Northrop Being Screwed by the US Government

[Njaco]

GregP.....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.......

I don't know much if anything about the 35 but the other day on "60 Minutes" they did a story on the plane. One of the things they allowed the reporter to do was check out some new helmet electronics. Apparently the plane has cameras at all axis of the plane and these are hooked into the helmet for the pilot. What this does is allows the pilot to see all around the plane, uninterrupted: front, sides, underneath and back in a smooth transition all around. I've been following your discussion and while I may agree with your opinion of the entropy of electronics, with everything working properly, this jet appears to have great visibility for the pilot especially visual range.

I will go away now.

 

[GregP]

Yup, he can see all round. But at 4.5 s, it makes him a target for anyone who also sees HIM.

Sorry, 4.5 g just doesn't GET it for the mission.

This is s turkey and will be shown to be so when it gets into combat.

We'll see, won't we.And a few turkey kills don't make it effective. What makes it effective is not a one-on-one combat not the one-off situation that is tailor made for the F-38's characteristics, but rather a sustained success against determined adversaries.

Again, MY opinion, not to argue, but to state my own thoughts.

Your opinion may vary, like your mileage in your car.

 

[eWildcat]

Yup, he can see all round. But at 4.5 s, it makes him a target for anyone who also sees HIM.

Sorry, 4.5 g just doesn't GET it for the mission.

Well, depends. A 4.6G sustained turn at 40,000 ft would be pretty good. One the opposite, if it's at 5,000 ft then that's pretty bad. I've tried to link this sustained-G limit to an altitude, but I wasn't able to find anything on the internet. Does someone have something ? Without knowing the altitude, we can't draw any conclusion.

As for the max G-limits, it seems they haven't changed : 9G for the F-35A, 7G for the F-35B and 7.5G for the F-35C (the current max G-limit of the navy F/A-18s ).

 

[GregP]

I hope you are correct eWildcat.

And i'm not saying that 7 - 9 g turns are a common thing, but if you have to dodge a something or turn hard for a short time to get on someone's tail, the capability is very nice. Nobody does that at 45,000 feet but, at 1,000 feet, you'd best have the capability because your opponents do. Hopefully, the g-limit degradation is for full a combat loadout and would be relaxed back to spec when the main ordnance has been expended.

I believe they are having the F-35's airshow debut today at Luke AFN in Arizona. Our P-38 is flying over to be part of the display ... Lightning and Lightning II together. I know some people whoa re going and I asked them to time the F-35 display to see if it runs any longer than 5 minutes. If not, some of the issues might still remain. If so, then the issues have at least been addressed or partly addressed.

I suppose we'll know soon enough. I'm pulling for the F-35.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sorry, 4.5 g just doesn't GET it for the mission.

And this is your opinion, the opinion of the DoD or the guy who will ultimately fly this aircraft????

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I wasn't able to find anything on the internet. Does someone have something ? Without knowing the altitude, we can't draw any conclusion.

As for the max G-limits, it seems they haven't changed : 9G for the F-35A, 7G for the F-35B and 7.5G for the F-35C (the current max G-limit of the navy F/A-18s ).

At this time I don't think you will

 

[The Basket]

At this time I don't think you will

4.5G would be poor for a jet airliner. But the Soviets flew the MiG-31 and that had the maneuverability of a brick.

The latest Flankers have thrust vectoring, Hemet mounted sight,30mm cannon and R-73 Archer. Dogfighting one of them suckers is a silly idea. 9G or 4.5G.

 

[GregP]

That's not a very good question, Joe. I'm not biting.

It is rather obviously my opinion. But since we fly WWII planes that can do better than 4.5 g's, I would hazard that 4.5 g is nothing when maneuvering at low levels in a combat situation. You'll pull more if you go for a ride with the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds, and they aren't exactly in a combat environment. I realize that you may not have to do so if you can sneak up on the other guys, but if they get onto you, the nice gentle maneuvers will be shortly a thing of the past unless your plane will fall apart if subjected to more.

You may sneak up 7 or 8 times out of 10 but sooner or later you'll get intercepted. My concern is that the pilot has a fighting chance to either get through or to escape being killed. At low level, if you are limited to 4.5 g, I don't think your survival chances are very good once they know you are there and about where you are. Others may disagree, but they probably haven't tried to explain that to an Su-35 pilot who is busy intercepting them. Since the F-35's will be flying into combat with a full load, they should be stressed to handle combat maneuvers when fully loaded and THAT issue needs to be addressed by SOMEONE with a good response that doesn't involve always surprising the enemy.

Again, just my thoughts. But the single engine fighter-bombers of the last 60 years of the jet era speak pretty loudly because they were ALL capable of more than 4.5's when loaded. From the P-80 to the F-105 and everything in between and after ... right up to the F-35.

All round vision notwithstanding, the more I hear the less I think it is a good plane. Everyone is concentrating on the positives of stealth and electronics and ignoring the negatives like they don't exist ... but they DO and will be with the guys flying in. We might as well talk about what will happen when someone finds them coning in at low level who happens to be flying a modern interceptor. They ARE out there and will be waiting when we try a sneak attack. Late model MiG's and Sukhois are NOT incapable opponents.

The F-35 accelerates slower that current opposition much less future opposition, is g-limited at least when fully loaded, and apparently isn't all that good a fighter when the stores are expended by your own admission. I don't believe LMAC ... they want to sell the package at any cost. So except for electronics, what recommends it as a good buy?

If that avionics set is so great, it would STILL be great in a more capable airframe. Additionally, I'd say that if you are a developmental pilot on the program and don't spout the program objectives, you'll shortly be flying something else or maybe nothing else.

If anyone can tell me why it is a good plane and explain logically, point by point, I'll listen. But don't tell me a plane limited to 4.5 g when loaded is not in danger if discovered and intercepted by modern opposition, especially in visual conditions. I've already heard current and former attack pilots say it is a mistake in print. The people who disagree with them try smear tactics, not reasonable explanations with counterpoints. I am always suspicious of people who refuse to answer good questions and instead try putting down the questioner.

So I'm searching for some reason or reasons to be happy about the purchase and am coming up mighty short.

I still hope it all works out somehow. They aren't even considering an alternative and THAT is a colossal mistake. There is no way you can pick a winner from a group if there is no group. A candidate population of one is never a good decision; it is, rather, the only option. So everyone smiles and says what a good choice it was ... except they didn't HAVE a choice. They had the alternatives of a new plane or no new plane. Surely a new plane is better than none? right?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That's not a very good question, Joe. I'm not biting.

It is rather obviously my opinion. But since we fly WWII planes that can do better than 4.5 g's, I would hazard that 4.5 g is nothing when maneuvering at low levels in a combat situation.

In WW2 - it's not 1945 Greg!

4.5G would be poor for a jet airliner. But the Soviets flew the MiG-31 and that had the maneuverability of a brick.

The latest Flankers have thrust vectoring, Hemet mounted sight,30mm cannon and R-73 Archer. Dogfighting one of them suckers is a silly idea. 9G or 4.5G.

The whole point is NOT to dogfight, at least in an F-35 and against a Flanker, that what the F-22 is for, but that's another discussion - kill at BVR and be done with it.

As mentioned the 4.5G limitation is during a sustained turn (probably at a certain weight).

 

[wuzak]

Engines
B-36 6 x 3250hp, 28 cylinder, R-4360, total hp required, 19,500
B-35 4 x 3000hp, 18 cylinder, R-3350, total hp required, 12,000

The B-35 also had R-4360s.

Interestingly, one of the lubrication techniques used for the B-35 was a styrofoam cup which was filled with oil, put into position and tipped over at the appropriate time (from Graham White's book on the R-4360).

 

[wuzak]

"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"

This is the problem for many customer countries - they don't have the F-22, and the F-35 is expected to fulfil the air-superiority role.

As to what is a viable F-22 fleet - is 180-190 operational aircarft enough? Originally there were supposed to be so many more.

 

[wuzak]

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

Our military thinks they have what they need.

But our military also bought an LHA.

 

[wuzak]

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)

Don't you think refuelling makes the F-35 more vulnerable?

If the enemy can take out the refuellers then the F-35's capabilities are reduced.

 

[GregP]

The reply "It's not 1945" hardly answers the question or even starts to address it at all. So far, I see nothing at all to make a case for the F-35 other than salesmanship and round words of motherhood and apple pie from guys who are assigned to make the decision sound valid to the press and the general public.

Just earwash with no opportunity for meaningful questions.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see if it works since it appears we are headed that way whether or not it makes any tactical sense. Truly a sad day for the US Department of Defense. They must be giving people six-figure bonuses at LMAC.

 

[eWildcat]

As mentioned the 4.5G limitation is during a sustained turn (probably at a certain weight).

Yep, it's important, because it seems the Basket and GregP are confusing two different things (EDIT : unless I misunderstood what they wrote, if so my apologies) :

- Max G-limit : It's the maximum load factor permissible to the pilot, that is to say the pilot is not allowed to pull more, either because he's told so by the manual, or because the fly-by-wire controls won't allow him to do it.
As far as we know, the max G-limit of an F-35A is still the same as an F-16, i.e. 9G. So an F-35A pilot can definitely pull 9G, unless the USAAF says otherwise at some point. The question is how long the pilot can do it, so how long the plane can keep enough energy to allow the pilot to pull so many Gs (an F-16 at low altitude can pretty much do it as long as it has fuel or a conscious pilot).
The Max G-limit at a certain speed gives you the maximum instantaneous turn rate of a plane. But it provides nothing about the sustained turn rate.

- Max sustained G : It's the maximum load factor that a plane can sustain (provided there's enough fuel left and the pilot doesn't get a G-LOC). And this is the requirement that was relaxed by the DoD. The max G-limit was untouched.
So if the F-35A has a maximum sustained G of 4.6G, then if the pilot pulls more than 4.6G the plane will eventually lose energy and slow down, whereas if the pilot pulls 4.6G or less the plane will keep energy or even gain some. The max sustained G limit gives a plane its maximum sustained turn rate.
Because of how altitude impacts lift and engines, the maximum sustained G varies with altitude. For instance, even an F-16 won't be able to have a sustained load factor of 9G at high altitude, whereas it definitely can at low altitude.

As for the F-35, the figures given by the DoD regarding max sustained G are pretty much useless because we don't have any information about the related altitude (and we will probably not get it soon, as FLYBOYJ pointed out), so we can't draw any useful conclusion about what those figures mean.

 

[razor1uk]

I too hope it goes well for this 'project', although for carrier defence shore strike work work, I personally think a Harrier like offspring alternative would still be adequate, with a largely tried and tested design of concept, 4 poster lift combativeness, but since we sold off gave up the rights to the Harrier designs, well that's now dead and buried, never to return.

It seems that only the newest, most expensive seems ever to do these days, the politcoes and the investors love it that way - it sells newspapers so they can hear their own spiel and use it to berate just(ful) questioning; here's a parable...

There was a military that knew it didn't have the numbers, so it quested in increasingly more (in-efficient ways - due to ideologically elitist reasons) for the best it could make, and when it had less and less to fight, provide and repair with, they got better kit but increasingly became swamped by many more by less able, cheaper and easier to learn equipments that could be made faster than their 'quality' kit, then it was game over for them but it took time for the logic and effects of that truth to reach them, when it did, history was written be those whom defeated them.

What I think Greg, others and myself are trying to say Flyboy et al 35 supporters

The bigger something is, the harder it falls; or the more advanced it is, the more chance it can go wrong when the poo and munitions start flying at/around it, and/or when its not on home turf with all the maintenance components spares it really needs as opposed to what the salesman said it needs.
The advanced only works when there is suprise in its usages, a close-ish parity of numbers to their facing foes, and certainly when there is No time ability for (creating and/or purchasing) development on the opponents equip' side.

Having the best double team combo sure, but if you need one to always protect the other, then you'll have a problem if unthinkable crap happens to restrict the protector - like stukas or kates to hurricanes or hellcats.

Optimism is good, feth, its is better than good if you understand it. But just as a good sword blade is a mixture of hard and soft steels and an iron core, so to the edge optimism morale must have a core pragmatism too, so to appreciate and aid spotting likely gaps in concept/thinking/sight/coverages etc.

Respect yourself, respect your enemies and your respect equipment; a faliure in one of those three adages leads generally leads to severe problems down the line, ignoring more (usually) is worse, meaning valuable live lost somewhere.
This likely to be one of my last posts in this thread, having said more than my 2 groats worth.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This is the problem for many customer countries - they don't have the F-22, and the F-35 is expected to fulfil the air-superiority role.

And that's where those countries have to weigh in to see if the F-35 is the right fit for them

As to what is a viable F-22 fleet - is 180-190 operational aircarft enough? Originally there were supposed to be so many more.

It's hard to say - i think there were only 50 more F-22s planned so it's going to depend on the situation

Don't you think refuelling makes the F-35 more vulnerable?

No - you don't refuel close to the combat zone - air to air refueling is usually done in route or during return.

If the enemy can take out the refuellers then the F-35's capabilities are reduced.

See above post - You just don't allow your tankers to be targets, that simple

 

[razor1uk]

Tankers are generally protected very well by screens of escorting/overflying combat A/C - they are likely to be better protected than AWACS/ELINT/EWACS A/C.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The reply "It's not 1945" hardly answers the question or even starts to address it at all. So far, I see nothing at all to make a case for the F-35 other than salesmanship and round words of motherhood and apple pie from guys who are assigned to make the decision sound valid to the press and the general public.

Just earwash with no opportunity for meaningful questions.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see if it works since it appears we are headed that way whether or not it makes any tactical sense. Truly a sad day for the US Department of Defense. They must be giving people six-figure bonuses at LMAC.

I don't have a lot of time to reply on this but I make that comment because with all due respect, you're thinking in a capacity where we will continue to have horizontal, low speed dogfights in unclaimed airspace. I used to think the same way too until I began to understand (and work with people) who operate this stuff and know that they don't always push their machines to the maximum levels, they do the job with little fuss and get out of harms way...

As far as what the aircraft can do - you could go to the LMCO website and they'll tell you all the marvelous things this aircraft could do, the tri-service cost savings of operating a common airframe and a 50 year plus airframe life expectancy. You could also read the media's propaganda of un-named detractors speculating failure and make your decision on that.

I know people who work at LMCO, I could tell you the opposite is the norm in many cases about them getting bonuses at this time in the contract (some did during the X-35). Where LMCO could really screw this up is during production, allowing people to manage the show who know little if nothing about aircraft (something I witnessed when I worked in manufacturing) but that's another stroy.

Again Greg, I could run a laundry list of pros and cons for this aircraft that are easily attainable through internet sources, I support the F-35 because I have many close friends to work on it and see the potential this aircraft has; I also see detractors making similar negative claims as was done to the F-15 and F-16. No aircraft production program is perfect, and this aircraft will have issues, but in the end you have a major aircraft corporation's ultimate survival at stake, let alone the employment of thousands of people.

Update - latest F-35 news from the USAF

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchiv...0 2014/Chugging-Along-at-Lightning-Speed.aspx

Here's an almost two year old article about the first non-test pilot trained to fly the F-35. Do notice he's mentioned by name!

USAF Lt Col Lee Kloos, commander of the 58th Fighter Squadron, is the first non-test pilot to start his transition over to the stealthy fifth-generation machine. Kloos, a former 2000 hour F-16 pilot and Weapons School graduate, has already completed four out of six cadre checkout flights needed to qualify him to fly the F-35A.

Kloos has now finished all six qualification flights and is the first of a cadre of flight instructors who will help other pilots transition into F-35.

Kloos had some interesting things to say about the characteristics of the F-35 in comparison to the F-16:

The veteran F-16 operational tester and Weapons School grad shared some of his impressions the F-35. The jet is powerful, stable and easy to fly.

"One of the things this aircraft usually takes hit on is the handling because it's not an F-22," Kloos says. "An F-22 is unique in its ability to maneuver and we'll never be that."

But compared to other aircraft, a combat-configured F-35 probably edges out other existing designs carrying a similar load-out. "When I'm downrange in Badguyland that's the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that's where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16," Kloos says.

A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons, external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet's performance. "You put all that on, I'll take the F-35 as far as handling characteristic and performance, that's not to mention the tactical capabilities and advancements in stealth," he says. "It's of course way beyond what the F-16 has currently."

The F-35's acceleration is "very comparable" to a Block 50 F-16. "Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35," Kloos says. "But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it."

And, of course, it is with combat loading where the comparison should be made, since that's the configuration that will go into "badguyland", as Lt.Col Kloos calls it. It sort of puts a dagger in the heart of the argument critics like to use about the F-16s maneuverability and performance advantage. It's coming from someone who knows the F-16 pretty intimately with over 2000 hours in the aircraft.

Before the critics try to twist that argument, Kloos adds a little ground truth to the debate:

The F-16, Kloos says, is a very capable aircraft in a within visual range engagement--especially in the lightly loaded air-to-air configuration used during training sorties at home station. "It's really good at performing in that kind of configuration," Kloos says. "But that's not a configuration that I've ever--I've been in a lot of different deployments--and those are the configurations I've never been in with weapons onboard."

So that's certainly not the configuration by which the two aircraft should be compared. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Instead, it is a much better comparison with the usual configurations Kloos and other F-16 pilots used in combat. And in that configuration, per Kloos, the F-35 outperforms the F-16.

And that's without even mentioning the stealth component.

A friend directed me to this site...

http://whythef35.blogspot.com/2012/06/first-non-test-pilot-trained-on-f-35.html

 

[GregP]

Thanks Joe. I've read the Lockheed stuff and have made my decision. I'm not in power in Washington but, if I were, I'd cancel the F-35 immediately. Since we're going buy it ... let's hope they learn to employ it so it's weaknesses aren't taken advantage of too often in real-world combat.

Kloos is one guy. I have read what has been written by at least 5 other F-16 pilots with more time in than Kloos who say they could take an F-35 if they were flying an F-16 ... and the F-16 IS getting long in the tooth.

So I hope your prediction comes true, but I am not one of the supporters/ I only hope we don't waste too much money before we cancel it and build something much better.

Here's a typical reason why I think that way:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJoGDpRQBOw

One of the guys in there was one of the "fighter mafia" who developed the F-16. I think he is more than qualified when it comes to having an opinion worth listening to about a new fighter.

However, just because I don't like it doesn't mean it is bad and and just because someone else likes it doesn't mean it is good. Whether or not it runs out to be good or bad will eventually come to the surface. I very strongly resist putting "everything" into an aircraft because it is soon so expensive you can't afford to buy it, fly it, or maintain it.