Knowing how much I /just love/ the F-35...
From this article-
The Link
Another 'nice to know' element being the fact that the CTOL jet (the one which is easiest to certify) is NOT the produciton configured one but rather the airframe design before all the emergency weight savings measures were implemented. i.e. Even overweight by upwards of 2,500lbs, it will likely make it's D/IOTE peformance benchmarks sufficiently to be cleared into production _because_ it is a CTOL (long runway, no STOVL margin or Rhodan sized wing to pork up drag quotients and the like).
But neither it nor it's 'derivatives' will be to the final service configuration, as built. Which is why Lunchmeat is throwing everything they have at making it seem like 'as goes one, so goes them all'. Since the 'real McCoy' won't be flying until like 2008 and 2009 for the USCM/USN versions. And they can't afford to wait while the cost keepsa creepin'.
And the equally DUMB notion that you need a stealth asset to perform Hog-CAS (where the likelihood of things-under-wings is nearly 100% and loiter means more than LO but not airframe exposure @ cost in terms of finding targets for all EIGHT GBU-39 you will likely have available, even internally).
The politics here are ones of 'stand together or die alone' vis a vis the RAF purchase of the JSF. In all likelihood, this was part and parcel of the 'trade' whereby the U.S. whored it's LO lead on the guarantee that the F-35 would be the FOAS/FJCA followon in a much larger purchase than was originally stated to be likely given the UKs 'two deck' requirement for 60-100 jets.
Of course, it's still surprising that they intend to make their landbased version STOVL capable to support the RN carrier commitment ala the Harrier joint force. Because frankly the sortie percentages just don't support even a RAF controlled contribution and the GR.9 Harrier still has a lot of life in it (given the F-35 is seen as a SHAR replacement in the FADF role).
The STOVL loses almost 30% of it's fuel and is heavy with a small wing besides. Even if you further assume that the jet won't suffer a major RCS penalty with all those SDLF and side nozzle doors (which I do not) the penetration radius will not be up to par for the modern threat matrixes we are seeing in terms of 'First you stand out to sea 200-300nm to avoid the coastal defense AShM/mine/sub threat, -then- you go inshore another 300-400nm to find a target, unsupported, (the RN have no tankers)'.
I suppose if you are buying stock and counting beans this has some relevance but in truth, it comes off highly unprofessional if not an outright insult in either the writing or the strategic planning intelligence of those who look at such things for cues to economic prospects and RMA modernization.
Long live the JSF! In the frosty depths of...
KPl.
From this article-
The Link
You cannot flight test STOVL in anything but full scale because the flow modeling is too complex to predict and the power thresholds for balanced thrust posts just not predictable.>>
ARNOLD AIR FORCE BASE: Arnold Engineering Development Center officials just completed aerodynamic testing on two variants of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter to support flight testing of the plane later this year.
With this latest test, the AEDC staff surpassed 8,000 hours of JSF testing in the center's propulsion wind tunnel facility in support of the system design and development phase of the program.
>>
Irony of ironies, Lunchmeat have bragged for ages about how 'common' to the CDA variants their PWSC/SDD configured versions would be. Yet with working 1:1 prototypes, they are doing it all in a tunnel.>>
High-speed force and moment data gathered from a conventional takeoff and landing, or CTOL, and short takeoff/vertical landing, or STOVL, F-35 models will go into a database. That information will be added to computer-aided analysis for performance analysis and flight control design and validation before flight testing can begin.
>>
With a scale model.>>
"This is the final high-speed test for our CTOL and STOVL aerodynamic performance and stability control databases on our 1/12-scale model," said Kim Kohrs, an F-35 stability and control analyst with Lockheed Martin.
>>
Puhleeze. It may be the last entry in the prediction calcs. Until you have actual flight-test data, all the CFD and tunnel/drop test data in the world doesn't mean much. Not least because you ONLY NOW have a production configured airframe with auxilliary systems located where they need to be. And operational weapons bays/wing stations.>>
"We've done various testing of low speed and high speed unpowered force and moment testing for CTOL and STOVL through the years. This test is our last entry to conclude those databases."
>>
Which is really just Lunchmeat desperately trying to look 'ready for instant production go!' so that Congress doesn't shift rightwards (delay rampup funding) the schedule in a way that increases the cost of a jet that is already 200% of it's initial promised price. And will become closer to an 500 percent of this by the time R&D costs are factored into an airframe which started out as a 30 million dollar promise. Was bought as a 45-50 million dollar guarantee. And is now 'around' 112 million dollars per unit.>>
"This test, along with aerodynamic testing on the Navy's carrier version later this year, will finish up all of our scheduled F-35 wind tunnel testing during the system development and demonstration phase." said Marc Skelley, Air Force project manager in AEDC's 716th Test Squadron.
>>
Another 'nice to know' element being the fact that the CTOL jet (the one which is easiest to certify) is NOT the produciton configured one but rather the airframe design before all the emergency weight savings measures were implemented. i.e. Even overweight by upwards of 2,500lbs, it will likely make it's D/IOTE peformance benchmarks sufficiently to be cleared into production _because_ it is a CTOL (long runway, no STOVL margin or Rhodan sized wing to pork up drag quotients and the like).
But neither it nor it's 'derivatives' will be to the final service configuration, as built. Which is why Lunchmeat is throwing everything they have at making it seem like 'as goes one, so goes them all'. Since the 'real McCoy' won't be flying until like 2008 and 2009 for the USCM/USN versions. And they can't afford to wait while the cost keepsa creepin'.
Well, asside from the /HIGHLY IRRITATING/ attempt to reshuffle the deck with the F-35 as the new face card a standin for the either the Albino or Mudhen Eagles now that they have destroyed the Raptor program economics (With all of 2 missiles and 2 JDAM internally? Riiiiight...).>>
The CTOL F-35 is the Air Force variant that will replace the F-15 Eagle and A-10 Thunderbolt II and complement the F-22 Raptor. The U.S. Marine Corps is due to receive the STOVL F-35 variant to replace the AV-8B Harrier and F/A-18 Hornet. The United Kingdom's Royal Air Force and Royal Navy also will fly the STOVL variant.
>>
And the equally DUMB notion that you need a stealth asset to perform Hog-CAS (where the likelihood of things-under-wings is nearly 100% and loiter means more than LO but not airframe exposure @ cost in terms of finding targets for all EIGHT GBU-39 you will likely have available, even internally).
The politics here are ones of 'stand together or die alone' vis a vis the RAF purchase of the JSF. In all likelihood, this was part and parcel of the 'trade' whereby the U.S. whored it's LO lead on the guarantee that the F-35 would be the FOAS/FJCA followon in a much larger purchase than was originally stated to be likely given the UKs 'two deck' requirement for 60-100 jets.
Of course, it's still surprising that they intend to make their landbased version STOVL capable to support the RN carrier commitment ala the Harrier joint force. Because frankly the sortie percentages just don't support even a RAF controlled contribution and the GR.9 Harrier still has a lot of life in it (given the F-35 is seen as a SHAR replacement in the FADF role).
The STOVL loses almost 30% of it's fuel and is heavy with a small wing besides. Even if you further assume that the jet won't suffer a major RCS penalty with all those SDLF and side nozzle doors (which I do not) the penetration radius will not be up to par for the modern threat matrixes we are seeing in terms of 'First you stand out to sea 200-300nm to avoid the coastal defense AShM/mine/sub threat, -then- you go inshore another 300-400nm to find a target, unsupported, (the RN have no tankers)'.
I suppose if you are buying stock and counting beans this has some relevance but in truth, it comes off highly unprofessional if not an outright insult in either the writing or the strategic planning intelligence of those who look at such things for cues to economic prospects and RMA modernization.
Long live the JSF! In the frosty depths of...
KPl.
Last edited by a moderator: