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

thunderchief

Senior Member
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

In order to spot an enemy aircraft, you'll need to know it's there and where to look. That's where the DAS combined with HMD is useful. Pilots of previous generations of fighters still need to use their own eyeballs and make sure they don't lose the target out of sight. The F-16 is a small jet, the F-35 is only a bit bigger. An F-16 pilot will need to work hard to keep track of the JSF visually, while the F-35 has DAS to back him/ her up.

Well, pilots of previous generations successfully used their eyeballs in dogfights since WW1 ;) I'm not saying DAS is not useful , especially if it works as advertised in adverse conditions or night, but it is not something you could not live without . Standard IRSTs on 4th gen fighters like Su-30 and Su-35 already have good coverage (+- 90 deg in azimuth , +60 deg -15 deg azimuth ) . It is very questionable could F-35 escape from that zone in close combat .


Well it already stated a cleaned off f-16 vs. a loaded f-35. A clean F-16 would only have an internal gun. When you put missiles on, it's getting dirty with extra drag already. In your source it is also mentioned: The F-16, Kloos says, is a very capable aircraft in a within visual range engagement--especially in the lightly loaded air-to-air configuration used during training sorties at home station. "It's really good at performing in that kind of configuration," Kloos says. "But that's not a configuration that I've ever--I've been in a lot of different deployments--and those are the configurations I've never been in with weapons onboard."

Kloss says " lightly loaded air-to-air configuration" - that is not a fighter armed only with the gun, that is fighter armed with 2,4, or 6 AAMs (depends on type involved ) . And that is a very realistic scenario - just check the pics of Russian Su-27 or Chinese J-11 in recent incidents . Yup, they were not loaded to the maximum of their capabilities ;).


If a flight of F-35s meet fighters over badguy land, they'll have the upper hand to decide whether to engage or not due to stealth + escort jamming. If they decide to engage, they'll have the luxury to choose the best position for a shot that'll maximize the chance of a kill.

That is open for debate. It assumes distinct advantage in avionics, which may or may not be present. It also assumes various anti-stealth technologies developed today would not be effective .
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Btw, we missed this :

Flight Maneuver Hints at Cause of F-35 Fire

The U.S. Defense Department official in charge of the F-35 fighter jet program said a previous flight test maneuver played a role in an engine fire that led to a temporary grounding of the fleet and ongoing flying restrictions.

Speaking during a defense conference Wednesday at the National Press Club, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said three weeks before an F-35A made by Lockheed Martin Corp. caught fire during takeoff June 23 at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, it was flown in a manner designed to test the performance of its g-force, roll and yaw characteristics within designed limits known as the flight envelope.

While the maneuver only last two seconds or so, it caused excessive rubbing between the titanium blade in the fan section of the F135 engine made by United Technologies Corp.‘s Pratt & Whitney unit and the surrounding material, Bogdan said. The metal reached temperatures of as high as 1,900 degrees Fahrenheit — compared to the normal level of about 1,000 degrees — and resulted in micro-cracking, he said.

A few weeks later, during the fateful takeoff, the blade came apart and actually pierced the left aft fuel tank, engulfing the rear of the plane in flames, Bogdan said. “It was the fuel tank that caught fire,” he said.

While the pilot escaped from the aircraft unharmed, much of the plane was destroyed. Bogdan declined to say it was a “total loss” because he said the program office plans to reuse parts that are salvageable. But it’s safe to assume the incident was a Class A mishap, which is defined as accidents resulting in fatality or total permanent disability, loss of an aircraft or property damage of $2 million or more.

The Joint Strike Fighter is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons acquisition program, estimated to cost a total of $398.6 billion for a total of 2,457 aircraft. That breaks down to a per-plane cost of $162 million, including research and development.

Under the most recent production contract with Lockheed, the department in 2013 agreed to pay $112 million per F-35A, $139 million per F-35B and $130 million per F-35C. Those figures, known as unit recurring flyaway costs, include the airframe, engine, mission systems, profit and concurrency.

The Pentagon in its budget for fiscal 2015, which begins Oct. 1, requested $8.3 billion for 34 of the aircraft, including 26 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs and 2 F-35Cs. The House Appropriations Committee voted to buy an additional four aircraft, for a total of 38, while the Senate panel agreed with the Pentagon’s request — a difference that will have to be resolved in conference negotiations. Congress hasn’t yet passed a defense spending bill.

Eight countries have committed to help develop the F-35, including the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway. Also, Israel, Japan and South Korea plan to buy production models of the aircraft.

There are currently about 100 F-35s in the U.S. fleet, Bogdan said. Pratt & Whitney has delivered roughly 150 F135 engines, he said.

Bogdan said Pratt & Whitney officials have vowed to cover the cost of the engine fix, which will probably include redesigning that part of the propulsion system to create more space in the so-called trench area. He declined to specify how much it will cost until the program office completes a root-cause analysis, expected later this month.

A prototype part may be tested as early as mid-October, Bogdan said. Meanwhile, the program office is developing a new engine break-in procedure as a short-term fix to better analyze how it performs under increasing loads, he said. Even so, if the planes don’t resume regular flight testing later this month, the program could be delayed by a month or more, he said.

Separately, Bogdan said, Pratt & Whitney has halted further deliveries of the F135 engine amid plans to sue a supplier for providing “suspect” titanium. The Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations are looking into the matter, he said.

The suspension affected 10 engines that probably would have been delivered by now and four more that are not yet under contract, according to an article by Tony Capaccio of Bloomberg News.

The F-35 missed its highly hyped international debut in the United Kingdom this summer. Four of the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing models were scheduled to appear at multiple events in the U.K., culminating with a flight demonstration at the Farnborough International Air Show outside London in July.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

solarz

Brigadier
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

you may read what FIRE and DOOM stand for ... according to the author of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Interestingly enough, the philosophies described in that article also applies to the software development industry (and to many other projects, I suspect). In software development, we have the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid!
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

you may read what FIRE and DOOM stand for ... according to the author of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Like I said many times in ANY military projects...it's all about the program, just as the article pointed out. But comparing a stealth fighter program to a submarine program is like comparing apples and oranges. The JSF started from scratch while the Virginia class sub was derived from the previous LA class submarine platform to worked on.

Why do weapon programs like the JSF bust their huge budgets and long schedules, while others like the Navy’s Virginia-class submarine program (which won the Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award three times) come in under budget, ahead of schedule, and perform superbly in the field? As Lt. Gen. Davis implied, the answer can often be found at the program’s inception, when the foundation is laid and when program leaders decide which path to follow.

The JSF malpractitioners chose to follow what we might call “the path of D.O.O.M.” – Delayed, Over-budget, Over-engineered, Marginally-effective — by establishing a massive bureaucracy, a distant delivery date, an enormous budget, and a highly complex technical architecture. This fostered an expansive culture where rising price tags and receding milestones were seen as inevitable and where the primary problem-solving strategy was to add time, money, and complexity to the project. Data from the GAO and other reliable analysts agree this is a demonstrably ineffective approach. Because it was on the Path of D.O.O.M., the JSF’s Nunn-McCurdy breaches in 2004 and 2010 were simply a matter of time.
 

delft

Brigadier
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

you may read what FIRE and DOOM stand for ... according to the author of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
An excellent article.
Anyone with technical knowledge could see that designing one airframe in three varieties to reduce production costs would win little as the airframe is not the most expensive part of the aircraft. That are the engine and the electronics. To have one among the three that must be able to land vertically handicaps the other two. And you just don't want to handicap your fighter aircraft. Its competitors will not be handicapped.
That was clear in 1994.
 

Scyth

Junior Member
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Well, pilots of previous generations successfully used their eyeballs in dogfights since WW1 ;) I'm not saying DAS is not useful , especially if it works as advertised in adverse conditions or night, but it is not something you could not live without . Standard IRSTs on 4th gen fighters like Su-30 and Su-35 already have good coverage (+- 90 deg in azimuth , +60 deg -15 deg azimuth ) . It is very questionable could F-35 escape from that zone in close combat .

Those IRST if I'm correct do not work as the DAS system. The former works best by cueing it to a target that's already detected/ tracked by radar.


Kloss says " lightly loaded air-to-air configuration" - that is not a fighter armed only with the gun, that is fighter armed with 2,4, or 6 AAMs (depends on type involved ) . And that is a very realistic scenario - just check the pics of Russian Su-27 or Chinese J-11 in recent incidents . Yup, they were not loaded to the maximum of their capabilities ;).

Another quote from Kloos that you also used:

Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35," Kloos says. "But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it."


That is open for debate. It assumes distinct advantage in avionics, which may or may not be present. It also assumes various anti-stealth technologies developed today would not be effective .

The fact that all countries place their bets on stealthy airframes (UAVs, Fighters, Bombers etc.) reflects the distinctive advantage that stealth technology brings to the fight. The US military does not choose between either stealth or avionics (jamming), but uses both. It can therefore be argued that any progress made in anti-stealth radars, will necessarily bring progress being made to anti-stealth radar jammers. A fighter with a low RCS does not need much jamming assistance, compared to non-stealthy airframes. Radars need to figure out whether any return they get are airplanes, irrelevant returns, errors etc.
 
Top