Northrop Being Screwed by the US Government

[FLYBOYJ]

Well, let's see. One of the issues is the taileron actuators. There IS an issue which has been identified and the prime (Moog) refused to fix it unless the government paid for it, but THEY designed it and so THEY needed to fix it. Maybe they HAVE by now ... I'm three years out of date. I hope so.

That is typical in the sub-contracting world, especially if a product or service is built to a specification and meets that specification and the government finds it either doesn't work for them or changes their minds. I deal with situations like that on an almost daily basis.

In order to help hide the F-35, they shunt much heat generated internally into the fuel. So, when it gets low on fuel, they have limited options before it gets very important to have some more heat sink.

Hmmmm.... I know people who have worked on and designed this aircraft, first time I'm hearing this.

The range with a full weapon load is much too short.

For all 3 models? What load out are you talking about? You do realize this aircraft has air to air refueling capability? It has met its 1200 mile advertised range (F-35A) Again Greg, you're painting all three models with a broad brush

The thing is massively overweight and there is little way to address thaht short of finding some untralight unobtanium. They simply stuffed too much into the limited space.

Same response as above. Overweight? By how much? Which model?

As for it not being a primary air-to-air, the title is joint strike FIGHTER, and fighter had BETTER be a primary mission or we should cancel it right now and sue the primes for 20+ years of damages plus penalties. Once the ordnance is gone, it better be a damned good fighter. The F-15E is and the F-4 was decent if no lightweight.

Again Greg, you're missing the point of this aircraft, its design specification and what the government asked for and is paying for.

From Air Forces Times

"On 27 January 2014, General Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command, reinforced the USAF's commitment to the F-35A fighter and their full order of 1,763 planes. He said the F-15 and F-16 fleets would become tactically obsolete in the middle of the next decade regardless of improvements; and that American support for the F-35 is would to show international allies that they should not lose faith in the aircraft. Hostage also commented that the F-35 would be "irrelevant" without the F-22 fleet being viable as the F-35 was not an air superiority fighter"

The F-104 made it into service despite being ... an F-104. I think the Germans and Dutch paid dearly for THAT one. We didn't buy too many.

There was nothing wrong with the F-104 - the Europeans operated the aircraft in a role it wasn't initially designed for - I've got tons of info on the -104 and its ultimate attrition rates that paints a different story than what the press put out about the aircraft, but that's another story...

The F-15 and F-16 had issues but nobody ever accused them of being slugs.

I beg to differ - I remember both of them during flight testing - the press and "lefties" questioned why we need two fighter aircraft, constantly dogged the F-15 untill it started breaking speed records, made fun of the F-16 when it became airborne during high speed taxi tests and when the prototype landed gear up.

So, I hope the F-35 is having or has HAD the issues addressed seriously. But if it's business as usual like 3 years ago, the aircraft is in some trouble. Since I'm not hearing about more problems much, perhaps it has finally had the major items addressed, and that would at least mean it has a fighting chance for success.

I suggest following some of the more non-biased publications about the aircraft, there aren't very many but sometimes some media outlets do give the aircraft a fair shake.

But it had better be a good fighter when the heavy ordnance is gone ... WITH a decent g-limit, or we've been sold a bills of goods that we didn't order.

See the above statement from the AF Times - Some are worried that this aircraft will be limited to 5Gs - if you're flying this aircraft and get into a visual in close dogfight, there's something wrong; operator error, equipment failure or some politician establishing rules of engagement that don't allow the aircraft to be operated to its fullest potential, again another story...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Is the "problem child" the "C" or "B" model?

The "B" version - my bad...

Australia are committing to the F-35A, and since it will be, essentially, the only fighter type aircraft we will have it will need to be at least a competitive fighter. We will have some F-18E/Fs, but they will be seriously outdated by the time we get the F-35s, especially since we won't be replacing them (only the F-18As) with the F-35.

That is something your military had/ has to think about - again this aircraft was designed from the get go as a "Strike" aircraft, with a decent air to air capability. I'm not saying the F-35 is perfect for everyone so some thought has to be put into its procurement

 

[davparlr]

Although the F-20 fiasco may be the Reason Northrop got the B-2 contract

I don't think this is very likely. Lockheed had the inside track for the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB). We, Northrop, were working the Black Program Tacit Blue at the time and did not know of the ATB program. Northrop, unsolicitated, at a Tacit Blue review, presented an idea for a stealth bomber based on a flying wing. The AF got more and more interested in the bomber design and less and less interested in the Tacit Blue program. Finally the AF told Northrop that they wanted us to participate in the ATB program competing with Lockheed. They told us that Lockheed had a year head start and we had little chance of winning but they still wanted us to counter Lockheed. At that time I was transferred to the ATB proposal effort. As the proposal went forward, we got more and more encouraging news and in the end we won. We were told by management that the Lockheed proposal did not really meet the desires of the AF and were overconfident in winning the contract. We heard their design was basically a larger version of the F-17 and was still small. The AF had really wanted a larger and more capable bomber. We were, at that time, and based of our work on Tacit Blue, implementing the next phase of stealth design, i.e., utilizing a complex curve design, something far more adaptable to aerodynamics than the flat panel F-17 design. I am not sure Lockheed had proposed this move. I am doubtful the F-20 affected this effort. Tacit Blue, maybe, B-2, doubtful, too big a contract. When Northrop got the B-2 development contract, it was the largest single contract ever signed by the US government, quite a perk for losing a fighter contract.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

One of the issues is the march of technology. If you wait long enough, the computers in a 20 years old design will no longer even have a CHANCE of spare parts. It would be good to FLY it before the computers are obsolete!

And you don't think that's being considered? BTW, many of the computers on modern combat aircraft are really not as advanced (or have a great operating system) as you might think...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Although the F-20 fiasco may be the Reason Northrop got the B-2 contract

100% not true - Northrop along with LTV, Boeing (there might have been one more partner) competed against Lockheed and Rockwell for the "ATB" contract - Northrop won.

 

[davparlr]

And you don't think that's being considered? BTW, many of the computers on modern combat aircraft are really not as advanced (or have a great operating system) as you might think...

The B-2 has Commodore level processors but are or has been upgraded.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The B-2 has Commodore level processors but are or has been upgraded.

AFAIK so did the X-35.

 

[GregP]

Well Flyboy,

Unsurprisingly, we have a strong disagreement on the F-35, and if the quote above is what they are saying now, I move we cancel the thing and field a FIGHTER-bomber instead that can handle 8 - 9 g's when the heavy ordnance is gone. So, if what you said above is true, you just created an ardent anti-F-35 guy.

Still, if we go ahead and buy the thing anyway, I hope it succeeds. And yes, I am pointing straight at ALL the varaiants when I say they are overweight. The only one that even comes CLOSE to design is the F-35B and that is because it is required to be able to land vertically, so there IS a limit and that is a bit less than the avialable thrust when hovering in a stationary mode.

As I stated, I was on this program, too, and am not very fond of it unless it gets a lot lighter, the g-limit is per original design spec, and it's characteristics as a fighter are very good. I have solid reasons from a program standpoint and would not start a public discussion since most of my gripe with it is considered proprietary information not avilable to the general public that isn't incolved with the program. I would never have known what I do if I were not on some projects related to the program.

So I'll just let it go and say I strongly dislike the aircraft as it stands right now, but hope they can make it work anyway. That's typical and it really shouldn't be. The plane should meet the specs as originally set down. No new spec should override the original specs and, if they DO, then the program should face a very critical review based on the needs of the customer(s). If it did that, it would not pass at present in any of its forms. They didn't even strengthen the wings of the naval version, so the g-limit with the extra wing area is lower. Is that lame or what? I wouldn't buy it if I were the Navy unless it was cleared for the same g-load as the A version was specified for. When you "navalize" a plane, it doesn't mean "derate it," it means make it suitable for naval operations with full capabilities ... at least to me.

These are personal opinions and I will not debate them with you or anyone else further, you won't change my mind and I obviously won't change yours. So be it.

Since we will have F-35's, let's hope you are correct and press ahead. I'd love to be proven wrong and look forward to it being operational so I can make as assessment after some service time. Should it prove a good one, I'll be happy to say I was wrong. And I hope the international customers also are happy with them. I suppose we'll see sometime rather soon.

Good luck F-35. May you be better than I think you are.

Here is a quote from an F-35 news release about a year ago:

The US Department of Defense's decision to relax the sustained turn performance of all three variants of the F-35 was revealed earlier this month in the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 2012 report. Turn performance for the US Air Force's F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from five to 4.5 g's, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to five sustained g's. Acceleration times from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 were extended by eight seconds, 16 seconds and 43 seconds for the A, B and C-models respectively. The baseline standard used for the comparison was a clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs. "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.

Most egregious is the F-35C-model's drastically reduced transonic acceleration capabilities. "That [43 seconds] is a massive amount of time, and assuming you are in afterburner for acceleration, it's going to cost you even more gas," the pilot says. "This will directly impact tactical execution, and not in a good way."

Pilots typically make the decision to trade a very high rate of fuel consumption for supersonic airspeeds for one of two reasons. "They are either getting ready to kill something or they are trying to defend against something [that's trying to kill] them," the pilot says. "Every second counts in both of those scenarios. The longer it takes, the more compressed the battle space gets. That is not a good thing."

You can find it here:

Reduced F-35 performance specifications may have significant operational impact - 1/30/2013 - Flight Global


Not saying it is, but if the above is accurate, maybe it's still business as usual like 3 years ago ... Personally, I'd refuse to pay for a 4.5- g military fighter-bomber. Heck, I can pull more g's in an old Yak-18 ... and HAVE.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well Flyboy,

Unsurprisingly, we have a strong disagreement on the F-35, and if the quote above is what they are saying now, I move we cancel the thing and field a FIGHTER-bomber instead that can handle 8 - 9 g's when the heavy ordnance is gone. So, if what you said above is true, you just created an ardent anti-F-35 guy.

There is actually no reason to build a fighter bomber these days and fly it 8 - 9 gs for a number of reasons. Even the former A-10 drivers I work with have told me they rather kill the target and fly away rather then twist and turn and give the bad guys a continued target to shoot at. Again, in this day and age if you got your self in a closed in tradtional dogfight with a multi-million dollar machine, something is terribly wrong.

Still, if we go ahead and buy the thing anyway, I hope it succeeds. And yes, I am pointing straight at ALL the varaiants when I say they are overweight.

They are not - the program's detractors been saying the aircraft is between 10 - 15% overweight but has not been able to say where and when.

The only one that even comes CLOSE to design is the F-35B and that is because it is required to be able to land vertically, so there IS a limit and that is a bit less than the avialable thrust when hovering in a stationary mode.

I don't know who been talking to or reading but the B model is the problem child - go to the LMCO site and look at some of the F-35 milestones. Also look at the news for the aircraft being tested out at EDW.

As I stated, I was on this program, too, and am not very fond of it unless it gets a lot lighter, the g-limit is per original design spec, and it's characteristics as a fighter are very good. I have solid reasons from a program standpoint and would not start a public discussion since most of my gripe with it is considered proprietary information not avilable to the general public that isn't incolved with the program. I would never have known what I do if I were not on some projects related to the program.

Well, if you say so - I know folks who work on the actual aircraft, not in a sub-contractor capacity. The aircraft isn't perfect, but it's performaning a lot better than the media portrays it.

So I'll just let it go and say I strongly dislike the aircraft as it stands right now, but hope they can make it work anyway. That's typical and it really shouldn't be. The plane should meet the specs as originally set down. No new spec should override the original specs and, if they DO, then the program should face a very critical review based on the needs of the customer(s). If it did that, it would not pass at present in any of its forms. They didn't even strengthen the wings of the naval version, so the g-limit with the extra wing area is lower. Is that lame or what? I wouldn't buy it if I were the Navy unless it was cleared for the same g-load as the A version was specified for. When you "navalize" a plane, it doesn't mean "derate it," it means make it suitable for naval operations with full capabilities ... at least to me.

I suggest you talk to someone at LMCO and let them tell you about some of the "Customer" generated changes that has effected this program, it goes back to my original statement about people within the pentagon creating solutions to problems that don't exist. - remember, the DoD had a choice on a very ambitious and advanced program and LMCO won by meeting the initial government specification in the allotted time. LMCO is not faultless here but one also has to look into the each issue and explore the root cause - a lot of it lies with the government...

These are personal opinions and I will not debate them with you or anyone else further, you won't change my mind and I obviously won't change yours. So be it.

So be it - I rather go with facts and the facts are the aircraft, for what it brings to the table is doing a lot better than people portray it, and a lot of that is mainstream media driven.

Here is a quote from an F-35 news release about a year ago:

The US Department of Defense's decision to relax the sustained turn performance of all three variants of the F-35 was revealed earlier this month in the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 2012 report. Turn performance for the US Air Force's F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from five to 4.5 g's, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to five sustained g's. Acceleration times from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 were extended by eight seconds, 16 seconds and 43 seconds for the A, B and C-models respectively. The baseline standard used for the comparison was a clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs. "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."

Old news...very old news - The Navy version lost .1G in sustained turn performance, the air force version lost .6G, I think we're splittng hairs...

And in that article the "pilot" was never identifed...

Not saying it is, but if the above is accurate, maybe it's still business as usual like 3 years ago ... Personally, I'd refuse to pay for a 4.5- g military fighter-bomber. Heck, I can pull more g's in an old Yak-18 ... and HAVE.

Why not? If the aircraft could fulfill its mission, who cares if it could pull 5 gs or not? BTW the F-117A was rumored to be limited to only +6gs depending on configuration.

Here's the latest on the F-35 from LMCO. Mind you they are only going to tell the good news, but the aircraft is making progress, especially the USAF version...

https://www.f35.com/news

In the end and getting this thread back on track, a big winner on this program is going to be Northrop...

http://www.globenewswire.com/newsarchive/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=10053818

 

[razor1uk]

Wow, I suppose if the electronics inhibit the pilot in evasive controls to save the airframe, then, if for some reason future 35 drivers of any user nations are involved in proxy wars that largely involved in combat within visual ranges possibly over areas that have at least good aerial defences, then they are going to struggle somewhat to dodge a fair amount of AAA, SAM and AIM weapons then.

It's recently usual that when the USAF in the same scenario/situation/combat area, that there's enough pilots and varied aircraft types and the US support staff and ground defences too, to pretend/gain localised air superiority. For those who can't rely on the US to bolster them quickly enough in force, it seems like 'tough sh*t or f*"k off! ..oh and thanks for the non refundable money.'

What about the time when (not if) the US doesn't have a choice to pick to fight the easiest to overpower eh.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Wow, I suppose if the electronics inhibit the pilot in evasive controls to save the airframe, then, if for some reason future 35 drivers of any user nations are involved in proxy wars that largely involved in combat within visual ranges possibly over areas that have at least good aerial defences, then they are going to struggle somewhat to dodge a fair amount of AAA, SAM and AIM weapons then.

The whole point is to avoid combat within in visual range and not to be made a target. In theory this should work as seen when the F-117A took out Iraq's "eyes" during the opening days of GW1.

It's recently usual that when the USAF in the same scenario/situation/combat area, that there's enough pilots and varied aircraft types and the US support staff and ground defences too, to pretend/gain localised air superiority. For those who can't rely on the US to bolster them quickly enough in force, it seems like 'tough sh*t or f*"k off! ..oh and thanks for the non refundable money.'

And that's when potential purchasers of this aircraft have to ask themselves if it's the right fit for them both operationally and financially

What about the time when (not if) the US doesn't have a choice to pick to fight the easiest to overpower eh.

In theory, that wouldn't happen, in theory...

 

[GregP]

I have no doubt whatsoever that the F-35 has dazzling electronics.

But we found out in WWII you needed to see and dogfight sometimes. Then we confirmed that in Korea. The we lost sight of that when we designed the first generation of Mach 2 jets ... and for some reason moved away from the bubble canopy, thinking nobody would ever sneak up behind our Mach 2 baby.

Then we found out in Viet Nam that older all-round vision MiG's were, in fact, sneaking up behind F-4's, which were too heavy to dogfight effectively when their missile armament failed. So we went back to the tried and true with the F-15 and F-16.

Now we're buying a combat jet that is essentially helpless when the electronics get overwhelmed by either numbers or by electronic failure or the enemy's electronic advancements.

Beyond visual range (BVR) weapons are wonderful if you USE them BVR and if you have enough of them ... but we have a requirement to close and identify before we kill the target, so we're into visual range anyway, right where the F-35 is not very good. And that leaves me right back at my premise; a jet fighter-bomber that can't be a fighter when required is nothing but a bomb truck.

And I didn't think the most expensive weapon system in history was supposed to be just a bomb truck to the customers who are having it rammed down their collective throats. I thought it was suppose to be a replacement for many aircraft, most of whch could be employed as fighters. I thought is was supposed to replace the F-4, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-111, Eurofighter, etc.

While many of these planes can be used as bomb trucks and the F-111 is mainly a bomb truck, most are also pretty decent fighters when they are called upon to be. I don't think the F-35 is or ever will be. I might be wrong, but I also might be right. Of course, nothing Lockheed-Martin writes will emphasize that since the objective is sales.

Another factor is service life.

Electronics has a shelf life. The whiz-bang electronics of today are three years from now's older slower models. Suppose the F-35 actually is the greatest electronics package around when it comes into service. Does anyone out there think it will still be that 20 years from now? Much less the projected 40 - 50 years of service life later?

It's 2014 now, Go back to 1994 and look at the best cell phone in the world. Compare it to a new smartphone. Which one do you want to use? OK, now go back to 1974 or 40 years ago. At that time, the first hand-held mobile phone had just been demonstrated the year before by Motorola. It offered a talk time of 30 minutes and took 10 hours to recharge.

Would you still like to be using that today? So once the electronics aren't the latest, greatest, what do you have ... an airframe that can't function as a fighter ... but it replaced all the fighters and was supposed to do the job.

Maybe it can, but I like to bet when the odds are on my side. I'd rather not bet on a fighter-bomber that can't be a fighter. What if it also can't be a bomber some 15 years down the road due to electronic advancements by the opposition? What can it do for you at that point in time? Suddenly it's not a fighter and now is no longer invisible as a bomber to the opposition. There are rumors that the Russians already have radar that can see it quite well. What if the rumors are true? And what if the Russian sell that radar to the potential opposition around the world? Take away stealth and what is the projected future of the F-35 in combat with an enemy that knows it is coming and can see it?

I'll take an Su-37. The enemy might know you are there but he probably has no desire to close with you and fight since he also knows you'll probably kill him.

 

[swampyankee]

Care to explain?

I'm trying to find the article.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have no doubt whatsoever that the F-35 has dazzling electronics.

More than you and I know...

But we found out in WWII you needed to see and dogfight sometimes. Then we confirmed that in Korea. The we lost sight of that when we designed the first generation of Mach 2 jets ... and for some reason moved away from the bubble canopy, thinking nobody would ever sneak up behind our Mach 2 baby.

Then we found out in Viet Nam that older all-round vision MiG's were, in fact, sneaking up behind F-4's, which were too heavy to dogfight effectively when their missile armament failed. So we went back to the tried and true with the F-15 and F-16.

We do need to dogfight (as a last resort, but as I stated, if you're dogfighting with the F-35, something went terribly wrong), we didn't have to do it in Vietnam, and if you look into 90% of F-15 and F-16 kills by all operators, they were BVR and hardly a match.

Now we're buying a combat jet that is essentially helpless when the electronics get overwhelmed by either numbers or by electronic failure or the enemy's electronic advancements.

Proof? you don't know that as the jury hasn't even been picked on that one...

Beyond visual range (BVR) weapons are wonderful if you USE them BVR and if you have enough of them ... but we have a requirement to close and identify before we kill the target, so we're into visual range anyway, right where the F-35 is not very good.

Politicians will determine that one, the premise is the plane is good enough so you'll never have to do that.

And that leaves me right back at my premise; a jet fighter-bomber that can't be a fighter when required is nothing but a bomb truck.

The f-35s primary mission is to drop bombs, end of story...

And I didn't think the most expensive weapon system in history was supposed to be just a bomb truck to the customers who are having it rammed down their collective throats. I thought it was suppose to be a replacement for many aircraft, most of whch could be employed as fighters. I thought is was supposed to replace the F-4, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-111, Eurofighter, etc.

It will only be a bomb truck if 1. The wiz bang avionics don't work (which I doubt that will be the case) or 2. Those operating it don't use it to its fullest potential, the latter will not be the fault of the manufacturer.

While many of these planes can be used as bomb trucks and the F-111 is mainly a bomb truck, most are also pretty decent fighters when they are called upon to be. I don't think the F-35 is or ever will be. I might be wrong, but I also might be right. Of course, nothing Lockheed-Martin writes will emphasize that since the objective is sales.

My father in law few F-111s - in his opinion, in the air to air role it sucked when flying VR..

Another factor is service life.

Electronics has a shelf life. The whiz-bang electronics of today are three years from now's older slower models. Suppose the F-35 actually is the greatest electronics package around when it comes into service. Does anyone out there think it will still be that 20 years from now? Much less the projected 40 - 50 years of service life later?

If you look at current combat aircraft they are constantly undergoing upgrades, do you really think the F-16 still has some of the avionics it did in 1980?

Maybe it can, but I like to bet when the odds are on my side. I'd rather not bet on a fighter-bomber that can't be a fighter. What if it also can't be a bomber some 15 years down the road due to electronic advancements by the opposition? What can it do for you at that point in time? Suddenly it's not a fighter and now is no longer invisible as a bomber to the opposition. There are rumors that the Russians already have radar that can see it quite well. What if the rumors are true? And what if the Russian sell that radar to the potential opposition around the world? Take away stealth and what is the projected future of the F-35 in combat with an enemy that knows it is coming and can see it?

Greg, you're over speculating - as the saying goes, if the queen had balls she'd be the king!

I'll take an Su-37. The enemy might know you are there but he probably has no desire to close with you and fight since he also knows you'll probably kill him.

And I remember people saying that about MiG-25 vs F-15s and 16s. Like the F-4 before them, they turned out to be class "A" distributors of used Mig parts and they too were bashed in the press and had many detractors when those programs were in their infancy.

 

[GregP]

Convenient answers Joe, and you COULD be right about all of them. Let's say I'm not a fan. But they have never yet asked me yet before they bought an aircraft anyway, so I'm not overly surprised they didn't this time either. But I wish they'd ask the pilots this time, though. They have a history of not asking them, either, and that is a shame. They know better than the Lockheed-Martin sales force does.

Last time we got our butts kicked in the Cope India wargame and I have seen the excuses. Doesn't matter ... we lost that one, pure and simple. I wonder about the state of air force health if if comes to a limited war where you HAVE to close and identify before you shoot. We seem to have gotten in a lot of those scrapes over the last 35 years. I have faith the F-22 can do it; just not so the F-35. I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

It looks like we're buying them anyway and I DO wish them well since that's what we will be flying.

And NOTHING I ever read when they were touting the JSF in the early 1990's ever said it wasn't going to be a good fighter when the heavy ordnance was dropped. I didn't start hearing THAT bit of fluff until the F-35 started having it's envelope reduced because it couldn't meet specs.


I can tell you for a fact that the old F-16's the Air National Guard was flying in Arizona in 2001 did indeed have the old flight computers in them. They sweated through the Y2K stuff and I got a lengthy dissertation on it by the commander of one of the Guard units at an open house. I went on a flight in a KC-135 where the Guard guys were practicing refueling connections ... that was unusual, I was nominated for and won "boss of the year" by one of my guys who was in the guard in F-16 avionics maintenance.

The F-16's would come in, get into ready position, slide into second slot, rush up and get connected, take a small sip, and then disconnect and break away every 20 seconds or so. Over and over ... just for the practive of connecting and disconnecting.

The Boss' bird was undergoing a major airframe overhaul and was about a week away from flying again, and he let us take a good close look into the cockpit. That's when he said the old computers were slow but reliable, and he explained how the pilot was a "voting member" of the control system committee.

There are 3 flight computers and 2 of the 3 have to agree on what control movements to make before anything gets moved in the direction the pilot moves the stick. So the pilot doesn't really fly it ... he asks the computers to do something and then they vote on what to do. If 2 of 3 or more agree, that's what happens at the control surfaces.

Now I don;t believe for a moment that the rest of the avionics are as originally installed, but the flight control computers were said to be so.

 

[eWildcat]

Now we're buying a combat jet that is essentially helpless when the electronics get overwhelmed by either numbers or by electronic failure or the enemy's electronic advancements.

The F-35A is still supposed to be about as good as a F-16 when it comes to maneuvering, once bombs are dropped, so it can't really be described as helpless. It's true that the vision provided by the canopy is not as good as in the F-16 though.

but we have a requirement to close and identify before we kill the target, so we're into visual range anyway,

It's written all over the place on the internet, but it's not true. It all depends on the local RoEs and they don't always require a visual identification. We have a requirement to identify a target, but there are other ways to do it than getting into visual range. Hence multiple AMRAAM BVR kills since the entry into service of the missile. They would simply not have happened if RoEs always dictated to get into visual range for identification as many people still assume.

if you look into 90% of F-15 and F-16 kills by all operators, they were BVR and hardly a match.

It's actually the other way around if you take their whole service life into account. BVR kills became really predominant only after Desert Storm, for a large part thanks to the AMRAAM. Even during DS, about 1/3 of kills were achieved with AIM-9s, and a good part of the AIM-7 kills happened in visual range.
If you rewind to the Bekaa in 1982, there were much fewer BVR kills, all the less so because at the time Israeli F-16s didn't even have BVR missiles at all.

 

[GregP]

If the F-35A is limited to 4.5 g's, it is NOTHING like an F-16. The F-16 can easily turn at 8 - 9 g's

Perhaps the 4.5 g's is when loaded to gross and the maneuver restriction is waived when light? If that is the case, I'm a bit happier about it, but still not thrilled.

I don't believe it about the ROE unless it is in a well-defined combat zone. Over something like Iraq or Afganistan, if a target is flying at 150 knots, it's probably a civilian. Now if it is 500 feet high at 450 knots, that's another story.

I know too many former fighter pilots to fall for that one ... unless the rules have changed a LOT in the last 2 -3 years.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It's actually the other way around if you take their whole service life into account. BVR kills became really predominant only after Desert Storm, for a large part thanks to the AMRAAM. Even during DS, about 1/3 of kills were achieved with AIM-9s, and a good part of the AIM-7 kills happened in visual range.
If you rewind to the Bekaa in 1982, there were much fewer BVR kills, all the less so because at the time Israeli F-16s didn't even have BVR missiles at all.

I'll stand corrected on that, yes, forgot about the Bekka slaughter.

If the F-35A is limited to 4.5 g's, it is NOTHING like an F-16. The F-16 can easily turn at 8 - 9 g's

That's great at an airshow - things are changing and again there's no need for a manned combat aircraft to do 8 - 9 gs. It's not good for plane and pilot....

I know too many former fighter pilots to fall for that one ... unless the rules have changed a LOT in the last 2 -3 years.

I work with CURRENT AF officers, many of them recently out of TAC and many if not most have good things to say about the F-35, others taking a "wait and see" position, but I see none of them worried about taking an aircraft into combat that could only pull 4.5Gs.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Convenient answers Joe, and you COULD be right about all of them.

It's not a matter of being right or wrong Greg, it's a matter of 1. Understanding what the government wanted/ was willing to accept on this design 2. Understanding that you don't need a mach 2 9 G aircraft to accomplish this mission and 3. Understanding that military planners are looking to do more with less, smaller aircraft in size and numbers, greater technology and limiting numbers. Only history will tell if this will work or not, but I could tell you that the only time the F-35 should ever see a close in knife fight is during training exercises and if something went terribly wrong - we'll hope the latter never happens.

 

[swampyankee]

I don't think the F-35A and F-35C are having any particularly serious problems; development programs never go entirely smoothly. That's why they pay the engineers the big bucks until they lay them off. The F-35B is actually a high-risk design, due to the VTOL capability, and I'm actually surprised it's gone as smoothly as it has.

I worked in aerospace for a number of years, and there are many times when the government starts programs that are very high risk (I worked on the LHX project for a while, and was involved in some of the non-classified aspects of the RSRA Circulation Controlled Airfoil demonstrator -- the X-wing. The Army decided the LHX would be a conventional helicopter because the rest of the program was quite bleading edge. The less said about X-wing, the better).