Forum: General F-35 Forum

The more I look into the avionics/sensor systems and STOVL variant of the F-35, the more I like what I see. The avionics on it are nothing short of state-of-the-art. No HUD, an entire front instrument panel replaced with one projection display, featuring full-color, windows-within-windows touch sensitive screens and DVI. When they get the HMD out, FLIR will be displayed on it. The APG-81 is state-of-the-art... period.

http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_technology.htm

I have flagged the plane in the past in previous posts, I think many of us have and have seriously wondered about its A2A capability, especially regarding energy management and sustained/instaneous maneuverability. I suppose, turn and burn is somewhat becoming less important with ad- vanced IFF/AESA fire and forget missiles coupled with WVR HOBs heaters and HMDs, BUT, it is still a fighter and should maneuver as best as it can. I did read an article stating that they came very close to today's F-16 in subsonic maneuverability; that is, they try to match it. I can tell you personally, VERY FEW aircraft have the sustained 9G turning rate at low altitudes like an afterburning F-16; especially one that is lightly loaded.

Where am I going with this post? --> here: Is the glass half empty or half full? Is the F-35 an expensive new program with marginal gains over existingairframes(longer range, somewhat reduced RCS, "cadillac avionics") or is it a legitimate airframe with exceptional potential in regards to sensors and automation(pilot survivability)?

To me, the most impressive version of the F-35 is the STOVL variant. Assuming LM gets all of the bugs out of it and fully flight qualifies it AND it delivers real world performance on a day in and day out basis, then I think the F-35B is pretty awesome. Why? Supersonic, very advanced sensors/avionics/pilot situational awareness, decent range, OK first day strike internal weapons carriage AND the most important point in my view being, STOVL. STOVL CAN, but has not really been used widely in air arms around the world due to the complexity and performance degradations. In my opinion, the STOVL variant provides the most flexibility of any of the variants, since with adequate training and support could be used in many different operating areas well outside traditional airfields. With all the talk and use of expeditionary forces etc....

I guess, if the F-35B is successful and enters into service, do you think other services would want to operate it such as the USAF after they see the flexibility it offers?

F-16.net Sponsor

I have a sneaky hunch that all variants of this jet will pleasantly surprise a lot of skeptics once it's fielded and has some time on it. I believe several disparaging remarks were made about the F-16 early on and look how it turned out.

As far as the AF going STOVL? I doubt it but ya never know. There's the old chestnut about having to generate a whole new support structure and trained manpower for it that the AF won't be able to afford. But what's to stop the AF and Marines from working together to support both services fleets, besides interservice rivalries? Shocked

Maybe have Marine detachments at USAF bases for maintenance to start with?

Man....I gotta get off these drugs..... Wink

As long as Lockheed treats its overseas partners well, this bird will be a raging success story. I have no doubts about it, except for the partnership issues. There are many carrots on sticks waiting to be grabbed by the Europeans if this one is pulled back over the Atlantic.

In previous posts before, I mentioned my preference to the now
defunct Boeing X-32's Direct Lift system for a variety of reasons.
In my opinion, not to go too far off of topic, I believe Boeing's revised
EMD X-32 was a good deal more original, less traditional and less
conservative an airframe design. I still believe Boeing's design was
probably more robust and reliable, possibly requiring less man hours
of maintenance over Lockmart's lift-fan, "lobster back" STOVL mecha-
nism. Granted, LM's lift-fan system, undoubtely provides greater
performance levels over a wider range of operating envirnoments
and conditions than Boeing's STOVL mechanism. The question is,
just how much more and what this means to pilot safety and maintenance
/operating costs considerations, especially in forward deployments.

If I argue the glass half empty route, is the F-35 JSF the Joint Compromise
Fighter?

Any ideas, thoughts on a multi-axis thrust vectoring system for the F-35
to bolster its A2A capability if it is not already currently planned?

I could see the F-35B being used by the USAF for strike/close support
missions in countries like Afghanistan or may be I am being naive
about a large sophisticated air force using a capability that does not
fit into its current or near future force plans...

Sorry, Boeing's lift design was based on the Harrier and did not have the growth "puff" to make it.

LM won by doing a VTO at EAFB followed by a transition to SS flight with a VSTOL recovery. The Boeing design had to be stripped down to do a VTO at EAFB

Boeing's bad STOVL performance cost it the competition. Well that and being pig ugly.

Boeing's had to be stripped to do a VTO at sea level. LM's having that driveshaft on the front of the engine is a benny too. Use it to drive a generator and you have a LOT of electrical power on tap.

jetblast16 wrote:

I have flagged the plane in the past in previous posts, I think many of us have and have seriously wondered about its A2A capability, especially regarding energy management and sustained/instaneous maneuverability. I suppose, turn and burn is somewhat becoming less important with ad- vanced IFF/AESA fire and forget missiles coupled with WVR HOBs heaters and HMDs, BUT, it is still a fighter and should maneuver as best as it can. I did read an article stating that they came very close to today's F-16 in subsonic maneuverability; that is, they try to match it. I can tell you personally, VERY FEW aircraft have the sustained 9G turning rate at low altitudes like an afterburning F-16; especially one that is lightly loaded.

Make no mistake, the F-35 raw performance from the outset is designed to be equal to or better than the best F-16. What's more, the F-35 performance isn't effected much, if at all, when carrying it's normal internal load. Can't say the same with an F-16 with stuff hanging from it's wings. I think that will be a pleasant surprise to current Viper drivers, among others.

Quote:

I guess, if the F-35B is successful and enters into service, do you think other services would want to operate it such as the USAF after they see the flexibility it offers?

The USAF is still interested in the STOVL F-35B, although talk has died down since former USAF Chief Of Staff General John Jumper retired. The USAF's first priority is the F-35A though, but the F-35B hasn't been forgotten and the STOVL capability would bold well with the USAF's AEF. That is my opinion.

RonO wrote:

Boeing's bad STOVL performance cost it the competition.

I wouldn't say the Boeing X-32 JSF's STOVL performance was bad. I would say the LM X-35's STOVL performance was better.

Quote:

Well that and being pig ugly.

Strictly opinion (and I know goes against the consensus), but I kind of like the X-32 look. I like the proposed Boeing JSF's PWSC even better.

Nope it was baaaaad. When you have to leave bits off the aircraft to get airborne that defines bad. Nearly crashed too because of hot air ingestion during a hover.

Ehhhhh (rocking hand horizontally)..... Noticed I didn't say it was great either. Very Happy

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35B JSF -- STOVL contagious?