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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 09 Jul 2015 22:01

Brar,interesting concept.Do the wingtips twist?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 09 Jul 2015 22:13

Philip wrote:Brar,interesting concept.Do the wingtips twist?



No, why would they? This is likely a placeholder but Northrop Grumman have had a similar aircraft in all their NGAD slides and discussions..Essentially a larger aircraft, most likely subsonic, with 1500 nm or so radius (unfueled) as per some guesses based on drawings and expected mission needs.. or so and a very large internal bay for things like larger weapons and directed energy weapons...

Image

Interestingly all three major airframe developers worked with AFRL on the supersonic cruising aircraft over the last 10 years, that is sometime reffered to in the LRS-B material (although wrongly so)..Lokheed was the one that actually did it in the bomber size but Northrop and Boeing did theirs in the larger-very larger fighter / mini bomber sized..It appears that post that Northrop has been pushing a subsonic design and that also sits well with what their scientist said in his CSBA paper.

The object is obviously to execute an air campaign thousands of miles from home while at the same time reducing the burden on tankers and other support - basically organic support in terms of long range, long range sensors and AEW..They don't expect the likes of E-3, E-2's and JSTARS to survive contact with the enemy so will have them well back till the other strike aircraft make space for them.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Jul 2015 18:35, edited 1 time in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9367
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 10 Jul 2015 01:32

Looks curiously like an F-35 with the twin tails fallen off because of an uncontained turbine blade failure. :eek:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 10 Jul 2015 17:07

I asked the Q becos there is a definite line/joint at the junction of the wing and the area that serves as the large end-piece/tip. In the absence of any vert/canted fins,like the FGFA's fins that swivel,these "tips" perhaps are being used as control surfaces.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9367
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 10 Jul 2015 17:20

It's a computer graphics airplane, so it does not need control surfaces. The laser beams are from the pointers used in PPT presentations. The Boeing X-36 used a canard and thrust vectoring, but this is because they used the X-36 to check if the control system would automatically reconfigure itself if some parts were battle-damaged. So they needed multiple types of control. This thing seems to use thrust vectoring, but may have something else for yaw as well, I don't see it. Offhand, yaw from just warping the wing does not seem to be adequate at all, and I don't see that a canard can be much help except to yaw by increasing drag (as opposed to providing sideways lift). Maybe as you say, the tips will flip up and down like a Kathakali performer doing hand expressions. Being so far out on a wing, huge moments can be generated with small surfaces.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 10 Jul 2015 17:59

Philip wrote:I asked the Q becos there is a definite line/joint at the junction of the wing and the area that serves as the large end-piece/tip. In the absence of any vert/canted fins,like the FGFA's fins that swivel,these "tips" perhaps are being used as control surfaces.



Its a placeholder image for what sort of capability they are looking into not an actual full up design.

This thing seems to use thrust vectoring, but may have something else for yaw as well, I don't see it.


I dont recall ever coming across an actual picture of that aircraft from the back..I think it had a unique thrust vectoring and may be something that used advanced (perhaps even fluidic) TVC that Mc.D had been working on before Boeing lapped them up.

This thread has some information on potential choices - http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... pic=6717.0

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9367
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jul 2015 05:46

Competition for Comrade Brar :mrgreen:
Lockheed PR at its best. But he does score solid points. When they use big words like these:
All of the planned test points were accomplished expeditiously,
it reminds me of the movie 'OSCAR'.

And the conclusion:
F-35 effort is in better shape today than ever before — which is a good thing, because there is no ”Plane B” waiting in the wings.
sounds even more ominous as Lockheed is about to buy Sikorsky Aircraft and eliminate the competition from the X2 helicopter for V/STOL.

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 14 Jul 2015 14:56

that is a key word used over and over again in the US military. also used is "outstanding". "highest of traditions" "beyond call of duty", etc..........

just like the medical world uses efficacy, ameliorate, alleviate, etc...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 15 Jul 2015 18:58

and eliminate the competition from the X2 helicopter for V/STOL.


The X-2 was an internal, company funded demonstrator not anything that will ever be operationalized. Its technology went into the Raider and the subsequent lessons learnt will go into the Boeing-Sikorsky JMR funded Defiant that will be entering prototyping very very soon (for first flight in a couple of years iirc). Given that the LMA, Sikorsky take over actually happens and is approved, there is no incentive for LMA to cull the partnership with Boeing that is already beginning and kicking off the Defiant program in support of a long term need beginning in the 2030's to replace a very large family of aircraft. In fact it gives Lockheed more incentive to keep themselves involved in both programs and to extend that technology into other applications. Both Sikorsky/Boeing, and Bell/Lockheed have a different solution for the prototypes. The US Army wants to do the prototype and technology demonstration program now before the end of the decade but the need is for much later. Once a program of record for an actual production aircraft is launched they can consider multiple designs, outside of these two, so it not not be these 2 teams that go into the formal program once it is started next decade.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 18 Jul 2015 09:06

Just for kicks:



UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9367
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 20 Jul 2015 21:00

In other news, F-35 sales being contemplated to New Fronltyin' Al-Lie: IRAN!! (sorry, I didn't click on that link).
Finally, the F-35B designers can breathe: there IS a back-up plan.
They sure need ppl who know how to design vertical lift rotors. :mrgreen:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 20 Jul 2015 22:30

Lockheed is a junior partner to Bell on the FVL's JMR phase of the program. I don't think anyone expected them to take a lead given there portfolio in rotary market has been as a supplier rather than a designer and integrator. What will most likely happen in this program a decade from now is that the US-Army will most likely choose one tilt-rotor for the FLV prototypes (current JMR program is focused on tech-demonstrations alone) and Bell will move away from Lockheed towards one of the other tilt-rotor firms in the mix - or the army will simply pick another company for the tilt-rotor option. They were clear that all 4 would compete for the FLV but only 2 will get to participate in the JMR. The remaining, continue to refine their designs through IRAD.

The only way two tilt rotors are picked for the Post RFP - development phase of the JMR is if the tilt-rotor concept performs significantly better and Bell is able to lay to rest the fears of the added cost for the added performance that tilt-rotors bring to the table. The pentagon had practically blessed a Boeing, or Lockheed acquisition of Sikorsky, and the fact that Lockheed is not a Rotary wing prime means that there would still be a balance between Bell and Sikorsky. The pentagon is more concerned about more vertical integration rather than horizontal integration and the writing has been on the wall when it comes to the sale or merger of either sikorsky or Bell...The demand from a new military product category was simply not there to see the margins United Technologies were looking from Sikorsky..


http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/lock ... -services/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 24 Jul 2015 14:57

Is the F-35 the worst fighter ever?

Just under two weeks ago, we talked about a poorly-translated test report that gave critics of the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II ammunition to suddenly declare it the worst dogfighter ever.

In the time since that article, you can’t find an aviation-oriented website that hasn’t put its two cents in, declaring the F-35 everything from an F-4 clone, to an F-105, and even going as far as calling it a BVR failure.

So is the F-35 truly the worst fighter ever?



From an acquisitions standpoint, it’s in the running. Plagued by delays, setbacks, and budget overruns, it has had its share of issues. It’s also guilty of a terrible public relations campaign.

But at the end of the day, this aircraft has done one thing no other aircraft has ever been able to do – turn an entire generation of aviation bloggers, journalists, and commenters into overnight military aviation experts.

It’s simply fascinating to watch every hipster who’s ever played Ace Combat sit back and pontificate about the downfalls of an aircraft that hasn’t even reached IOC. It’s like a renaissance of air combat.

As the first fighter in the digital age, the F-35 has allowed people to watch and read about the results of flight tests in near real time, drawing their own conclusions as to the success or failure of the program. Security clearance? Who needs it? Wikipedia has everything that anyone who’s ever played Battlefield 4 on Playstation needs to know in order to realize that the F-35 is a sitting duck if you happen to get it after a respawn.

I’m just a lowly fourth-gen pilot, so my opinions might not be as valid as someone who’s read a leaked FOUO report on the internet, but before the million-man Strawman Army reaches full strength, it may be time to inject some sanity into this discussion:

1) The F-35 vs F-16 flight was a developmental test flight.



I wrote an article about this already, and the horse is very much dead, but I think it’s worth repeating because the actual test report came out after the article. The flight was a Developmental Test Flight in which the test platform F-35 was sent out to test flight characteristics in high performance flight. Did I say test enough?

Flight control algorithms (because this jet has a computer running millions of lines of code telling each control surface what to do) were studied and determined to require adjustment (pitch rates, departure resistance logic, etcetera). No other conclusion is valid from this TEST.

2) Comparisons to any Vietnam-era aircraft are INVALID.



The F-4 struggled in an era of AIM-4, AIM-9, and AIM-7. These missiles failed often (AIM-4) and either had to be guided the entire time of flight (AIM-7) or could only be shot from tail aspect (AIM-9). A reliance on these missiles had come at a time when the Air Force had shifted its focus to shooting down Soviet bombers in a Cold War scenario.

The F-105 comparison is so ridiculous it’s barely worth mentioning. Both the USAF Weapons School and Navy’s TOP GUN develop tactics to suit every aircraft in the fleet. These tactics key on strengths, minimize weaknesses, and address threats. And even after these tactics are developed, they evolve over time. What else do you expect?

It is 2015. Think of BFM as the equivalent of unarmed hand to hand combat for Marine grunts. It is important, because it is self defense, but it is not THE mission. It is not the primary method of achieving a kill. It hasn’t been since the early 80s. Yes, BFM can still happen. There are hundreds of scenarios where an F-35 may find its way to the merge. In a world with high off-boresight short and medium-range missiles, is it still possible to get a guns kill? Absolutely. Is it likely? No.

In an environment where everyone, including the enemy, has these missiles, a prolonged engagement in which you dogfight into a gun weapons employment zone is not a highly survivable situation. Unless you managed to get wrapped up with the only remaining MiG in bad-guy country, it likely means his buddies are close by. Saddling up for a guns kill from a neutral merge takes time and fuel – luxuries you just don’t have in combat. And this applies to any aircraft – fifth-gen, fourth-gen, or said threat country.

Countries have spent a lot of time and money developing these missiles for this very reason. If you find yourself in the phonebooth, the quickest kill is the most survivable. Now, if the F-35 gets into a turning fight is it a sitting duck? I don’t know. You can find HUD footage of a T-38 gunning an F-22 on YouTube. Is a trainer aircraft with paper-thin wings a BFM monster against a jet that nearly flies up its own rear-end during airshows? No. But any given Sunday, anything is possible.

The F-35A is a 9G-capable aircraft with a monster engine and a relatively high-alpha capability. It may not be a Raptor. It may not even be a Viper, but it won’t be an F-4 either. I don’t know how it will do in Dissimilar Air Combat Training until it starts wrapping it up on a regular basis in the real world (i.e. – operational squadrons, not test aircraft in test squadrons). And guess what? None of these journalists do either.

3.) F-35 sensors, avionics, technology, and capabilities are classified.



It’s hard not to laugh when another “definitive” article comes out declaring not only is the F-35 a lame duck WVR, but it’s also dead in the water BVR. Holy crap.

There are two groups of people that know the true capabilities of the F-35: those that have the clearance necessary to read about it, and the people who built it (who have the same clearance)…. And probably the Chinese, but that’s another story. Anyone else that makes claims to know what the capabilities of this aircraft are and how they compare to threat aircraft (also classified, by the way), are just wrong and have traveled so far out of their lane it’s not even funny. They just don’t know what they don’t know.

I’m sorry, but you don’t have a right or need to know. The military keeps these things classified for a very good reason – to save American lives. Sensors, capabilities, tactics, and the like are not going to be released to journalists unless someone does so illegally. And even then, it’s like a dog watching TV. They’re not going to understand what they’re even looking at (as we’ve seen in these “expert interpretations” of a leaked FOUO test report).

Why is this important? Because any unclassified source that claims to know how an F-35 will do in a BVR engagement is flat-out wrong. Anything beyond that is pure speculation based on marketing brochures that are worth less in the real world than the paper they’re printed on. Sorry.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the first aircraft to be developed, tested, and flown in the “instant gratification” age. No other aircraft has had its dirty laundry aired in real time quite like this one. And a lot of people have worn out their “Jump to Conclusions Mat” as a result – without any valid information to back it up.

4.) The F-35 debate is political in nature.



This is where I must apologize. In my follow up, I went a bit out of my way to trash the F-35 as a program.

As a fighter pilot, this is pretty far out of my own lane. The merits of the cost per unit and total program costs/timeline are something politicians and elected officials should debate and explain to America. As a taxpayer, it’s everyone’s right to question how money is spent. But the two issues should not be confused. I should not have brought it up as part of the argument.

How an aircraft is acquired doesn’t mean much in the battlespace. The military acquisitions process needs work, or as Navy dudes say, it’s an “other.” That’s really irrelevant to the onslaught of hit pieces that have come out lately.

5.) The F-35 won’t be a bust, but it also won’t be perfect either.



Both the F/A-18 and F-16 have had almost 30 years worth of development, and neither of them are perfect to this day. They weren’t perfect when they first came out and both aircraft have their own strengths and weaknesses. Having flown both, I have seen it firsthand. That doesn’t mean either aircraft is a bust. Very smart fighter pilots and engineers have done a great job in making them very formidable against even newer and better threat aircraft.

I am confident that the next generation of fighter pilots and engineers will make the F-35 equally lethal through superior training, tactics, and even aircraft upgrades down the road. It’s just what we do as American fighter pilots.

It may be frustrating for spectators and participants alike. There may be more growing pains, but it’s going to push through eventually. And if you’re a true aviation enthusiast, you should be rooting for it.

From my perspective, the horse is dead and I won’t feed the million-man Strawman Army anymore. The show will go on and, eventually, this jet will become the face of the American strike fighter.

Just my humble opinion. Your mileage may vary.




brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 25 Jul 2015 01:28


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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 25 Jul 2015 06:49

cool vid and cool music....

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9367
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 25 Jul 2015 09:26

To the tune of "When Johny comes marching home, hurrah, hurrah!"

When our taxes go pouring out, hurrah, hurrah!
Lockheed & Martin romp to the bank, hurrah, hurrah!

The guns don't aim, the engines burn
The noise is deafening and the plane cyain't turn..

But we ain't got no Option B, hurrah, hurrah!

The cellphone's cute and got paint to suit, hurrah hurrah!
It can text a 1000 at a time, hurrah, hurrah!
The U-tube video's oh so cool.. the fan door lift makes u drool
And at $180 mil a pop you'd be a fool
If you didn't go buy three thousand, hurrah! hurrah!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 28 Jul 2015 15:03

F-35B IOC Expected Soon, Awaits Marine Commandant’s OK

All milestones have been met and paperwork has been completed in preparation for the U.S. Marines to be the first among 12 nations' militaries buying the F-35 to declare it operational, according USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation Jon Davis.

What remains is for Marine Corps Commandant Joseph Dunford to give the official nod for initial operational capability, Davis said July 27. The IOC declaration is expected by “the end of July,” said USMC spokesman Maj. Paul Greenberg. Dunford has been nominated to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Davis says the first squadron – VMFA-121 in Yuma, Arizona – is ready for operations following an operational readiness inspection. Lockheed Martin builds the F-35; the Marines are declaring IOC with the F-35, optimized for short takeoff and vertical landing. The U.K. and Italy are also buying the B version. The U.S. Air Force expects to declare its IOC by December 2016, with the Navy to follow by February 2019.

A major concern for Davis moving forward is to improve the mission capability rate for the stealthy, single-engine aircraft. VMFA-121’s rates are around 60%, where they are expected to be now. This is because the squadron comprises early low-rate initial production jets. Aircraft off the line later in production, which are being used in training, are performing better, Davis said.

The goal for reaching full operational capability, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017, is 80% he said.


An issue is that spares accounts are often raided and readiness rates are tied to the availability of spares for crews maintaining the aircraft.


First indication of FOC requirements (USMC) - 80% availability rates + Block 3F software capability (Full internal and external payloads, gun-pod, generation III helmet and the new computer processors..)...From what I gather they also plan on having 3-4 operational squadrons by FOC as well. I'd expect the mission availability rates for the Green-Knights to improve considerably over the short term since all their jets have NOW (as recently as 3 weeks ago for the last 2) received all the concurrency changes at the depot, and the squadron was the first to receive the new block ALIS software along with the new operational ALIS hardware that (the software) has cut down the false alarms by more than half...I wouldnt be surprised if the next GAO report puts the Mission availability rates closer to 70% for this particular squadron by the year end. Late last year the overall fleet mission availability rates (all services) were around 65% primarily due to the fleet mix changing and LRIP5+ aircraft trickling in that already had a lot of the concurrency changes from the start..As that ratio changes (More LRIP5, 6 ++ jets to LRIP 1-4 jets) the overall fleet availability will logically change for the better despite slow pace of sending the first 4 LRIP blocks to the depot.


BUILDING AN 8,000-HOUR TACTICAL AIRCRAFT: 21ST CENTURY MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21826
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 30 Jul 2015 11:49

Air Force Secretary Acknowledges Wide Range of Problems with F-35

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James has admitted to a wide range of past and present problems with the F-35 while maintaining that the fifth-general will eventually guarantee the U.S. continued air supremacy over rivals.

"The biggest lesson I have learned from the F-35 is never again should we be flying an aircraft while we're building it," James said at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado last week.

In development stages, "People believed we could go faster, cheaper, better" by designing and building the F-35 concurrently, "and that the degree of concurrency would work. Indeed it has not worked as well as we had hoped and that's probably the understatement of the day," James said.

"It has taken us too long, it has cost us way more money than we ever imagined possible," James said of the most expensive weapons program in Pentagon history. "We're very focused from now on to driving the cost down per unit and they are coming down."

However, she noted that there were additional challenges to making the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II operational. "I would sum it up in one word – software," James said, noting the 24 million lines of code in the aircraft.

F-16 Dogfight

James also agreed that an F-35A "didn't do so well" in mock dogfights with an F-16 last January. The test pilot's assessment, first reported by the "War Is Boring" blog, said that the F-35 lacked the maneuverability to keep up with the F-16 and the F-35 pilot's helmet cut down on his vision.

"There were multiple occasions when the bandit (F-16) would've been visible but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him," the report said.

James said the dogfight against the F-16 provided the F-35 program with valuable data but she also stressed that the F-35 will be a different plane when it's fully operational.

The F-35 then will have the capability to "see an enemy hundreds of miles in the distance," James said. "We get the first weapon off, we deliver the first punch and the bad guys don't know what hit them. The idea is not a close-in dogfight but with that said, by the time we're at full operational capability, we'll be much better in that arena as well."