JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[Viv S]

How many navies can afford the JSF?

For starters:

USN
USMC
UK
Italy

Highly Likely:

Australia
Japan

Highly Probable in the mid-long term

South Korea

Also, Spain and Singapore (link).

[NRao]

A turkey with TVC:

[youtube]a-4ZA5J3ZGs&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[Manish_Sharma]

^^Wow, that's amazing, is it made by a private co.? Would it be possible to place an order for making such a model for Tejas? Please let me know.

[NRao]

Hobby Lobby seems to have a model, with TVC:

http://www.hobbyexpress.com/f_35_lightn ... ng_jet.htm

[youtube]_cfOstdbTSA&feature=kp[/youtube]

You can build your own. I had once started work on a MKI, which required special attention due to the number of moving parts. The LCA should be much easier.

Start with a person who knows how to fly and you be the slave (when you get into trouble he takes over). It is not easy to fly them .......... need plenty of practice and funds. Not a cheap hobby.

Also check the modeling thread.

[brar_w]

I visited Chennai a few years back and spent some time with folks who had a club of enthusiasts who flew these sort of things. An extremely expensive hobby from what I know about.

[tushar_m]

similar to tejas , except for intake cost abt 6599/- available in India

http://www.rcbazaar.com/products/2344-d ... i-jet.aspx



Sorry for posting on JSF thread

[tushar_m]

You can actually buy Su 27/35 & just add canards in the front with extra servos (for canards movement ) .

Su27/35 do come with thrust vectoring engines so with canards its almost SU30mki

su35 in hobbbyking below

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/stor ... _arf_.html

Again sorry for posting on JSF thread

[Austin]

Why Can’t America’s Newest Stealth Jet Land Like It’s Supposed To?
Bill Sweetman

The Pentagon’s gazillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter can’t pull off maneuvers that older jets were doing in the early ’60s. Who’s to blame?

There are big air shows in the UK this summer. The British public may be a little disappointed, however. The F-35B Joint Strike Fighter—the stealth jet that’s supposed to be able to take off and land vertically, like a helicopter—will be on display for the first time outside the U.S. But it won’t emulate the vertical landings that the Harrier family has made routine since the Beatles were playing dodgy nightclubs in Hamburg.

U.S. Marine aviation boss Brig. Gen. Matthew Glavy has said that there are no plans for the F-35B to perform vertical landings (VLs) in the UK, because the program has not finished testing the matting that’s needed to protect the runway from exhaust heat. (The program office, the Marines, and Lockheed Martin did not return emails about any part of this story.) It may sound like a simple issue, but it pops the lids off two cans of worms: the program’s relationship with the truth, and the operational utility of VL.

The F-35B—the version of the Joint Strike Fighter that the Marines and the British are buying—is designed to take off in a few hundred feet and land vertically, like a helicopter. Its advocates say that will allow the Marines to use short runways worldwide as improvised fighter bases, providing air cover for expeditionary forces. But to do VL, the engine thrust must be pointed straight downward, and the jet is twice the size of a Harrier. Result: a supersonic, pulsating jackhammer of 1,700-degree F exhaust gas.

In December 2009, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Navfac) issued specifications for contractors bidding on JSF construction work. The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of spalling concrete on the first VL. (“Spalling” occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface.)

Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor on the F-35B, was dismissive. The specifications were out of date and based on worst-case assessments, the company said, and tests in January 2010 showed that “the difference between F-35B exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B [Harrier] is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant… changes” to how the new plane was operated.

Navfac ignored Lockheed Martin and commissioned high-temperature-concrete VL pads at four sites. At the Navy’s Patuxent River flight test center, F-35Bs perform VLs on a pad of AM-2 aluminum matting, protecting the concrete from heat and blast. Why didn’t the January 2010 tests result in a change to the specifications? How were those tests performed? The Navy has referred those questions to Lockheed Martin, which has repeatedly failed to answer them.

This isn’t the only instance where Lockheed Martin has tried to shoot the messenger on the basis of weak facts. Last year, the Rand Corporation in a report concluded that the JSF—a program that incorporates three variants of F-35, each one for a different military service—will cost more than three single-service programs would have done. Lockheed Martin accused Rand of using “outdated data,” but founded that criticism on numbers that were not in the report.

One reason the F-35 program is running behind schedule is that Pentagon overseers forced Lockheed Martin and the program office to reinstate flight tests that they had cut out, a move that the current program manager thinks was necessary. But Lockheed Martin consultant Loren Thompson accused Pentagon testing experts of “wanting the opportunity to close out their home mortgages and get that last kid through college.”

After a 2011 report showed the F-35A cost per flight-hour to be 40 percent higher than the F-16’s, program leaders asserted that the Pentagon’s accountants had misinterpreted their own numbers. Three years later, the numbers have barely budged.

The bigger issue is that the Pentagon bought the F-35B for two reasons: it can land on an LHA/LHD-class amphibious warfare ship, and it can operate from an improvised forward operating location, created around a 3,000-foot runway. The capabilities are complementary. Without one of those forward operating locations, the amphibious force is limited to six fighters per LHA (unless essential helicopters are off-loaded). But a short runway is of little value unless you can use it twice.

And what Navfac calls “standard airfield concrete” is military-grade, made with aggregate and Portland cement. Many runways are asphaltic concrete—aggregate in a bitumen binder—which softens and melts under heat.

The Marines could use AM-2 landing pads. But AM-2 is not a friend to the agility that justifies the F-35B over other forms of expeditionary airpower. An Air Force study calls it “slow to install, difficult to repair, (with) very poor air-transportability characteristics.” A single 100- by 100-foot VL pad weighs around 30 tons and comprises 400 pieces, each individually installed by two people.

At the very least, that will add to the challenges of operating a complex 25-ton fighter—twice as big and fuel-thirsty as the Harrier it replaces—under canvas and off the grid, particularly in a hybrid-war situation where supplying a squadron by land may be hazardous or impossible.

Rolling or creeping vertical landings can spread the heat load over a greater area. But there is no sign that they have been tested on concrete, asphalt, or AM-2 over asphalt. What about multiple, close-together landings? Will hot asphalt debris stay off the fighter’s stealthy skin?

Nobody seems willing to say when such tests will be conducted—which is odd, because we do flight tests to prove the airplane can meet requirements. How was the requirement for the F-35B to VL on a non-standard runway framed? Indeed, was that requirement formally defined at all? Omitting the latter would have been a catastrophic mistake by the Pentagon.

At least $21 billion out of of the JSF’s $55 billion research and development bill is directly attributable to the F-35B variant, which also has the highest unit cost of any military aircraft in production. The design compromises in the F-35B have added weight, drag and cost to the F-35A and F-35C. It would be nice to know that—air shows aside—it will deliver some of its promised operational utility.

[brar_w]

I see Bill is back to his same old banter for the tabloid. The F-35B till date has had hundreds of vertical landings. That it is not cleared to do so in the air show in the UK is because the testing for the mat is not yet complete. What's strange with that? Don't fighters take part in air shows with AOA restrictions? The F-35 has been doing air show routines with AOA restrictions due to software. The F-22 did so as well during its earlier phases. Once those testing parameters are completed the restrictions will lift. The Mat testing should conclude soon enough and the USMC will IOC in 2015 (Aug-Dec). The F-35B has already gone out twice on the Wasp and the marines are reasonably confident so as to even forward deploy the jet to Japan in 2016.

His tone is quite characteristic, he begins with reporting a fact and then starts the same old game of attacking the program and fighter with stuff that has floated in the media before and has had rebuttals. Cost is 40% more to operate. The services contest this and claim that the estimates are inflated and based on unreasonable assumptions. The same life time costs have fallen by 22% from previous (1 trillion dollar) estimates.

April Marks New F-35 Flying Records

Among the record SDD flights, the F-35B version completed its 700th vertical landing, and it began crosswind takeoffs and landings and expeditionary operations.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wOJ9JImlRs[/youtube]

At least $21 billion out of of the JSF’s $55 billion research and development bill is directly attributable to the F-35B variant, which also has the highest unit cost of any military aircraft in production. The design compromises in the F-35B have added weight, drag and cost to the F-35A and F-35C. It would be nice to know that—air shows aside—it will deliver some of its promised operational utility.

The program office, the Marines, and Lockheed Martin did not return emails about any part of this story

No one probably wants to talk to him given his history and rants on the program and his utter disdain (quite uncharacteristic for a reporter NO?) for Lockheed. He can stick to reporting on the uber swedish 6th gen fighter or how the world's most advanced radars will pick the F-35 but not the swedish 6th gen uber jet.

He has a clear "history" with Lockheed and attacking it publicly either through his reporting or through his public facebook page while he always gets key "scoops" from swedish and russian OEM's where he willingly publishes as facts whatever is claimed without asking for any audited performance reviews of the claims (while doing so at every level of the F-35). He even wished to have Classified information made available to him through his last article in the tabloid. Just imagine if one of our journos asks the MOD to declassify sensitive information because of some lunatic theory that things are being kept classified because they are Hiding something. He was once a good reporter, but he is no longer one (a reporter). He became the "story" with the entire JSF and Lockheed fiasco and as such lost all credibility when speaking on the program.

Aviation Week suspends Bill Sweetman from F-35 story

Gentlemen, your target for tonight is Fort Worth. Flacks are predicted to be numerous and persistent on the run-in and over the target, and bullshit is expected to be dense throughout the mission. Synchronize watches and good luck

[NRao]

I like Bill's never-say-die attitude. Must be making him feel young again.

The F-35B till date has had hundreds of vertical landings. That it is not cleared to do so in the air show in the UK is because the testing for the mat is not yet complete. What's strange with that? Don't fighters take part in air shows with AOA restrictions?

Perhaps you missed the title of this thread.

How else can anyone prove it to be a turkey? Without Bill there would be no thread.

[brar_w]

I like Bill's never-say-die attitude. Must be making him feel young again.

The F-35B till date has had hundreds of vertical landings. That it is not cleared to do so in the air show in the UK is because the testing for the mat is not yet complete. What's strange with that? Don't fighters take part in air shows with AOA restrictions?

Perhaps you missed the title of this thread.

How else can anyone prove it to be a turkey? Without Bill there would be no thread.

The problem is that the uniformed pilot strength has reached a critical mass and soon a lot of these lunatic theories will begin to be quashed as more and more pilots speak about the capability of the jet. Earlier him and others like him could hide behind the fact that most of the pilots with a decent amount of work hours on the jet were not combat coded but were company test pilots therefore had an agenda. As the test pilots shifted to service pilots their tone changed to " those combat coded pilots are flying early software blocks that are performance limited so they have little experience of what they are speaking about", now a large group of service and international pilots are getting their hours on the latest 2b software things will change fast. Perhaps that's why more and more of these lunatic articles are finding their way into a tabloid.

From the Tabloid Jem

Rolling or creeping vertical landings can spread the heat load over a greater area. But there is no sign that they have been tested on concrete, asphalt, or AM-2 over asphalt. What about multiple, close-together landings? Will hot asphalt debris stay off the fighter’s stealthy skin?

This one is fairly easy to debunk. Here is a video of the F-35B doing a Rolling vertical landing on a concrete runway at the marines common air station. The first creeping landing was done in 2012 probably at pax river.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgClbHcU2Q0[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgClbHcU2Q0

Here is the information on the runway at the base concerned

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KNYL

The second part "Will hot asphalt debris stay off the fighter’s stealthy skin?" is so absurd that it should make the readers laugh. What is he asking precisely? Is he a 10 year old kid asking why so and so occurs or why do you do this etc. Does he wish to be the person that writes the testing requirements for the F-35? If he is so technically capable, why is he writing his aviation expertise on a well established british tabloid news paper. So far he through his tabloid has asked the US government to declassify (at least to him) the very few classified elements (sensitive EW capability) of the program, claimed that the latest VHF radars will pick the F-35 from afar yet the uber Gripen E is the best "stealth fighter in the world". In this round of his tabloid routine he raises some questions that 10 minutes on a "search engine of choice" would debunk, and then practically begs to be made the honorary testing incharge of the program. At the same time the Marines or the OEM is not interested in replying to his nonsense let alone invite him over to and give him a personal tour as he gets when he visits european defense makers for whom he bats with utmost loyalty.

As far as the Mat weighing so and so and requiring transport. What does he think the standard kit for a Gator lift weights? What about missiles that launch off using the Gator targeting? How much do they weight? The F-35B is not an aircraft that will drop a bomb over some trees in a jungle and then open up the ground for high tempo ops from the cleared up airspace (His helicopter reference which clearly was inserted to sensationalize the story for the common tabloid readership). The Marines would first be required to secure an air strip, transport troops and supplies to it. Then set up radar cover (Gator) and have some sort of air protection system in place before they start high tempo ops from the forward deployed base. In case the runways of that "captured" base are not up to the mark a mat would be required and if not possible rolling landings would be performed as has been the case with the Harriers. The British just ran simulations a few months ago simulating rolling landings on their new aircraft carriers. In time they will move from simulations to actual testing as have been done by the USMC starting 2012.

US AND UK JOIN FORCES IN RECENT F35 SHIP INTEGRATION TRIALS

We've been actively involved in the design of the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) manoeuvre being developed for the UK MOD when the F35B Lightning II Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft and the new Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC) Aircraft Carriers come into operational service.

The SRVL manoeuvre provides enhanced ‘bring back’ meaning the aircraft is capable of bringing back more payload i.e. weapons and fuel over vertical landings owing to the wing lift created by forward airspeed at touchdown. Joint research efforts on both sides of the Atlantic have developed enhanced aircraft flight controls and displays which are applicable to both the F35C Carrier Variant arrested recovery and the F35B STOVL variant SRVL recovery to the aircraft carrier, albeit separated by some 70 knots approach airspeed.

The recent flight simulation trials at Warton tested these enhanced control law modes for F35C arrested recoveries to a Nimitz class carrier and gained positive feedback from the US Navy and F35 test pilots involved in the trial.

James Denham (Aeromechanics division at the US Naval Air Systems Command) said “During this trial we’ve identified improvements to deliver more accurate touchdowns, less bolters and reduced pilot training. Ultimately, what we’ve been able to test in this simulated environment allows us to inform future Concepts of Operation. The co-ordination and co-operation between us all has been extraordinary.”

Our facility at Warton is currently engaged in supporting UK carrier integration and risk reduction studies, realistically simulating the landing and take-off characteristics of a F35B STOVL variant to and from the Queen Elizabeth class carrier allowing engineers and pilots to help define and refine the design, layout and operations for both platforms. The work being undertaken in the simulator is generating large savings as refinements can be fed into the design phase of both programmes.

The simulator can also be switched to represent the F35C Carrier Variant and US Nimitz carrier deck, as was demonstrated in this trial. Further trials are due to take place soon to test the same control law mode for F35B SRVL recoveries to the UK’s QEC aircraft carriers with the US Navy observing.

Now coming to the questions on tactics and matting for expeditionary warfare. Matting is something that the marines and other expeditionary forces have used for decades. The concept calls for quickly building air bases in close proximity to the battle. In some conflicts bombed air bases, airports etc have been captured, quickly turned around and in others such as Afghanistan full expeditionary air bases have been constructed in 30-60 days for high tempo ops. The AM2 matting was the matting of choice for this for the USMC and this will remain so even for the F-35B. That the F-35B was not allowed to do a Vertical landing at farnborough (or cherry point just recently) was because the full testing on the matting has not yet completed (in line with other testing as the jet is still undergoing testing). As Bill would probably know, the aircraft is not designed around the matting, the matting is designed around the aircraft. The AM2 was designed around the harrier ops. Depending upon the results of AM2 / F35B testing a few possibilities may occur:

- The AM2 may not be able to handle high tempo vertical landings from the F-35B
- The AM2 handles the heat form the F135 exhaust

If the latter is the case then nothing is to be done. If the former is the case, then Rolling vertical landings will be done majority of the times and VC landings restricted to when required. Secondly, the AM2 matting will most likely be upgraded to sustain F-35B high tempo ops. This is a 55 year program, much infrastructure will be upgraded over time. The Marines are spending upwards of 2 billion for infrastructure upgrade for the F-35 and V22 aircraft so upgrading the AM2 is hardly something that will be out of the world. He is also misrepresenting the USMC tactics (and those that the RAF adn RN guys will adopt) to an uninformed tabloid readership. Why would the USMC or the RAF/RN employ vertical landings in an expeditionary environment? Even in Afghanistan they chose to do so for the first few days or weeks and once they had a few thousand feet of runways built up they switched to rolling vertical landings. Same was done in OIF. Why on earth would one build 6-10k foot runways and then be payload limited while landing vertically? Bill is not stupid, nor uninformed. He is being mischievous here as he has been for years after he got banned from reporting on the F-35 and had his entire image tarnished.

This interview here is relevant. I'll post some snippets but recommend reading the full for a proper context.

PREPPING THE GROUND-The Expeditionary Airfield Capability: A Core USMC Competence for Global Operations

We decided to build a runway called Dwyer 20 miles away from Marjah. We built that thing right in the middle of the enemy’s battle space, right there in the Helmand River Valley and, like I said, right there 20 miles away from where this major operation was going to take place. So by doing that, we put those AV-8s 20 miles away from where the ground combat element was going to be operating right there at Marjah. And it was, again, a Marine Wing Support Squadron that was able to build this austere runway of 4,000 feet, which the Harriers were able to operate out of, in the middle of the enemy’s battle space. Since then, we’ve grown that runway out to 6,000 feet, and low and behold, the enemy is probably watching this thing get built, just like we did in a lot of cases with our FOBs in Iraq, watching this thing get built.

SLD: What is it made of, so it can handle the heat, wear and tear, etc?

Chief Warrant Officer Collier: It can indeed handle the heat. Harriers have no heat impact on AM-2 matting; we have been doing it for years. Testing for the F-35B is ongoing to see how the current matting stands up to the heat from the new engine. Experts are looking at emerging or new technologies to see whether they can come up with some sort of higher heat-resistant matting that can supplement or complement the existing pads. The AM-2 matting might need modification or we might build special pads for the F-35B to land and then it can taxi on AM-2.

Chief Warrant Officer Collier: It can indeed handle the heat. Harriers have no heat impact on AM-2 matting; we have been doing it for years. Testing for the F-35B is ongoing to see how the current matting stands up to the heat from the new engine. Experts are looking at emerging or new technologies to see whether they can come up with some sort of higher heat-resistant matting that can supplement or complement the existing pads. The AM-2 matting might need modification or we might build special pads for the F-35B to land and then it can taxi on AM-2.

[NRao]

Well, you missed the fun from about a year ago. Fast-n-furious. David Axe, Vanity Fair, Sweetman ......................... man, Noah I am sure thought of building a new ark - for fear of losing the Yak + Harriers.


But seriously, I think the problem lies with the Russians. They took a cool $400 million in 1992 and did not solve this problem that Sweetman talks about in 2014. What kind of a plane did they design in the Yak that could not land on an air field in the UK? Strange guys.

[brar_w]

But seriously, I think the problem lies with the Russians. They took a cool $400 million in 1992 and did not solve this problem that Sweetman talks about in 2014. What kind of a plane did they design in the Yak that could not land on an air field in the UK? Strange guys.

Yak took the money because Lockheed had no where else to go to verify their STOVL designs and patents. All the data that could have verified their research was controlled (legal IP rights) by Lockheed's direct competitors in the JAST/JSF program. Swivel nozzle designs were patented by boeing in the 60's and there was absolutely no way Boeing would have verified lockheed's patents and designs given that they were directly competing against them. Lockheed went to Yak because not doing so would have meant a HUGE risk in their submission which would have basically meant submitting a design and a patent that had not been verified either through hard testing or through an expertise that had experience with such systems. Yak did what was asked and showed to lockheed that their designs were solid, as they are from what we know and what has been tested through the 700 vertical landings that have taken place till now

[Indranil]

[OT]

You can actually buy Su 27/35 & just add canards in the front with extra servos (for canards movement ) .

Su27/35 do come with thrust vectoring engines so with canards its almost SU30mki

Actually, I have a Su-35 model. I added canards and made them movable using a separate channel. However, it doesn't fly any better than the base model. Reasons for that are the difference in TWR from the actual plane and an aeromodel, scale effect and the different Reynold's number in which they operate. You can hold the model in high alpha moving forward at 10-20 kmph because of the TWR. At that speed the the canard can hardly develop strong enough vortices to stop the flow from separating. Also the TVC coupled with the high TWR creates much larger pitching moment than the moving surfaces, almost to the point that you are not in control. There was no way that I could add or comprehend how to add further commands using the canards. I played around a bit using the canards like inboard ailerons and airbrakes before just fixing it up for good . This is the same experience my friend had with his Eurofighter.

You can build your own. I had once started work on a MKI, which required special attention due to the number of moving parts. The LCA should be much easier.

I tried building the LCA wing many times. It is very difficult to build without a mould. I tried cutting and sanding it out of foam. I got near but never close enough to my satisfaction.
[/OT]

[NRao]

May 6, 2014 :: House bill promotes EA-18G and U-2S, but hits UCLASS

A key US lawmaker has proposed to extend Boeing EA-18G production for several months and save the Lockheed Martin U-2S from an early retirement, but allow the Department of Defense to divest the Bell Helicopter OH-58D and Fairchild Republic A-10.

[NRao]

By merging the F-35B with the A and C versions a lot of insurmountable compromises made due to the VTOL design were inherited into the A and C designs. There is a reason why the VTOL versions don't make good fighters. You think all these years since the German's first attempt to make VTOLs since WWII, people are dumb not to incorporate this very useful feature into their fighters? I really wish the F-22 production is restarted to provide air cover for the F-35s which are arguably the best ground attack planes out there and will be for some time.

Has any other thinking crossed the mind?

Is anything, other than pure, good old aerodynamics, in play with the F-35?

[brar_w]

Mr B.S. :

Rolling or creeping vertical landings can spread the heat load over a greater area. But there is no sign that they have been tested on concrete, asphalt, or AM-2 over asphalt. What about multiple, close-together landings? Will hot asphalt debris stay off the fighter’s stealthy skin?

Oops

11 February 2014: First STOVL Formation Flight

Two F-35Bs flew in close formation for the first time while in short takeoff/vertical landing, or STOVL, mode. BAE test pilot Peter Wilson flying F-35B BF-1 and Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Levin flying F-35B BF-5 conducted the mission from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The mission was used to evaluate the effects the aircraft had on one another while in STOVL mode to ensure F-35Bs can perform safely in formation while flying in an operational environment.

Video of the test that includes short take off and rolling landing all in formation

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odaknd0_GnI[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odaknd0_GnI

As is evident the melted asphalt had to be scraped off from the airframe. Those two fighters will probably never fly again

[brar_w]

Navy F135 Engine Tweaks Could Help USAF

Hartford, Conn.—A fuel efficiency push on Navy versions of the Joint Strike Fighter’s F135 engine could benefit USAF’s version as well, Pratt & Whitney next-generation fighter engine chief James Kenyon said. At a company press conference, Kenyon told Air Force Magazine that the Navy’s Fuel Burn Reduction Program, now underway, is a major effort to improve the engine by allowing it to run hotter while using five percent less fuel. Testing in 2016 is expected to certify the technology mature enough to cut it into production thereafter. “It’ll be up to the government to determine how they would use that, but it absolutely would be applicable to all three variants,” he said. Kenyon acknowledged that the push has been to keep the F135 powerplants as common as possible. “That certainly has been the strategy to date,” he said, adding it likely will be “until (it) … doesn’t make sense anymore.” The fact that “there are going to be a lot” of F-35s around the world, with a 40-year lifespan, means “the impetus to push product improvements into that engine (are) … huge, and there are a lot of opportunities to do that.” Kenyon said P&W is working on a number of technologies that could be inserted into the F135 in the future, but replacing the engine “wholesale” would likely only be pursued if “there’s a really overwhelming requirement to do that.” Technology, he said, “marches on, and that’s not true just for us, but for our adversaries.”

[brar_w]

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Stealth Fighter Cockpit Demonstrator Hands-On

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oyCzT6sB_4[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oyCzT6sB_4

[NRao]

More out of curiosity I started looking at what other nations had got out of the JSF/F-35.

Started with Israel and found found two rather interesting articles:

Israel (and Japan) seem to have bargained very hard to get what they want, with Israel being very pesky.

July 4, 2011 :: Israel, U.S. Strike F-35 Technology Deal

A major obstacle blocking Israel's purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been cleared, perhaps signaling that the U.S. is relaxing its hard-line approach to exporting JSF technologies that may be crucial to securing additional foreign sales.

The U.S. has been cautious about sharing sensitive technologies for the stealth fighter, but existing program partners and international competitions—such as in Japan—are increasing pressure on it to do so. The breakthrough comes as more international JSF partners near buying decisions. However, the added numbers will likely have only little impact on the debate about the F-35 unit cost, since initial procurement numbers for non-U.S. buyers are relatively small compared to the Pentagon's purchases.

By far the most contentious fight over F-35 technology has centered on Israel, which wants to adapt the aircraft to use indigenously developed electronic warfare (EW) equipment. After strongly resisting this for some time, Washington now has agreed to allow Israeli F-35s to be rewired so that Israeli EW systems can be installed on the aircraft. That would allow Israel to gradually add indigenous EW sensors and countermeasures on its fighters once it receives its first squadron.

With that deal in hand, officials for both the Israeli air force and Lockheed Martin expect the $2.7 billion contract for the procurement of 19 or 20 F-35As will be signed by early next year.

“I believe that Israel could receive its first F-35s in late 2016,” Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin's general manager of the F-35 program, tells Aviation Week. A senior Israeli air force official, who until recently was concerned about delays in the program, says the schedule agreed upon is “very satisfactory.”

The Israeli air force initially presented a long list of unique and costly requirements for the JSF, but it has accepted that its first F-35s will be almost identical to those of the U.S. Air Force, with only Israeli command, control, computers, communications and intelligence (C4I) systems installed in them. The plans to add Israeli EW systems, air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions as well as an external fuel tank, were approved in principle but will be deferred in order to protect the budgetary framework and delivery schedule.

Until recently, Israel insisted that only its own EW systems would be suitable to meet the developing anti-aircraft threat in the region, such as the deployment of SA-17 and SA-22 air defense systems in Syria. But now, claims the Israeli air force official, “the F-35s we will receive will be more than ready to meet those threats.”

According to the program schedule, Israeli F-35s will be manufactured within the seventh and eighth low-rate initial production (LRIP) lot. The LRIP 5 cost is being negotiated by the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin. “Israel could still be the first international customer to receive the JSF,” says Burbage.

One issue that remains to be settled between the two countries is when Israeli air force crews will begin training on the F-35s and on whose platforms. Burbage says training could commence in 2016, but it is for the Pentagon to decide which aircraft will be made available for Israeli training.

Facing a series of tectonic shifts in the region, some perceived as threatening, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are drafting a new work plan for 2013-17. The underlying assumption of the plan is that the dramatic changes in the Middle East could turn peaceful neighbors to the country's south, such as Egypt, and to the east, such as Jordan, more hostile to Israel. The IDF consequently aim to build a larger, more flexible force that will be capable of dealing with more than the traditional northern front of Syria and Lebanon. The Israeli air force claims to be the only service with that flexibility, and it calls for accelerating the plan to procure 75 F-35s by 2030.

In the coming years, the air force will begin decommissioning dozens of its aging fighters, such as F-16A/Bs and F-15A/Bs, and with only 20 new F-35s, its fighter fleet will reach its lowest point ever.

However, there is strong competition for funding. Israeli ground commanders argue that because of the potential threat that the giant and modern Egyptian army would be turned against Israel, it is necessary to establish an additional mechanized division, equipped with Merkava tanks and the new Namer armored personnel carrier. The production of the Merkava-based Namer was moved to General Dynamics Land Systems in the U.S. in order to enable Israel to procure them using U.S. military aid funding, the same funding source used to acquire the F-35s.

Still unclear is whether the U.S.-Israeli deal means Washington is recognizing that it needs to be more pragmatic in terms of JSF technology controls to secure international deals. Program officials do note that any foreign buyer will have the same level of stealth with which the U.S. will operate.

A key test of how much the technology transfer approach has changed will come in Japan, which recently issued a request for proposals for new fighters. Japan has specified a high degree of technology transfer and work on the program, with an expressed interest in a domestic assembly line. U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. C.D. Moore, deputy director of the JSF program, says the government is working closely with Lockheed Martin and engine provider Pratt & Whitney to put together an attractive deal. However, he also points out that Japan has ranked capabilities as the most important source selection criteria, even ahead of industrial participation and life-cycle cost.

Australia and Italy are expected to be among the next countries ready to commit to buying JSFs, likely placing their first contracts as part of next year's LRIP 6 package. Turkey is expected to come soon after. Although the Norwegian government recently put forward a proposal to buy the first four F-35s of its larger procurement, the actual contract for that deal may not be signed for another three years.

Meanwhile, Denmark is planning a fighter competition and is expected to make a choice quickly. Pending elections in Copenhagen could even see an acceleration of the competitive time line. The F-35 would face stiff competition from the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Saab Gripen and Eurofighter Typhoon.

This article is from 2011, so a few things have changed since then.

[NRao]

The other, companion, article. Two years later:

June 26, 2013 :: Israel Will Be First Non-U.S. Customer To Fly F-35

Though late to sign on to the network of nations purchasing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Israel will be the first international customer to operate the fifth-generation fighter.

“Israel will become the first non-U.S. operator of the F-35 in the world,” said Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for F-35 program integration and business development in an interview at the Paris air show. The first F-35I combat squadron is expected to achieve initial operational capability in 2018.

Eight other countries have already committed to the program with firm contracts.

“The F-35 fighters going into service with these users will use different initial versions that will be upgraded later into the latest version, as it becomes available,” O’Bryan said. That mean F-35s will be tailored to individual nations, he says.

“Specific capabilities developed for certain users will remain exclusive, and open to other users only with the original user’s consent. For example, the software blocks pertaining to the Norwegian anti-ship missile will not be available to other F-35 operators except Norway, unless it decides to sell those missiles to one of the F-35 users. The same goes to the Rafael Spice 1000. Similarly, the advanced electronic warfare, data links and specific software modes developed for the Israeli air force will remain unique to Israel and not delivered to any other user. These capabilities will also be fully integrated with the aircraft capabilities, adhering to the stealth characteristics of the aircraft, particularly, at specific apertures cleared for the Israeli systems integration in the lower fuselage and leading edge,” he said.

The first Israeli pilots plan to arrive at Eglin AFB, Fla., for training on the F-35A in early 2016. The first aircraft is tentatively set to be delivered to the Israel air force toward the end of that year, and arrive in Israel in 2017.

These F-35Is will be produced under Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots 8, 9 and 10. By that time, all 19 aircraft included under the $2.75 billion order will be delivered to the IAF under the current five-year plan. A follow-on order for more F-35Is is expected in 2018, under the next five-year plan. As the new fighter enters full-production rate, volumes are expected to increase, leading to proportionally lowering cost, expected to drop below $85 million in then-year dollars.

Financing of this follow-on procurement is already under discussion with the U.S. Jerusalem is seeking creative ways for Washington’s agreement to guarantee payment for these planes, including the foreign military sales budget allocated annually to Israel. If this concept is approved, Israel will be required to pay for the interest but will be able to commit willingly to follow-on orders and receive the second squadron immediately after the first is delivered.

“With the F-35 Israel is expected to receive the AIM-9X short-range air/air missile (AAM) and the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM Beyond Visual Range (BVR) AAM,” O’Bryan added. The F-35 currently carries the Raytheon AIM-9X Block at the outboard under-wing stations, in non-stealth configuration, as the current Block I missiles cannot be carried internally. This shortcoming will be corrected in Block II, which is to follow soon.

Nevertheless, the optimal weapon carriage for the F-35 comprises exclusively the AMRAAM missiles, enabling the fighter to maximize its “see-first, shoot-first, kill-first” strategy. The next generation BVR-AAM will offer both active and passive guidance techniques, offering effective intercept ranges in excess of 100 km. This makes part of the argument not to include the Rafael Python V missile in the aircraft configuration; the next generation Python VI will be designed to fit the new fighter. Yet, according to IAF sources, a decision whether to use a derivative of the Stunner or a brand-new AAM has yet to be made.

F-35s are prepared to fight air combat as a “networked formation,” sharing all information between all members at all time. The data link used for this process, called MADL, will also be available to all F-35 operators. In addition, Harris Multi-Function Advanced Data-Link (MADL) terminals could be installed on certain support elements, to extend information sharing and update the data available to the stealthy F-35 formation. In addition, the F-35 is now offering Link-16 connectivity and would obviously include a satellite link as well, providing secure, low-probability-of-detection communications on extended range missions.

In August 2012 Lockheed Martin received a $206 million award from the U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command, covering the development and integration of Israeli systems in the F-35A. Part of a larger package, the integration support agreement with Lockheed Martin covers a $450 million program to enhance Electronic Warfare (EW) equipment on the F-35, and integrate Israeli-unique systems beginning in 2016.

“The advantage of this F-35 for the Israel air force is not about higher performance or a specific weapon capacity, but the ability to understand the battlespace, identify, locate targets from standoff range and neutralize them before being engaged,” Brig. Gen. Hagi Topolanski, Chief of Air Staff and Deputy Israeli Air Force Commander, told Aviation Week in a recent interview.

“These capabilities are meaningful in dealing with modern fighter aircraft and advanced SAMs. While the F-35 has its limitations, it can take on and win against any threat currently available in-theater. Its ability to independently collect, assess and process a battlespace situational picture, and strike those targets by itself, from standoff range, is providing a qualitative edge over anything the enemy can confront with, in the foreseeable future.”

Israel insisted upon a number of requirements throughout the procurement negotiations on the F-35I. Those included the adaptation of the baseline F-35A including all its systems, to the Israeli air force’s operational environment, which will require some necessary additions.

“Our F-35I will be equipped with our specific networks, armament and electronic warfare, among them the Spice autonomous EO guided weapon. It will also carry the AIM-9X2 air-to-air missile, which will become the first platform in the IAF to employ this advanced air-to-air missile. We also plan to continue and pursue the development of future air-to-air missiles; we are still evaluating the cost/performance trade-off between a common air-to-air and air-to-ground missile and a dedicated AAM design,” Topolanski explained. “Assuming the F-35 will offer the capabilities it is planned to deliver, it will bring a new dimension to air battles as we know today.”

One of the advantages of the F-35 is the aircraft’s ability to fly long-range missions with internal weapons, accelerate faster and maintain higher speed, compared to current F16s or F-15s or any of the opposing force combat aircraft (flying with internal fuel).

To further extend the F-35’s range, Lockheed Martin is exploring an innovative concept from Israel, of using unique drop tanks, developed by Elbit Systems Cyclone. Designed in a similar concept to the F-22 under-wing drop tanks, these tanks, each containing 425 gal. of fuel, will use special attachment pylons that would completely separate from the wing, regaining full stealth capability after separation. An additional 900 gal. of fuel will significantly extend the F-35I range, enabling the IAF to operate its new stealth fighter at the “outer ring” of operation without mandatory aerial refueling.

[Correction: A story and headline posted June 26 mistakenly characterized Israel’s status on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Both should have referred to Israel as the first international customer of the program to fly the fighter.]

[NRao]

But, I do understand aerodynamics a bit. And I can tell you with utmost guarantee that the F-35 is a compromise when it comes to aerodynamics. You can ask anybody else and he will tell you the same things. If the Marine Corps wanted the VTOL version, then LM shouldn't have tried to merge the F-35B version with the other two. It was a damn good attempt. They got it as close as one can possibly get. And for this they should be commended. But that is where the lesson ends.

By merging the F-35B with the A and C versions a lot of insurmountable compromises made due to the VTOL design were inherited into the A and C designs. There is a reason why the VTOL versions don't make good fighters. You think all these years since the German's first attempt to make VTOLs since WWII, people are dumb not to incorporate this very useful feature into their fighters? I really wish the F-22 production is restarted to provide air cover for the F-35s which are arguably the best ground attack planes out there and will be for some time..

Here is one answer, to the "F-35 is a compromise when it comes to aerodynamics" topic, and, there are more:

“The advantage of this F-35 for the Israel air force is not about higher performance or a specific weapon capacity, but the ability to understand the battlespace, identify, locate targets from standoff range and neutralize them before being engaged,” Brig. Gen. Hagi Topolanski, Chief of Air Staff and Deputy Israeli Air Force Commander, told Aviation Week in a recent interview.

“These capabilities are meaningful in dealing with modern fighter aircraft and advanced SAMs. While the F-35 has its limitations, it can take on and win against any threat currently available in-theater. Its ability to independently collect, assess and process a battlespace situational picture, and strike those targets by itself, from standoff range, is providing a qualitative edge over anything the enemy can confront with, in the foreseeable future.”

This plane was never designed with conventional wisdom in mind. So, when conventional wisdom is applied it will fail to appeal.

[Cain Marko]

Here is one answer, to the "F-35 is a compromise when it comes to aerodynamics" topic, and, there are more:

“The advantage of this F-35 for the Israel air force is not about higher performance or a specific weapon capacity, but the ability to understand the battlespace, identify, locate targets from standoff range and neutralize them before being engaged,” Brig. Gen. Hagi Topolanski, Chief of Air Staff and Deputy Israeli Air Force Commander, told Aviation Week in a recent interview.

“These capabilities are meaningful in dealing with modern fighter aircraft and advanced SAMs. While the F-35 has its limitations, it can take on and win against any threat currently available in-theater. Its ability to independently collect, assess and process a battlespace situational picture, and strike those targets by itself, from standoff range, is providing a qualitative edge over anything the enemy can confront with, in the foreseeable future.”

This plane was never designed with conventional wisdom in mind. So, when conventional wisdom is applied it will fail to appeal.

Keyword being currently. In any case, most of what Israel faces in terms of fighters is hardly worth calling mature 4th generation. Not so in India's case.

[NRao]

Obviously.

When is it *not* "currently"?

It better be always "currently".

Nothing anywhere, especially in def is stationary and therefore "currently".





which bring up a great point.

The "6th Gen" engine should be out in 2020 or so.

For the US.

[Cain Marko]

Obviously.

When is it *not* "currently"?

in a couple of years

[NRao]

Another article that has plenty of data points:

Aug 6, 2012 :: Israel, U.S. Agree To $450 Million In F-35 EW Work

A $450 million agreement between Israel and Lockheed Martin to allow Israel's own electronic warfare (EW) equipment on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter paves the way to finalizing an initial 19-jet, $2.75 billion JSF deal between the U.S. and Israel, a cornerstone of Middle East defense cooperation. But it also means much more.

The long-expected accord further highlights the growing acknowledgment of the technological and economical limits of stealth capabilities in aircraft, as well as the need to keep the JSF relevant long past the advent of far more superior radar capabilities.

The F-35's stealth features have been a key reason for buying the JSF, but not the only argument for joining the world's largest-ever defense acquisition. Low radar cross section is a niche capability, and new sensor technology advances can make it less important. China, India and Russia are already finding weaknesses in stealth as they develop it for their own advanced strike aircraft.

“We think the stealth protection will be good for 5-10 years, but the aircraft will be in service for 30-40 years, so we need EW capabilities [on the F-35] that can be rapidly improved,” a senior Israeli air force (IAF) official tells Aviation Week. “The basic F-35 design is OK. We can make do with adding integrated software.”

Another important aspect of the acquisition is the aircraft's cost. “Israel cannot afford to be in the position of not having the F-35 in its arsenal. With the higher production [runs], the reduction in costs will allow the F-35 to become the replacement for the F-16,” the senior official says. Despite the JSF's high price tag, the Israelis want to shed their older aircraft because they are expensive to maintain, despite substantial U.S. aid.

“The additional cost to maintain old aircraft is not part of the U.S. annual military aid,” the IAF official explains. “Therefore, any further delay to procuring the F-35 would add spending to our defense budget, which would have to draw on resources needed for other programs.”

The original F-35I agreement announced in 2008 included options for up to 75 aircraft, representing a total of up to $15.2 billion. Israel is considering including the addition of a second squadron in the upcoming multiyear acquisition budget, although the option is being weighed against other Israel Defense Forces priorities. Until this latest agreement was struck, long-term planning remained frozen. But the Israelis were recently told that the flyaway cost of the second F-35 squadron will be lower than the first.

The latest accord will allow Israel to install its own radio and data link systems, as well as other equipment, on the F-35I models it is buying. Originally, stealth data links were an integral part of the F-35 mission system, restricting data communications within F-35 formations, or between F-35 and specialized communication-gateway platforms. The Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), developed by Harris specifically for the F-35, provides a low-observable link that enables communications within F-35 formations and with MADL-equipped command-and-control elements. MADL uses six antennas providing spherical coverage around the aircraft. It use a Ku narrowband waveform employed in a “daisy chain” scheme—the first aircraft sends the directional signal to a second aircraft, then to a third aircraft, and so on.

The waveform offers lower probability of detection, and thus intercept, by enemy signals intelligence (sigint) and EW systems. Originally, it was exclusive to the F-35, but in coming years it will be integrated into other stealth platforms operated by the U.S. military, including the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and Northrop Grumman B-2 bomber fleet. Since MADL is part of the F-35 communications/navigation/identification (CNI) mission system, Israel is expected to receive MADL, which will offer the IAF a data link commonality with foreign air forces for the first time. However, relying strictly on MADL means the F-35 will not be interoperable with the rest of the IAF combat fleet, so another solution has to be found.

In the past, the stealth community insisted on mission independence to secure maximum flexibility and ensure that their platforms' unique stealth characteristics are not compromised. The need to better coordinate stealth and nonstealth operations and to task the F-35 in future close-support missions, particularly for the U.S. Marine Corps, required the introduction of conventional systems such as Link-16.

In recent months the F-35 has tested the Link-16 and will soon test the Variable Message Format (VMF) protocol, widely used for close-air-support missions carried out by Western coalition forces abroad. This enhancement has also opened the opportunity for the Israelis to equip a stealth fighter with their own data link communication system. The current F-35 Link-16 application is believed to be reserved for nonstealth missions only, thus retaining the fighter's low-observable capabilities when operating in full stealth mode.

Israel has always insisted on adding specific systems into the platforms it procures from foreign sources. On U.S. fighter aircraft, these enhancements were focused on the insertion of indigenous EW systems; command, control and communications; data links; and integration of Israeli-developed weapons. These Israeli changes have garnered significant export orders, and some—such as the Litening advanced targeting pod—were integrated into USAF and Marine fighters including the F-16, F-15, AV-8B, A-10, F/A-18 and B-52.

Still, the Israeli EW deal was hard-fought, for a reason. Enabling JSF customers to include theater-specific threat libraries or a repertoire of jamming/countermeasure techniques, or issue frequent updates to these systems, requires a special approach compared with legacy, conventional EW systems. In the past, specific upgrades were issued to EW systems, which were kept separate from other avionics, thus enabling such changes.

In the F-35, all core avionics are integrated and fused; therefore, accessing part of the system requires integration with all associated systems. Having different air forces using different versions of core avionics would render such integration more complex and costly.

The avionic architecture of the F-35 solved this by introducing two separate integration levels. Customers can access the high level, introducing country-specific services, libraries or updates on their own, outside the aircraft software-upgrade cycles. The lower level is proprietary to the U.S. Joint Program Office and accessible only by Lockheed Martin. This level manages flight and mission-critical services, including flight controls, CNI and display, sensor management and self-protection. It also relates to the sensitive low-observable envelope of the F-35, an issue passionately guarded by the U.S.

Replacing core avionics with new systems at such a profound level of integration is unlikely, as it would require extensive testing by all F-35 operators with no obvious gain for the developer. The IAF is moving toward a different approach—the implementation of so-called integrated modular avionics (IMA). The concept has been in development under an Israeli Defense Research and Development Directorate program for several years and is currently being implemented under several pilot programs.

The architecture employs three layers for the integration of new applications—unified hardware, comprising a powerful general-purpose processor (GPP) and large memory bank, and a library of devices and services made available to developers, similar to a software developer kit. The common hardware would be adapted to each platform, and run common devices and services to enable developers to devise new applications designed for this generic processor, and deploy them on different types of platforms, rather than developing a specific, platform-unique application. Once the application is approved by the IAF, it could be fitted on different platforms, yet be easily maintained and upgraded over the years.

“Our vision is to enable developers to bring their sensors and application software, designed to run on our generic hardware. This will save platform resources and reduce the cost of integration and testing,” says the IAF's head of avionics. The service is planning to introduce this concept through all its current and future fighters, transport aircraft, helicopters and UAVs, which will be the most challenging task due to limited space and power availability. Besides higher processing power and memory capacity, the IMA will also minimize overload of core avionics in current aircraft. Among the assets the IAF is eyeing for the new approach aree software-defined radios, information fusion and mission planning.

While the IAF developed the IMA as a cost-effective method to upgrade existing platforms, it could offer a way to introduce new capabilities to the F-35 as well, without interfering with its complex core avionics. Including only the GPP IMA as part of the common hardware could offer significant advantages to users, enabling third-party application developers to innovate and introduce new capabilities to the aircraft in an “app”-like approach.

State-owned Israel Aerospace Industries is likely to join the EW work and is already poised to start building the aircraft's wings. Elbit Systems' Elisra subsidiary, the leading EW provider for the IAF, is also likely to participate. Elbit, in a joint venture with Rockwell Collins, makes the advanced helmet used by pilots on the single-seat F-35.

[NRao]

Feb 24, 2014 :: MBDA pitch a European weapons option for F-35 JSF

MBDA highlighted a large model of the JSF F-35 equipped with a suite of the company’s latest range of air-launched guided weapons. To provide the UK RAF’s F-35 with an air-to-ground high precision capability, MBDA is developing an advanced, network-enabled weapon known as SPEAR. This 100kg class, 100km range weapon, eight of which can be loaded into the JSF’s internal weapon bays, is powered by a turbojet offering increased standoff and end-game agility when compared to glide weapons.

[brar_w]

Seems to be very similar to the SDB and SDB2. With the amount of these the USAF and USN has and plans to acquire, good luck to MBDA to get economies of scale to lower the cost. Its a good alternate weapon however probably a much more expensive one

Far more interesting options for foreign customers would be these in my opinion

[brar_w]

More on the BS that was written a while ago

The blast from an F-35B as it lands vertically is pretty fearsome, but the Marines, Navy and program office all say the effects are manageable. I’ve seen the landing spots on the USS Wasp after several days of F-35 testing and spoken unsupervised with crew members. The Wasp deck crew told me they were seeing less damage to the deck than it sustains from some other aircraft that routinely fly from the Wasp and other LHD class ships.

So, the question remains, why not land vertically at the shows? ”We want to showcase how we will operate this plane during combat operations,” Capt. Richard Ulsh, a spokesman for the Marine deputy commandant for aviation, told me today. During a combat operation or for expeditionary use the plane would perform rolling or short takeoffs and landings on land to conserve fuel, Ulsh said.The plane is undergoing testing for landings on concrete and grass and dirt. The tests for concrete are finished, Ulsh said, but those for grass and dirt takeoffs and landings are not complete.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/f-35 ... rnborough/

[member_20292]

The Americans;

Have made the F 117, the B 2.

They had a playoff from several contractors for the F 22 program. F 22 and F 23 were the two downselects.

After god knows how many stealth prototypes and million man hours of testing till the F 22, they are now developing a cheaper stealthy version in the F 35 - which was itself downselected from several prototypes.

Lockheed's got so many programs, in stealth itself, they have had the F 117, then the F 22 and now the F 35.

As compared to the huge body of work outlined above; you have a few prototypes in China, in Russia and wind tunnel models in India.

Does the F 35 still look like a silly idea for the Indian Air Force?

I agree with what Shukla was saying 3 years ago, scrap the MMRCA, go for the JSF. There are NOT any peers of the JSF, to even have a fly off.

[brar_w]

Here's an interesting bit of quote from an experienced fighter pilot - LtCol David ‘Chip’ Berke USMC

“The F-35 doesn’t replace anything…,” LtCol Berke said. “If you look at the F-35 as a replacement to the Hornet or Super Hornet you will undermine from day one, the real capability of the airplane. It does not replace anything, it is unique, it is revolutionary… Legacy aircraft are tactical platforms and make tactical decisions and fly tactical missions that impact the overall strategic objective. I believe there is a requirement to view the F-35 as a platform that can operate across the spectrum from tactical to strategic or anywhere in between as required.”
Said CAF: “Chip has highlighted a key opportunity: can RAAF, and more so the ADF, transform the way we fight?”
As an example of what not to do, CAF recalled his own experience of converting from the digital classic Hornet to the post-AUP F-111C where, despite being upgraded with GPS/INS digital navigation instruments, F-111 crews continued to fly missions using analogue way-point techniques.
“We can be often constrained by previous mindsets,” CAF said.
“Right now,” he warned, “I feel I am flying that digital F-111, and nobody is showing me exactly what we can achieve.”

http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... ment-17887

[NRao]

F-35 Lightning II Helmet Mounted Display System to make CANSEC debut

OTTAWA, Ontario (May 27, 2014) – The F-35 Lightning II Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) will make its CANSEC debut this year in the Rockwell Collins exhibit (Booth 1103). The HMDS, manufactured by Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems, provides F-35 pilots with unprecedented situational awareness for piloting the most advanced aircraft in the world. The virtual head up display provides pilots with day and night operation capability and a binocular wide field of view.

Rockwell Collins specializes in leveraging commercial avionics for military applications while also providing its customers with high performance communications in any environment. Journalists and show attendees are invited to the company’s exhibit at CANSEC 2014 to learn more about Rockwell Collins avionics and communications products, solutions and systems integration capabilities, including:

Advanced, proven airborne products, systems and solutions

ARC-210 - Airborne programmable software defined radio
HeliSure™ - Enhanced situational awareness for helicopter safety
Pro Line Fusion - Applying innovative commercial avionics for military aircraft

High-performance, interoperable, secure networking communications

Wideband HF - Communications for secure exchange of high bandwidth data
721S radio - Fixed site communications for command and control
FireStorm™ - Situational awareness for mapping and tracking friend or foe
SMART Blade Radio - Flexible, space efficient communications for air traffic control applications
Link 16 - Wide range of Link 16 terminals

Simulation, training and life cycle support

Link 16 Simulation and RealFires™- Solving complex simulation and training challenges
FlexForce™ - Tailorable, performance based service solutions

Rockwell Collins is committed to serving its Canadian customers. With a workforce of more than 140 engineers, program managers and support staff in Ontario and Quebec, Rockwell Collins has a well-established and growing presence in Canada and is actively involved in the local communities. The Montreal facility primarily handles Commercial Systems sales to the Canadian civil aviation community. It is an important element in the company’s strategic alliance with Bombardier Aerospace, through which Rockwell Collins provides customer engineering and operations support.

The facility in Ottawa specializes in the design and development of wireless, ad hoc networking technologies, including battlefield modeling and simulation of tactical networks. The SubNet Relay Technology developed there is in use with customers worldwide, deployed with some of the world’s major navies. Additionally, the Canadian-designed Tactical Application and Communication Test Bed enables customers to simulate operational military scenarios using models of military applications, devices and protocols through a fully distributed discrete event communication simulator.

The facility also serves to coordinate customer service and repairs for Rockwell Collins products sold to Canadian military and commercial customers including Intermediate-level repair and service capability for the Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) Link 16 terminals installed on Canadian Forces’ CF-18 fighters and ARC-210 radios in use on all RCAF fleets of aircraft.

[Viv S]

Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts


By COLIN CLARK on June 06, 2014 at 4:25 AM


LANGLEY AFB: After months of name-calling and increasingly aggressive sea and air patrols around the Senkaku and Spratly islands, a Chinese frigate rams and sinks a Japanese Aegis ship patrolling near Uotsuri Jima on Christmas Eve 2021. Is it accidental? Irrelevant. After repeated provocations and increasingly shrill pronouncements by Chinese leaders, the Japanese people have had enough. Japan scrambles fighters and bombers to protect the Senkaku Islands, Okinawa, and the rest of its southern and western flanks. In response, China’s most capable aircraft carrier deploys fighters from just outside Japanese territorial waters.

After decades of sporadic but increasingly violent confrontations, these actions finally prompt Japan to invoke its mutual defense treaty with the United States. As several hundred Chinese J-20s are scrambled and streak toward the Japanese islands, more than 500 F-35s from the US, Korea and Japan join 70 F-22s roaring off flight lines from across the Pacific. US Air Force F-35As take off from hardened air bases in Japan and a now-unified Korea. Roughly half the F-35B fleet in the region zoom off from ships and locations scattered across the Pacific where they have been moved far from hardened facilities as tensions rose. A small force of F-35Cs join Growlers and F/A-18 Super Hornets fly picket for the three US carrier groups operating in the region. The bulk of the F-35C force sits ready on the three flight decks, ready as a reserve force, along with the half of the allied force’s F-35Bs poised on highways and ships scattered across the Pacific theater.

China’s most advanced integrated air defense systems — largely upgraded systems based on Russian S-400 models — are manned and ready. The J-20s and IADS use both radar and Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensors for targeting and tracking. This is not just a more advanced version of the air war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the one in the Balkans against Soviet-trained forces in the mid-1990s, when an F-117 stealth fighter was shot down by Serb forces after weeks of the aircraft flying the same air corridor.

The Chinese radar will change their frequencies to monitor and target the allied squadrons. Networked radar systems across China will turn on and off randomly, sharing data with each other and triangulating it for targeting. Combine that networked data with information from the IRST sensors and the tasks of the F-22 and F-35 pilots will grow geometrically more complex.

The best estimates by most experts are that the F-22s will fare quite well in this classic Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) environment, relying on their unique combination of low observability, super cruise and vectored thrust to strike other aircraft and IADS. But how will the Joint Strike Fighters — about which we know so much about their cost and schedule — fare in war during the crucial period from Day 0 to Day 10?

At least one senior allied official I’ve spoken with believes the F-35 will be “undefeatable” through the 2020s. That’s awfully vague, if impressive. Most of what the public knows is that the F-35 possesses advanced sensors and is stealthy, but that doesn’t answer the fundamental questions either.
.
.
.
.
Hostage labels as “old think” those critics who point to the F-117 shoot-down and the presumed supremacy of high-powered electronic-magnetic warfare. ”We have one F-117 shot down in 78 days of flying over that country, thousands of sorties. They shot down one airplane,” Hostage says. “And they shot down one airplane because we flew across the same spot on the ground for weeks at a time. It took them multiple weeks to figure out how to shoot the thing. Then they had to get four or five systems to do it. It took them weeks to take it out. I can accept that kind of attrition rate. I obviously don’t want to lose anyone, but good Lord, one airplane over the course of 78 days, that’s pretty impressive.”

Growlers are not front-line aircraft for the first week of war, Hostage argues. They will be useful against a high-end opponent for the same reason that other fourth-generation aircraft such as F-15s and F-16s will be: for “volume” in the face of superior enemy numbers.
.
.
.
.
“But in the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical. You’re not going to get a Growler close up to help in the first hours and days of the conflict, so I’m going to be relying on that stealth to open the door,” Hostage says.
.
.
.
.
Bear in mind that the F-35 is the first US aircraft designed to the requirement that it be highly effective at neutralizing S-400 systems and their cousins.

“The F-35 was fundamentally designed to go do that sort of thing [take out advanced IADS]. The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763.

[Viv S]

Also from the article - The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.

[brar_w]

Nice read. What I found interesting was from a separate article by the author

‘A God’s Eye View Of The Battlefield:’ Gen. Hostage On The F-35

The DAS is a remarkably sensitive and discriminating set of six sensors that gives the pilot data not just from in front of his aircraft, but directly below, above and to the sides — in military parlance he’s got 360 degree situational awareness. How sensitive is the system? I’ve been told by two sources that the DAS spotted a missile launch from 1,200 miles away during a Red Flag exercise in Alaska. But DAS, just as with the older Defense Support Satellites used to search the world for missile launches, may not know exactly what it’s looking at right away.

That’s where the F-35′s data fusion library comes in, combing through threat information to decide what the plane has detected. The plane, after combing through thousands of possible signatures, may suggest the pilot use his Eletro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) or his AESA radar to gather more data, depending on the situation. The F-35 that spots the apparent missile launch will share its data with other F-35s and the Combined Air and Space Operations Center (CAOC), which will be managing all the data from US and allied aircraft and satellites so that bigger computers on the ground can crunch the data from those sensors and make recommendations if any single plane hasn’t gathered enough information with enough fidelity. (Of course, the CAOC can also do that whole command thing and coordinate the F-35s flying with other aircraft, ships and ground troops.)

The loop will be complete once a target is identified. Then the plane’s fusion center will recommend targets, which weapons to use and which targets should be killed first. Given the Chinese government’s vast and persistent espionage enterprise it won’t be surprising if the J-20s boast some of the F-35′s capabilities, but I have yet to speak with anyone in the Pentagon or the intelligence community who says the Chinese appear to have developed soft are and sensor capabilities as good as those on the F-35.

The other side of the cyber conflict is what is usually called electronic warfare, though separating cyber and electronic warfare becomes awfully difficult in the F-35. The AESA radar plays a prominent role in this arena too, allowing sharply controlled and directed energy attacks against enemy planes, surface to air radar and other targets.

While Growlers, Boeing’s EA-18G, have extremely powerful, broadband jamming capabilities, the F-35′s combination of stealth and highly specific electronic beams is a better combination, Hostage tells me during the interview.

“If you can get in close, you don’t need Growler-type power. If you’re stealthy enough that they can’t do anything about it and you can get in close, it doesn’t take a huge amount of power to have the effect you need to have,” he says.

One of the keys to spoofing is, I’ve heard from several operators, being careful to avoid overwhelming the enemy with high-power jamming. That’s another problem with the Growler approach.

“The high power-jamming is ‘I’ll just overwhelm them with energy since I can’t get in there and do magic things with what they’re sending to me,’” Hostage says.

Much of this electronic warfare, as well as the F-35′s intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) capabilities, are made possible by a core processor that can perform more than one trillion operations per second. This allows the highly classified electronic warfare suite made by BAE Systems to identify enemy radar and electronic warfare emissions and, as happens with the EOTS, recommend to the pilot which target to attack and whether he should use either kinetic or electronic means to destroy it.

In our interview, Gen. Hostage points to the plane’s ability to gather enormous amounts of data, comb through it and very rapidly and simply present the pilot with clear choices as a key to its success.

“People think stealth is what defines fifth gen[eration aircraft]. It’s not the only thing. It’s stealth and then the avionics and the fusion of avionics. In my fourth gen airplane, I was the fusion engine, the pilot was the fusion engine. I took the inputs from the RHWG, from the Radar Homing Warning Gear, from the radar, from the com, multiple radios, from my instruments. I fused that into what was happening in the battlespace, all the while I’m trying to do the mechanical things of flying my airplane and dodging missiles and all these sorts of things,” he says.

Combine the fusion engine, the ISR sensors, the designed-in stealth, the advanced helmet, and the eight million lines of software driving what it can do, add weapons to the stealthy weapon bays, add a pilot and that is what allows you to “break the enemy’s kill chain,” as Hostage likes to put it.

“What we’ve done with the fifth generation is the computer takes all those sensory inputs, fuses it into information. The pilot sees a beautiful God’s eye view of what’s going on. And instead of having to fuse three pieces of information and decide if that’s an adversary or not, the airplane is telling him with an extremely high degree of confidence what that adversary is and what they’re doing and what all your wingmen are doing. It’s a stunning amount of information,” Hostage says.

Combine that information with the kinetic, cyber and electronic warfare capabilities of the F-35 and we may know why South Korea, Japan, Israel and Australia have all recently committed to buy substantial numbers of F-35s, in spite of the aircraft being behind schedule, facing significant technical problems and, of course, being really expensive overall. Several sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations — from government and industry — tell me that each country went in to discussions with the Pentagon with a great deal of skepticism. But once country representatives received the most highly classified briefing — which I hear deals mostly with the plane’s cyber, electronic warfare and stealth capabilities — they all decided to buy. That kind of national and fiscal commitment from other countries may say more about the aircraft’s capabilities than anything else. After all, some of those countries are staring right at China, the country that has rolled out two supposedly fifth generation fighters. And Russia, the other country trying hard to build a rival to the F-22 and the F-35, sits not far behind.

[NRao]

That’s where the F-35′s data fusion library comes in, combing through threat information to decide what the plane has detected. The plane, after combing through thousands of possible signatures, may suggest the pilot use his Eletro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) or his AESA radar to gather more data, depending on the situation. The F-35 that spots the apparent missile launch will share its data with other F-35s and the Combined Air and Space Operations Center (CAOC), which will be managing all the data from US and allied aircraft and satellites so that bigger computers on the ground can crunch the data from those sensors and make recommendations if any single plane hasn’t gathered enough information with enough fidelity. (Of course, the CAOC can also do that whole command thing and coordinate the F-35s flying with other aircraft, ships and ground troops.)

*This*.

My argument has been that such "needs" is only with the US. Granted it is home made, yet. What "need" is there for the PAK-FA to detect at such ranges or such connectivity? China may have one in the future. So, they have not invested in such technologies and therefore "are lagging behind". And, unless there is a "need" they will have no reason - other than a perceived threat - to catch up either.

[brar_w]

The thing with cyber, electronic and classified capability built up is that it requires a huge amount of investment over a long time, with proper management by folks who have experience in this type of thing. Unkle has a classified/secret/black budget that is 60 billion dollars or near about per annum, and I am sure almost all of that (or a large chunk of it) is R&D and capability development and not acquiring hundreds of hardware products stashed around secretly somewhere. That aspect of the budget alone is larger than the overall defense budget of UK, or Japan's for that matter.

[Manish_Sharma]

This is beyond pathetic, will be caught on radar from 100s of miles:

[brar_w]

Its been designed with LO in mind, which required that the entire assembly of an IRST, FLIR, Camera, LPD be combined into one single unit, that unit be placed in a small stealthy aperture, that would be covered by sapphire glass with proper LO shaping. The entire process/concept clearly shows of some actual work that has gone into from a LO point of view, hence the solution you see currently on the fighter. Even the structural moulding that binds the sapphire glass is made from Composite and so is the housing assembly inside the aperture. Clearly this was a rush of blood on your part, because I ticked you off when I spoke of the IRST bulge on the pakfa being quite similar to what exists on other fighters (4.5, and 4th gen). Well that point still stands. The Russians are YET (get this, YET) to house the pakfa's IRST in a stealthy aperture. Not that they will never do so, but that they are yet to do so. Hope your anger calms down

Had they not paid any attention to LO the IRST part would have looked like this



or this




While the FLIR part would have looked like this



They obviously chose not to leave it like that and take the time to design a stealthy aperture, which would not only blend into the airframe design from an aerodynamic point of view but would comply with the jet's LO requirements. This entire line of research started during the ATF program (F-22) when they were testing various apertures for targeting both in the tunnel and for RCS.

Performance of the sensor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqRohwACkBA

[Manish_Sharma]

Not that they will never do so, but that they are yet to do so. Hope your anger calms down

Hee hee heee, please do not projection your on anger upon me. Shubh Prabhat!