Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

avxva wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

Did you actually read the Ahern report? Can you point me to where it talks about maneuverability?

Well... The part about not being able to get the aircraft into even moderate levels AoA because of shocking and alarming amounts of design inherent buffeting comes to mind, oh, and the part about the F-35 A/B/C being too fat to fight, AND, the part about the structural weaknesses, the hotspots and cracks that happen when you put a load on the aircraft. Did you have additional details beyond those??

Al

So, apparently you haven't read the Ahern report.

It never said that it can't get the aircraft into even moderate levels of AoA... that's just a plain fabrication on your part. Rather it has not reached that portion of the fight testing schedule. And the buffeting issue is not a key indicator of maneuverability, otherwise alot of very maneuverable fighters would be less capable than they seem, as the Ahern report suggests:

Buffet Loads on vertical trails have appeared on all twin-tailed tactical aircraft, and have often been larger than predicted, particularly for the F/A-18A/B and the F-22 programs.

And it does not say that the fighter is overweight, rather that the margins for weight increases are low and are a risk if there are extensive redesigns. That's a lot different than saying its overweight.

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by avxva on Apr 23, 2012 - 01:44 AM; edited 3 times in total

hb_pencil wrote:

Can you point me to where it talks about maneuverability?

Hmmm... Read page 4, it's right there in black and white: specifically in the Air-to-Surface Attack and Air Warfare paragraphs.

hb_pencil wrote:

It never said that it can't get the aircraft into even moderate levels of AoA...

Hmmm... Read page 12, it's right there in black and white: specifically in the last sentence of the III. Buffet paragraph.

Sooo, that just happened.

Al

You're absolutely right: UCAV fighters are a "log" way off.

Every airplane has problems -- every car has problems. Hell, I can't get my wife's Wii to connect to Netflix for more than 45 minutes before there's a data interruption and I have to reboot. I've spend my life in science and engineering, and the F-35 is just what the doctor ordered for the US.

You've gotta see the forest through the trees. You've got to appreciate the beauty of the jungle through the weeds, insects, and the creepy crawlies.

So long as "Zero" doesn't get elected again, and another fighter program terminated early, we'll be just fine in the catbird seat with aerial dominance with the -35.

The only thing I'm not keen on, is the apparent lack of supercruise, although I am positive that in a flat out race, the -35 will fly farther, faster than any of our old aluminum airplanes. But still, it'd be nice to have had something that could fly tag-team with the -22.

That's not maneuverability however, or at least hardly a laugh as you claimed. According to the 2011 SAR, which goes in-depth to what the QLR is citing here, it states that handling is the buffeting issue and transonic roll-off (which has been undergoing correction for some time). The air vehicle performance refers to range and the F-35C's acceleration.

Its Page 34 of the document, if you're interested.

So, we have helmet display issues that seem to have been mostly resolved since that report was released, some weapon issues, and the same buffeting issue that every twin tail fighter has had, all of which adds up to "risk".

hb_pencil wrote:

That's not maneuverability however...

Well, now we’re back in the F-35 Twilight Zone, because in every other corner of the galaxy a sentence that reads: “The report also expressed significant concerns with aircraft performance characteristics, particularly transonic roll-off and buffet, as well as maneuvering performance,” means maneuverability. (And they have no idea how bad that maneuverability is, because according to page 12 of the report, the aircraft buffets so badly it will be until 2014 (at least) before it's even certified to fly 20-degree AoA to find out.)

Not to mention: “Air Warfare: The operational testers cited unsatisfactory progress and the likelihood of severe operational impacts for survivability, lethality, air vehicle performance, and employment,” doesn’t sound very promising for something that’s supposed to have, “A2A superiority over every previous aircraft save one.”

Al

I will back off.

I wish Gen Robin Olds was around to comment on this one... Confused

avxva wrote:

because according to page 12 of the report, the aircraft buffets so badly it will be until 2014 before it's even certified to find out.)

What the QLR wrote (your source);

Quote:

This risk will not be retired until high angle of attack load flights are completed and their results are fed into airframe structural analyses. These flights cannot be performed until aircraft have been certified as stable for those flight regimes, so the full extent of buffet issues my not be appparent until CY2014

As you can see, certification for the flight regimes happens prior to the analysis of the consequences of buffeting in those flight regimes, and thus certification cannot be delayed by this analysis!

Quite symptimatic for how you read the report, including ignoring the QLR contextualization (which hb_pencil provided) and the use of "can" and "potential".

GAO has lots of interesting stuff. The F-14 was supposed to cost $19M per unit in 1983 but ended up costing $43M. Makes the F-35 cost growth look petite! And look at those total program costs go!

Guess it shoulda been cancelled...

http://www.gao.gov/assets/200/190548.pdf

.

Last edited by avxva on Apr 23, 2012 - 03:44 AM; edited 1 time in total

bumtish wrote:

Quite symptimatic (sic) for how you read the report, including ignoring the QLR contextualization (which hb_pencil provided) and the use of "can" and "potential".

Yeah, that dog don't hunt either. Your point refers to the effects of buffeting on structural strength and structural retrofits. My point refers to the effects of buffeting on maneuverability (and the desire to be maneuverable.) Simply said, we have no idea how maneuverable or agile the F-35 is ("what it can do" or "what it potentially can do") because it buffets so badly in level flight that the aircraft will not be structurally certified to fly 20 degree AoA testing for another two (2) years.

So the absolute insistence that the F-35 IS or will be the second best dogfighter on the planet is incredibly speculative and wildly premature. It's nonsense like this that makes me wonder who in the F-35 forum are Lockheed Martin/F-35 (company/program) reps.

Al

avxva wrote:

bumtish wrote:

Quite symptimatic (sic) for how you read the report, including ignoring the QLR contextualization (which hb_pencil provided) and the use of "can" and "potential".

Yeah, that dog don't hunt either. Your point refers to the effects of buffeting on structural strength and structural retrofits. My point refers to the effects of buffeting on maneuverability (and the desire to be maneuverable.) Simply said, we have no idea how maneuverable or agile the F-35 is ("what it can do" or "what it potentially can do") because it buffets so badly in level flight that the aircraft will not be structurally certified to fly 20 degree AoA testing for another two (2) years.

So we have that too...

Al

What is your source for the highlighted since the QRL obviously refer to fatigue analysis (as you just stated)?

Where you do get the "buffets so badly in level flight that the aircraft will not be structurally certified to fly 20 degree AoA testing for another two (2) years."?

You have knowledge that the schedule has been changed because of this?

Smile

Edit, addendum:

bumtish wrote:

So the absolute insistence that the F-35 IS the second best dogfighter on the planet is incredibly speculative and wildly premature.

Have I written anything that could be interpreted as above?

bumtish wrote:

What is your source for the highlighted since the QRL obviously refer to fatigue analysis (as you just stated)?

That source comes out of the CS module that everyone should have pre-installed. Your Common Sense (CS) module should be telling you that we will not have a clue as to the aircraft's maneuverability UNTIL the aircraft is certified to fly a flight profile that exceeds a 20-degree AoA.

"These flights (above 20 degrees angle of attack) cannot be performed until aircraft have been certified as stable for these flight regimes, so the full extent of buffet issues may not (doesn’t say, “will not,” says, “may not”) be apparent until CY2014." So until 2014 at least, a fully-loaded 757, hell, a fully-loaded Airbus 380 has a SIGNIFICANTLY larger flight envelope than the F-35. That's not saying much for the 2nd best air superiority fighter on the planet...

Again, the absolute insistence that the F-35 is or will be the second best dogfighter on the planet is incredibly speculative and wildly premature.

I'm out.

Al

Just to get us back to what you originally wrote, as it seems you reply to something else...

avxva wrote:

because according to page 12 of the report, the aircraft buffets so badly it will be until 2014 before it's even certified to find out.)

What the QLR wrote (your source);

Quote:

This risk will not be retired until high angle of attack load flights are completed* and their results are fed into airframe structural analyses. These flights cannot be performed until aircraft have been certified as stable for those flight regimes, so the full extent of buffet issues my not be appparent until CY2014

*post >20 deg aoa testing

This is what I could find, but it doesn't support the topmost quote of this post. I may have missed were in the QLR your assertion is supported. I am only asking for a quote (sic) from it. Smile

History, Technology & the F-35
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ent#208916
Where by scrolling down one will find these quotes FWIW:
“Maneuverability Is Irrelevant”:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ighter.pdf
OR

Fighter of The Future By John A. Tirpak Executive Editor July 2009 Vol. 92, No. 7

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ghter.aspx

"...However, according to Northrop Grumman, which supplies major sensor systems on the F-35, “maneuverability is irrelevant” for the F-35. The AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System, which projects a 360-degree image of surrounding air and terrain on the F-35 pilot’s helmet visor, helps the pilot see and target air and ground threats with high fidelity. It eliminates the need for night vision goggles, which have limited field of view and must be compatible with cockpit lighting. With the DAS, the F-35 pilot can literally look “through” the airframe structure—even beneath the aircraft—and shoot at targets that aren’t in front of him. Air-to-air missiles can actually be fired at targets to the rear. According to Northrop Grumman, instead of having to slug it out in a turning battle, “the F-35 simply exits the fight, and lets its missiles do the turning.”
QUOTE AT END OF ONLINE ARTICLE
______________________

Northrop Grumman Sensors Take F-35 Out of the Fight By barry rosenberg
Published: 16 Jun 04

http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.php?i=4140825 (URL not working now)

"...Maneuverability is irrelevant with DAS," said Northrop Grumman director of business development Mark Gaertner, speaking at Le Bourget. "The F-35 exits the fight and lets the missile do the maneuvering. The JSF just keeps its speed up and accelerates away...."

What exactly is called "high" angle of attack? They had F-35 up to at least 55° by a few years ago, which was already significantly more than F-16 can do, and the highest I've seen even for F-22 is 60°. How much further does F-35 need to go in order to not be a failure?

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

An F-15 pilot's view of A2A (F-35 has what is needed)