F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[kwaigonegin]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is a neat block posting from FoxtrotAlpha
He gives a list of seven things he thinks could make USMC Lightning LHA/LHD forces a really potent force.

When the JSF's baseline design was finally locked, the aircraft was left with a massive fuselage cross-section, as well as a single engine with a huge circumference. This, along with many other STOVL related design results, gave the more numerous A and C versions of the jet an airframe that is far less than optimal given their basic sub-design's goals.

...................So, in the end the Marines will get the finest replacement for their AV-8Bs Harriers that they could have ever wished for, while the USAF, Navy and partner nations (over 90% of the F-35′s entire production run) will get an aircraft that has paid dearly for granting the Marines their golden short takeoff and vertical landing fifth generation fighter wish.

This is my primary contention with the original JSF program. The darn jarheads had too much influence on the design requirements. They should've just stuck to the Harriers and let the Navy boys do the heavy lifting OR have Lockheed design something else entirely different for STOVL.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

This is my primary contention with the original JSF program. The darn jarheads had too much influence on the design requirements. They should've just stuck to the Harriers and let the Navy boys do the heavy lifting OR have Lockheed design something else entirely different for STOVL.

It wasn't Just the Marines but the Europeans who wanted VTOL. And Sticking with Harriers was not a option. they are wearing out fast, difficult to fly and have a dwindling life expectancy as Airframes are lost due to age and attrition due to the difficulty of flying them.

 

[Inst]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

There are two points I was trying to make in the original thread, and one additional point that can be clarified.

The first and likely least controversial point is the potential for the JSDF to run around with F-35Bs and V-22s with AWACs or tanker functions. The key is the combination of the light carrier concept, alongside the F-35B's capability for VTOL. Both factors increase the survivability of the carrier force; light carriers can be much more flexible than single large carriers, and the loss of one or two to enemy weapons would be much more lightly felt than losing a full Ford-class supercarrier. The F-35B's capability for STOVL also allows the F-35B to land anywhere, instead of being forced to return to a prepared base, drastically improving its survivability after an attack run.

A 2008 RAND study illustrates the point. The conclusion there would be that after losing almost the entire PLAAF, the Chinese would manage to destroy F-22 assets by removing their forward airbases with ballistic missiles and destroying their tankers with surface to air missiles or suicide interceptions. In that case, the F-22s would eventually crash when they ran out of fuel. The F-35B, on the other hand, would not have that problem, as it can land anywhere you have reasonably flat land that could support the weight of the F-35B.

Were the JSDF to operate F-35Bs on their Izumo-class helicopter destroyers, they would have a tactically superior system compared to the PLAN. They would have more carriers with greater flexibility, and the ability for their planes to land anywhere there is friendly and flat ground. And compared to the Marine Corps, which has a CAS-centric doctrine, the JSDF would attempt to use their F-35Bs for sea control missions.

The second point is two-fold and needs to be clarified. It is talking about the quality of USMC aviation, and has both a weak and strong argument. The weak argument is simply that USMC aviators are on average, less capable than their USN or USAF counterparts for air superiority missions. That is a relatively easy argument to make. USMC aviation, sourcing USMC's own website:

CLOSE AIR SUPPORT (CAS)

The term Close Air Support (CAS), has become synonymous with Marine Aviation because Marines have always considered it to be the most significant contribution provided from the air. No other aviation force in the world puts so much importance on close air support and, because of this, no ground force is as capable as the Marine Corps.

Airmen can only get so many hours of flight training a year, and their focus on a given mission detracts for their focus on other missions. That is the point I am making about USAF pilots with their "not a pound for air to ground" doctrine. If the Air Force pilot gets 350 hours of flight training a year, and the USMC aviator gets 350 hours of flight training a year as well, but the Air Force pilot spends all 350 hours of flight training doing air-to-air training, while the USMC aviator spends 150 hours on air-superiority, 100 hours on strike, and 100 hours on close air support, the Air Force pilot, all other factors being equal, is going to be better at the air superiority mission.

That is why the F-15C and F-22 matters. The F-22 has a minimal strike capability, only being able to launch SDBs from its weapons bays. I don't believe it has ever been deployed for strike missions, owing to its costs per hour of flight, its high cost if shot down or damaged, and the fact that other aircraft, some of them comparably stealthy, are better suited to strike missions. If you are piloting a plane like that, how many of your hours are going to be spent training for strike missions? How many hours are going to be spent training for air superiority missions? And if you're flying a harrier, or an F/A-18A or C, what are the chances you're going to be doing air superiority training enough that you'll be dreaming of dogfights and BVR in your sleep?

As far as the strong argument goes, it's that the cross-training that marine pilots undergo means that they have less time and effort available for flight training in the first place. I'm not going to actively make this argument at this time, because while marines do need to qualify as a rifleman every year, on further research it doesn't seem as though marines need to spend a substantial amount of time training as infantry. They get a basic infantry course as officers, but it's not to the same level of training as marine riflemen. They are intended to be capable of defending themselves if necessary, but without further training it's not effective to throw them at opponents.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Inst. They receive the Training of a infantrymen. All Marines do They do not however jump between jobs. A Marine Aviator is a Marine Aviator. He does not Lead infantry troops, He does not command Tanks troops he Fly's Jets and helicopters when applicable. Every Marine is a Riflemen Means That he is expected to Qualify on the Marine Corps Service Rifle the M16A4 and M4. If he is trained to engage in Dogfights he is trained to operate in air superiority. A Marine Aviator is a Pilot he is not expected to grab a rifle unless everything has gone to hell.

Now do the Marines emphasis CAS? absolutely do they restrict themselves to it? NO. Marine Aviators have done Air Superiority missions since there formation. and the Same holds true in just about every other military service. The USN calls it's main line Fighter F/A fighter Attack that should tell you there mission set. They attack more then Air to Air fight. The USAF Also Attacks more then Fights. F15C and F22 are intended to keep the enemy busy well the F16C's and F35's pound the enemy into powder. MArine pilots Below par? No They are specialists who Train and fight as hard as any others. Can they preform like a F15? No. that's a Specialized machine. But the number of Such Specialized fighters is dwindling every new fighter coming online is Multirole. even F22 the Machine intended to replace F15 can do Multirole.

Now You argue that JSDF with F35B should be feared by the PLAN as Tactically Superior?
Well then Japan should buy them, but I'll tell you this the PRC will not be Conquered by Japan or any other nation. All they can do is Hamper and prevent and Thwart Chinese Ambitions. The only real Threat to China are those from within.

 

[Inst]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I am mostly ceding the point about marine specialization. However, I have read up on all marine officers being trained to lead infantry squads, as well as Marine aviators being deployed down to ground forces to provide coordination support when calling in airstrikes are needed. For the former, infantry training is usually a one-time thing intended for disastrous conditions, however, like the article I mentioned when insurgents managed to breach a Marine airbase. For the latter, this isn't a service-wide thing and not every aviator will have to go call air support for his belly crawler brothers.

There is also this thing:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Over the last 5 years, due to shortages of officers in the army, it has become necessary to drag officers from the navy and the air force into retraining programs to lead infantry squads. This is probably part of it, but it's an irregular case; an adaptation to circumstances instead of doctrine.

===

As far as air superiority goes, you're dodging my point. Marines do CAS, strike, air superiority. So do Air Force and Navy pilots, but they do so in different degrees. Marines expect to do more CAS than their Air Force and Navy aviation counterparts, and thus they need to train more for CAS than for air superiority. The simple fact that the Marines do air superiority missions doesn't mean that they're going to focus on doing air superiority missions to the same degree as Air Force or Navy aviation pilots.

Let's put it this way. You have a ground force or a naval force that needs more air cover. Given the choice, do you deploy an Air Force squadron, move a carrier, or do you send in Marine aviation? The first and most effective operation would be to deploy an Air Force squadron, because the Air Force squadron is not organic to any ground or naval assets and they're going to be deployed as necessary to defend a position. Between Navy aviation and Marine aviation, though, it's more of a toss-up. Navy aviation's big drawback is that you have to deploy a full CVBG to a position, and that it's not amenable to being deployed to ground-bases like Marine squadrons can be, but on the other hand you have access to better equipment than the Marines, namely newer EW craft (E/A-18G vs EA-6Bs), actually having AEW&C available (E-2Ds vs, well, nothing), and the latest F/A-18E/Fs, as opposed to Marine F/A-18A-Ds.

 

[Jeff Head]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Inst, the Marines do a lot of ground support. But they are not alone in that in the least, nor do they have the greatest number of aircraft performing it.

In fact there are far more numbers of aircraft in the USAF that are involvd with ground support. The A-10s, the F-15Es, the F-16s, the F-35s, all will do huge amounts of ground support as US Air Force aircraft.

The Navy does its fair share too. The F/A-18s are also attack aircraft. The F-35C will do a lot of that role too.

And, in fact the Marine pilots also train for and do air superiority and EW missions as has already been mentioned.

Once again, the training of Marine aviators in infantry tactics is also not unique. They all are trained to be able to evade and escape and to employ infantry type tactics if they are shot down. They all have to qualify on weapons to help in that regard. The Marines too...and perhaps with more emphasis when they first come into the service...but once they are aviators, they are prcinipally aviators.

As to Forward Air Contol (FAC) the US Air Force also will employ aviators to do that mission. It is not unique to the Marines. The doctrine of how they go about it is, however, different. The Air Force believes in more central control of close air support. They used FACs within what they called Tactical Air Control Parties (TACPs) which were assigned to the Army at regimental and divisional level. But the U.S. Marine Corps pushed their TACPs to the battalion level.

The greatest difference between the two is probably their differing defitionions of what close air support means. The Air Force consideres air strikes anywhere within artillery range of friendly units as CAS. The Marines define it specifically to be support air strikes anywhere from 50 out to 200 yards of friendly positions. The Marines also qunatify the timing to be having the support arrive within fifteen minutes of the request. See the book, "Mosquitoes to Wolves: The Evolution of the Airborne Forward Air Controller", for a great and detailed explanation of all of this.

Note that since the early to mid 2000s, the term Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) has been applied more and more to this function by US forces.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

That should cover those doctrine issues. Now maybe we should try and cover some FAQ.
1)How can you do CAS with a gun pod? Ask the Harrier. the Existing AV8 harrier lacks a gun and it already fills the CAS role with a 25mm gun pod. Originally the F35 series was supposed to use three gun options the 25mm cannon internally like F35A, the 25mm gun pod like F35B-F35C and a cancelled European 27mm Mauser gun pod. So not having a internal gun is not a mission killer.
2 ) Why waste stealth on a CAS aircraft like F35B?
Its not a waste. First deal with the mission. F35 is expected to replace not just the Harrier, but the FA18C/D and EA6 Prowler that means she is going to be flying high and open where big aid defense systems hunt. And even when she fly's CAS not all of her mission is hovering above the ground looking for targets. Part of that is going to be flying at altitude waiting for calls of support. Her expanded mission envelop justifies stealth and not just for the USMC The Royal Navy, Spain, and Italy all wanted a more complete fighter then what they have in AV8. And if the F35 is rolling in for CAS the "stealth" is not really going to be used as she will likely be loaded up with rockets and missiles on external hard points
3) Can F35B be shot down with a single bullet?
chances of that happening are about as high as a meteor falling from the sky and nailing you in the head instantly killing you. I have read this as a failure of the F35B that in CAS if you shot a round into the lift fan the jet will fall from the sky. First problem what idiotic moron of a pilot is going to go to Hover mode over enemy forces? Looked great in Live Free or Die Hard, but reality is not Hollywood. Pilots flying CAS know about ground fire and are going to do everything they can to keep from taking it. I call this question just stupid.
4) Stealth is a sham?
tell that to the people behind J20,J31, T50, F22, F35, RQ180, Chinese stealth drones, B2, ... Ecta ecta....
5) I heard F35B uses a lift system copied from the Russians?
no. The F35B lift system uses three parts. The forward portion the lift fan is based on Rolls Royce based technologies in the form of a coaxial ducted fan set that is mated to a transmission attached to the F135 600 afterburning turbofan. The second portion is a set of exhaust siphoning nozzles closer to the AV8 harrier and lastly a licensed derivative of the 3 barring exhaust system based on the Yak141 design. Only the rear swivel is based on the Russia. Design. The Russian Yak141 used lift Jets theses being multiple jet engines mounted vertically in the Fuselage.

those are the ones I can think of right now. But basicly it boils down for F35B to this. The Article I linked to and the Mission of the F35B are the same concept that is to expand a VTOL fighter beyond what harrier is to expand a alligator Navy or a Vtol Carrier beyond the limitations of the AV8. Its not unique to the USMC or USN, European countries have been looking at doing the same for decades and the Russians also looked at it with Yak141.
expanding the USMC gator navy capacity's following the article by Tyler Ridgeway would in essence recreate the once wanted Sea Control ship mission and nearly double the number of carrier mission capable forces of the USN. Loosen up the availability of full CVNs by augmenting them with smaller nearly as capable assets. And if applied to Spanish, Italian British and other America allies like Japan and Australia it would offer near CVN power projection.

 

[Jura The idiot]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

That should cover those doctrine issues. Now maybe we should try and cover some FAQ.
...

Thank you, TE ... it sometimes annoys me when I can't answer a FAQ Now let's suppose somebody asks yet another FAQ:

"Why the F-35B doesn't have two engines, hey, I heard this would help F-35A and C, and the French did VTOL with eight engines!?"

(referring to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Weight and fuel. F35B particularly comes in but does the F35A. Multiple engines produce more thrust but also eat more fuel. For the USAF the want was originally a low for the high of F22A so a single engine was choice as it would cost less to fuel. For F35B the Marines wanted S/VTOL that means they needed a aircraft that could be lifted by its own power vertically, and doing so is pissing fuel. The more engines the more fuel consumption the more fuel consumption the more expensive. So the Marines and Air Force locked in on single engine. The Navy took some convincing though.

now then you mentioned a earlier Mirage VTOL concept that was tested. That used 8 engines. Here we can see a case in point of Lift Jets. Of those eight engines one was used for conventional flight. The others were just to lift the jet off the terra-firma. This was really inefficient. Why? Because to lift off the deck meant starting 8 full jet engines powering up to military on them then throttling up the main engine and killing the lift jets. By the time you got airborne most of your fuel is already gone. And as you went to horizontal flight we add in another issue. Weight. Those eight engines took up all your fuel and payload.
F35B's single engine is far from fuel sipping but its downright green when compared to lift jets. Since the lift fan is slaved to the engine your not burning much more fuel for it. And since the thrust is coming from the main engine every thing is already there. The only dead weight is of course when the fan is stowed but its a comparative feather weight when compared to the propulsion system of the Yak141 or Mirage Vtol. And the fan adds bonuses. Because of its placement and the fact that it is mechanical and does not burn it's own fuel the lift fan can reduce the potential for a exhaust induced stall. A problem that has been the bane of many a Harrier and Yak where in exhaust gasses from the lift engines either the Pegasus for the harrier of lift jets for Yak are reflected off the ground and get sucked back I to the engine. The engine chokes often loosing power and dropping like a brick.

 

[bd popeye]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Apparently the problem with the arrestor hook has been solved!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md.(May 7, 2014) An F-35C Lightning II aircraft makes an arrested landing during a test flight at Naval Air Station Patuxent River. The F-35C is the carrier variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin by Dane Wiedmann/Released)