some F35 info

[fastmongrel]

But in all honesty, what aircraft in any nation's inventory at the moment (A-10 excluded), is immune to conventional AA?

None of them apart from maybe the Russian Frogfoot which I believe is armoured against 14.5mm, but its the sheer cost and the chance of losing say 5 or 10% of your available aircraft. The RAF is a bit wary of risking anything other than ancient Tornados near a war zone probably because they are only worth scrap value these days.

 

[GrauGeist]

But also take into consideration that the aircraft designers are aware of the possibility, which has been a reality for air-ops since the days of WWI

Modern day ballistic AA can be anything from a highly trained battery to a bunch of idiots manning an MG in the back of a Toyota pickup, and all present a very real threat to air assets.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If the USAF plans to use the F22s to do top cover for the F35 they are going to spread all those 187 planes very thinly. Dont know what the servicablity rate of the 22 is but it better be 100%.

You bring up two points - first there was the argument that there weren't enough F-22s built, but thin again in theory you won't need many to accomplish a CAP for the F-35, but ironically the MC rate for the F-22 was horrible for a while, it seems to be improving. Kind of funny while some say how expensive the F-35 is (current price between 90 and 100 million), this is from 2012 concerning the F-22.

"For starters, AFA President Michael Dunn, a retired Air Force three-star general, said, "The flyaway cost for the last block of F-22s was $142M each." This sort of whopper—trying to proclaim a lowball F-22 unit cost—has been around for a long time: for years, the Air Force's official "Fact Sheet" on the F-22 has similarly claimed a "unit cost" of $143 million."

F-22 In A Dogfight as Panetta Crimps Its Flight Envelope | TIME.com

 

[parsifal]

This is all very opinion based, but to me, the F-35 is more than adequate at protecting itself, it is even a credible threat at shooting down enemy aircraft, and destroying them on the ground. I think the critics will come to see that eventually.

But it is an expensive aircraft, and for what we need to get done, its a little short of range, and these are both serious weaknesses. I dont see that as an inherent failing of the aircraft. it was designed and developed to a very demanding specification and it wasnt just built for our needs. Still at the price that it is, it does need to deliver a lot. I hope that it can, Im confident that it can, but if it cant, we have a problem. For people who take their nations defence seriously, and also step up more than we should to meet international obligations, this aircraft needs to do what we need of it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It was designed and developed to a very demanding specification.

I think that's one of the biggest things that the detractors and doubters of this aircraft are either ignorant about or choose to ignore. Boeing and LMCO were challenged to build an aircraft to meet a US government specification and at the end of the day LMCO won that competition. It wasn't like F-35 program members were "shopping" for a fighter at some kind of car lot, they set the requirement for how the aircraft was to perform. The aircraft had issues (to be expected) but at the end of the day, as the aircraft is being deployed, the customer is getting what is asked for.

The performance of the aircraft, including how well it maneuvers was dictated by the customer.

One exception AFAIK - the sustained 9g turn.

 

[Lucky13]

Thanks for all the replies gents, appreciated!

Anyway, with the Meteor being an not too shabby missile, Mach 4, 100+ Km range etc., etc...but, being too big for the F-35's internal weapons bay, how much will it lose, just making it fit?

Missile systems, defence systems - MBDA missiles

While on the missiles, how come that they didn't develop the Phoenix any further?

 

[GregP]

The US government put forth the specification. Both L-M and Northrop responded. When the L-M product didn't meet the spec, they LOWERED it so they could buy L-M, and never gave Northrop the chance to degrade their specs and maybe change things a bit. The YF-23 MET the original spec and the YF-22 never did ... and still doesn't.

Yet here we are, flying them.

Another triumph of the procurement function. If it weren't so tragic, it might be funny.

My country is being run by idiots. The ONLY consolation is the idiocy of other countries' procurement systems.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well, if you want Cadillacs for the price of Pintos...then don't be surprised when you get what you pay for.

The United States is not a backwater country, it is a super power...and high performance technology does NOT come at a budget price.

Perhaps we should shut down the U.S. aerospace industry and outsource to China or Europe...I'm sure that the Eurofighter venture could use the business.

Maybe if we asked Putin nicely, he might cut a deal?

 

[Token]

The US government put forth the specification. Both L-M and Northrop responded. When the L-M product didn't meet the spec, they LOWERED it so they could buy L-M, and never gave Northrop the chance to degrade their specs and maybe change things a bit. The YF-23 MET the original spec and the YF-22 never did ... and still doesn't.

The YF-23 met some of the original specs, not all of them. Some supporters of the F-23 tend to cherry pick the ones it did meet while ignoring the ones it did not. But during selection you do not only consider if the asset meets spec or not, you also must look at risks associated with transition from prototype to production. Which design is more likely to be able to produced and come closest to the requirements of the force in the form presented.

As tested the YF-23 was the faster of the two. It had the longer range. It potentially had the greater maneuvering envelope although in actual flight testing it did not. The shape might have resulted in greater all aspect RCS reduction. It had IR suppression that the -22 did not. Those are pretty strong positives, no doubt.

Because of packaging, not raw size, the YF-23 had little room for expansion / enhancement over how the prototype performed.

The YF-23 did not meet the internal carriage requirement for the number of weapons the Air Force wanted. Neither did the YF-22, but the -22 came closer. The -23 could only meet this requirement at the cost of internal space already used for fuel, reducing the range and potentially impacting other performance figures.

The YF-23 was very tight on space for the required sensors and tactical systems, the -22 had more room and reduced the risk if footprint grew during development.

Although the -23 probably had the better airframe design with regards to RCS (as far as I know no actual numbers have been released) the engine fan blades were partially exposed, probably meaning JEM lines were going to be a real issue. That can be a tough issue to tackle without major redesign of the engine / intake.

Although not a requirement at the time, the YF-22 actually fired a weapon from an internal bay before down select, the -23 never did.

From published data it appears the YF-22 was a more mature design than the YF-23. It appears to have had the greater potential to transition from prototype to production with fewer changes. We have all seen the issues with the F-22 program, what would the issues have been with the F-23? No one knows, but I can think of several major problems that would have had to be addressed that did not with the F-22.

Yet here we are, flying them.

Another triumph of the procurement function. If it weren't so tragic, it might be funny.

My country is being run by idiots. The ONLY consolation is the idiocy of other countries' procurement systems.

Like it or not, the procurement process is a distillation of decades of experience. If it was not done the way it is a vendor could design a demonstrator that met the spec as presented exactly, but was difficult to build, was inflexible, and could not accept changes during the post selection process.

With the procurement process being as long as it is the systems on board the aircraft go through many changes from concept to IOC. Data links, sensors, weapons systems, all tend to change over time, particularly new / proposed versions of each of these. Any proposed aircraft must have some adaptability to support realistic changes to these systems.

T!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The US government put forth the specification. Both L-M and Northrop responded. When the L-M product didn't meet the spec, they LOWERED it so they could buy L-M, and never gave Northrop the chance to degrade their specs and maybe change things a bit. The YF-23 MET the original spec and the YF-22 never did ... and still doesn't.

Yet here we are, flying them.

Another triumph of the procurement function. If it weren't so tragic, it might be funny.

My country is being run by idiots. The ONLY consolation is the idiocy of other countries' procurement systems.

Err.. I'm talking F-35. We could open up a discussion about the F-22 vs the F-23. Right now the only major specification parameter that wasn't being met by the F-35 was the 9g sustained turn. If someone is aware of others, please enlighten us!

 

[Greyman]

Right now the only major specification parameter that wasn't being met by the F-35 was the 9g sustained turn.

Do you have specifics on this?

 

[GregP]

OK, I'll stick to the F-35 as a main subject.

The F22 will need to provide a CAP for an F-35 fighter bomber that can only carry two bombs while in stealth mode. $125 million for a plane that has a payload of two bombs. And in stealth, it cant even carry a couple of self defense missiles. Expensive escortiong expensive to drop two bombs? Is that even reasonable to anyone?

Simply brilliant. If that doesn't scream a conclusion about the so-called expertise of decades of so-called "expertise in the procurement process" then there is a basic fault in reasoning somewhere. I see decades of inefficiency in procurement, not decades of expertise.

It's cheaper to shoot a squadron of cruise missiles at it and get your hit when they run out of defensive resources.

And I don't want a "Cadillac for Pinto prices" at all. I want what I pay for. And I cannot see we're getting it. And if you think the real flyaway prices is in the $125M range for the F-35, then you have swallowed the propaganda. Pinto indeed, there was no Ford Pinto with a sticker prices in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The comparion is ludicrous. A Pinto was $2,200 and nobody would complain very hard about cheap, effective aircraft that get the job done , even if in somehwat largeer numbers.

As it happens, I was both a manager of programmers in the government military business as well as doing some programming myself. If you don't write reusable subroutines, then your competence should be in some question. Writing software to control an aircraft isn't exactly easy but, once it is written, then the routines simply need tweaking, not reinvention. If somone is writing it from scratch every time, then there is massive incompetence somewhere that should be addressed by a debarment committee.

Control loops are not simple but, once programmed, also aren't exactly rocket science and do NOT need to be rewritten every time. We had massive libraries of subroutines written in C that could be easily and quickly used as "builiding block" to write new programs rapidly.

I KNOW we're dealing with government procurement but, if they don't keep their own software in controlled libraries, we should stop fuinding them until some competence is displayed.

For instance, a simple routine is a sorting algorithm. You can use a mergesort, a heapsort, a quicksort, a bubble sort, a shell sort, a comb sort, a distribution sort, a counting sort, a bucket sort, or a radix sort. There are a few others. They aren't simple to write but, once written, do NOT have to be re-written. If you need to sort, choose one, copy and paste. It doesn't take any longer than that except to address the passing parameters you are using. Max time for implementation should not exceed 15 minutes programming time including the time to find the routines in the libraries.

There are MANY routines, especially in control systems, that SHOULD be copy and paste and then adjust the loop coefficients.

I haven't lost complete track of the real costs and am unwilling to support "more of the same" until we set some limits on what we ask for, the changes we can make before cancellation, and how we decide if the task is progressing satisfactorily so progress payments can be made. If it goes out of control, shut it down and make another move. The government would still own the designs and the data. If one contractor can't do it, shut them down and have someone else build it. That would add some incentive to get it done right.

EVERYTHING in a government procurment is owned by the government, not the companies. I have read the contracts in the past and it's always that way.

Lest this gets carried away, I realize I can't veto anything myself and the F-35 supporters can't approve it themselves either. All I can do is try to vote for someone with a little common sense and hope they can make reasonable decisions. So far, the liklihood of that seems to be zero.

But don't ask me to swallow a glowing report on the F-35 based on one-line replies and stacked war games with ridiculous ROE. It ain't gonna' happen. I may support it when the F-35 gets tested in real combat and comes out smelling good.

We already HAVE a great standard for a good combat jet; the F-15. Go look at its combat record. 115+ victories against zero losses in air-to-air combat. There HAVE been operational losses, and that has to be expected. Right now, it can't make full range because we use the fuel as a heat sink, and it has not shown itself to be anything yet. Of course it lloks god when it lands on a carrier in a peacetime takeoff and landing test. It would be pretty bad it it couldn't do at least that.

Go put it up against Allies as well as our own defenders flying their best, without restrictive ROE and see what it can do. THEN make a decision about it based on pre-decided outcomes. If it comes out OK, proceed. If it doesn't, then the decision should already have been made before the test is conducted. That is key ... set the resulting decisions before seeing the test outcomes so your decisions are rational.

There is NO POINT to a test if you can't define what you will do based on certain possible outcomes. So if you are unwiling to call a halt to it if it fails, then you might as well not run the test.

That was the worst thing in the electronics industry about running life cycle environmental tests on products. If management wasn't willing to act on what was discovered based on predefined outcomes, then the test was a complete and total waste of money. If they WERE wlling to do what was indicated, then you could develop a good product. I wish I could make everyone realize how many products showed weaknesses in test that were never addressed after being discovered.

It was staggering.

My real-world bet is aircraft testing is exactly the same; they don't want to hear anything except the company line and cannot make hard calls after they find out test outcomes. To be valid, the decisions should already have been made before the tests are run and should have been sealed from the people running the tests.

It's a basic flaw in the way we do things and results in "more of the same" .... exactly like we are seeing.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"....The F22 will need to provide a CAP for an F-35 fighter bomber that can only carry two bombs while in stealth mode..."

Who flew CAP for the Lockheed F-117 NightHawk in Iraq, Greg? The F-35 System can do everything the F-117 did only better and more accurately ... and it has a gun ... .. what fans of the F-35 need to stress is that the F-35 to a "two-fer" ... for your big $$$$ you get a next generation F-117 and, when not in 'stealth' you get a next generation F-16 (as a total system). Not a bad bargin but ... losses will be costly.

America's strategy from Republic Thunderjet/Streak, F-86 Sabre, Lockheed F-104 days to cut 'allies' into aircraft manufacturing aerospace industrial benefits ... into which tradition the F-35 falls ... has served the cause of western progress and democracy admirably well.

 

[GrauGeist]

My point, Greg, is that top-notch hardware is not cheap.

I posted some figures a few pages back, of various aircraft even from WWII, that illustrate the enormous cost of those aircraft and for the money, they were the best of the best. World beaters, if you will.

I even touched on the fact (several times) that the F-16 was over budget, plagued by delays and the media fueled the fires of it's detractors and nay-sayers. And YET, when it was delivered, it was a combat dominant platform that not only delivered as advertised, but became a world-wide legacy and is still in service nearly 40 years later...

Every single time a new contract is awarded, the crying, wrist-wringing and heavy breathing begins. It seems that this is a requirement for any new piece of U.S. military hardware.

 

[Vanshilar]

The F22 will need to provide a CAP for an F-35 fighter bomber that can only carry two bombs while in stealth mode. $125 million for a plane that has a payload of two bombs. And in stealth, it cant even carry a couple of self defense missiles. Expensive escortiong expensive to drop two bombs? Is that even reasonable to anyone?

Um, the F-35 can carry 2 air-to-air missiles in addition to 2 2k lb bombs internally, that's part of its spec:

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - F-35 JSF Weapon Carriage Capacity

Additionally, currently the flyaway cost is already $108 million while in low-rate initial production (LRIP), with a planned cost of $85 million in 2019 dollars by 2019 as it enters full rate production. You can certainly argue that the $85 million is the planned cost and thus hasn't materialized yet, but it should certainly be significantly cheaper than the current $108 million as they work out the production kinks and ramp up production.

 

[GregP]

Here were the costs as of 31 Dec 2013.

You can find it here: http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/SST-2013-12.pdf

In base year dollars, that's 276,000 MILLION dollars for what amounts to an aircraft that is in some serious doubt by a LOT of people who know what they're talking about.

Let's say it boils down to 1,000 aircraft. That's still 276 million per aircraft and the creative accountants can't change that. It's simple, forget the hype in the press. GO look at the total program cost divided by the number of aircraft and you have your real cost per airplane.

And it's nowhere NEAR what they claim in the press.

In THEN -YEAR dollars, it added up to 330,000 million. For the same 1,000 aircraft it adds up to 330 million per aircraft. The only way for the cost to be 100 million per aircraft is if the programr eaults in 3,300 F-35s. I don;t think so ... and the costs aren't static. They're higher now.

We're slated to buy 2,443 F-35s. That's $135M per airplane in 2013 dollars. The cost today isn't what it was in 2013, it has gone up.

I think a real test of the airplane against the best our allies have to offer is way past due. Since we're into initial deployment, schedule it for 6 months from now so they can learn the airplane and have the decisions that will be made based on test outcomes already in place and ready to implement.

Reasonable unless you're worried about the F-35's ability to survive against current-generation allied air power. If you are, then the F-35 has already failed before starting the test and you have already admitted defeat.

I have no prediction about the test myself, but I think it should be run. I could be wrong in what I think. A real test would determine the result, not personal opinions ... performance in combat test with wout restrictive ROE. Everyone gets to operate that way they normally operate, with normally-avaialble resources.

Wnat it to be a REAL test? Invite India and Israel to participate.

 

[Lucky13]

Um, the F-35 can carry 2 air-to-air missiles in addition to 2 2k lb bombs internally, that's part of its spec:

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - F-35 JSF Weapon Carriage Capacity

Additionally, currently the flyaway cost is already $108 million while in low-rate initial production (LRIP), with a planned cost of $85 million in 2019 dollars by 2019 as it enters full rate production. You can certainly argue that the $85 million is the planned cost and thus hasn't materialized yet, but it should certainly be significantly cheaper than the current $108 million as they work out the production kinks and ramp up production.

....and what, in 1919, will you find out there, to kick its buttocks? Just keeping the thread going!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Do you have specifics on this?

Elements Of Power: The F-35 and the Infamous "Sustained G" Spec Change
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...ter-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-382078/

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here were the costs as of 31 Dec 2013.

Dated info Greg - look at the budget that just passed,

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Weapons.pdf

I think a real test of the airplane against the best our allies have to offer is way past due. Since we're into initial deployment, schedule it for 6 months from now so they can learn the airplane and have the decisions that will be made based on test outcomes already in place and ready to implement.

And that will come when the first units receiving the aircraft are fully trained up. You mentioned Israel earlier - do you forget they bought F-35s as well?

https://www.rt.com/usa/252573-biden-f35-israel-military/

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And in the mean time...

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-mission-continues-to-evolve

The F-35 is an aircraft with an international footprint unlike any other in history. Currently, Luke has two F-35 squadrons but will eventually be home to six squadrons, all housing partner nations.

The 61st Fighter Squadron became fully operational in June and the 62nd Fighter Squadron received its first primarily assigned aircraft in August.

"The 61st FS is up, running and fully operational," said Lt. Col. David Lercher, 56th Fighter Wing F-35 division chief. "In order to be considered fully operational the squadron must have 24 primarily assigned aircraft."

At the moment, the 61st FS is home to two Australian jets and will receive many more. "The Australians will have 12 jets here by the middle of 2019," Lercher said.

The 62nd FS is on track to have eight F-35s by the end of 2015 and be fully operational by the end of 2017. They will be home to Norwegian and Italian jets.

"The two Norwegian jets are expected to arrive before the end of the year," Lercher said. "We should expect the first Italian jets to arrive this spring. Eventually, the 62nd FS will have seven Norwegian jets and five Italian jets."

Construction on the 63rd Fighter Squadron is in the works and should be open by the end of 2016.

"The 63rd should get their first airplane by March of 2017," Lercher said. "Turkey will eventually flow into the squadron with their first aircraft arriving mid-2018."

Luke should expect the fourth squadron, which includes the Netherlands and Denmark, early 2019. The fifth squadron will be home to Canada and also open in 2019. The sixth, and final, squadron will open in 2022.

"Luke will eventually be home to seven partner nation pilots and aircraft and house a total of 144 F-35s," Lercher said.