Forum: F-35 Lightning II

What he said (eg the avionics hardware is the same with only FCS settings being different) Smile

btw, The F-35s all share the same software build. Each F-35, when it fires up, recognizes what it is (A/B/C) and uses the appropriate settings.

F-16.net Sponsor

arkadyrenko wrote:

Second, about the bistatic drones....

If those two body shapes were kept separate, yes you would have lost some savings, but I believe the improved performance of the two body shapes, due to the more focused requirements on each, and the cost savings that accompanied that more focused requirement would have been worth it.

Two points: Bistatic is where AEW will be going to defend against stealthily adversaries, imo.

If the -B was developed as a separate program, the cost to actually develop and field the aircraft would be transparent and attributable. It probably would not survive the budgeteers. At least in the current program, it has a chance amid the smoke and mirrors of the JSF program.

I think I confused myself, and a lot of people, when I talked about avionics. What I meant is that the EW, Radar, Combat systems, etc, those will be largely the same, even across the two different aircraft bodies, because they use the same electronics. The fly - by - wire flight controls are going to be different. I believe that one can capture the first commonality across programs, to a large degree, even if the A/C and the B had two different base shapes.

Maus, that's a terrible reason for the B version to be rolled into the overall program. We'll get it through by 'smoke and mirrors.' Shouldn't the B have gone through on its own merits?

SpudmanWP wrote:

btw, How has the B really affected the design of the A/C?

With LHD lift requirement.

Still, I think B is more than worth saving, since it'll enhance Marines' aerial efficiency, several times over what they had with Harrier.
How cost/efficient is to give Marines such a plane is a question for strategists, but I'd say it's a hint of Marines moving into more "independent" waters.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Maus, that's a terrible reason for the B version to be rolled into the overall program. We'll get it through by 'smoke and mirrors.' Shouldn't the B have gone through on its own merits?

The F-22 should have too, but got the ax at 187.

cola wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

btw, How has the B really affected the design of the A/C?

With LHD lift requirement.

Still, I think B is more than worth saving, since it'll enhance Marines' aerial efficiency, several times over what they had with Harrier.
How cost/efficient is to give Marines such a plane is a question for strategists, but I'd say it's a hint of Marines moving into more "independent" waters.

The USMC are also replacing their F-18A-D and EA-6B with the F-35B, so it's not just a Harrier replacement.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Woohoo, finally got taken apart by another commentator.

I suspect most people aren't bothering with your comments because they are horribly misinformed.

arkadyrenko wrote:

1) About Marine Air, all elements of the US military are tools of power projection, that doesn't meant that they are all necessary. My comment about Marine Air was fairly simple, compared to the USAF / USN, Marine Air will not add a massive amount to the US military's projection capability in the Pacific. Now, it will add some elements, and in other places I have mentioned a few of the attributes, but its not irreplaceable. My complaint about Marine Air was that the B version seems to be driving the JSF program, notice how it, not the A/C variants, should reach IOC first. Which is odd because the A needs to reach IOC first, so that the USAF doesn't need to start SLEP-ing F-16s.

That is an incorrect reading of the situation. Marines intend to introduce their fighters earlier because they are willing to fly them with only block II software, while the AF/Navy want Block III. That decision has no bearing on which starts first.

arkadyrenko wrote:

2) Avionics are different, yes that much is true. But at this point in the JSF program, I think we can safely acknowledge that the avionics are going to be substantially different between the A/B/C variant, if for nothing else each version has a different body shape. My comment was that the combat systems and sensors could have been common across the 3 variants, so you would capture some degree of commonality. And then, the decreased commonality from dissimilar airframes would be acceptable because of a decrease in cost.

As the others have noted, that is simply not true at all.

arkadyrenko wrote:

3) The Pacific... Here we go. First, any base in Okinawa will be annihilated in the opening hours of a conflict. I am of the opinion that basing fighters there will be useless and worse, a potential deathtrap. The Chinese will be able to throw far more cruise / ballistic missiles at Okinawa than is affordable or perhaps even possible to defend. Oddly enough, the only fighter that'll work in Okinawa will probably the the B variant, but that's part of another discussion. The only way to make Okinawa work is to turn it into a fortress, and I don't see the Japanese doing that any time soon.

Look, I know you're just reading from the RAND analyst Power Point. As a piece of analysis that PP was actually quite poor, making a ton of assumptions that are unlikely to play out in a real conflict or are completely unrealistic.

For some reason he picks Guam to base fighters, when there is a whole host of bases in Japan that are closer and more survivable. In addition to MCAS Iwakuni, the JASDF has Iwo Jima, Nyutabaru and Tsuiki that are closer to Okinawa. That doesn't even consider all of the civil facilities that can be used for operations, such as the fields on Miyako and Amani islands. And frankly, no weapon is as critical for Taiwan's defence as the F-35B. None.

Finally the report doesn't really consider naval air, or how other states may respond. Naval Air does not need to overfly Taiwan to have an effect. Even outside the DF-21's range it can create sanctuaries for tankers and other support aircraft. Due to all of these holes, RAND disavowed the report soon after it was released.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Second, about the bistatic drones. I saw that story and yes, the USAF is working on increasing the capability of the AWACS. But do you remember how there was going to be a replacement AWACS, the E-10 I believe? And, the Navy upgraded the E-2's radar, why didn't the air force upgrade the E-3? The cash crunch caused by the delayed JSF program has been pushing back other necessary USAF purchases. That fact shouldn't be controversial.

I disagree. The F-35 has had cost increases, for sure. Its nowhere near the budgetary monster that you suggest however. The increases into Development costs thus far are three billion dollars. The real factors to why there has been a lag in new development: the increase operational budget due to Afghanistan and Iraq and the economic meltdown. Those two are far more relevant to the lack of major upgrades than the JSF. DOD faces 350 billion in cuts this fall... an added 3 billion for development is not the issue. Furthermore its budget has been directed towards UAVs for the war.

arkadyrenko wrote:

About the F/A-XX, it should have greater combat radius than the F-22, due to engine advances, a more cruise efficient body shape (oddly enough, S-Band stealth and cruise efficiency go together, lucky that), and a conscious trade-off to decrease maneuverability to achieve the first two goals.

So I guess you know what DoD is going to favour in its CDP... even before the program has started? No offense you have absolutely no ability to predict anything at this point. I suspect the people who will even determine what performance capabilities will be needed have not been moved into the organizational positions where they will be expected to make that decision five years from now.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

How Much for That Stovl Capability?