Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

This morning I was just comparing the relative values of the F22@$180M for 450 units versus the F-35@$110M for 3000 units. If they don't build 3000 of these things they are going to turn out to be the worlds most expensive combat jet - ever - bar none.

All to do a job that could be done by a block 50/60 F-16 or another platform which already exists.

The F-35 has an onboard pressurization system for the pylons. The only reason to have this (as opposed to a storage bottle for air) is to recharge the pistons and attempt a follow-on ejection.

Much like most systems in the F-35, there is a backup.

The pneumatic system in the F-35 has a compressor for the internal bays and each pylon has its own PPS (Pneumatic Power Systems) that can charge up to 5000 psi.



The PDF has lots of info and schematics of the system.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005psts/seal.pdf

Yes, multiple ejection attempts are possible with JDAM's.

Roll-rates and response to inputs won't be required, the weapon is connected electrically to the aircraft. The aircraft doesn't detect a JDAM because it's physically attached by lugs...

Neither of those prices are accurate, but by all means keep repeating fallacious information.


What you're failing to mention(i.e. being disingenous), is just how many F-16s/F-18E/F, MALD-J, EA-18G, F-15C/F-22, KC-10/135/etc..., J-STARS/AWACs, would be needed to accomplish the same mission, as a far fewer number of F-35s, and with lower attrition rates.

'jeffb' I'll stop 'haranguing' you when you stop this kind of FUD nonsense without any explanation. Am I psychic? "...just post something about how the Marines are not worried about hung stores eating into their meagre bring back allowance or how the BRU-67 pneumatic ejector allows for multiple attempts at ejecting a store or if not why not." In the words of a defunct Oz Pollie: "Please explain" (with online references).

They are simply unlikely to send F-35s against a fully defended target in the 2020 timeframe when the F-35 starts to become available without significant off board information and jamming support.

Especially when you consider that there are other platforms which are simply more capable for the job (F22/B2/Tomahawk/etc).

Once the defences are sorted then the ground campaign proper can start and you need to start running bombing and CAS missions but by then you won’t need a stealthy airplane to do it and F-16s and F-18s will be perfectly sufficient.

DELVO
There is one kind of plane that does seriously threaten to encroach on F-35's role, but that is not one of the above but NGB/LRSB: essentially F-35 materials & technology in a larger size with a more purely stealth-based shape and more fuel & payload but not its maneuverability.

Pro-JSF forces will claim progress, but fail to understand what is before their eyes. Anti-JSF forces will look at elapsed time since program win and bring the guns to bear on the slow pace of achievement.

BF-3 is a dedicated "flight sciences" jet just like BF-1/2/4, with no capability for "mission systems" testing - which only resides in BF-5, and they have yet to get that jet's systems working correctly since delivery from Ft Worth.

This test was conducted to merely check the actual vs predicted separation clearance of the GBU-32 from the bay at a conservative speed/altitude. This is a normal flight test stepping stone which will require a decent amount of postflight analysis (1 week nominally, but pressure is surely "on" to do better) prior to proceeding to the next test point.

As with every integration of JDAM on any platform, the first tests involve the "flight sciences" aspects and often occur in parallel: flutter, loads, environmental, and separation testing. These do not require any smart integration with the weapon. Much has gone on in the background to get to this point. Yet what has not gone on with the BF's has been any integration of the GBU-32 into the avionics system, other than declaring a quantity and weapon weight.

The drop seen here was not in any way an "integrated test". The weapon bay has multiple cameras, as does the aft end of the fake EOTS housing under the radome...and the AIM-9X shape possesses two cameras. All of these fixed apertures are cued during release, with the digital images stored in the test instrumentation system of the jet. These are used postflight to determine miss distances, by using the accurately placed black/white targets on the jet and weapon as references. These are digitally combined in a computer program and an accurate X/Y/Z accounting of the weapon is generated (in relation to the jet), thus the miss distance can be calculated. If it falls within a given percentage of the preflight prediction, engineers will give the test a pass and the release envelope is opened a little further.

The weapon seen here was not guided, nor did it communicate with the jet in any way. It was merely a "shape" that was measured/ballasted/weighed/targeted so that it mimicked a real GBU-32. The weapon bay doors were driven open via pilot command minutes before release, not via some automated all-up round command (commit to weapon release) that will be required of a mission systems jet (and operational jets, obviously). The weapon was literally released via a manual command from the pilot, with the pickle button actually hot-wired to the release mechanism in the bay. Very simple, and all that is required for a separation test.

Do not get the idea that a JDAM was powered up, GPS keys and almanac downloaded, passed a mass data transfer, aligned, and given target coordinates. Sadly, the program is not to that state even yet. Weapons have been removed from IOC for the variants so they can just get the GBU-32 or -31, GBU-12 PWII, and AIM-120. Even those will be very limited as the program will not be able to clear them to complete envelopes. Very sad as lots of competent people at LM and DoD have proven themselves on previous programs, yet get absolutely overrun when trying to change the immense inertia of a program run by very few with ANY aerospace background. This is not isolated to LM...Boeing and NG have their share of PowerPoint managers in positions of program power. DoD test leaders are lacking in experience but not in speedbump-like opinions. And test pilot careers are more important at this point than louldly waving the warning flag at impending OT failures. Progress to flight hours and test points (regardless of success) runs the show.

Of course the LM business development machine and the Navy's Army's Air Force (USMC) will spin this simple separation flight into a "we have dropped JDAM from the F-35 and support the warfighter" story that lawmakers and laymen will soak up.