JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jan 2014 20:30

Jan 24, 2014 :: UK poised to place order for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jan 2014 20:34

Engineer accused of trying to send F-35 fighter jet papers to Iran

the government uncovered 44 boxes of material that contained technical data on military engines and the largest weapons program in history: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

He actually printed all the documents? OMG!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jan 2014 20:37

Jan 24, 2014 :: US Navy soon to test F-35 JSF’s Block 4 software

Testing will commence soon on the next-generation Block 4 software, expected to enhance capability of the Lockheed Martin-developed F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF).

Flightglobal cites the US Navy as posting on the federal government's procurement website, that the F-35's joint programme office is planning to award multiple contracts to Lockheed Martin for the development of Block 4 software, while the first contract is likely to be placed in October 2014.

Under the contract, the company will provide assessments and evaluations aimed to ensure Block 4-equipped aircraft meet future operational requirements.

The Block 4 software will provide improved radar and electronic warfare systems while enabling the F-35 aircraft to carry additional weapons used by both the US military and other F-35 customers.

The Block 4 software-equipped JSF aircraft can accommodate joint stand-off cruise missiles such as Kongsberg's joint strike missile and Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder Block II air-to-air missiles, according to a document posted on the US Embassy website in Norway.
"The company will provide assessments and evaluations aimed to ensure Block 4-equipped aircraft meet future operational requirements."

In addition to providing streaming video from its electro-optical targeting system and an improved ability to identify targets, the software offers aircraft the ability to land even on icy runways.

The contracts are expected to include development of a prototype to test systems, upgrades to hardware, engineering and design work and for the acquisition of technical, administrative and financial data, the navy's notice said.

Prototypes of subsystems and components will be developed by Lockheed rather than a dedicated Block 4 test aircraft, the F-35 programme office said.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) will invest $6m including $1.5m from the US Navy, $3m from the US Air Force and $1.5m from the US Marine Corps, on the project during this fiscal period, the programme office further said.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jan 2014 20:38

Jan 25, 2014 :: Pentagon F-35 program says 'laser-focused' on software issues

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Jan 2014 22:05

The end of year AWST Dec/Jan defence/aerospace review ,has a lot of info in the global context,with many interesting pickings.Though not relevant to this td.,that China is to build 20 Yuan class subs apart from a Stirling cycle AIP sub.JSF news,that the USN will buy 40,not 50 B/Cs per year saving $1.2B each year.By that estimate,the cost per unit works out to around $120M/aircraft.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2014 08:43

AW&ST on JSF
Math Is Hard - Bill Sweetman

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2014 08:55

^^^

The fact is that the F-35C will – if everything goes right – cost significantly more than the F/A-18 to acquire, according to every budget document out there. In FY13, according to the Navy's detailed budget documents (which include the ATFLIR and ALQ-214, according to Boeing) the total flyaway cost (including recurring cost) of the F-35C is $199 million, more than three times the Super Hornet price. Even at full rate (20 per year) it is 70 per cent more costly. And according, once again, to the current SARs, the cost per flight hour of operating the F-35A (not the bigger and more expensive F-35C) is projected at $31,900 in 2012 dollars. The Super Hornet SAR figure (based on an annual cost in 2000 dollars, divided by flying time and converted to 2012) is $15,600 per hour. It’s going to take a lot of work by operating cost “war rooms” to start to close that gap.

Why would a single engine fighter cost more per flying hours , per Navy F-35A cost per hour ~ $32 K while F-18 costs $15,600

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2014 09:27

New Report Questions F-35 Job Creation Claims

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jan 2014 19:33

Report: F-35 Cracks in Tests, Isn’t Reliable

The U.S. Defense Department’s newest and most advanced fighter jet has cracked during testing and isn’t yet reliable for combat operations, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester said in new report.

The entire F-35 fleet was grounded last February after a crack was discovered in a turbine blade of an F-35A. While the order was subsequently lifted, more cracks have been discovered in other areas and variants of the Lockheed Martin Corp.-made plane, according to the latest annual report by J. Michael Gilmore, director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

Durability testing of the F-35A, the Air Force’s version of the plane designed to take off and land on conventional runways, and the F-35B, the Marine Corps’ model that can take off like a plane and land like a helicopter, revealed “significant findings” of cracking in engine mounts, fuselage stiffeners, and bulkhead and wing flanges, according to the document. A bulkhead actually severed at one point, it states.

“All of these discoveries will require mitigation plans and may include redesigning parts and additional weight,” Gilmore wrote in the report.

The F-35C, the Navy’s version of the plane designed to take off and land on aircraft carriers, has also had cracks in the floor of the avionics bay and power distribution center and, like the F-35B, in the so-called jack point stiffener, according to the document.

The hardware problems, along with ongoing delays in software development, among other issues, led Gilmore to conclude that the fifth-generation fighter jet’s “overall suitability performance continues to be immature, and relies heavily on contractor support and workarounds unacceptable for combat operations.”

He added, “Aircraft availability and measures of reliability and maintainability are all below program target values for the current stage of development.”

The Joint Strike Fighter program is the Pentagon’s most expensive acquisition effort, estimated last year to cost $391 billion to develop and build 2,457 F-35 Lightning IIs. The single-engine jet is designed to replace such aircraft as the F-16, A-10, F/A-18 and AV-8B.

The Pentagon this year plans to spend $8.4 billion to buy 29 F-35s, including 19 for the Air Force, six for the Marine Corps, and four for the Navy. The funding includes $6.4 billion in procurement, $1.9 billion in research and development, and $187 million in spare parts. The department in fiscal 2015 wants to purchase 42 of the planes.

The Marine Corps had expected to begin operational flights of the aircraft in 2015, followed by the Air Force in 2016 and the Navy in 2019.

The Corps’ schedule depends on using a more limited version of the software, known as Block 2B, designed for use with such precision-guided weapons as the AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, GBU-32/31 Joint Direct Attack Munition and GBU-12 Paveway II bomb.

The first operational flights, however, will probably be delayed because the aircraft’s software won’t be ready in time due to ongoing glitches, according to the report.

“Initial results with the new increment of Block 2B software indicate deficiencies still exist in fusion, radar, electronic warfare, navigation, EOTS [Electro-Optical Targeting System], Distributed Aperture System (DAS), Helmet-Mounted Display System (HMDS), and datalink,” it states. “These deficiencies block the ability of the test team to complete baseline Block 2B test points, including weapons integration.”

Lockheed has reassigned more engineers to improve the software, and the Pentagon has assembled an outside team of experts to study the issue.

Even so, the report touches on other problem areas.

The aircraft remains vulnerable to “ballistically-induced propellant fire from all combat threats,” such as missile strikes, according to the document; its computer-based logistics system, the Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, was fielded with “significant deficiencies;” and the program has a “significant risk” of failing to mature modeling and simulation technology, known as the Verification System, or VSim, according to the document.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2014/01/29/repor ... z2rtOT8Cau
Defense.org

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2014 19:49

Austin wrote:Report: F-35 Cracks in Tests, Isn’t Reliable
The U.S. Defense Department’s newest and most advanced fighter jet has cracked during testing and isn’t yet reliable for combat operations, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester said in new report.

And, it is (rightly) based on:

Director, Operational Test and Evaluation :: FY 2013 Annual Report

It is what has happened in 2013ish, IIRC they go from Oct-Sept (or something like that).

Point being, it really does not reflect the *current* status. It is a great, great pointer. But if you follow the report in the past few years, you get a good picture of what the gov thinks or has found.

However, I would still wait for the next set that is expected to come out in May-Jul time frame.

This article means something, but a lot of things will get solved (that is how these things work - what else to say). Even in the production machines there will be problems. That is to be expected.

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 30 Jan 2014 19:58

Austin wrote:Why would a single engine fighter cost more per flying hours , per Navy F-35A cost per hour ~ $32 K while F-18 costs $15,600

Because the fuel cost doesn't derive from the number of engines, it derives from the amount of mass you have to move and how much power you have available to get it going. The F-35's thrust-to-weight ratio I suspect is and may stay poor thanks to a larger-than-wanted denominator.

The other cost I bet comes from all the special attention needed to maintain stealthiness.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2014 20:04

The costs for the F-16 (USAF) and the F-18 (USN) are well established. While those for the F-35A/C are in a state of flux. I would look at the assumptions made to arrive at the costs for the F-35 and the trends. Taking any figure for the F-35 is too early in the game.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jan 2014 21:20

I suspect the crack issue for JSF is going in a loop , they try fix some thing only to find out something else in other areas develop a crack and at multiple places .. perhaps the new and unproven materials are causing this to happen , as the F-22 never faced so many issues with cracks on airframe/fuselage.

The cost for JSF is as official as one can get cant be any better atm.

Choosing a single design to do every thing under the sun is finally proving to be nemesis of JSF the idea though sound in terms of having a common frame to improve logistics but perhaps its just too early in the game to try ...should be a something the Europeans and Russias can learn not to try such a thing.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jan 2014 22:07

With the ever-increasing use of composites in aircraft,the incidence of cracks in both civil and mil. aircraft has been on the increase,especially with the "paring" of material due to the obesity factor that has plagued many a project.It would be interesting to see-if any data is available with the LCA for comparison,whether the LCA has had any problems similar,plus % of composites used in the two aircraft and other contemp. aircraft programmes like the EF,Gripen,etc.Unfortunately for the JSF-and one has been observing its progress in detail for almost a decade now,the cracks issue is only one of many,you can take your pick where to start.The major fault to me is that it is so software driven and dependent,where it resembles an onion,layer upon layer,each required to be perfect for the next layer and so on,to achieve each level of increasing combat capability.This is its achilles heel.
The inability of AMRAAM,its principal AAM in communicating with the aircraft for targeting updates in a combat scenario is another major concern.The aircraft's limited dogfighting capability can't be rectified whatsoever as its claim to fame remains its stealth attributes.

If the latest cost figures are correct,the sooner the US services look for interim alternatives,Advanced SHs,etc. the healthier will their forces be.At some point in the future Congress is going to come down hard on costs and even $199M/unit for an aircraft originally budgeted at coming in at a round $75M is asking for more than a favour to buy it.

PS:Turkey is shortly to announce its own indigenous fighter which will reportedly come in both single and twin-engined versions. With the Raffy's costs also going into orbit,anyone for a twin-engined LCA or is that called the AMCA?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 Jan 2014 22:17

Aditya_M wrote:Because the fuel cost doesn't derive from the number of engines, it derives from the amount of mass you have to move and how much power you have available to get it going. The F-35's thrust-to-weight ratio I suspect is and may stay poor thanks to a larger-than-wanted denominator.

The other cost I bet comes from all the special attention needed to maintain stealthiness.

The F-35's nominal TWR is lower than most 4G fighters. But it carries a substantial part of its stores internally and its exceptionally high fuel fraction means it doesn't need external fuel tanks most of the time. Result of that low drag is it outperforms the F-16 in most combat configurations and flight regimes. To add to which its high alpha performance is in the same league as the F-18E/F (and better than a MiG-29).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 Jan 2014 22:51

Philip wrote:With the ever-increasing use of composites in aircraft,the incidence of cracks in both civil and mil. aircraft has been on the increase,especially with the "paring" of material due to the obesity factor that has plagued many a project.It would be interesting to see-if any data is available with the LCA for comparison,whether the LCA has had any problems similar,plus % of composites used in the two aircraft and other contemp. aircraft programmes like the EF,Gripen,etc.Unfortunately for the JSF-and one has been observing its progress in detail for almost a decade now,the cracks issue is only one of many,you can take your pick where to start.

Every aspect of the aircraft- strengths, drawbacks, flaws are open to scrutiny. And the primary customer will make sure each issue is addressed. With a Russian platform, the problems will be for a post-crash court of inquiry to determine. We wouldn't have known about the PAK FA engine flame-out if it hadn't taken place in front of 200,000 witnesses. And if you have a half decent level of access to the program... well we heard the IAF's opinion not too long ago.

The major fault to me is that it is so software driven and dependent,where it resembles an onion,layer upon layer,each required to be perfect for the next layer and so on,to achieve each level of increasing combat capability.This is its achilles heel.

And that's has resulted in a longer development cycle. It doesn't mean the aircraft will be put into combat without the required reliability benchmarks being met.

The inability of AMRAAM,its principal AAM in communicating with the aircraft for targeting updates in a combat scenario is another major concern.

I assume that refers to a 2-way data-link. It may not be active yet, that doesn't mean its not a part of the development program; it'll share 2-way data-link even with the Aim-9X. And as far as 'major concern' goes, let me point out that the Rafale will continue feature only a one-way data-link with both the MICA and Meteor.

The aircraft's limited dogfighting capability can't be rectified whatsoever as its claim to fame remains its stealth attributes.

Your claim doesn't have any merit whatsoever.

If the latest cost figures are correct,the sooner the US services look for interim alternatives,Advanced SHs,etc. the healthier will their forces be.At some point in the future Congress is going to come down hard on costs and even $199M/unit for an aircraft originally budgeted at coming in at a round $75M is asking for more than a favour to buy it.

That's an outlandish figure. FYI, the current flyaway cost is $110M which will fall below $100M before the end of the SDD. $75M (2012 prices) at full production might be optimistic but they can comfortably bring under $90M.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jan 2014 23:03

Without entering into a debate about the JSF's air combat capability,a matter of much debate over the years ,one past repeated quote is very relevant in the IAF's context where we have top deal with a poss. Sino-Pak JV .No matter how great the bells and whistles of the aircraft may be,another factor rules.Numbers.The foll. article is worth reading to understand the contours of the debate.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... rsy-05089/
The F-35′s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy
May 30, 2013

The core problem in Pacific Vision 2008 was that even an invulnerable American fighter force ran out of missiles before it ran out of targets, at any number below 50% of missile firings resulting in kills. Whereupon the remaining Chinese fighters would destroy the American tankers and AWACS aircraft, guaranteeing that the USAF’s F-22As would run out of fuel and crash before they could return to Guam.

To reiterate: RAND’s core conclusion is not about specific fighter performance. It’s about the theoretical limits of better performance under adverse basing and logistics conditions. RAND’s Project Air Force argues, persuasively, that based on history and current trends, numbers still matter – and so does the “Lanchester square.” That’s the theory under which the combat performance of an outnumbered combatant must be the square of the outnumbering ratio (outnumbered 3:1 must be 9x better, etc.) just to stay even.

Or, as the oft-repeated Cold War era saying goes, “quantity has a quality all its own.”

The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with effective beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”

he F-35′s explicit design goal has been stated as being the F-16′s equal in in air to air combat, at a time when the F-16′s future ability to survive in that arena is questioned. The question naturally arises: what special features give the F-35 a unique ability to prevail against the kind of advanced, upgraded 4.5 generation and better fighters that it can be expected to face between its induction, and a likely out of service date around 2050 or later?

Classified simulations whose assumptions are shielded from the public may indeed demonstrate the attested results, but their foundations are outside any public scrutiny, and amount to a claim that must be taken on faith. That may not be very convincing in the political sphere. Especially since models of this type have been very wrong before, due to the well-known phenomenon of incorrect or missing assumptions producing results that don’t match the test of battle. Meanwhile, aircraft intake size and hence volume are set unless the aircraft is redesigned. Wing size, angle and loading can all be observed, and conclusions drawn.

Hence Lockheed Martin’s limited success in the public relations sphere. Aviation Week’s veteran journalist Bill Sweetman, for instance, greeted Lockheed Martin’s September 2008 air superiority claims with a reaction best described as incredulity external link:

“Moreover, it’s made just as Graham Warwick reports (subscription) that Maj. Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch, stated last week: “I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons.” There is surely a universe where these two statements are compatible, but we don’t live there… If the F-35 can really do all that, why did the USAF spend billions on supercruise, rear-aspect stealth and supermaneuverability (the reason for 2D vectoring nozzles) for the F-22? And does this mean that the all-aspect/wideband LO tech on the B-2 and X-47B UCAS is superfluous?”

PS:Read the table ,LM vs other pilots on key air combat attributes.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2014 23:38

On the topic of cracks I would suggest to read the report I posted. As a FYI only there is a recommendations section (page 52 for JSF?). It does not even mention "crack" anywhere!!!!

And, none have stopped testing.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 Jan 2014 23:59

Philip wrote:Without entering into a debate about the JSF's air combat capability,a matter of much debate over the years ,one past repeated quote is very relevant in the IAF's context where we have top deal with a poss. Sino-Pak JV .No matter how great the bells and whistles of the aircraft may be,another factor rules.Numbers.The foll. article is worth reading to understand the contours of the debate.

No by all means, lets get into it. So lets see - one hand we have a RAND slide from a theoretical exercise, 7 years ago, that did not in fact analyse air-to-air combat, (as well as Bill Sweetman's testimony), and on the other hand we have a production commitment of nearly 3000 aircraft (including some 200 from countries that were not part of the JSF program).

Next lets examine the claims of its being outmatched in close quarters based on its TWR and wing loading. On the first count - what really matters in thrust to drag ratio, which is lower for the F-35 than 4G fighters. The F-35 fell a little short of its requirement of matching a clean F-16's performance, but in a combat configuration it still remains potent. On the second count - high wing loading, I would suggest we examine the MiG-35's WL. A low wing loading is good but its not the only factor determining the result of a dogfight - the high AoA performance is also a function of the airframe design. And the utility of the HMDS mated to the DAS has been completely disregarded (maybe because it was 2008).

Finally we come to numbers. This one's fairly straightforward - numbers are a function of cost. The F-35's cost is broadly comparable to most 4.5G aircraft (with the exception of the Gripen E). And it'll be both cheaper to acquire and lot lot cheaper to operate than the PAK FA. It is not a pilot's dream like the PAK FA, nor will it wow audiences at air shows, but like the F-16 before it, it delivers value-for-money.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 00:06

NRao wrote:On the topic of cracks I would suggest to read the report I posted. As a FYI only there is a recommendations section (page 52 for JSF?). It does not even mention "crack" anywhere!!!!

And, none have stopped testing.

Actually cracks in the bulkhead as well as other components were identified during the static durability testing in 2012. They're testing all aircraft to twice the airframe life i.e. 16,000 hours.

Take a look at the slide-show (PDF). They're remarkably thorough.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jan 2014 06:41

Viv,the fundamental point about the JSF's air combat capability limitations is its limited internal weapons carrying capability.Only 2 BVR AMRAAM missiles out of a max of 4.Once it exhausts its missiles,it will be extremely vulnerable to the more agile 4+ fighters that exist today. Anything carried outside the internal weapons bay sends its stealth profile packing and there goes its much touted advantage.Plus,its basic profile was designed a generation ago,meant never to perform better than an F-16 and cannot be improved upon much now.There's reams of info on the issue.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... rsy-05089/
The F-35′s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy
May 30, 2013

...for the F-35, which remains a developmental aircraft and lacks key aerodynamic features like combat thrust vectoring (Harrier, SU-30 family, MiG-29OVT, F-22A), canards for fast “point and shoot” maneuvers with high off-boresight short-range missiles (some SU-30 family, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen), or loaded supersonic cruise (F-22A). The F-35 has also been designed from the outset to feature less stealth than the F-22A, though it will be stealthier than contemporary 4.5 generation European and Russian aircraft.

The F-35′s explicit design goal has been stated as being the F-16′s equal in in air to air combat, at a time when the F-16′s future ability to survive in that arena is questioned. The question naturally arises: what special features give the F-35 a unique ability to prevail against the kind of advanced, upgraded 4.5 generation and better fighters that it can be expected to face between its induction, and a likely out of service date around 2050 or later?

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-08.html

The reality is that the “threat environment” the Joint Strike Fighter will confront in the Asia-Pacific is very different to the environment expected and envisaged when the Joint Strike Fighter was conceived during the early 1990s. There have been significant technological advances in two metre band radar, passive emitter locating systems, infrared sensors and high power-aperture X-band phased array radars. Moreover, DRFM jammers are proliferating, and Flankers now have the option of towed decoys like the KEDR.

This is a by-product of the systematic focus in Russian, former Soviet republic, and Chinese industry and research communities on developing technology to defeat the principal technological monopoly of the US military, that is, stealth. While these advances are not strong enough to nullify the top end stealth designs, such as the B-2A and F-22A Raptor, and may never be, they are now rendering the “economy stealth” design of the Joint Strike Fighter susceptible to detection. For all practical purposes, technological evolution has rendered the concept of the Joint Strike Fighter obsolete before it has even completed Flight Test or entered full rate production. This is a clear case of failed technological strategy on the part of the Joint Strike Fighter planning staff.

Central to the Joint Strike Fighter's weaknesses in air combat is its limited payload of internally carried missiles, which simply compounds the problems arising from the Joint Strike Fighter's inferior aerodynamic performance relative to advanced Russian designed fighters. The baseline for the Joint Strike Fighter is a payload of only two AIM-120 missiles, with long term growth to four internal missiles feasible. The claim that six 'superpacked' missiles might be carried remains to be demonstrated.

QF-4 drone. In combat the AIM-120 AMRAAM has delivered kill probabilities of the order of ~50 percent against targets which cannot be considered challenging either aerodynamically or electronically. The standard drone against which the AIM-120 has been tested, including the latest AIM-120D prototypes, is the QF-4, which is not capable of replicating the performance of any Flanker variant, especially not second generation Flankers with thrust vectoring, and third generation Flankers with supersonic cruise and thrust vectoring (US DoD).

The limited number of missiles carried exacerbates the problems arising from the limited ability of even later variants of the AIM-120 to deal with high G manoeuvring targets, equipped with advanced DRFM jammers. The AIM-120 was conceived to defeat massed raids by Soviet era tactical strike aircraft, which had limited manoeuvre performance and poor defensive systems, and could thus be picked off easily. While the seeker and propulsion in the AIM-120 have evolved considerably since the AIM-120A, its basic aerodynamic design and flight profile are not adequate to kill a high G manoeuvring late model Flanker. Claims that the AIM-120 has killed manoeuvring targets in trials should be assessed carefully, since the US has no drone aircraft which can aerodynamically match the supercruising thrust vectoring and extremely agile late model Flanker.

While seeker improvements, and derivative AIM-120 designs equipped with other seekers, such as derivatives of the AGM-88 and AIM-9X designs, would overcome the susceptibility of the active radar seeker to DRFM jammer technology, they cannot overcome the inherent aerodynamic limitations of the AIM-120 airframe design when confronting high G manoeuvring targets.

Where a missile's ability to kill a target is uncertain, the basic strategy to overcome this limitation is to fire salvoes of two, three or four missiles against a single target. The Russians have adopted this model with the later Flanker variants, typically carrying up to twelve Beyond Visual Range missiles. This permits six two round salvoes, four three round salvoes or three four round salvoes for an especially difficult target.

With two, maybe four missiles, the Joint Strike Fighter cannot play this game, and will never be able to do so.

It is now abundantly clear that the Joint Strike Fighter is not going to be viable in Beyond Visual Range air combat, just as it was clear from the outset that it would never be a serious player in Within Visual Range air combat. Improvements in the capability and number of internally carried missiles will not turn this problem around, since the opposing sensor and weapons capabilities will continue to evolve over time.

The remarkable claims about Joint Strike Fighter air combat performance made recently by the program executives and manufacturer's public relations staff can be explained only if the cited simulations were conducted against 1980s Russian Sukhoi variants, devoid of the tactics, sensors, weapons and supporting systems contemporary and future Flanker variants will employ. As such these claims clearly lack analytical rigour and cannot be taken seriously.

JSF Limitations - Click for more ...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jan 2014 09:17

2012 :: New (still quite secret) Hit-to-Kill missile for the F-35 unveiled: the Lockheed Martin “Cuda”

Caption:
“A Lockheed Martin model shows how its “’Cuda” concept for a small AMRAAM-class radar guided dogfight missile could triple the air-to-air internal loadout on an F-35. The missile is about the size of a Small Diameter Bomb and fits on an SDB-style rack.”
{Image credit: Air Force Magazine}

There are options out there. I would wait for a bit. That does not mean that other thinkings should be discounted. Just that do not hold on to them with blind faith.

___________________

And, it would be real nice if someone really read this thread.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 11:48

Philip wrote:Viv,the fundamental point about the JSF's air combat capability limitations is its limited internal weapons carrying capability.Only 2 BVR AMRAAM missiles out of a max of 4.Once it exhausts its missiles,it will be extremely vulnerable to the more agile 4+ fighters that exist today. Anything carried outside the internal weapons bay sends its stealth profile packing and there goes its much touted advantage.Plus,its basic profile was designed a generation ago,meant never to perform better than an F-16 and cannot be improved upon much now.There's reams of info on the issue.

That's actually 4 AMRAAMs that can be carried internally. The APA report is wrong (I suggest you google around).

Block 2: 2 AMRAAMs (2015)
Block 3: 4 AMRAAMs (2017) - This is the USAF's IOC version.

And in Block 4, they'll be increasing that to 6 AMRAAMs. (AFMag)

Plus, as NRao posted, the CUDA is under development - dual role with upto 12 carried internally.

As far as the flight profile, I suggest you check those reams of information again... the F-35 was designed at inception to match the performance of a clean F-16.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jan 2014 19:31

Here is another data point, from about a year ago:

IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics ‘better than or equal to’ Typhoon or Super Hornet

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jan 2014 20:05

Each manufacturer will claim superior performance of its ware. I am sure that given the opportunity,the Eurocanards will say the same thing,that their birds will outclass the JSF.LM's claims about the JSF are being generally taken with cautious reservation.Secondly,the CUDA concept is still only a concept. There is no active development/acquisition programme of it for the current variants.It has yet to arrive and undergo any testing to prove itself.What range is this smaller "AMRAAM" also going to have? Surely inferior to other longer ranged BVR missiles which will have the advantage if launched first.What if the warheadless missile cannot perform its kinetic kill? When existing munitions carrried internally are causing significant heat problems for the internal weapons bay,it is going to be interesting to see how an even more densely packed bay will be possible.

At least acknowledgement has been arrived at about the JSF's air combat capability,designed initially to only match the capability of an F-16,not beyond,depending upon its stealth ,etc. to leverage the odds.As the experts have said,if that fails then it is in for interesting times.I also wonder how the JSF is going to perform the close support role replacing the A-19.Loaded with underwing munitions,it is going to be anything but stealthy.It will also be vulnerable if it has to loiter around the battlezone looking for targets, from ground based SAMs and anti-air defences.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 31 Jan 2014 21:42

Viv S wrote:The F-35's nominal TWR is lower than most 4G fighters. But it carries a substantial part of its stores internally and its exceptionally high fuel fraction means it doesn't need external fuel tanks most of the time. Result of that low drag is it outperforms the F-16 in most combat configurations and flight regimes. To add to which its high alpha performance is in the same league as the F-18E/F (and better than a MiG-29).

The low what?

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

The extra width violates an important aerospace design principle called the “area rule,” which encourages narrow, cylindrical fuselages for best aerodynamic results. The absence of area rule on the F-35 — again, a knock-on effect of the Marines’ demand for a lift fan — increases drag and consequently decreases acceleration, fuel efficiency and flying range. Thus critics’ assertion that supersonic speed can’t be combined with STOVL and stealth, the latter of which are already incompatible with each other.

“We’re dealing with the laws of physics,” Burbage said in his company’s defense when word got out about the JSF’s performance downgrades.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jan 2014 21:46

Philip Bhai,

(As usual) plenty of topics in your post.

Will respond to most, if not all, in due time.

However, CUDA is part of a much, much larger effort, called "Air Dominance", which very, very ironically supports your claim that the F-35 is inadequate in the current environment. Just that it was acknowledged *long* back. Way before you even thought of it.

Also, the Gods of such defense projects *know* much more than any expert on the outside.

And, "warfighters" (like the word "Jawan") is held very sacred. While you tend to cite individual articles and "experts", there has been an ongoing effort - for years now - that tie *every* aspect of war-fighting, from design/development all the way to support/supply chain/etc.

I am not too sure, but, I will not be very surprised if time has passed the Rands and Sweetmans.

More later. But nothing you posted above is a concern, forget a major one.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jan 2014 22:04

Mihir wrote:
Viv S wrote:The F-35's nominal TWR is lower than most 4G fighters. But it carries a substantial part of its stores internally and its exceptionally high fuel fraction means it doesn't need external fuel tanks most of the time. Result of that low drag is it outperforms the F-16 in most combat configurations and flight regimes. To add to which its high alpha performance is in the same league as the F-18E/F (and better than a MiG-29).
The low what?

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

The extra width violates an important aerospace design principle called the “area rule,” which encourages narrow, cylindrical fuselages for best aerodynamic results. The absence of area rule on the F-35 — again, a knock-on effect of the Marines’ demand for a lift fan — increases drag and consequently decreases acceleration, fuel efficiency and flying range. Thus critics’ assertion that supersonic speed can’t be combined with STOVL and stealth, the latter of which are already incompatible with each other.

“We’re dealing with the laws of physics,” Burbage said in his company’s defense when word got out about the JSF’s performance downgrades.

Apples and oranges.

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

That article you cited (David Axe?) argues that the F-35 could be made more aerodynamic if they got rid of the requirements of the B version's fan. How does it compare with the F-16 is the question.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jan 2014 23:04

F-35 faces familiar dogfight with competing facts

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2014 23:16

Philip wrote:At least acknowledgement has been arrived at about the JSF's air combat capability,designed initially to only match the capability of an F-16,not beyond,depending upon its stealth ,etc. to leverage the odds.

What about a clean F-16's performance makes you append an 'only' to it?

And as far as acknowledgements go, can I assume you've retracted your claim about it having only 2 AMRAAMs? Also have you revised the cost you were quoting for the F-35 or are you persisting with the $199M figure for the RUFC?

As the experts have said,if that fails then it is in for interesting times.I also wonder how the JSF is going to perform the close support role replacing the A-19.Loaded with underwing munitions,it is going to be anything but stealthy.It will also be vulnerable if it has to loiter around the battlezone looking for targets, from ground based SAMs and anti-air defences.

It isn't going to be loaded with under-wing munitions. It can carry 8 SDB IIs internally along with 2 AMRAAMs. A pair of F-35s can between them destroy an entire squadron of tanks in a single pass. And if the F-35 is vulnerable to SAMs, would you care to guess how safe a conventional fighter would be in the same position?

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 31 Jan 2014 23:27

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

Do you know that for sure?

And wasn't one of the F-35's ability to carry weapons under the wings like any conventional fighter one of its selling points? Ya know, the one they touted when people raised questions about the combat efficacy of a fighter whose internal weapons loadout is laughable? So what's the point of arguing that it performs badly "onlee if it carries external weapons"?

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 31 Jan 2014 23:36

Mihir wrote:
NRao wrote:I think the arg is that there is nothing called a "clean" F-16 (which implies no armament on the F-16). So, once the F-16 carries anything, the clean F-35 - with all her warts - is better.
Do you know that for sure?

And wasn't one of the F-35's ability to carry weapons under the wings like any conventional fighter one of its selling points? Ya know, the one they touted when people raised questions about the combat efficacy of a fighter whose internal weapons loadout is laughable? So what's the point of arguing that it performs badly "onlee if it carries external weapons"?

the f-35 would be foolish not to have external hard points under its wings in case of extrodinary circumstances. If nothing else for fuel tanks that can be kicked off when it approaches hot radar areas. remember this plane is meant go long and penetrate. the navy and marines are also big believers in buddy stores for returning planes (and Drones?). Navy planes get very dry as they return approach to carriers.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 31 Jan 2014 23:53

More good news for the F-35

... the F-35’s independent “inertial” navigation gear—which determines the plane’s position by constantly computing starting point, direction, speed and time—is off by a few degrees. That’s just enough to make it useless in combat...

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

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

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

... “Analysis showed that fragment-induced damage could result in the release of more than 25 percent of a single lift fan blade, resulting in a catastrophic … system failure,” the DOT&E report warns...

Of course, this report was publish eons ago; in 2013. Which means that most of this info is hopelessly out of date. And we know that fixes are being worked on, a few lines of code are being written to solve all outstanding issues (you know, the ones that don't really exist), and so on and so forth. The program management office and Air Force remain ever optimistic.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 01 Feb 2014 00:01

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5
The extra width violates an important aerospace design principle called the “area rule,” which encourages narrow, cylindrical fuselages for best aerodynamic results. The absence of area rule on the F-35 —.

Area rule or more correctly transonic area rule is no longer important today and almost none of the modern fighters use it.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 01 Feb 2014 00:12

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

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Feb 2014 00:17

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

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

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 01 Feb 2014 00:18

Mihir wrote:More good news for the F-35......

... the F-35’s independent “inertial” navigation gear—which determines the plane’s position by constantly computing starting point, direction, speed and time—is off by a few degrees. That’s just enough to make it useless in combat......

You don't think this fixable? really? huh. some one has low opinion of our tech punch list procedures and transparency there of.

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

Yes, we're going to die aiyeeeeee!

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

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

yeah impossible to fix bargle, bargle, bargle.....

.

... .. “Analysis showed that fragment-induced damage could result in the release of more than 25 percent of a single lift fan blade, resulting in a catastrophic … system failure,” the DOT&E report warns...

yeah, yeah, i read the article too, the golden bb fired from the trenches get sucked up into the jet intake, omg, omg, omg
.

... Of course, this report was publish eons ago; in 2013. Which means that most of this info is hopelessly out of date. And we know that fixes are being worked on, a few lines of code are being written to solve all outstanding issues (you know, the ones that don't really exist), and so on and so forth. The program management office and Air Force remain ever optimistic.

sure,all of the above proves the failure of the f-35 program.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 01 Feb 2014 00:27

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

the f-35 was designed to match the f-18/f-16 in dog fighting capability and according to various news sources it has done so. Its not meant to be the best dog fighter in the world and more importantly, it doesn't have to. To try to match the f-22 in dog fighting would have thrown the cost variables out the window.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 01 Feb 2014 00:31

yeah impossible to fix bargle, bargle, bargle.....

Yes, they can all be fixed. But one wonders why such fundamental problems are being noticed now, after the F-35 has been flying for fourteen years, and the magic that is concurrency has seen 70-odd examples of the type flying.

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

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

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

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 01 Feb 2014 00:34

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

An F-16 armed with four missiles can still out-accelerate the superduperfantabulouslykewl F-35 with its superduperfantabulouslykewl internal weapons bay.

In other words, drag is a problem. Lack of adequate thrust is a problem. Weight was a problem, until they decided to do away with some life safety systems and compromise on the strength of the airframe to reduce weight.