The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[F-14D]

I suspect the Brits may wind up de-mothballing the Harrier fleet for a while. They should.

Too late! We already bought them. B)

Besides, the RAF leadership worked too hard to get rid of them and also do a number on the RN to go back now.

 

[AAAdrone]

The RN only has one aircraft carrier anymore to my knowledge. Until the Queen Elizabeth class carriers and the F-35C show up the RN has virtually no air power projection capability whatsoever. With the Americans continuing to push back IOC dates that could only mean the Brits won't get any fighters for QUITE some time to put on their new carriers. Man, what is with the UK government these days?

 

[royalistflyer]

There's nothing to stop the RN from going to super Hornets immediately as one of the carriers (so far) is getting catapults fitted.

 

[Thorvic]

There's nothing to stop the RN from going to super Hornets immediately as one of the carriers (so far) is getting catapults fitted.

Not in this half of the decade they wont, whilst the HMS Queen Elizabeth will be completed in 2016 she will not enter service with the CATOBAR equipment and will perform first of class sea trials whilst HMS Prince of Wales is assembled and (probably) fitted with the EMALS and Arrestor Gear. PoW won't be ready to operate aircraft till 2020 once she has completed her sea trials and working up. Officially the first carrier was then to be mothballed, but indications are a preferrence by the current government to adjust that SDSR2010 decision in SDSR2015 so that both carriers are converted and will rotate so one carrier is available for use at all times.
As long as the F-35C survives the US budget cutting and its unit price doesn't carry on creeping up then the UK will get its aircraft towards the end of the decade with hopefully enough to form half a unit for FAA use on a CVF in 2020. Should there be any further delays to the program then i suspect we may see a lease of USN aircraft (F-18s) just to get the Carrier Air Group and Carrier upto speed ready for the F-35C towards the end of the decade. Should the F-35C program be put in doubt or become unaffordable then we may see a switch to Super Hornet or Rafale or even Sea Typhoon if pushed, but thats only if the F-35C is no longer viable as the JCA solution and that will only become apparent in the next 12-24 months.

 

[shedofdread]

I've been a little 'out of the loop' of late and headn't heard the 'rotating carrier' thing. So, has common sense broken out at main building / the treasury? And does this also mean that the 'rent-a-carrier' agreement with the French is not required now?

S

 

[Deino]

 

[Thorvic]

I've been a little 'out of the loop' of late and headn't heard the 'rotating carrier' thing. So, has common sense broken out at main building / the treasury? And does this also mean that the 'rent-a-carrier' agreement with the French is not required now?

S

No not yet the SDSR2010 still stands where one carrier would be mothballed upon completeion and possibly sold off. What we have had is various MOD ministers making comment about retaining and converting both, where one would be operational and the other refit/reserve and rotated, pretty much as the Invincible class and the Assault ships are rotated (in all honesty that's how the CVF would have always operated, the spin about having both operational was allways guff as there would never be the capability to man and fill the airgroups on both STOVL carriers unless it was war!).
The key events coming up for the UK CVF & F-35C are the current US budget crisis and how they decide to resolve it in terms of the impact on the F-35C program, and next year we have the actual MOD report due late on regarding the actual CATOBAR conversion and which ship will be converted to that configuration. As next year is also the Queens Diamond Jubilee they are very unlikley to say that HMS Queen Elizabeth will be mothballed in favour of HMS Prince of Wales being converted to CATOBAR, so they either go through the added expense of converting QE after completion in STOVL format or they make an adjustment to the SDSR to retain both ships with the conversion funded in SDSR2015 or even SDSR2020. The alternative is having the government crucified by the press for commiting such as faux par and certain ministers finding their career is over as whilst it makes all economic and practical sense to convert the 2nd ship, you do not favour the heir over the monarch even if just symbolic !!!!.
The ironic thing is that if the carriers had been assigned traditional carrier names instead of Roayl Names then they would not have just shrugged off any bad press of building a ship for mothballing and blamed the last government, but the Royal link has created a must bigger headache, but may mean we will eventually get a pair of carriers.
As for the French link that still stands and in some aspects the US budget cuts which might have a long term effect on their CVN numbers could have the posiibility of the 2nd UK carrier helping to make up numbers witha USN airgroup embarked , as thats also been mentioned in passing.
Overall there is nothing concrete but the tone appears to be looking at ways to employee both rather than mothball and dispose of one, but we will have to wait for a year or so to see what will eventually happen.

G

 

[F-14D]

There's nothing to stop the RN from going to super Hornets immediately as one of the carriers (so far) is getting catapults fitted.

Arguably the Rafale would be a better choice, but since the UK is part of the Typhoon coalition, that might send the wrong message for future sales. It's unlikely that Britain would spend the money by itself to develop a carrier version of the Typhoon, if that really is possible. So if F-35C gets too late or is canceled, SH could win by default.

However, keep in mind that because of the CTOL modifications the first carrier has been pushed back to 2020, (one of the other reasons the powers that be wanted to get rid of the Harrier). Additionally Great Britain has to learn all over again how to fly CTOL from a carrier (that expertise was lost years ago) and develop the specialized shore infrastructure, so that also pushes back when they actually need the F-35C.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Extended video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&feature=player_embedded

featuring a STOVL generated rainbow and a crew member with real guts stood at the bow!

 

[shedofdread]

Thanks for posting that video. I'm intrigued by the state of trim on take-off. After the A/C has cleared the end of the deck, a large amount of down elevator is applied as it establishes in the climb. Clearly, with flaps deployed, one would assume up elevator would be required and hence on wonders if there's something going on with the STOVL system - maybe the front fan produces more lift as airspeed rises? BTW, the rerar nozzle doesn't seem move during this so it isn't a case of trimming aerodynamically for out of balance jet lift. Hmmmm... Anyone got any bright ideas or am I in a 'post long day at work' dim state and as such missing something?

S
(probably in need of caffeine...)

 

[cosmicpop]

I think it's trying to squeeze every last bit of lift out of the airframe at a fairly slow speed. The engine in providing most of the lift at takeoff I imagine.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It’s to keep the aircraft trimmed at that 20-30 degree angle of attack. It would appear at that speed (~100 knots) and with the nozzles down and lift fan blowing the aircraft really wants to stick the nose in the air. The downwards pitch of the elevators would appear to cancel that out.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Thanks for posting that video. I'm intrigued by the state of trim on take-off. After the A/C has cleared the end of the deck, a large amount of down elevator is applied as it establishes in the climb. Clearly, with flaps deployed, one would assume up elevator would be required and hence on wonders if there's something going on with the STOVL system - maybe the front fan produces more lift as airspeed rises? BTW, the rerar nozzle doesn't seem move during this so it isn't a case of trimming aerodynamically for out of balance jet lift. Hmmmm... Anyone got any bright ideas or am I in a 'post long day at work' dim state and as such missing something?

S
(probably in need of caffeine...)

In the approach to landing, there is also a lot of nose-down stabilator as well. It might be there to help counter the nose-up pitching moment from the front fan and provide a bit of lift with forward speed as well (there is wind over deck so it's not a pure hover). On the takeoff roll, the stabilator position is possibly inhibited by a landing gear squat switch until liftoff to maximize acceleration (no aero drag) although I note that the nose-down stabilator angle doesn't disappear immediately on touchdown. In any event, the nose-down pitching moment of the flaps at low speeds would be negligible, not to mention that with fly-by-wire and computer-furnished stability and control, the flight control surfaces go wherever they're needed at any particular moment. The F-18E/F full-on "speed brake" mode is quite a sight.

 

[shedofdread]

Right, had a chat with someone with current, relevant, fast jet experience and apparently it's because the thing's unstable and all that down elevator is to overcome a tendancy to carry on pitching up when the nose is up.

 

[Mike Pryce]

At low speed the aerodynamic instability is a small matter - it is the lift fan that provides much of the nose up tendency. In transition the lift fan thrust is acting both upwards and pushing aft, and being located ahead and below the cg it means that the nose is being pushed up more than in the hover as the forward thrust from the lift fan has a 'lever arm' effect. And with the tailpipe partly deflected the latter is pushing up less than in the hover to counteract the lift fan.

This 'low speed pitch up' has been a common control issue in many ASTOVL projects where the thrust line is not on the centreline, as it is on the Harrier. I am impressed that the F-35B flight control system has been made sufficiently robust to allow the man at the bow to stand there with confidence. Hats off to the FCS engineers!

As for tailplane deflection in the hover, it will help to limit the 'suckdown' effect that afflicts all STOVL aircraft in ground effect, as does flap deflection - both reduce the planform area on which air entrained by the exhausts and the 'ground sheet' act, minimising lift loss from 'suckdown'.

 

[flateric]

 

[Mike Pryce]

After 50 years of trying, the UK's first supersonic STOVL aircraft rolls out - F-35B BK-1. There will be a BK-2 too. And then, that's it. Not much to show for all that work!

 

[shedofdread]

Is it known what will be done with them? I suppose they'll go into the test programme as our contribution, right?

 

[Mike Pryce]

Yes, they'll do some tests of systems etc., and cockpit similarities will allow some pilot familiarisation I guess. And hopefully Farnborough 2012 will see one!


See also http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-lockheed-rolls-out-uks-first-joint-strike-fighter-365167/

 

[Abraham Gubler]

After 50 years of trying, the UK's first supersonic STOVL aircraft rolls out - F-35B BK-1. There will be a BK-2 too. And then, that's it. Not much to show for all that work!

Still a better result than the P.1154 and P.1216!

 

[kcran567]

The more I look at the F-35 and all the variants, i see that it is designed to avoid any kind of air to air engagement (like legacy aircraft such as the f-16, 15, 14 etc) i think all its sensors are going to help steer it away from trouble when needed.


I'm an enemy of this plane.


The one plane fits all is going to be an utter failure.


There needs to be a dedicated ground attack, STOVL, and lightweight aircraft. Even the designers know this.


I just don't see it being able to fight only with missiles since the enemies it will face are going to be in more numbers and be constantly trying to get in as close as possible. And somehow they will find a way.
How is this strategy going to work in a real war?


I also believe that its just too expensive. The budget has been astronomical. give me a new stealthy f-20 class design so I can fly 10 to you're 1.


These planes are going to have to be built in larger numbers in the future.


Its like the last days of Germany in WW2, sure they had limited higher tech stuff but got overwhelmed by simpler yet capable planes and tactics.


I see the enemies of this plane designing very stealthy, f-5/f-20 class aircraft with passive sensors, better performance, and close in kill capability. Keeping cost down as much as possible.


Design a good performing class of fighter aircraft with some stealth, at a reasonable price like an f-5/f-20 and I would be interested to see what will become of the f-35 and these budget busting aircraft.


But don't take it from me all you pro-f-35 yes men, listen to what f-16/A-10 designer Pierre Sprey has to say.



http://youtu.be/UQB4W8C0rZI

 

[kcran567]

The real question is would you want to be in the f-35 flying against T-50 or J-20?


Or would you rather be in the t-50/j-20 fighting against the (one plane to do it all) f-35?

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

actually, what the designers have in mind for both the J-20 and T-50 is to engage at the longest range possible and gtfo really fast^^

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

But don't take it from me all you pro-f-35 yes men, listen to what f-16/A-10 designer Pierre Sprey has to say.

Will all due respect to Mr Sprey, he is not the designer of the F-16 or the A-10.

 

[Jemiba]

I've somewhat the feeling, that the F-35 in some way is the reversal of Sir Sydney Camms
well known say about the TSR.2 . Here, the F-35 got the politics right ! That's in no way a critiscm
against the design per se, I just cannot think, that this program still COULD be axed completely.
Besides the US six other countries are paying for the development and are articled to it.
Cancelling six contracts may be more expensive in the end, than to pay for all cost overruns
and, as that would be a political, not just a technical/financial decision, there are surely some
questions with regards to national reputation, too. Even if it costs billion of $, it's not all clinical
pragmatism, I think.
Anyway, the video clearly shows, that even the F-35B already is "over the rainbow" !

 

[sferrin]

The real question is would you want to be in the f-35 flying against T-50 or J-20?


Or would you rather be in the t-50/j-20 fighting against the (one plane to do it all) f-35?

I'd rather face them in an F-35 than any other aircraft (except an F-22 of course).

 

[sublight]

actually, what the designers have in mind for both the J-20 and T-50 is to engage at the longest range possible and gtfo really fast^^

Which is the optimal strategy against us. The USA has less than 10 beyond visual range kills in the history of US air warfare across all services. We wont do it, but now they (opposing forces) HAVE to.

 

[sublight]

oopsie.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

actually, what the designers have in mind for both the J-20 and T-50 is to engage at the longest range possible and gtfo really fast^^

Which is the optimal strategy against us. The USA has less than 10 beyond visual range kills in the history of US air warfare across all services. We wont do it, but now they (opposing forces) HAVE to.

Which is ten more than anyone else (except Israel using US BVR systems). BVR systems just haven't had the opportunity to do their thing: no mass bomber waves in the 1960s, no WW3 in the 1980s. This doesn't make them ineffective. Might as well say since no ICBM has never nuked a city that they aren't effective.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[sferrin]

actually, what the designers have in mind for both the J-20 and T-50 is to engage at the longest range possible and gtfo really fast^^

Which is the optimal strategy against us. The USA has less than 10 beyond visual range kills in the history of US air warfare across all services. We wont do it, but now they (opposing forces) HAVE to.

Which is ten more than anyone else (except Israel using US BVR systems). BVR systems just haven't had the opportunity to do their thing: no mass bomber waves in the 1960s, no WW3 in the 1980s. This doesn't make them ineffective. Might as well say since no ICBM has never nuked a city that they aren't effective.

Phoenix had several BVR shots in the Iran-Iraq war.

 

[sublight]

actually, what the designers have in mind for both the J-20 and T-50 is to engage at the longest range possible and gtfo really fast^^

Which is the optimal strategy against us. The USA has less than 10 beyond visual range kills in the history of US air warfare across all services. We wont do it, but now they (opposing forces) HAVE to.

Which is ten more than anyone else (except Israel using US BVR systems). BVR systems just haven't had the opportunity to do their thing: no mass bomber waves in the 1960s, no WW3 in the 1980s. This doesn't make them ineffective. Might as well say since no ICBM has never nuked a city that they aren't effective.

** EDITED, VIOLATION OF FORUM RULES ** I'm simply making the observation that it forces the opposition to use BVR tactics. It wont be pretty.

 

[bmdefiant]

Im sure that the opposition will not be as concerned as possible Allied forces over the use of BVR tactics, if it succeeds in its purpose..

 

[AAAdrone]

That's true. I guess really the only issue here is ROE. However I am sure that allied fighters will have all that is needed to start scoring massive amounts of BVR kills with technology like the F-22's ISAR systems, the F-35's EOTS and EODAS, etc. That and ESM systems will play a good role if the waveforms and scan patterns of their radar emissions can be correctly matched with the right fighter ID. I'm sure that then our aircraft will have all the identification needed under a wartime scenario set of ROE to make a BVR kill and in the case that F-35 drivers cannot, then I'd imagine said drivers will have trained with EMCON tactics and other tactics used to reduce observability to a minimum so that they can simply avoid an engagement.

With the level of avionics present in 5th generation fighter aircraft hopefully the level of off-board support from vulnerable assets like AWACs and standoff/support jammers will be minimized thus giving the potential threat less vulnerable targets to pick out of the sky with Novator K-100s and R-37s and all that other good stuff.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

** EDITED, VIOLATION OF FORUM RULES **

** EDITED **
However to the substaintive argument you seem to be claiming that the US "won't do BVR" but others will? Everyone flying a fighting aircraft wants to kill at the longest ranges possible. How someone is going to do BVR against a low observable aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 is a bit of a mystery to me? Magical L band leading edge radars and other nonsense aside if you can't detect an aircraft until it is ~20km away you aren't going to be able to deploy a BVR weapon before you are within visual engagement ranges.

 

[Jemiba]

And now please, back to business as usual, Gentlemen !

 

[Creative]

F-35C launched with EMALS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSZr58hH_cI&feature=colike

 

[kcran567]

I like the f-35 in some respects, but we all must admit that the designers HAD to make compromises that will affect its capabilities in some areas which we all know those areas of concern expressed in Australia as a customer for example. They are really concerned with a Sukhoi and future J-20 threat.


My question is (to you Russian aircraft/doctrine) experts is how do the Sukhoi's and J-20's have to fight against the f-35? Everyone is talking about BVR, well are allies going to allow this in combat when they could risk losing fighters to blue-blue friendly fire?


Would the Russians leave off the radars in their 4th+ Gen aircraft and be vectored in by ground or other systems, and hope for a close in fight against the f-35's? How will that work out for the f-35's?


What if the Russians RELY on jamming the approaching missiles, doesnt the need for stealth become less important? If an F-35 fires a missile, Sukhoi jam, Sukhoi gets in close for a IR/ Gun kill, are all bets off at that point? Thus making the F-35 irrelevant before the first shot fired and a monumental spending $$$$$$boondoggle$$$$$$?

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

Well, I would imagine it like playing Marco Polo blindfolded

though I've always thought the BVR missiles were meant for something else like say... AEW

as for the Su-35S, I don't think they'll hope in engaging in knife range but instead "flank" with the cunning use of datalinks(surprise?)

actually, stealth and e-war are synergistic

and with how things are going, EODAS is becoming a norm. Mid-range combat is likelier to happen than a knife fight however both sides will reasonably just gtfo rather than committing to an extended engagement.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I like the f-35 in some respects, but we all must admit that the designers HAD to make compromises that will affect its capabilities in some areas which we all know those areas of concern expressed in Australia as a customer for example. They are really concerned with a Sukhoi and future J-20 threat.


My question is (to you Russian aircraft/doctrine) experts is how do the Sukhoi's and J-20's have to fight against the f-35? Everyone is talking about BVR, well are allies going to allow this in combat when they could risk losing fighters to blue-blue friendly fire?


Would the Russians leave off the radars in their 4th+ Gen aircraft and be vectored in by ground or other systems, and hope for a close in fight against the f-35's? How will that work out for the f-35's?


What if the Russians RELY on jamming the approaching missiles, doesnt the need for stealth become less important? If an F-35 fires a missile, Sukhoi jam, Sukhoi gets in close for a IR/ Gun kill, are all bets off at that point? Thus making the F-35 irrelevant before the first shot fired and a monumental spending $$$$$$boondoggle$$$$$$?

Are these actual questions or are you just saying whatever comes to mind?