F-35 Lightning II Documentary (Criticisms)

Battleship...... By the time you upgraded an F-16 with all the new avionics boxes, a larger engine, and the fuel to carry it, and add stealth you would end up pretty close to something that looks like an F-35. True Lockheed Martin had to make some compromises for the STOVL variant which effected the A and C models. But for countries like Canada and Australia which have vast areas to defend having a jet with a large fuel fraction is a huge bonus. For the US Air Force giving up a little bit of super maneuverability on the F-35 is an acceptable trade when you consider that the F-22 is going to be riding shotgun on most missions. For the US Navy the carrier version gets a bigger wing and with the extra large fuel fraction and stealth makes it the best naval fighter ever built. For the Marines they get a super sonic stealthy jump jet for close air support which means they are going to be happier and then a pig in sh*t! I think the only countries that won’t like the F-35 are the countries that can’t afford them or can’t get them.

The F136 is not specifically designed to be better in the STOVL configuration. In fact, it has not even been tested in a hover pit to see what it trully can do.

The F135 (a pre-production version) however, exceeded it's requirement of 40,550 in May of 2009.

http://www.pw.utc.com/Media+Center/Pres ... equirement

"The engine demonstrated 41,100 pounds of vertical thrust against our requirement of 40,550 pounds.

Stop drinking the wiki kool-aid,

bsagincourt said: "why build exactly the same kind of engine optimized for primarily for only 20% of the production models?" I don't know where you get that info from either. Unless you provide a source it is not true.

I did not bother to find a source for the quote about F-35 coming from a long ago now requirement for the USMC to replace the Harrier. Funding an aircraft for that purpose was judged to be too expensive until a plan to make the F-35 as seen today emerged (via the competition etc.). Short answer: The F-35B came first - the others followed. It seems that only you and your 'loathing' ilk want to imagine that [the A & C F-35s] were compromised "to suite (sic) a requirement that should never have been imposed upon them." Tough bananas.

"Project formation
The JSF program was the result of the merger of the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) and Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) projects. The merged project continued under the JAST name until the Engineering Manufacturing and Development (EMD) phase, during which the project became the Joint Strike Fighter.

The CALF was an ARPA program to develop a STOVL strike fighter (SSF) for the United States Marine Corps and replacement for the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The United States Air Force passed over the F-16 Agile Falcon in the late 1980s, essentially an enlarged F-16, and continued to mull other designs. In 1992 the Marine Corps and Air Force agreed to jointly develop the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter, also known as Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL), after Paul Bevilaqua persuaded the Air Force that his team's concept had potential as an F-22 complement, stripped of the lift system. Thus in a sense the F35B begat the F35A, not the other way around.

The Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program was created in 1993, implementing one of the recommendations of a United States Department of Defense (DoD) "Bottom-Up Review to include the United States Navy in the Common Strike Fighter program." The review also led the Pentagon to continue the F-22 Raptor and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet programs, cancel the Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) and the A/F-X programs, and curtail F-16 and F/A-18C/D procurement. The JAST program office was established on 27 January 1994 to develop aircraft, weapons, and sensor technology with the aim of replacing several disparate U.S. and UK aircraft with a single family of aircraft; the majority of those produced would replace F-16s...."

Spudman answered as this response was being prepared. Wiki is OK mostly but of course any internet source is suspect until proven otherwise. I think 'bsagincourt' has misread or misrepresented quoted Wiki source due 'excessive loathing' clouding comprehension because the idea purported does not exist there.

Another source other than Wiki (and there are others online). Start here:

http://www.jsf.mil/history/index.htm

History
"What is commonly known today as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program had its origination in several programs from the 1980s and early 1990s.

Over the years, several tactical aircraft acquisition programs have attempted to deliver new warfighting capabilities to the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and our close allies. Most of those programs failed while the JSF program excelled."

Then go here:
http://www.jsf.mil/history/his_prejast.htm

"Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) 1983-1994
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began a program in 1983 to begin looking at the technologies available to design and manufacture a follow-on supersonic replace for the AV-8 Harrier. The program, known as ASTOVL, would eventually lead become a joint U.S.-U.K. collaboration. In 1987 the results of the ASTOVL program made clear that the technologies available were not yet advanced enough to generate a replacement that the U.S. and U.K. would have been satisfied with. At this time, DARPA secretly approached the Lockheed Skunk Works in the hopes that they would be able to develop an aircraft like they had hoped would have appeared from the first phase of ASTOVL. Lockheed told DARPA that they had some ideas that could be matured and that, if they were successful would meet the goals that DARPA was trying to achieve. At the same time, DARPA continued with ASTOVL Phase II as a cover for the covert work being done at the Skunk Works.

i. STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) 1987-1994
In the late 1980s the Lockheed Skunk Works was involved in a classified, non-acknowledged program with NASA Ames that looked into the feasibility of designing a stealthy supersonic STOVL fighter. This was a cooperative program that utilized the assets of NASA (wind tunnels, personnel, super-computers, etc.) along with the expertise of the Lockheed Skunk Works in designing stealthy air vehicles. The results from this highly classified program proved that a SSF could be successfully flown. Management at the Lockheed Skunk Works was convinced that the SSF design could be sold to both the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy. (The U.S. Navy (NAVAIR) is the procuring office for Marine Corps aircraft.) The Skunk Works proposed a teaming between the USAF and the USN. The services agreed, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the services and the SSF program began to come out of the black...."

Then: http://www.jsf.mil/history/his_jast.htm

alloycowboy wrote:True Lockheed Martin had to make some compromises for the STOVL variant which effected the A and C models.

Actually they had to make several compromises, especially when it came to the power plant. If they had skipped the B variant altogether and did a purely AF/Navy venture, you could have produced a vastly superior fighter than the one they are using right now. And the costs would ultimately have been about the same as two separate programs, as only 30% or less of the aircraft components are interchangeable... completely negating the economic advantages of the JSF.

Seriously, could you build an air superiority fighter with the harrier's pegasus engine if it were installed on a non VSTOL aircraft? I believe that they could have produced a significantly improved fighter if they had used a single F119 engine and built the JSF as a fifth generation fighter than a fifth generation harrier without the VSTOL.

alloycowboy wrote:But for countries like Canada and Australia which have vast areas to defend having a jet with a large fuel fraction is a huge bonus. For the US Air Force giving up a little bit of super maneuverability on the F-35 is an acceptable trade when you consider that the F-22 is going to be riding shotgun on most missions.

It's not the super agility, so much as the aircraft's limited ability to choose when to engage and when to withdraw from a battle. When you've got mach 2+ enemy fighters easily able to follow a plume of afterburner exhaust trailing behind an otherwise stealth fighter... let's just say that F-35 has little chance of escaping if he's ever sighted. It would almost make a pilot wish he could hit supersonic speeds without giving himself away to enemy IR... and that's what they can't do with an engine designed around VSTOL.

I'm not suggesting that the F-22 with its terrible internal fuel capacity makes for a better choice, but the compromises they made for the F-35B came at too high a cost to aircraft price and in performance. It's optimal for ground attack, but not remotely comparable to its air dominance counterpart.

alloycowboy wrote:For the US Navy the carrier version gets a bigger wing and with the extra large fuel fraction and stealth makes it the best naval fighter ever built. For the Marines they get a super sonic stealthy jump jet for close air support which means they are going to be happier and then a pig in sh*t! I think the only countries that won’t like the F-35 are the countries that can’t afford them or can’t get them.

I only wonder if the Navy isn't frustrated that they had to go with a single-engined fighter... I wonder if the Air Force isn't frustrated that they had to make so many compromises to performance that they wished they had gone with the navy's twin-engined desire. The AF wanted a single engine and the Marine's demand for only one was the determining factor in the JSF.

And how many other states already set on buying the JSF expressed greater interest in the Raptor? I think just about all would opt for the Raptor's enormous price tag if the US exported it... and considering its limitations, that's saying something. Those who buy the JSF are doing so because what they want isn't for sale and nothing better is available. I can only imagine how many will invest interest in the T-50 PAK over the F-35 ten years from now.

I genuinely hope I'm being paranoid, but I'm just not seeing the F-35 as being up to the challenges of tomorrow. It does very well today, but I wouldn't want to see it confront a T-50... ever.

bsagincourt, probably best to stick with 'what is' rather than 'what might have been' (in your imagination) IMHO. Funny how you rmention a 'purely Navy/Air Force' venture when that is exactly what the F-35 is (because the USMC does not procure aircraft as noted above). But being a 'worry wart' is OK - I guess. Anyhoo was going to post this item in a thread elsewhere but thought now it may be useful here. The entire PDF is a rewarding read, written by former RAAF bigwigs.

THE WILLIAMS FOUNDATION www.williamsfoundation.org.au

FACT versus FICTION:

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/re ... 24Mar1.pdf

"Fiction
The superficially impressive manoeuvrability and power-to-weight ratio of Soviet-designed aircraft such as the Su-30 and MiG-29 confers a potentially decisive advantage over Western fighters during within visual range (WVR) combat.
FACT
It has been incorrect for some 20 years to equate WVR potential with platform agility alone. Since the 1991 Gulf War, manoeuvring to achieve a kill has been done by air-to-air missiles, not by platforms. No manned fighter aircraft can compete with missiles that attack at over twice the speed of sound and manoeuvre at 60 ‘g’. (A manned fighter involved in WVR combat typically flies at less than half that speed and manoeuvres at a maximum of 9 ‘g’.) No less important than the missile is situational awareness. The classic case study here comes from 1993 and concerns the (British) RAF’s Tornado F-3 air defence fighter.

By the standards of the late-20th century the F-3 was a mediocre performer, handicapped by its modest agility and poor acceleration. Despite the high quality of RAF pilots, the F-3 regularly sustained a loss rate of around 3:1 in exercises against the West’s best fighter of that era, the USAF’s F-15. The turnaround came during an exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base in the United States when, for the first time, the F-3s were fitted with Link 16 data links. The shift was dramatic. Overnight, the F-3 became an F-15 killer, reversing the loss ratio to 3:1 in its favour. Situational awareness, not manoeuvrability, was the key. In short, for WVR combat, platform agility is a secondary consideration. It is the system, and in particular situational awareness and the missile, that count."

spazsinbad wrote:bsagincourt said: "why build exactly the same kind of engine optimized for primarily for only 20% of the production models?" I don't know where you get that info from either. Unless you provide a source it is not true.

Here's a sight which indicates the original numbers of orders to purchase... 3300 AF and Navy variants, as opposed to 700 B variants for Marines and RN. This is slightly above the 20% mark, but the B variant is becoming increasingly less attractive.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rogram.htm

If anyone had bothered to spend 10 seconds searching google...

spazsinbad wrote:I did not bother to find a source for the quote about F-35 coming from a long ago now requirement for the USMC to replace the Harrier. Funding an aircraft for that purpose was judged to be too expensive until a plan to make the F-35 as seen today emerged (via the competition etc.). Short answer: The F-35B came first - the others followed. It seems that only you and your 'loathing' ilk want to imagine that [the A & C F-35s] were compromised "to suite (sic) a requirement that should never have been imposed upon them." Tough bananas.

So in other words, the Marines decided that because they couldn't afford their luxurious stealth VSTOL, they set up a program to take advantage at the expense of the air force and navy variants?

It should never have been Lockheed Martin and Boeing who were given impossible goals such as what the JSF imposed in the first place. Lockheed Martin was bailed out during the competition for bad budget planning and Boeing's X-32... for obvious reasons, didn't cut it.

If it was 'tough bananas' as you say, the logical move should have been for the Navy and AF to pull out on the spot to invest in something better.

spazsinbad wrote:In 1992 the Marine Corps and Air Force agreed to jointly develop the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter, also known as Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL), after Paul Bevilaqua persuaded the Air Force that his team's concept had potential as an F-22 complement, stripped of the lift system. Thus in a sense the F35B begat the F35A, not the other way around.

Too bad... they should have declined to build the A variant and then the Marines would never have been able to pursue their dream fighter. Maybe the Marines would have even learned that VSTOL wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Rarely has that feature ever really proved useful... unless someone made it a necessity for use on a VSTOL carrier.

bsagincourt, OK My BAD. I did not stipulate which part of your statement needed clarification. It was not the 20% but the 'optimised' part of this statement "bsagincourt said: "why build exactly the same kind of engine optimized for primarily for only 20% of the production models?". QUE? Where is is stated that the F-135/6 is optimised for the F-35B? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_El ... Royce_F136

bsa, you can have opinions but please do not present your erroneous facts as facts. How the F-35 came into being is stated quite clearly on several websites including those cited. How it should have been developed - in your opinion - has little relevance.

battleshipagincourt you are making false claims so fast nobody even has time to correct you. It would take me more time than it seems it is likely worth just to deal with your last couple posts.

Why don't you acknowledge that you were incorrect on your earlier claims that have already been corrected. That at least should serve as an indicator of whether or not you are here to learn or here to pursue a flame war without regard to facts.

battleshipagincourt wrote:
Actually they had to make several compromises, especially when it came to the power plant. If they had skipped the B variant altogether and did a purely AF/Navy venture, you could have produced a vastly superior fighter than the one they are using right now. And the costs would ultimately have been about the same as two separate programs, as only 30% or less of the aircraft components are interchangeable... completely negating the economic advantages of the JSF.

LOL this is absolutely hilarious, I mean just how the hell do you know that the costs of two completely seperate programs would have been cheaper then the F-35 program alone. You haven't got the faintist idea in reality but claim it would simply to support your stance.

BTW the economic avantages of a tri service F-35 are still there in plain sight, at least for those without an agenda, here's a hint... production lines.

I really can't be bothered with the rest of your posts as what Hobo says in the post before this seems rather accurate

spazsinbad wrote:THE WILLIAMS FOUNDATION www.williamsfoundation.org.au

FACT versus FICTION:

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/re ... 24Mar1.pdf

Cheers for posting this as it looks very interesting,

battleshipagincourt wrote:
You mean $60 million which includes R&D and procurement divided by 48 production aircraft? As compared to the JSF's ~$120 million range with $50 billion R&D divided by 2,000 units?

Again, you're using LRIP prices, not full rate production prices, which is disengenuous to say the least.

Actually a ~1m^2 RCS is competitive with the super hornet, as it is with the Eurofighter and Rafale. Maybe they don't compare to the F-35, but they're certainly superior to what would otherwise appear as a small flying house to enemy radars.

Actually no, it's not. The Super Hornet and Typhoon/Rafale have RCS between .1 and .5m^2, so it's an order of magnitude larger.

Neither could an F-35 under the same circumstances,

F-35s can fly M1.6 with a full internal weapons load(i.e. 2 2000lb JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs), and they have excellent acceleration, so they can get up to combat speed quickly.

but an F-16 most certainly can outrun a Lightning after dropping both its tanks and warload.

As soon as the F-16 drops its tanks, and tries flying with afterburners, it's going to reach Bingo fuel pretty quickly. The F-35 has much greater persistence.

Maximum speed going into an engagement isn't nearly as significant as it is for leaving one.

Maximum speed going into an engagement, gives your weapons greater kinematics(i.e. range) so being able to fly faster with a weapons load is an advantage.

One F-16 carrying the same kind of warload as an F-35 (only two JDAM's and two AIM-120's) in the stealth configuration has a marginally lower performance in the subsonic range, but comparing an overloaded F-16 to an F-35 in stealth configuration is completely improper.

Where was there a comparison to an overloaded F-16? If you read that article, it said that an F-35 with an internal weapons load(2 JDAMS, 2 AIM-120s) is more maneuverable than an F-16 that's carrying nothing.

No disputing that the F-16's range on internal fuel was always a limitation; but with conformal fuel tanks and upgrading its electronics to carry everything internally, this particular problem with fuel and weapons pods is significantly reduced. An F-16 with conformal fuel tanks can in fact match the F-35's range... not taking drag into account.

Conformal tanks can improve the range, but there isn't space inside the airframe to put all of the electronics that an F-35 has. You're still not going to have the same level of performance with draggy externals.

Great. So the F-35 can outperform any supersonic fighter in the world, so long as the enemy slows down to subsonic speeds. Let's just hope they don't use afterburners, because it'd be a shame if an unfortunate F-35 at its maximum speed couldn't outrun a J-20 or T-50/PAK-FA in supercruise.

Supersonic fighters tend to get subsonic pretty quickly, once they start maneuvering, and the F-35 is likely going to see the J-20/PAK FA first(which gives it either the option of setting up an optimal shot, or contempt of engagement.)
Don't make the mistake of assuming that the J-20/PAK FA will be supercruising at all times(not even the F-22 does that), when comparing performance. All fighters will fly subsonically most of the time. Supercruisers can just stay supersonic for greater periods. Additionally, don't make the mistake of looking at top speeds, as those are fairly irrelevant under real world conditions. The only plane that'll be at M2, or faster for any amount of time is a Mig 31.

wrightwing wrote: Additionally, don't make the mistake of looking at top speeds, as those are fairly irrelevant under real world conditions.

This is worth repeating. To many people seem to have the idea that air combat is like playing a game of Top Trumps.

hobo wrote:Why don't you acknowledge that you were incorrect on your earlier claims that have already been corrected. That at least should serve as an indicator of whether or not you are here to learn or here to pursue a flame war without regard to facts.

Mistakes such as...? The F-35 engines under consideration are BOTH optimized for VSTOL fighters. The is fact. Or is there another engine optimized for the A and C variants under development?

If you present a credible source to strike this down, I'll acknowledge my error; but I highly doubt you'll find one.

BSagitator, you have made the claim that the F-35 engines are optimised for VSTOL. The single URL provided by you does not support that claim. You prove your claim. Thanks.