The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Triton]

Lockheed Martin test pilot Dave Nelson discusses the importance of installing a spin chute and testing it on the ground prior to beginning high angle of attack flight tests. Published on October 31, 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBxaDkXHzKY&feature=share&list=UUJWcF0ex7_doPdIQGbVpDsQ

 

[fightingirish]

F-35 Lightning II Stealth Line Production HD


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuifjJZovFU
Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuifjJZovFU

The coating of the F-35 done by robots is quite impressive!

 

[bobbymike]

I am not an F-35 fanboy (love the airplane though, did I just contradict myself) but I am a technology fanboy and I love videos like this. I predict that the F-35 will be a world class war winning weapon system despite the hollerings of its critics and will mark an almost complete domination of the fighter market for the next 30 years.

Then on to the 6th Generation ;D

 

[RyanC]

The Axe article is slightly amusing. Yes, it highlights some of the current problems and issues left to be solved. But it also seems like he's skewing some events to fit his story. The helmet...how is it critical? Critical implies the entire thing won't work without it.

SOC, Axe is well...a really bad case of fanboyitis run amuck (read -- given a widespread platform to spew his views forth). That said, he does point out some key issues with the F-35.

As LO has pointed out, you kind of need the helmet as it's a primary flight instrument; and secondly, the Helmet was supposed to be one of the reasons why the F-35 was going to be so super McAwesome, giving the pilot unparalleled situational ability, etc etc allowing him to decimate legacy fighters etc.

I think one of the solutions they were looking at (I may be misremembering it wrong), was to totally replace the entire computer system devoted to the DAS in order to get a faster processor in there to get the refresh rate up to snuff for the helmet.

That's a serious problem in the budget constrained environment DoD is about to be operating in.
There's a big difference between going hat in hand to Congress for a "product improved" version of anything, whether it's an engine or helmet to fix some annoying bugs, or to improve maintainability issues; and going hat in hand for something totally new.

What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The primary problem with the helmet was the display of nightime video on the visor. There was no serious issue with the display of flight data (ie HUD data) on the visor. Several of the fixes for the video issue are already tested or soon will be.

 

[GTX]

What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.

It has been long planned that the F-35s will get ongoing rolling updates/upgrades for their entire life. As for getting things right...well that is the same for any platform. The F-35 is not unique in this regard.

 

[chuck4]

What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.

I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.


Snce the end of cold war the US has existed pretty much in a state of grace where its sole aerospace peer competitor has fallen by the wayside, and no other power had come even close. This is why the current generation of G4 fighters could have lasted 40 years.


Now that China is rapidly catching up to become a peer competitor, I think the US would be forced to return to the schedule of designing a new generation of tactical aircraft every 15-20 years to avoid being overtaken.


So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.

I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.


Snce the end of cold war the US has existed pretty much in a state of grace where its sole aerospace peer competitor has fallen by the wayside, and no other power had come even close. This is why the current generation of G4 fighters could have lasted 40 years.


Now that China is rapidly catching up to become a peer competitor, I think the US would be forced to return to the schedule of designing a new generation of tactical aircraft every 15-20 years to avoid being overtaken.


So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.

By your own measure the F-22 would go first.

 

[GTX]

What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.

I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.


Snce the end of cold war the US has existed pretty much in a state of grace where its sole aerospace peer competitor has fallen by the wayside, and no other power had come even close. This is why the current generation of G4 fighters could have lasted 40 years.


Now that China is rapidly catching up to become a peer competitor, I think the US would be forced to return to the schedule of designing a new generation of tactical aircraft every 15-20 years to avoid being overtaken.


So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.

Economics and development timeframes will work against you I am afraid.

 

[chuck4]

What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.

I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.


Snce the end of cold war the US has existed pretty much in a state of grace where its sole aerospace peer competitor has fallen by the wayside, and no other power had come even close. This is why the current generation of G4 fighters could have lasted 40 years.


Now that China is rapidly catching up to become a peer competitor, I think the US would be forced to return to the schedule of designing a new generation of tactical aircraft every 15-20 years to avoid being overtaken.


So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.

By your own measure the F-22 would go first.

It undoubtedly will. Probably be superceded before 2030. When china, India and Russia each deploys more than 187 G-5 fighters, say around 2022, pressure will be overwhelming to develop something better.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.

So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.

I'm afraid history does not support this hypothesis.

Each successive jet fighter since the first has become more and more expensive not only to develop, but also to procure. Besides money it has also cost a lot of time for development. This is one of the reasons why the F-16 has been around for as long as it has. The US has to come up an affordable & generational improvement before they make the decision to replace everything.

Upgradeability was built into the F-35 like no other fighter before it.

1. A paid Post-SDD development plan was part of the MOU that all the Partners signed from the very start.
2. Funds are already being paid from F-35 (non-recurring) flyaway costs to fund Post-SDD development.
3. Not only is there space in the main CIP bay, but that is a completely empty CIP bay in the rear of the F-35 for future growth
4. Every piece of the avionics, from the software to the hardware is meant to be easily upgraded via open architecture.
5. Space in the ESW sensor bays was reserved for future internal jammers if required
6. All A2G pylons are fiber connected should high-bandwidth pods be certified (like NGJ).

Last but not least, a F-35 replacement would have to be tri-service or they will have to develop at least two different airframes.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Probably be superceded before 2030. When china, India and Russia each deploys more than 187 G-5 fighters, say around 2022, pressure will be overwhelming to develop something better.

Perfect timing too, because our first major money tree harvest should be ready by then.

 

[chuck4]

I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.

So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.

I'm afraid history does not support this hypothesis.

Each successive jet fighter since the first has become more and more expensive not only to develop, but also to procure. Besides money it has also cost a lot of time for development. This is one of the reasons why the F-16 has been around for as long as it has. The US has to come up an affordable & generational improvement before they make the decision to replace everything.

Upgradeability was built into the F-35 like no other fighter before it.

1. A paid Post-SDD development plan was part of the MOU that all the Partners signed from the very start.
2. Funds are already being paid from F-35 (non-recurring) flyaway costs to fund Post-SDD development.
3. Not only is there space in the main CIP bay, but that is a completely empty CIP bay in the rear of the F-35 for future growth
4. Every piece of the avionics, from the software to the hardware is meant to be easily upgraded via open architecture.
5. Space in the ESW sensor bays was reserved for future internal jammers if required
6. All A2G pylons are fiber connected should high-bandwidth pods be certified (like NGJ).

Last but not least, a F-35 replacement would have to be tri-service or they will have to develop at least two different airframes.

This is based on the theory that any future threat for the next 40 years can be handled by software upgrades and more modular electronic equipment. I doubt that is the case.

 

[quellish]

Each successive jet fighter since the first has become more and more expensive not only to develop, but also to procure. Besides money it has also cost a lot of time for development. This is one of the reasons why the F-16 has been around for as long as it has. The US has to come up an affordable & generational improvement before they make the decision to replace everything.

Upgradeability was built into the F-35 like no other fighter before it.

1. A paid Post-SDD development plan was part of the MOU that all the Partners signed from the very start.
2. Funds are already being paid from F-35 (non-recurring) flyaway costs to fund Post-SDD development.
3. Not only is there space in the main CIP bay, but that is a completely empty CIP bay in the rear of the F-35 for future growth
4. Every piece of the avionics, from the software to the hardware is meant to be easily upgraded via open architecture.
5. Space in the ESW sensor bays was reserved for future internal jammers if required
6. All A2G pylons are fiber connected should high-bandwidth pods be certified (like NGJ).

Last but not least, a F-35 replacement would have to be tri-service or they will have to develop at least two different airframes.

GAO has an interesting study of tactical aircraft upgrades:
http://gao.gov/assets/600/590505.pdf

Like the F-22, the F-35 is largely federated (integrated) systems. This can make many kinds of upgrades more difficult.

 

[SpudmanWP]

@Chuck4:

The top tier threats are handled by our top tier fighters.

The F-35 was a replacement for the F-16/18D, ie the "low" in the "High/Low".

Think about it this way, the "High" gets replaced more often as threats emerge while the "Low" has to last longer between upgrades.

Remember that the F-15 was the first to get the 5th gen treatment and will they will begin the F-22 replacement while the F-35 is in mid production (2020s).

There is no indication that there is anything on the horizon that the F-22 & F-35 cannot handle before the F-22's replacement is developed.

@Quellish:

The F-35 is a generation beyond the F-22 in terms of integration, COTS, Open Architecture, and upgradeability. Heck, the F-22 made such massive changes between early blocks that billions would be needed to get them up to Blk30/35.

btw, That PDF does not even mention the F-35.

http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the-f-35-with-software-upgradeability-built-in/
http://vimeo.com/34742158

While the F-22 struggles to get newer weapons (9x & 120D) in "some" future upgrade, the F-35 will be able to field new weapons without the need of costly (in money and time) Block upgrades. The money & time saved can be better spent on avionics, radar, and powerplant upgrades.


http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-21/issue-5/news/news/f-35-avionics__an.html

 

[DD]

"There is no indication that there is anything on the horizon that the F-22 & F-35 cannot handle before the F-22's replacement is developed."

Still plagued by those demons of stupidity, I see.

While the Su-35S and present day A2/AD systems are more than adequate for dealing with the JSF, the F-22 is being challenged by other 5th Generation fighter designs.

Dwight D Eisenhower's warning about the consequences of the 'enemy within' has now come true and its name is JSF.

 

[DD]

An AoA limit of 50 deg Alpha is nothing to write home about. Have seen 70 deg in the Hornet and still quite controllable.

IIRC, the F-22 has an unlimited AoA envelope while the Sukhois since the later model Su-27 are not Alpha limited.

That video of the wings level high Alpha test flights says it all.

 

[GTX]

Dwight D Eisenhower's warning about the consequences of the 'enemy within' has now come true and its name is JSF.

Still beating that drum... ???

 

[DD]

Tell me this, GTX, do you think it is a sane thing to do to be planning to spend as much on one Acquisition Program of Record as the total sum of the budgets of the next 29 highest Acquisition Programs of Record?

 

[DD]

But is that money and time being well spent when it comes to the F-35 or is this just self delusion?

In a similar vain, is this news?

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oVMeKZso1jQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DoVMeKZso1jQ

 

[chuck4]

http://www.crestviewbulletin.com/news/community/first-u-k-pilots-begin-training-to-fly-f-35-1.54149

News!^^

And just so I understand the narrative:

We spend a lot of money and time developing the F-35, and F-22 in anticipation of potential next generation adversaries from Russia and China. Sure enough Russia and China build prototypes of their next gen aircraft just as we anticipated they would do. So the script is going is exactly how we predicted and that is reason to suddenly panic and begin expensive crash programs based on some prototypes, who's design and details still arent even set in stone yet? How does that make any sense?

The script was for public consumption. When russian and chinese g5 fighters were still fan art, it was easier to revel in the alledged superiority promised by the script. Now that tangible Russian and Chinese counter to f-35 and f-22 are flying, more people ared now moved to take closer look at the script and finding its promises dubious.

 

[LowObservable]

A couple of comments caught my eye.


GTX - Not getting it right the first time and "the F-35 is not unique in this regard".... I await your listing of projects that have passed their original IOC date with full funding and unchanged requirements and still not had a firm IOC date planned.


Spudman - True, there has been a trend for each fighter generation to cost more than the one before. However, as you well know the entire point of the JSF exercise was to reverse this trend. Also, to state a basic economic truth that applies to housing bubbles, tulip manias and Ponzi schemes: something that can't continue forever, won't.

 

[GTX]

Nice twisting of what I actually said Bill...is this what you are reduced to now? Oh, that and carrying on with the "IOC" theme - bit of a one-song act aren't you? :

How is "It has been long planned that the F-35s will get ongoing rolling updates/upgrades for their entire life" the same as "Not getting it right the first time"? Me thinks you are so blinded by your hatred of the F-35 that everything is seen through negative filters. Sad really. :'(

 

[Evil Flower]

A lot of that planning for rolling upgrades was made back when the US and EU still had money to spend on it.

 

[LowObservable]

IOC = When the operator gets some of the capabilities that he has been paying for over the previous 23-25 years. No big deal really.

 

[pathology_doc]

I'd rather have the capability in the face of a paper tiger and not need it than need it in the face of a real one and not have it. A Bf109B is slower than a Hurricane, but by the time push came to shove, the RAF was faced with the -109E.

When push comes to shove, I want my country's pilots in the best fighter available to them. That. Is. All.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The script was for public consumption. When russian and chinese g5 fighters were still fan art, it was easier to revel in the alledged superiority promised by the script. Now that tangible Russian and Chinese counter to f-35 and f-22 are flying, more people ared now moved to take closer look at the script and finding its promises dubious.

Important decision makers who have access to classified information on not only US, but also Russian and Chinese aircraft that aren't even in production yet? or internet basement dwellers with an interest in aviation? which kind of "more people" are we talking about?

The Flanker and Fulcrum didn't instantly make the F-15 and F-16 obsolete. gimme a break.

the final part of the equation Chuck, is in the Next Gen Bomber thread where you keep emphasizing that we should build systems who's sole purpose is to scare our opponents into overspending to stop a token force. Which is exactly what you are advocating above--China/Russia builds a few prototypes and we should begin a huge crash program of multiple different types that complicate logistics and training with fleets of quickly obsolescent aircraft? ???

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

IOC = When the operator gets some of the capabilities that he has been paying for over the previous 23-25 years. No big deal really.

Gripen NG?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As those who have been immersed for more than a decade in the fighter world and associated technologies know,

So you are confirming what Chuck believes is taking place or arguing semantics?

 

[DD]

Neither but thanks for the attempt to comprehend, strawman-like though it is.

Now, how's that answer to the question (repeated) coming along?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Well there you have it Chuck, DD won't confirm it. :-\

 

[Rafael]

Back on topic.

(Reuters – Fri, Nov 16, 2012) WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When computer "hackers" working for the U.S. Navy succeeded in breaking into the computer logistics system that controls the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter earlier this year, they did the company a favor: allowing it to fix a critical vulnerability in the $396 billion program. (article goes on)

(With some interesting insights and tidbits on cyber-security which I ignored)
http://news.yahoo.com/insight-lockheeds-f-35-logistics-system-revolutionary-risky-060414294--finance.html

Lockheed sees "great progress" on F-35 fighter
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:36pm EDT

(Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) on Wednesday said it was making "great progress" on the F-35 fighter jet program, with F-35 deliveries exceeding those of F-16 fighters and C-130J transport planes combined for the first time in the third quarter. (Article goes on)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE89N1NU20121024

From this side of the pond, and as a *disinterested* party (sorry, we operate Sukhois and our F-16s are in the shadows), it seems things have started to move at a quicker pace, contrary to my perception written in a previous post.

 

[GTX]

Thanks for trying to bring things back on track Rafael. It is interesting to get the views of one from the outside.


Makes a change from the noise of some.

 

[bobbymike]

"Tell me this, GTX/T^2/sFerrin, do you think it is a sane thing to do to be planning to spend as much on one Acquisition Program of Record as the total sum of the budgets of the next 29 highest Acquisition Programs of Record?"

It is one acquisition program that is to replace - practically - the entire tactical aviation assets of the Air Force, Navy and Marines. So the question back would be would you be making the same argument if the same was being spent but on three wholly different aircraft to fulfill the same three missions?

 

[DD]

A very good question, bobbymike, and one that is easily answered in the following:

Firstly, there wouldn't be one big cuckoo in the force structure nest, the corollary being America would not be putting 'all its eggs in one basket', so to speak, particularly one with such holes and a broken handle as can be seen with the JSF basket.

Secondly, two programs would be the more cost effective way to go - not three.

Thirdly, if you take a look at the numbers originally used when it was being claimed the single, winner take all JSF Program would be more cost effective than three separate aircraft development programs you will see that the JSF Program of Record has already passed the aggregate of those three programs by some degree.

Now, do you still think the current plans bear any resemblance to sanity?

And that would be before even considering the fact that the JSF requirements (i.e. the JORD) are based on threats from an era past (as some had said almost as long ago).

 

[Jemiba]

PLEASE, DISPENSE WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS, TAUNTING, BEING RUDE AND SO ON ...

About this theme, there should be enough, that can be said in a sensible way. Everything
else will just lead to more posts edited or deleted.

 

[bobbymike]

A very good question, bobbymike, and one that is easily answered in the following:

Firstly, there wouldn't be one big cuckoo in the force structure nest, the corollary being America would not be putting 'all its eggs in one basket', so to speak, particularly one with such holes and a broken handle as can be seen with the JSF basket.

Secondly, two programs would be the more cost effective way to go - not three.

Thirdly, if you take a look at the numbers originally used when it was being claimed the single, winner take all JSF Program would be more cost effective than three separate aircraft development programs you will see that the JSF Program of Record has already passed the aggregate of those three programs by some degree.

Now, do you still think the current plans bear any resemblance to sanity?

And that would be before even considering the fact that the JSF requirements (i.e. the JORD) are based on threats from an era past (as some had said almost as long ago).

OK I get where you are coming from but your question to which I referred related only to the cost of the progam. My question to you was would you accept these costs if three separate aircraft had the same costs. I did not ask about capabilities or other preferenses but would you accept the premise of your question for three separate aircraft, ceteris paribus?

 

[chuck4]

If an overoptimistic forecast of the F-35 price were used in the trade off analysis with 3 separate programs, what makes you think the aggregate cost of the 3 separate program wasn't overoptimistic to the same degree?

The only real reason why 3 separate programs might turn out to be cheaper, IMHO, is in a tighter budgetary environment, it would have been politically easier to simply cancel one or more of the 3 independent programs than to substantially roll back the scope of the single F-35 program. However, I suspect at least part of the real rationale for putting all eggs in one JSF basket is precisely to make the program politically more survivable, and less susceptible to gradual roll back in the budgetary process.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

If an overoptimistic forecast of the F-35 price were used in the trade off analysis with 3 separate programs, what makes you think the aggregate cost of the 3 separate program wasn't overoptimistic to the same degree?

The only real reason why 3 separate programs might turn out to be cheaper, IMHO, is in a tighter budgetary environment, it would have been politically easier to simply cancel one or more of the 3 independent programs than to substantially roll back the scope of the single F-35 program. However, I suspect at least part of the real rationale for putting all eggs in one JSF basket is precisely to make the program politically more survivable, and less susceptible to gradual roll back in the budgetary process.

Agreed.

People have a hard time separating the F-35 aircraft and F-35 procurement; Which is sad to say the same problems with procurement we have had on other aircraft programs, just on a larger scale which is why "sticker shock" is so common.

Unless the procurement process changes, 3 independent programs would run into the exact problems but without benefits of commonality. If it helps mentally just think of the JSF as F-35, F-36, and F-37. ;D The program was intelligently built to make cancellation very difficult. I don't mean that in a negative way, its just the reality of procurement. if you don't "bullet proof" a program by making a large number of states or countries involved in it, it gets cancelled.

 

[Rafael]

Thanks for that last, Chuck and TTomcat. Now I can understand better the "pros" and "angainsts" of this very interesting aircraft.

And note that I have used the word aircraft, because, being on the outside, I never made the connection between hardware and acquisition.