Forum: General F-35 Forum

Your post sounds very unspecific. Do you have any EXACT cases you would like to share as opposed to just general broad brush bashing?

As for your one statement about taking advice from the Army on air power management: ( Thats why most Army officers tell Marines, dont ever let them take away your Air. )Number one: Army Aviation has problems with hair on them: ( culture- training- tactics etc ) so I wouldn't be taking any advice from the Army on how to manage major killing power from the air, they are clueless. Not to mention the fact the warrents and crew I have talked to; The Aviation Branch is still held in low esteme by some of the other traditional combat commands. Also their supply chain management / sustainment skills of airframes suck. If you have problems managing sustainment of an Apache you aren't going to do well with other complex killer flying machines. So, no hope there. And I certainly don't see a reason for a Marine to take advice from the Army on airpower as USMC has CAS ( such as it is with limited USN funding ) figured out. Including better use of Attack Cobras ( mission planning / thinking ) than the Army with the Apache.

There are culture problems ( see last link below ) but they are getting better. I would say if anything, that the coordination between the USAF and other services ( example CAS ) is getting better, not worse from the examples I have seen from all services. ( and yes there are still many frustrations in getting things ironed out. Certainly less though than previous wars ). No offense, but your Lt. Col relation is one side of the story. I would be curious to hear the other. Also winning a war is NOT all CAS. One reason a lot of body bags weren't filled in Desert Storm is because we spent weeks pounding land forces and infastructure so that by the time we released the land forces, many enemy units were in bad shape. THAT is how airpower saves lives.

As for your comments on Korea, I have two words: "JDAM Party". An air plan on NK with today's all weather PGM's, will leave nothing for the guy with the funny hair do except rubble. No power plants, no bridges, no factories, no buildings of any importance. Iraq was an excellent object lesson. That guy likes his job and won't put it at risk. Oh, he can dust up the north end of South Korea with some artillery tubes, but the last time I checked, the ROK and US Army is well fed, NK troops are not. About all NK forces could do is expect to get slaughtered by the bushel.

Link on Sftt.org

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13 ... er,00.html

PDF File:
http://www.ndu.edu/library/n4/n03ADahlJointAir.pdf

F-16.net Sponsor

The North Korean scenario is going to be one where we have to move into the capital and port citys at maximum speed. We dont have time to waste building bridges for our Tanks and 9 Ton transport trucks to pass over the many rivers and tributaries. This isnt the European scenario where we can use railway bridges. Most bridges in NK are impassable to our heavy vehicals. Which means we either fight an Army with light weapons vs modern soviet tanks. Or we dont blow the bridges in the first place. The Airforce never bothered to ask whether or not the Army or Marines wanted that bridge intact. If it means stalling up the advance for multiple hours at a point where enemy Artillery can hit the bottleneck they'd rather not. We wont get weeks to pound away in NK, it will be the same as Iraqi Freedom, with our ground forces rolling almost as soon as the shooting starts, and thats in the case we go offensively into Korea, it probably wont happen with us starting it. So yeah they wont be able to talk to eachother, but they will still be able to fight.

And like I said, the Airforce has repeatedly done this, the revamp of the plan on North Korea, operation Sea Lord (a joint exercise of east coast MUE and all other service planning). They have a great tendency to think they know it all and either not care, or not listen. The Marines tell the Navy fliers what they want, and the Navy listens. Screw the tanks and bridges, they can handle that, take out the artillery.

Lawman wrote:

Quote:

Yes they worked it out before without a Harrier, but that means the LHA's and MEU's are going to have to be much more closely tasked with Carrier Battle Groups. There arnt to many of those to go around, and thats one more thing your waiting on when stuff starts getting hot.

Woops

, I didn't even take time to think about the obvious problem of carrying the aircraft to the battleground. You are obviously absolutely right, where would a non-jump jet replacement fit on the already crowded USN carriers? ( Embarassed

again )

Carriers aren't "crowded" anymore due to the re-org a few years back.

elp wrote:

Carriers aren't "crowded" anymore due to the re-org a few years back.

Yeah there's room for the aircraft. But with so few to go around, and no other combat support on the LHA's except gunships, the carrier will almsot have to be on scene. Meaning less air assets to be put on other duties.

the JSF according to the officials is overweight but still even though it is over weight as of current projections being 1400 pounds overweight would still give it a radius of 640nm a full 50nm more than the PP requirements.... however it would translate into less than predicted handling and acceleration as well as eff.

Statistics... I hope they don't start to let things out to make it lighter

Update from Lockheed on F35 Weight:
<a href="http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article1192.html">
F-35 weight issues resolved, focus is now on production</a>

Quote:

Engineers have removed more than 2,700 pounds (1,225 kilograms) of unwanted estimated weight from the short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, while increasing propulsion efficiency and reducing drag. The result is an F-35 JSF design recommendation that is expected to meet or exceed all of its performance requirements...

JR007 wrote:

“We have addressed every known aspect affecting STOVL aerodynamic performance and shipboard compatibility,” said Rear Adm. Steven Enewold, F-35 JSF program executive director. “We feel our proposed configuration is operationally viable. The next step is to get the trade-study results implemented into the detailed STOVL design package."

Yeah no guns less bombs.... real friggen viable. Im really starting to see things eye to eye with the side of kill this and get back to letting the services build there own planes. Yeah it gets stealth on the boats, but thats about the only advantage I can see the Marines and Navy gaining with this program.

JR007 wrote:

Engineers have removed more than 2,700 pounds (1,225 kilograms) of unwanted estimated weight

That is a lot of weight. What did they actually remove? the pilot and all the kit needed to keep him/her alive?

I guess the project name then changes from JSF to JUCAV - Joint Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (you heard it first hear...)

Sorry to correct you.
They actually removed the now unnecessary weapon bays, since the plane in this network-centric battlefield will send 2 million e-mails per second to the enemy asking them to surrender. The pilot is absolutely necessary to have people escalating up the chain of command within the system

F-16VIPER wrote:

Sorry to correct you.
They actually removed the now unnecessary weapon bays, since the plane in this network-centric battlefield will send 2 million e-mails per second to the enemy asking them to surrender. The pilot is absolutely necessary to have people escalating up the chain of command within the system

( possible spam... )

This Email is to inform you of a great opportunity. The great (fill in the blank of current pres ) ______________ has come into a weapons system that needs your help. As his project manager we would like to offer you the opportunity to surrender and receive large amounts of U.S. foreign aid. Please take this most great opportunity and please inform us of your intentions. May great things happen in your new business venture. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Gen Smith
Commander,
Joint Opportunity Command Center, 1st Joint Spam Fighter ( JSF ) Wing

Well, the navy always has to fly overweight a/c, what's your point?

Further "non-class" details...

****************************************************

JSF program officials said they have identified 2,700 lb. in weight or weight equivalent reductions for the Stovl aircraft using strategies that include:

Reducing the distance between interior structural elements in the wing so the aircraft's exterior skin can be thinner.

Reducing the size of the weapons bays by 14 in. as well as the size of the vertical tails.

Rounding the shape, the loft line, of the fuselage behind the cockpit to hold more fuel. That was one of several changes that decreased drag.

Redesigning the electrical system to decrease the battery size and the amount of wiring.

Redesigning the wing-mate joint.

Rerouting some thrust from the roll post outlets to the main engine thrust.

Additional equivalent weight reductions will result from changing carrier operations requirements from those demanded for the Harrier including instrument flight patterns and vertical hover rate ratios.

The weapons bay reduction will eliminate certain weapons from the Stovl configuration, including the Joint Standoff Weapon and 2,000-lb. bombs. However, Hornburg doesn't see that as an impediment to the Air Force embracing the Stovl aircraft. Since that model will be dedicated to close air support in the Air Force, it won't need the large weapons. Instead, it would likely carry 250-lb.-class small-diameter bombs.

The Lockheed Martin team also recaptured a 600-lb. equivalent reduction by redesigning the auxiliary inlet on top of the JSF's fuselage for better pressure recovery, said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and general manager for JSF. Predictions are that the changes will decrease takeoff roll by 100 ft., he said, and allow the bring-back weight for a carrier recovery to include two 1,000-lb. bombs, two air-to-air missiles and reserve fuel. Critical design review is slated for late 2005 with first flight of the production-configured aircraft in the summer of 2006 and funding for low-rate initial production to begin in 2007. Production in 2014-15 is expected to reach one aircraft per day.

JR007 wrote:

Rounding the shape, the loft line, of the fuselage behind the cockpit to hold more fuel. That was one of several changes that decreased drag.

I thought the lift fan was behind the cockpit. How can they fit more fuel there? Question

Maybe those smart folks at that "smelly place" pulled off another one. Wink

JR007 wrote:

The Lockheed Martin team also recaptured a 600-lb. equivalent reduction by redesigning the auxiliary inlet on top of the JSF's fuselage for better pressure recovery, said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and general manager for JSF. Predictions are that the changes will decrease takeoff roll by 100 ft., he said, and allow the bring-back weight for a carrier recovery to include two 1,000-lb. bombs, two air-to-air missiles and reserve fuel.

And those two air-to-air missiles would have to be carried on the wingtips? Correct?

Could they be AMRAAMs or would that be to heavy?

Forum: General F-35 Forum

JSF weight worries / Jump Jet