An interesting article about the F-35 in a purely fighter role, for those unable to gain export licenses for any of the 183 F-22s that will eventually be procured.
“The quality of the box matters little. Success depends upon the man who sits in it.” — Manfred von Richtofen
“The quality of the box matters little. But it does matter.” — Cato
I had the opportunity to sit on an unclass JSF capabilities brief the other day. I found it interesting that all of our foreign partners are apparently getting the same avionics package as we are.
Also, they demoed a “take home” type package that they want to give every RAG student when they check in at the squadron. The student gets a touch screen laptop, HOTAS setup, and VR goggles. The idea is that, since the instruments consist of an 8.5×20 touchscreen, the student could learn all of the systems. without setting foot in a sim or the plane. Interesting.
DAS Boot “F-35 Lightning II DAS system”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNMio9zN2Q
JSF Fuzed Sensor Video Utube:
AESA radar – SAR mapping – DAS & EOTS – 6min http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7-oXs3gezl4&e
Spaz- good vids. Thank you. Where are the U-tube-vies for the Russkies’ next fighter? Amazing what we put out in the open. But still it only has 1 fliegend-motor.
Russian 5th generation fighter: “PAK FA will incorporate technology from both the Su-47 and the MiG 1.44. it will be stealthy, have the ability to supercruise, be outfitted with the next generation of air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles, and incorporate an AESA radar. This machine will use a completely new engines and be able to perform unique maneuvers.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlCHYwIxgeE
“This video has English subtitles (use button under the video to turn them on).”
A representative from one of the PAK-FA’s major partners told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that “the situation is very simple. Right now the only real fifth-generation fighter airplane in service in the world is the F-22A. This state of affairs is not likely to change anytime soon.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15983&R=160C8148EB
Stuff the Russians – do: (Speed is what I need) [compilation]
http://www.youtube.com/user/aleksandarfriscic
Ahhh, von Richtofen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er–DLaG7SM
I’d like to see it, but reportedly it’s very hard to find.
From that trailer (& synopsis) it would seem there is good reason for this movie being ‘missing in showing’.
CGI massed A/C look ridiculous for one thing.
aeroeng, did they happen to touch on how they plan to fix the noise problem?
re The impact statement: “the F-35 may have notable weaknesses for pure air-to-air combat.”
The qualifier?:
“particularly if German and U.K. air-to-air simulations on the kill probability of modern medium-range air-to-air missiles are accurate.”
Key word IMO- accurate. Always a caveat, eh? LOL.
It is what it is.
b2
The Weekly Standard article contains a comment from a Jim Stephenson, who claims that neither ATF competitor demonstrated supercruise. According to USAF, the contractors involved, and those involved in the test program, this is false. Both aircraft demonstrated supercruise – the YF-22 reaching Mach 1.58 in mil power and the YF-23 reaching Mach 1.43. Both aircraft achieved better supercruise speeds with the now-cancelled GE YF120 engine than with the F119, but the F119 has since been improved so that the production F-22A can supercruise at around 1.8 Mach (1188 mph – 1020 kts).
Regarding the original article, I’m rather nonplussed that Lockheed Martin’s assumptions regarding air combat effectiveness depend on the aircraft achieving most kills in the BVR environment. There may be alot of situations where BVR kilss cannot be made due to ROE or inability to firmly establish target ID. If the F-35 is as limited in WVR as it may appear to be (with a thrust to weight ratio and wing loading comparable to an early model F-4 Phantom II), this does not bode well for the aircraft in an air superiority role. The aircraft is essentially a strike platform, then, with a limited air combat capability for air defense. Again, if these assessments are true, Robert Gates is a liar and is opposed to the F-22 strictly on cost grounds and the endless procurement death spiral, where development is favored over production, will continue. I will remind everyone that Gates has claimed the F-35 is just as effective as the F-22 in air combat.
Where’s the gun?
“The F-35 includes a GAU-22/A four-barrel 25 mm cannon. The Cannon will be mounted internally with 180 rounds in the F-35A and fitted as an external pod with 220 rounds in the F-35B and F-35C.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
&
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/UpsideDownWorldForumED.jpg
When I did the structural analysis of the gun pod attachments, it was only for the B model. The C model gets no gun.
There isn’t one on the Navy or USMC F-35s
Forgive my ignorance, but is supercruise something that is just laying around? Or did we invent it? If we did, how does Russia have it?
Or is this one of those things that is theorized and now with the appropriate computer power etc anyone can make it work.
Supercruise means the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without using afterburner. It is not a unique capability, but it is fairly rare. The F-22 supercruise capability, however, is quite unique because, unlike most previous “supercruise” aircraft, which could fly at maybe Mach 1.05 without afterburner in a clean (no weapons) configuration, the F-22 can fly at Mach 1.8 with a full weapons load – an enormous difference, of course.
It’s not a state secret. Supercruise can be incorporated into any number of aircraft with the right combination of thrust, lift, and drag.
Yeah Mike and tell him there is only one engine, too. But don’t ’splain that is exactl;y what the govmint (military pilots in command) ordered up 15 years ago…sigh.
Next we’ll have the inevitable “original” idea(yawn) about buying more drop wing, fuel low lite SuperHornets…YEAH!
b2
The Concord flew past the number in mil power, it took burner to get there though.
Concorde could get to supercruise in non-afterburner but it took so long it burned more fuel than it did to go up to speed in reheat. Once established Concord entered its most efficient mode and was able to fly across the pond on one tank of fuel. I think that the SR-71 had a sweet spot up around Mach 3 in terms of range / speed.
At present, the JSF is too loud to fly within the CONUS. It could not be placed on any base in existence within the US and pass the obligatory environmental impact assessment. This also puts a curb in plans to sell it to allies overseas. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed and I never see discussed. Everyone talks about what a great plane it is. Sounds super duper, but if you can’t fly or train nearly anywhere it will be practically useless.
“Meanwhile, extensive testing by Lockheed Martin and the Royal Australian Air Force, an intended customer, has found that the F-35 is not as noisy as feared. That issue has threatened to disrupt basing plans and potentially presents health risks to ground personnel.
The F-35 is only about as noisy as an F-16 fitted with a Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 engine, Burbage says. It is quieter than the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and the Boeing F/A0-18E/F Super Hornet. “It is noisier than a classic Hornet [F/A-18A-D] but not much noisier,” says Air Vice Marshal John Harvey, manager of Australia’s New Air Combat Capability program.
Moreover, the F-35 often will be able to minimize airfield noise by taking off without afterburner, partly due to its internal weapons and fuel stowage.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-031209.xml&headline=F-35 May Need Thermal Management Changes
Spaz, you are amazing with the aviation links. You seem to have one for just about every topic.
That video on the EO-DAS was almost freakish – if it works as advertised, a fantastic capability. Of course, contractors never oversell their capabilities. Snark aside, knowing what I do of progress in IR and EO sensors, this could be a very unique, very capable asset. Again…quite a strike aircraft, she maybe (but with short legs and not necessarily much payload), but air-to-air…..I’m still rather skeptical.
I’d rather have had more F-22s with large wing (Agile Falcon), block 60/62 F-16s.
Spaz,
If Air Vice Marshal John Harvey is referring to sound on the ground when the planes are a thousand feet above, he might be right. I don’t believe he is correct otherwise. I believe the JSF is significantly louder than an F16 below 500 feet (or an F22).
Consider that the initial environmental impact assessment for the JSF at Eglin determined that noise levels at several locations were above prescribed limits. This didn’t happen, to my knowledge, with the F22.
They’ve decided to still bed-down the planes at Eglin, but they’ve limited the number and imposed operational limitations on flight training activities.
From the Record of the decision:
“Due to the potential noise impacts both on and off Eglin AFB that the Air Force desires toconsider more fully, there will be temporary operational limitations imposed on JSF flighttraining activities to both avoid and minimize noise impacts. Those limitations will remain inplace until the SEIS has been completed and the Air Force has decided how best to proceed withBRAC operational requirements. These limitations take advantage of the gradual build-up of F-35s beginning in 2010. These limitations are not, however, practical for use on a long-term basis.Ultimately, cancellation or modification of these limitations will be required to accommodate the59 F-35 PAA beddown.”
“An environmental impact statement is necessary because establishment of the F-35 ITC, ordered by the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure commission, will double the number of sorties at Eglin by the time the centre is fully operational. Local reports say Eglin plans to reduce the noise impact by spreading JSF flying training between three airfields at the base.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/16/219642/training-central-lockheed-martin-prepares-for-f-35-jsf.html
F-35 Simulator – Virtual fighter:
“While the F-35 is several years away from entering service, Lockheed and its partners appear to be well on the way to fielding a highly integrated fifth-generation fighter. The F-35 may not supercruise or have the manoeuvrability of an F-22, but its stealth is on par with its high-priced stablemate. Combined with fused tactical information from both on- and off-board sensors, stealth should allow the F-35 to engage a wide range of targets – some having no idea what hit them.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/200….al-fighter.html
I’m not certain what you’re showing me in number 19 above? Yes, environmental impact assessments are always necessary in these cases. They were necessary for the F22s also.
The JSF had problems and is deemed too loud, ergo, they will have to curb some training while they do another impact assessment and try to come up with a plan. Spreading the flying between three airfields apparently wasn’t enough.
Okay, found something that at least offers a bit of information on the level of decibels here: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/268300
“Another major worry about the JSF is that under Dutch law, residents and noise-pollution experts all warn, the JSF is 21 Dba louder than the F16 during takeoffs and landings.”
Were these ‘afterburner’ takeoffs by the same engined F-16s [F-16 fitted with a Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 engine] referred to in the Oz report (details otherwise unknown to me). Perhaps F-35 afterburnerless takeoffs will help the Dutch with their noise plight.
Larry/
I’m with you all the way on the 22s and Agile Falcons. Sad to say, the JSF looks like another under-performing (however slightly) expensive (for the fly-away price) compromise that let the Marines love affair with VSTOL muck up the works needlessly.
And as for stealth long range strike–hell that’s what the old F-105 was DESIGNED for. Had the internal bomb bay and was accidentally so stealthy they had to put over-sized panel on nose gear as a radar reflector just so GCA/PAR/ILS systems could SEE the damn thing! Could have hauled that bird out of the grave, shoe-horned in new electronics and gotten the range and ordnance capacity plus decent stealth
plus lots more 22s for air to air for a helluva lot less$–just not as sexy and would have left the Marines at the altar plus nojoy for Lex’s crowd either.
The 35 is what happens when the bean-counters pinch pennies rather than designing a specialized aircraft for each mission. In this line of work “jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none” usually gets you killed.
Addendum:
The comparison with the F-111 is obvious, but not in the way many might think. The 111 ended up accidentally being the premier, un-rivaled, long-range strike fighter par-excellence., but I’m not sure the 35 will really excel in anything. To my mind the parallel is in the way the planning and development of both aircraft revealed the mindset of both designers and end-use operators who consistently seize upon “advances” in technology desperately in order to rationalize their way out of budgetary binds with the promise and allure of the ability to save money and satisfy everyone’s needs via the silver bullet seemingly offered by pushing the envelope of technology.
And by trying to leap-frog generations rather than opt for a more evolutionary approach, we are constantly exposed to the very real danger (as is being played out now) of gaping holes in capabilities when systems are delayed either for technical reason by dint of trying to do too much or for budgetary reasons (often a result of the gold-plating syndrome) or both. Not a pretty picture–and it doesn’t look like we are mastering the learning curve very well despite over a half century of dealing with these problems.
I concur with Larry. The F-35A is probably a reasonable and cheap substitute for the F-22 in BVR engagements, but for close-in turn and burn it seems obvious that it’s going to be a handful dealing with even Gen 4.5 fighters with significant thrust vectoring.
With ‘look & kill’ technology it would seem to me that the ‘turn & burn’ days are gone. New tech has to be proven – it seems to me just having to get on someone’s six is irrelevant today with ‘lock & launch’ (or ‘lose your lunch’) ASRAAM missiles.
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/03/06/asraam-arriving/
Not quite. The over-the-shoulder shot carries a high price in missile kinematics. Not to mention the effects of countermeasures.
Well bullets have the same problem getting through the hot air in front. Glad that same hot air became a target source for old AIMs – saved a lot of gruntin’ & groanin’.
Go your hardest with the Su videos here:
http://www.air-attack.com/videos/80/page/6
It will all be irrelevant in short order. I’ve read about plans for a 2 seat f-22 so the guy in the second seat could pilot a uav. Reminiscent of the Apache thing – and it just screams out the question – why do the people need to be up there at all?
I can’t imagine how manned aircraft will survive when unmanned will be better and cheaper.
Sorry – maybe off topic but I just read a couple more chapters of Wired for War and I have no idea how it will make sense to keep pilots in combat aircraft.
The real lesson here is that when you want to make a multi-service fighter that works, let the Navy run the program, not the Air Force.
b2 says:
What the article in question actually says:
The MRAAMs in question being the AIM-120, the R-77, and their ilk. The Euro sims point to a modern MRAAM’s kill probability being less, not greater, than assumed. That fact increases the F-35’s odds of surviving an air-air engagement, at least until ramjet MRAAMs like the Meteor start being thrown about.
Right, if BVR kills are less likely, for whatever reason (missile performance, countermeasures, ROE, target ID, etc), that makes WVR combat more important. The numbers on the F-35 for ACM don’t look so good. There were two sets of numbers presented, providing some very rough idea as to how the aircraft would perform in WVR air combat. The first set, indicated the F-35 ain’t gonna be so good. The second set looked better, but were calculated at 40% internal fuel with no external load! So, combat is always going to take place with the F-35 on it’s return leg, heading home?
The 40% internal fuel performance figures are about the best the aircraft can reasonably be expected to perform in an operational environment, and the T-W ratio quoted there (1.09) is good, but the wing loading is still high. In anything like a more realistic scenario, where the aircraft will weigh more, the wing loading is going to be heading to territory that ain’t real good, from a maneuverability perspective.
The only positive thing I see is the high-alpha. Beyond that, I’m skeptical of the F-35s dogfighting capabilities.
Well the program spec was that the F-35 had to meet or beat F-16 capabilities in A/A and A/G… but will that be sufficient to tackle most of the threat spectrum for the next 30 years?
At one time, the F-X program spec that led to the F-15 called for a swing-wing Mach 3+ aircraft. Those things have a tendency to change.
Wonder what the wing loading would be on the F-35C with the larger wing, and what effect that would have on WVR fight.
Spin and sophistry. With only 2 percent of flight testing complete and a situation where no one knows what it costs, over-hype is not enough to base a sales decision on for a gold-plated wonder. Especially in the new post-economic meltdown.