Fate of the F-35B and C

No matter what, I really don't want CAS to be carried out by that AT-6 cropduster jalopy. It has missile approach warners, but how long will that thing last in air space heavily defended by insurgents with Stingers?

On the -35 as a CAS platform, at first glance it clearly won't be employing the same tactics as the A-10 for obvious reasons, so I guess Wrightwing has a point in it being analogous to the AV-8B. I guess the F-35 will have to rely on firing weapons from a pretty good standoff range while assisted by the ground forces. If close direct fire from a cannon is necessary then let's just hope its GAU-22/A is good enough.

bsac said: "...if something gets damaged on the F-35, there's no backup...." Where does this idea come from and can you provide a damage scenario with F-35 compared to the A-10 please? Thanks.

spazsinbad wrote:bsac said: "...if something gets damaged on the F-35, there's no backup...." Where does this idea come from and can you provide a damage scenario with F-35 compared to the A-10 please? Thanks.

I already stated that they had to make the aircraft as light as possible to meet the VSTOL requirements. That pretty much covers all the unnecessary weight, which includes redundant systems and durability. The A-10 was designed specifically to take damage, costing it dearly in its performance attributes.

Fortunately they didn't need supersonic aircraft for CAS, which is why they built an airframe so rugged and durable as the A-10. The F-16, F-15, Tornado, Eurofighter, and Rafale take a completely different approach in maximizing their performance with the specific objective to avoid taking damage. It is fundamentally impossible for them to have built the F-35 to be both light and exceptionally durable.

bsac, then you ignore your own logic if you leave out the F-35 sensors that "...take a completely different approach in maximizing [its] performance with the specific objective to avoid taking damage...."

BS, you are assuming redundant systems are "unnecessary" without providing any info to back that up. For example, there are 4 sources of electrical power for the F-35 (two engine mounted generators, one airframe mounted APU, and one battery pack).

Some information for those interested in F-35 survivability perhaps....

Aircraft Survivability • Summer 2006 | Survivability of the Next Strike Fighter pp.22-24

http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews ... 202006.pdf (2Mb)

...A Multi-Faceted Survivability Approach
The F-35’s Survivability Suite comprises a broad range of capabilities that will allow it to detect, avoid, evade, counter, deter, survive, and destroy land-based and aerial threat systems. On a basic level, the F-35 will incorporate speed, maneuverability, and handling characteristics based on legacy aircraft such as the F-16 and F/A-18. However, the Survivability capabilities go well beyond these legacy aircraft to incorporate state-of-the-art technology. The F-35 will use stealthy signature, advanced situational awareness, countermeasures, and electronic warfare systems to penetrate hostile airspace and deliver its ordnance effectively.

Beyond signature, the F-35 also takes advantage of low vulnerability design features that help the aircraft (and pilot) make it home in the unlikely event of combat damage. Some features incorporated into the F-35 include an On-Board Inert Gas Generation System (OBIGGS) to inert the fuel ullage; widely separated and redundant flight control routing; a ballistic liner in the main fuel tank for Conventional Take-off and Landing CTOL and Carrier versions; fire suppression system in various dry bays; weapon bay and engine bay fire detection; robust and redundant structural load paths; and hydraulic, fueldraulic, and Poly-Alpha Olefin (PAO) cooling fusing and shut-offs. The F-35 is also deep in a comprehensive Live Fire Test & Evaluation Program that has already improved the design of the jet. Additionally, all data from the Live Fire program will be provided to SURVIAC for use in the greater survivability community.

In addition to stealth technology and a low vulnerability design, the F-35 will feature state-of-the-art advances in electronic warfare, countermeasures, and situational awareness. A major advance in situational awareness goes hand in hand with the JSF Program’s decision to eliminate the familiar Heads-Up Display (HUD) common to fighter aircraft for over 40 years....

Lethality is Survivability for a Strike Fighter
The mission of a strike aircraft is to deliver munitions to air and ground targets. The faster and more effectively this can be done means less time over hostile territory and less potential for shots to be taken at the F-35. The strike package on the F-35 has direct impact on the aircraft survivability. Therefore it is essential to understand the system as a whole as it performs its mission. With this “kill-or-be-killed” environment as a design point, the Joint Strike Fighter Program is developing the aircraft survivability package in a less dangerous place, Lockheed Martin’s Manned Tactical Simulator (MTS).

The MTS is a state-of-the-art facility that is composed of 10 cockpits stations, an observation room with playback capability, and briefing/debriefing rooms. Together with its partner nations, the JSF team executes several events a year in the MTS. Mission-level simulations are performed in a variety of ways to assess aircraft capabilities, evaluate Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and to develop Concepts of Operation (CONOPS). Constructive analysis is also used to further enhance man-in-the-loop simulator results as a means of evaluating and developing advanced capabilities. In this way, the simulator is allowing for an optimized design of the F-35.

To 2040 and Beyond
The simple goal of the JSF Survivability team is to deliver the best aircraft possible within the fiscal and technological realities that are before us; to provide the warfighter a system that will carry him or her into combat and home afterward; and to do this against any imaginable threat, no matter the environment or the conflict, for the next 30 years or more...."

Again an interest in 'survivability' will guide you here:

F-35: First-Ever Fixed Wing Full-Up System Level by Jeff Johnson and Timothy Staley | pp.28-31

http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews ... l_2007.pdf (1.6Mb)

"After 20 years of the live fire test law (10USC2366), nearly every type of aircraft has undergone testing, paving the way for programs to come. In spite of this long and impressive legacy of testing, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program still marks many firsts....

...The waiver limited full-up system-level (FUSL) testing to a single variant of the JSF and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (OSD/AT&L) granted the waiver in June 2001. The waiver meant that though preceded by the F-22, the JSF will become the first fifth-generation fighter to undergo FUSL testing....

...The focus of the live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) program is to address the components or systems that have the greatest areas of uncertainty or the greatest amount of risk. This uncertainty includes unique aspects of the design and features that have little or no previous test data available. No aspect of the JSF is more unique than the STOVL propulsion system....

...As a result, these components warrant live fire testing. Thus far, the program has tested the ballistic tolerance of the 3BSM, the shaft, and the clutch, with the lift fan testing to come....

...An interesting design feature of all three variants is the bifurcated inlet duct, which has inlet openings on both sides of the fuselage, merging to a single inlet path just in front of the engine. The two inlets surround a large fuel tank on the CTOL and CV variants. As a result, any ballistic damage to this area can lead to leakage down the inlet and into the engine....

...Perhaps the most significant design change affecting the program’s LFT&E relates to the fire suppression system. Several phases of testing were performed to determine the most lightweight and cost effective fire suppression system. The outcome of some of the testing, such as that performed by the 46th Test Wing at Wright-Patterson AFB (WPAFB), was quite spectacular. However, once again, weight constraints (among other factors) resulted in the removal of the fire suppression system (with the exception of fire detection) from the aircraft....

...The JSF is being assessed against a wide range of threats, from API and high-explosive incendiary (HEI) rounds to fragments from proximity-fuzed surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) The MANPADS analysis uses the new advanced diverging ray methodology (ADRAM) and a localized area is being assessed, taking into account the areas of the aircraft where an infrared (IR)-guided MANPAD is more likely to impact. This analysis allows for more reasonable trade studies with respect to these threats, and ensures the program gets the most “bang for the buck” with any vulnerability reduction features implemented in the design...."
____________________

Already mentioned in 'F-35 Docs' thread I think are classics [thanks to the Spudman mostly]. Thread(s) to follow:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... s&start=75
&
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... s&start=90

F-35 Live Fire Test: Full-Up Systems Level Testing by Charles Frankenberger pp.7-10

http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews ... ring10.pdf (3Mb)

"Based on a 2007 program need to perform additional STOVL flight testing, the LFT&E strategy was revised to include FUSL testing of a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant (2AA:0001), along with testing of a Full Scale Structural Test Article (FSSTA) for the carrier variant (with engine) and an FSSTA test of the STOVL variant (without engine), 2CG:0001 and 2BG:0001 respectively. Ballistic testing of the assembled STOVL propulsion system (engine, drive shaft, and lift fan) is also included in this updated approach....

...Test Objectives. The primary objective of this test series is to evaluate battle damage effects on the F-35 FCS. Testing will include the effects of damage directly to FCS components, the electrical power system, and component communication through the vehicle systems components. A key part of this test will be determining the synergistic effect that damage to one subsystem has on other reliant subsystems. Secondary objectives include the effects of fire, fuel migration, and pilot escape capability.

Specific test results will be further evaluated with pilot-in-the-loop simulations of damaged aircraft characteristics by replicating, to the extent possible, ballistic test damage effects in LM Aero JSF aircraft simulators (Vehicle Integration Facility [VIF] and Vehicle System Integration Facility [VSIF])....

...Test Approach
Testing will be conducted in a manner that will maximize the number of shots achieved on the test article. Early in the test series, the aircraft will be reconstituted between test shots....

...Following the conclusion of ballistic testing, analysis of the test data will enable the Vulnerability Team to select six battle damage scenarios for the purpose of conducting six pilot-in-the-loop aircraft handling characteristic evaluations at the LM VIF or the VSIF. The objective of the pilot-in-the-loop evaluations is to replicate to the extent practical the real-world ballistic damage and system-level response of the aircraft
in the VIF/VSIF to ascertain pilot-inthe-loop post-damage flight characteristics of the aircraft...."
&
JSF Live Fire Test — Pilot-in the Loop Simulator Testing by Jeffrey Andrus pp.11-13

http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews ... ring10.pdf (3Mb)

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has taken a new approach to achieving a clearer understanding of the system’s vulnerability while improving the efficiency of Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) program. In a pioneering effort, the JSF LFT&E program implemented Man-inthe-Loop (MTL) simulator testing during the test series designated XG-SV-LF-07C (LF-07C.) The purpose of this test series was to examine the response of the pilot and F-35 aircraft to a series of failures that represent possible damage modes associated with encounters with ballistic threats....

...Testing the Integrated Design of F-35: LF-07C Test Motivation
The JSF LFT&E program is committed to verifying performance of the critical systems on the aircraft, evaluating the built-in redundancies, and understanding the interdependencies of integrated subsystems from a ballistic impact standpoint. Many questions arise concerning the reaction of complicated systems when impacted by ballistic penetrators, and the F-35 is no exception. The only feasible method (short of shooting a flying aircraft) is to use advanced flight simulation that either includes or models subsystem performance with a pilot at the controls. Many F-35 critical subsystems are highly integrated. For example, the Power and Thermal Management System (PTMS) and the Electrical Power System (EPS) are closely coupled within the Integrated Power Package (IPP); the electrically driven Flight Control System (FCS) is interdependent with the EPS. These are some of the critical subsystems that were tested during the LF-07C test series.

A key ingredient in understanding an aircraft’s vulnerability is the pilot or operator’s situational awareness; included in this is the pilot’s ability to determine if the aircraft has been hit and what systems may have been compromised. In the few moments after damage, the pilot needs to determine if:
1) the aircraft is controllable,
2) it will stay that way,
3) he/she can get home,
4) he/she can complete the mission. A fundamental question that previous JSF testing has not answered is whether the pilot has sufficient information to make this assessment and information warning of impending catastrophic failures....

...In an earlier LFT series, the LM vulnerability team conducted a wind tunnel test to evaluate F35 aerodynamic performance with partially or totally missing control surfaces. An aerodynamic model was developed to represent these conditions and was incorporated in the LF-07C test series. Both facilities had the unique ability to represent these control surface damage scenarios in the aerodynamic model; if a portion of the surface were to be blown off from ballistic impact, the aero model represented that....

...A total of 40 different test cases were conducted as part of LF-07C, 31 that were common to all variants of the F-35, and nine that were unique to the short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) variant. Each test case was evaluated against three different initial flight conditions, nominally with two iterations each—
- 20Kft, M0.8, straight and level flight
- 30° dive from 18,000 ft, M0.7 with 4-G pull-up to 15° (minimum altitude of about 2,000 ft @ M0.92)
- 20Kft, M0.8, 4-G wind-up turn...

...The STOVL-unique cases were similar, but refined slightly to adequately capture various landing procedures associated with a STOVL aircraft—
- How well did the predictions for the results of the case match the data from the simulation event?
- Was the pilot given timely warning, and was he/she able to safely eject from the aircraft?
- Was a conventional landing possible?
- Was a rolling vertical (short) landing possible?
- Was a vertical landing possible?

Conventional, rolling vertical, and vertical landings were not attempted in every test case. A landing attempt depended on the handling qualities reported by the pilot and the nature of the failures inserted. Where there was a question on the capability, a landing was attempted. The pilot used the Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Rating Scale to quantify aircraft handling during and after each test case....

...STOVL results from LF-07C refined the test matrix for the upcoming STOVL Propulsion System Live Fire Testing (LF-19C.) STOVL simulations showed the STOVL propulsion system to be tolerant of minor changes in roll post thrust due to damage on one side of the aircraft. This eliminated the need to conduct testing that would yield similar results...."

battleshipagincourt wrote:

wrightwing wrote:Additionally, if a plane has to fly through hostile airspace to provide CAS, what do you suppose the survivability of a lesser plane would be comparatively speaking.

Not very good, which is why you wouldn't use an F-35 for that kind of task... it's just too fragile. Whatever its other survival features, they're no match to for a rugged airframe with redundant systems like the A-10.

The point being that the stealth of the F-35, would allow it to get through airspace that an A-10, etc... couldn't, and if it had to go up against a robust threat, would have much better odds. It's much better to not be shot at the entire way to the objective. The AV-8B is the plane you should be comparing with the F-35.

Or do we have to remind you that they had to make the F-35 as light as possible by removing all that excess weight? Any who claim it's going to be comparable to the A-10 in CAS seriously don't know what happens when you scrap everything but the essential systems... if something gets damaged on the F-35, there's no backup.

The F-35 won't be performing CAS missions in the same manner, any more than the F-14 flew missions the same way as an F-4U Corsair. Tactics, and capabilities change the way that one sucks the egg.

Woo, first post after a long time lurking.

About CAS and the F-35, doesn't it seem silly to have a technologically advanced fighter, demanding a substantial logistics trail, to drop bombs on insurgents in Somalia? How about Central Africa, do African militias really require a stealthy, supersonic, fighter jet? The obvious answer is no, yet that is what some here are suggesting.

If the AF were wise, they would recognize that the US will in the the future do a mixture of low conflicts and potential high end conflicts, conflicts which currently have very little in common. For example, the technology needed to achieve a mission over North Korea is quite different from the technology needed to escort SF choppers in Africa or provide over watch for snatch teams in Somalia. And, given that a AT-6 or a Super Tucano is far less expensive to buy or maintain than a F-35, the AF can handle those low end missions cheaply, freeing up money and assets for high end missions.

I think its ridiculous to use stealth fighters for these missions, when for the most part the threats are going to be pretty low tech. A DIRCM turret and some flares is really all those planes are going to need. If they face more opposition, use some F-35C's off a carrier to blow up the main flak guns, then free up the carrier for other activities.

Or, the AF can buy extremely expensive airplanes for every mission, simultaneously reducing coverage capacity (because of the cost), increasing demand on fixed sites (F-35 from a dirt field? unlikely), and diverting needed assets from more important theaters (watching Iran, China, North Korea).

Finally, here's a heretical thought, the AF should buy 2 - 3 squadrons of F-35Bs and turn those squadrons into the most elite force in the entire AF. Make them highly proficient at airfield defense, close air support, and nuclear strike. Then deploy those squadrons in the Pacific to serve as the fighters at airfields threatened by ballistic and cruise missiles.

G'day Arkady. If USAF bought some F-35Bs that is probably a good idea if NOT at the expense of the USMC role / purchase of same. Having USAF support for the F-35B would make a difference overall - a good thing probably. ELP even had an idea about this FWIW: http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2011/02 ... -military/

A contrary view is here: https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q ... nginespage (0.7Mb)

PUT THE JOINT BACK IN THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER--WHY THE USAF SHOULD NOT PURCHASE THE F-35B
by Nathan E. Smith, Maj, USAF | April 2006
"Abstract
Short Takeoff Vertical Land (STOVL) technology existed for high-performance aircraft since the late 1960s, but the United States Air Force (USAF) elected not to acquire a STOVL fighter despite the United States Marine Corp (USMC) and coalition partners such as Great Britain and Italy investing in such fighters. The former Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) stated the USAF is interested in acquiring a STOVL variant (designated as the F-35B) of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in addition to the F-35A, the USAF JSF variant.1 To date, the current CSAF has not reversed this decision but this may be due to the absence of a study that clearly states the advantages and disadvantages of the F-35B for the USAF. The USAF still needs a research project to examine this subject and clearly state the pros and cons. By doing so, political decision makers as well as USAF leaders will have the facts to support and publicly defend a decision concerning the F-35B for the USAF.

The USAF main interest in the STOVL JSF variant is for flexible basing, increased sortie generation, “and to conduct persistent operations in the battlespace”.2 Yet, the F-35B does not offer the USAF any more flexible basing options than the United States Navy JSF variant, the F-35C. As a result, the Department of Defense could reap tremendous fiscal saving with increased combat capability and interoperability if the USAF purchased the F-35C instead of the F-35B.
&
Recommendations
The first recommendation is that the appropriate DoD agencies conduct the proposed topics for further research described above. If these research efforts show that the costs for the proposed F-35C design modifications exceed the benefits, then the USAF should still purchase the F-35C over the F-35B. Instead of an all F-35C JSF fleet, the USAF should continue with the F-35A and substitute on a one-for-one basis an F-35C for each proposed F-35B. If however, these further research efforts show that the costs for all three proposed F-35C design modifications do not exceed the benefits, then the USAF should perform the proposed design modifications and transition to an all modified F-35C JSF fleet.
Conclusion
Decision makers now have the facts. The way ahead for the USAF is to purchase the F-35C and not the F-35B. The USAF should either purchase the F-35C in concert with the F-35A or by itself. If the proposed design modifications are cost efficient, technically feasible, and supportable, then the USAF should consider pursuing an all modified F-35C JSF fleet. Regardless of any outcome, the USAF should not purchase a STOVL JSF variant but instead purchase the F-35C. The evidence to support this conclusion is overwhelming. Decision makers can now “dismiss the jury” and act on the evidence."

spazsinbad wrote:bsac said: "...if something gets damaged on the F-35, there's no backup...." Where does this idea come from and can you provide a damage scenario with F-35 compared to the A-10 please? Thanks.

In general, I don't think it could be argued that the F-35B as a CAS aircraft is equal to the A-10 in term of ruggedness. The A-10 was purpose built for CAS, with durability, protection, and redundancy built into the design: armor, 2 turbofans (lower IR sig), backup flight control systems, fire suppression, etc. The F-35B on the other hand was purpose built for stealth and particularly STVOL operation: comparatively lighter weight structures, little armor, fewer redundancies, single engine, limited fire suppression, etc. There have been plenty of instances where A-10's have absorbed severe structural, engine and flight control damage and managed to RTB. Of course we really don't know how much damage the F-35B can sustain and make it home, but with the 35's internal density/complexity, it is hard to imagine something important wouldn't be affected.

Love the A-10 but there's a reason the AF invested a lot of money to provide the Warthog standoff capability, something similar to the way the F-35 will provide CASbut only more effectiveky due to its more advanced sensors.

popcorn wrote:Love the A-10 but there's a reason the AF invested a lot of money to provide the Warthog standoff capability, something similar to the way the F-35 will provide CASbut only more effectiveky due to its more advanced sensors.

The way the USAF does CAS now, you could use a B-1B w/ a Sniper pod to perform the same work. Oh, wait, that's what they're doing...

At least that way you could shift to country flattening once CAS ends.

I think they should change the name of the mission: take the "C" out.