Forum: F-35 milestones

A lot of what you are saying make sense. The program has a lot to prove, and maybe LM need to show some more of their cards in terms of aircraft performance. When I asked questions about the maneuverability issues mentioned in the QLR, I was reassured by many that this issue only had to do with some buffeting at certain angels of attack. Somehow I'm not to sure about that now.

F-16.net Sponsor

Aces,
I'm sure a lot of the F-35 issues are standard stuff for a new design. AOA limits, whatever they are, are a fact of life while the envelope is expanded for any new jet. I truly don't think the sky is falling, in that regard.

Great set of posts TTS, sums up the issues nicely.

Quote:

so the F-35 is no longer leaps and bounds better, it's just a bit better for a lot more money and a longer wait.

The F-35 is not just a little bit better.

Yes, some 4th generation jets have received some capabilities comparable to the F-35... just as an F-15's avionics could have been retrofitted to an F-4.

The F-4 would have been quite a bit more capable, but it would have remained an F-4. There were limitations inherent in its airframe that could never be corrected by updates.

It is no different with the F-35. Even if you could drop its entire suite of avionics into a Super Hornet or something similar, which will never happen, the F-35 would retain substantial advantages due to the LO properties inherent in its airframe. An F-35 will be capable of operating effectively in environments that no SH of F-16 will ever be able to, no matter what upgrade it receives. This is a big deal. You can't just treat it as a box to be checked on a list of features.

Look at it this way...

Imagine if you had the choice of flying one of two jets.

Jet A flies like an F-22. Speed, turning capability, everything, but otherwise it is an F-15 with an F-15s sensors, RCS, etc.

Jet B flies like an F-15, but it has an F-22's stealth, sensors, etc, everything but the kinematics.

Which would you pick? I know which one the USAF would pick in this scenario. (and I know which would perform better in the real world)

This is essentially the choice that the Pentagon made with the F-35. They chose stealth, sensors, datalinks, fusion, etc over raw performance. They could have added incredible kinematics to the package, but doing so would have driven costs and complexity even higher. F-16 performance was considered acceptable.

Isn't the following true:

F-35, being stealthy, with all around view sensors, LPoI radar, datalinked with other F-35s, and faster cruise speed than 4th gen loaded out with 6 aams, and high internal fuel storage.... Doesn't that negate a 4th gen (clean) having some kind of marginally better accelleration though transonic, and better (clean) maneuverability?

Doesn't the fact that the F-35 is *always* in combat trim yield high turn around rates? More sorties than 4th gen because it doesn't need to fitted with sniper pods, external fuel tanks, external pylons, so on and so forth?

Everything I've read on modern a2a combat says he who see's the other guy first will probably prevail. The -35 will get off some 120s before being seen by the targets targetted by the 120s. So right from the get go, if the 120s fail to intercept, those bogies are on the defensive before they knew they were in a fight. They're mentality, of the pilots, goes from flying circles in the sky to having salvo of 120s coming at them, which will really screw with their state of mind, raise they're blood pressure, and cause them to panic and make mistakes.

The reason for the -35 being quite bulky is because it carries internally the amount the amount of fuel some fighters take 1-2 external tanks, and because it carries 4000lbs of a2g munitions while still carrying internally a couple of aams for self defence.

Looking the history of American fighters, their thrust has consistently gone up, and up. Look at the F-16 of today versus 1983. So, I believe before its said and done the -35 may wind up with something on the order 50,000lbs of thrust - and that kind of thrust in that sized aircraft will be more than enough to compensate for its current predicament of being slower through transonic speed because of its large surface area.

And I don't believe the -35 is slower than a -16 through all regions of flight. Looking at take off videos, I've seen -16s lighting up their cans to keep up with the -35 in dry thrust - so the -35 isn't slower than a -16 in all regions of flight.... probably just a small subset.

sewerrat wrote:

Isn't the following true:

..........
....
....

And I don't believe the -35 is slower than a -16 through all regions of flight. Looking at take off videos, I've seen -16s lighting up their cans to keep up with the -35 in dry thrust - so the -35 isn't slower than a -16 in all regions of flight.... probably just a small subset.

geezz! Please leave them something to complain about! Laughing

It ain't perfect but it is better than what we have! Wink

Sorry for this late reply... I've been a bit busy.

twintwinsingle wrote:

HB,
I agree with you on the importance of sensors and systems in modern combat. That is where the fight has moved and where it is likely to stay. I also agree that, with the advent of the F-16 and F-15 in the '70's, there really isn't much room for performance to increase dramatically. I always tell the story of an old DO I had as a LT. He was flying F-4's in USAFE in '77 when an LRIP Viper did a "European Tour" before one of the Euro airshows (Farnboro or Paris...not sure). They tried to get as many guys in the squadron as possible to fly, in their F-4, with the Viper and do a maneuvering comparison. He said it was literally unbelievable what they were seeing that Viper do. Turn at almost double their rate and half their radius, all while maintaining his energy, climbing at 90 deg NH, slowing down to 150 kts or less and powering out of it into the vertical...these are things that fighters COULD NOT DO! Well...fighters have been able to do that for 35 years now...so not a lot of room to move up, is there?
I totally agree that it was smart to pick and choose where to spend the development time and money to advance F-35 capabilities beyond legacy (sensors) and where to go with comparable performance with legacy jets (maneuver)...no argument. Having said that, the result of that design philosophy is an airframe that is, honestly, good but not great.

See I disagree. I think the F-35 does have some "great" capabilities. Stealth + sensor fusion is a "great" capability. There is nothing like it in the world like it or will be for the next decade at least. Its certainly not going to be seen on Russian or Chinese systems for the next decade (if ever for the Russians.)

twintwinsingle wrote:

The inherent capabilities of the airplane to maneuver, maintain energy, etc. are at or below the state of the art from the 1970's...but I agree that it is good enough. The big problem I forsee, and perhaps I haven't articulated well enough, is the systems complexity and commonality requirements driving the field date further right and the cost up.

Yes systems complexity drives up costs, but what's the alternative? You're the one calling for more maneuverability and performance; that means more titanium and composite structures to give added strength at a lighter weight, as well as better engines ect; that's a whole lot of complexity right there.

And complexity is going to happen: other nations are loading up their aircraft with ever increasing avionics and sensors. Deliberately limited them would be denying the warfighter the one capability which has given the United States the undeniable edge in warfare for the past 30 years. Due to investments in this field, they are more than a decade and a half if not two decades ahead of the Russians and Chinese.

twintwinsingle wrote:

The delays in fielding have already resulted in many of the F-35's "game changing" systems being surpassed by similar systems fielded on legacy jets. EOTS is a perfect example. In 2001, that system was eye watering...in 2011 it's below average, in 2019 it will be poor.

Can you point to me which systems make the EOTS outmoded? From everthing I've seen and heard, its still an excellent system, which is why it will be integrated into the Avenger.

Furthermore I really think you're undervaluing the advantaged of the F-35's production scale. With over 2000 aircraft produced across 12 organizations (US Services plus other national members), it will only encourage more development of its subsystems. That's in comparison to 600 Superhornets in service with only one organization, that now must solely fund its development. The latter situation is precisely why you never saw the Enhance Performance Engine funded by the Navy: too expensive for too small a fleet. By comparison, upgrades to the F135 are almost certain to happen by 2025, partly because the R&D costs can be amortized across a vastly larger fleet of aircraft.

twintwinsingle wrote:

This always happens with new systems, to an extent, but the excessive slip of the F-35 program has allowed the 4th gen jets to "close the gap" to a large extent. They will never be stealthy, agreed, and they'll never have the level of systems integration of the F-35, no doubt, but they will have an AESA radar, new sniper pod, AIM-120D, JHMCS, AIM-9XB2, etc (all for 50% less money per copy)...so the F-35 is no longer leaps and bounds better, it's just a bit better for a lot more money and a longer wait.

And while you're mounting all of these capabilities, you're further burdening their performance, which means we're not talking about the F-16A, but the F-16C block 50 with massive conformal tanks, carrying external pods and protrusions, without low observables, sensor fusion of the F-35 or the blazing performance of its original iteration. You see the Super Hornet getting an external IRST Pod that increases weight and cuts into the aircraft's meager range. At one point or another, the process of bolting on additional capabilities to a 30 year old frame passes beyond operational and financial viability. That's where we are with the F-16 and to a lesser extent the F/A-18E.

twintwinsingle wrote:

The cost increase, while maybe not as disasterous as the Raptor, EuroFighter or Rafale, is significant and has taken the jet from being viewed as a very capable "fighter for the masses" to getting the "superfighter" tag placed on it...and again, a "superfighter" should be great at things, not good enough.

That raises the argument about generations 4.0 vs. 4.5 vs. 5.0. I think this is frequently misconstrued as people wanting the 4th gen jets to "hang around" longer or having it out for the 5th gen jets...pure vendetta stuff. I would say that is not the case (for most folks). There are, to be sure, some folks who hate the idea of spending billions on any military tech, no matter how good the product or how great a value it is to national defense. There are also a few guys who truly love the Eagle or Viper and don't want to see it be the 2nd class citizen and so they argue about how the F-35 can't hang with the older jets, so lets just keep 'em around longer. But, I contend that the majority of folks, especially operators of this equipment, are just looking at numbers. I know that's the case for me. Do you honestly think I'd rather fly a jet designed 40 years ago into combat if I could fly something state of the art? That's crazy! Having said that, though, the cost creep and schedule slip of the Raptor and F-35 have made it inevitable that fewer and fewer tails will eventually be purchased.

Except that it hasn't. The US's projected buy has remained stable for the past 8 years or so, while its unit cost hasn't really increased dramatically since 2008. There is disagreement on what O&M costs will end up at, which is a source of uncertainty and may affect future buys. (see below.)

twintwinsingle wrote:

That means more squadrons will close and less power projection capability for the US and its allies. I've grown up in a military that has been continuously deployed (usually in multiple locations) for 22 years! When you cut squadrons and pilots and maintainers you increase the frequency of deployments, increase the use of the equipment an hasten the retirement date of that equipment...which means you need new. The new costs even more and so you buy even less and the cycle continues. This always happens, but the F-35's cost increase will make it much worse.

Would I, as a pilot rather fly 5th gen? Yes I would, everyday and twice on Sunday. But, if it means taking my fighter force from the 3000-ish of the early 2000's down to 1500-ish (I think a reality we'll soon have to face) or maybe even 1000-ish...Well I'd rather buy 2000 more F-16V's and scrap the F-35. The F-35 isn't THAT much better to justify replacing 1 for every 3 legacy jets. I know...howling with laughter at that one, I bet. But, the Raptor replaced not quite 1 for every 3 F-15C's and the F-35 is following a remarkably similar path (schedule and cost-wise) to its big brother. That is eroding our capability and that, my friend, is not good enough.

Your cost estimates are way off. First, the F-22 was an abject disaster of a program. Its production size was far too low and was afflicted by a number of design changes, which meant that learning curves could never take effect (or reach the 700+ sweet spot). Even if you cut F-35 production by 75%, you'd still have double the number of F-35s than F-22s. A large number of technical issues also affected its production, none as bad as its integrated avionics suite. The skin problems are well known as well. The F-35 doesn't really have these problems. We see stability in costing over the past three years, with the learning curves taking effect on prices. Barring a major program failure, its probably going to be a 2.3~2.5 to 3 replacement of current F-16s.

This chap at Pprune does not seem to be howled down as a fraud and here are perhaps some relevant comments about stuff. I'g guessing we have seen this chap in videos from Warton about the F-35 simulator there being used for F-35C work on CVF (and now switching back to the F-35B of course): Comment made 18 June 2012

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7249467

"I've flown the F-35B and I've chased it an awful lot in a legacy F-18. The F-35B easily out-climbs the Hornet in dry power and it out-accelerates it in burner through the transonic region. Whenever I did BFM in a Hornet the amount of time I spent between 7.0 and 7.5g could be measured in a handful of seconds (if at all).

So to me it is nonsensical to say that F-35B lacks performance and capability you need and then hanker after the Hornet. Happy to be told why I'm wrong by the Top Trumps brigade though?
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly"

http://www.pprune.org/members/14619-sssetowtf:
About SSSETOWTF
Licence Type (eg CPL. Pilots only)
CPL/IR
Current a/c Type (eg B737. Pilots only)
Typhoon, Hawk
Biography
CUAS, 3(F) Sqn, VMA-311, USN TPS, FJTS, VX-23 / F-35 ITF, BAE Systems
Location: Warton | Occupation: Test pilot

Salute!

Look back at the early days of the Viper.

Our concurrency was with the avionics for the most part. We also had the big tail mod and a tweak of the FLCS to avoid the deep stall.

The basic performance envelope and such was said and done with by the time the first squad came on line. We were not "expanding the envelope" as with the "B", et al.

It scares me that I flew the first ones 33 years ago, and they are still the workhorse of TACAIR.

Gums sends...

Forum: F-35 milestones

Finally ... First F-35B Flight out of Eglin