US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Regarding the Jane's article on the F-35 JSF, I don't think the JSF is anywhere that bad. I actually think the JSF will be a good fighter/attack jet. Here's my rebuttal of the above Jane's article:

1. The assumed information by Jane's about the JSF may be false. The US military does send out disinformation. Look how well the US military sold the very questionable Iraq War and how the US military is hiding what is completely going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. The JSF may not be overweight. It can hold a maximum of ~18,000 lb of internal fuel (it depends on the JSF's 3 models: A, B, and C). The F-16 holds a maximum of ~7,000 lb of internal fuel and the F-16 flies most missions with external fuel tanks and external fuel tanks adds weight, drag, and wear-and-tear on the wings. In other words, the JSF may be overweight, but mostly because it can hold an enormous amount of internal fuel. Once the JSF flies into its combat zone, it could only have 2/3rd of its fuel left.

(2/3) X (18,000 lb of max internal fuel) = 12,000 lb still in the internal fuel tanks by the time the JSF reaches its combat zone.

18,000 lb -- 12,000 lb = 6,000 lb used up in the internal fuel tanks by the time the JSF reaches its combat zone.

So the JSF could have lost 6,000 lb by the time it reaches its combat zone. This will improve the JSF's thrust-to-weight ration and wing loading. The same thing applies to all combat planes.

3. In realistic situations, the JSF has at least comparable performance to the F-16. Check out the data.

JSF vs. F-16
Empty Weight: ~29,000 lb to ~32,000 lb (depends on the model A, B, or C) vs. ~19,000 lb

Fuel Capacity: ~18,000 lb internally vs. ~18,000 lb internally and externally

Configuration 1 = Empty Weight + ~18,000 lb of fuel + 1,200 lb of 4 missiles: 48,200 lb to 51,200 vs. 32,000

Dry Thrust: 25,000 lb vs. 17,155 lb

Dry Thrust to Weight Ratio (w/ configuration 1): 0.51 to 0.488 vs. 0.536

Max Thrust: 40,000 lb vs. 28,600 lb

Max Thrust to Weight Ratio (w/ configuration 1): 0.83 to 0.78 vs. 0.89

Wing Area: 459.6 sq ft vs. 300 sq ft

Wing Loading (w/ configuration 1): 104.87 lb per sq ft to 111.4 lb per sq ft vs. 106.67 lb per sq ft.

Remember that the JSF does all of this with a clean configuration (everything is carried internally) but a similarly equipped F-16 will need external fuel tanks and the F-16 carries all missiles (and bombs) externally under its wings. This means a combat ready JSF is probably much more aerodynamic than a combat ready F-16 or any other combat-ready, 4th-gen fighter jet. This means the combat ready JSF could be more fuel efficient, faster, more agile, have no increased radar signature, and experience less wear-and-tear on its wings and weapons when compared to 4th gen fighter jets.

The JSF has very advanced electronics and it could have 2-D or 3-D vectored thrust. The JSF should have more advanced air intakes than the F-16.

The result: The clean JSF COULD have superior performance in most situations than the externally loaded F-16.

4. The JSF can internally carry 4 missiles, and each AMRAAM weights less than 400 lb, so the clean JSF can carry 4 missiles without greatly lowering its thrust-to-weight ratio, wing loading, putting extra wear-and-tear on its wings, and ruining its slick aerodynamics.

5. The advanced, stealthy JSF has far superior electronics and a much smaller radar signature than the F-16. Teamwork is very important for the military, even for small units like the Navy SEALs. The JSF should have a variety of modern communication systems so it could work well with other military personnel and military tools like other fighter jets, AWACs, ground support, satellite assistance, central command, and naval ships.

The JSF is not perfect, but it seems like a good fighter jet to replace the F-16 and F/A-18. The JSF lacks the F-15 fighter jet's larger radar, top speed, high-speed acceleration (acceleration from Mach 1.0 to Mach 2.5) , and external capacities, but the JSF is much, much more stealthy, it is probably more agile, and it can fly clean, so the JSF may cruise faster (super cruise?) and more efficiently than the F-15 from Mach 0.0 to Mach 1.6. I guess that an F-15 fighter jet with its typical external weapons load is UNABLE to reach Mach 2.5. If it can, then it does so with lots of drag and wear-and-tear.

The JSF may not be an overweight, expensive 5th generation fighter jet. I think a better description of the JSF is an expensive 5th generation fighter jet with ENORMOUS internal capacities and optional, large external capacities.The JSF is a good 5th generation fighter jet when you look at its whole package.

With AWACs, then things get pretty complicated and I'll leave out AWACs even though AWACs is extremely important in modern and future air combat.

I am just a fan of military stuff. What do the more knowledgeable members think of my analysis of the JSF?

In reguards to the article..which is no news really it's a blog in my opinion...co-authored by Winslow T. Wheeler. A retired US Government GAO person with 31 years service. Since his retirement he has only been a pundant of US Military purchases and equipment.

Hey Popeye,

Are you being sarcastic or are you saying this guy is being lazy with his analysis and he is just posting a meaningless blog article.

If what you say about this guy is true, then he may have lots of military experience. But does he have the correct type of military experience? If he has lots of fighter jet experience or if he has access to classified fighter jet information, then maybe he knows something fans like me are unaware about. If he is knowledgeable about fighter jets, then his opinion is a very bad criticism of the JSF.

Hey Popeye,

Are you being sarcastic or are you saying this guy is being lazy with his analysis and he is just posting a meaningless blog article.

Click to expand...

No, no no..He's using his postion he once held to gain info and skew the facts so he can make a living in the blogisphere. He's always been negitive about the US Military. That's what he does. No more no less.

Well the latest on the battle of the tankers is in and.... Wait till next year! thats Right Robert Gates and the Gang have gone through so much Tums and aspirin at the DOD watching Boeing and Airbus Duke it out, listened to enough GAO lectures and the like that they have thrown in the towel! leaving it too the next administration to either sit on or act on. this leaves the USAF with aging KC 10's and the Engine dropping Rusting Ike era KC 135 R

of course we all know the Story of how Boeing and Airbus came into their fight in hopes of replacing the aging tankers with new airframes but where Airbus came with there "A" game in the form of the A330 MRTT ( the one that won as KC45 ) Boeing banked on the home team edge and lost with there smaller 767 ( also baggage from a scandal a earlier lease deal) and is now trying to mulligan with the KC 777 and a GAO report the whole thing a mess as neither is giving so much as an inch and the Airforce as to keep looking over it's shoulder because the GAO is pointing out every missed dot and cross on the T.

Contract Awarded for 1st of New U.S. Carrier Class

The U.S. Navy awarded Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding a $5.1 billion contract Sept. 10 to begin construction of the first ship of a new class of aircraft carrier. Northrop's Newport News, Va., shipyard will build the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), lead ship of the first new class of nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carriers in more than four decades.

The Newport News yard is the only shipyard in the world currently capable of building the large aircraft carriers used by the Navy. CVN 78-class ships are expected to displace around 100,000 tons with a length of nearly 1,100 feet. The design of the new flattops includes a new flight deck with an improved weapon handling system, advanced arresting gear, a newly developed electromagnetic aircraft launch system, new and simplified nuclear propulsion plants and a new electrical power generation system.

The last 10 aircraft carriers belong to the Nimitz class. Construction on the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) began in 1967 and the ship entered service in 1975. The tenth and last ship of the class, the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), is expected to be delivered to the Navy in 2009.

The new, seven-year cost-plus incentive fee contract covers the detail design and construction of the Gerald R. Ford. Advance construction of the ship began in 2005 under a separate contract valued at $2.7 billion. Total cost of the new carrier is expected to be about $11 billion; Keel-laying is scheduled to take place in the fall of 2009 with delivery to the fleet in 2015.

Northrop also announced the delivery of the USS Green Bay (LPD 20), the fourth and latest unit of the San Antonio LPD 17-class of amphibious transport dock ships. The Green Bay ran its Navy acceptance trials in August and was turned over to the service on Aug. 29.

The ship successfully rode out Hurricane Gustav at its building yard in Pascagoula, Miss., Northrop said. The Green Bay, which will be homeported at San Diego, is expected to be commissioned into service early next year.

Click to expand...

More JSF related material so im putting it in here...even tho its mainly Australian news.



Fitzgibbon wants details of JSF concerns

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has demanded details on the performance of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) following a report the jet had performed poorly in war games against a rival plane.

The JSF, for which Australia is likely to pay $16 billion, was comprehensively beaten in highly-classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighters, The West Australian reported.

"I've asked for a full report from defence and I'll rely upon that report to come to some conclusion about whether there is merit in the newspaper article," Mr Fitzgibbon told ABC TV tonight.

Despite not backing the report, Mr Fitzgibbon said it vindicated his stance on the controversial fighter.

"I'm determined not to sign on the dotted line on the JSF until I am absolutely certain it's capable of delivering the capability it promises and that capability can be delivered on time and on budget."

Mr Fitzgibbon said Lockheed's F-22 Raptor was unlikely to be able to fill the same capability as the JSF.

He said the government retained the ability to change the purchase date of the JSF.

Regarding the Australian news' criticism of the JSF, I am not surprised.

The Su-27 and its derivatives are superb dogfighters, and so is the MiG-29 and its derivatives. The Su-27 family and the MiG-29 family have fought very well against the F-16C, F/A-18C Hornet, and the F-15C, but this was only in dogfights. The Su-27 family might be able to defeat the Eurofighter Typhoon in a dogfight. I don't know any jet fighter that has an advantage in dogfighting over the Su-27 family and the MiG-29 family except possibly China's J-10 and America's F-22.

It seems that the US and European Union have different priorities than the Russians when it comes to designing fighter jets. The US and EU seem to favor long-range combat (radar and missiles), stealth, high-speed performance, electronic warfare, and AWACs more than the Russians. The Russians favor dogfighting capabilities (agility and electronics that quickly track and lock onto targets), superb missiles for all ranges of combat, and affordable solutions more than the US and EU.

Pilot skill matters, too.

Infra_Man99 said:

The Su-27 family and the MiG-29 family have fought very well against the F-16C, F/A-18C Hornet, and the F-15C, but this was only in dogfights. .

Click to expand...

This statement is not correct. I can't recall many instances where any of these fighters have gotten into dogfights. In general, Western fighters have outperformed the MiG-29 in actual combat; as far as I can remember right now (and I am very tired and my brain isn't working too well, so forgive me if I'm wrong) the only time they have actually fought against the US fighters you mentioned was in Gulf War I and the Kosovo Campaign, in both wars the MiG 29s didn't get any kills, and were primarily killed before they could even close to range with the Americans. The Su-27 has never gone up against any USAF or USN aircraft, so it has no record to speak of. It has however downed up to 5 MiG-29s in the Ethiopia-Eritrea War. Also 1 Su-27 at least has been shot down in combat, by a MANPAD in Angola in 2000.

I believe most of those statistics are found by using computer simulations. We must also remember that half the job is done by the pilot and relies on the quality of training. Regarding the Gulf War, American pilots pointed to the fact that Iraqi pilots used very basic tactics and rarely did any advanced manoeuvres with their planes, so American pilots had little difficulty in locking on to them. I'd say modern Russian airplanes generally are superior to western planes when it comes to aerodynamics and manoeuvreability (note few western planes are able to do the "Pugachev's Cobra"), but western planes usually are better at engaging at long distances, usually taking out the enemy before they even see each other.