JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 01 Feb 2014 00:44

They would have been better off with the F-15SE, evolved variants of the F-16 (F-16XL comes to mind) and a larger fleet of F-22s.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 01 Feb 2014 00:47

Karan M wrote:They would have been better off with the F-15SE, evolved variants of the F-16 (F-16XL comes to mind) and a larger fleet of F-22s.
that doesn't solve the navy and the marines problems.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 01 Feb 2014 00:52

Mihir wrote:
yeah impossible to fix bargle, bargle, bargle.....[/quote]
Yes, they can all be fixed. But one wonders why such fundamental problems are being noticed now, after the F-35 has been flying for fourteen years, and the magic that is concurrency has seen 70-odd examples of the type flying.

And do tell, dear sir, when will all these problems be fixed? At what cost? If they are finding out *now* that the INS doesn't work of the AMRAAMS can't launch, of the DAS is confused by its own flares, or that the radar-absorbing skin peels off, one wonders what they will find a few years down the line. At the rate the F-35 is "progressing", we'll still see committed fanbois debating in 2020 how the "niggles" and "bugs" are part and parcel of any fighter program and will be address in due course.

the f-35 was designed to match the f-18/f-16 in dog fighting capability and according to various news sources.

It was designed to do a lot of things. But it doesn't. Which is a problem, sometimes.[/quote]

so you do have problems with our tech punch list procedures and transparency there of. I bet you just love the russian ones.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8256
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Indranil » 01 Feb 2014 00:58

NRao wrote:Apples and oranges.

I think the arg is that there is nothing called a "clean" F-16 (which implies no armament on the F-16). So, once the F-16 carries anything, the clean F-35 - with all her warts - is better.


Can you prove this? It is really fascinating. Let us make an apples to apples comparison. Let both the F-16 and F-35 be fueled for same range, and loaded with same ammunition (to occupy the 4 internal pylons on JSF, F-16 carries them externally). I have a hard time believing that the F-35 will be aerodynamically superior to an F-16 in this configuration. I might be wrong, but it will really be fascinating learning.

Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:Yes, because modern fighters have engines that are powerful enough power to overcome the drag imposed by non area-ruled designs. Except for the F-35 which, well, doesn't.


The F-35's engine doesn't have to labour against drag created by two fuel tanks, four to six missiles and six to eight pylons.

Actually this drag discussion of external mounted vs internal mounted ammunition is not that easy to arrive. Externally mounted ammunition does not automatically mean more drag.
1. One considerable form of the drag at subsonic speeds is the induced drag. It is the same in both cases wrt to the ammunition whether you carry it inside or outside. However, internal carriage mandates heavy ejection mechanisms which increase induced drag.
2. Now consider form drag. There has to be clearance between the weapons and the weapons bay doors etc. This increases the overall cross sectional presented by weapons carried inside, which leads to increase in form drag.
3. Where the internal carriage benefits is skin drag (which is not a significant part at speeds) and interference drag.
4. It is very complex to see whether area rule is followed in the carrying ammunition externally. Every fuel tanks, missiles, bombs are designed according to area rule. Effort is also made so that they are positioned such that the cummulative area still follows as smooth as curve as possible. But, compromises have to be made based on the combination of payloads. The cummulative area curve obviously is not the smoothest. On the other hand, once the weapons have been fired or in the case of an emergency, planes carrying ammunition externally can return to clean configuration, giving them the best aerodynamical configuration. However, the plane carrying everything inside cannot change shape and continues to pay the price.

In WVR, my money will be on the non-boxy smooth and sexy plane carrying the ammunition externally than a boxy stealth plane. That's why you see the Rafale engage the F-22 (which by the way is one of the best flying machines around). It is known the Su-35s will most probably take down the F-22 in a dogfight. The F-35 doesn't even stand a chance aerodynamically. And this is why the PAKFA was not designed like a bus (though it compromises stealth features).

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 01 Feb 2014 01:19

TSJones wrote:
Karan M wrote:They would have been better off with the F-15SE, evolved variants of the F-16 (F-16XL comes to mind) and a larger fleet of F-22s.
that doesn't solve the navy and the marines problems.


The Marines are the cause of the JSF disaster. The CTOL AF and Navy JSF would have been better off being clean sheet designs and with commonality, if you had to have the JSF. Marine requirement should have been kept separate. Tying something like a F-16 requirement into a jump jet like the Harrier - recipe for disaster.

Even in a JSF less world, the Marines should have been funded to develop their own type, a safer variant of the Harrier perhaps (with improved automated flight controls, better & larger design) and the USAF could have continued with evolved variants of the F-15, F-16 with improved sensors, backed up by larger numbers of F-22s and Wedgetail type AWACS (with advanced systems to be effective against stealth fighters).. this would have ensured US superiority. The Navy could have continue with the F/A-18 E/F and evolved variants therein (more refined aero designs, perhaps new wing with less drag issues & the F-414 EPE would have even given it respectable transonic/supersonic performance). Iterative stuff, doable and would have worked and worked well.

Take the F-15SG and compare it to the EF or Rafale or Su-35. Its still pretty respectable.

Instead, heres how the logic went.

Uber fighter - F22, unaffordable, cancelled at 123 combat airframes.

So now JSF has to pick up the slack.

Second uber fighter JSF, has to be short enough to fit on carriers for the Navy, wide enough to fit in a jump jet - aerodynamic disaster, and ends up with mediocre aero performance, with performance firmly behind even the F-15 class (RAND assessed it as cant turn, cant run) even with weights firmly going up and the world's most powerful engine ever devised (equivalent to 2x engines on some other planes).

As a result, highly dependent on bleeding edge technology - cutting edge stealth, cutting edge integrated avionics (cant turn and burn, so has to have an all seeing eye around the aircraft to take the first shot) and reliant on weapons that remain 4Gen (eg AMRAAMs can be jammed).

This means the costs will keep going up and up, time constraints and pressures, plus space/volume challenges (carrier/marine space limitations) mean engineering solutions will have to compromise...

You guys basically handed the Chinese/Russians the edge in aero performance and are completely dependent on avionics & stealth. Both of which are expensive, can be countered too & will make the aircraft even more reliant on upgrades to the same.

Instead, you could have kept developing the F-22 and evolved variants of the proven F-15/F-16 with lowered RCS, better EW. I submit, more cost effective and you'd have them faster & in huge numbers.

The JSF will ultimately happen, but the cost to your economy & MIC, in terms of money better spent elsewhere... think about it. You are in an arms race with China, and you spend $10 to counter something they spend $1 on. How long is that going to work out for you all?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16876
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 01 Feb 2014 02:10

I find such comparisons (Rafale vs. EF or Rafale vs. MKI) to be very, very silly and childish. May be there are such studies out there - not interested. But I could try and find the arguments they make if you so desire.


Don't bother about those. Results of DACT or simulated DACTs without the context is only fanboy stuff. I am not interested in them either :-).

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 01 Feb 2014 03:51

indranilroy wrote:Can you prove this? It is really fascinating. Let us make an apples to apples comparison. Let both the F-16 and F-35 be fueled for same range, and loaded with same ammunition (to occupy the 4 internal pylons on JSF, F-16 carries them externally). I have a hard time believing that the F-35 will be aerodynamically superior to an F-16 in this configuration. I might be wrong, but it will really be fascinating learning.


Also keep into mind that the F-35 has significantly higher fuel fraction so the F-16 will likely need drop tanks to equal that.

indranilroy wrote:Actually this drag discussion of external mounted vs internal mounted ammunition is not that easy to arrive. Externally mounted ammunition does not automatically mean more drag.


I'm aware of that. We'll never never know the actual figures until released by the relevant agency but the debate isn't entire fruitless - Keypub. In the subsonic regime they appear to be comparable (ref 1, ref 2). From all accounts the issue with the F-35 remains transsonic acceleration, where the F-16 trounced it when equipped with air defence warload. Add a fuel tank to that and they edge back towards parity. Plus you have pilots transitioning from the F-16.


In WVR, my money will be on the non-boxy smooth and sexy plane carrying the ammunition externally than a boxy stealth plane. That's why you see the Rafale engage the F-22 (which by the way is one of the best flying machines around). It is known the Su-35s will most probably take down the F-22 in a dogfight. The F-35 doesn't even stand a chance aerodynamically.And this is why the PAKFA was not designed like a bus (though it compromises stealth features).


Its not quite that straightforward. We need to clarify WVR first. There'll be different results depending on RoE. In a guns only engagement, energy management is critical to victory. Here aircraft with a high TWR and a high STR will be expected to dominate. But if you introduce HMDS and HOBS missiles in the mix, then a drawn on dogfight isn't viable anymore. The pilot shooting first will nearly always win, and the pilot with the better nose pointing ability will nearly always shoot first.

The F-35A in this regard is very similar to the Flanker and Fulcrum. High ITR, decent subsonic acceleration but featuring outstanding high alpha/post-stall performance (high AoA testing video on last page). Of course in actual combat, a HMDS and DAS equipped F-35 will enter visual range with a huge advantage in term of its firing envelope and situational awareness.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Victor » 01 Feb 2014 05:08

Couple of points about F-35 and WVR combat. First, DAS gives a Lightning pilot orders of magnitude better situational awareness and IFF than any other fighter including the Raptor. This alone almost eliminates his need to get into a turning fight since he has enough time to decide on his various options while the opponents likely don't even know he's there. Second, since the F-35 would almost always be networked with other F-35s and AWACS during the entire sortie, there is negligible chance for an opponent to get into a favorable position. However, if it were ever required to get into a turning fight, many F-16 and F-18 pilots who have flown it vouch that it is no slouch and can hold its own. It is designed for higher Gs than even the Shornet and also sports a cannon. In short, fighter tactics as we know it are history and the whole point about F-35 is it will do the job and go home without anyone knowing where it is.

A point about drag: the F-35 is a lifting body design and this alone renders it more efficient than F-16 type aircraft even when carrying external stores.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 01 Feb 2014 05:24

>>First, DAS gives a Lightning pilot orders of magnitude better situational awareness and IFF than any other fighter including the Raptor.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2ef94297330d

The F-35 confuses itself

To defend against increasingly sophisticated Russian- and Chinese-made air defenses, the JSF includes a cluster of high-tech cameras and sensors able to detect incoming missiles—and automatically deploy heat-generating flares or radar-foiling chaff to spoof the enemy guidance.

But the so-called “Distributed Aperture System” doesn’t work. “The DAS has displayed a high false alarm rate for missile detections during ownship and formation flare testing,” the testing report reveals. Basically, the system cannot tell the difference between an enemy missile and one of the F-35’s own hot flares.

Imagine the feedback loop that could result. An F-35’s DAS detects an incoming missile and pops flares. DAS then mistakes those flares for another missile and pops more flares, then still more flares to spoof them. So on and so on until the F-35 runs out of countermeasures … and is defenseless.


>>Second, since the F-35 would almost always be networked with other F-35s and AWACS during the entire sortie, This alone almost eliminates his need to get into a turning fight since he has enough time to decide on his various options while the opponents likely don't even know he's there.

The JSF’s main air-to-air missile doesn’t fully work—and it’s not clear why

But the AIM-120 isn’t working on the F-35, either. And in contrast to the bomb problem, testers have not been able to resolve the missile issue because they can’t quite duplicate it. “Problems involving integration of the AIM-120 medium-range missile have been difficult to replicate in lab and ground testing,” the report notes


>>> It is designed for higher Gs than even the Shornet and also sports a cannon. In short, fighter tactics as we know it are history

America’s newest stealth warplane and the planned mainstay of the future Air Force and the air arms of the Navy and Marine Corps, was no match for Chinese warplanes. Despite their vaunted ability to evade detection by radar, the JSFs were blown out of the sky. “The F-35 is double-inferior,” Stillion and Perdue moaned in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press.

“Inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability,” they wrote. “Also has lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” Once missiles and guns had been fired and avoiding detection was no longer an option — in all but the first few seconds of combat, in other words — the F-35 was unable to keep pace with rival planes.


But Stillion and Perdue are both veteran aviators. Stillion flew in RF-4 recon planes and Perdue in F-15s during the Gulf War.



https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 01 Feb 2014 05:31

>>A point about drag: the F-35 is a lifting body design and this alone renders it more efficient than F-16 type aircraft even when carrying external stores.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02 ... jet-specs/

“The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by eight seconds,” Gilmore’s report stated. The F-35B and F-35C also had their turn rates and acceleration time eased. The B-model jet’s max turn went from 5.0 to 4.5 g’s and its acceleration time to Mach 1.2 was extended by 16 seconds. The F-35C lost 0.1 g off its turn spec and added a whopping 43 seconds to its acceleration.

The changes likely reflect higher-than-expected drag on the JSF’s single-engine airframe, according to Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week. The implications for frontline pilots are pretty serious. Less maneuverability makes the F-35 more vulnerable in a dogfight. And the slower acceleration means the plane can spend less time at top speed. “A long, full-power transonic acceleration burns a lot of fuel,” Sweetman explained.


This is not the first time the Pentagon has altered its standards to give the JSF a pass. In early 2012, the military granted the F-35 a longer takeoff run than originally required and tweaked the plane’s standard flight profile in order to claw back some of the flying range lost to increasing weight and drag.

Despite the F-35 growing heavier, slower and more sluggish by the Pentagon’s own admission, Lockheed insists its product is still the second most maneuverable warplane in existence. Company test pilot Billy Flynn told Flight‘s Dave Majumdar that the JSF accelerates better and flies at higher angles than every other fighter except the Lockheed-made F-22. “The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin,” Flynn said.

Majumdar promptly ran Flynn’s claims past several active-duty military test pilots. The feedback was not surprising in light of Lockheed’s history of overselling the JSF. One Navy aviator called Lockheed’s boasts “fantastical.” An F-22 pilot expressed his doubt that the jet manufacturer has accurate data on the F-35′s flight energy and maneuverability so early in testing. “The reality is that I would be floored if they had accurate E-M diagrams right now,” the F-22 flier said.

In any event, the F-35 is likely to get even less maneuverable as development continues. Gilmore’s report warned that the F-35A’s tightly-packed airframe has essentially zero room for weight growth without losing nimbleness. “The program will need to continue rigorous weight management through the end of [development] to avoid performance degradation and operational impacts.”

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 01 Feb 2014 05:43

In the real world, fighters meet the specifications. In Soviet America, specifications meet YOU!!

<I'll see myself out>

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16876
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 01 Feb 2014 05:48

Which is to be expected. All it says is that much is TBD. Too early to say anything. So, what LM claims is model based at worst. I still think we need to wait till the LRIP-6 is out. They still have some 3 more models to come out (incremental development).

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 01 Feb 2014 05:52

Mihir ji, mind you, gent who was busy extolling the JSFs hypothetical attributes (vs the present reality unfortunately in quotes) was busy telling us all about how the designers of the LCA were incompetent & the Russians made shoddy gear etc when simpler problems occurred with their programs.

Meanwhile, I wonder what ze developmental cost of ze zooperfighter is now? Every year, new issues coming up. Concurrency, over complex systems, and messed up specifications - perfect storm.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 01 Feb 2014 06:14

Indeed. Not to mention how this is all a product of the never say die attitude of the Americans and what not.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Victor » 01 Feb 2014 06:42

...messed up specifications - perfect storm.

Like another ain't-done-before aircraft, the Osprey no doubt. As I recall, the press was full of "failure", "disaster", "scandal" etc but now its being offered as our VVIP aircraft :mrgreen:. Again, like it or lump it, F-35 turns the rules upside down and gives whoever owns it total control of airspace and unmatchable advantage in logistics. Is it perfect yet? Of course not and nobody's challenging its teething problems. It is still in development. But why are all those govts still backing and funding it? And why are we even discussing a plane from the yumrikans (the hated makers of the LCA engine) that we will never get? Or could we :shock: ?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 01 Feb 2014 07:06

Funny, how when 'Murrica makes a plane, it has "teething problems". When the rest of the world makes planes, they have lousy, inefficient designers yada yada yada.

But then again, there is the peerless Comanche. Full of win for the best MIC in the whole world (unlike them yindoos, blasted russkies)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing-Sik ... 6_Comanche (Only $7 Billion)

And the Crusader (only $2 Billion)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/was ... msfeld.htm

Not as much full of win as this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York

n February 1982 the prototype was demonstrated for a group of US and British officers at Fort Bliss, along with members of Congress and other VIPs. When the computer was activated, it immediately started aiming the guns at the review stands, causing several minor injuries as members of the group jumped for cover. Technicians worked on the problem, and the system was restarted. This time it started shooting towards the target, but fired into the ground 300 m in front of the tank. In spite of several attempts to get it working properly, the vehicle never successfully engaged the sample targets. A Ford manager claimed that the problems were due to the vehicle being washed for the demonstration and fouling the electronics.[18] In a report on the test, Easterbrook jokingly wondered if it ever rained in central Europe.[15]


All chump change versus the JSF!
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013 ... eed-martin

When the J.S.F. program formally got under way, in October 2001, the Department of Defense unveiled plans to buy 2,852 of the airplanes in a contract worth an estimated $233 billion. It promised that the first squadrons of high-tech fighters would be “combat-capable” by 2010. The aircraft is at least seven years behind schedule and plagued by a risky development strategy, shoddy management, laissez-faire oversight, countless design flaws, and skyrocketing costs. The Pentagon will now be spending 70 percent more money for 409 fewer fighters


Dum-dee-dum, with this kind of moolah, even a brick would fly and fly it will.

And we have:

1.turns the rules upside down

Yup. 70% more at 409 fighters less. Turned down.

and gives whoever owns it total control of airspace


The man I was to meet—I’ll call him “Charlie”—is a well-placed source with a decade’s worth of hands-on experience with the Joint Strike Fighter, both inside and outside the Pentagon. Charlie explained that his choice of meeting location was less paranoid than practical: the J.S.F. program is so large, financially and geographically—and saturated with so many lobbyists, corporate executives, congressional aides, Pentagon bureaucrats, and elected officials—that it takes considerable effort in Washington to avoid bumping into someone connected with the program. And he did not want to bump into anyone. He asked that I conceal his identity so he could speak candidly.

In the course of this and many other conversations, Charlie walked me through the troubled history of the airplane and tried to separate the rosy public-relations pronouncements from what he saw as the grim reality.

“The jet was supposed to be fully functional by now and that’s why they put people down in Eglin in 2010–2011—they were expecting a fully functional jet in 2012,” he said. “But the only military mission these planes can execute is a kamikaze one. They can’t drop a single live bomb on a target, can’t do any fighter engagements. There are limitations on Instrument Flight Rules—what’s required to take an airplane into bad weather and to fly at night. Every pilot out there in civil aviation, his pilot’s license says he can take off and land in perfect weather. Then they have to graduate to instrument conditions. What the program is saying is that the J.S.F., your latest and greatest fighter, is restricted from flying in instrument meteorological conditions—something a $60,000 Cessna can do.”


unmatchable advantage in logistics


General Bogdan said, “I have a list of the 50 top parts of the airplane that break more often than we expect them to. And what I am doing is I am investing millions of dollars in taking each and every one of those parts and deciding: Do we need to redesign it? Do we need to have someone else manufacture it? Or can we figure out a way to repair it quicker and sooner so that it doesn’t drive up the costs?” This is very late in the game for an airplane the Marines intend to certify in two years.

In January, Berke’s Warlords had a close call of the kind that brings Bogdan’s Top 50 list into sharp relief. As a pilot was taxiing out to the runway for takeoff, a warning light went on in the cockpit indicating that there was a problem with the plane’s fuel pressure. Returning to the hangar, maintainers opened the engine-bay door to find that a brown hose carrying combustible fuel had separated from its coupling. When I asked what would have happened had the defect gone undetected before takeoff, Berke replied with the noncommittal detachment of a clinician: “I think you can easily infer that, from the fact that the fleet was grounded for six weeks, there was no question that the scenario, the outcomes, were not acceptable for flying.” What he meant, General Bogdan told me later, was that it was a very close call: “We should count our blessings that we caught this on the ground. It would have been a problem. A catastrophic problem.” (When asked about this incident, the engine’s prime contractor, Pratt & Whitney, wrote in a statement to Vanity Fair, “The engine control system responded properly when the leak occurred. The pilot followed standard operating procedures when he was alerted to the leak. The safeguards in place on the aircraft allowed the pilot to abort takeoff without incident and clear the active runway. There were no injuries to the pilot or ground crew. For clarification, the grounding was cleared three weeks after the event.”)

General Bogdan, it turned out, would have a lot more to say in the course of a long and forceful interview in which he held up the Joint Strike Fighter program and the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, to scrutiny and found both of them deficient on many counts.

II. “Acquisition Malpractice”


etc.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 01 Feb 2014 08:35

“But the only military mission these planes can execute is a kamikaze one."

This takes the cake :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_20317 » 01 Feb 2014 09:50

Reminded me of Sgt. Bilko's flying tank and The Pentagon Wars. On paper things can actually be made more interesting sometimes than in the real world.

Image

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_20292 » 01 Feb 2014 10:35

thik hai. abhi turkey baad main talisman

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 01 Feb 2014 17:16

With regard to the AMRAAM -

The F-35 Lightning II executed its first live-fire launch of a guided air-to-air missile over a military test range off the California coast on Oct. 30.

The AIM-120 advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) was fired from an F-35A (AF-6) conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant fighter operating from the F-35 Integrated Test Facility at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

The test pilot, Air Force Captain Capt. Logan Lamping employed the AIM-120 radar-seeking missile from the F-35's internal weapons bay against an aerial drone target in restricted military sea test range airspace. Test data and observers confirmed the F-35 identified and targeted the drone with its mission systems sensors, passed the target "track" information to the missile, and launched the AIM-120 from the aircraft to engage the target drone. After launch, the missile successfully acquired the target and followed an intercept flight profile. Moments before the missile was about to destroy the target, a self-destruct signal was sent to the AIM-120 in order to preserve the aerial drone for use in future tests.


http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... mraam.aspx



COST -


Dec 11 (Reuters) - Norway's parliament authorised the government to purchase another six Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets for about 4 billion crowns ($654.7 million), the parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee said on Wednesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... KE20131211


$655M / 6 units = $109 million.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 01 Feb 2014 18:32

Viv S wrote:COST -

Dec 11 (Reuters) - Norway's parliament authorised the government to purchase another six Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets for about 4 billion crowns ($654.7 million), the parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee said on Wednesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... KE20131211


$655M / 6 units = $109 million.

That same report says they intend to operate 52planes by end of 2024 and the total lifecycle cost is 248Billion Crowns i.e. $40Billion in today's money.

Simple math - for 126 planes life cycle cost would be $100Billion :shock: :shock: :shock:

To put that in perspective, India intends to spend $100Billion in 20 years span on Nuclear energy which will generate 64,000MW.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 01 Feb 2014 19:55

sattili wrote:That same report says they intend to operate 52planes by end of 2024 and the total lifecycle cost is 248Billion Crowns i.e. $40Billion in today's money.

Simple math - for 126 planes life cycle cost would be $100Billion


That fighter $40 billion is certainly higher than what I'd have expected ($30-35 billion). It would be interesting to see what assumptions have been included in fuel inflation and manpower costs. It may also not have been adjusted for inflation.


To put that in perspective, India intends to spend $100Billion in 20 years span on Nuclear energy which will generate 64,000MW.


Well we're spending almost $70 billion on the Rafale, so where does that leave us? [$30 billion acquisition, $20,000 x 8000h x 126 = $20 billion operation, $120-150M x 126 = $15-20 billion, support + MLU].

High as those figures are, the PAK FA (or FGFA if you prefer) will still dwarf them both when it comes to the price tag. As much as folks like to point out how unaffordable the F-22 has turned out to be, fact is we've signed up to a program that outright promises a comparable fighter.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 01 Feb 2014 21:10

Viv S wrote:Well we're spending almost $70 billion on the Rafale, so where does that leave us? [$30 billion acquisition, $20,000 x 8000h x 126 = $20 billion operation, $120-150M x 126 = $15-20 billion, support + MLU].

Gee, I thought India's parliament authorized the acquisition if 126 MMRCA for $13 billion. That works out to $102 million plus change for each fighter over its entire life cycle. Why not apply the same standard of quoting officially declared prices for each platform? That $70 billion figure is certainly not an official one.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 999
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sivab » 01 Feb 2014 21:17

Mihir wrote:Gee, I thought India's parliament authorized the acquisition if 126 MMRCA for $13 billion. That works out to $102 million plus change for each fighter over its entire life cycle. Why not apply the same standard of quoting officially declared prices for each platform? That $70 billion figure is certainly not an official one.


:?: Do you have a source for the bolded part? Or is it something you thought? Since when did India's parliament started to authorize individual military deals. How can they authorize something when even price negotiation is not complete and the contract value is not known? Can you point to Indian parliament debate (its all online) where this MMRCA contract was discussed. Are you from India for real?

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 01 Feb 2014 21:33

Whoa whoa whoa... what's with all the frothing at the mouth? :eek:

Not sure if your sarcasm meter is on the blink, but you missed the point of my post by a mile.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 01 Feb 2014 21:54

Mihir wrote:Gee, I thought India's parliament authorized the acquisition if 126 MMRCA for $13 billion. That works out to $102 million plus change for each fighter over its entire life cycle. Why not apply the same standard of quoting officially declared prices for each platform? That $70 billion figure is certainly not an official one.


Brazil is buying Gripens for $125M each ($4.5 billion for 36 units). Dassault's initial offer was $8.2 billion ($230M each) and later reduced to $6.2 billion ($175M), not including support.

The acquisition cost to France itself is $145M (incl VAT). Factor in R&D and the cost is about $230M after the recent cuts. 25% of the R&D cost is financed by the industry, expect some of that to be passed on the customer.

If you think we're getting the Rafale for $100M all inclusive... well, lets hope you're right.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 01 Feb 2014 23:12

So explain me this. If the Rafale's "officially quoted" costs are suspect, especially when you add in fudge factors, why are the F-35's LRIP figures and Norwegian budgets (not exactly costs) taken as gospel here? Especially for a plane with 700+ problems yet to be resolved, problems that, as one insider said, reduce it to a kamikaze platform as of now?

In the meanwhile, here is a nice gentleman saying some nice things about the F-35s costs:

Wheeler calculated only the per-plane production cost, which includes advance funding for long-lead parts, the main funding in the year of authorization plus modification funds to fix design flaws on the planes shortly after they roll out of the factory.

By that measure, one Air Force F-35A—the simplest of the three JSF models—currently costs $182 million. A vertical-landing Marine F-35B sets taxpayers back $252 million. The Navy’s carrier-compatible F-35C, still mired in serious development problems, comes in at a whopping $299 million per plane.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 01 Feb 2014 23:25

TSJones wrote:so you do have problems with our tech punch list procedures and transparency there of. I bet you just love the russian ones.

Just saw this post. No, I don't have any problems with "your" procedures. "Your" procedures and systems produced gems like the F-15, F-16, and F-117 (the first production stealth fighter, developed in thirty months by just 50 engineers) in the seventies and eighties. How did you regress to a turkey like the F-35 from that high point?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 01 Feb 2014 23:48

Mihir wrote:So explain me this. If the Rafale's "officially quoted" costs are suspect, especially when you add in fudge factors, why are the F-35's LRIP figures and Norwegian budgets (not exactly costs) taken as gospel here? Especially for a plane with 700+ problems yet to be resolved, problems that, as one insider said, reduce it to a kamikaze platform as of now?

The Rafale's costs are not suspect. Its about $75M flyaway for France, though we'll still have to see how much it rises due to the recent order cut (original order being 25% higher). The F-35 meanwhile is currently $110M flyaway. Once the production rises (from 30/yr to 120/yr+) it'll fall to well under $90M (LM claims $75M).

As far as being 'kamikaze', it demonstrated the AMRAAM capability back in October. There are no doubts about its capability come 2018.


In the meanwhile, here is a nice gentleman saying some nice things about the F-35s costs.

A unit acquisition cost of $182 million in 2014 for the F-35A is far from alarming. By the end of the decade it should fall to $140M or less.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16876
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 01 Feb 2014 23:59

Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet

By: Dave Majumdar

The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be the eyes and ears of the fleet inside highly contested airspace when it enters the U.S. Navy’s arsenal in large numbers in the 2030s.

“Let’s say we’re in an anti-access environment and we’re going to go deep, we would launch all the airplanes off, get them all set, and we would push the F-35C way inside,” Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy’s director of air warfare told USNI News on Dec. 20. “He would go in there using his X-band stealth technology, and go in there and he would get radar contacts and surface contacts and would ID them for us.”

Under the service’s forthcoming Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) network, Manazir said targets discovered by the F-35C’s advanced sensor suite would be passed back to a Northrop Grumman E-2D to be shared with the rest of the carrier strike group. Further, F-35Cs flying deep inside enemy territory would also play a key role in providing terminal guidance for long-range stand-off weapons launched by other platforms such as Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or a warship.

However, the F-35C will need some data-link modifications, which are expected for the jet’s Block IV configuration, to perform the role the Navy intends for it. While the current version of the Link-16 data-link does not have enough of a low probably of intercept capability that would allow it to be used inside highly contested airspace, the Navy is working on a solution.

“They’re working right now, because it is a follow-on development item, Lockheed Martin is working with other contractors to make that capability happen,” Manazir said. “We need to have that link capability that the enemy can’t find and then it can’t jam.”

In order to extend the F-35C’s range, the Navy hopes to refuel the stealthy new fighter from the service’s future Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft, Manazir said. While the UCLASS would not be as stealthy as the F-35C, it could accompany the JSF into some of the more modestly contested high threat environments.

But the Navy has never operated a stealthy aircraft with the kinds of sensors found onboard the F-35C before. In order to learn how to best utilize the new fighter, one of the first units to receive the F-35C will be the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC)—which is the home of the Navy’s famous TOPGUN school.

“One of the earliest places we’re going to put Joint Strike Fighter is at NSAWC,” Manazir said. “We’ll operate them out at [Naval Air Station] Fallon [Nevada] and be able to develop those tactics real-time on the range with Block II AESA [Active Electronically Scanned Array] F/A-18Es and Fs and F-35Cs.”

Moreover, because all three F-35 variants have the same mission systems, the Navy is working very closely with the U.S. Marine Corps to develop tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) for the JSF. Manazir noted that the USMC would operate the F-35C from the Navy’s Nimitz and Ford-class supercarriers in addition to the F-35B, which will be operated from amphibious assault ships.

“We’ll be able to exploit the advantages of both kinds of aircraft,” Manazir said.
Right now the Marines are ahead of the Navy in developing the concepts of operation for the F-35.

Manazir described a recent long-range air dominance simulation exercise in which there were Marine Corps weapons officers flying the F-35C.

“They’re kind of at the leading edge of tactics development,” Manazir said. “They’re helping us into the future.”

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_20292 » 02 Feb 2014 00:02

Mihir wrote:
TSJones wrote:so you do have problems with our tech punch list procedures and transparency there of. I bet you just love the russian ones.

Just saw this post. No, I don't have any problems with "your" procedures. "Your" procedures and systems produced gems like the F-15, F-16, and F-117 (the first production stealth fighter, developed in thirty months by just 50 engineers) in the seventies and eighties. How did you regress to a turkey like the F-35 from that high point?


I love the way you call the JSF a Turkey . Like the Manhattan project, it will be spent on, till it succeeds, and will make its opponents Turkeys.

Difference in technologies. Management of scientific programs has improved in general.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 02 Feb 2014 00:18

Viv S wrote:As far as being 'kamikaze', it demonstrated the AMRAAM capability back in October. There are no doubts about its capability come 2018.

It fired one AMRAAM, yes. But as things stand, it cannot do so reliably and repeatably, no matter how much you choose to ignore it. That a problem of this magnitude has come to light *now* says a lot about the F-35 and its effed up development strategy.

Viv S wrote:
In the meanwhile, here is a nice gentleman saying some nice things about the F-35s costs.

A unit acquisition cost of $182 million in 2014 for the F-35A is far from alarming. By the end of the decade it should fall to $140M or less.

Okay, now I'm thoroughly confused. I thought the cost was $98 million right now and expected to fall even further? How is a sudden jump of more than 85% "not alarming"? And a "fall" from $98 million is not $140 million, or so the math tells me.
Last edited by Mihir on 02 Feb 2014 00:28, edited 2 times in total.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 02 Feb 2014 00:20

mahadevbhu wrote:I love the way you call the JSF a Turkey . Like the Manhattan project, it will be spent on, till it succeeds, and will make its opponents Turkeys.

Okay, if you say so.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 02 Feb 2014 00:22

Mihir wrote:
TSJones wrote:so you do have problems with our tech punch list procedures and transparency there of. I bet you just love the russian ones.

Just saw this post. No, I don't have any problems with "your" procedures. "Your" procedures and systems produced gems like the F-15, F-16, and F-117 (the first production stealth fighter, developed in thirty months by just 50 engineers) in the seventies and eighties. How did you regress to a turkey like the F-35 from that high point?


Whether I like it or not, I own what my government does. So yeah, it's mine. I served my government for 4 years in the USMC and worked on my government's planes. At times, during training, my government treated convicts in prison better than they treated the enlisted recruits. I mean food, sleep deprivation, and bathroom privileges denial, not mention some punches to my stomach while I stood at attention and once I was chocked to my knees. Even at that, I came out better than some of my fellow enlistees who never made it back from Vietnam. One of them they never even found his body. So while I never went to Vietnam or got my ass shot off, yeah, I'm vested in my country. It's mine. My point was these tech problems are made public unlike most other countries which do *not* make them public. These technical challenges will be overcome and the plane will do its job. I don't what you're worried about. India is never going to buy it. At least not for many years if ever.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Manish_Sharma » 02 Feb 2014 00:49

sivab wrote:
:?: Do you have a source for the bolded part? Or is it something you thought?


Strange very strange!

Why didn't it occur you to question VivS' 70 billion $ figure?

Or do you believe that his figure is from an impeccable source?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 02 Feb 2014 01:04

Mihir wrote:It fired one AMRAAM, yes. But as things stand, it cannot do so reliably and repeatably, no matter how much you choose to ignore it. That a problem of this magnitude has come to light *now* says a lot about the F-35 and its effed up development strategy.

So according to you at IOC, four years from now, it will not be capable of firing an AMRAAM?


Okay, now I'm thoroughly confused. I thought the cost was $98 million right now and expected to fall even further? How is a sudden jump of more than 85% "not alarming"? And a "fall" from $98 million is not $140 million, or so the math tells me.

Read it again. $98M+15M= $114M was what I posted in Oct. $110M was what I posted today.

And please don't equate flyaway cost($110M/85M) with procurement cost ($185M/140M).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16876
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 02 Feb 2014 02:31

I do not think "cost" is an issue. Here on out LM and other vendors are expected to carry the financial risks (and share any savings with the Gov).

Software has been the main problem - not technologies (as can be seen in: "Some Embarrassing Details From the Pentagon’s Latest Stealth Fighter Report"). All techs are in place and working on other platforms: DAS, GPS, missiles, etc. So, the issue is very specific: Software on the F-35. And, software problems are nothing new.

Why problems associated with the F-35? Bad managers/management, nothing to do with the techs. (As was witnessed with the ObamaCare software too.)

But, it is correctable.

Last year, around this time, everyone was screaming about the helmet. Today: Jan 24, 2014 :: F-35 Pilots Will Begin Flying Improved 'Gen 3' Helmet

“It’s still not perfect, but it’s the 95-percent solution and the major issue there is resolved,” Kelly said.


Finally, check out the recommendations in the very Gov report.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16876
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 02 Feb 2014 02:33

F-35 Pilots Will Begin Flying Improved 'Gen 3' Helmet

F-35 test pilots will begin flying this year with a third-generation helmet mounted display system (HMDS) that incorporates modifications to the earlier-generation display system, which the Pentagon has identified as an F-35 program risk. The fixes the fighter program developed for the “Gen 3” helmet system persuaded the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) to stop funding an alternate helmet-mounted display.

“I definitely have confidence that we are on the right track; we have the right plan for these fixes in place,” said Marine Lt. Col. Matthew Kelly, government flight test director at the F-35 integrated training center at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

In 2011, the Department of Defense identified the HMDS as one of several F-35 program risks. It found that the Gen 2 system being developed by the joint venture between Rockwell Collins and Elbit Systems of America—then called Vision Systems International (VSI)—was deficient in the areas of night-vision acuity, display jitter during aircraft buffeting and image latency from the fighter’s electro-optical distributed aperture system (DAS). In September 2011, F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin awarded BAE Systems a contract to develop an alternate HMDS with detachable night-vision goggles (NVGs) in the event VSI failed to resolve issues with the incumbent helmet-mounted display.

Last October, after testing display-system fixes over the course of two years, the JPO gained enough confidence in the new Gen 3 HMDS to stop BAE’s parallel display effort. In an interview with AIN, Kelly, an F-35 test pilot, described some of the testing that took place during the intervening period between the start and termination of the alternate HMDS development.

The night-vision acuity of the Gen 2 HMDS, which contains an ISIE (Intevac silicon imaging engine) 10 sensor for low-light-level detection, was the helmet system’s major deficiency, according to Kelly. An ISIE 11 sensor based on Intevac Photonics’ patented electron bombarded activated pixel sensor (EBAPS) technology brings the system’s night-vision acuity closer to the 20/20 vision NVGs can provide.

Last summer, the F-35 program tested a production-representative night-vision camera with ISIE 11 sensor in a modified Gen 2 helmet, using a twin-engine King Air surrogate aircraft. Flying from St. Mary’s County Regional Airport in Maryland, close to NAS Patuxent River, pilots tested the system in high- and low-light conditions and compared it to using ANVIS 9 NVGs. Testers also used a ground-based laser designator to determine how far away pilots could spot a laser pointer. “There were some limitations to the test,” Kelly acknowledged. “It wasn’t in an F-35, but it was close enough that we could make a confident decision about the usability and the effectiveness of the new ISIE 11 night-vision camera in the Gen 3 helmet.”

In a separate interview with AIN, Drew Brugal, Intevac Photonics general manager, said “the plan had always been” to eventually deliver the ISIE 11 sensor, which was not mature when the company was contracted to provide integrated night imaging for the F-35 HMDS. Last fall, Intevac started delivering ISIE 11 sensors to the Merrimack, N.H. operations of Elbit Systems of America, which builds the sensor into the night-vision camera.

Brugal formerly headed VSI, which the partner companies dissolved in 2012 after his departure and replaced with a new organization, Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems. The joint venture with Elbit “was restructured to provide a more efficient and agile operating structure for the business,” according to Rockwell Collins. The companies “continue to be equal partners in the joint venture with similar product and technology responsibilities as before; however, program offices of the company’s product line management were transitioned from VSI to the parent companies.”

The Gen 2 helmet system’s latency, or response time at importing DAS imagery—measured in milliseconds—was not the problem testers thought it would be, Kelly said. Pilots just hadn’t had the opportunity to use the DAS sensor array during flight testing. Test pilots experienced display jitter in areas of the F-35 flight envelope that hadn’t been approved for training, he said. The program addressed the problem by integrating micro inertial measurement units and filtering algorithms in the HMDS to cancel out jitter effects. Pilots flew the fixes using a modified Gen 2 helmet.

“It’s still not perfect, but it’s the 95-percent solution and the major issue there is resolved,” Kelly said.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21144
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 02 Feb 2014 03:13

Karan's post:
“The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by eight seconds,” Gilmore’s report stated. The F-35B and F-35C also had their turn rates and acceleration time eased. The B-model jet’s max turn went from 5.0 to 4.5 g’s and its acceleration time to Mach 1.2 was extended by 16 seconds. The F-35C lost 0.1 g off its turn spec and added a whopping 43 seconds to its acceleration.


The aviation industry's equivalent of "quantitative easing"? AKA "latrine economics"!
If the existing AMRAAM isn't functioning properly,wonder about the cute CUDA mini-AMRAAMs supposedly the magic bullets to be carried in qty in he internal bay,which rely upon an absolute hit to destroy their opponent.No matter if the nav.brain is also off by a few degrees.

A most pessimistic viewpoint,admittedly about a yr. old.Whether the arguments are still valid in the light of JSF "progress" needs to be examined.

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/20 ... -the-f-35/
Time to cancel the F-35
By Zbigniew Mazurak on Mar 07, 2013 in National Defense and Military, Support the Troops

The DOD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (OTE), J. Michael Gilmore, has recently released his assessment of the F-35 JSF, and the DOD has also released the marks given to the plane by its test pilots. These are all F grades.

In the plane’s cockpit, visibility to the rear is poor (practically nonexistent), visibility with the JSF’s HMD helmet is also disastrously poor, and just recently, the engine suffered a turbine crack.

The DOTE and test pilots have written that as a result, the F-35 will be outclassed in air combat everytime because of poor visibility for the pilot (i.e. the pilot will have good visibility only straight ahead). Even vision to the sides will be poor. As a result, the plane will succumb in air to air combat (at least in Within Visual Range combat) everytime, for all-around vision is a non-negotiable requirement for this regime of combat. In simple English, F-35 pilots won’t be able to see what’s around them, only what’s in front of them.

This adds to the F-35′s many other design flaws:

POOR MANEUVERABILITY/AGILITY. The F-35 has a very high wing loading ratio (441 kg/sq m) even without any weapons and at just 50% fuel. At 50% fuel plus its full complement of weapons, its wing loading ratio is 526 kg/sq m, one of the highest of any fighterplanes in history. F-35 variants also have an unimpressive thrust/weight ratio: the F-35 has the best at barely 1.07:1.
HIGH FUEL CONSUMPTION. This means that enemy fighters such as the Flanker family, the J-20, and the PAKFA can simply run the F-35 out of fuel.
POOR COMBAT RADIUS. Even for the F-35A, it’s less than 800 kms. While that is an improvement over every type of aircraft which the F-35 will replace, it’s still not enough by a long shot considering that all bases within the range of China’s DF-15 and DF-16 SRBMs (900-1000 kms) will be destroyed in any conflict with that country. The same applies to Iran and North Korea. This ensures that the F-35 will not be able to patrol any areas far from its base nor bomb any targets far away from it. For that, you need a long-range bomber.
SMALL WEAPONS LOAD. In stealthy mode, the F-35 can carry only 4 air-to-air missiles, meaning that an Su-35, with 12 missiles, gets 8 freebie shots at the F-35.
LOW CEILING. Nominally, it’s an unimpressive 60,000 ft, in reality, the F-35 has been tested only at altitudes up to 43,000 ft. Both of these ceilings are woefully inadequate to fight effectively against the most modern Russian and Chinese aircraft.
LOW SPEED. Only Mach 1.61, much slower than 4th generation American fighters (except the Bug and the Super Bug), Generation 4+ fighters and 5th generation fighters (F-22, PAKFA, J-20). This (coupled with the F-35′s pathetically low ceiling) not only makes the F-35 totally uncompetitive in Beyond Visual Range combat, it also means that the F-35 cannot egress out of (escape from) a fight – it will be run to the death by the enemy.
COST. Even the cheapest F-35 variant – the F-35A – will, according to the most optimistic estimates, cost at least $130 mn, and probably much more. The F-35B and C variants will be even more expensive. Moreover, the cost of operating a fleet of 2,443 F-35s over the next 55 years will be $1.5 trillion – completely unaffordable for the DOD, especially considering sequestration.
SINGLE ENGINE. The F-35′s single engine means that if the engine malfunctions or is hit by the enemy, the plane will be lost.

In short, the F-35 is one of the worst combat aircraft ever designed by anyone. It’s an utter waste of money. Until last year, I believed that the F-35 could still be salvaged and fixed, that its problems could and would be solved. But by now, it’s clear that they can’t. The F-35 is only going to get more expensive going forward.

Moreover, the F-35 has already become operationally obsolete long before it has entered service. It was NEVER designed to do air to air combat or to eliminate enemy air defenses. Instead, it was designed to pound enemy ground armies and their associated short-range air defense systems like the Tunguska (SA-19 Grison), a la the Cold War and Operation Desert Storm. But this kind of warfare will likely never be fought again – massed ground armies lost their appeal after the Coalition pounded Saddam’s massed ground armies during Operation Desert Storm.

After the DOD certified the F-35 following its Nunn-McCurdy breach, it re-validated the F-35′s 2000 Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD), even though the JORD itself is obsolete. The JORD speaks of a world without the S-300, the S-400, the S-500, the HQ-9, the Su-35, the PAKFA, the J-20, and the J-31. In other words, the F-35 is not designed for the real world. It’s already obsolete now – and will be even more obsolete by the time it enters service (if it does).

The only Western (not just American – WESTERN) fighter capable of defeating all enemy air defense systems and fighters (including those listed above) is the F-22 Raptor, or to be more precise, evolved and enhanced variants of this aircraft.

No other American fighter stands any chance in a confrontation with any of the systems listed above, be it the F-35, the F-15, the F-16, the Harrier, the Bug, or the Super Bug.

So what should the three services involved in the F-35 do? That’s simple. Cancel the F-35 completely and:

The Air Force should resume F-22 or F-15 production, as well as export hundreds of these fighters to allies (Israel, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Britain, etc.). The cost of resuming F-22 production would be less than $1 bn, and it could be produced at little cost on the government-owned production line in Fort Worth, Texas.
The Navy should prolong the service lives of its Bugs, procure some Super Bugs as interim aircraft, and hasten the development and introduction of the F/A-XX.
The Marines should resume Harrier production, develop and field a Super Harrier, and replace their Bugs with the F/A-XX.

All of this would cost a lot less than sticking with the F-35 program and procuring useless, expensive F-35 aircraft that will only get American pilots killed.
Last edited by Philip on 02 Feb 2014 03:27, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16876
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 02 Feb 2014 03:23

Provide some more details:

Pentagon lowers F-35 performance bar


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests