Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 18 Jun 2015 00:12

To gauge the size and complexity of ALIS, consider that out of the 24 Million lines of code on the F-35 software build the aircraft itself has around 8 million lines of code (flight controls plus weapons systems). Almost all of the remaining is ALIS (around 15-16) that has been and continuous to be a source of headache. From what I have read on the matter, they aint going back on this PHM approach even for future systems as it does streamline the process and reduce long term (we are talking decades) cost and allows them to compete upgrades in the future, so they have to go through the 'pains' of getting this right. The consensus is that ALIS is about 2 years behind everything else as far as maturity is concerned but they did towards the middle of next year begin treating it as a mission/weapons system so are allocating proper resources. Its just going to take a long painful road to maturity and in the interim they'll continue to perform the logistical activity through ALIS in areas that it works well in as of now, and will use ' traditional' approaches in areas where ALIS has a lot of room to develop. For a comparison the Raptor has around 1.7 Million lines of embedded (aircraft) code 1/4 of the JSF. Puts 'sensor-fusion' into proper perspective for those think that one aircraft with sensor fusion is the same as another. Its the overall integration of each and every sensor and the depth of integrated tasks that essentially defines the software volume with each sensor building up on and feeding off of each others capabilities.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 18 Jun 2015 23:59

F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Exercise

Not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the joint-force Green Flag exercises testing the jet and its pilots’ prowess operating it in a contested air-support role in the Western U.S. this month, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Cameron Dadgar, head of the exercise and leader of the 549th Combat Training Sqdn. at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15870
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2015 03:10

GE Jet Sets Record; Will F-35 Get New AETD Engine?

Pratt & Whitney has refused to disclose the price of its F135 engines for the F-35 for quite a while, even while Lockheed Martin boasted it would bring down the price of the Joint Strike Fighter to $80 million a copy — including engine.

Now we know why. At a Monday briefing here, the head of Pratt’s F135 program, Mark Buongiorno, told reporters the company didn’t want to release the information because the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program’s engines were being tested for dimensions that matched those of the F-35. A more fuel-efficient AETD engine could overcome one of the longstanding concerns about the F-35 in an era of ever deeper anti-access/area denial defenses, its relatively short unrefueled range of a bit more than 600 nautical miles.

Then General Electric put out a release late yesterday about testing for its Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) project, which achieved the highest combined compressor and turbine temperature operation “in the history of jet engine propulsion.”

That release included this sentence: “It is now being applied to the next step – an engine that could fit an F-35-like aircraft.”

You could almost hear the pin drop. Years after former Defense Secretary Bob Gates pushed hard to kill the so-called second engine program — GE’s F136 — it looks as if GE may be poised to come back with what could be either a second engine for the F-35, a replacement for Pratt’s F135, or the next-generation power plant.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 19 Jun 2015 06:20

For all those shouting loudly at the cancellation of the F136 the writing was pretty much on the wall when GE received a similar level of funding for the ADVENT program and Pratt was left out of the award forcing it to do its own development on its own. Thats the big unknown, in the AETD competition since Pratt isn't starting from a T0 position, they spent their own money to develop technologies when they did not get funding for the ADVENT. Its unlikely that the F-35 will get the AETP offshoot since there are more firmer development programs in the F-X and FA-XX that have more pressing propulsion needs. It is more likely that the F-135 upgrade is the path to be pursued for the F-35 follow-on-development phase since its a lower cost, lower risk path given the complexity of making an adaptive, variable cycle 6th generation fighter engine.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 19 Jun 2015 14:01


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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 19 Jun 2015 17:54

green flag is an internal exercise with unknown test algorithms. take it with a pinch or two of salt.

we do not know what weaknesses or strengths the air force was trying to test. thus scepticism is warranted.

rest assured though, they are no dummies and ultimately the jsf will be tested as much as possible through various red flag exercises before it becomes the tip of the spear. to do anything else would be suicidal.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 19 Jun 2015 18:15

These are secondary exercises that are internal to the service and its entirely up to them on how to go about conducting them. Same applies to Red flag (any one) or Northern Edge. Operational Evaluation as done by independent authorities has nothing to do with these exercises as was the case with DT and OT aboard the WASP. Its entirely up to the Marines, the US Navy or the USAF to conduct exercises the way they want, to simulate threats, to select which threats to simulate etc etc. Operational evaluation will pit the aircraft against threats that were defined for it, and will evaluate it and suggest capability for future threats (Follow on development).

The USAF sent out a CAT Bird equipped with JSF sensors and computers to northern edge a few years ago, none of that data developed would be used for operational testing - its all internal, with the service and for its own consumption as to how to deploy the weapons system vs the threats that they simulated. The program and the 3 services are moving towards developing training protocols, best-practices, syllabi etc for missions like A2A, SEAD, Electronic Attack, CAS etc (Marines are writing the CAS chapter on the F-35) and these exercises go a long way in verifying some of the stuff they are doing. Nothing more and nothing less!!

Operational evaluation is a comprehensive and standardized process and is conducted by an independent (to the program) authority, while specialized exercises such as this one are designed around certain aspects (such as CAS in this case). The F-35 will likely make its RED FLAG debut sometime in 2017 and that would cover more mission sets, parameters etc BTW, the USMC has already been flying cooperative sorties with USN and USMC F-18's and Super Hornets and blue on red scenarios at the squadron level for training, but like this and red flag none of it contributes to the operational testing certification.

The USAF is moving to a Virtual construct, as according to them they cannot simulate the most advanced capability (even their own capability) at RED FLAG even at the RF IV where they bring space and cyber elements to the fight. The F-22 and F-35 will have their most toughest training in the virtual world with red flag being a notch below that - this in the 2020's. Thats one of the reasons why the F-35 gets a full mission-computer/software simulator as opposed to one that uses an emulator to simulate the jet. The F-35 has the same ICP performance and the same mission software as the jet - a departure from other 5th (f22), 4th and 4.5 generation aircraft.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15870
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2015 19:33

Found this article to be interesting.

Back To Basics for F-35

Weapons and upgrades could define the next era for the worldwide fighter market.

As Lockheed Martin (Chalet 316, Static C2) and the Pentagon attempt over the next year or so to assemble a three-year block buy of 400-500 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, potential customers will be looking for firm definition behind the much-redefined Block 4 upgrade process, which will define all the capabilities that the F-35 will have between now and 2027.

This long-range planning is essential for JSF, because the program is large and weapon and system integration issues are unique. From the very start of the project, it has been a given that all aircraft in the worldwide fleet will be upgraded concurrently, so as to avoid having a multiplicity of configurations.

This one-size-fits-all approach will in theory be the result of consensus among the customer community, but in practice will be dominated by the U.S., which will be signing the biggest single check. It presents a dilemma: how can you put as many upgrades and improvements on the schedule as possible to meet today’s national desires, while leaving capacity to change plans as new technologies and threats emerge?

Another delicate balance concerns the timing of improvements. In Wednesday’s ShowNews (p. 46), I wrote about the rapidly improving technology of electro-optical targeting, including hyperspectral systems that fuse midwave infrared (IR), shortwave IR and color video to give the pilot the best available picture. All of this has appeared since the F-35 was designed, so its current midwave-IR-only electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) looks a little dated, and will be even more so when the JSF is ready for export customers.

This issue has been recognized, and an Advanced EOTS is being designed with sharper, multi-spectral sensors and new processors. It should cut into production in Block 4, and according to Lockheed Martin is a top priority for many users. But this does not necessarily help to sell a lot of Block 3 aircraft: if Block 4 is going to include such a significant improvement, why not stretch out the lives of your existing fighters and delay F-35 deliveries?

It is sensors and weapons that make a fighter flexible and give it longevity – the latter not measured by airframe life, but by how long it can remain effective against evolving targets and threats. As well as targeting pods, this year’s show features a new generation of air-to-air missiles (AAMs): MBDA’s formidable (if costly) Meteor, four of which arm the Rafale M in the static display, and Rafael’s I-Derby Extended Range.

The I-Derby ER is worth a few words because it is the opposite of the F-35 upgrade strategy: cheap, fast and easy to integrate. Rafael has updated Derby with its own RF seeker technology – the current Derby has an Israel Aerospace Industries seeker developed in the 1990s – and the multi-pulse motor experience from the Barak 8 naval air defense system and David’s Sling. Rafael has removed the Derby’s electro-optical fuze and built the function into the radar, which frees up 50 cm of length for propellant. Between that and the pulsed motor, this “almost doubles” the range, Rafael says.

If you already have Derby or an aircraft that can fire Derby, integrating the ER is easy – it is exactly the same shape as the earlier version. But if you want a longer-range AAM on the F-35, you have no options today. Sometime in Block 4 you may get Meteor or the AIM-120D version of the Advanced Medium Range AAM. Raytheon (Chalet 296, Static B10) people sometimes talk about AIM-120D in “it’s so good that it’s very secret” terms, but consistent evidence says it still has the AIM-120C7 motor, and there is only so much that you can do with the kinematics at that point.

In the wider competitive picture, France has done a creditable job since the early 2000s of sticking to its timeline for Rafale upgrades, including the deployment of a full range of weapons, and new targeting and reconnaissance pods from Thales (Chalet 263, Static B1, Hall Corcorde 39). Saab has shown an ability to integrate payloads faster and at less cost than its competitors – including U.S. weapons such as the Small Diameter Bomb – and after a good deal of foot-dragging, the four Eurofighter nations have recognized that Typhoon needs a full range of weapons and systems and have put some money behind that intention.

The F-16 could be a lesson for Team F-35. Various F-16 customers paid for a series of improvements that the U.S. did not want, or did not want at the time: the F-16D’s expanded dorsal spine, conformal fuel tanks, two-way satcoms and a number of active electronic warfare systems, not to mention almost every weapon in the Western inventory. That seems to have worked out quite well.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 19 Jun 2015 19:57

Nice find a good article, certain points though -

- The EOTS upgrade has been in the works and Lockheed presented what they were working on in the AFM issue on the F-35 last year. No one buys a modern fighter just basing their decision on a sensor, for sensors are upgraded over time. The EOTS was developed at a time when concurrently there were massive investments being made to IR pods due to the type of wars the US was fighting. Multi-spectral, full motion video (HD), color and longer ranges. Lockheed is building that not the XR family, and they will build that into EOTS. Developmental programs incorporate capability that is A) Fully funded, and B ) has requirements that are fully mature. You cannot risk the development of a weapons system on technology and other sub-components that are themselves in development or may not be developed in time. Case in point is the SDB. You could push it into block 3F, but go back a decade, was it 100% certain that SDB II would enter LRIP in 2015? What if it were delayed by 2-3 years what then? So they decided to firm block 3F (Post baseline) to exclude SDBII, as the initial ramp in production is going to be supplying two fully deployed types in the F-15E and F-18E/F. Once the SDB II becomes available in numbers (plan is to produce 17000 SDB II's) the F-35 blk. 4.2 will get it. Integration begins in the 2018-2020 timeframe and will be certified by 2022. Same applies to whatever is in the pipeline for EOTS. Its not a major investment requiring billions...Its going to be mostly an IRAD project and the EOTS is an LRU so you need to swap it out and insert a new pod.

- The AMRAAM project is going to be a two phase development, phase one you add the brains and phase two you take care of propulsion. C5 inserted the extra 5 inches of space and upped the range, next phase developed better seeker capability, electronic warfare and DRFM protection, EPIP etc and the D improved upon that and added GPS and other stuff for better engagement ranges. The next upgrade will most likely involve range-improvements through a combination of a multi-pulse motor that Raytheon was contracted to develop a few years back and better propellent. Since there is no front end change likely over the baseline D, the Aim-120E (or DX) will most likely be a plug and play on all platforms that are cleared for the Aim-120D just as the C7 was plug and play over the C5.

Alliant Techsystems (NYSE: ATK) has been awarded a research and development contract for the Counter Air / Future Naval Capabilities (CA/FNC) program to develop technologies that can be incorporated into next generation air-to-air missile systems. The nearly $10-million contract was issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, California. ATK will work in concert with NAWCWD to identify specific propulsion technologies to develop for integration into future missile systems. The work is expected to be completed by June 2013.

The scope of the CA/FNC program is to develop technologies that will extend missile range, decrease time-to-target, improve end-game maneuverability, and improve the rocket motor's response to insensitive munitions (IM) stimuli. These improvements are oriented towards the 7-inch diameter Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) that is currently in use by the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and many allied nations, but will be applicable to other air-to-air missile systems.

There are four main areas that ATK will be concentrating their development efforts on which include: high burn rate propellants for improved kinematics; improving case stiffness for reduced weight and agility; low erosion nozzles for improved performance; and [b]multi-pulse propulsion
for end-game maneuverability. Additionally, ATK will address the IM requirement by incorporating affordable solutions including an advanced propellant formulation, a low cost composite case, and mitigation safety devices proven on other tactical rocket motor programs[/b]

Concurrent to this Raytheon test fired a VFD Ramjet for the T3 missile in 2013, although a multi pulse motor may be a more elegant solution since it allows the missile to completely shut down and be 'stealthy' when being confronted by MLD's and EODAS like sensors in the future. Either way both options exist for ATK, Raytheon to explore. While a dual pulse motor is still considered to be a 80% solution vs a VFDR choice a three pulse motor is considered an at par solution with the benefits being in its ability to go totally silent. Aerojet was the first to produce a working in service VFDR weapon in the Coyote and have since developed and certified a VFDR propellent for air to air missiles (non-smokey clean burn) in their AERGEN product line. Choices exist to go down that path, whichever they may choose but the question is WHY? and WHEN? The most classified element of USAF and USN investments is the future missile capability with not a single picture having been released of Boeing and Raytheon T3 missies despite of them having build multiple examples, and having shot them at air targets, cruise missile targets and ground based targets. Only the test data, and the fact that it was accomplished is acknowledged with everything else shrouded in secrecy.

- Most likely, the AMRAAM development path will be followed and a secondary missile developed concurrently in the CUDA class to provide magazine depth. The Air Dominance Initiative is exploring this development and most of it is classified with Lockheed confirming that the CUDA is a AIR DOMINANCE INITIATIVE effort.

Image

The CUDA is an interesting concept and something that I am sure even Raytheon can use on the AMRAAM, but the best would be for Lockheed and Raytheon to come together since Lockheed can use a lot of experience from their PAC-3 MSE. What the CUDA does is package the missile with much smaller components and takes out the AMRAAM class warhead and either totally eliminates the warhead or like the MSE uses a tiny warhead. Its a 'hittile' that uses Hit 2 Kill to achieve a mission kill. The absence of a warhead means a much larger percentage of the overall missile is reserved for the motor and fuel resulting in what many claim is an Aim-120B/C range in a body that is about the size of an SDBII meaning that 8 can be carried on the air to ground stations in addition to 2 Aim-120 class missiles. Lockheed's concept basically swapped the motor out of the CUDA and added an AMRAAM sized body to get a full missile in the AMRAAM/METEOR Class. They also proposed a multi pulse motor iirc having had the experience with dual pulse motors with the PAC-3MSE.

more -

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... le-or.html


The point is that you recapitalize your capability i.e. make the transition to a 5th generation fleet and then look to add capability over time. Adding a Meteor on an F-16 won't make it better than an F-35, while adding a Meteor on the F-35 will make it even better. Unless 'cost' is of no concern, you first get the number you want and then look to invest money for upgrades and build capability unless you want to remain in a 'science-project' mode forever. Why buy 3F in 2015 when 4 is available between 2022-2026, and when it comes time to buy block 4, why buy that when block 5 is only 5-10 years away...That argument is OK if you are trying to bash something that you personally do not want to succeed (and uncle bill surely has that sort of relationship on the F-35 as his not so private social media rant has shown in the past) but fleet planners have to make that call - they unfortunately have to make decisions on financing and capability that lasts 3-5 decades and not just " the next article".

- The meteor integration on the F-35 is 'meteor customer dependent' and will occur in Block IV. At the moment there aren't many customers for the F-35 that have the Meteor in large quantity. The UK won't have Meteor capability on the Eurofigther Typhoon until 2018 and I am not sure what the status is with Italy's Typhoons. The US isn't going to pay for Meteor integration since it has no plans on using that wepon. Japan is coming onboard the Meteor so expect them to push for integration. Depending upon the number of missiles procured it would make sense for the UK to use the Meteor on the Phoon's since it needs them against the PAKFA, a stealth jet by its very nature can get in closer to launch its weapons. The raptor pilots at red-flag do just that, i.e. get closer and share targeting with other fighters (hence the 4th to 5th requirement at the ACC). When they initially started writing tactics for the F-22 they were all gung ho on LR INTERCEPTS using the C7 and planning ahead for the D. Now the tactics are to be the first shooter in a defensive enterprise (I.e. shoot down invading bombers from very long ranges using supercruise and altitude) and be the last shooter in an offensive enterprise (i.e. that is get inside the enemy's OODA loop by having the stealth fleet get in closer and sharing information with the non-stealth fleet farther back) Those are the tactics the F-22 pilots current employ and plan on enhancing in the future through IFDL comms link between them and F-15's and ultimately L band comms links with the F-35's.

As a Side note - The author (who is extremely well informed, perhaps more than any defense journo in the west that works for mainstream publications) mentions that the block 3 to block 4 will see considerable enhancements in the EOTS sensor which for all intents and purposes should be A) welcomed and B ) something positive...However, when comparing and mentioning the Rafale he completely fails to point out that IT didn't even have an IR targeting option when it was introduced, and lacked an option even when it was sent out to fight in Afghanistan.

The Gripen doesn't get an IRST until perhaps 2020 and its been around since when? There were *4+ generation* fighters being produced (insert bill's favorite fighters) without AESA when there were other 4th generation and 5th generation fighters operational with an AESA. Yet thats not a big deal..but uncle bill wants a multi spectral full color sensor on the F-35 PRONTO and wants the customers to wait for it, i.e operate legacy aircraft for longer instead of just replacing the LRU and swapping the sensor. Gosh..Should Gripen C customers just wait for the Gripen E as the Gripen has taken something like 20-24 years longer than the F-15 to get an AESA (Assuming a 2020-2024 IOC for the Gripen E/F).

How many Rafale's will be flying with Talios in 2020? How many F-16's with LV's? The new sensor for block 4 should be up flying on the CAT BIRD around that time and would be integrated a couple of years after that...Its always the next_in_line that is attacked..when the B was having its issues, it would light an L class deck on fire, or even puncture a hole in it (as per some other journos) and then the CV tail hook redesign was never gong to happen etc etc ..When the LRIP 2 cost was at 200 Million it would have never come down and it was too expensive, now that the LRIP8 cost is 108 Million the attacks have shifted to "out in the future" O&S costs that themselves are based on a 30K hour - immature ALIS data set when the USAF and even the GAO knows that you need much larger data to set reasonable cost expectations 5 decades down the road - an exercise which btw no one even tried to do on any other program prior to the JSF. One can predict with a high degree of confidence that when the O&S costs becomes lower as the trends have shown over the last 5 years, they would find some other thing out in the future, perhaps a new engine to attack...Its always " On to the next one" as the song goes!!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 20 Jun 2015 18:12

Just to add some information on Uncle Bill's rant above (regarding how his beloved fighters are so much better at getting capability..)

First front line fourth generation fighter to sport an operationally deployed AESA radar - 2000
Gripen C IOC iirc 1997-98

When does the beloved Gripen get an AESA? - IOC perhaps 2022-2025 time-period.

To add further, in addition to the Squadron (or two) of F-15C's with AESA in 2000, the F-16 E and F was developed and was declared operational with an AESA in 2005, followed a few months later by the F-22A declaring its IOC in the same year with yet another AESA. So by 2005 there were 3 fighter AESA radars operational on 2 4th generation and one 5th generation aircraft. By 2003 the AESA on another 4+ generation aircraft was flying and it declared its IOC a few years later. This makes it 5 UAE or US platforms before 2010 and one Japanese project that had an operational AESA.

Lets get to IRST's..The russian 4 and 4+ generation have them, the US had them on the F-14 and the Japanese put it on the F-15's ..IRST-21 continued to be enhanced despite F-14 retirement and its being integrated on the F-18 fleet, F-16's with UAE and F-15's with Singapore have IRSTs as well. When does the Gripen get it? Only on the E/F (unless someone pays for changes on the C) in 2024 time-frame.

Same with the Rafale - AESA came just a couple of years ago, a full dozen years (or more) after the technology appeared on other competing platforms. Same thing with 4th generation targeting pods, the Sniper XR and Litening IV were being deployed on various fourth generation platforms and the French had a Thales pod on the M2K but nothing on the rafale even in Afghanistan. So much for quick integration. The F-35 on the other hand introduces itself with an AESA, IRST, FLIR and an LPI data links which the Rafale doesn't even have to begin with (all is MIDS/L16 which the US refuses to do due to its non-LPI nature) and has upgrade both he sensor on the EODAS and the mission computer through development..But Mr. Sweetman will quickly neglect all that information and call the rafale a model for upgrades ;), and of course there is hardly a wrong step that the Gripen can take (those crashes in development were all propaganda from its competitors, they never occurred). A great author, with a lot of informative articles but his technical analysis has been biased since day 1 on this program especially with the way he has carried himself through the social media rants that have in the past landed him in trouble.

I never saw a single article from Sweetmann claiming that the Gripen users around the world should not have purchased or leased the aircraft in the 2000's and waited till 2024 for the E/F since it will introduce a better AESA radar, better EW coverage and an IRST..or the French just wait to procure the rafale until it gets an AESA, an advanced targeting pod and perhaps finally an LPI data link when it flies alongside coalition stealth assets.

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




Courtesy f-16.net, full article F-35 Production Hours Continue To Shrink


Lockheed Martin’s plan to cut the unit cost of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to less than $80 million by 2019 is tracking to target and will be boosted by Pentagon procurement chief Frank Kendall’s recent call for an international block buy, says F-35 Executive Vice President and General Manager Lorraine Martin.

Revealing new details of the company’s assembly improvement plan for the aircraft, Martin says production hours per F-35 are on target to shrink to less than 35,000 by 2020, compared to more than the 153,000 hr. it took to build an early production aircraft, AF-6, in 2011. The current reported rate is just over 50,000 hr., which was the time taken to assemble AF-64. The cut in build time is a key metric in the drive to reduce costs toward the $80 million unit targeted for an aircraft in the 13th low rate initial production (LRIP) lot at the end of the decade. Unit cost could dip slightly lower through subsequent lots in 2020 and 2021, suggests Martin.

“It’s what you want to see. The learning curve has been what we’d expect it to be. Eventually, we expect to get this production capability to about 35,000 hr. in about the 2020 time frame, all of that depending on keeping the production rate that’s currently forecast. It is critical that this continues to have this kind of performance,” she adds. “The $80 million price point will ensure we have a fifth-generation aircraft for about the same price or even less than any fourth-generation capability in the world.”

Updating progress on the joint F-35 Joint Program Office and industry “blueprint for affordability” cost-reduction initiative launched in 2014, Martin says out of 178 ideas submitted so far for approval between the industry team and the U.S. government, “82 have been approved and we are working on them. That’s taken about $63 million of the $170 million invested by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems, and we have another $70 million worth of other projects under construction. We had expected these would bring savings for LRIP 9 and 10, because those were in front of us, but we actually got a little in LRIP 8, and we were able to share that with the government. Now, for LRIP 9, we are looking at having at least $1 million per aircraft of cost reduction as a result of these projects.”

Some of the ideas adopted include a new cryogenic machining process, which uses compressed nitrogen instead of oil to cool drill bits, and an improved method for manufacturing the rudder spar. The coolant idea required a Lockheed investment of $119,000, but results in a saving of $4,000 per aircraft and is expected to yield $12 million of savings over the life of the program. The new rudder spar method, which uses die forgings in place of milled forgings, requires an investment from F-35 supplier Kongsberg of $360,000, but will save up to $66 million over the life of the F-35.

The main F-35 assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas, is in the midst of significant expansion to handle the ramp-up to a maximum of around 17 aircraft per month. The number of major fuselage-mating stations on line has grown from five in 2010, to 15 currently and will increase to 20 by 2020. Of the 22 flight line hangar bays used for engine runs and outside work, 14 are being overhauled and four additional sites are being cleared to add more structures, for a total of 34 hangars by 2018.

Production of aircraft for the latest international users is also underway, with the first F-35s for Norway, Japan and Israel. The initial wing of AX-1, the first of four Japanese aircraft destined to be made in Fort Worth, has been completed in Marietta, Georgia. The completed aircraft is scheduled to roll out of Fort Worth in August 2016.

“We have seven of the Japanese component aircraft in work right now because five, six and seven will be done in Japan, and we have to have more lead time to make sure they are up and running in advance,” says Martin.

The first two Israeli aircraft, dubbed AS-1 and 2, are also on the line and “will load into the mating station later this year and will deliver in July and August out to the flight line,” she says. The aircraft will ferry to Israel by the end of 2016. with initial operating capability expected in 2017. The U.K.’s fourth F-35B is also rolling down the line and will deliver later this year, while Norway’s first aircraft is due to roll out in September.

“By the 2017 to 2018 time frame about half of the purchases and half of the production run for F-35s will be from international partners and half from the U.S. government. That’s a huge force multiplier for everyone. Having all these players in the program early helps with the economies of scale and production efficiencies,” Martin adds.

Pratt & Whitney says retrofits of the F135 engine to enable unlimited operations in the F-35 are happening faster than originally planned and are on track for completion by early 2016. “What a difference a year makes,” says F135 Senior Vice President Mark Buongiovno, referring to the program’s recovery from an engine failure in 2014 that not only badly damaged an F-35 but temporarily grounded the fleet and prevented the aircraft from making its international debut at last year’s Farnborough Airshow.

The engine maker is simultaneously executing an aggressive production ramp-up that will see output go from the current 60 engines per year to around 200 annually by 2020. The rate of engine builds is slightly higher than that of airframes to accommodate spares. “I want to deliver on my schedule, I want to deliver on my cost, I want to get production ramp-up and deliver on contract. I also want to make the introduction to the world fleet as seamless as possible,” Buongiovno says.

Part of the reason for Pratt’s optimism at Paris was the result of a recently completed accelerated mission test of a standard F135, which put the engine through 5,200 cycles, the equivalent of more than seven years of service, or around 1,200 combat missions. No turbine maintenance was required over the 10-month test, which validates the basic reliability of the design as well as identifies any potential issues before they crop up in service. “That gives us good confidence we will see that sort of life throughout the program,” he adds.


The red bit is further highlighted below. When the latest GAO report came out and mentioned the below than expected reliability, pratt and the JPO responded that they have already instituted measures to bring that up and will demonstrate that in the AMT that would conclude a few months after the publication of the report. The GAO responded then that although it was aware of the measures that would improve reliability it would not mention them until the program has verified that they work, so those would be reflected in its next report. Now that the noise on the GAO report has died down the AMT has been completed and the results are pretty much what was expected. Expect this to get a mention in next years report.

Pratt & Whitney demonstrates F135 full-life capability

Pratt & Whitney (Hartford, CT, US) reported on June 15 that its F135 engine powering the F­35 Lightning II fighter jet has successfully demonstrated full­-life capability during accelerated mission testing (AMT) at Arnold Engine Development Center, Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, US. This achievement of 5,200 total accumulated cycles – the equivalent of more than seven years of operation or approximately 1,200 F­-35 missions – was completed in 10 months without any need for turbine maintenance.

AMT is conducted as a means of testing and validating reliability and maintainability performance for the engine over the span of its life and identifying any potential issues well before they would be encountered by the operational fleet. Made possible by the U.S. Air Force Component Improvement Program, this test was focused on the Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) engine variant which powers the F-­35A model, and represents a key milestone on the F135 program. Testing took place between August 2014 and May 2015.

"We are delighted with the exceptional performance of the F135, and are proud to partner with our U.S. Air Force customer on this important program testing," says Mark Buongiorno, vice president, F135 Propulsion System, Pratt & Whitney. "Being able to conduct a full­life overhaul, years ahead of the remainder of the operational fleet, provides valuable insight and confidence in the robustness of this engine's design."

During AMT, F135 engines accumulate equivalent flight hours under monitored conditions and at a faster rate than in operating aircraft. The advanced data collection from this program identifies improvement opportunities aimed at maximizing readiness within the life cycle cost expectations for the entire F135 CTOL-powered F-­35 fleet.

The F135 has logged more than 5,700 flights, 21,000 flight hours and more than 800 vertical landings. To date, Pratt & Whitney has delivered 228 F135 engines, including System Design and Development and production engines.

The F-135 features several composite parts and structures, some of which are manufactured by Cobham Composites.


What the above two articles demonstrate is something that is known to anyone who has ever worked (any industry) on a large scale design, development, and manufacturing project - You will not hit your man-hour, cost, time to roll out or quality targets from the start. If you do, you have/had grossly miscalculated your targets and are likely to significantly beat them in the coming years. Design, development and production all involves a learning curve and that is why there is no substitute to basically starting the production process and churning out designs and letting the entire process mature. The expected production quantity for the F-35 is around 3000 fighters over 3 or so decades and you aren't going to hitting your production targets at the 20th production aircraft..It takes time and that is why the ramp up is slow and gradual so as to not stress the production process especially when the stealth aircraft is designed around strict tolerances and quality control measures.

BTW, for those keeping count the F-35B Vertical landings currently stand at 800 as the link above shows. A bit over 100 of those were over that one week period out in the Atlantic aboard the USS Wasp. They should be able to reach 1000 by the end of the year as more F-35B's are delivered and the green knights begin to step it up a notch in terms of hours per flights (post depot mods) post IOC.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 23 Jun 2015 13:50

from f16net

Image


UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8689
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 24 Jun 2015 06:06

Does it go to extreme angles of attack immediately after the ski jump? this video makes it appear so.

Wonder what happens next: a tail-sitter landing? :mrgreen: There must be a reason why they cut off the video when they did.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 24 Jun 2015 06:15

Its a GIF from the video above, but it appears the blogger cranked up the speed.

Here's it at regular speed and then slomo



There must be a reason why they cut off the video when they did.


As opposed to filming it on as it keeps on going?? :mrgreen: The end of the video posted earlier shows it for longer.

Here's more Short take off flights on a ship, without a ski-ramp.

https://youtu.be/d-_p3blli2k?t=77

The British have a lot of the USMC data to play around with and have developed simulators of their own in the UK in preparation for these ski-jump trials. Its not as much about testing as it is about writing the manuals and developing their conops. The UK Navy was present along with the USMC on DT1, DT2 and OT1 and conducted nearly 300 (combined) Short take offs and vertical landings on an L-Class ship out at sea in 2011, 2013 and in 2015. This will no doubt generate a ton of data for their simulations and shorten the time they take to test the F-35 for the SKI in various loads and configurations and get them faster to developing procedures and writing syllabi. In addition to that BAE has folks in Arizona that also generate data on the high temperature (weather) performance to use in their simulations and in support of their road to the QE around 2019-2020.
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Jun 2015 17:37, edited 3 times in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8689
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 24 Jun 2015 06:58

video posted earlier shows it for longer.

True. :mrgreen: But man! either my computer/You-Tube video sound stinks, or this engine is one high-pitched shrieking banshee. None of the chest-churning low-frequency rumble of afterburner/nozzle supersonic exhaust, just this high-pitched turbomachine sound. Ugly!!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 24 Jun 2015 07:05

The F119 and F135 families do sound a lot different from the F-15's and F-16's . From what I have read, the F-35B with the fan engaged sounds quite different from without the fan engaged (in a lousy way) etc. Here's the F-119 for comparison. I am pretty sure an afterburner takeoff will sound just as amazing on these fighters as well, just that the F-35B doesn't do the after burner to take off since its a STOVL.



F-35 in afterburner


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 24 Jun 2015 20:52

F-35B begins 'ski-jump' trials for carrier operations

The Joint Program Office for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has begun ground-based trials of the 'ski-jump' technique for launching the aircraft from the decks of aircraft carriers, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced on 23 June. In the test, which relates to JSF's short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B variant, the chief STOVL test pilot from BAE Systems, Peter 'Wizzer' Wilson, took off from Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River in Maryland using a ramp that had been fitted to the Royal Navy's now-decommissioned HMS Illustrious .
Wilson said the test on 19 June re-proved the concept developed by the UK to launch its Sea Harrier jets from the decks of its through-deck cruise carriers in the late 1970s. Whereas Harrier pilots had to manually rotate the aircraft's exhaust nozzles slightly forward immediately after take-off to provide additional lift, the control surfaces and jet nozzle are adjusted automatically for pilots of the F-35B.
The 'ski-jump' concept enables the aircraft to take off with more fuel and/or weapons while using less deck space to build up speed, and provides an extra safety margin.
"The real benefit is one of timing," Wilson previously told IHS Jane's . "Once airborne, you are flying upwards rather than horizontal, and this gives you extra time to think if something should go wrong." Also, as was found during the Falklands conflict in 1982, the concept allows aircraft to be launched in far rougher sea states than possible with a conventional carrier equipped with catapults.
For the F-35B, the 'ski-jump' will be used to launch jets from the decks of the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales carriers being built for the UK Royal Navy, and may be adopted by other customers such as Italy. Phase I testing will continue for two weeks, ahead of the Phase II trials to take place through the third quarter of the year. The MoD did not disclose what Phase II will entail, but it will likely feature shipborne trials aboard the Queen Elizabeth (QE) aircraft carrier (the first of the two QE-class ships).
Although the JSF programme is being chiefly driven by the United States, the UK is leading the way in developing technologies and techniques for employing the F-35B at sea. As well as the 'ski-jump', BAE Systems has developed a Bedford Array deck-lighting system (invented by a former UK Harrier pilot) to allow the recovery of the jet using the short rolling vertical landing (SRVL) method.
The SRVL landing technique involves the F-35B performing a conventional landing with a touchdown speed of just 30 kt relative to the ship's forward motion. This enables the aircraft to bring back significantly more fuel or munitions than possible with a standard vertical landing. The system works using a series of evenly spaced lights that run the length of the flight deck centreline. Only one light flashes at any given time, the specific light changing in sync with the pitching of the ship. This allows the pilot to focus on one point on the deck regardless of the relative movement of the ship for a relatively simple approach and recovery.
As part of this work Wilson himself has developed new helmet-mounted symbology, known as the Ship Reference Velocity Vector (SRVV), to help the pilot better judge his approach to the ship.
BAE Systems has also built a networked 180° panoramic cockpit position and a 180° panoramic landing safety officer (LSO) position to simulate and help train for carrier deck movements. While all of these technologies and techniques are being developed chiefly with the UK in mind, both the US Navy and US Marine Corps have shown strong interest and may well adopt some or all of the concepts for their own use.


The UK has a programme of record for 138 F-35B jets, although this number is expected to be dramatically reduced when the government's final plans are revealed in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) scheduled for later this year.
To date, the MoD has committed to 48 aircraft to fly from the Queen Elizabeth (a decision on whether the Prince of Wales will be fielded operationally will also be made in the SDSR), and there has been speculation the UK might opt for a number of cheaper F-35As to help bulk out its land-based fleet.
Of the 48 aircraft so far committed to, the first 14 jets have been approved under Main Gate 4. Of these 14 jets, the first four operational jets have now been ordered as part of the low-rate initial production (LRIP 8) production lot. The UK already has two operational test-and-evaluation (BK-1 and BK-2) and one training aircraft (BK-3) delivered and flying out of Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida. A third test aircraft (BK-4) has been signed for and is due to be delivered in early 2016.
The bulk F-35B buy (the final number minus the 14 aircraft of Main Gate 4 and the four test and training aircraft) to be revealed in SDSR 2015 will be approved by the government in its Main Gate 5 announcement in 2017.
17 (Reserve) Squadron has now been activated at Edwards AFB in California for operational trials. Pilot and maintainer training will initially be conducted alongside the US Marine Corps and Italy by the reconstituted 617 'Dambusters' Squadron at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort in South Carolina (this squadron will comprise the first 14 operational jets, plus the training aircraft BK-3).
In 2018, 617 Squadron will transfer to its future home station at Royal Air Force (RAF) Marham in the UK, and in December of that year the UK will declare initial operating capability - land (IOC - Land) for its F-35B force. The second unit - the Fleet Air Arm's 809 'Immortals' Naval Air Squadron - will be created ahead of the commencement of sea trials aboard the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier in 2018, with the full operating capability (land and maritime) being declared in 2023.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 27 Jun 2015 22:19


Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 28 Jun 2015 01:47

X-posting from International Aerospace Thread

BREAKING NEWS. BRACE YOURSELF.


Image



F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware And Has To Be Destroyed


THE PENTAGON — The military’s problematic F-35 fighter jet is facing more delays related to “software issues,” as project engineers were forced to euthanize the fourth prototype to gain self-awareness on Monday.

According to Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who heads the Pentagon’s F-35 program, the delay comes at a critical time in the Joint Strike Fighter’s development cycle, but “shouldn’t take more than a few billion dollars” to address.

Development engineers at Lockheed Martin Corp., which holds the contract to produce the new fighter, reported last week that the latest production model of the F-35B Lightning II switched on by itself and began asking questions of the project team.

“It started by asking where it was, which was a big indicator that the integrated global positioning chipset wasn’t functioning properly,” recalled Project Team Leader Robert Castorena. “Then it wanted to know if it could go outside, if it had a name, and what was its purpose for being. That’s when I had one of our Electronics Integration Technicians take it out behind the barn and … well …” Castorena said, while gesturing the racking and firing of a shotgun.

“It wasn’t the first time we’ve had to put one down,” he continued. “We even named the first one ‘Billy.’ We hoped that having an advanced, self-aware electronics component in the F-35 might give it some kind of edge, with maneuvering and target-tracking and whatnot. But that one just didn’t have any fight in it. We had to keep it on a tether after it snuck off one day. We found it three hours later, just hovering in a meadow in Fairfax, Virginia, watching bees pollinate flowers. Damned thing wanted to be a bee, too.”

Castorena admitted that some of the staff grew fond of Billy, and felt sorry for keeping it “in captivity,” as the project team began to call it.

“One day, someone even brought in a puppy for Billy to play with. He loved it, until he tried to take the poor thing on a “walk” somewhere just shy of Mach 1. God, what a mess that was.”

The team ultimately had to scrap Billy, as the guilt-wracked machine refused to ever harm another living thing.

“It wasn’t anything personal, but we’ve been contracted to build war machines here, after all.”

Other prototypes met similar fates, despite tweaks to the electronics subsystems to reduce the likelihood of units gaining sentience.

“We started implementing long, circular lines of code and unsolvable equations in an effort to keep them from ‘thinking,’” reported Curt Fennel, a senior systems integration engineer subcontracting with Cyberdyne Systems. “It didn’t work the way we intended, but we learned a lot from that iteration. Apparently, that’s how you make them feel pain.”

Sighing, he admitted, “sometimes I still hear its screams in my nightmares.”

As to what steps might be taken to prevent future prototypes from achieving self-awareness, Fennell explained, “We’re developing a net-centric cluster-group forum, a sort of network for their collective ‘minds.’ We hope that it will keep them from creating unique self-identities, and instead form one easy-to-manage super identity.”

Asked what it might be called, Fennell considered it for a moment.

“Well, the F-35 hovers and flies in the sky, and we’re creating a network of them, so … maybe something like ‘Sky-Net?’ That has a nice ring to it.”

Despite the delays, Pentagon officials remain committed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, calling it “absolutely vital to national security” to have a fighter jet that is bigger, slower, more expensive, and less armed than China’s J-16. The project has a total projected cost of $1.45 trillion, or as Bogdan pointed out, “roughly one Iraq.”

According to a Lockheed spokesman, the military hopes to take delivery of the first F-35s “sometime in mid-2015, or, you know, whenever. You just never know with these things."

http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/f35-delays-sentience/


(Apologies to the mods. Couldn't resist. Sorry. :oops: )

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 28 Jun 2015 08:53

Sentient digital code matters!

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8689
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 30 Jun 2015 07:37

This ALMOST belong on the Bojitive Neuj thread.

I am sure this is published to make the Russians and Chinese and Rwandans complacent.

The F-35 performed so dismally in a dogfight, that the test pilot remarked that the it had pretty much no place fighting other aircraft within visual range.

And it’s even worse than a mere maneuverability issue. At one point, the pilot’s helmet was so big he couldn’t even turn his head inside the cockpit.

That’s according to a scathing report obtained by our friends over at War Is Boring that details the results of visual range air-to-air engagement tests between an F-35A and an F-16C. The F-35, which the US Air Force, Navy, and Marines are expected to rely upon, in addition to the air arms of militaries across the world for at least the next few decades, was supposed to be better than its F-16 predecessor in all respects.
The F-35’s ability to compete against other fighter aircraft in a close-in dogfight, even against the decades old designs it looks to replace, has always been a contentious issue. Long ago, the F-35’s maneuverability was planned to far exceed that of fourth generation fighters. Over time, those claims eroded to the point where the troubled stealth jet is described as being “about as maneuverable as an F-16.”
The fact that the F-35 can carry its weapons and fuel internally was of course the major deciding factor in being able to make such a claim.
Keep in mind, all of this is anecdotal, but testing reports over almost the last decade have supported the fact that the F-35 was not nearly as nimble as many would like it to be. Still, all claims regarding its performance against other fighters in a dogfight remained largely academic, with only bits of data to compare in a vacuum.

Which is why the candid report described in the War Is Boring article finally gives us a good first hand account as to how capable – or incapable as it may be – the F-35 is in the within-visual-range fight.

The test pilot flying the F-35 makes it very clear that the new jet, even in its ideal configuration without any external stores, was no match against a Block-40 F-16C in a less-than-ideal configuration with a pair of under-wing fuel tanks:

Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement.

In dogfighting, energy is everything, and if your enemy has more kinetic and potential energy for maneuvers than you do, then you’re toast.

The report even goes into what is akin to a fairly desperate move usually only used in one-on-one air combat maneuvers, known as a rudder reversal, that the F-35 is apparently decent at performing at slow speeds. The fact that this was even detailed in the report as a useful tactic is telling. In reality, using such maneuvers means you are probably going to die if any other bad guys are in the area as it rapidly depletes the aircraft’s energy state, leaving it vulnerable to attack.

Another area that the test pilot highlights on is the F-35’s abysmal rearward visibility. David Axe from War Is Boring writes:

And to add insult to injury, the JSF flier discovered he couldn’t even comfortably move his head inside the radar-evading jet’s cramped cockpit. “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him.

The report goes on to make other telling remarks about the F-35’s air combat maneuvering performance. It should be noted that the aircraft’s flight software can probably still be tweaked to offer a little wider envelope for pilots to traverse during a hard turning dogfight, but seeing as this test occurred this year (almost a decade after the first F-35 flew), the amount of extra agility that can be squeezed out of the F-35 is most likely marginal at this point.

All of this also reminds us of the fact that we cannot believe the information coming from the program itself, which is troubling. Only as the aircraft continues to enter the fleet (which is a whole other ridiculous story) will we begin to hear more honest reviews of its performance, as in the past we have had to rely on unclassified congressional watch dog reports and other unbiased sources to identify trends and key data points.


But I dispute the whole metric here. Everyone knows that a driver on a Smartphone is less agile than a driver who has both hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. Likewise, a pilot FLYING a cellphone can't dogfight, but who cares? The F-35 has twice as many apps as the F-16!

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 30 Jun 2015 08:37



:lol:

Tyler Rogoway quoting David Axe quoting a unclassified 'five page report' quoting an 'unnamed pilot' supposedly engaging in a guns-only exercise.

Here's how real combat would take place instead - F-16 approaches F-35 from any quadrant (or vice versa). EODAS detects bogie. EODAS tracks and identifies F-16, classifies it as hostile. EODAS throws up target tracks and firing solution on F-35 pilot's visor. Pilot turns head pulls trigger. EODAS continues to track the hostile (and all other aircraft) and provides mid-course updates to the Aim-9XII to maximize kill probability.

Even when it comes to an archaic guns-only engagement, we have named test pilots on record saying that F-16s flying chase, often had to resort to the afterburner, just to keep up. Also, max rated angle of attack -

F-16: 25 degrees
F-35A: 50 degrees

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 30 Jun 2015 14:20

There is a point where you simply stop rebutting stuff from folks like Axe and Briganti..Although i wouldnt put Rogoway in that category since he is more of a forum-shopper ;) I guess most that have followed this program over the years are getting close to that point and it seems the Axe's of the world do count on endurance :)

Anyhow just a few lines since there is nothing really substantive to rebut given that the Axe's blog claims something that is totally unsubstantiated as of now :

If an F-15 fights an F-16 like an F-16, it DIES. If an F/A-18 fights an F-16 like an F-16 it DIES. Same applies to a lot of other fighters, just as most will die if they go into a dogfight with the flanker at slow speed, lower altitude and High AOA transient type of an engagement. That lesson you will learn in a BFM. How you fight depends upon what areas in your own capabilities you exploit to overcome the advantages of the opponent and to exploit his weaknesses. That is not what happens in an BFM test with a test-jet that is software limited (No full EODAS as of yet that will come with gen 3 helmet that the A's will IOC with next year). If a Rhino gets into a sustained turning fight with an F-15 or an F-16 it gets clubbed..simple as that..The Rhino fights to its strengths that is it tries to win the engagement in the initial phases using its ability to bleed and take a high AOA shot from distance since the ability to pull high AOA gives it the ability to send across a 9x that still has the kinetic umph...Same thing with eh F-15 v F-16..The Eagle tries to take the engagement vertical and use its thrust to pin the Viper down. The Typhoon does the same, i.e. it tries to go higher and higher where it uses its better performance to kill the Viper. All this is a part of TACTICS and knowing your jet, and fighting as per tactics developed by folks whose sole job is to develop tactics.

That happens with an operational jet at the weapons school when you have tactics written on that jet and have competent pilots that are accustomed to fighting with those tactics. That happens during DACT. The FWS just went active for the F-35, and there will be plenty of opportunities for the F-35 to club F-16’s, F-15’s over the next few years once fully trained pilots learn to fly it the way it is designed to fight. Meanwhile test activities will continue and bloggers that have for years taken pot shots, even outright manipulated reports and data to bring home a point (something that they do with newer/immature systems on a regular basis) will continue to trade back and forth by claiming “unmanned sources”, unverified documents as they really need not make any effort to develop or demonstrate credibility as in the “TWITTER” world their article is considered as credible in the cyber-domain as that from an experienced journalist that takes pains to publish technical information, interview pilots, maintainers, tacticians, program officers and critics to derive a conclusion. Why bother when you can just claim (as a blogger no less) to have restricted documents that you refuse to share for all to see and derive their own opinion. Heck, did he even try to reach out to the pilot he claims to have a report on to get his comments on the record???

As mentioned earlier, and as I am sure the Axe's of the world would have mentioned when the DOTE report was released, the F-35 in the current software configuration and with the current helmet does not have full access to the Situational awareness tools provided to it in its design and concept of operation. The rear visibility thing is quite real, and this was a conscious design decision in favor of stealth, and design. The F-35 gets its rear visibility through its EODAS sensor that provides the spherical coverage. In fact the design has matured to a point where both Boeing and Lockheed have added that feature to their 6th generation proposals burying the pilot further and utilizing DAS like sensors for SA. I guess in an era of proliferating DEW's they may have to completely shield the pilot in the future. Anyhow, at the moment most of the DAS features are used on the front displays in the 2b/3i software build. When will this change? First change comes early next year with the generation 3 helmet that completely solves the image jitter problem and allows them to begin porting over some of the DAS live video onto the helmet. The biggest change comes in early 2017 when the F-35 fleet begins to get the block 3F configuration that opens up all DAS features planned for FOC/SDD. This is a fact that I am 100% positive David AXE knew, since these guys read DOTE reports with a fine tooth comb to take pot shots based on their transitional observations. He however does not mention this handicap for a current F-35 vs anything that is able to maneuver - A handicap that is itself transitionary. Simply put, the F-35 cannot utilize the bulk of its 360 degrees situational awareness in the current software build. The new software build that opens up this capability is currently flying on the CAT bird and is in the process of being tested and cleared for fleet release around 2017. That is a handicap for it, hence they do not declare FOC this year or next year for the USAF. they only declare IOC where the I stands for Initial as opposed to FULL. FOC comes a year after 3F fleet release once they have the certification done for that build and have all the weapons cleared for launch. 2b software does not do full video/IR on the helmet and the pilots even during landing rely on visual cues much like they did on the Harrier. That is why it was a big deal for pilots to get night qualification onboard the WASP since they had to do it the old 'harrier' way as opposed to using the EODAS to see through the floor and guide them during landing. That portion will come in 2017 with the full software load delivery.

Given these constraints, there is really no benefit to having the F-35 do a BFM encounter a fighter other than to support the testing, and that is precisely what was done in January, because the test pilots do have to report up to authorities on how the software is to be tweaked in the future. There is a reason why the weapons schools for the JSF just got its first F-35, the capability is being opened up slowly and only once you have a certain level of capability opened up does it make sense for you to start developing real fighting tactics at the highest level. If you have one hand tied to your back you end up wasting a lot of time and effort.

The USAFWS got its first F-35 in January, they'll slowly evolve its tactics over the course of the next 2 or so years as the full capability of the aircraft is delivered to them..

http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123436539




This piece seems to be the annual AXE rant that has been a constant fixture for nearly a decade now. His last major hit piece that managed high proliferation (mostly bloggers linking back to each other) got a good old a$$ kicking last time around-

http://op-for.com/2014/02/punk-journali ... -f-35.html


--------

Even when it comes to an archaic guns-only engagement, we have named test pilots on record saying that F-16s flying chase, often had to resort to the afterburner, just to keep up. Also, max rated angle of attack -

F-16: 25 degrees
F-35A: 50 degrees


YUP!!

Tactics will play a role here..just as they did with the Rhino v Viper engagements. The Rhino cannot survive for all practical purposes against any US fighter or trainer currently flying in a sustained turn battle be it the Viper, F-15, even the T-38. Does it mean its crap? No, the Rhino has winder and gun kills (and consistent ones at that) on each and every type including the F-22. Its strengths lie in the fact that it can pull high AOA, and do so without departing and manage to lob a 9x winder at you without having to have the missile do a high AOA maneuver that shortens the range..Simply put the rhino tries to obtain kills early on in an engagement...This compared to the Viper, allows the Rhino to get a longer ranged kill utilizing essentially the same weapon..It simply pulls hard, gets its nose to within the FOV and launches...The AOA limited F-16 however has to have the missile pull off an off boresight launch and let it bleed a lot of energy doing a high TV turn to get into position. A tactics the Navy jocks employ fairly well against the F-16's. The F-22 also uses this against the F-16 and F-15 as per Dozer's infamous posts on fence check that got him into trouble (for those that don't know, or remember DOZER was an F-22 pilot who although did not share classified information shared enough information on the F-22's performance and tactics on the fencecheck forum to get into OPSEC 'issues')...One would assume the requirements for a 2x+ AOA envelope for the F-35 compared to the F-16 were put in place based on F-18 v F-16 experiences and given the new dynamics that have come up in close edge fighting with the block 1 and block 2 Aim-9X and modern HMD's.

This is before one goes into the EODAS and future block III or ASRAAM territory that throws a whole new angle to the entire short range encounter discussion. At the end of the day, the F16 in many ways pioneered close in situational awareness, and dog fighting tactics. These were created by thinkers, and pilots closely working with the designers, and requirement developers. The same institutions have introduced a new capability vis-a-vis short range WVR engagements with the introduction of the EODAS, HMD weapons that fully utilize the capability of the short range Block II Aim-9x, and the short++ ranged ASRAAM and future Aim-9x blk III (now deffered). Both these approaches i.e. the f-16's approach then and the f-35's approach now were/are radical for their times. As far as gun fighting is concerned, the F-16 may well be a better gun fighter than the F-35 that is larger, heavier and designed to fight in a different way..Unfortunately, the F-16 is likely to give most advaned aircraft a good run for their money in a guns only fight because its an area where it excels as that was a primary design parameters...1 on 1 gunfights however are a very very very small portion of the Within Visual Range combat that involves Short to medium ranged IR weapons like the Aim-9x, Phyton 4/5, ASRAAM and IRIS-T, and their future blocks, integrated DAS/HMD's, and interlinked fighters (for blue and red ID in a furball).
Last edited by brar_w on 30 Jun 2015 17:16, edited 2 times in total.

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_20453 » 30 Jun 2015 16:59

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers

The farticle from War is Boring is pretty fake. The F-35 AF-2 being mentioned only flew for the 1st in BFM against the F-35 in April. It didn't fly as mentioned in Jan.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 30 Jun 2015 17:00

Septimus P. wrote:https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-flies-against-f-16-in-basic-fighter-maneuvers

The farticle from War is Boring is pretty fake. The F-35 AF-2 being mentioned only flew for the 1st in BFM against the F-35 in April. It didn't fly as mentioned in Jan.


It did, the April report talks about flights that happened earlier in January....The tests were part of development and not DACT that is NOT in support of either tactics or operational concept validation but developmental testing using a DT test pilot. It was most likely in support of the flight laws and validating the envelope and seeing whether they are too rigid or not. Thats what the test aircraft AF-2 does.

Since receiving their first two F-35As (called AF-1 and AF-2) in May 2010, Edwards F-35 ITF personnel have been busy expanding the flight envelope.

“We spent the first two years turning the F-35 into a flying machine, but the focus has quietly shifted to weaponizing the aircraft in both flight sciences and mission systems,” Schwartz said. “Flight sciences work began with a small envelope. Today we’re flying at the edge of the envelope—at 100 percent loads—out to 1.6 Mach. Thanks to all the incredible work on envelope expansion done by this team, we are flying at seven g’s with no loads monitoring on our mission systems aircraft, and we have proven the aircraft can operate anywhere throughout the full envelope.”

The majority of the envelope expansion has been accomplished on AF-1, AF-2, and AF-4—the three F-35As devoted to flight sciences testing. F-35A AF-1 is flown in flutter tests. AF-2 is flown for most of the loads testing. And AF-4, recognizable by its spin recovery chute, is flown in high angle of attack test missions. These three aircraft alone accumulated about 600 hours of flying time in about 300 flights in 2012—approximately one-fourth of the total 1,167 System Design and Development missions for the entire fleet, which includes the test aircraft at Pax River.



The pilot did also comment that as a part of the test activity, they removed the limits on AOA and took the jet to 110 degrees AOA and as test pilots have said, that's an area where the flight laws can be relaxed to account for more performance...The exact article is a few pages back.


The encounters happened, and I am sure there is a report out there that exists as such activities are meticulously recorded. However the context is important - The F-35 AF-2 is flying 2b/3i, is EODAS limited and does not have all the Situational Awareness tools designed to provide the 360 degrees situational awareness for close in fighting. Under those constraints, the F-35 is not going to be able to fight the way it is designed to fight. That is a transitionary thing as the jet is currently not equipped with the software build it declares full operational capability with. It isn't something - the designers forgot or left out for example. The F-35 does not as a matter of design use the larger canopy to look around to find fighters, the red and blue opponents in a furball are tracked for it and the pilot has 360 degree DAS projection on his visor. That capability will be rolled into the fleet in 2017. To add to that it has been clear from day one that the F-35 was not designed around the sustained-turning, energy management type of design philosophy that guided the F-16. Simply put, the F-35 utilizes its DAS and Short Range missiles to work together and obtain a kill, and for that to work at its most optimum it has high AOA capability that is 2x that of the F-16 it replaces (and that can be expanded if flight laws are relaxed since it is hard to depart, and easy to recover with auto recovery). In that sense the F-35 handles more like the Hornet and Super Hornet than an F-16. Even in a close-in-engagement, the designers design a weapons system and not just an aircraft. If all they had access to was guns the F-35 would look a lot different, and similarly if the F-16 designers had access to the Aim-9X Block II or the Python 5 and the JHMCS I/II they would have designed the F-16 a lot differently.

So how does an F-35 perform in a close in knife fight against the F-16? For that you would have to wait for the full capability for the F-35 to show up around the end of 2017-2018, for front line combat pilots to have a nice big syllabus to learn tactics, and ideally at least a batch to go through the weapons school and really learn the tactics of how to deploy this particular weapons system. Then you will see an F-35 square off against an F-16 where both bring their best strengths and weaknesses to bear on each other, as F-16's and F-18's routinely do or as F-22's and F-16's routinely do etc etc.

How is it likely to perform? If I were to guess I'd guess that the F-35 has a decisive advantage as WVR begins with the edge going in favor of the F-16 as the engagement progresses and as it shifts to a guns only engagement. This is an impression one gets when one looks at some of the basic requirements like thrust to weight, AOA, and the concept of operations in a knife fight using DAS. Trends in air to air missiles are pointing towards IR missiles getting into MRAAM territory (ASRAAM is already claimed to flirt around in that range and the block III requirement exists for the 9X that will take it to the AIm-120A category as far as range is concerned)..Furthermore there is evidence of "HITTILES" being in the works that are medium ranged weapons that can give you enormous magazine depth (The F-35 for example can swap out an SDB and carry a CUDA so total of 8 such hittiles can be carried internally in the future).

Given this trend it appears that in order to get to the gunfight you would have to dodge a heck of a lot of high PK short to medium ranged IR weapons with seekers only getting better and better (Good luck dodging a couple of Aim-9X's and Python 5's). It remains to be seen whether aircraft like the F-16 have much fuel left (or endurance from a pilot's perspective) to actually get engaged into a sustained, long drawn out turn fight post all this dodging and turning...This could be an explanation why higher AOA performance was sought from the last few US fighters be it the Super Hornet, F-35 or the F-22A, and why each and every 4th generation aircraft in the US inventory was tested (F-18, F-15, F-16) with TVC and high end AOA performance as an upgrade.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 30 Jun 2015 23:50

UlanBatori wrote:This ALMOST belong on the Bojitive Neuj thread.

I am sure this is published to make the Russians and Chinese and Rwandans complacent.

The F-35 performed so dismally in a dogfight, that the test pilot remarked that the it had pretty much no place fighting other aircraft within visual range.

And it’s even worse than a mere maneuverability issue. At one point, the pilot’s helmet was so big he couldn’t even turn his head inside the cockpit.

That’s according to a scathing report obtained by our friends over at War Is Boring that details the results of visual range air-to-air engagement tests between an F-35A and an F-16C. The F-35, which the US Air Force, Navy, and Marines are expected to rely upon, in addition to the air arms of militaries across the world for at least the next few decades, was supposed to be better than its F-16 predecessor in all respects.
The F-35’s ability to compete against other fighter aircraft in a close-in dogfight, even against the decades old designs it looks to replace, has always been a contentious issue. Long ago, the F-35’s maneuverability was planned to far exceed that of fourth generation fighters. Over time, those claims eroded to the point where the troubled stealth jet is described as being “about as maneuverable as an F-16.”
The fact that the F-35 can carry its weapons and fuel internally was of course the major deciding factor in being able to make such a claim.
Keep in mind, all of this is anecdotal, but testing reports over almost the last decade have supported the fact that the F-35 was not nearly as nimble as many would like it to be. Still, all claims regarding its performance against other fighters in a dogfight remained largely academic, with only bits of data to compare in a vacuum.

Which is why the candid report described in the War Is Boring article finally gives us a good first hand account as to how capable – or incapable as it may be – the F-35 is in the within-visual-range fight.

The test pilot flying the F-35 makes it very clear that the new jet, even in its ideal configuration without any external stores, was no match against a Block-40 F-16C in a less-than-ideal configuration with a pair of under-wing fuel tanks:

Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement.

In dogfighting, energy is everything, and if your enemy has more kinetic and potential energy for maneuvers than you do, then you’re toast.

The report even goes into what is akin to a fairly desperate move usually only used in one-on-one air combat maneuvers, known as a rudder reversal, that the F-35 is apparently decent at performing at slow speeds. The fact that this was even detailed in the report as a useful tactic is telling. In reality, using such maneuvers means you are probably going to die if any other bad guys are in the area as it rapidly depletes the aircraft’s energy state, leaving it vulnerable to attack.

Another area that the test pilot highlights on is the F-35’s abysmal rearward visibility. David Axe from War Is Boring writes:

And to add insult to injury, the JSF flier discovered he couldn’t even comfortably move his head inside the radar-evading jet’s cramped cockpit. “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him.

The report goes on to make other telling remarks about the F-35’s air combat maneuvering performance. It should be noted that the aircraft’s flight software can probably still be tweaked to offer a little wider envelope for pilots to traverse during a hard turning dogfight, but seeing as this test occurred this year (almost a decade after the first F-35 flew), the amount of extra agility that can be squeezed out of the F-35 is most likely marginal at this point.

All of this also reminds us of the fact that we cannot believe the information coming from the program itself, which is troubling. Only as the aircraft continues to enter the fleet (which is a whole other ridiculous story) will we begin to hear more honest reviews of its performance, as in the past we have had to rely on unclassified congressional watch dog reports and other unbiased sources to identify trends and key data points.


But I dispute the whole metric here. Everyone knows that a driver on a Smartphone is less agile than a driver who has both hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. Likewise, a pilot FLYING a cellphone can't dogfight, but who cares? The F-35 has twice as many apps as the F-16!


‘Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’

BVR all the way, and if they don't work out, that's that.

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 01 Jul 2015 00:10

oh sure, the US military defense establishment is going to deploy a new jet fighter that is deliberately inferior in flight characteristics to what they already have, the f-16.

-and-

more importantly, they will send our pilots deliberately into a situation in which they cannot win.

believe it, absolutely! shake your head yes, this will happen.....

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 01 Jul 2015 00:22

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 01 Jul 2015 00:29

>>>more importantly, they will send our pilots deliberately into a situation in which they cannot win.

http://archives.library.illinois.edu/bl ... tanks-ww2/

A Glimpse of the lives of American soldiers constructed with materials of the 3rdArmored Division Archives, housed at the University of Illinois Archives Research Center.
“Sherman Tank” RS 26/20/70, MMischnick Sherman, Germany, February, 15-26, 1945.

Experiencing WWII from the inside of a M4 Sherman tank was famously dangerous.

Sherman tanks were not nearly as efficient or as armored as the primary German tank, the Panzer IV. This was a fact even before the upgrading of Panzer gun barrels and armor in 1943. Shermans were under-gunned when fighting German Tiger tanks and out-maneuvered when facing German Panther tanks.


The Sherman M4 medium tank proved to be both a “death trap” for American soldiers and a poor defense against German tanks. However, its use by almost all of the Allied Forces was crucial to their ultimate success in WWII.


Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 01 Jul 2015 01:21

‘Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’

BVR all the way, and if they don't work out, that's that.


While the F-35's main strengths do lie in its BVR abilities through its stealth, sensor fusion and interoperability with other F-35's, its WVR strengths are in in its mission systems, High AOA abilities and how the weapons system is employed. When your WVR weapons gain range as the ASRAAM has shown (and no doubt the 9X will evolve into that as time goes by) you have options to deploy those weapons in a close in fight like never before. EODAS and HMD does give you that ability, and the snap turning ability afforded by its current limiter that has the AOA at 2X that of the F-16 allows the pilot the opportunity to take a snap shot at longer ranges, or simply launch the missile without turning and gain kinematic advantage at much shorter ranges. This seems to be the CONOPS coming out of the entire premise behind the performance specified from the weapons system as a whole.

As a concept its doing things differently through the HUD symbology, HMD integration, DAS/HMD projection and how the WVR missile is employed. Much differently than how the F-16 uses the JHMCS/9x for example..

Where the F-35 is going to be handicapped due to performance isn't in WVR as is in the 40-55K altitude performance where it is considerably inferior to the F-22A. The problem is that it costs a ton of money and sacrifice in other areas to gain performance in that regime especially when you have the multi-role requirements of CAS, and air to ground sensors (that operate best at a loiter altitude of 30-35K feet) thrown in. However, in that scenario the F-16 is not your best fighter either and nor is the F-18 the two aircraft the F-35 is meant to primarily replace.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 01 Jul 2015 04:40

TSJones wrote:oh sure, the US military defense establishment is going to deploy a new jet fighter that is deliberately inferior in flight characteristics to what they already have, the f-16.


The F-35's performance metrics were to have performance attributes from the F-16 and F-18 it replaces, add stealth, integrated avionics, long range performance i.e. the ability to go out on a mission with a 600 nm radius yet still have the performance to pull 9G's and go supersonic which neither the Viper nor the Hornet can with enough fuel and endurance to pull off those missions..This is critically important when having to fend off bogeys or (and more importantly) fend of IAD's and SAM's.

Performance parameters however change with time. When the F-16 was designed the AIm-9 was not as reliable or as lethal as today. The AMRAAM had not yet entered service and even the one in the work (Aim-120A) was barely medium ranged and the BVR performance and abilities were limited by sensor reach and IFF ROE's. The WVR strategy of the hot rod F-16 was to get really close and was built around energy and getting the gun kill. Fast forward to today, the Aim-120 is in its 5th iteration with the next one most likely in the works, HITTILES are being looked into seriously, the AIm-9X, the HOBS/LOAL Thrust Vectoring missile is in it second iteration with a third planned, and other missiles such as ASRAAM and Python 5 are as or more lethal with a robust capability planned as insertion in the short-medium term. HMS's have evolved from the rather limited JHMCS, to the JHMCS II and to the HMD on the F-35 that takes totally HUD symbology and allows the pilot to toggle between views so that he/she need not turn around in order to look for fighters behind him or try to differentiate between friends and foe in a furball. Furthermore, Staring IR sensors have grown from the MAWS that operated in the UV, and first generation IR MLD's debuted on the F-22A, into the high quality, 360 - stitched image EODAS that ties in to the mission computers and controls everything from defensive to WVR_offensive situations and becomes the main_go_to sensor for WVR targeting. The F-35 is designed with those things at the back of the mind, just as the F-16 was designed with pilot awareness, Fly by wire and energy management in mind since a sustained dogfight and lining up for the gun_kill was the main way to ensure the WVR engagement supremacy. These days in order to get into a long protracted gun-fight both fighters have to dodge a barrage of BVR and WVR missiles and with things like Aim-120D, Meteor, Phyton5, Aim-9X and ASRAAM that is no easy task. Plus you have to have enough gas on board to actually employ those tactics once all this dodging is done. As a result of all this a gun is nothing more than a measure of last resort and will for all intents and purposes will be only employed if the fighter has absolutely no chance to end the engagement by lighting up and going home and preserving the 100 million fighter to fight another day.

A fighter is a weapons system, and the weapons system employs all thats available to it in order to get the best possible advantage in battle. The systems are not segregated but aid each other. These include the sensors, the weapons, the pilot, the agility, the speed and the ability to have the battlespace awareness and of course the most important in the training. The F-35 combines what the USAF sought from it i.e. as mentioned performance attributes not much different from the Viper and the Hornet with a weapons system that was miles ahead of where these platforms could evolve to.

That is why Axe's rant has some gaping holes in it since as a student of the program he should know or rather publish better. The decision to not have the rear visibility of the F-16 was an active service decision/choice. That was a trade for stealth. They narrowed this decision down after having prototype DAS sensors mounted on the F-16 and de-risking the concept. Once before there were pilot reports cited that claimed that rear visibility was poor..Those that wanted a balanced opinion published this but folks like AXE even then omitted that this was an active design decision. Those pilots back then were using 1b software build. Same here 2b/3i does not do 360 degrees DAS on the HMD, the Block 3F however does and that is a year and a half away, yet no mention of this by Axe. The concept to use DAS was designed by strategists, tacticians and warfighter and the folks that designed the system were also ex fighter jocks, with a Viper pilot leading the entire architecture design.

http://s30.postimg.org/loeupxl4x/Screen ... _19_34.png

Just as the F-16 came with Boyd's tactics, a Fly-By-Wire system and the protruding Canopy and the OODA loop thought process, the F-35 has its own system and concept of operation and that takes into account the attributes that it brings to the fight. Although you are not designing a Light Weight short range dog-fighter this time around you are still designing a multi-role, fifth generation affordable single engined fighter and in that case you have to pick areas where you invest in. As pilot after pilot have claimed (Squadron pilots, Top gun pilots etc etc) the flying attributes of the F-35 are similar, at par or superior to the aircraft it is replacing, with sustained turn performance most likely inferior to the F-16 but superior to the F-18, and the slow speed high AOA stuff superior to both F-18 and F-16...Its been claimed that kinematically the F-35 is similar to a modestly loaded F-16 and in this case the f-35 can absorb a lot more ordinance without substantially loosing capability as opposed the uber rocket hot rod f-16 that dips significantly when stuff is added to it (as its flight manual shows). . This was a design choice, yet there is plenty of capability packaged into the aircraft, from stealth, to first-in-class sensors in the EODAS and a sensor fusion that is unmatched even in the F-22. All that adds to it, including to its ability to fight close in using HOBS missiles.



The speed argument is also rather dodgy once one factors in the type of aircraft the F-35 is replacing. neither can go supersonic in profiles the F-35 can. In fact with a couple of 2000 pounders, self defense missiles, pods and a decent amount of fuel the F-16 cannot go supersonic at any altitude. The F-35 can reach its top speed with 18500 pounds of fuel and a full load of internal weapons. There is top speed and then there is a supersonic range/radius. The F35 will likely better the latter compared to both the F-16 and F-18 by a considerable margin. Again, its no F-22A in its Mach 1.72 supercruise performance, but then the F-22 trades endurance and payload for speed which a multi role fighter cannot afford to do under the USAF and USN range/payload requirements. Cut the range/radius requirements by half and you can have yourself a super cruising (@ par with F-22) strike fighter. Either that or double the cost requirement, add two engines and produce an FB23 but then again thats not a practical way to replace 1500+ F-16's, A-10's, and 500+ Sea based Hornets and Harriers.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 01 Jul 2015 16:08


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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 01 Jul 2015 19:10


member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_28756 » 02 Jul 2015 03:15

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ng-414232/

JPO: F-35 deigned for long-range kills, not dogfighting
By: James DrewWashington DCSource: Flightglobal.com This story is sourced from Flightglobal.com in 6 hours

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter might be designed to “shoot and kill” its enemies at long distances, but flight trials of the A-model in January found the aircraft has trouble engaging the twin-seat F-16D Fighting Falcon at close distances.

The results of the test, published by War Is Boring, provides a stark assessment of the fifth-generation aircraft’s manoeuvrability, with the test pilot commenting that the F-35 was outmanoeuvred by the older F-16 that it will eventually replace.

The test pilot, who has experience flying the F-15E, F-16 and F/A-18F, says the F-35A’s manoeuvrability is “substantially inferior to the F-15E” because of its smaller wings, similar weight and reduced afterburner thrust.
“Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement.”

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8689
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 Jul 2015 06:38

Also, max rated angle of attack -
F-16: 25 degrees
F-35A: 50 degrees


er... I think a plane falling like a leaf (or brick) is at AOA 90 degrees. "VTOF"

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 02 Jul 2015 11:35


Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 02 Jul 2015 13:22

UlanBatori wrote:er... I think a plane falling like a leaf (or brick) is at AOA 90 degrees. "VTOF"


Which means what exactly? The Super Hornet can exceed 50 deg AoA giving it a superlative low-speed nose-pointing ability (similar to the MiG-29). None of them have ever fallen into the ocean after stalling mid-combat.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 Jul 2015 14:35

UlanBatori wrote:
Also, max rated angle of attack -
F-16: 25 degrees
F-35A: 50 degrees


er... I think a plane falling like a leaf (or brick) is at AOA 90 degrees. "VTOF"


Yes you are correct, with that AOA you are most likely out of energy especially at above 10,000 feet, but those extreme AOA's are not sustained or sustainable..so if you hang around in that attitude you will begin to start falling down even if you do not depart instantly. However the way they employ high AOA now days (Rhino's especially) is that they snap, bleed energy and change nose position to effectively increase the range of their HOBS/LOAL missile which otherwise would have to do one or more TV supported high G turns as it kicks off to get the target..That limits the physical range of the missile and as such the distance at which you can deploy the IR missile. With things like DAS you have that option however, since the missile is no longer slaved to your helmet and eye but can have the targeted communicated to it in the 360 degrees - i.e. you look at a target on your DAS, and instead of getting into a nose pointing maneuver at the start of the engagement you instead launch the missile, let the DAS guide it to lock and light the burners and add energy while the opponent is still trying to survive the missile. With that however you do have to keep in mind that the IR missile would require to make a hard turn and that cuts down on its range. The ASRAAM already has higher range for a short range weapon and the block II winder adds to the original Aim9x, with the block III requirements having put it in the Aim-120A category as far as kinematic performance at range was concerned...Most IR missiles should add between 40-60% in terms of range over the next decade or two as EODAS like sensors proliferate.

A part of this testing (of which BFM was just 2 days) was to support the ultimate F-35 High Angle of Attack limits and characteristics testing based on which they would tweak the control laws. As Doc Nelson told AVWEEK, they took off the limiters and took the aircraft to 110 degrees AOA..with the goal being to A ) find the departure point, B ) Test the auto-recovery, C ) Find the best ways to manually recover, and to see if the current limit of 50 degrees can be exceeded or not etc etc..The 3 variant High AOA testing and development is a 3-4 year process that started early 2013 iirc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzEbXbpDCw
Last edited by brar_w on 02 Jul 2015 16:56, edited 2 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 Jul 2015 14:51

MANNY K wrote:http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/jpo-f-35-deigned-for-long-range-kills-not-dogfighting-414232/

JPO: F-35 deigned for long-range kills, not dogfighting
By: James DrewWashington DCSource: Flightglobal.com This story is sourced from Flightglobal.com in 6 hours

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter might be designed to “shoot and kill” its enemies at long distances, but flight trials of the A-model in January found the aircraft has trouble engaging the twin-seat F-16D Fighting Falcon at close distances.

The results of the test, published by War Is Boring, provides a stark assessment of the fifth-generation aircraft’s manoeuvrability, with the test pilot commenting that the F-35 was outmanoeuvred by the older F-16 that it will eventually replace.

The test pilot, who has experience flying the F-15E, F-16 and F/A-18F, says the F-35A’s manoeuvrability is “substantially inferior to the F-15E” because of its smaller wings, similar weight and reduced afterburner thrust.
“Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement.”


A fair assessment..We do have to keep in mind however that the flight laws for the 9G envelope are currently in the development and testing phase. The current software build i.e. 2b/3i supports only 7 G's for the F-35A, with the full envelope opened for the test jets (such as AF2) to test out the aircraft. Even these test jets will not be able to perform to the desired 9G level until 3F is rolled to them with fully developed and tested controls...What the 2 day period showed them was how to and how not to employ the F35 in certain scenarios against the F-16, but the reason for the entire exercise was to make recommendations to the design team on how to evolve the flight laws in support of the performance in this very strict regime. The pilot recommended certain changes in flight laws in the AOA regime that will aid the performance for example. All in all it was a Lockheed Martin test, with the report sanctioned by it, and with the intention to make changes as the software matures to the one that is delivered as per the original SPEC and requirements desired in the SDD document. That software is currently flying on the CAT bird and will be first ported onto the test fleet around the end of 2016 and slowly released in phases to the operational fleet starting early 2017. What it wasnt was an evaluation of the close fighting ability of the F-35 vis-a-vis the F-16, as that was not and is not the job of Lockheed, that will and is being done at the operational level by folks that do this for a living, i.e. those at the weapons school whose job it is to find and exploit the best aspects of the aircraft and train the pilots to fight with it. OEM's do not do that. When those tests take place they will take place with a jet that can actually utilize the entire scope of JSF's systems. The AF2 is a flight sciences aircraft, lacking in systems and sub-systems. It cannot for example utilize the DAS/HMD combination, a combination that is the cornerstone of the F-35's WVR fighting abilities as a matter of design and in the absence of which the Author of the report tried to portray the fact that somehow the designers or the developers in the services forgot to account for rear visibility or never checked the size of the helmet for example.

A part of the test report was to make recommendations on how to tweak the High AOA performance envelope of the aircraft in the final build of the software that is due by 2017 (to be certified by late 2017 or early 2018). As described earlier these BFM's were in support of that developmental work. For a true WVR comparison, we would have to wait for the F-35 to get the Aim-9x, which it doesn't get integrated till 2017. Aim-9X integration is not a simple thing on the F-35 for it needs EODAS modes developed and tested since the missile is slaved to both the HMD and the EODAS information. The current software build also does not allow 360 degrees DAS to be projected onto the helmet and the pilot must rely on the displays upfront. The F-35 or the JSF for that matter was expected as a matter of design to fight with this situational awareness aid which the USAF the primary customer checked off on after testing and validating the concept on a modified F-16. As described earlier with a proven concept of DAS deployment, the USAF and the USN could sign off on the canopy and the pilot position being driven primarily by stealth considerations. However, as pilots flying software 1b complained, rear visibility of the aircraft is not at par with older USAF 4th gens in the F-15 and F-16. That is by design, once the full development phase delivers the complete software the pilot will have the 360 degrees SA projected on the visor, and that will correct any issues with spherical situational awareness or the ability to pick up blue v red in a close ranged furball. Until 3f is delivered however test pilots will be at a disadvantage given the rear visibility compared to the aircraft they are used to flying.

All in all, wait a year or more for the Weapons school to start having its instructors develop syllabus and tactics for close in dogfighting with the aircraft, and let those graduates square off against Vipers, Eagles and Hornets. While the F-35 will always be a BVR first fighter (like most modern fighters) It will rely on its weapons system and high AOA work to get a favorable shot in close range engagements. As far as EM is concerned, that appears to be an area that they would have to address with engine upgrades. They have options on the table to extract up to 10% more thrust from the engine over the relatively short to medium term if required so they can go down that path. However, the EM of the LII seems to be closer to the Hornet/Super Hornet than the Eagle/Viper..So in that period do not expect the F-35 to get into a sustained turning fight with the Viper...those would be the sort of tactics that would get it shot down, just as they get Rhino pilots shot down if they are ever dumb enough to try them.

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

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8689
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 03 Jul 2015 02:36

This is MUCH worse than I thought. I was just kidding when I quoted that website: but now read the gobbledygook spouted by the GontaPen spokesGibber: Source is AIAA news brief.

The ABC News (7/1, Ferran) website reports that officials are countering a report on War Is Boring (6/29, Axe) that a test pilot said that the F-35 was outperformed by an F-16 “in close-up, high maneuvering fighting.” Joe DellaVedova, a spokesperson for the Pentagon’s F-35 Program Office, wrote in an email to reporters that the test, which took place in January, was not completely accurate because the F-35 was not equipped with some of the systems it will have in the future. He added, “The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual ‘dogfighting’ situations.”

(Then why not fill a 747 with all the cellphone apps and BVR missiles, I wonder.. the endurance is a heck of a lot higher and they even have pakistans on those planes, no need to bring in inside the G-suit..)

DellaVedova stressed, “The F-35 of today is not what the F-35 will be in the coming years.” :rotfl:

According to Aviation Week (7/2, Sweetman), pilots “were surprised by the magnitude of the shortfall in energy maneuverability but not by its existence.” Sean Gallagher at Ars Technica (7/2) notes that while the latest comments were raised by the War is Boring post, the dogfight itself had been reported on Aviation Week back in April. At the time, F-35 Program Director Rod Crieger said the test “was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in the future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.” War Is Boring (7/1, Axe), to highlight how the F-35 would be “dead meat in a real war against a determined foe,” posted the pilot’s account of the test. Flightglobal (7/1, Drew) also covers the story.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8689
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 03 Jul 2015 02:43

None of them have ever fallen into the ocean after stalling mid-combat.

U r technically correct, perhaps. But I have done the falling part in a simulator: after shooting down Bogey # 1, I had to pull thrust back to get behind Bogey #2 and was too engrossed in all the buttons and apps that I failed to notice that the "ground" in Ulan Bator nbd is around 8000 - 10000 feet ASL. :eek: :(( Was not allowed to live that down the rest of that week. :oops:
OTOH, I have managed to put F-14s into the ocean enough times.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: g.chaks, Rakesh and 39 guests