JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[member_28714]

So our AF is readying our birds to do well in BVR conflict. So what exactly is the value add that the F 35 brings that other planes dont have? Slow and fat?

You want me explain the utility of stealth in BVR combat?

Stop twisting what I said. Either you did not read it or you choose to ignore and respond to some hypothetical assumption of yours.

'you are likely to be within visual range even before your BVR has locked on'

If you dont get a chance to engage in BVR, what is the point of BVR.

^Your words.

In reality however, combat capability at BVR ranges is critical for every regional air force including the IAF.

I said F 35 will work best as a BVR plane, specially for the US as it intends to use it off its AC's just off the coast of puny countries they would like to bully. If the US wants to take on the Russian Flankers on the other hand, they will send in Raptors.

Now that we've established that its designed to dominate BVR combat, I suggest you do a little reading on the F-35's Distributed Aperture System (DAS), the VSI HMDS and the Aim-9X Blk3, to find out why it'll dominate every dogfight that it gets into.

The US is purchasing 1750 CTOL F-35As vs only 300 F-35Cs. (And the Raptor fleet consists of only 187 fighters.) BTW the JSF program emerged from the USAF-USMC CALF program. The USN was a late entrant in, rather than the driving force for the JSF project.

In the Indian context the F 35 is a useless fat bird that guzzles too much fuel and cannot fight a border war when inundated with 100's of Chinese flankers.

Do you have an actual statistics to back your claim about 'guzzling too much fuel'?

As for what it'll do against the PLAAF - it can loiter radar silent in enemy airspace using its ESM & EO systems to pass on tracking data on dozens of Flankers to supporting missile platforms. Or alternately, loiter at range employing the second most powerful fighter radar in the world (after the F-22's APG-77v1) to forward operating Tejas (or Mirage/MiG) fighters, leading to R-77/Astra barrages potentially killing dozens of Flankers.

1) Stealth? Thats what FGFA and AMCA are for.

2) The F 35 is BVR only, it will get swatted like a fly in WVR. In the Indian context going from BVR to WVR is almost instantaneous. Covering 100 km for a fleet of chinese flankers will take 5 minutes.

3) When the US purchases 1750 planes we will talk. They will not. The pentagon already knows that. The CTOL planes are for US air bases around the world. Will do you a lot of good to read up their complementary force of refuelers which will allow the F 35 to operate. India has 6 refuelers and maybe 18 by the end of 2030. That will be hardly enough to service 100 F 35's forget other planes.

4) If you dont know the F 135 fuel appettite, you need to read. And you need to start reading with Thermodynamics. Maybe understand the non-linearity of fuel consumption to combustion chamber volume when trying to squeeze out more power. Applies to any combustion engine, whether a diesel water pump or a 6th gen turbofan or a rocket motor given a fixed fuel.

And finally the Novator will outrun the AIM's, VSI is a brand name - HMDS is nothing new. And regarding the DAS, the rafale had this 10 years back with the SPECTRA suite. The Next Gen SPECTRA will be eons ahead of anything else. Get real.

[member_28714]

well thats not what Nrao said, He wanted a derated F135. An engine that weighs at least 1.8 times the design specification of the AMCA.

I am just pointing out the perceived wisdom that comes with hanging around online forums for too long. Over n Out. Thankfully the IAF is not staffed by internet geniuses.

Semantics. By deration he was obviously referring to a scaled down product not thrust reduction around the same hardware. His reference was basically to a F119 derivative.

Wow, how simple is that. Just make 1:0.6 versions of all parts and it will work. You just took that ridiculous suggestion to a whole new level.

Do you even know what an engine dev involves. C'mon man, I dont want to get into a debate like what happens on paki forums. you either know what you are talking about or you dont.

[NRao]

Turkey, US to modify the SOM cruise missile for use with F-35

Roketsan and Lockheed Martin signed a teaming agreement for the integration of a variant of Turkey’s new SOM cruise missile for the F-35 Lightning II. The companies agreed to jointly develop, produce, market and support SOM-J for internal carriage on the F-35 aircraft or external carriage on other aircraft. This ‘J’ version of the cruise missile will be designed to be more compact than the original design, equipper with folding control surfaces and a rocket booster.

The SOM system is an autonomous, long-range, low-observable, all-weather, precision air-to-surface cruise missile. The SOM-J variant is tailored for internal carriage on the F-35 aircraft.

This formal agreement builds on a previous announcement by Lockheed Martin last year, that the SOM cruise missile will be certified and adapted as part of the F-35 weaponry. Both SOM and Norwegian Joint Strike Missile (JSM) are expected to be available for the F-35 along with Small Diameter Bomb II (GBU-53) and Joint Stand-Off Weapon – JSOW (AGM-154C1) and Israeli Spice 1000 for internal carriage, as part of Block 4 in 2021.

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control Executive Vice President Rick Edwards and Roketsan Chairman of the Board Eyüp Kaptan signed the agreement. The integration of SOM as part of the weapon mix of the F-35 was one of the demands posed by the Turkish government pursuing procurement of the F-35. In May 2014 Turkey placed an order for the first two F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, but has yet to fully approve the planned acquisition of 100 aircraft. The first two Block-3F configuration will be delivered in 2018, as part of the Low Rate Initial Production-10 (LRIP-10).

The SOM is being developed by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, (TUBITAK-SAGE). The first guided flight was performed in August 2011, and followed by initial deliveries of the missile the next year. The initial version of the missile was designed to strike land targets at ranges of 180 – 250 km. Enhanced versions are also in development, offering extended range capability of 500, 1500 and up to 2,500 km. The subsonic (Mach 0.94) missile weigh 600 kg and carries a penetration or high explosive fragmentation warhead at a weight of 230 kg (507 lb). The missile has demonstrated strike precision of less than 10 meters (down to five meters) at ranges of 300 km (160 nm). It is designed to attack surface targets on land and at sea.
SOM is the first indigenous standoff attack weapon developed in Turkey. Prior to the introduction of this missile the TuAF was using the Israeli AGM-142 ‘Popeye’ standoff attack missiles on its F-4E Phantom strike fighters, which were also upgraded by Israel.

[brar_w]

The problem is that advocates of the JSF fondly imagine that anti-stealth efforts will be frozen in time. The foll. report indicate sthat "stealth" is no longer a sole magic bullet. With the JSF's well known inability to dogfight,once it loses its BVR advantage,its "kaput"!

No one really thinks of it this way. Not those that designed it, not those that wrote requirements for it, and definitely not those that intend on operating it. Perhaps someone wishes they thought this way, but in reality they do not. The entire concept of survivability and lethality is baked into the entire design of the F-35. Stealth by itself is useless without integrated avionics while both of them are useless as "stand alone" without the deep level of integration that the F-35 is designed for (Again its a metric that is achieved in phases) with systems in place currently (other F-35's, AEGIS ships, AEGIS weapons etc, Cyberwarfare assets etc). Survivability is achieved through a combination of these measures not solely by a reduction in RCS. This has been the case with every increment in stealth designs, that have gone from closed, stand alone " I won't talk to anyone else" systems to systems that really use the maximum resources at their disposal to achieve high degree of lethality. This transition occurred from the F-117 to the B-2, and the F-22 took this interoperability to the next level (amongst a closed group of course). The F-35 bumps it off to fleet wide integration (not just interoperability) that extends beyond hardware and platforms, into soft kill options, cyber warfare and manned, unmanned teaming. The common sensor alone would enable huge level of integration with the EOTS now being proposed for UCAV's and EODAS for ships. Moreover, there are plenty of things will be added to make the F-35 survivable over time just like things have been added to keep the B_2 survivable over time. Its just the case that the cost to do so would be much cheaper on the F-35 then on the B-2. The L band and other "bands" threat is not something that cannot be significantly tackled by a combination of things done to the existing birds. For that, we'd need to know the full classified capability of the F-35 particularly that of the Barracuda. As has been mentioned by none less then the ACC commander, he doesn't want the F-18 Growlers anywhere near the F-35's. We have also learnt just recently (coming out of ASC14) that the F-18 Growler even with the NGJ is not the right platform or the right jamming for USAF needs due to various technical matters regarding altitude and frequencies and what the USAF expects from its future platforms (think F-35 and LRS-B)..Given the size of the large VHF sensors and their inability to work independently they can easily be tackled through a combination of stuff like the LRS-B, incorporating specific, precise and narrow jamming into the F-35 that incidentally has plenty of space for growth - Assuming the capability already does not exist since the Barracuda is still largely classified. No wonder the only folks really worried about this are in the media and especially those backing the NGJ and Growler. I wonder what they'd be doing now that the USAF, reluctantly as come out and effectively shut them up by stating that the Growler does not fit technically into their EW requirements, or indeed complements the way it plans to operate in the future. What next for the VHF Radar folks running around scared and the Boeing Growler backers?

With the JSF's well known inability to dogfight,once it loses its BVR advantage,its "kaput"!

Well known inability? What it breaks down and falls to the ground when it dogfights? What is the HMD/EODAS sensor/ UI integration meant to do? Why have they gone through that path? Just for the kick of it? What about the joint EOTS and EODAS integration through the ICP and the KPP that required much better AOA performance than the aircraft it is replacing? Again, just for fun? What about integrating new weapons such as the BLK III winder, that allows the F-35 to use its superior Passive sensor mix to launch WVR weapons much earlier in the envelope? How is the F-35 any less of a dogfighter even without the vast amount of systems at its disposal compared to the aircraft it is replacing?

n this interview, Pete “Toes” Bartos of Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, a former F-15/F-18 pilot and Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) requirements officer at the Air Combat Command, explains the nature of the F-35 combat systems and how they work together.

Could you give a sense of how the integration of a new generation of sensors really makes this a different aircraft? And describe the advantage of having a 360-degree capability.

There are a couple components to the answer. It starts with the building blocks.

The Joint Strike Fighter was designed so that the different elements could be mutually supportive of each other. For example, the advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and Electronic Warfare (EW) suite didn’t have to do everything by themselves; the Electrical Optical Targeting System (EOTS) and Distributed Aperture System (DAS) didn’t have to independently answer every infrared (IR) requirement. These sensors were designed to work together as a combat system with system level capabilities.

You were looking for interactive supportability?

Absolutely. Fusion is the way to leverage the other sensors’ strengths. The sensor building blocks were designed to be flexible multi-function avionics that could reinforce the others.

Take the AESA radar as an example. We commonly refer to it as an MFA, a multi-function array. It has, of course, many air-to-air modes, and many air-to-ground modes. But it also offers capabilities as a fully capable EW aperture. For EW, I mean electronic protection, electronic attack, and electronic support, the latter of which involves sensing or passive ops.

The bottom line is the AESA design incorporated as much connectivity, processing and as wide a bandwidth as technology allowed in order to maximize flexibility and spectrum coverage.

The radar interacts directly with the EW gear, which is imbedded on the F-35’s wing lines and other surfaces. The EW system gives you 360-degree coverage, and covers the radio frequency (RF) spectrum on the battlefield. The F-35 CNI system—communication, navigation and identification—is another flexible, reprogrammable system that further expands 360-degree RF spectrum coverage.

The radar and the EW system are symbiotic and are linked via a high-speed data bus built upon high-speed fiber optical systems. And the systems communicate virtually pulse-to-pulse to assist each other within the RF spectrum. So the radar can draw on advanced jamming resources, and the EW techniques can be channeled through the radar.

The AESA itself has its own attack modes as well and a very sensitive, precise geo-location capability, which can work in conjunction with EW gear. The CNI system is also linked via the high-speed data bus.

On the infrared side, you have DAS and EOTS. DAS was made sensitive enough, precise enough, and long-range enough to include aircraft detection and track capabilities. For even longer-range IR functions and targeting, EOTS can be used in conjunction with DAS.

As a former fighter pilot, you have much F-15 experience. How will pilots perform air-to-air operations differently with the F-35? It appears to be a big culture change.

Well, it is. And without getting into all the tricks that the F-35 has up its sleeve, because you’re stealthy, you can get a lot closer to the adversary and your missile shots are now lethal, no-escape shots. With the F-15 today, you’re very wary of the range of the other guy’s missile, and you basically have to assume that he’s locked on to you, or at least knows where you are since you are in a big, non-stealthy airframe. And since you don’t have a missile warning system, you have to always assume that there is a missile headed your way when you get near an adversary.

You wind up playing this game of chicken, where you get close enough to throw a rock, and then you run away to avoid any rock coming back at you. And then you try to sneak back and throw another rock from a closer range. And then you run again and try to avoid his next rock. You hope he runs out of rocks first, or that he’s not looking when you throw one of your rocks. But you never get in there and throw rocks without the fear of retribution.

Like the F-22, the F-35 can maneuver right in there and attack with a close-in kill shot without playing chicken. If the F-35 gets in a bad situation, the pilot can extract himself a heck of a lot easier than in an F-15. The F-35 can turn away and still attack because it has eyes in the back of its head coupled with high off boresight missiles.

DAS is always tracking every aircraft nearby, in every direction, simultaneously, and looking for inbound missiles at the same time. F-35 mission fusion software keeps targets and IDs sorted out, even in a dynamic turning dogfight or when a target is directly behind you.

While flying an F-15 in a dogfight, I have to constantly swivel my head to manually detect and track adversaries and wingmen with my eyes. Situational awareness breaks down quickly, and I’m suddenly wondering if that distant object I’m looking at is an F-15 or an adversary aircraft.

I’ve flown against MiG-29s, and it wasn’t until I was up close and saw the paint job that I could be positive it wasn’t an F-15. With your head and eyes shifting back and forth under high G loading in a turning fight, it is very easy to lose sight, get confused, and misidentify aircraft.

Data link update rates are too slow for ID purposes in a dogfight. ID correlations frequently are swapped from wingmen to bandits and vice versa as they streak past your jet and swap sides.

The F-35 isn’t going to lose those IDs; it isn’t going to lose that situational awareness because there is always at least one sensor with high update rates tracking the various aircraft. In fact, you may even do better by just looking at your situational awareness displays or helmet symbology rather than at the confusing swirl of airplanes to visually sort out good from bad.

And if a missile is shot at you in the F-35, you’ll see it coming whether it is smokeless or not. You can take the appropriate measures, or just let the aircraft automatically provide the countermeasures.

http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-f-35 ... nterprise/



Can't speak for other programs but the F-22 and F-35 programs focused on the overall combat performance of the system vs projected threats. Designers or those involved in capability definition didn't compartmentalize things into BVR, WVR, EW, ISR, SEAD, DEAD ETC while chalking up the capability requirements. Such an approach ended with the 4th generation platform development and upgrade. Both the F-22 and the F-35 designs emphasize combat advantages in all domains, and leverage performance, design, sensors, avionics and weapons to develop a combat edge over projected adversaries and to maintain that edge as combat needs transition (going from BVR to WVR for example, or from switching from CAP to supporting ground troops through ISR missions). For example, a 4 ship doesn't need to break down mission into responsibilities per platform. The F-35 would be required to do a lot of tasks passively and would autonomously share the data on the tasks to those within the loop that may be other F-35's (Using MADL), other aircraft (4th to 5th or the new proposed L band data sharing between F-35 and F-22) and to the combat command in general (L16 or SATCOM). The common picture thus formed would be updated automatically without the pilot having to do anything to achieve that.

[NRao]

Pentagon reaches agreement to purchase 43 F-35s under LRIP 8 at 3.6% lower cost

The U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin have reached an agreement in principle for the production of 43 F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF) aircraft. Officials anticipate the Low-Rate Initial Production lot 8 (LRIP 8 ) contract to be finalized in the coming weeks. The contract covers fiscal year 2014, with deliveries beginning in 2016.

The LRIP 8 contract procures 29 U.S. aircraft including 19 F-35As, six F-35Bs and four F-35Cs. It also provides for the production of the first two F-35As for Israel, the first four F-35As for Japan along with two F-35As for Norway and two F-35As for Italy. The United Kingdom will receive four F-35Bs. The contract also funds manufacturing-support equipment as well as ancillary mission equipment.

Cost details will be released once the contract is finalized; however, in general, the average unit price for all three variants of the airframe in LRIP 8 is approximately 3.6 percent lower than the previous contract. Additional cost savings from the F-35 cost reduction initiative will begin to be implemented in the next batch of procurement – LRIP 9.

“Today’s agreement is representative of the program’s ongoing maturation,” said F-35 Program Executive Officer, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan. “Once production of LRIP 8 aircraft is completed, more than 200 F-35s will be in operation by eight nations. We are glad the Government and Lockheed Martin are completing a fair and reasonable contract for the 8th lot of aircraft.”

“Affordability is a key performance parameter in today’s challenging acquisition environment.” said Lockheed Martin F-35 Program General Manager Lorraine Martin. “Working together with our suppliers, we are making steady progress in reducing F-35 costs. While there will always be room for improvement, the results of the LRIP 8 negotiations and initiatives like the Blueprint for Affordability are indicative of our shared commitment to ensuring affordability.”

Launched earlier this year, Blueprint for Affordability aims to reduce the price of an F-35 5th generation fighter to the equivalent of today’s 4th generation fighters by the end of the decade. The initiative leverages upfront investments from key industry partners Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman to drive down production costs. Cost savings from this initiative will begin in LRIP 9.

The LRIP 8 aircraft join 166 F-35s contracted under LRIPs 1-7. As of October 24, 2014, 115 F-35s, including test aircraft, were delivered from Lockheed Martin’s production facility in Fort Worth, Texas. The U.S., eight Partner nations, and Foreign Military Sales participants have announced plans to procure more than 3,100 F-35 aircraft over the life of the program.

Israel and Japan are both expecting to receive their first F-35 aircraft in 2016. The first Israeli squadron of 19 aircraft will be based at IAF base in Nevatim, east of Beersheba. Israel is planning to buy another squadron of 20 aircraft toward the end of the decade. Japan has ordered 42 F-35As which will replace 78 ageing F-4EJ/RF-4J Phantom II fighters being phased out of service.

The Four British aircraft will form the RAF first Lightning II operational unit in the UK. The UK has already taken delivery of three F-35B jets to date, which are based at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, US, and an order was placed for a fourth UK aircraft in September 2013 which will be delivered early in 2016. These are for test and evaluation. The UK’s first operational Squadron will transition to RAF Marham in Norfolk in 2018, which will become their Main Operating Base.

“As the first batch order for aircraft to form part of our first operational squadron, this marks a very significant milestone in this programme.” RAF Air Commodore Mark Hopkins commented. Hopkins is the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for Lightning II procurement at the UK MOD. The aircraft provide an important step on the path to rebuilding the UK’s carrier strike capability. They feature short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) and the latest stealth and intelligence surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) technology.

[NRao]

Nimitz Getting Ready for First F-35C Flight at Sea

ABOARD USS NIMITZ, off SAN DIEGO — At sea for some final training before scheduled maintenance, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) is planning ahead for something of a historic mission: Landing — and handling — the first carrier-based joint strike fighter (JSF).

In early November, the San Diego-based carrier will host the F-35C Lightning II for a set of sea trials, marking the first time the carrier variant lands on a ship at sea, officials said. The carrier version of the JSF is designed and built with a tailhook and strengthened body so it can trap aboard a carrier and catapult into flight.

“It’s the first time anybody will see it,” said CAPT John C. Ring, Nimitz commanding officer. “The F-35C, the carrier version, that will be the first time the carrier variant lands on an aircraft carrier.

“We are kind of dedicated to making sure they’re good to go and they can demonstrate the things they want to demonstrate. We are completely here to help make them succeed,” said Ring, speaking on the bridge Oct. 22 as flight deck crew maneuvered aircraft for another round of flight operations. The afternoon blue sky provided good conditions following a day where poor weather conditions kept the flight deck quiet.

“It’s developmental testing, so they are going to do some envelope expansion. So I’ll try to give them the perfect winds every time,” Ring said. “Whatever they want me to do, I’ll do it.”

A different version of the JSF in development, the F-35B, has operated at sea, but that is the Marine Corps’ variant. It is designed for short take-offs and vertical landings at sea, from amphibious assault ships, or on land. The F-35A is the land-based variant for the Air Force.

To ready for the testing team, Nimitz will clear the decks, literally. Jet squadrons using its flight deck for squadron and individual training and certifications will fly off by month’s end to provide ample room on the flight deck and hangar bays for testers, evaluators and observers for the important mission in developmental testing.

Navy officials have said it’s likely two F-35Cs will be used for the sea trials, although officials haven’t announced details.

Ring, a veteran naval flight officer, is among the Nimitz curious and eager to see how the jet flies, maneuvers and looks. He’s asked the Navy for video of an F-35 going around in a pattern, “so we would recognize what normal will look like, so we can recognize what not normal looks like. I’m going to have a JSF guy standing right here when they are landing,” he added, gesturing to the captain’s chair in the bridge.

It is good timing for Nimitz, which deployed overseas last year and soon will prepare for a 17-month-long maintenance period in the Pacific Northwest, to get first eyes on the newest jet that will join the fleet. “We are the oldest active aircraft carrier,” Ring said, “and that is the newest weapon system.”

[Viv S]

1) Stealth? Thats what FGFA and AMCA are for.

A. Stealth is not a mission, it is merely a feature of an aircraft.
B. The F-35A is stealthier than the FGFA. And has superior avionics, reliability and durability.
C. The AMCA is at least one and a half decades away from becoming operational.

2) The F 35 is BVR only, it will get swatted like a fly in WVR. In the Indian context going from BVR to WVR is almost instantaneous. Covering 100 km for a fleet of chinese flankers will take 5 minutes.

For the second time now - kindly acquaint yourself with how the EODAS-HMDS-Aim-9X combination works in WVR combat.

3) When the US purchases 1750 planes we will talk. They will not. The pentagon already knows that. The CTOL planes are for US air bases around the world. Will do you a lot of good to read up their complementary force of refuelers which will allow the F 35 to operate. India has 6 refuelers and maybe 18 by the end of 2030. That will be hardly enough to service 100 F 35's forget other planes.

The Pentagon has said nothing about reducing the F-35A order. If you've read a statement by the US DoD to the contrary, share it with the forum. The size of the US refueler fleet doesn't support your claim about the F-35 being meant to operate primarily as a carrier based fighter. It does however provide evidence of how many F-35As will be acquired (180 KC-46s plus 60 KC-10s).

4) If you dont know the F 135 fuel appettite, you need to read. And you need to start reading with Thermodynamics. Maybe understand the non-linearity of fuel consumption to combustion chamber volume when trying to squeeze out more power. Applies to any combustion engine, whether a diesel water pump or a 6th gen turbofan or a rocket motor given a fixed fuel.

And you're suggesting the F135's 'combustion chamber' has the same volume as lower rated engines?

And finally the Novator will outrun the AIM's, VSI is a brand name - HMDS is nothing new. And regarding the DAS, the rafale had this 10 years back with the SPECTRA suite. The Next Gen SPECTRA will be eons ahead of anything else. Get real.

The DAS is not the same thing as the SPECTRA which spans a broader range of systems. And the Rafale will have a new IR MAWS with the upcoming DDM NG not the 'Next Gen SPECTRA', and it will still not be equivalent to the DAS which is mated to the EODAS. Nor is the F-35's HMDS the same thing as any other helmet mounted cueing system (the closest analogue to it is the BAE Striker II, which was the low tech fallback plan for the F-35).

Also, the Novator is meant for slow moving non-maneuvering targets of opportunity like AWACS, refuelers and the like.

[Viv S]

Wow, how simple is that. Just make 1:0.6 versions of all parts and it will work. You just took that ridiculous suggestion to a whole new level.

Do you even know what an engine dev involves. C'mon man, I dont want to get into a debate like what happens on paki forums. you either know what you are talking about or you dont.

Pointless semantics again. Scaling down here obviously isn't a reference to building a to-scale replica of the object. Calling the Brahmos-M, a scaled down version of the Brahmos doesn't mean its engine or avionics are design to replicate the latter's proportions. Scaled down in colloquial usage refers to size of the derivative with reference to the original.

[member_28714]

1) Stealth? Thats what FGFA and AMCA are for.

A. Stealth is not a mission, it is merely a feature of an aircraft.
B. The F-35A is stealthier than the FGFA. And has superior avionics, reliability and durability.
C. The AMCA is at least one and a half decades away from becoming operational.

2) The F 35 is BVR only, it will get swatted like a fly in WVR. In the Indian context going from BVR to WVR is almost instantaneous. Covering 100 km for a fleet of chinese flankers will take 5 minutes.

For the second time now - kindly acquaint yourself with how the EODAS-HMDS-Aim-9X combination works in WVR combat.

3) When the US purchases 1750 planes we will talk. They will not. The pentagon already knows that. The CTOL planes are for US air bases around the world. Will do you a lot of good to read up their complementary force of refuelers which will allow the F 35 to operate. India has 6 refuelers and maybe 18 by the end of 2030. That will be hardly enough to service 100 F 35's forget other planes.

The Pentagon has said nothing about reducing the F-35A order. If you've read a statement by the US DoD to the contrary, share it with the forum. The size of the US refueler fleet doesn't support your claim about the F-35 being meant to operate primarily as a carrier based fighter. It does however provide evidence of how many F-35As will be acquired (180 KC-46s plus 60 KC-10s).

4) If you dont know the F 135 fuel appettite, you need to read. And you need to start reading with Thermodynamics. Maybe understand the non-linearity of fuel consumption to combustion chamber volume when trying to squeeze out more power. Applies to any combustion engine, whether a diesel water pump or a 6th gen turbofan or a rocket motor given a fixed fuel.

And you're suggesting the F135's 'combustion chamber' has the same volume as lower rated engines?

And finally the Novator will outrun the AIM's, VSI is a brand name - HMDS is nothing new. And regarding the DAS, the rafale had this 10 years back with the SPECTRA suite. The Next Gen SPECTRA will be eons ahead of anything else. Get real.

The DAS is not the same thing as the SPECTRA which spans a broader range of systems. And the Rafale will have a new IR MAWS with the upcoming DDM NG not the 'Next Gen SPECTRA', and it will still not be equivalent to the DAS which is mated to the EODAS. Nor is the F-35's HMDS the same thing as any other helmet mounted cueing system (the closest analogue to it is the BAE Striker II, which was the low tech fallback plan for the F-35).

Also, the Novator is meant for slow moving non-maneuvering targets of opportunity like AWACS, refuelers and the like.

1)
a) Of course stealth is a feature. Whats your point, if you have one?
b) No its not. whatever studies are available show the F 35 is inferior. But what comprehensive study are you referring to anyway. Did that study have access to an FGFA/PAKFA
c) The F 35 is at least one decade away from signing a contract to delivery if for India.


2) For the nth time stop assuming that you know better about how a system untested in battle works. And stop assuming that when the F 35 will still be stealth when in WVR. Also stop assuming that WVR means visual range of the pilot!

3) The Pentagons budget cuts have started and they will only increase going forward. Obviously any cuts would have to do with the current year. The Pentagon is not stupid to announce to the world that they are going to cut F 35 numbers because every 10% drop in number will translate into a 7-8% cost escalation. Unless the Pentagon is run by morons, they wont announce cuts, will they now? So lets wait to see how many F 35's will fly. Not everyone on this forum will die waiting a decade.


er, btw, the USAF has currently 450 tankers, the marines have another 80. Even if you take out 20% under service thats still 400 tankers. Again, please read.

4) You clearly have not followed the PWF135 development if you have to ask me that question.

5) Finally, you want me to get into a pissing contest about which is better - SPECTRA or DAS? SPECTRA is already a decade old. Its replacement system will be a decade newer than the DAS. Sure DAS will be the best. The HMDS will depends on the sensor suite, whatever info is available can be displayed to the pilot. So HMDS is indirectly a function of sensors. You win the package, none individually.

And now my favourite, you call the Novator a slow plane killer, yet you are ok with speculating the awesomeness of a weapon set to be introduced a 8-10 years from now. Really cool!

[member_28714]

Wow, how simple is that. Just make 1:0.6 versions of all parts and it will work. You just took that ridiculous suggestion to a whole new level.

Do you even know what an engine dev involves. C'mon man, I dont want to get into a debate like what happens on paki forums. you either know what you are talking about or you dont.

Pointless semantics again. Scaling down here obviously isn't a reference to building a to-scale replica of the object. Calling the Brahmos-M, a scaled down version of the Brahmos doesn't mean its engine or avionics are design to replicate the latter's proportions. Scaled down in colloquial usage refers to size of the derivative with reference to the original.

One more comment highlighting your understanding of engine development. What next are you gonna suggest? The electromagnetic shrink ray from Honey I shrunk the kids?

[NRao]

Oct 28, 2014 :: U.K., Israel Expand F-35 Orders Despite Costs, Delays

F-35 might be over overbudget and behind schedule, but militaries around the world are still eagerly ordering the stealth jet.

[Viv S]

1)
a) Of course stealth is a feature. Whats your point, if you have one?

The service doesn't have a quota for 'stealth aircraft'. The F-35 outperforms in the Rafale in every mission profile. Saying 'but we have FGFA for stealth' is meaningless unless you're suggesting that the MMRCA be junked in favour of waiting to 2023 for the FGFA.

b) No its not. whatever studies are available show the F 35 is inferior. But what comprehensive study are you referring to anyway. Did that study have access to an FGFA/PAKFA

Take a look at the PAK FA's patent filing. And refer to Gen Hostage's statements on the F-35's stealth vis a vis the F-22. And to Lorraine Martin's statement on the F-35's RCS vs the JSF's original requirements.

c) The F 35 is at least one decade away from signing a contract to delivery if for India.

It IOCes in 2016 for the USAF. Lead time for an order is approximately two years. LM could deliver over 60 F-35s by 2020 if it had to.

2) For the nth time stop assuming that you know better about how a system untested in battle works. And stop assuming that when the F 35 will still be stealth when in WVR. Also stop assuming that WVR means visual range of the pilot!

- 'Untested in battle' would be every 4.5G aircraft out there.
- No one's assuming that stealth is applicable WVR.
- WVR means visual range of the pilot for most aircraft. For the F-35 the pilot's display is augmented by the DAS, so its a longer range for him.

3) The Pentagons budget cuts have started and they will only increase going forward. Obviously any cuts would have to do with the current year. The Pentagon is not stupid to announce to the world that they are going to cut F 35 numbers because every 10% drop in number will translate into a 7-8% cost escalation. Unless the Pentagon is run by morons, they wont announce cuts, will they now? So lets wait to see how many F 35's will fly. Not everyone on this forum will die waiting a decade.

So you have access to internal Pentagon memos explaining future cuts to the program?

Just FYI, the F-35's cost is determined by its production rate not by the final size of the order. That production rate as of LRIP 8 has risen to 43 aircraft per year (up from 32/yr five year ago) and will further rise to 80 aircraft by LRIP 10.

er, btw, the USAF has currently 450 tankers, the marines have another 80. Even if you take out 20% under service thats still 400 tankers. Again, please read.

And that tanker fleet corresponds to 1,763 boom-refueled non-carrier F-35As.

4) You clearly have not followed the PWF135 development if you have to ask me that question.

The F135's development issues have nothing to do with its performance.

5) Finally, you want me to get into a pissing contest about which is better - SPECTRA or DAS? SPECTRA is already a decade old. Its replacement system will be a decade newer than the DAS. Sure DAS will be the best. The HMDS will depends on the sensor suite, whatever info is available can be displayed to the pilot. So HMDS is indirectly a function of sensors. You win the package, none individually.

I was trying to explain (with futile results apparently) that the DAS and SPECTRA are not equivalent systems. They don't perform the same function. The DAS' analogue is the DDM-NG.

As for the second part, every element of the F-35's avionics package is superior to its Rafale equivalent (with the possible exception of the EOTS's IRST function, which is an unknown vis a vis OSF-NG).

And now my favourite, you call the Novator a slow plane killer, yet you are ok with speculating the awesomeness of a weapon set to be introduced a 8-10 years from now. Really cool!

The Novator (much like the Phoenix and R-37) is designed and intended as an 'AWACS-killer'. Against a fighter target, a Meteor is a far better option at long ranges.

Also, to repeat the F-35A will IOC in 2016 (with full combat capability with the Block 3 achieved in 2017).

[Viv S]

One more comment highlighting your understanding of engine development. What next are you gonna suggest? The electromagnetic shrink ray from Honey I shrunk the kids?

I suppose its ironic then that that comment had nothing to do with engine development.

[brar_w]

Just to clarify on something Viv took a shot at as well. The EODAS system does not perform the same function as Spectra. The F-35 has the following systems/sub-systems perform the following function:

1) FCR - APG-81, radar plus fully functional (from IOC) EW suite that includes passive CNI functions as well
2) AN/ASQ 239 (Barracuda) - Dedicated Electronic Warfare System that uses its own sensors, antennas and collaborates with the Apg-81 for Electronic Warfare activities
3) CNI suite
4) EODAS (Electro Optical Distributed Aperture System) - Covers various functions ranging form those of an IR MAWS (as was fitted on the F-22 more than a decade ago), to a Macro IRST with the ability to track fighters 360 degrees, detect missile launches and track missiles for 100's of miles, detect ground artillery, fire with the ability to geolocate the launch and automatically pass on targeting to weapons. Works in conjunction with its own processors (per each DAS Aperture) and with the Integrated Core processor (fusion engine).
5) EOTS : Is your IRST + FLIR + Laser designator. Works with the EODAS system and provides a higher resolution, higher quality, zoom function for the IR spectrum. It can also geolocate threats etc much like the previous generation systems which it is an improvement on
6) HMD : This is different form "any other HMS" as can be seen with the pains and the money it took to develop it and finally turn a corner on its performance. It ensures that the real-time information being generated by the fusion engine is transferred onto the pilot in a timely manner that he/she can use to act accordingly. Specially important since in WVR especially in a furball, the EODAS works with the CNI to constantly keep a track of Blue on Red and presents the information directly on the helmet.

Spectra functions on the F-35, are performed by the AN/ASQ 239 + Apg-81 combination with help from the CNI. They are NOT PERFORMED by the EODAS which operates only in the IR domain.



For further reading -

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/f ... FDeV4ciq5Q

[brar_w]

Pratt, Pentagon Agree on 8th F-35 Engine Lot

The Pentagon has signed an agreement with Pratt & Whitney for the eighth lot of F135 engines to power the F-35 joint strike fighter.

The agreement between Pratt and the joint program office will cover 48 engines, with a total value of $1.05 billion. The price for this lot dropped, on average, by 4.5 percent per engine from the recently agreed to low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 7 agreement.

See DefenseNews.com's interactive map of the F-35 program.

Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the F-35 program head, acknowledged that Pratt has been driving cost down for each engine lot, highlighting the fact that the costs dropped 4.4 percent between LRIP 6 and LRIP 7, and then a further 4.5 percent between LRIP 7 and LRIP 8.

All told, there was a drop of roughly 9 percent from LRIP 6 to LRIP 8. That actually puts the engine costs ahead of a cost curve projected under Pratt’s “War on Cost” program to drive down prices on the F135 engine.

“Pratt has shown a commitment to get back on the ‘War on Cost’ curve, and that’s good on us,” Bogdan told reporters Thursday. “And I have told them, on no uncertain terms, that I would expect that lot over lot so we can realize what was originally promised in the 2009 ‘War on Cost’ curve.”

“Pratt & Whitney and our supply base remain focused on delivering the F135 propulsion system on or below the cost targets we committed to for our customer,” Chris Flynn, vice president for Pratt & Whitney F135/F119 engine program, said in a company statement. “The entire production enterprise is focused on meeting our cost and schedule commitments.”

Earlier this week the Pentagon announced it has agreed on principal with Lockheed Martin for the eighth lot of F-35 fighters. Once that contract is signed — which Bogdan indicated should happen before Thanksgiving — both Lockheed and Pratt will be under contract through LRIP 8.

While the agreement with Lockheed was initially billed as driving costs down by an average of 3.6 percent per unit, that total is actually going to be 3.4 percent, something Bogdan blamed on poor calculations of the various exchange rates for suppliers and customers on the international program.

In addition to the contract news, Bogdan told reporters that air-worthiness authorities are in the process of validating a pair of short-term fixes for the engine problem that caused a fire aboard an F-35A model this summer.

Those solutions include either pre-trenching a part of the engine to avoid further friction or using a “burn-in” procedure to essentially warm the engine up and avoid a repeat of the problem.

Bogdan reiterated that Pratt would be paying for all costs associated with repairs, including the cost of the two one-hour flights needed for the “burn-in” procedure.

While noting that the fleet’s 19 test program jets should have those fixes by December, Bogdan warned that “it will take us a while to get through all the fielded airplanes” currently based around the US.

A long-term solution for new production models will require more discussion, Bogdan said, noting that Pratt has five different possible solutions being looked at. He hopes to have one selected by the end of 2014. Engines with that fix should start coming off the line at the end of 2015.

[NRao]

Oct 28, 2014 :: F-35C Joint Strike Fighter makes first landing at NAS Oceana

The future of naval aviation landed in Virginia Beach for the first time Tuesday.

An F-35C touched down at Naval Air Station Oceana Tuesday morning.

The F-35C Lightning II is the Navy’s variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

Three variants of the fighter are being developed for the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.

Tuesday’s visit was designed to give aviators and maintainers an up-close look at what’s coming.

“This is really an opportunity for the fleet aviators, maintainers, the guys that really make this effort go to get them an introduction to this unique war fighting capability,” explained Captain Scott Anderson, Joint Strike Fighter F-35C Requirements Officer.

“Really targeting the young generation. Get them excited about the airplane, the capabilities that this will bring to the fleet. Guys like myself will be retired or close to it by the time we see it in force out in the fleet.”

The F-35C will eventually replace the Navy’s fleet of F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets.

Commander John Allison is an F-35C pilot with VFA-101 stationed at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida where the visiting jet is based.

Among the most noticeable changes – the jet is larger than its predecessors and it also has a single-engine.

“It’s a lot of fun. The biggest difference is that you know you’re stealth and the missions systems on board,” he said.

The F-35C will face its first test of aircraft carrier arrested landings next week on board the USS Nimitz off the coast of California.

“The testing will go for approximately two weeks – expanding the launch and recovery window, various winds, and also with weather dependent,” Capt Anderson said.

“It’s crucial that this test goes well, that it goes off without a hitch. At the start-up of any program, there’s always hiccups and we are working through those,” CDR Allison explained.

An engine fire on the F-35 temporarily grounded the fleet in June.

Capt. Anderson says the root cause of that fire has been identified and a fix has been established.

Earlier this month the Navy announced that the F-35C’s West Coast home base will be at Lemoore Naval Air Station in California.

A decision on where the F-35C will be based on East Coast, which could include Virginia Beach or Cherry Point in North Carolina, is still years away.

“Any environmental impact statement will not begin until 2018. As you know that’s a fairly lengthy process, so we wouldn’t expect a record decision until the time frame of 2021,” Capt Anderson explained.

“We don’t expect that you would have an East Coast base of any kind until 2025,” he added.

[brar_w]

F-35 Heading Toward Block Buy

Every year, the Pentagon and its corporate partners hash out contracts for individual low-rate initial production (LRIP) lots of the F-35 joint strike fighter. If the man running the program has his say, those days are numbered.

With the negotiations over LRIP 8 at a conclusion, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the head of the F-35 joint program office, is planning on negotiating LRIP 9 and 10 together. And come LRIP 11, he wants a whole new model of procurement in place.

“By next summer we will put out a request for proposal on LRIP 11 jets,” Bogdan told reporters Thursday. “That RFP will ask Lockheed to do a block buy for our partners. At least, that is my intention.”

It’s not the first time Bogdan has raised the idea of a block buy. He first publically mentioned the idea at July’s Farnborough International Airshow, indicating it was still a ways off. But Thursday marked the first time he has placed a public stake in the ground as to when that could begin — and why it makes fiscal sense.

Click here for an interactive map of global F-35 participation.

A number of partner nations have already committed to large procurements of the fifth-generation stealthy jet, so bundling their orders together is just logical, Bogdan said.

“If you were to take their requirements and put them together, you could actually have a substantial number of airplanes, starting in LRIP 11 and spanning LRIP 11, 12 and 13, bought as a block of airplanes, almost as if it was a multi-year [buy] for the US,” he said.

Participation in a block buy would be open to all international partners or foreign military sales customers who are interested, and Bogdan said he expects “substantial savings” for those involved.

But while a block buy could benefit international partners, the US would not be able to participate in such a buy due to acquisition rules barring a multi-year procurement until the jet enters full-rate production.

In other words, the United States would be paying more per F-35 model than a country such as, for argument’s sake, South Korea, which has pledged to procure 40 F-35A fighters through foreign military sales.

“That’s just simply acquisition economics,” Bogdan said. “If the US were able, in LRIP 11, to commit to years of production, which we can’t yet, we would get that same reduction in price.”

Just how much those inside the block buy would save is still up in the air, Bogdan said, but he did point out that overall savings on the program helps everyone.

“All around it’s a good thing. It incentivizes partners and [foreign military sales] customers to commit to airplanes and stick with it,” Bogdan said. “It’s good for them; they get a cheaper price. It’s good for us because we get to see what the future looks like, and we’ll be set up for the time when the US services come on board for a multi-year.”

Which is another wrinkle to be navigated. The US is by far the largest customer for the F-35 program, and while a block buy of international customers will lead to savings, the greatest savings possible would come from getting the US on a multi-year once the program enters full-rate production.

“The thing I have to worry about and make sure [of] is that I can align a block buy with any future multi-year that the US services might be ready to enter into,” Bogdan said. “I want to have those seamless so we can all benefit from a bigger multi-year instead of a block-buy and a small multi-year. So I have to be able to line these up.”

IOC and Current Contracts
In the meantime, Bogdan and his team are focused on more current deadlines. Lockheed is expected to deliver a proposal for LRIP 9 and 10 in January or February of 2015, Bogdan said, which will kick off the next round of negotiations.

Those negotiations are part of what Bogdan called a “significant” ramp in production rates. The current plan calls for the three US services to buy 34 of 57 total planes in LRIP 9, 55 of 96 total planes in LRIP 10 and 68 of 121 total planes in LRIP 11.

LRIP 9 and 10 are being negotiated together to drive costs down and send a “powerful signal” to the supply chain that the program is committed to the next two orders, Bogdan said.

It will also represent a signal to Congress. The general noted that the program has yet to actually use procurement funds in the same year they have been authorized by the Hill.

“This allows us to realize the dream I had two years ago, when I took this program over, of finally being able to award a contract in the same year Congress authorizes me the money to do so,” Bogdan said. “We have not been able to do that ever on this program. It’s not a big deal to some people, but to the Congress is a big deal and it’s a big deal to me, too.

“We’ll finally be back on what I consider to be a normal schedule for a normal program, and that’s been hard to do.”

[brar_w]

F-35C’s First Carrier Landing Scheduled for Next Week

The naval variant of the tri-service Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter is set to land upon the deck of USS Nimitz (CVN-68) next week. Two of the single-engine F-35C stealth fighters are set to carry out a set of sea trials onboard the carrier to ensure that the jets can operate safely from the flight deck.

“They will fly on the third of November, and the first time that they touch the deck of the Nimitz will be with a trap,” Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the Joint Strike Fighter program executive officer told reporters on Oct. 30.
“We’re not putting them on the ship with a crane.”

The Joint Strike Fighter Program Office is deploying test aircraft CF-3 and CF-5 to the carrier. The jets were set to arrive at Yuma, Arizona, from Fort Worth, Texas, on Oct. 30, Bogdan said. The two aircraft will be prepared for their trials at Yuma over the next “couple of days,” he added.

The two jets are fully instrumented and are cleared to operate with a full flight envelope, Bogdan said. Once onboard Nimitz, the jets will be run through the gamut of carrier operations.

Earlier in the year, Bogdan said that he had some doubts as to if the sea trials were going to be possible because of problems with the aircraft’s hook and nose landing gear. Given the rigorous testing the two jets have undergone, the situation has improved. “I feel pretty good about this now,” Bogdan said.

[VijayN]

The F-35B in Hover - It does work people

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a9b_1414877724

[brar_w]

Glad that you noticed it after 500+ incident free STOVL flights..

[brar_w]

Was going over some of the older conversations in this thread and realized that I had on a few occasions referred to Paul Bevilaqua and his presentation on STOVL IP and work on it by the skunks. I forgot to post a link for the video so here it is. It isn't the presentation that I witnessed at Hopkins but is essentially identical with very few omissions. Rather long, but quite informative nonetheless.

[youtube]u-cfy-k_8ew&list=WL&index=45[/youtube]


Edit: Just some information ..


Lockheed F-35 fighter jet lands on US aircraft carrier-spokesman

Nov 3 (Reuters) - The first of two Lockheed Martin Corp F-35C fighter jets landed successfully on the USS Nimitz off the coast of San Diego on Monday, marking the first time the new warplane has landed on an aircraft carrier using its tailhook system, a spokesman said.

Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 joint program office, said the first of two jets had landed on the carrier as part of a two-week period of sea-based testing that will run through Nov. 17.

The landing marks another key milestone for the Pentagon's biggest weapons project, a $399 billion program that was designed to replace over a dozen different types of warplanes now in use by the U.S. military and its allies.

[youtube]STVAM85y3i0&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

[brar_w]

Apparently both 3-wire landings.( CF03 and CF 05).


[youtube]UlxxeogPBoE&list=UUKuSaHewQKWjR2wFuqfkMEA[/youtube]

More DT 1 testing:

[youtube]3BOt0a_tGRg&list=UUKuSaHewQKWjR2wFuqfkMEA[/youtube]

[brar_w]

F-35Cs Make First Carrier Landings

The first pair of Lockheed Martin F-35Cs successfully completed arrested landings on the carrier USS Nimitz off the California coast on Nov. 3, marking the start of the at-sea developmental test phase for the Joint Strike Fighter and the shipborne debut of the Navy's first piloted stealth aircraft.

The first F-35C to land, CF-03 from Navy Air Test and Evaluation Squadron VX-23, touched down at 12:18 p.m. after flying out to the carrier from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz. Flown by Navy test pilot Cmdr. Tony 'Brick' Wilson, the aircraft first made a low approach and overshoot, followed by a touch-and-go with the tailhook retracted. Finally, with an F/A-18F acting as chase, Wilson brought the F-35C in for the first arrested landing. A second aircraft, CF-05, arrived less than an hour later and landed successfully at 1:11 p.m. flown by Lt. Cmdr. Ted 'Dutch' Dyckman.

Both aircraft made highly stable approaches, and trapped firmly on the third of the Nimitz's four arrestor wires. The touchdown spot between the second and third wires is considered the optimum for carrier landings. The landing was also key test for the F-35C's arresting hook system, which had to be redesigned with additional stiffness, a modified hold-down damper and revised shaping after poor performance in tests three years ago at Naval Air Warfare Center Lakehurst, N.J. Having delayed the start of carrier trials, the performance of the redesigned hook was a significant watch item. "It's a little bit different of a design, and obviously it works," says U.S. Pacific Fleet, Naval Air Forces Commander, Vice Admiral David Buss.

Although calm seas and light winds from the northwest contributed to the benign conditions and resulting trouble-free landings, both pilots partly attributed the precision touchdowns and stable approaches to the F-35C's integrated direct lift control feature. Embedded in the flight control software for all three JSF variants, test pilot Wilson says direct lift is particularly useful for the F-35C because it provides greatly improved glide slope control.

Unlike conventional carrier aircraft in which the pilot approaches the carrier with flaps set at a fixed position and adjusts power and pitch attitude to stay on the glideslope, the F-35 system controls power through an 'auto-thrust' function and alters the position of the trailing edge flap in response to the pilot's inputs. "So the stick becomes my glideslope controller," notes Dyckman. "If I pull back the flap adds lift, if I push forward it commands a steeper approach," he says. As nominal flap position for a carrier approach is 15 degrees, or half-flap, this provides ample margin for additional flap movement to add or reduce lift. Wilson says the effect is to "change the 'heave' of the aircraft, rather than the pitch."

"I was watching the angle-of-attack indicators," says Senior Chief Petty Officer Alistair McIntyre. ''As they came in (to land) from the break it was perfect green all the way in. It was stable all the way in for both approaches. I was amazed for that being their first time landing on the carrier as it looked like both pilots were old pros at landing F-35s. They came in on the glideslope and landed with no problems. It felt like we'd been doing this for a long time."

The landings marked the start of a two-week Developmental Testing I (DT-I) phase for the F-35C which will evaluate primarily daylight carrier operations including launch and recovery handling with a variety of crosswinds and wind over deck speeds. Catapult tests will evaluate the take-off characteristics across a broad range of excess speed settings varying from a minimum of around 5 kt. to a maximum of about 45 kt. "We will gradually expand the operational envelope," says Buss. "Having two aircraft will give us the ability to move them around the carrier, and look at the first set of results as we change the wind envelope and wind directions. If we can get all these things done in time then from Nov. 13-16 we may have the first night time operations," he adds.

Results will be built into the next test phase, DT-II, scheduled for September 2015. This will include additional day-night operations, initial weapons trials with internal and external stores as well as maximum power launches from both the bow and waist catapults. A third and final DT-III phase is expected in the March-April 2016 timeframe. The U.S. Navy anticipates declaring initial operational capability of the F-35C in August 2018 with the first squadron expected to embark on an as-yet-unnamed West Coast-based carrier earlier that year.

[brar_w]

Day-2 of Testing




F-35C LANDING ON THE NIMITZ: GETTING READY FOR THE USS FORD

2014-11-04 With a F-35 C pilot making an “OK-3 wire” landing on the Nimitz, it is time to consider the way ahead.

When we interviewed the then head of N-98, Admiral Moran, he focused on why the F-35C was significant to the Navy and notably with regard to the coming of the USS Gerald R. Ford.

The Ford will be very flexible and can support force concentration or distribution.

And it can operate as a flagship for a distributed force as well and tailored to the mission set.

When combined with the potential of the F-35, Ford will be able to handle information and communications at a level much greater than the Nimitz class carriers.People will be able to share information across nations, and this is crucial. We call it maritime domain awareness, but now you’ve included the air space that’s part of that maritime domain.

There is another aspect of the Ford, which is important to handling the information systems as part of the evolution of the fleet. We’ve never really talked about the cooling aspects.

But if you go down to Newport News and take a tour of the Ford, right now, one of the things they really like to brag about is innovations in the cooling system. All of us know the processing power takes its heat.

And so, you’ve got to be able to cool it. Ford more than doubles the cooling system capacity of a Nimitz-class carrier.

But let me close by circling back to the future of the air wing for the next 20 years and the value we see in the F-35C.

We are buying all production aircraft currently.

We see the coming of the Ford and the coming of the F-35 as highly synergistic for the fleet and its operation as a sea base.

And with the F-35C must come Block 3F capability, which has a fully enabled set to operate the weapons we use at sea, multi-ship integration and a host of other very important capabilities important to how we expect to operate in the future.

We are not going to accelerate the number of production airplanes until we get to Block 3F which will give us the capability that we need to operate off the carrier.

Once we marry up F-35C with key capability investments in the Super Hornet, E-2D, [EA-18G] Growlers, and a mix of unmanned capabilities, we will continue to have an air wing that can dominate in any environment.

And clearly the process is underway.

According to a USN press release dated November 3, 2014:

Navy test pilot Cmdr. Tony Wilson landed F-35C test aircraft CF-03 at 12:18 p.m. aboard USS Nimitz’s (CVN 68) flight deck.

The arrested landing is part of initial at-sea Developmental Testing I (DT-I) for the F-35C, which commenced Nov. 3 and is expected to last two weeks.

“Today is a landmark event in the development of the F-35C,” said Wilson, a Navy test pilot with Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23. “It is the culmination of many years of hard work by a talented team of thousands. I’m very excited to see America’s newest aircraft on the flight deck of her oldest aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz.”

Commander, Naval Air Forces, Vice Adm. David H. Buss, was aboard Nimitz to witness the milestone event. “What a historic day today is for Naval Aviation. With the first traps and catapult launches of the F-35C Lightning II aboard an aircraft carrier, we begin the integration of the next generation of warfighting capability into our carrier-based air wings,” said Buss. “This important milestone is yet another indicator of Naval Aviation’s ongoing evolution to meet future threats and remain central to our future Navy and National Defense Strategy.”

DT-I is the first of three at-sea test phases planned for the F-35C. During DT-I, the test team from the F-35 Lightning II Pax River Integrated Test Force (ITF) has scheduled two F-35C test aircraft from Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Patuxent River, Maryland to perform a variety of operational maneuvers, including various catapult takeoffs and arrested landings. ITF flight test operations also encompass general maintenance and fit tests for the aircraft and support equipment, as well as simulated maintenance operations.

As with the initial testing of any new aircraft, the goal is to collect environmental data through added instrumentation to measure the F-35C’s integration to flight deck operations and to further define the F-35C’s operating parameters aboard the aircraft carrier.

The ITF test team will analyze data obtained during flight test operations, conduct a thorough assessment of how well the F-35C operated in the shipboard environment, and advise the Navy to make any adjustments necessary to ensure that the fifth-generation fighter is fully capable and ready to deploy to the fleet in 2018.

“Our F-35 integrated test team has done an amazing job preparing for today. This will be one landing out of thousands more that will happen over the next few decades,” said Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, F-35 Program Executive Officer. “For months, we’ve been working with the Nimitz crew, Naval Air Forces, and our industry partners, Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney, as well as their suppliers, to prepare and train for this event. We plan on learning a lot during this developmental test and will use that knowledge to make the naval variant of the F-35 an even more effective weapons platform.”

The F-35C combines advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fused targeting, cutting-edge avionics, advanced jamming, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. With a broad wingspan, reinforced landing gear, ruggedized structures and durable coatings, the F-35C is designed to stand up to harsh shipboard conditions while delivering a lethal combination of fighter capabilities to the fleet.

The F-35C will enhance the flexibility, power projection, and strike capabilities of carrier air wings and joint task forces and will complement the capabilities of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which currently serves as the Navy’s premier strike fighter.

By 2025, the Navy’s aircraft carrier-based air wings will consist of a mix of F-35C, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers electronic attack aircraft, E-2D Hawkeye battle management and control aircraft, MH-60R/S helicopters and Carrier Onboard Delivery logistics aircraft.

The successful recovery of the F-35C represents a step forward in the development of the Navy’s next generation fighter and reinforces Navy-industry partnership goals to deliver the operational aircraft to the fleet in 2018.

And at the command where training for air wing integration is job one, Admiral Conn, the head of the Navy Strike and Air Warfare Center, focused on the core need to train to the expanded battlespace as the USN and the joint team deal with 21st Century challenges.

In an interview we did with the Admiral during our visit to Fallon he underscored as well the coming contribution of the F-35 to this effort.

I think it important to emphasize that adversary A2AD capabilities pose a serious threat not only to Navy, but to our entire Joint ability to fight and win.

Again, I think of A2AD as the proliferation of precision for potential adversaries and how this proliferation of precision effects Joint forces ability to maneuver where we need to be and when we need to be there.

For me, it is about expanding the battlespace and training with regard to how to do this.

We are developing the means to push out the battle space and our ability to find, fix, track, target and engage the threat.

The F-35 will bring enormous capability in this area.

[brar_w]

IAI opens F-35 wing production line

Israel Aerospace Industries on 4 November inaugurated its wing production line for the Lockheed Martin F-35 at its Lahav division.

The automated line is expected to produce four sets of wings per month, for shipment to Lockheed's Fort Worth final assembly site in Texas.

IAI is scheduled to produce more than 811 pairs of wings for the F-35 over the next decade, with the first set to be ready for delivery by mid-2015. The company says the arrangement has a potential value of $2.5 billion over 10-15 years.The inauguration was attended by Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya'alon and US ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, as well as F-35 programme executive officer Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan. Industry officials present included IAI chairman Rafi Maor and Pat Dewar, executive vice-president of Lockheed Martin International.

"Our partnership with Lockheed Martin in producing sub-assemblies for the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world is strategic for IAI, and constitutes an acknowledgement and expression of faith by Lockheed Martin and the US government in IAI's capabilities as a global industry leader," Maor says.

IAI has invested tens of millions of dollars in the wing production line.The company's Lahav division has in the past manufactured wings for the Lockheed F-16 and the US Air Force's Northrop T-38 trainers, along with assemblies for other aircraft and customers.

"This new facility is an excellent step forward for the programme, the US and Israel; I expect it will remain busy for many, many years to come," says Bogdan.

"Given IAI's dedication to precision [and] world-class work on the F-16, it is no surprise that IAI is a trusted strategic partner to Lockheed Martin," Dewar notes.

The production facility will supply the wings for aircraft to be delivered to customers outside of the programme's nine partner nations, which are already supplied by Alenia Aermacchi.

Israel has recently agreed in principle to purchase a second batch of 25 conventional take-off and landing F-35As, following a meeting betweenYa’alon and US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in Washington. The nation is already under contract to acquire an initial 19 examples for$2.75 billion, with deliveries to take place between early 2017 and 2018.

The Israeli air force is already making preparations to receive the F-35 at its Nevatim air base.

[SaiK]

great videos at 1080p.. that was a bit hard nose on the nimitz!

[brar_w]

[brar_w]

[youtube]_KLKPP1IIII&list=UUJWcF0ex7_doPdIQGbVpDsQ[/youtube]

[NRao]

Some data points:

U.S. Pilots Say New Chinese Stealth Fighter Could Become Equal of F-22, F-35

[brar_w]

[brar_w]

First Dutch F-35 squadron established

[brar_w]

[youtube]FXWdnH96w9o&list=UUh9e-eWfzQXdCfkFUvBPVGQ[/youtube]


---------------------------









F-35C performs a take off and lands on the Nimitz in its first Night Operations..

[brar_w]

---------

EXPANDING THE REACH OF THE INTEGRATED STRIKE GROUP: LEVERAGING FIFTH GENERATION CAPABILITIES

After our visit to the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center at Fallon Naval Air Station where we focused on the training for the current and evolving integrated strike group, we had a chance to discuss our experience with Rear Admiral Michael Manazir, Director of Air Warfare.

The conversation revolved around the impact of fifth generation capabilities on the evolution of the integrated strike group, to include the impact of the new carrier, the USS Ford, and the overall extended capabilities of the evolving sea base, both amphibious assault and carrier strike.

And in a recent interview, which our colleague Gordon Chang conducted earlier this year with the Admiral, the approach which the Admiral is pursuing with regard to the joint and coalition approach to the evolving strike force was evident.

Question: During our visit to Fallon, it was clear that the key focus of Naval aviation tactics and training is strike integration to successfully fight with the fleet you have, but at all command levels there was also a very clear understanding of always anticipating the future. You are in charge of looking at that future and how do you view that in relation to the current strike integration focus?

Rear Admiral Manazir: Fallon is organized for integrated air wing training. They are not focused on whether an airplane is an F (fighter), A (attack) or an E (electronic warfare); they are focused on how does this air wing come together and fight with an F component, an E component and an A component.

The fifth generation is bringing us the opportunity and indeed the imperative to fundamentally alter the way we look at air warfare. The F-35 is not an A or an E or an F; it is all of those.

Earlier we had an F-14, an A-6 and an EA-6B and needed all three to do our job; now one airplane blends those capabilities and we can leverage that as we look at the integration of the other capabilities of the air wing we are developing.

Fifth generation is opening up so many possibilities that how we used to think about our capabilities is changing; how do we wring out the full capabilities of the air wing with the fifth generation as a catalyst for change?

Question: A clear lesson learned from Fallon is the need to alter the training approach to deal with 21st century threats as well as capabilities. To do so, they are focused on Live, Virtual and Constructive (LVC) training. How do you view this in regard to shaping the airwing of the future?

Rear Admiral Manazir: The initial operational capability of fifth generation fundamentally changes the way that we’re going to fight.

Where it used to be platform-to-platform, we now have inherent in a single weapon system, the capability to fold in all those things that we used to think were single missions, like the fighter mission, like the attack mission, like the electronic warfare mission.

Those missions were given to separate platforms because we didn’t have the way to fold them into a single platform. Now we have that capability to do that. So that fundamentally causes us to look at the way in which we do business in the future.

When we train, we always train to an integrated capability. At Fallon, we assume that the air wing squadrons are already trained to their individual skill sets, they’re already to a level at which they’re ready for integrated training against a very, very high-end mission set.

That mission set is modelled against an updated threat presentation that we corroborate across all intelligence sources to understand the threat we’re going to go against. And then we build training scenarios to that point at all security levels.

The current air wing that we have is capable of training inside the Fallon battlespace in a way in which we normally train: you use simulators to practice, and then you get in your airplane and you go against representative threat systems. Most of the representative legacy threat systems are on the Fallon ranges. And they are either physically there or we have a simulation that emulates the threat presentation. And all of that can be contained in that air space.

The threat baseline that we’re looking to fight in the mid-2020s and beyond is so much more advanced that we cannot replicate it using live assets. And those advances are in the aircraft capability, the weapon capability, and in the electronic warfare capability of the threat systems. That drives us to thinking about a different way to train.

In order to do that, you have to be able to have a realistic and representative emulation of the threat that is not live. And there are a couple of ways to do that. The first one is you make it completely constructive, and the second way is you make it simulated.Live, virtual, constructive (LVC) training is a way to put together a representation of the threat baseline where you can train to the very high end using your fifth generation capability. Some of it is live with a kid in the cockpit, some of it is virtual in a simulator, and so “virtual” is actually the simulator environment. And then constructive is a way to use computers to generate a scenario displayed on either or both of the live or simulated cockpit.

You can also combine them to be live-constructive, or virtual-constructive, and by that I mean there are systems out there right now that you can install in the airplane that will give you a constructive radar picture air-to-air and surface-to-air along with the electronics effects right onto your scope.

You’re literally flying your airplane, and through a data link, you can share that information between airplanes, you can share it between dissimilar airplanes.

You could take a set of Navy airplanes, for instance, an E2D and a division of F-18s or F-35s on the Fallon range. And you could have a constructive scenario that is piped into all five of those airplanes. It’s the same scenario, has all the same effects. And then the blue players can act according to that constructive scenario, and react to that constructive scenario in the live environment, but there’s nothing real in front of them…the threat is all simulated by computer generation.

Now let’s say that through fiber network, you pipe that constructive picture over to a coalition partner…for example, you do so to the RAAF in Australia…it is piped to a live airplane or a simulator over there, and let’s say there’s two Australian airplane simulators, and they’re seeing the same picture as the Americans are fighting.

And let’s say that there is a network that goes to the Aegis Cruiser, which is off the coast of Florida, and is going to be their Aegis Cruiser for the training. And you can show them the same picture.

And you can transmit the comms across that. You can easily see the training power in this LVC construct.

There are other systems that will allow you to have a live wingman up in the air in Fallon or on another range, his lead in a simulator, and when the simulator lead looks at his or her visual, he can see a virtual representation of his live wingman doing everything he does in the aircraft , and a link sends the aircraft maneuvers down to the simulator.

And when the simulator or the live person looks through their enhanced Joint Helmet Mounted Queuing System, he can see a virtual airplane on his visor.

When the virtual airplane on the helmet system say, dumps a flare or drops ordnance against the target, you actually see it come off the airplane in your visor. And you can actually fight a virtual bogey on your visor, and the guy’s not there. And you fight it with your airplane, just as if it is a real piece of metal. So that’s the live-constructive piece.

If you optimize the networks so that you have a live airplane flying somewhere, a simulator that’s exactly what emulates a live airplane, and then a constructive scenario that goes to both you now have the full LVC construct. You can overcome the barriers of geography, if the range is not big enough. You could also overcome the barriers of multilevel security, because if you go up and use all of your weapons system modes up in the air, live, there are surveillance systems that can pick up what you’re doing.n this way, you can protect high end modes with encryption, and then create an architecture where LVC allows you to train to the complete capability of your fifth generation platform integrated into the advanced air wing and connected to AEGIS and the aircraft carrier as well as operations centers ashore. And that’s what we’re looking to do.

We realize that the fifth generation platform has now bumped us up against the limits of our training ranges and that we do not quite have the LVC components built yet, so that is where our current focus lies.

Question: In this approach, clearly you are looking at the “red” side, but the “blue” side is equally demanding.

With fifth generation, you are looking at off-boarding capabilities such as the fifth generation acting as forward deployed scouts identifying targets for Navy weapons.

How do you view this aspect of the challenge?

Rear Admiral Manazir: I could absolutely finish your sentence.

It is as challenging right now to figure out how to use this fifth generation capability as to deal with the “red” side.

We’re thinking about integrating the weapons system capability…not the platform…in reshaping the airwing – that is the challenge.

In the past, any high-end capability, like the F-117 in Desert Storm, went by itself. The approach was: leave me alone, don’t touch me; I can operate more effectively alone. From this perspective, fifth generation is understood as a high end, leave alone capability: the capability to go downtown with a low probability of intercept, low probability of detection data link and associated weapons systems that allows the platform to operate inside the red battlespace.

We are not simply doing that.

We are focused on the ability to connect into the integrated fire control network, pull that fifth generation information into the network.

We’re learning a lot of lessons from F-22, we’re bringing those lessons on as our corporate knowledge starts to gell so we understand how to do this effectively.

You captured the exact point.

We think of integrated capability.

If you take this fifth generation airplane that people like to keep by itself, how do you integrate into the strike group? But integration from the blue side is the key challenge and advantage of adding fifth generation to the airwing.

Question: Another aspect of thinking about the F-35 is the impact of a global fleet of F-35s.

With your ability to operate integrated with your F-35Cs with joint or coalition aircraft, the reach of the carrier air wing is extended significantly.

Rear Admiral Manazir: Reach not range is a key aspect of looking at the carrier airwing and its ability to work with joint and coalition forces. This is clearly enhanced with the F-35.

What you can do with a Carrier, given joint and coalition perspectives is the Carrier automatically extends your reach because you can put it anywhere you want. The mobility of the carrier is a key point. You can put it up against the problem set the national command authority or the joint force commander wishes to address; and then you can move it to deal with an evolving target or operational set of challenges, again aligned with the commander’s intent.You can move the reach of the carrier wing as you redeploy it and connect with joint or coalition assets. The carrier has a core ability to operate organically but its real impact comes from its synergy with the joint and coalition force, which will only go up as the global F-35 fleet emerges.

And this will get better with the coming of the USS Ford. What the Ford does is it optimizes the things that we think are the most important.

Some of those capabilities are clear:

*Enhanced sortie generation capabilities or the number of times you can get airplanes into the mix to keep the reach out there
*The power generation capability, so advanced systems can operate off of the ship.
*The ability to take the information that is brought back through the airborne network into the ship and be able to disseminate it to decision makers is enhanced over the Nimitz class.

Question: Another key way to consider the carrier, its airwing and the evolution of concepts of operations is to rethink the role of the sea base.

It is not just about the USS Ford; it is about the USS America, the USS Arlington, the T-AKE ships, the amphibious assault task force and the evolving carrier air wing as a whole.

The capability to link US maritime and air assets as well as those of coalition forces creates a whole new set of possibilities.

What is your take on this dynamic?

Rear Admiral Manazir: I am the son of a Marine. What you are talking about is in my blood. And the Marines are leading the charge on fifth generation capability and bringing it into the fleet.

And when we think back to World War II, the Navy-Marine team in the Pacific was the integration of core capabilities, which defeated the Japanese forces. The new ships, the coming of the F-35 and reworking our concepts of operations enhance such integration.

And a key element is the capability to evolve our systems over time. It needs to be recognized that the USN shares its investment in F-35 combat systems with the USMC, the USAF and coalition partners – we are all using the same combat systems in our aircraft. That is an investment multiplier.

As the F-35 and its fifth generation data fusion capabilities continue to advance through the follow-on development of the software, processing that information that we’re going to be able to get from the environment through the fifth generation systems into the Carrier, and then to be able to input that information into a decision loop, and then acting will be a big step forward.

Question: And the flexibility of your evolving carrier air wing to support the kind of 21st century strategic environment is crucial as well.

The carrier air wing can lead an effort, support a joint effort, or lead or support a coalition effort.

The President spoke of leading from behind, but I would prefer supporting a coalition partner, but one can envisage new possibilities.

For example, the Aussies are leading an effort in their part of the woods and have made their new Canberra-class amphibious ships a flagship of their operation.

They fly their potential F-35Bs off of those ships.

The planes connect directly to your carrier F-35s and then your carrier Admiral can provide significant real time support to that Australian effort up to the level desired by the US National command authority.

The capabilities of the USS Ford to support such a decision effort are a significant step forward as well.

Rear Admiral Manazir: They are.

But to get full value from the scenario you described the training piece is crucial. Exercises and training will be essential to shape the kind of convergent capability, which the new systems will allow. Training unlocks those kinds of options. It is not just about technology.

And as we re-shape our concepts of operations under the influence of fifth generation capabilities, we need to re-focus our investments on the missing pieces revealed by re-shaping our concepts of operations.

As we think about the threat baseline, as we think about the potential scenarios that we could be in, and as we think about our operational plans, and about our campaign analyses, we will look at our evolving integrated capability, and then figure out where our gaps are.

My job is to buy those capabilities. I need to be able to look at the entire spectrum of the operational level of war, and determine where I invest.

I’m able to balance my investments, taking advantage of fifth generation capability.

I’m thinking about what is my potential with investment, to enhance my capability.

And when I am focused on the evolving impact of integration I am thinking of both the F-35 and the USS Ford and what these two platforms together bring to wring out the capabilities of legacy assets and to shape a way ahead for new ones. It is about the impact of the carrier and its airwing on the role of the seabase within the joint and coalition environment.

[brar_w]

The Axe's and the Sweetman's of the world would love this

[NRao]

I wonder ................. if they can see each other....................

[brar_w]

I wonder ................. if they can see each other....................

No, they have to rely on visual cues since they are still negotiating the Chinese radars

[brar_w]

f35 is a "failed project"

By most metrics it is failed. No one seems to be buying it, and those flying it are all running away and asking to be "relieved of command".

it can hardly win air superority fight among 5g birds

Of course, because plenty of forum members have taken this thing up against some of the competition

because its airframe is "jointly designed"

Yeah it should never have been "jointly designed", despite of actually exceeding the performance requirements compared to pretty much each and every aircraft it is replacing, and meeting or exceeding most of the KPP's. Despite of the fact that there are umpteen advantages of having high commonality particularly in sustainment, modernization, training and operations over a 2500 fighter fleet. Screw those advantages, just because some blogger analyzed that because other joint programs had failed in the past due to extremely improper execution the JSF would because it is not in HUMAN NATURE to learn form the mistakes of the past. After all, mankind did give up after initial failures in the development of the jet engine, space exploration, moon shot, nuclear weapons etc .. Oh WAIT!


Too bad folks decided not to mention this to the folks buying and using it. Like the sentiment one MEME once captured ( the agony of the armchair aircraft designers, bloggers and -war is borin' but clickbaitworthy- master geniuses.. )

[Viv S]

What other options do the Americans have? And I don't have any doubts on the F-35 being the next F-16 in volume.

The US could have continued/restarted F-22 production. And they still have the option of more F-15Es, F-16Es as well as the F-15SE (Silent Eagle). Every F-35 customer has had those options as well as option of going for the Super Hornet.

In the same way as the F-16 dominated over its compatriots, well that's another story. Of course, you can say that I am biased, but so are believers. By the way, have you ever heard a knowledgeable Westerner frown over the F-16 or F-15?

Dollar for dollar, the F-16 was the most effective fighter of its generation. The Mirage 2000 was broadly comparable, but far more expensive. Despite superb aerodynamics, the MiG-29 had very limited strike capability, short range, limited airframe life, smoky engines, and poor serviceability. The F-15C & Su-27 were single role aircraft. The F-15E was expensive. And the Su-30 didn't emerge until end of the century and it took some time for its multirole capabilities to mature.

The F-35 will remain probably the best strike aircraft in the next half century, because that is what it was designed to do (in spite of all the problems of compacting everything into a common airframe). But air dominance is another thing. The role of air dominance was thrusted upon the F-35 very late into the development cycle when the F-22 production was discontinued. The F-35's airframe was not designed for this.

The role of air dominance was never thrusted upon the F-35. It was always (and still is) intended as a multi-role aircraft. The same exact role as performed by the legacy F-16 and F-18. The F-16 isn't an air dominance fighter but its no slouch in air combat either.

The counter view has ALWAYS been that with fancy avionics and great missiles, one can overcome the kinematic disadvantage of the F-35. The counter-counter view: That is fine against a plane which does not have good avionics and missiles. What about the planes which have great avionics, missiles and agility like the Rafale, EF, PAKFA, and AMCAs of tomorrow (from Japan, China, India, S Korea)?

Frankly, because it got so many brickbats for not exceeding its predecessors kinematically, the criticism took on a life of their own and its performance issues have ended up being exaggerated quite a bit. There are just two major issues with the aircraft AFAIK - sustained G-limit and transonic acceleration. Both important downsides I'll concede (though its high AoA performance is still superb; 50 deg limit vs 32 deg for the Rafale).

On the other hand, its got the best AESA radar in the world (albeit with a smaller FoV than the N036), best EW suite, best EO systems (albeit lacking a LWIR element), highest degree of stealth and widest variety of cost effective munitions. For a cost that'll rival (if not undercut) 4.5G fighters by 2018.

[NRao]

f35 is a "failed project"

A 5th attempt at a stealth plane and it is a failure (ugly looking, not clean, whatever).

And, others, in their very first attempt (are claiming) (and others fear) that they are a roaring success. Guys, get an engine first before you claim you have a "5th Gen" plane. Then let us revisit the topic ................ perhaps is 2025.

[brar_w]

What other options do the Americans have? And I don't have any doubts on the F-35 being the next F-16 in volume

I have mentioned the options a couple of times but some of them are as follows:-

* F-22 Raptor ror F/A-22: - The F-22 raptor program was not gutted out like the F-14, but every tooling, manual, even video tapes of the production process were nicely preserved in an air conditioned facility in California just in case production may need to be revived (Where they still exist, till this day). The USAF boss at the time even advised the producers (all the way down) to absorb as many workers into other projects as possible so as to not loose the expertise. Furthermore, a study was commissioned for future reference that calculated exactly what the costs and timelines would be to revive production based on different numbers. All this cost money, and was carried out as a hedge

*F-16 E/F : - Not talking about the UAE bird but the proper F-16E/F as envisioned in its earlier days. Something that took from the F-16XL and paired it with the F-16 Block 60, 61 innards and brought it up to the current standard (Latest generation avionics). They tried every possible thing with the F-16 to get it to be better, they tested MATV quite well and got it to do things in the AOA that surely got Sprey to pop an artery..In the end, they decided against all those advances including a brand new wing, F-22 "class" avionics, new engines, Multi Axis TVC and what not.





* F-18E/F: - More Super Hornets instead of just more Growlers (An aircraft that the F-35C will never replace due to that mission falling upon the FA-XX fighter). Boeing has presented a very neat and cost affective plan to keep the F-18E/F going for the next decade, changes include engine improvements, stealth coatings, internal weapons pod, a brand new cockpit similar to that of the F-35 etc Boeing and NASA have also tried to put TVC on the F-18 family and that could be a legitimate option (not that it would help much)

* F-15E : - Production line is ongoing and orders have come from the ROKAF, Singpore and Saudi Arabia. The Silent eagle upgrade combines FBW (already in SA birds), new radar, stealth pods and an integrated EW suite. Even on the F-15 front DARPA, NASA and the USAF tried a lot of stuff that could have gone into the upgrades. Things like Thrust vectoring, Canards etc. Again traded off for the F-35.

The problem with that list is that that the F-35 A, and C are better at almost all overall comparisons with any one platform mentioned above. The Alpha and Charlie have better points in affordability, sustainability, performance, lethality, survivability and force integration and are an overall purchase then any single one or a combination of 2 or 3 mentioned above. The B has no substitute among the list.

What the pilots seem to be saying actually supports that! The warplanners and the ones responsible for charting out future readiness actually openly talk about the enormous advantages of having fleet wide commonality in avionics, sensors (not just similar gen sensors but same exact sensors) and the tactical ability to learn best practices for LCC management through the eyes what the others are doing. The Marines have led from the front, with their maintenance and LCC changes now being incorporated int he USAF and the USN as well. I have posted the article that talks about this in-depth. Not only is the F-35 superior as an overall system compared to any one or a combination of the fighters above, it brings an element of integration that would almost never would be possible with 2 or three stand alone fighters - as one can see how much capability gap exists in certain areas between the USAF and USN because one service did not bother to incorporate technology due to a cost trade off (PGM for USN and weapons modernization (missiles) for the USAF). This all goes away now that everything is developed for everyone.

in spite of all the problems of compacting everything into a common airframe

Problems of compacting? I don't see any problem with that. Care to elaborate? My thesis (not literally) on the F-35 is still a WIP but if I were to narrow down on one problem with the program I would characterize it as an extension of the F-22 program in that the developers were slow to adapt to the emergence of a new paradigm in combat aircraft design, that of software just as their counterparts back in the day were late to adapt to the change in the strict performance and tolerance limits on "jet engines" precision tooling that heralded the jet age etc (we can go on and on discussing examples of how new changes in the aviation world were disruptive).

Software is very much now a vital new component in combat aircraft design, as much as shaping, aerodynamics, materials etc are. In fact those costs and timelines are largely fixed whereas software continues to be a very variable commodity and would remain so in modeling for at least another generation before very smart folks figure out how to account for it and manage it just as they got on top of the other things in aviation. The challenges associated with the development can largely be clubbed under the greater "software" category as it enables the sort of interactions that are required for the sensors as a group to perform way higher then their individual capabilities summed together. In fact, software is very close to bandwidth, and the entire idea that the moment you get on top of things (as in supple of bandwidth to the warfighter equals demand) they begin to ask even more than before. Then comes the problem of "distrust" between the operator and the political class, which resulted in the USAF completely doing away with the Kelly's trusted interpretation of Pareto's famous work and asking for capability upfront that they feared would be slowly eroded if asked as incremental improvements. This is an institutional problem, that wasn't exaggerated in any way by doing a joint system. If at all doing so probably challenged them to do things differently given the scale.

The culturual shift required to factor in is going to always be slow for an organization the size of the Pentagon. They know of the problem, and have since started working with DARPA a lot earlier to get software right. The problem with the F-22 and F-35 was not that the software was too complicated to work out, it was a budgeting issue where neither the Vendor (Lockheed, Northrop etc) nor the operator (Pentagon, USAF, USN, USMC etc) could model how long it would take to develop and debug the sort of software required to run some of the stuff they wanted to do with the avionics architecture. They learnt pretty hard that software does not scale like some other parameters. Ultimately, Lockheed lost money, DOD lost some money through the delays but that has absolutely nothing to do with this being a joint program. Any other fighter that would progressed from the F-22, be it a Naval fighter or a CTOL fighter would have run into the same institutional trouble that usually accompanies a first_in_class product. I can speak of experience on how some of these companies are changing..Lockheed for example has been and still is great at analytics and running data. They however went into the F-22 and F-35 programs thinking that they could get contractors to come in for a few years and deal with the software buildup that would happen with time. They got burnt, and incipiently neither DARPA, the DOD or anyone else saw that this was going to be problematic.

I can speak till around 2010'ish when they were pretty much still growing the number of software engineers by 30-40% per annum. It is very difficult to guarantee a timeline and consistency of work when you have to grow so rapidly . If you look what all the big 3 have done is they have essentially now started working and thinking like a software company, and are on the lookout for acquiring full fledged software companies (Alton Remig spoke of this just a few months back). No doubt in the future they would be better off at tackling large software projects that will keep on getting more and more complex but as a position" for the Long Range Strike Bomber I know certainly Boeing and Northrop have added a lot to their software development portfolio. Lockheed was forced to do so through their F-22 and F-35 troubles. Another BIG area of concern is attracting talent. Currently they are looking at the lower end IT crowd for recruitment. Only their analytical and big data projects attract the brightest minds. At the lower ranks this is not a big concern, but a management level position, especially when you want to run decent sized teams (critical) it is getting hard for the Lockheeds to atract compared to other businesses that also attract software engineers (I am not even getting into the google's and apple's of the world). The software folks do not see this is as a company that will propel them vertically so they see the ceiling as rather fixed. There is also a matter of budgeting, their profits (defense contractors) are capped, while private software companies are fiercely competitive even outside of California.

Alton Remig in fact was very open about this, he said that you get a half a dozen skunks in the room and given them a 6 month project for an advanced combat aircraft and they'll deliver on a prototype that will eventually meet 8 out of 10 KPP's without any significant post-testing design change. But software doesn't work that way YET. You can't say that I had X number of sensors and Y number of software lines to write for the F-22 and I'll need This much for the F-35 because X1 is a multiple of X and Y1 is a multiple of Y. The complexity apparently adds a dimension that they cannot scale up from development of a previous example they worked on. This apparently is the weakest link in modeling (and this isn't OEM specific or organization specific) and therefore there have been and will continue to be programs that take a hit because someone somewhere grossly underestimated the complexity of delivering all this capability by so and so date. Over time they get a pretty good idea of how its done..

The role of air dominance was thrusted upon the F-35 very late into the development cycle when the F-22 production was discontinued. The F-35's airframe was not designed for this.

That is quite incorrect. It wasn't that they said " Oh we'll do xyz mission with the F-22 and we'll just do strike with the F-35" and then Catastrophe happened and the f-22's were cut and they still carried on. The mission set is a continuation of the F-16 and F-18 Mission set, both of which have an air superiority component as part of their multi role capability. For the Marines the F-35B on one part replaces their primary AIR SUPERIORITY fighter. The Air Combat Command of the USAF always intended to have a mix F-35's and F-22's as part of its AEF from the very get go. This was before the contract was awarded and vendor down selected. The importance to the OEM's of this was significant, they recruited direct retirees from the ACC to a point that the person who could be called one of the architects of the entire Avionics package including the HMD , EODAS and the ICP architecture was in fact a very senior fighter pilot at the ACC before going private. His last job incidently for the USAF was to write a basic set of requirements of how to integrate the Next generation fighter (which became the JSF) into the Air Combat Command, alongside the F-15's and F-22's that it intended to operate for many years.

Frankly, because it got so many brickbats for not exceeding its predecessors kinematically, the criticism took on a life of their own and its performance issues have ended up being exaggerated quite a bit. There are just two major issues with the aircraft AFAIK - sustained G-limit and transonic acceleration. Both important downsides I'll concede (though its high AoA performance is still superb; 50 deg limit vs 32 deg for the Rafale).

And those have been discussed in-depth, coupled with actual pilot quotes that the F-35A is superior to the F-16 in most performance measures especially where the F-16 shines (acceleration) and once you start piling a realistic fuel load the performance goes down really fast. The rafale is not a stealth fighter, as such the F-35 would enjoy kinematic freedom all the way till the detection range. Thats one gap that non-stealth aircraft will find very tough to narrow down especially when you have the best passive suite onboard a fighter to maintain EMCON. Get up close and you are forced to deal with the EODAS+EMD combination and no one is going to be very happy to face that no matter what he is flying.

Like I mentioned a couple of pages ago (through a PDF of strike fighter comparison) the F-35 has been designed for a mission set (be it strike, CAP, CAS etc) where the F-16 really performs poorly due to it being a light fighter bulked up to act as a medium-long range fighter. Pile in tanks, weapons and other things (jammers, pods etc) and you don't have Boyd's shining zippy fighter that can compete with the best in hot rod acceleration or sustained turn performance. The F-35 on the other hand, has been designed for a mission range that falls in between of the Block50 F-16 and the F-15E and in some instances, and under some parameters the F-35A_clean outranges the F-15E clean. Again, look at the profiles the F-16, rafale etc have been flying in Africa and the Middle East, they don't fight clean whereas the F-35 will since they have enough internal range as per the requirement to not even bother integrating EFT's to it for now. So any comparison with sustained performance has to keep in mind that the affect of a "mission requirement" will be significantly greater on the F-16 and Rafale than it would be on the F-35. For the F-35 it would just be a weight difference, for them it would be a lot more weight and a lot lot more drag with tanks and weapons.