and skyknight hero image that is lost when they are blink-of-eye blown apart.

Of course 'then there are the worthless civilians' who don't issue multibillion dollar contracts to keep RAM attacks and indeed MIRVs from falling on their heads.

>>
The supersonic, multirole aircraft's development has been co-financed by eight international partners -- Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.
>>

Which is both the most basic indictment for why the jet is completley worthless and why it's 'really' being built:

A. 'Supersonics' have been a common capability since the F-100 of the 1960s. They are also /useless/ when they are not _persistent_ which ability is effectively denied the F-35 by virtue of having a T/Wr and wingloading no better than that of an A-10 _in military_ thrust. Indeed, the entire concept of supersonic performance is routinely proven flawed by the 'must be a fighter pilots airplane!' nature of UAVs which actually STAY once they get to whereever they are going to exercise air-influence.

B. 'Multirole' is meaningless if nobody wants to play the airwar game with you. Or if they choose to do so in ways (DEWs and Hunting Weapons) for which mixed A2A and A2G performance does not gain anything but a needless increase in cost. ANY aircraft can bomb a static target. ANY aircraft can target a GPS or Datalink jammer or popup S2A threat. 'Purely Defensively' without risk to civilians or rabid dog friendly forces attack. And they don't need to do so as a function of multiple role optimizations. They just need to be a truck-on-station with enough targeting gear to show what they are aiming at to remote operator. Or to confirm it to their own sense of 'where the target is supposed to be' mapped signature offsets. At which point, it's the better-bullet theory that wins. Not the rifle that shoots it.

C. The JSF is the attempt by pissant second and third world city states to leverage the _tax base_ of the U.S. nation-continent in furtherance of a boys club ideal of 'joint warfighterism'. A doctrinal concept which is itself completely predicated on the false assumption that 'when we call, they will come'. And that IF they do, a tiny number of additional forces without OUR level of uniform training and doctrinal approach will somehow leverage a major battle. Iraq proves both of these posits as false because EVEN WE cannot put sufficient airpower up, long enough, on a sortie density vs. coverage density basis, to win the simplest of insurgency driven wars in a _zero_ mixed mission environment for which a and armed sailplane would be infinitely 'better because it was /right there/' able to support our ground forces.

>>
Heinz predicted all eight partners would buy F-35s by 2014, bringing their combined purchases to more than 3,100 aircraft, including the more than 2,400 planned for the United States and 138 scheduled for Britain.
>>

There will be 1,200 USAF jets, 240 Marine jets. And 170 USN jets. Plus another 60-100 Brit jets = 1,710 jets. Not 2,400. Not 3,100.

NONE of which will have a 'common not joint' service test production ramp point for year production rate qualification to offset halved or worse buyouts with high initial 'tri service' scalar economics. i.e. The SOLE reason the JSF was originally seen as the Best Answer was that it offset development costs for common production in numbers which let the manufacturer gain back techbase buyin (itself massively illegal) based on zero competition for all service inventories. Yet JSF production is itself looking to be parted out into microblocks for both home user nations and overseas sales based solely on how many small smart bombs and how /late/ each individual subtype 'can deliver on'.

Something guaranteed to ruin production numbers even before the U.S. Armed Farces come running out of Iraq like high tailed dogs yiping at the amateur-hour kick.

>>
As early as 2010, the Pentagon expects to define an F-35 configuration for sale to even more countries through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program, Heinz said.
>>

Which is the polite way of saying that the a billion dollar effort to secure LO features and netcentric codes has _FAILED_, utterly. And we are now facing a situation like unto the F-16/F-16-79/F-20 scenario in which nobody wants the redheaded stepchild variant. And we have already bent over and 'thought of England' for one customer so all the others are going to demand 'full access to the technology' as well.

And why not? The JSF is NOT as good a 'fighter' as the Rafale or Typhoon. Without Stealth it is equally a /lousy/ bomber. And if 'only the U.S. and (more) key Allies' have RFLO in any kind of realistic (manufacturing tolerances and layered material compositing) sense, then they don't have to worry about anything more than the going-on-thirty Flanker as a baseline threat.

For which any Flubber or Rafale can do the job, provided it has AASM and Meteor to trade signature for standoff.

>>
The first buyers of these models likely would include Spain, Israel and Singapore, he said.
>>

Ignore Israel, they are given military handouts as a function of the 2.5 BILLION DOLLAR FMF dole they receive every year. How many for each startup customer? 10? 20? You _really don't_ need but 1/4 the number of airframes if you are delivering X8 GBU-39 from so far out on the slant that the notion of conventional defense suppression or even penetration corridor support is a dated doctrinal requirement.

And once you reach that 'stunning' level of assumption, the idea that TARGETING those weapons is more important than flitting about supersonically also becomes a given.

Targeting means time as much as sensors (which will be common to any modern airframe, regardless). And time means pulling the _drag_ of the manned = fighter mission out of the airframe so you can 'stay awhile' on less weight, no cockpit, no tail and lower SFC penalties.

All that absent /crap/ in turn means that 'Gen-5' (which is, as of now, solely inhabited by the F-35) can default to 'Gen-6'. With zeroed training requirements and generally tenthed utilization factors in anything BUT war. As a 15-25 million dollar UCAV that has direct cost of ownership numbers fit to make the JSF look like the farce it is.

>>
"I believe there will be an additional 2,000 aircraft" sold from 2015 through 2035 to countries outside the original production consortium, Heinz said.
>>

Long after you're retired and removed from the consequences of a RICO statute and Anti-Deficiency Act LIE (Fraud Of Inducement) before Congress. Which should rightly string you up by your testicles for making promises beyond your ken which the taxpayer will have to keep.

>>
He said the scheduled 60-minute first flight of a conventional takeoff and landing model would follow a planned low-speed taxi test at 30 knots on Wednesday and ever-faster taxiing in following days.
>>

Typical. If you haven't anything brilliantly useful to say, baffle them with mundane bullbleep, hip deep. How about the reality of life check:

This initial SDD airframe, on whose existence ALL the initial KPPs for up and away peformance for ALL the variants 'operational suitability and operational effectiveness' will be based, is both the least compromised (USAF CVTOL) and the least /like/ the production models. By virtue of some 2,400lbs of weight overages.

i.e. Not only are you buying a Cadillac based on an Edsel sales pitch, you are also buying a Minivan and an SUV based on the notion that /they too/ will perform like a Cadillac.

And don't you pay no never mind to IOTE/OPEVAL type 'pass or fail' testing. Because if the utterly self obsessed military wants manned airpower, _there is no other choice_ but to find a way to make this, most primitive, JSF pass the SDD evals. No matter what. No matter how /unsuitable/ it or they are.

Because whatever capability is inherent to each of the other variants, only TOGETHER can all three provide Lunchmeat Inc. the money it needs to gain a profit.

Something the last JSF SPO Chief 'made official' when he stated that '1,600 airframes is the baseline below which the profit margin graphs for Lockheed and the cost margins for the taxpayer flatline'.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1997/articles/apr_97/apr97_01/apr2a_97.html

>>
Citing a 40 percent chance of rain at Fort Worth Monday, Heinz left open the possibility of a slight delay. "You don't want to expose yourself to more risk ... You want to crawl before you walk before you run," he said.
>>

What risk? It's a shoe in so long as the air services are run by pilots and the pilot act to secure their jobs rather than their nation.

>>
John Smith, a spokesman for Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, said: "We are making good progress toward first flight." He said the actual date hinged on the aircraft's readiness, not on any schedule.
Key F-35 subcontractors include BAE Systems Plc and Northrop Grumman Corp.. If planned funding levels remain on track, Heinz said, Lockheed would produce one F-35 every two days 10 years from now.
>>

Yeah right. You've sacrificed the quick-mate joints to get weight down. You've redesigned a dozen different things to make them 'thinner, sleeker, lighter, weaker!' for a specious weight requirement centered around the LEAST USEFUL VARIANT (F-35B and F-35K, STOVL airpower for the Marines who only have 10 per ship. And the Brits who only have 2 ships!).

Even as you have 'reimagined' as much as engineered costs for specific parts which are no longer generically sourced but highly specific to the JSF and to it's individual airfames.

Now /tell me again/.

After making a 28-32-35 million dollar airplane in 1997 into a 45-48 million dollar airplane in 2001 (October SDD award announcement) and a _112_ million dollar airframe by 2005. How I'm supposed to:

A. Believe that anybody in their /right mind/ is going to 'sign on the dotted line' to buy this POS for three-five times it's initial promised cost IN THE FUTURE (at the rate of real JSF cost increases, by 2014, it will be a 150 million dollar airframe). When already Tier 1/2 parties are looking to jump ship like rats off the Titanic -and they get the best deal- for offsets and the like.

B. Accept that this airframe, with all it's specialized components and ABSENT production engineering is going to be startup manufactured at a faster rate than the F-16 on a NEW assembly line.

You miserable little bleep. We are not ALL morons you know.

>>
He said economies of scale may make the F-35 more affordable over time.
>>

Than WHAT?!

Reducing our inventory to say 1,200-1,500 airframes overall with truly COMMON not 'joint' (three planes, one name) _basing mode_ architecture that effectively reduces the 'overhead' on three airforces for our nation down to just ONE, driven principally AAR/JPALS enabled UCAVs that are 'instantly carqualed' and fly up and away better than any human ever will?

You see, when you set a biased group of individual Alpha Personalities to affirm their own pathetic egotrip existence, you cannot help but realize that they WILL ALWAYS EXCLUDE the option which proves their own obsolescence.

Even if it means /inflating/ the likely achievable capabilities inherent to 'buying in' to their own lies of technical and tactical enablement.

It's the old "Ask a fox to define a chicken for you." rule of letting so-called 'experts' define what the mission is, how to best perform it and whether the chosen (by their spec) solution meets the mission need.

_Illusions Of Choice_. _The Five Billion Dollar Misunderstanding_. _The Pentagon Paradox_. ALL of them describe in excruciating detail what happens when you set up predators to fiduciarily victimize your common exchequer:

They Do.

>>
Current procurement projections are the basis for the F-35's estimated average unit cost of $45 million for the conventional model, to $60 million for one designed to land on aircraft carriers. A third jump-jet version, built for the Marine Corps, is designed for short takeoff and vertical landing.
>>

All of which means nothing unless you factor in the exponentially expanding (with rightwards schedule progression) _R&D Factoring_. Which was originally never to exceed 191 billion dollars in 1994 dollar values. And is NOW at 276 billion dollars in 2005 dollar values. In 2014, we will have lost another war. Oil will be being sold in Euros, Yuans and a thousand and one other currencies _just so that the Arabs can stick a finger in our eye_. And this nation's fiat-currency guarantee that uses oil as a backup to 'real' (market value) driven economic strength will be /shattered forever/.

So that not only will increased costs for everything mean that the JSF is a 150 million dollars or more (2 years into series production). But that that 150 million dollars will be all the more desperately needed elsewhere to cover for bad debts on both the commercial, federal and civilian sectors of a REAL WORLD = PEACETIME economy. Not one artificially pumped up with wartime spending.

This in turn means we will be lucky to see 500 USAF and 250-300 USN/USMC F-35s. Which will ALSO raise ten kinds of stink because we are effectively 'entered into contract' with these foreign investment buddies to GUARANTEE and affordable jet. In the numbers they themselves have preordered.

Such is something the much vaunted military experts are NOT _paid_ to discover, discuss and evaluate as it is 'outside the parameters' of their specialty or concern.

Congress should know better since they sign ALL the checks. But Congress in 2014 will likely be 50-70% different from what it is today, just on the progression of mortality in the old-boy network.

And so it is up to U.S.. We The People to _stop the madness_ that first selects a train and a rail and then runs us down it. To a completely preventable disaster of foolish technology, doctrinal and fiscal spending policies.

>>
On November 14, the Netherlands became the first of the F-35 partner nations to extend its participation from development into a production and support phase.
>>

Whoopy. Look at what the Netherlands did to the F-16MLU effort. Halve the inventory to say 30-40 jets from 70 initially to get the features they need at the cost they can afford. The JSF will be no different. Particularly if 'spiral' costs continue to increase for a baseline capability that _any UCAV_ (French, German, Swede = EADS) could match. The only thing that we can bring to the table is netcentrics (which we just gave away to the Brits) and GBU-39. And both of those will only further 'force multiply' the likely REDUCTION in total inventory that they will naturally consider to be their price-at-X right. I mean after all, if the U.S. can effectively halve it's initial buy commitment...

>>
Canada and Australia will follow suit on Monday and Tuesday, respectively, Heinz said, with the others expected to do so by the end of this month, with the possible exception of Norway because of questions in its legislature about its industry's share of F-35-related contracts.
>>

So we should keep on progressing in a program that is 'all about' enabling foreign countries to profit from a runaway defense industry that is itself largely unanswerable to the U.S. taxpayer because of 'deemed essential to the U.S. defense' laws that shelter them from realistic accounting procedures and specifically those which make them answerable to RICO and Anti Deficiency legislation _specifically_ put into effect to prevent corrupt organizations from promising what they can't deliver?

CONCLUSION:
My daddy once told me that 'the certainty of others' is no excuse for not making up your own mind. Specifically he meant that a mob-psychology endorsement to 'progressively' participate in their problem was not an excuse for failing to build a mental model of what the alternatives could be before adding your stupidity to theirs.

Indeed we OWE ourselves the native scepticism which says "What if..." It doesn't work. It isn't true. There isn't an urgent need. It's all a shell game designed to endorse a false premise.

The JSF is a classic example of manipulating 'all the people just long enough' to have NO BACKUP PLAN LEFT.

Because the smarter alternative (20 years after the F-35 con-cept was first 'engineered' from the fragments of A-X and CALF and ASTOVL) itself will require money and time to implement that we are pissing away on a singular solution.

Even as we are rapidly divesting ourselves of even the option to continue with standins (F-16E and F-15S level teen fighters using 4th/5th generation avionics) until such better choice can eventuate FOR COMPARISON with the 'sole option remaining'.

If you want to be a 'globalized' participant in that kind of contract mob psychology, go ahead and participate in the induced panic. Otherwise, this 'first flight' announcement is just typical of what all is wrong with JSF. Because even if it works, it's not the real McCoy either as what was first promised (cheap and plenty). Or as what it will be 'light enough to meet spec, no matter what'. Instead it is only another legal leap past a production commiment hurdle that greased-wheel forces the train down that single set of rails to a headon collision with reality based fiscal, technical and doctrinal issues which have long since supplanted what The Real McCoy was even originally designed to best-do.

Relative to the F-35, The Military Has Long Known This. And now, So Do You. The difference is that you don't have to support their existence just because /they say so/. You have to ensure that the best choice secures YOUR defense regardless of who else loses their job.


KPl.
 

rjmaz1

New Member
Well said Kurt.

I have to agree with nearly every point.

The JSF has strayed miles away from the original design goals.

Each model is so different now that it would have been cheaper and easier to make individual aircraft for each service. E.g:

Cheap, stealthy, F-16 like aircraft for the air force
High performance, Harrier like aircraft for the Marines
Larger, master of all trades, F-22 like aircraft for the US Navy

They could have then denied export of the navy version and used all the fancy high tech stealth and avioinics there. While the F-16 and Harrier like aircraft used off the shelf technology, basic stealth so they both can be available for export.

Would have worked like a charm.

The Navy F-22 like version would share similar radar, avionics, engines and technology with the F-22 reducing the cost of both air frames.

The Harrier and F-16 like aircraft could have also shared core components as both being cheap simple aircraft.

Then if UCAV turns out to be good, then they can scale down the number of the smaller aircraft without driving up the cost of the high end aircraft.

Too late now though, we have no back up plan like Kurt said, and we are now stuck with the JSF.
 

Kurt Plummer

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Thanks RJMaz,

>>
The JSF has strayed miles away from the original design goals.
>>

Unfortunately, I have such a low view of the ASTOVL as being more than 'A-10 Lite' or 'High Speed LARA' (i.e. suitable to replace both skids and Harriers as _CAS only_ platforms) that I don't really see the need to sponsor the Brits to developing something more from their Harrier techbase simply so that -they- can do deepstrike from small, cheap, ships.

Indeed, most of the ASTOVL effort /as I envisioned it/ was diametrically opposed to the baseline for a 'Super Harrier' type replacement jump jet.

Given I would want:
1. Primary A2G sensor dedication by look angle and spectrum choice.
2. Multiple light weapon loadouts rather than heavy PGM lift.
3. Two crew to run the mission avionics and act as netcentric relay node platform between ground and (non Marine) air.
4. Good high altitude capability but no real need for supersonics, even as 'dash'.
5. Limited or non-existent (2-4 AAM) internal carriage.

OTOH, the Navy problem is always going to be one of numbers. I think it was 'Mr. Intruder' Lehman who wanted to 'backdate' convert the USN to an all-deepstrike commited airpower with both fighter and attack aviation sphere of influence bubble well beyond the 500nm point.

And that was impossible both budgetarily and with MACDACs rising influence in Congress. We had gone the way of VFA(L) as Hornet as a blatant admission of this and Lehman should have seen the writing on the wall even if he wasn't priveleged to the economics studies coming out of Russia at the time.

Yet until and unless you put 'more than ten' airframes on-deck within a VAW type 'heavy all weather' operational paradigm; you are always going to be hung by the need (as is now obvious with the Bugs) to push forward half you strike wing using 'half the other half' as whales.

Thus your median pylon:paylod mix comes out as 2.5-3 pylons no even if your 'real bombers' have five-six stations available.

>>
Each model is so different now that it would have been cheaper and easier to make individual aircraft for each service. E.g:
>>

The only thing that counts in a drawdown world driven by _common_ smart munitions on the pointy end is an equally _common_ ability to generate /base in/ from a common sortie pool.

Tactical specializations are vanishing from all three services today and all three services are TERRIFIED of having this fraud of 'uniqueness' be made publically obvious before a funding panel.

>>
Cheap, stealthy, F-16 like aircraft for the air force.
>>

You'll never hear me sing the praises of the LGPOS. Had we gone to war with Russia in the 1980s it would have been chief cause in our losing the air battle over Europe /or/ the Middle East. And all that it 'encouraged' in the way of lightweight munitions (AMRAAM, LANTIRN, SEEKTALK/ATHS etc. etc.) simply made podunk bantamweight jets like the Rafale, Gripen, Lavi, MiG-29, Bug-1 and the like more of an equal footing threat to the big-bruiser Eagle/Flanker/Flubber types rather than as SHOULD have happened with 500-600lb LRAAM as the baseline operating standard by which no small jet could possibly stand against a 'longbow defense'. And said capability itself was what solved for the IADS threat.

>>
High performance, Harrier like aircraft for the Marines.
>>

Harrier STOVL is a man killer whose useful payload margin buys you all of ONE smart bomb and a targeting pod in AfG. Mind you, it also sucks up maintenance and MANPADS with equal alacrity so that the difference between 400 F-16, 500nm back and 120 Harriers which 'go home to the boat' every night, 120nm back, is near zero in terms of relative achievable sortie sustainment. Now add in the fact that the Harrier spent half it's lifetime without a radar /in a naval environment/ and another five years without AMRAAM or JDAM to make that radar 'have a purpose' and...jeeze. I just don't think much of the concept.

>>
Larger, master of all trades, F-22 like aircraft for the US Navy.
>>

Before the MMTD-as-SSB-as-SDB, yes. Now? Ainh.....

>>
They could have then denied export of the navy version and used all the fancy high tech stealth and avioinics there. While the F-16 and Harrier like aircraft used off the shelf technology, basic stealth so they both can be available for export.
>>

I do think it was a mistake not to do as we said we would in the beginning of the ATF program which was to stay 'evolutionary rather than revolutionary'. Putting F110 performance into an F404 core with commited-to-scale IHPTET would have given us more airframe configuration options than we ultimately ended up having to downselect from.

In this the 'scaled 101' turbofan SHOULD have been GEs instant life insurance policy rather than limping-cripple continuing to try and support the F136 tech base after a two-time loser setback in developmental platform integration AND the stated goal of JSF cost control as 'an independent variable'.

>>
Would have worked like a charm.
>>

Snicker. The only time my view has ever been 20:20 uncorrected...;-)

>>
The Navy F-22 like version would share similar radar, avionics, engines and technology with the F-22 reducing the cost of both air frames.
>>

The USN needs a good sharp kick in the bleep. CSA was /far/ more important than ANY 'fighter replacement' program and without it they have effectively lost their operational independence as a self targeting, self ferreting, self BMC2ing strike force. You can't bomb squat all that you can't _generate targeting for_ and the E-2 and S-3 were just plain too old and too valuable as modernized HDLD assets to be doing this mission. Even as the AIP/Outlaw Hunter P-3 mod was as good as tying the Squids to a landbase.

Add to this the /utter insanity/ of going from a Roosevelt load of 70 odd jets to a Reagan load of 'just under 40' and you cannot help but wonder whose balls they were licking after the failure of the A-12.

Above all else, the USN MUST COMPETE WITH with the USAF on 'off the pointy end' sortie numbers.

And even with proper targeting, this can ONLY happen in the strike mission, if they have MORE on-deck assets than they do today. Not 4 10-12 plane squadron but three 20-25 plane ones. With airwing maintenance personnel/equipment and fleet regeneration squadron (spares pipes) to match.

As is, they have allowed themselves to be bled down to the point where 'support of ground forces is our mission!' (cough) because they literally cannot generate a useful depth of battlespace intervention any farther 'From The Sea Forward'.

'The Carrier Myth'-

http://www.afa.org/magazine/march1999/0399carrier.asp

Should have served as a WAKE UP CALL to the Brown Shoe Navy. And it failed to. Utterly.

>>
The Harrier and F-16 like aircraft could have also shared core components as both being cheap simple aircraft.
>>

Not without SDLF. And that was something that was both too big a developmental uncertainty. And too much of an SFC trade on the core you needed to generate the horsepower.

Indeed the premise of the JSF as a '2,000lb JDAM warrior' in comparison to the 'lightweight' 1Klb F-22 was itself a mistake given the latter jet is actually MORE stores flexible in it's internal carriage options for _lightweight_ munitions which are now eventuating as the real war winners.

>>
Then if UCAV turns out to be good, then they can scale down the number of the smaller aircraft without driving up the cost of the high end aircraft.
>>

Snicker. Don't know many tacair pilots do you?

>>
Too late now though, we have no back up plan like Kurt said, and we are now stuck with the JSF.
>>

I don't think it's that simple. I think the JSF program will collapse when the U.S. economy does in the wake of the PG fiasco and I think that that event is now less than 10 years out. Maybe less than five.

The problem being that /whether we continue ahead or not/. The JSF will be left running in place as cheap U-ro-CAV becomes 'Gen-6' on the basis of being designed to accomodate the AASM and whatever other bomb-truck weapons options are netcentric=offboard targeted 'deemed useful'.

Grand Danois,

You are right. The Diamondback is Alenia driven though it has roots in both the Awadi and the U.S. 'PWW' GBU-15 competitor going back even further (i.e. we could have 'tweaked the design' until it beat copyright issues).

That said, the REAL enabler is of course the cheap R-FOG navigator and the GPS system. And there the U.S. has definite techn dominance and will continue to do so until Gallileo or whatever the Euro-equivalent to the original NAVSTAR complex (in terms of early developmental challenges) is brought online.

Indeed, if you go back to about 1988 or so, it was a French effort called 'Excalibur' I think it was that led the world in the notion of small IAMs.

It's no that the EU'ians are stupid. Far from it. They just don't /quite/ have the 'total package' approach down pat.

With the JSF techbase being whored to everyone who asks, we'll see how long that lasts... Common Market Currency as an Oil Value denominator is a great enabler to high-ticket tech development and the Americans have sat on their thumbs regarding our 'unmatched' systems engineering integrators for so long that I wonder if we really realize how much the generational gap has and continues to close.


KPl.
 

Miles

New Member
Kurt said: "Add to this the /utter insanity/ of going from a Roosevelt load of 70 odd jets to a Reagan load of 'just under 40'"

Mmmm, interesting, as this is the same sort of capability on each of the 2 planned British carriers. So, by sharing aircraft design with us Brits (who have contributed money and vital expertise) in wartime the USA gets the use of an extra two carriers, and to be honest we are about the only Allies you can really rely on. And, finally, the Royal Navy will once again have a decent carrier capability.

By the way, the advantage of the Harrier which you were knocking, is that it is unique in being able to move ashore from the carrier to a rough field. While there will always be the need for expensive, more technical jets, this niche role is uniquely flexible.

I have to say that I do agree with most of what you said about the JSF.
 

Kurt Plummer

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Miles,

>>
Mmmm, interesting, as this is the same sort of capability on each of the 2 planned British carriers. So, by sharing aircraft design with us Brits (who have contributed money and vital expertise) in wartime the USA gets the use of an extra two carriers, and to be honest we are about the only Allies you can really rely on.
>>

It's not that I don't think you deserve naval airpower. Nor even that I am against the notion of more small decks with _adequate ranging airwings_ rather than a few monstrous CVNs that have but a smattering of overly pricey super fighters on too-long rotations to be good for retention.

Rather, it's that I don't believe the STOVL JSF is anything but an anchor on a program which might have otherwise generated something between an F-16 and an A-7 'with stealth' using just one common configuration for both landbased and naval use.

This would have at least implied a common-not-cousined major component system as a freebie landbased lifing improvement off a navalized baseline structure factor. Even as it provided a true ability to single-line save money on weight driven configurational/KPP trades from a ONE PLANE, ONE NAME F-35 standpoint on production.

I still think the F-35B could be ditched with only 'good things' re$ulting from the resulting neck down streamlining of the overall CTOL/CVTOL type clearance and as an honest SDD-as-OPEVAL shot to a production ramp.

It's not until you hit that 'magical' VL limit margin on bring back in hot-high conditions that things go ape for weight and the Marines simply don't need a STOVL JSF 'that bad'.

Nor do you.

Indeed, with the V-22, they are already going from a 12 CH-46 to 8 Osprey deckload (assuming they can get the damn things to boat-land properly on one engine). Because the V-22 is a medium lift aeroflopter in a heavy lift deckspot footprint.

Of course the British also 'have a history' with trying to jam Phantoms and Buccs and even SHARs into Seafire spaces on small carriers and to get past this MOST UNWISE element of naval architecture within the general cost constraints facing the RN, means they have a choice between one Big Deck + Real Airwing (which has no cyclical cruise rotation or SLEP readiness potential).

And two mediums with 'partial peacetime' 1+1+1 (shadowed) Squadron loadouts that surge to full deckload only during war while otherwise flying the flag in the relatively easy 'STANAVFORLANT' type home waters ops area.

IMO, given that 'we're all friends here' (VLO is not a threat to you) and FOAS-as-FJCA has effectively been abandoned on the landward side of the 'Harrier Joint Force' or 'Tornado Replacement' mission debate; Cost Of the Deck Itself is ALL that is driving the STOVL choice with the option of much cheaper Rafale and Bugliest out there.

And we _should not_ have to buy Royal Navy Airpower with STOVL pricing effects for our own inventory purchase economies when the timeliness and cost:benefit issues of the VL weight issue is what is hanging the program up to begin with.

If STOVL was off the table, as it should have been immediate-decouple optioned when said portliness problems first came up in the 2003 PDR, the F-35 might actually be a worthwhile competitor to the F/A-18F.

Even now.

As is, both the USN and the RN could make do with the Super Horror AND we could 'pay the difference' on giving you BOTH 'real carriers' (would you like a CV-X pair of hulls with a 2,500 manning level?).

While still saving the majority of the 81 billion dollar F-35B production money on JSF by cancelling _now_.

Or you can go fully-French and make the navale Rafale and CVF/Richelieu followon a truly joint effort.

Either way works for me since the USMC has stepped off it's original driver for 680 jets and is now down to a piddling 240, none of which will be compatible with a 'support the squids!' wartime USN force fill.

>>
And, finally, the Royal Navy will once again have a decent carrier capability.
>>

Except it's NOT decent sir.

The JSF is a 12-14,000lb internal fuel load, <450nm radius, airframe in a world where increasingly sophisticated satellite surveillance, supercav torpedos, AIP subs on the open market and ever more clever AShM make it unwise to come within a 200nm of the littoral whitewater, even as the FTSF doctrine establishes an inland-reach requirement of another 400+nm for exactly the kind of scenario that OEF kept the USAF from playing in.

On cost alone, I would damn and foreswear the F-35B but on /capability/ it represents a truly unacceptable return to the same Hornet-level performance threshold as highlighted 1980s tactics and doctrines in the Gulf Of Sidra.

T&D which would get YOU as much as _U.S._ /killed/ today. Not in the air but on the boat.

As such, 'stealth' is not enough to compensate for the simple notion that you could stand off twice as far and send /twice as many/ jets.

Keeping your basing mode SAFE.

With a real deck.

Even as we could ensure that the Marines stayed properly subservient to the USN need for them to supply 1 carqualled squadron per MAW.

Something that the RN also doesn't need to worry about but which is key to our '7 deck surge' plan to avoid the coverage gap highlighted in the 9/11 and 10/10.

>>
By the way, the advantage of the Harrier which you were knocking, is that it is unique in being able to move ashore from the carrier to a rough field.
>>

In 1982, I might have believed you if you had put a SHAR ashore on a remote PSP strip to push off the Phoenix Squadron learjet pathfinders and Chancha KC-130 recovery tankers as a function of establishing 'loitering CAPs' rather than running in from max radius off TF Corporate because you were scared of Exocet.

But you didn't because the Harrier and particularly the SHAR were seen as 'too valuable to risk'.

Today, the number of ways such a limited capability, massive effort, airpower enablement scheme can be spotted and interdicted directly has trebled while even the Harrier II is a 9,000lb fuel, 5,000lb munitions+consumables loadout airframe that you have to 'expeditionarily' support in the field with the equivalent of semi-tractor levels of logistics as /yet another/ key-signature layer of trackable vulnerability.

On every mission.

If you want real airpower back, give it enough precision munitions (and enough stealth/standoff to employ them surivably) that it can do on it's own what formerly took a package effort to MA.

>
During DESERT STORM the US averaged 10 aircraft per target; in ENDURING FREEDOM the US has averaged 2 targets per aircraft.
US airmen have flown the longest combat fighter mission in US history (more than 15 hours), and conducted the longest surveillance mission (26 hours).
>

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom.htm

And then give it enough range and enough cost-leveraging that you can afford to put a BUNCH on a boat.

So as to send them 1,100nm forward at 2hr intervals whereupon they SIT on the enemy before replacement (i.e. a 10+hr sortie, utterly impractical in manned systems).

Such 'I know, let's bomb Tripoli from somewhere off Sardinia!' sphere of influencing doesn't change the fact that, rather than a section or flight of jets flying 100nm to attack and come back on a stubbed toe basis of 10 minute CAS; you can still 'take your time' to fix and sort the target stack a threat, 2 minutes from your own forces or installations.

Because the in-air bomber is Already Right There. When the enemy raises his ugly head to have his 'died on his belly' obituary picture taken.

>>
While there will always be the need for expensive, more technical jets, this niche role is uniquely flexible.
>>

I like the SDLF. I like the notion that one can gain full 'afterburner level' thrust from literally both ends of the engine without oversized fans, bled-to-a-stall cores, 100 gallons of methanol cooling water or particularly PCB or RALS type (hot-post) nonsense solutions near the inlet side.

I just don't think it necessarily follows that that capability must be imbedded in a 100 million dollar, 50,000lb, 450nm, 'fighter'. Because _The Marines Do CAS_. And the RN can have it's pick of superior _strike fighters_ with virtually the same (AASM or GBU-39 as Stealth replacement) safety margin.

With only 6-8 Harriers in a detachment and 8 decks (Wasp class) likely to be available by the time period when the JSF-B finally arrives in the fleet around 2014, I see no real value in pretending to go beyond the beachhead with STOVL.

Now when ALL Marine Carriers put together barely exceed the number of sorties that ONE USN big deck can generate.

For U.S. if it's a 100-200nm 'rocket the surf zone' mission, the threat from sophisticated S2A or A2A is minimal and well within the ability of SM-2/6/LASM to counter off a Burke or LCS. Just so long as an E-2 or 3 or RQ-4 is there to cue the fires (big deck, land, land ISR platforms).

If it's you and an LSL/Type 45 combination, you simply can't generate STOVL air at all and _have no ISR_ reason to put a Carrier in proximal threat to support the anti-air ship.

Thus, again, I am left wondering why the need for all that deep strike capability when a 450-500 knot /conventional signature/ return to the boat gets you the same kind of (external carriage at half the fuel load) 'pound for pound the beaches some more' capabilities without stealth or weapons bays.

Indeed, the Marines seem to agree or they would not have configured the LPD-17 with 'half a deck' as it now is and slashed their F-35B commitment by 2/3rds on what is left of their small-carrier fleet (when the Tarawas go away in 2013-2018).

Okay so lets talk STOM 'commando ops'.

In this embassy evac or special warfare unit insertion tasking, the AH-1Z will struggle to escort a CH-53K which is our BEST 'heavyweight size as heavyweight lift can-do' mission solution.

The Super Snake /cannot/ escort a V-22. Ever.

This makes it as worthless in the deep penetration mission as it is in taking an hour and a half worth of out-and-back to suppress a landing zone only 50miles over the horizon.

Yet the F-35B whose conservative 400 knot capability lets it make the same _short range_ trip in about 30 minutes is no better when it comes to the longrange escort business.

Because it will actually struggle to fly /slow enough/ to be SFC:radius compatible with the V-22 and may well have to utilize a rendezvous escort/TARCAP system to work the CH-53K profile at all.

Add to this that it takes a **minimum** 2-ship section and ideally a 4 ship flight (two with the the transport bird, two to scout and suppress the LZ with mutual support) to really make a difference and where Marines are running >250nm radii, they either go to external carriage and all standoff ordnance to maintain adequate weight of fires (bye bye stealth).

Or they WAIT for a half hour to 45 minutes for another section to be scrambled from the boat into their location with a downed helicopter and firefight in progress both likely results.

Even if you run 2v1 on your transports using 'RAP Patrol' tactics to minimize your on-ground footprint and LZ exposure (drive to the sound of gunfire, 'assault' from within a Netfires footprint rather than walk-off booted infantry), 8 Ospreys will STILL REQUIRE 16 F-35B and 12 CH-53K will require on the order of 24.

And there _is not room_ for that mini-CV airwing on an Assault deck.

Not with 4 UH-1Y (effectively unarmed), 4 AH-1Z (effectively unaccompaniable) for 9 CH-53E/K (effectively replacing half the CH-46) and 8 MV-22 (effectively replacing the other CH-46) already hogging up the hangar.

Something tacitly acknowledged when the USN chose to go with the Kitty Hawk as their OEF SFOB of choice for the snake eaters private VIP lounge and clubhouse.

Now, all of this might change if you chopped the size/weight in half and replaced both the snakes and the bumblebees at once with a 20-25 million dollar airframe that could still do the (twice as fast as the escortee) STOM op protector mission _without a burner_. And without burner related fuel volumes.

Something readily 'A-37 class' performance possible when you consider that even the CH-53K (or H-92/EH-101) will only be a 190 knot airframe and the '300 knot' V-22 is itself sub-200 at cruise in lolo and sub-250 at altitude.

>>
I have to say that I do agree with most of what you said about the JSF.
>>

Unfortunately, there isn't much to be gained by simple agreement at this stage. We need to radically change your attitudes on what you will accept for (superior) naval airpower. Or we need to part ways on this joint venture.

Which is not all bad.

Depending on how badly Britains own post-Iraq political housecleaning goes, you may not need to worry about further 'out of area' ops requiring a carrier for awhile and in any case, the CVF will retain the option to go back to CVTOL for a good long time.

OTOH, the U.S. Military frankly doesn't appear to know just how short a leash they are about to be chokechained with. If only because I doubt if even Congress or certainly the incoming President realizes exactly what the wide-ranging economic repercussions of a failed 'War On Terror' will mean.

Depending on how you look at it, we will be 'damn lucky' to hold onto yet another continuing resource bleed in AfG so as to prevent the Taliban from celebrating, much as the Iraqis and Iranians are about to.

CONCLUSION:
If you want real airpower, buy the real deal. With 70-90 airframes and the ability to DO THE MISSION, be it deep strike or ground support or freehunt through a killbox system.

By saturation.

Neither the RN nor the USMC deserve the resource depletion from our _12 deck_ Navair requirements when those real carriers are themselves still going to be doing the majority of the far-flung-dung mission in the Pacific and IO. And will also certainly be 'supporting' the Marine assault deck in the Harbor Capture (still the primary Marine 'trained mission') scenario against any kind of threat which could fight back.

They know it. You know it. There is no justification for the waste. Now is the last chance we may have to save ourselves, collectively, from at least the F-35B, if not the JSF overall.


KPl.
 

Miles

New Member
I fully agree. Rather than the USMC/RN version of the JSF I would keep harrier for niche roles as it must be cheaper to keep them flying or build new ones than build the JSF version.

For the Royal Navy I would prefer the CVF to be a proper carrier with catapults with either aircraft the USN uses or the Rafale. Because we would only need the aircraft for the CVF and not those to replace the RAF harriers used for CAS, we could probably only need about 60 instead of 120. The advantage of Rafale is that we could share training, maintenance etc on a French base, and even base our Naval AIr Squadrons there, just as we both do in Germany. This would give us a credible capacity without spending billions replicating facilities on both sides of the English Channel. And Rafale has a longer range (I believe) than JSF. It would also save money in that only one version of the CVF would be designed.

Either way, the more I look at the USMC/RN version of JSF the more I worry. The good news is the latest news here is that we are still not being given access to the codes, and so might not buy the aircraft. It would not have much of an impact on our industry as we would still be involved in the general production. But there are 2 problems with this: 1) It is delaying the contract signing for the CVF as they need to know whether to build it with catapults. 2) The government might decide to marinize Typhoon..... :shudder Does anyone know of an aircraft that has been successfully marinised to operate off a carrier...?

Good night, it is late here!
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
So er, does anyone ACTUALLY have anything to say about the thread topic? Has the F-35 flown and if so does anyone wish to comment on this, or simply start YET another F-35 "bashing" thread?

Get back on topic guys, otherwise it will be locked.
 

LancerMc

New Member
Well I hope the F-35 flies on Monday, because its about time. I also hope the flight goes smoothly and safely. A serious or a fatal accident would deal a serious blow to the program.
 

Francis

New Member
I have to say congratulations to Lockheed for finally making the X-Plane fly . But is this plane plane really worth it? is it worth the money ? or is this just another way for the United States to show it's military dominance?
 

Big-E

Banned Member
I have to say congratulations to Lockheed for finally making the X-Plane fly . But is this plane plane really worth it? is it worth the money ? or is this just another way for the United States to show it's military dominance?
Depends on how much it ends up costing.
 

rjmaz1

New Member
As most of the development costs have been paid for, the construction costs will be relatively cheap once full scale production begins.

If everything performs smoothly i see the JSF turning out ok.

In 20 years time the JSF will be considered fairly cheap for a manned fighter i guess.

Also the amount of aircraft being built will be far less than exepected.

By the time small countries start getting the money to pay for JSF's, UCAV will be available for much cheaper.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Here is the detail of the JSF's last test before the actual flight testing gets underway:

LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35 COMPLETES FIRST GROUND TAXI TEST



FORT WORTH, Texas , December 8, 2006 --
The F-35 Lightning II moved under its own power for the first time on Thursday afternoon, initiating the last series of tests before the fighter jet’s first flight.




After a series of systems checks at Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] in Fort Worth, F-35 Chief Pilot Jon Beesley advanced the throttle and the F-35 moved out of its hangar to begin taxi tests. The jet then traveled at up to 30 knots (~ 35 m.p.h.) on the runway, testing systems such as brakes and nosewheel steering in advance of first flight. Medium-speed taxi tests of 65 knots (~ 75 m.p.h.) and 80 knots (~ 92 m.p.h.) are planned next, weather permitting.



The first Lightning II is powered by the Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan, the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter aircraft.


The stealthy F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5TH Generation fighter designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers.



Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 Lightning II with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.


Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2005 sales of $37.2 billion.



a pic is available here:


http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13800.jpg



Courtesy of:




http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=18067&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400



At least the development of the F-35 seems to be continuing along relatively smoothly despite the naysayers...
 

Ths

Banned Member
I'm so old that I can remember the knocking of the F-16 at the same time in its carreer. It turned out all right in the end. F-16's replace its competitors at the time.
 

ripper

New Member
KP --

I have read someplace where an AF general involved with the F-35 program stated 'bluntly' that due to trying to keep the weight of the F-35 down to an acceptable level that it became required to circulate fuel within the F-35 to shed heat loads from the engine. It was said from the general (and I can't re-find the article) that heat is such an issue with the F-35 that if there is not sufficient fuel onboard to soak up and radiate heat through the skins that structual damage can occur to the F-35. Not just for the Marines bird, but ALL of the F-35 versions.

Is there any truth to this that you know of?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
KP --

I have read someplace where an AF general involved with the F-35 program stated 'bluntly' that due to trying to keep the weight of the F-35 down to an acceptable level that it became required to circulate fuel within the F-35 to shed heat loads from the engine. It was said from the general (and I can't re-find the article) that heat is such an issue with the F-35 that if there is not sufficient fuel onboard to soak up and radiate heat through the skins that structual damage can occur to the F-35. Not just for the Marines bird, but ALL of the F-35 versions.

Is there any truth to this that you know of?
It is a common signature management technique in LO aircraft, from what I have read to use on board fuel to help reduce radiated heat from the aircraft and thereby reduce IR emissions.

As to structural integrity of the aircraft being affected if the fuel becomes too low, I severely doubt it. It "may" effect the LO characteristics of the aircraft to a degree (that 40,000lbs engine is ALWAYS going to create a lot of heat...) but I'd imagine that would be the extent of the issue. I can see that this issue would effect all variants of the aircraft, but I'd imagine that even the worst case scenario would still fit within the LO parameters required for the aircraft.

On the plus side, if the fuel gets low enough, the LO characteristics of the aircraft won't matter... :)
 
Top