F-35 is the bar lowering?

sferrin wrote:

geogen wrote: But no, I feel there are more superior and worthy alternatives to the Super Hornet, as an alternative to the F-35. Perhaps a USMC F-18EF alternative, sure... but that would be about it. Cheers.

Nope. Can't fly off gators. (And before you go, "Oh, oh, they can just fly off the Navy's CVNs!" spare me. That's as assinine as saying we can scrap the CVNs because the USN can fly from USAF bases.)

Well put.

neurotech wrote:Not disagreeing with the "US Law" per se. There is some discretion in prorated R&D cost. And more importantly, the US Navy got quite a large "discount" with the MYP buy, and what I heard is that if they do a expanded FY14/FY15 buy, larger saving for the US Navy. This would mean that Boeing could then reduce the cost for other AFs.

Maybe 6 million or so for a E model, which would bring the cost around that of the F-35.

neurotech wrote:I don't know what the politics of FMCS was for Canada, only that it is available to Canada. When I was around, there wasn't much Boeing led-training going on, except for test and OT&E pilots. That is not to say they couldn't provide training if requested and authorized, but it would divert resources from test programs. Considering only the Navy, RAAF, Boeing & their contractors fly F/A-18E/F series fighters, there isn't much demand for training from Boeing.

I noticed CF-18 pilots use the term "standards" and don't say NATOPS, and they don't use NATOPS flight manuals. The NATOPS manuals are officially a Navy document, so that might explain it.

This is the problem with Commercial sales; We could not recieve any of the training or documentation because its US government material, not commercial material. You have to realize that we created quite a bit of our material indigenously, which in some ways was for the better. However I don't think that's really possible today, given the complexity of modern fighters. Its just not worth the extra time, which is why we wouldn't do it.

neurotech wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:I'm almost certain the USAF accepted the F-22 with a significantly lower MTBF and sortie rate than originally envisioned. It has been raised since, but it was nowhere near what was called for.

That is what I heard, that and they changed the RAM in later jets, based on similar coating to the F-35. That helped reduce maintenance. Also, there was an initial lack of parts, and crews were cannibalizing other jets for parts, leading to even more RAM repairs.

Actually the MTBF issue was due to the aircraft's avionics rather than stealth, though that did decrease the sortie generation rates (which was widely reported in the press.)

hb_pencil wrote:Actually the MTBF issue was due to the aircraft's avionics rather than stealth, though that did decrease the sortie generation rates (which was widely reported in the press.)

Probably heat related. The earlier F-22s had i960MX processors, and they run HOT, compared to the PowerPC chips in the later F-22 Blocks. I'm sure there is quite a few other components running hot, and failing. Early F-35s had avionics cooling problems, but this has been fixed.

As for the relative cost of the F/A-18E/F vs F-35A, It's likely that the F-35A will actually be cheaper in FRP. Boeing are trying various ways to get the Navy to to extend the MYP for another year or two. Boeing claim they can get the Flyaway cost down to $49m

neurotech wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:Actually the MTBF issue was due to the aircraft's avionics rather than stealth, though that did decrease the sortie generation rates (which was widely reported in the press.)

Probably heat related. The earlier F-22s had i960MX processors, and they run HOT, compared to the PowerPC chips in the later F-22 Blocks. I'm sure there is quite a few other components running hot, and failing. Early F-35s had avionics cooling problems, but this has been fixed.

As for the relative cost of the F/A-18E/F vs F-35A, It's likely that the F-35A will actually be cheaper in FRP. Boeing are trying various ways to get the Navy to to extend the MYP for another year or two. Boeing claim they can get the Flyaway cost down to $49m

Legislators included a provision in the FY13 Budget for startup money for a handful of SHs IIRC though this was over the objections of the White House/DoD.

neurotech wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:Actually the MTBF issue was due to the aircraft's avionics rather than stealth, though that did decrease the sortie generation rates (which was widely reported in the press.)

Probably heat related. The earlier F-22s had i960MX processors, and they run HOT, compared to the PowerPC chips in the later F-22 Blocks. I'm sure there is quite a few other components running hot, and failing. Early F-35s had avionics cooling problems, but this has been fixed.

As for the relative cost of the F/A-18E/F vs F-35A, It's likely that the F-35A will actually be cheaper in FRP. Boeing are trying various ways to get the Navy to to extend the MYP for another year or two. Boeing claim they can get the Flyaway cost down to $49m

Unlikely. At this point in the production life, they've squeezed all the efficiencies they can out of the aircraft. In order to decrease the cost they need to increase the production lot sizes, which is also unlikely to occur particularly with the spectre of the sequester looming.

neurotech wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:Actually the MTBF issue was due to the aircraft's avionics rather than stealth, though that did decrease the sortie generation rates (which was widely reported in the press.)

Probably heat related. The earlier F-22s had i960MX processors, and they run HOT, compared to the PowerPC chips in the later F-22 Blocks. I'm sure there is quite a few other components running hot, and failing. Early F-35s had avionics cooling problems, but this has been fixed.

As for the relative cost of the F/A-18E/F vs F-35A, It's likely that the F-35A will actually be cheaper in FRP. Boeing are trying various ways to get the Navy to to extend the MYP for another year or two. Boeing claim they can get the Flyaway cost down to $49m

Did they ever upgrade? Last I heard they stayed with the old chips and never got to the powerPC chips. That's why they bought the entire remaining production of them in 2004~2005.

Two points- not all missiles that were fired, were in their NEZ, but did achieve mission kills. Secondly, the performance of the F-35 is versus clean legacy jets, not ones with a similar combat load.

Well according to the link I read, no kills were achieved, 6 missiles were fired on 1 engagement but all failed to hit their targets.

Also, even at NEZ, its still possible to escape if you play your cards right

delvo wrote:

the32notes wrote:the F-35 should have as many advantages going for it as possibe even if its just .5 or .7Gs

OK, so how do you do that? More engine power? It's already the most powerful engine ever for its size and already getting beefed up now. Bigger wing & fin surfaces to deflect more air for a sharper turn? Version C has that compared to A & B, and demonstrates that it brings increased drag with it, which suppresses speed, acceleration, and range. Less wing sweep angle for the same purpose? It has the same side effect. The opposite of the above, to cut drag and get more speed & acceleration? Less ability to deflect passing air reduces turning and lift, the latter of which reduces payload. Lighter weight? They've already made it as light as it can get without taking out or shrinking parts that give it some of its other useful traits, like internal bays (aerodynamics & stealth), various electronics, weapons capacity, and fuel capacity (range), and there have already been complaints that they might have cut excessively (fire suppression systems, four 1500-pound hardpoints on B where A & C have 2500).

Do you think the design it has right now was NOT based on trying to get "as many advantages going for it as possible"; they just cut out some ability for no positive reason?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ar-381031/


Well according to the link I posted above, the problem is not with the aerodynamic structure. The plane can perform 5.3Gs sustained turns however the tail gets scorched in the process.

So to me, it looks like the best way to solve it is to somehow solve the heat problem, if their gona add spce shuttle like tiles on the tail ala YF-23's engine exhaust, I dont know

But if they're not gona do anything about it because 4.6Gs sustained turn is "good enough" then we're just proving Piere Spray right all along, the plane is aerodynamically a step backwards.

If anything, I'd like to see Piere Spray, Bill Sweetman and Karlo Copp's faces when the first F-35 arial demo takes place. However now, I'm a bit nervous

the32notes wrote:

delvo wrote:

the32notes wrote:the F-35 should have as many advantages going for it as possibe even if its just .5 or .7Gs

OK, so how do you do that? More engine power? It's already the most powerful engine ever for its size and already getting beefed up now. Bigger wing & fin surfaces to deflect more air for a sharper turn? Version C has that compared to A & B, and demonstrates that it brings increased drag with it, which suppresses speed, acceleration, and range. Less wing sweep angle for the same purpose? It has the same side effect. The opposite of the above, to cut drag and get more speed & acceleration? Less ability to deflect passing air reduces turning and lift, the latter of which reduces payload. Lighter weight? They've already made it as light as it can get without taking out or shrinking parts that give it some of its other useful traits, like internal bays (aerodynamics & stealth), various electronics, weapons capacity, and fuel capacity (range), and there have already been complaints that they might have cut excessively (fire suppression systems, four 1500-pound hardpoints on B where A & C have 2500).

Do you think the design it has right now was NOT based on trying to get "as many advantages going for it as possible"; they just cut out some ability for no positive reason?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ar-381031/


Well according to the link I posted above, the problem is not with the aerodynamic structure. The plane can perform 5.3Gs sustained turns however the tail gets scorched in the process.

So to me, it looks like the best way to solve it is to somehow solve the heat problem, if their gona add spce shuttle like tiles on the tail ala YF-23's engine exhaust, I dont know

But if they're not gona do anything about it because 4.6Gs sustained turn is "good enough" then we're just proving Piere Spray right all along, the plane is aerodynamically a step backwards.

If anything, I'd like to see Piere Spray, Bill Sweetman and Karlo Copp's faces when the first F-35 arial demo takes place. However now, I'm a bit nervous

Do you and Piere have a bet going or something?

If getting those .7 Gs back is the difference between making all those people "happy" I am sure we will spend billions to make it happen. You aren't ever going to win those guys over. This is like saying the most important thing a Political candidate can do is win the approval of the opposition. Its not. In case you havn't noticed, Kopp made up his mind a long time ago. Facts are things for people who deal in reality. He doesn't.

I'm sure they will try to improve the aircraft to make it better for combat purposes.
If for example there was a way to drastically increase capability in another area at the cost of another .5 G. Do we not do that in order to make those three happy rather than making the aircraft more lethal?


Let me put it like this: If you have a neighbor and the only thing that impresses him is how fast you can shot gun a fifth of Jack Daniels and violently beat hookers do you want to impress him? Is that important? Or is it more important that you do what you do well?

For Bill Sweetman its all about making the JSF a Gripen or SH. For Kopp its all about making the F-35 an F-22... See how we can't please everyone? Not only can you not please them but I assure you they are just as unhappy with the JSF as they were yesterday, as they will be today, and they will be tomorrow.In order to make the JSF more satisfactory for them you have to drastically change the JSF to the point where it is unrecognizable.

I am all about making the F-35 the best killing machine possible, and I am sorry to say and this will upset a lot of people, but frankly the plane that turns the bestest is not necessarily the best combat aircraft and it hasn't been for some time. If less aerodynamic awesome improves combat capability thats what I want. If the F-35 goes it whole career without ever getting into a dogfight to quiet the critics, hey job well done. I'll take BVR and successful strikes.

the32notes wrote:

Two points- not all missiles that were fired, were in their NEZ, but did achieve mission kills. Secondly, the performance of the F-35 is versus clean legacy jets, not ones with a similar combat load.

Well according to the link I read, no kills were achieved, 6 missiles were fired on 1 engagement but all failed to hit their targets.

Also, even at NEZ, its still possible to escape if you play your cards right

Are you familiar with the term mission kill? For example let's say your task is to defend a strike package from enemy aircraft. As you're flying your CAP, you spot inbound threats, that are on an intercept course for friendlies. You lock them up, and fire some missiles, so that they disengage, and the strikers get through safely. Would you agree that this was a successful use of the missiles, even though they didn't actually hit the attackers? It's not unlike the countless HARM missiles that were fired, to keep SAM operators from emitting/engaging. They accomplished their purpose- getting strike packages though safely.

If the reduction in "g" is due to the exhaust hitting the tail I wonder if they can reschedule the converging diverging nozzle such that the exhaust plume doesn't impinge on the control surfaces? They would need to look at whether or not they can get the required thrust for that flight condition and if the engine becomes more suceptible to compressor stall under those conditions.

Do you and Piere have a bet going or something?

If getting those .7 Gs back is the difference between making all those people "happy" I am sure we will spend billions to make it happen. You aren't ever going to win those guys over. This is like saying the most important thing a Political candidate can do is win the approval of the opposition. Its not. In case you havn't noticed, Kopp made up his mind a long time ago. Facts are things for people who deal in reality. He doesn't.

I'm sure they will try to improve the aircraft to make it better for combat purposes.
If for example there was a way to drastically increase capability in another area at the cost of another .5 G. Do we not do that in order to make those three happy rather than making the aircraft more lethal?


Let me put it like this: If you have a neighbor and the only thing that impresses him is how fast you can shot gun a fifth of Jack Daniels and violently beat hookers do you want to impress him? Is that important? Or is it more important that you do what you do well?

For Bill Sweetman its all about making the JSF a Gripen or SH. For Kopp its all about making the F-35 an F-22... See how we can't please everyone? Not only can you not please them but I assure you they are just as unhappy with the JSF as they were yesterday, as they will be today, and they will be tomorrow.In order to make the JSF more satisfactory for them you have to drastically change the JSF to the point where it is unrecognizable.

I am all about making the F-35 the best killing machine possible, and I am sorry to say and this will upset a lot of people, but frankly the plane that turns the bestest is not necessarily the best combat aircraft and it hasn't been for some time. If less aerodynamic awesome improves combat capability thats what I want. If the F-35 goes it whole career without ever getting into a dogfight to quiet the critics, hey job well done. I'll take BVR and successful strikes.

Well is the F-35 gaining anything at the expense of the lost turning capability? I seriously dont know. If it was however, than you're right, It is a fare trade off, but if not, then would'nt it be better if it got fixed?
Thats all I'm saying. I'm not trying to argue with any experts, as you can see I'm a "newbie" here

I read this article however
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ct-381683/

and according to pilots, they're preatty nervous about this lowering of the bar thing. here's an exerpt from the article according to some pilots

"What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications. Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

At higher altitudes, the reduced performance will directly impact survivability against advanced Russian-designed "double-digit" surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems such as the Almaz-Antey S-300PMU2 (also called the SA-20 Gargoyle by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the pilot says. At lower altitudes, where fighters might operate in for the close air support or forward air control role, the reduced airframe performance will place pilots at increased risk against shorter-range SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery.

Well according to the link I posted above, the problem is not with the aerodynamic structure. The plane can perform 5.3Gs sustained turns however the tail gets scorched in the process

Nope, according to the DOT&E report the tail temperature problem is at high speed/ high altitude, not at "low" speed high g turning.
I'll se if I can find the page....

Regards

Finally!!! I was looking in the 2011 report, explains why I didn't find it...

Anyway page 30 in
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/

Horizontal tail surfaces are experiencing higher
than expected temperatures during sustained
high-speed / high-altitude flight, resulting in
delamination and scorching of the surface coatings
and structure. All variants were restricted from
operations outside of a reduced envelope until the
test team added instrumentation to the tailbooms to
monitor temperatures on the tail surfaces.

best regards