Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Why assume when you can find out. This is the age of the internet - not the age of aquarius. Landing approach KIAS is not the be all and end all of how to land on a short runway or not. For example it surprised me greatly (not really I'm just an old NavAver having been trained by the RAAF initially) that the F-35A used a constant Angle of Attack during their approach. Perhaps we can assume this is NOT the Optimum Angle of Attack as used/known in the world of Naval Aviation - but it might well be. Anyway we can assume that at a given landing weight at the F-35A angle of attack for landing that the airspeed is 150 KIAS. Reduce the weight and magically or not the KIAS is reduced if that F-35A AoA for landing is maintained. This is the secret of NavAv. There is no KPP for F-35A landing airspeed although there is one for the F-35C which is 145 KIAS at the RCLW (required carrier landing weight) which translates into the maximum arrested landing weight. If an F-35C approaches and arrests at a higher KIAS or heavier weight then things will break on the ship/aircraft.

The reason why I mention my beginner/advanced flying training with the RAAF is that they taught me how to land RAAF style on land runways. Cool. However... when I got to NAS Nowra as a newly trained in the RAAF pilot the first thing they did is hit me on the head to learn how to land NAVY style. Sheesh - and it is fun. For a NON-carrier capable aircraft (such as in those days the Vampire/Macchi) we learnt how to approach at a constant airspeed some 5 knots above our flare to land speed and our approach was good (sort of). We had to flare however so that extra speed was important to have energy to flare/cushion our landing. Also ground/runway effect kicks in with these lightweight trainers so there is that also. Our carrier capable aircraft did not require this. In the case of the Sea Venom it approached at a constant airspeed of 115 KIAS within a weight range; whilst the much more capable A4G approached and landed without any flare at Optimum Angle of Attack below a maximum landing weight for that approach style which KIAS then decreased as the aircraft weight decreased. For land runways landing above that max. weight we used higher approach airspeeds to allow for a flare to cushion the heavyweight landing.

So we perhaps can assume at light landing weights an F-35A using this constant approach to landing AoA will be at a lesser IAS. Now what that is I have no idea in the same way I only know what the KPP is for the F-35C - but that is life. Meanwhile yes the F-35A has an emergency hook (to me it looks similar to the emergency F-16 hook). Information on this is on at least one thread here (NavAv) so with some luck I'll find it....

I see there have been a bunch of replies as I typed so I'll add one more thing or two: Who is Peter Collins?

Yes the cumbersome drag chute is going to be used by those frozen people in some Scandinavian countries - at least one Norway will be first to use it and they even offered Canada the use of it without having to help pay for the development of all the gubbins required. A small thing for such a cumbersome bit of kit though I guess. Anyway - on with the search....

Build Quality: Both the F-35 and Rafale are 10,000 hour airframes so "sturdiness" will be the same if not better on the f-35 thanks to more advanced manufacturing methods leveraged. The pre IOC sea born F-35bs operating to simulate mid-high tempo environments had lower reliability then FOC rafales operating in a low tempo environment, hmm wierd.....

Crud the F-35 is designed 10,000 hour airframe service life? I've been going around saying it was 8,000, i.e. 8,000 hours for 30 years service life compared with 6,000 hours for 20 years service life for the Super Hornet (the difference being due to less need to use the F-35 for training and hence less use per year). Whoops.

I'll also note that there's a metric the Rafale has the F-35 beat: Program delays. People keep talking about how the F-35 has been delayed so long. IIRC it was originally planned to go in service in 2008, but IOC ended up being 2015 (7 year delay). For the Rafale, it was supposed to go into service in 1996, but IOC wasn't until 2004 for the Navy and 2006 for the Air Force -- 8 and 10 year delays, respectively. (Yes, if the F-35C doesn't get IOC until 2018, it would also be a 10-year delay. I'm not sure when it was originally supposed to go into service though.)

Here is a good post: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=21739&p=240097&hilit=emergency+hook#p240097

Quotes from this URL: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro/ ... ng.asp#f35

""...Q3.16 Does the F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant need more runway to land than other comparable fighter aircraft?

A3.16 No. Upon landing the F-35 uses an efficient braking system, which includes computer directed flight controls and an advanced anti-skid wheel brake system. The aircraft is capable of unaided stopping distances equivalent to those of Canada’s current CF-18.
______________

Q3.17 Does the F-35A have an arresting hook like the CF-18?

A3.17 Although the F-35A has an arresting hook, it is not designed for routine use. The CF-18 was originally designed for use on an aircraft carrier with regular use of the arresting hook.

As such, the more robust arresting hook on the CF-18 requires less maintenance and fatigue monitoring between uses than that of the F-35. This being said, the stopping capability of the F-35 arresting hook is equivalent to the arresting hook on the CF-18. The difference between the two arresting hooks is the maintenance action required after usage to prepare each arresting hook for the subsequent flight.
______________

Q3.18 Can the F-35A stop on slippery and short runways like those often experienced at Canada’s northern aerodromes?

A3.18 The F-35 landing performance studies indicate that the aircraft can be stopped on a snowy runway in less than 6000 feet without the use of additional stopping aids. When runways are contaminated with ice or a mix of slush, snow, and ice, the F-35 will require an additional stopping aid such as a drag chute or the emergency arresting hook to stop in less than 6000 feet. This is similar to the CF-18, which regularly uses the arresting hook to stop on short runways in icy conditions...."

Sadly all the graphics are missing from this post: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=16480&p=225750&hilit=emergency+hook#p225750

Gotta go - will be back soon....

A3.18 The F-35 landing performance studies indicate that the aircraft can be stopped on a snowy runway in less than 6000 feet without the use of additional stopping aids. When runways are contaminated with ice or a mix of slush, snow, and ice, the F-35 will require an additional stopping aid such as a drag chute or the emergency arresting hook to stop in less than 6000 feet. This is similar to the CF-18, which regularly uses the arresting hook to stop on short runways in icy conditions...."

Can opening the canopy mid-landing to serve as an airbrake count as an additional stopping aid?

Yeah it could - whilst the pilot getting out to run for his life will reduce the landing weight somewhat also afterwards.

The was NEVER to go IOC in 2008. The earliest date the program mentions post contract (2001) is 2010 for the B, 2011 for A, and 2012 for C.

So, they are 5 years not 7 years behind the original schedule.

Mebbe the hook stuff on this post with URLs is still good? Dunno: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=215161&hilit=emergency+hook#p215161 And a good thread wot shows the emergency hook of AA-1 in action - one of the 1st tests was testing brakes & emergency hook: viewtopic.php?t=14400

Perhaps some links are being duplicated but anyway:

Arresting F-35s & Brake Testing
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15796&p=199987&hilit=emergency+hook#p199987

I do not think this URL works anymore but anyway here is a graphic showing the F-35C hook on left and whatname right.
https://www.nidv.eu/Common/FileGateway. ... a67ecade0c

You can see the F-35A emergency hook is not cumbersome so it should suit your sensibilities.

The was NEVER to go IOC in 2008. The earliest date the program mentions post contract (2001) is 2010 for the B, 2011 for A, and 2012 for C.

So, they are 5 years not 7 years behind the original schedule.

Oh I guess I was just repeating the "seven years behind schedule" factoid that I've seen in various media reports, such as here:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/f ... sts-103579

and mentally calculated that as meaning IOC in 2008. Oh well. I guess 5 years late does seem significantly better then compared to the Rafale

Edit: Looking around, the F-22 was originally scheduled to hit IOC in March 1996?!? That means its actual December 2005 is 9 years behind schedule. The original schedule was from 1986 though (when the development contracts for the competition were given out), at which point the winner hadn't even been announced yet (it wasn't announced until 1991). From the GAO here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 04597t.pdf

Sigh. This came about because I was trying to figure out just how delayed the F-35 is compared to other modern airplane programs, but it seems like it really depends on what state of the program you use for counting as setting the expected date. It would seem weird to fault the F-22 program for being late by 9 years if at the time the planned IOC date was set, the program didn't even have a winner yet and it was still just a paper program with the competition contracts given out -- means something wasn't right in the heads of the military and government planners, rather than the companies trying to make the plane and get it to work.

Crud the F-35 is designed 10,000 hour airframe service life? I've been going around saying it was 8,000, i.e. 8,000 hours for 30 years service life compared with 6,000 hours for 20 years service life for the Super Hornet (the difference being due to less need to use the F-35 for training and hence less use per year). Whoops.

Yeah 10,000 hours 50 years is what we hear the most. I actually haven't seen the rafale's air frame service life other then on forums and a article talked about it once. I might even be over the rafale's true designed air frame hours but making them even at least sounded nice, making it a 10,000 hour frame would help make sense of the high fly away costs for the rafale.

Thank you for your answers.Of course I have already heard all about the "gen 4+ not being survivable in a high threat environnement", the "huge economy of scales".I am talking about facts, not advertising for believers: about the high threat environnement, you should learn that the Rafale has excellent groung and sea strike capabilities, and EW capability.Your russian ships coming to the artic cirle (lol, what's new here?), are they going to survive an attack from Rafales, flying at 30 feet above the water with Exocet missiles?You should do a little research.Apart from this, yo may have noticed Canada is big (that's why I mentionned it in the first post), most of the airspace would be about stopping russian Su-35, 34 etc, not evading Panthir, S400 etc.The F-35 is not stealth but lo-observable, it's EOTS is focus on ground, not air, it's aerodynamic performance is less than a real air to air aircraft such as F-22 or Rafale, its missile carrying capability is not enough in "stealth" mode.But do I really need to bother saying all this?Hostage said it, without the F-22, the F-35 is irrelevant.So continue saying what you want.

For the price, again, continue to believe what you want.

For the landing speed, yes that's what I said.150 kt isn't low speed.

Well Economies of scale is a fact, it used on millions of products a year. It's pretty basic knowledge how radars work so having technology that can help you avoid/reduce radar detection would be favorable in a modern war. Can the Russian radars see them flying 30ft above water, yes, water is flat. Canada is Big ehhh? So is the USA yet we seem to have no problems operating single engine aircraft all over our country and that includes in the arctic or out at sea. The F-35 is classified as VLO (very low observable), stealth is a general term that is applied to aircraft that denies situational awareness to a enemy (usually radar signature but covers all forms of detection), aka being Stealthy, so yes the F-35 is a Stealth aircraft. A VLO stealth aircraft (aka F-35, F-22) take it more seriously and deny situational awareness to a much greater extent and to more forms of detection aka RF, IR, etc. EOTS has A2G and IRST functionality, multi-purpose for the win. The performance is lower then the F-22, but so is everything else flying today. In what world is the rafale a a2a aircraft? The french have mainly used it as a attack aircraft since it went IOC and it has a lot of drawbacks compared to modern day competitors in the A2A arena (smaller weaker radar, short ranged missiles only ect). It's missile carrying is on par with what we use today with most F-15's only bringing 4 BVR missiles to the fight. Having the first shot advantage in a BVR theater means higher PK for the missile meaning less missiles needing to be fired/used. The capability is already being expanded in blk5 with 6 internal amramms being integrated as well as new missile designs that allow larger internal carriage on both the F-35 and F-22. Hostage was playing the political game, he wanted more F-22's and he wanted them bad. They are the better A2A platform and we want more in case of a near peer conflict. But since we are talking about Canada the F-22 is way out of there price range on both the fly away and operational costs unless they wanted a air force of 30 planes.

Thank you for your answers.Of course I have already heard all about the "gen 4+ not being survivable in a high threat environnement", the "huge economy of scales".I am talking about facts, not advertising for believers: about the high threat environnement, you should learn that the Rafale has excellent groung and sea strike capabilities, and EW capability.Your russian ships coming to the artic cirle (lol, what's new here?), are they going to survive an attack from Rafales, flying at 30 feet above the water with Exocet missiles?You should do a little research.Apart from this, yo may have noticed Canada is big (that's why I mentionned it in the first post), most of the airspace would be about stopping russian Su-35, 34 etc, not evading Panthir, S400 etc.The F-35 is not stealth but lo-observable, it's EOTS is focus on ground, not air, it's aerodynamic performance is less than a real air to air aircraft such as F-22 or Rafale, its missile carrying capability is not enough in "stealth" mode.But do I really need to bother saying all this?Hostage said it, without the F-22, the F-35 is irrelevant.So continue saying what you want.

For the price, again, continue to believe what you want.

For the landing speed, yes that's what I said.150 kt isn't low speed.

Well Economies of scale is a fact, it used on millions of products a year. It's pretty basic knowledge how radars work so having technology that can help you avoid/reduce radar detection would be favorable in a modern war. Can the Russian radars see them flying 30ft above water, yes, water is flat. Canada is Big ehhh? So is the USA yet we seem to have no problems operating single engine aircraft all over our country and that includes in the arctic or out at sea. The F-35 is classified as VLO (very low observable), stealth is a general term that is applied to aircraft that denies situational awareness to a enemy (usually radar signature but covers all forms of detection), aka being Stealthy, so yes the F-35 is a Stealth aircraft. A VLO stealth aircraft (aka F-35, F-22) take it more seriously and deny situational awareness to a much greater extent and to more forms of detection aka RF, IR, etc. EOTS has A2G and IRST functionality, multi-purpose for the win. The performance is lower then the F-22, but so is everything else flying today. In what world is the rafale a a2a aircraft? The french have mainly used it as a attack aircraft since it went IOC and it has a lot of drawbacks compared to modern day competitors in the A2A arena (smaller weaker radar, short ranged missiles only ect). It's missile carrying is on par with what we use today with most F-15's only bringing 4 BVR missiles to the fight. Having the first shot advantage in a BVR theater means higher PK for the missile meaning less missiles needing to be fired/used. The capability is already being expanded in blk5 with 6 internal amramms being integrated as well as new missile designs that allow larger internal carriage on both the F-35 and F-22. Hostage was playing the political game, he wanted more F-22's and he wanted them bad. They are the better A2A platform and we want more in case of a near peer conflict. But since we are talking about Canada the F-22 is way out of there price range on both the fly away and operational costs unless they wanted a air force of 30 planes.

Already Japan and Australia were turned down on F-22 ... I don't think Canada would be an exceptional case

Please Please Please - F-22 was never available for export - ever - any conjecture is futile - F-22 not exportable - OBEY. So I wonder why the F-35 was made to be exportable?

Please Please Please - F-22 was never available for export - ever - any conjecture is futile - F-22 not exportable - OBEY. So I wonder why the F-35 was made to be exportable?

F-22 software was not designed for export ... So it would be easily hacked if exported ... When Japan insisted on F-22 ... The US told Japan if they really want the F-22 then they should finance the entire export version ... F-35 software is built to be immune against hacking when exported ( despite some claims that Chineese hackers stole some data frim UK ! ).
Other people suggested the export ban was put because if the F-22 was sold to Israel , the Israelis would transfer some of its technology to Russia , China or India ... But it would be rude to put a ban on only Israel , so they took the decision to ban its exports to all countries

'oldiaf' you are just making stuff up - stop it. The US Congress passed the OBEY amendment which forbade the export of the F-22 - there is a lot more to the F-22 than just software. The F-35 is exportable because it was designed with tamper proof technology or by having US supervisors in vital places in maintenance facilities. All this is on this forum and the web.

'oldiaf' you are just making stuff up - stop it. The US Congress passed the OBEY amendment which forbade the export of the F-22 - there is a lot more to the F-22 than just software. The F-35 is exportable because it was designed with tamper proof technology or by having US supervisors in vital places in maintenance facilities. All this is on this forum and the web.

The first part was what Spudman said before
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=27923
The matter of Israel export :
http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/imagine- ... or-export/