F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[rip]

Let me ask you, what threat do you see the US facing in the next 5 years that would need 100 more F-22's? China and the J20? If you remember it took the us 6 years to go from first-flight to production. By the time China is fielding the J-20, the US will be probably putting 2+ UCAV's in production. China is playing games with the J-20 making the US scared.

Nothing like a threat from China to get the lobbiest scaring the public, and President, up!


Same thing happed with the US/Russia Cold War, when the US said their was a "missile gap" when in fact, it was purposely blown out of proportion to buy more weapons systems.

Also, how is China going to threaten the US when they have been talking about a Carrier for the past 8 years, and again this year? Are Chinese J-20's going to fly the entire Pacific? No, it is to counter regional threats, Russia and India and the PAK FA.

It's Defense "smoke-and mirrors" from the Military Industrial Complex. Like I said on another thread. The US Defense Budget, that was just signed by Obama, is up 7%.

The US Army has been trying to kill the, Air Arm part of the Navies’ Army, from day one and they haven’t succeeded yet. The Marine air arm has had a good record no matter what they have been called upon to do. Better, man for man and plane for plain, than the US air force. But the final reason why this will never happen is what the Marine Air dose better than anyone else in the world including the much hyped Israeli Air Force, and that is to provide close air support for closely engaged ground troops, where they have always made a big difference in the number of US infantry causalities. Just ask any ground pounder that has called in an air strike close to friendly troupes, which they prefer every time.

As to the other part, I agree that the Chinese J20 is over hyped, both in when it will be operational and in its abilities, (Big plane big target). But it is what we eventually perceive is the Chinese goverments intentions, (righty or wrongly) not their hardware that will be the deciding factor and that question is still open. Just one deadly Incident ,even if unintended, could cause a change of direction on either side. I am not predicting this will happan; I am only saying things like this have happened before. In the final analyses it is about trust and that is in short supply.

 

[aussienscale]

It's not just the USMC though, there are obligations to international partners, while the RN has changed course, Italy and Spain both require the F-35B sooner rather than later or each will have sparkling new STOVL carriers with nothing to fly from them, there are no other direct options on the table at this time, though this could change as has already been inferred.

Would also ad to that the recent headway made by Obama in India as well, IIRC they still have not decided on what they will be going for ?

 

[Haavarla]

F-35 for India?
Forget it.
With the Mig-29K's still under procurment, with the possibility to order more.
And with all the fuzz about price hicks and delays on F-35.
With the MMRCA still in the shaddows.
India just sign the Pak-Fa/FGFA deal.

The latest F-35 update in Norway for the F-35A.
The Norwegian AF procurment will be 2 years delayed..

What kind of magic do you think Obama could do here?

 

[aussienscale]

F-35 for India?
Forget it.
With the Mig-29K's still under procurment, with the possibility to order more.
And with all the fuzz about price hicks and delays on F-35.
With the MMRCA still in the shaddows.
India just sign the Pak-Fa/FGFA deal.

The latest F-35 update in Norway for the F-35A.
The Norwegian AF procurment will be 2 years delayed..

What kind of magic do you think Obama could do here?

Was not aware they had just signed the deal, will they be able to operate from the Indian Carriers ? The major concern with price hikes as I understand it is with the F35B ? With the A & C variants as previously posted being on and in some instances ahead of shcedule

The US is making major headway into India and see its build up as a major potential for future sales, as to what's been said behind closed doors ? Wikileaks may be able to held

 

[F-15 Eagle]

If the B ultimately gets canceled, what are the USMC's (and partner nations') alternative? They can't possibly go back to the X-32 right?

If the F-35B gets canceled, they could in theory anyways replace all 400 F-35Bs with F-35Cs and more F/A-18 Super Hornets on a 1 for 1 basis and still save billions of dollars.

Not too bad of an idea especially if the F-35B has not that great performance compared to the A and C model as well as the F/A-18.

The F-35B is only rated for 6.5-7Gs compared to the 9Gs for the F-35A and 7.5Gs for the F/A-18 and F-35C.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

As to the other part, I agree that the Chinese J20 is over hyped, both in when it will be operational and in its abilities,

That may be true but I do want to ask this somewhat newbie question to anyone who might be able to answer.

What is the F-35s air to air and performance capabilities compared to the J-20 but more importantly to the PAK-FA/T-50?

The maneuverability wise F-35A is a 9g rated aircraft(like most fighters) compared to the T-50 which accordingly to Wikipedia is a 10-11g aircraft but looks too big to be that maneuverable. Top speed for the F-35 is 1200 mph compared to 1300-1500 mph for the T-50, again not a huge difference and speed wise not enough to really make any sort of difference.

But what about missile loadout? The F35 along with the F-15SE both carry 4 AAMs internally with 6 external hardpoints(which will almost never be used) but how many missiles does the PAK-FA carry internally?

What about thrust to weight ratio and rate of climb for both the F-35 JSF and the PAK-FA? Combat range? Acceleration?

If anyone can please answer these questions I would be very thankful.

 

[SURB]

Here is some hot news.
Quoting the relevant parts.

F-35 looking more like white elephant

The F-35 fighter jet, set to replace a large part of the US warplane fleet, has become the most expensive weapons program ever, drawing increased scrutiny at a time of tight public finances.

Following a series of cost overruns and delays, the program is now expected to cost a whopping 382 billion dollars, for 2,443 aircraft.
Defense officials say the original cost estimates have now doubled to make each plane's price tag reach some 92 million dollars.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned the cost overruns cannot continue and expressed particular concern over the short take-off and vertical landing variant.
As part of a cost-saving drive, the Pentagon chief has decided to delay the purchase of 124 of the 449 units of this version until 2016.

Another bone of contention is a second engine being developed for the fighter by General Electric and Rolls Royce in case the Pratt & Whitney engine is not up to par. Gates contends this second engine is "unneeded."
Private analysts say the whole F-35 program is becoming a money pit.The United States is covering 90 percent of the cost of the development but has participation from Britain, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Australia.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hbC1VB_bwaTPMyArxoZHlaCKnI9A?docId=CNG.9aba57814c7600c998fc8002d920fa9b.c1

 

[Aussie Digger]

Here is some hot news.
Quoting the relevant parts.


AFP: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Er, that isn't exactly hot news and at $92m each, an F-35A is still cheaper than an F-15SG, F-22A, Rafale F3 or Typhoon T2/3.

If you want quality you have to pay for it I'm afraid...

 

[Vivendi]

Er, that isn't exactly hot news and at $92m each, an F-35A is still cheaper than an F-15SG, F-22A, Rafale F3 or Typhoon T2/3.

If you want quality you have to pay for it I'm afraid...

Comparing a/c prices is very difficult -- are thos USD 92m fly-away? And which year?

I would say, we still don't know the price of F-35.

What we do know is that even the F-35A IOC has slipped further:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/13/351805/slip-for-f-35a-entry-into-service-implied-in-latest.html

 

[Aussie Digger]

Comparing a/c prices is very difficult -- are thos USD 92m fly-away? And which year?

I would say, we still don't know the price of F-35.

What we do know is that even the F-35A IOC has slipped further:

Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal

True enough about IOC, though of course IOC is the result of many things becoming "operational", not simple platform maturity as many including Flight Global and Ares always imply, but the cost is known.

The LRIP IV costs for the F-35 anyway. I believe the LRIP IV examples (of the F-35A to keep things simple) were signed at about $106m each, to which you have to add the cost of an engine, but there is undeniable trend that the cost of the F-35 is reducing as the LRIP phases proceed towards full rate production and it stacks up very well, even in low rate initial production form against other modern fighters in the market place, on the basis of even cost alone. Capability wise it is a different matter altogether...



One can no doubt back track to 2002 dollars if they wish, but I don't see much point in it myself. I'd rather simply compare the cost of F-35A's in 2010 to the previous aircraft I mentioned, to get a reasonable price comparison. Let's face it. There is not much point comparing the F-35 to a fighter you could purchase in 2002 is there?

 

[t68]

deleted, moved to more appropriate thread

 

[localhost127]

im a casual reader of this forum ... as a hobbyist, etc - but the one thing i know (regardless of private industry or defense) is that true software quality assurance was almost nonexistant until ~20 years ago. even from the private sector (and it was established from the US private sector)

can anyone elaborate on the cubicle crew working behind the scenes on a common platform/code-base..and provide some re-assurance that in modern warfare --- software is the heart of it all?

can anyone here provide evidence on what (must be) a gigantic leap in terms of software development QA (even vs a recent as the f22) ... and whether other countries can really portray the same kind of "lessons learned"? lessons learned that cannot be read about in books, manuals, 'best practices', espionage, or anything of that nature -- but lessons learned by fielding platforms from an operational perspective, and making decisions based on real world experience ...?

ive noted gf's quiet commentary regarding cockpit analysis being at a more priorital level of "should be" discussion, vs the outside airframe / shaping itself. the mere fact that the bulk of anyone online discussing said platforms is automatically analyzing the outside geometry itself as first priority - i think - is laughable. the mere fact that outside shaping has (maybe) not been the most important aspect in a LO strike package (and i stress (thx gf) 'package') is even more questionable..

im not sure how long i was lurking these forums (or how i came across this domain) as just a site to finally figure out how things work in the "real world" -- but one thing is sure ... and that's that over the commentary of many forums ... hints and simple answers have been provided and humans always take the path of least resistance .. and that's always dumbing things down to platform vs platform.

 

[rip]

If the F-35B gets canceled, they could in theory anyways replace all 400 F-35Bs with F-35Cs and more F/A-18 Super Hornets on a 1 for 1 basis and still save billions of dollars.

Not too bad of an idea especially if the F-35B has not that great performance compared to the A and C model as well as the F/A-18.

The F-35B is only rated for 6.5-7Gs compared to the 9Gs for the F-35A and 7.5Gs for the F/A-18 and F-35C.

True as a classic dog-fighter, the B variant doesn’t stand up as well as the A variant but that does not mean it doesn’t have its own different and quite unique advantages even in the Air to air environment.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

True as a classic dog-fighter, the B variant doesn’t stand up as well as the A variant but that does not mean it doesn’t have its own different and quite unique advantages even in the Air to air environment.

I dug up an article on the F-35's maneuverability and thrust to weight ratio. Its about the chief F-35 test pilot debunking the theories that the F-35A anyway wont be a good fighter.

LM defends F-35 JSF agility against critics: AINonline

"But Rand authors John Stillion and Scott Purdue contended that the high wing loading of the F-35 makes it inherently less agile than current fighter aircraft, including Russia’s MiGs and Sukhois, and Europe’s Rafale and Typhoon. Moreover, the F-35’s thrust loading is significantly inferior to that of the F-15, F-16 and F-22, they said. As a result, Rand alleged, the F-35 is inferior in visual-range combat in terms of acceleration, climb and sustained-turn capability. It also has a lower top speed, they added.

Beesley called these comparisons naive and simplistic. An empty F-35A will weigh 30,000 pounds and have a maximum thrust of 40,000 pounds, he noted. “Even when you add the 1,200 pounds of our air-to-air combat load and the 9,000 pounds half-fuel load with which you would typically begin an air-to-air engagement, then our power-to-weight ratio is still almost 1:1.” Moreover, he noted, the F-35’s half-fuel load is greater than today’s fighters. An F-16 would have only 3,600 pounds.

Beesley also insisted that the sustained turn rate of the F-35 is conquerable, despite its higher wing loading. He insisted that there is “a huge amount of thrust available” from the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which is the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft.

The F-35 chief test pilot further noted that the F-35 can fly at angles of attack that are just as steep as those of the F-18 or the F-22. “It’s a fully maneuverable 50-degree airplane,” he said. He invited those who had witnessed the F-22’s startling agility at airshows recently to ponder the fact that “the same people also designed the flight control system for the F-35.”

 

[luccloud]

If the F-35B gets canceled, they could in theory anyways replace all 400 F-35Bs with F-35Cs and more F/A-18 Super Hornets on a 1 for 1 basis and still save billions of dollars.

Not too bad of an idea especially if the F-35B has not that great performance compared to the A and C model as well as the F/A-18.

Quite a few customers ordered F35B because their ships only support STOVL aircraft.

 

[rip]

I dug up an article on the F-35's maneuverability and thrust to weight ratio. Its about the chief F-35 test pilot debunking the theories that the F-35A anyway wont be a good fighter.

LM defends F-35 JSF agility against critics: AINonline

"But Rand authors John Stillion and Scott Purdue contended that the high wing loading of the F-35 makes it inherently less agile than current fighter aircraft, including Russia’s MiGs and Sukhois, and Europe’s Rafale and Typhoon. Moreover, the F-35’s thrust loading is significantly inferior to that of the F-15, F-16 and F-22, they said. As a result, Rand alleged, the F-35 is inferior in visual-range combat in terms of acceleration, climb and sustained-turn capability. It also has a lower top speed, they added.

Beesley called these comparisons naive and simplistic. An empty F-35A will weigh 30,000 pounds and have a maximum thrust of 40,000 pounds, he noted. “Even when you add the 1,200 pounds of our air-to-air combat load and the 9,000 pounds half-fuel load with which you would typically begin an air-to-air engagement, then our power-to-weight ratio is still almost 1:1.” Moreover, he noted, the F-35’s half-fuel load is greater than today’s fighters. An F-16 would have only 3,600 pounds.

Beesley also insisted that the sustained turn rate of the F-35 is conquerable, despite its higher wing loading. He insisted that there is “a huge amount of thrust available” from the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which is the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft.

The F-35 chief test pilot further noted that the F-35 can fly at angles of attack that are just as steep as those of the F-18 or the F-22. “It’s a fully maneuverable 50-degree airplane,” he said. He invited those who had witnessed the F-22’s startling agility at airshows recently to ponder the fact that “the same people also designed the flight control system for the F-35.”

I think the argument about combat maneuverability is way over blown. What the US learned when it made the F-16, is that even way back then, we could already build aircraft that was so swift and so maneuverable that the pilots we put into them, could not physically take the sustain G’s that those aircraft could produce and still think and act clearly. The pilots for the F-16 had to specially cleared and 30% of those that tried to qualify didn’t make the cut, including the ones that were transitioning from other fighters. That is why we changed our approach and started seeking advantages in air to air combat that pilots could be expected to fly. There are some parts of the envelope that can still be improved and that have benefit but until we take pilots completely out of the aircraft or come up with some way to keep the pilots from blacking out, most improvement in fighter aircraft will come in other areas than High G maneuverability.

 

[Sea Toby]

Quite a few customers ordered F35B because their ships only support STOVL aircraft.

Those ships can also be used as helicopter carriers in the sea control role for ASW.... Without any B Joint Strike Fighters, when the Harriers wear out, those carriers will revert to being helicopter carriers until they are paid off...

Or another aircraft manufacturer will produce Harrier replacements. At the moment none are doing so...

 

[Waylander]

Well, IMHO the US could work around not having a B version.
The Marines would cry bloody murder but there are 11 big carriers to work with.
The Brits are going the C route anyway.
It's the Spanish and Italians which are screwed. No B version means goodbye for their carrier born fast air capability. But their numbers are insignificant in the grand theme of things, the diplomatic damage exists, though.

So the ball is in the USMC field. It's going to be interesting if they can persuade the politicians that they need an independent fixed wing capability. In times of tight budgets I am not sure about the right answer.

 

[Bonza]

Well, IMHO the US could work around not having a B version.
The Marines would cry bloody murder but there are 11 big carriers to work with.
The Brits are going the C route anyway.
It's the Spanish and Italians which are screwed. No B version means goodbye for their carrier born fast air capability. But their numbers are insignificant in the grand theme of things, the diplomatic damage exists, though.

So the ball is in the USMC field. It's going to be interesting if they can persuade the politicians that they need an independent fixed wing capability. In times of tight budgets I am not sure about the right answer.

What I'm curious about is what kind of UAVs/UCAVs the Spanish and Italian (or USMC for that matter) ships could support, if appropriately fitted out. It'd be the next logical step if the F-35B fell through, wouldn't it? Seems like it'd be either pursue a next-generation drone or lose the fixed wing capability entirely... but then I guess it's all academic until someone demonstrates large-scale UCAV operations from a carrier. Not sure how complicated the support infrastructure issues would be compared to manned STOVL jets (presumably massive bandwidth requirements), and know even less about the doctrine impacts, but I imagine some pretty major changes would be necessary.

Honestly I don't really expect the B variant to be cancelled, but if it is I'd be looking at Northrop, General Atomics, etc with interest.

 

[luccloud]

Those ships can also be used as helicopter carriers in the sea control role for ASW.... Without any B Joint Strike Fighters, when the Harriers wear out, those carriers will revert to being helicopter carriers until they are paid off...

Or another aircraft manufacturer will produce Harrier replacements. At the moment none are doing so...

I wonder whether there's enough demand for developing a updated Harrier if F35B got canceled. But things look really bleak with RAF retiring its current Harrier and already opted for F35C.