The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Sundog]

The F-35 was never supposed to be as stealthy from the rear quadrant as other stealth aircraft. I believe this was done to save money and make it easier to incorporate the STOVL nozzle. That doesn't mean it isn't lower in the rear quarter than other non-stealth aircraft, it just didn't need to go as far as the F-22 did to meet the requirements since they weren't as strigent.

 

[Lampshade111]

Back in the CALF and JAST days, the Lockheed Martin "X-32" test model seemed to have a 2D thrust vectoring nozzle and VTOL capability. How did that design work out?

Speaking of that does anybody have some detailed shots of the prototype, there was no pilot or anything, was there? Wasn't MDD given a contract for a prototype under the same program too?

Regarding the current F-35, as much as I think a 2D nozzle design similar to that of the F-22 would be superior, I don't think this could be implemented without some serious and costly modifications. Not a good idea at this stage in the program.

Has any work been done on developing a 3D thrust vectoring version of the current F-35A/C nozzle design? Yes it would increase weight but I personally believe the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages, especially when you consider the Russians are putting them on everything.

 

[donnage99]

Has any work been done on developing a 3D thrust vectoring version of the current F-35A/C nozzle design? Yes it would increase weight but I personally believe the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages, especially when you consider the Russians are putting them on everything.

What benefit? Ace of Combat video game benefit?

 

[Lampshade111]

Shorter takeoff runs, near-stall maneuverability, improved turning rates, ability to perform unconventional maneuvers, etc. Most of the stuff you see at airshows won't be useful, but that extra agility could well help to throw off a missile.

Back in the 1980s thrust vectoring was praised as a key development for future fighters, it seems the Russians agreed as well. Plus, for years now we have the technology to develop 3D thrust vectoring nozzles not all that different from your typical asymmetric design. It would be one thing if the F-35 was designed like the YF-23 with the highest priority on rear-aspect stealth, but that isn't the case.

The dogfight was supposed to be dead ever since the 1960s but even in the Gulf War you had some close range maneuvering. Even in an age with AIM-120Ds and helmet sighted AIM-9Xs, who knows what could happen in combat? Will the initial F-35s even have the capability to carry the AIM-9X internally anyway?

I never played the Ace Combat games BTW.

 

[sferrin]

Shorter takeoff runs, near-stall maneuverability, improved turning rates, ability to perform unconventional maneuvers, etc. Most of the stuff you see at airshows won't be useful, but that extra agility could well help to throw off a missile.

Even Flanker and Raptor levels of low speed agility aren't going to shake off an ASRAAM, AIM-9X, Python 5, Darter, R-73, Iris-T, etc.

 

[Lampshade111]

Perhaps so, but what about medium range missiles?

The F-35 is supposed to replace plenty of aircraft, in my opinion it will be used in far more roles than it was designed to fill. So we might as well give it a 3D thrust vectoring nozzle to get as much as we can out of the aircraft. Or it should be an option for a future upgrade. Yes, such thrust vectoring won't be possible for the F-35B, but the F-35A will make up the bulk of the USAF, and the F-35C will be key to the Navy.

This "maneuvering is irrelevant" business has been stated before, but I remain doubtful.

 

[sferrin]

It may not be irrelevant but the people buying the plane certainly don't think TVC is worth the cost on the F-35 else it would have it.

 

[donnage99]

Designing the aircraft revolves around weight. Weight is one of the foundation that plays important role in its performance, capability, potential growth, etc. So you have a number of options to look at, and select a limited amount of options that you think is tactically the best to put into the aircraft, while discard the rest, and apparently TVC is far behind in the list. And it makes perfect sense that it is, when you look at emerging technology that is shaping air combat now and the future. There are 2 reasons behind the concept of TVC in term of air to air combat: (1)the excellent low speed and post stall maneuver that gives the ability to point the nose and shoot; (2)minimize drag in supersonic regime that can either contribute to offense, or evading missiles.

For (1):The f-35 will rely on its DAS to look, lock and shoot without much maneuvering. I too remain doubtful that northrop grumman's claim of "maneuvering is irrelevant" unless I see pilots testimony at real exercise with a real aircraft. However, it's clear as day light that a combination of its apparent agility and DAS gives a far superior package than TVC, given that there's no way an aircraft can maneuver faster than the the pilot's neck. This is not to mention that low speed maneuverability given by TVC can be potentially suicidal as it puts the aircraft in a disadvantageous position in term of speed, geometry, and energy. This has been demonstrated in combat excercise between the f-15 pilots against thrust vectoring equipped su-30 and f-22. DAS gives you the ability to retain energy and geometry at its most to avoid a "mutual kill" when your opponent also loose a missile at you before getting kill (even if you are the one who shoot first). Especially with the improvement in HMD and HOBS missiles, mutual kills become even more inherent. In fact, the f-35 is built around this understanding, as f-35 makers noted that DAS would give the best chance to escape missile while given the best offensive approach. Thus TVC is discarded over DAS.

(2) As for evading missiles, at close range, given how vastly superior heat seeking missiles in term of agility and speed than an aircraft even with TVC, it makes more sense that the f-35 rely on a combination of DIRCM and its agility instead of falling down back on TVC. At long range, given the aircraft's 360 degree of overlapping sensors, the aircraft will detect incoming missile much earlier than others, and has more chance of evading it. Evading BVR shot is not about waiting for the missile to close in and pull off an "wow" maneuver. This only happens in video games. Evading BVR is all about knowing its coming early so you can out range its no escape zone.

The philosophy of the f-35 air combat approach makes perfect sense if you looking at what the pilots are saying, instead of watching hollywood movies and playing video games. Like I said earlier, building an aircraft is all about compromise, you can only put a limited amount of options, so you gotta choose what you think is the best. I have nothing against TVC, it's just that it's not worth it. The argument that "you just don't know what gonna happen" is too vague and makes little sense. By that way of saying, why don't we put lots of armor on it also, because you don't know if it's gonna need it; or place a backward facing gun and missiles to make sure since anything can happen.

 

[Lampshade111]

Designing the aircraft revolves around weight. Weight is one of the foundation that plays important role in its performance, capability, potential growth, etc. So you have a number of options to look at, and select a limited amount of options that you think is tactically the best to put into the aircraft, while discard the rest, and apparently TVC is far behind in the list. And it makes perfect sense that it is, when you look at emerging technology that is shaping air combat now and the future. There are 2 reasons behind the concept of TVC in term of air to air combat: (1)the excellent low speed and post stall maneuver that gives the ability to point the nose and shoot; (2)minimize drag in supersonic regime that can either contribute to offense, or evading missiles.
For (1):The f-35 will rely on its DAS to look, lock and shoot without much maneuvering. I too remain doubtful that northrop grumman's claim of "maneuvering is irrelevant" unless I see pilots testimony at real exercise with a real aircraft. However, it's clear as day light that a combination of its apparent agility and DAS gives a far superior package than TVC, given that there's no way an aircraft can maneuver faster than the the pilot's neck. This is not to mention that low speed maneuverability given by TVC can be potentially suicidal as it puts the aircraft in a disadvantageous position in term of speed, geometry, and energy. This has been demonstrated in combat excercise between the f-15 pilots against thrust vectoring equipped su-30 and f-22. DAS gives you the ability to retain energy and geometry at its most to avoid a "mutual kill" when your opponent also loose a missile at you before getting kill (even if you are the one who shoot first). Especially with the improvement in HMD and HOBS missiles, mutual kills become even more inherent. In fact, the f-35 is built around this understanding, as f-35 makers noted that DAS would give the best chance to escape missile while given the best offensive approach. Thus TVC is discarded over DAS.

Regarding the weight issue, I haven't been able to ever find some statistics of how much various different thrust vectoring nozzles weigh. Obviously this will be a major concern on an aircraft that seems a bit overweight as it is. Yet even with helmet mounted sights and advanced SRAAMs your chances of a hit are certainly going to be higher depending on your facing. If the weight increase is relatively minor, I think that alone would justify the addition. Yes TVC can be used to get yourself in a bad spot, but I imagine with experience our pilots can learn to avoid that and maximize the advantages.

(2) As for evading missiles, at close range, given how vastly superior heat seeking missiles in term of agility and speed than an aircraft even with TVC, it makes more sense that the f-35 rely on a combination of DIRCM and its agility instead of falling down back on TVC. At long range, given the aircraft's 360 degree of overlapping sensors, the aircraft will detect incoming missile much earlier than others, and has more chance of evading it. Evading BVR shot is not about waiting for the missile to close in and pull off an "wow" maneuver. This only happens in video games. Evading BVR is all about knowing its coming early so you can out range its no escape zone.

DIRCM, EOTS, and all of this new equipment will certainly be useful, but they seem a bit wasted on an aircraft that seems to be lacking in speed, acceleration, and agility. As far as last-second maneuvers go, I am not certain how pilots train for missile evasion these days, but wasn't doing a sudden high-g turn the common strategy against SAMs in Vietnam?

The philosophy of the f-35 air combat approach makes perfect sense if you looking at what the pilots are saying, instead of watching hollywood movies and playing video games. Like I said earlier, building an aircraft is all about compromise, you can only put a limited amount of options, so you gotta choose what you think is the best. I have nothing against TVC, it's just that it's not worth it. The argument that "you just don't know what gonna happen" is too vague and makes little sense. By that way of saying, why don't we put lots of armor on it also, because you don't know if it's gonna need it; or place a backward facing gun and missiles to make sure since anything can happen.

Your little insults are getting tiring. The Russians are no slouches when it comes to aviation, and they have seen it wise to include TVC on advanced Flanker and Fulcrum variants that already have advanced helmet mounted sights. If the advantages of TVC have been rendered obsolete by advancements in missiles, I am curious to know what is their logic?

Perhaps I need to update my collection of books, but until recently it seemed like stealth, supercruise, sensors, and TVC was the future of air superiority. When the F-35 only has the sensors and stealth in the frontal aspect, it seems rather lacking.

 

[donnage99]

Regarding the weight issue, I haven't been able to ever find some statistics of how much various different thrust vectoring nozzles weigh. Obviously this will be a major concern on an aircraft that seems a bit overweight as it is. Yet even with helmet mounted sights and advanced SRAAMs your chances of a hit are certainly going to be higher depending on your facing.

Yes, but that mean you also put yourself at great risk of getting a shot yourself (refer to my previous comment on geometry, speed, and energy)

If the weight increase is relatively minor, I think that alone would justify the addition.

Well, apparently that it didn't justify, thus you don't see it, nor hearing any costumers want it.

Yes TVC can be used to get yourself in a bad spot, but I imagine with experience our pilots can learn to avoid that and maximize the advantages.

Yes, experienced pilots can also exploit DAS to maximize its advantage too . See how this kind of vaguely talk with no hard logic lead to? Your argument is too vague to be legitimate. What does it mean to avoid? Does that mean not to use it in the low speed regime at all? What is there to maximize?

DIRCM, EOTS, and all of this new equipment will certainly be useful, but they seem a bit wasted on an aircraft that seems to be lacking in speed, acceleration, and agility.

Why is it a bit wasted? How do DIRCM, EOTS being a tactically waste in a theoretical scenario with the rather unimpressive raw performance of the f-35? Please elaborate! I can't make a case against these vaguely statements as there's really no content in it to make a case against.

As far as last-second maneuvers go, I am not certain how pilots train for missile evasion these days, but wasn't doing a sudden high-g turn the common strategy against SAMs in Vietnam?

taking from pilots words:
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr010529_1_n.shtml

Your little insults are getting tiring. The Russians are no slouches when it comes to aviation, and they have seen it wise to include TVC on advanced Flanker and Fulcrum variants that already have advanced helmet mounted sights. If the advantages of TVC have been rendered obsolete by advancements in missiles, I am curious to know what is their logic?

There are 2 possibilities of your first sentence: either you saying I'm insulting you or I'm insulting russian scientists. If it's the former, please don't let your emotion cloud your mind. I never insulted your character, nor your intelligence; I seemly criticize your opinion, and occasionally throw in a little of sarcasm, which is pretty common among a typical debate, even on this board. If it's the latter, I never said they were stupid to put TVC where it doesn't need it. Last time I check, advance flankers and fulcrums that are equipped with TVC didn't have the recent emerging HOBS capabilities that are rapidly introduced. It doesn't have the 360 degree lock and shoot like marketed by the f-35.

Perhaps I need to update my collection of books, but until recently it seemed like stealth, supercruise, sensors, and TVC was the future of air superiority. When the F-35 only has the sensors and stealth in the frontal aspect, it seems rather lacking.

Well, TVC WAS the future until the introduction of f-35 EODAS. And or course, there's no book on how effective EODAS is to make a statement that it's the future of air combat, as it hasn't been tested in combat yet (back to my comment that I'm doubtful that "maneuvering is irrelevant until I see pilot testimony"). And of course, it seems rather lacking when you compare it to the titan-of-capability f-22.

 

[Lampshade111]

Yes, but that mean you also put yourself at great risk of getting a shot yourself (refer to my previous comment on geometry, speed, and energy)

True, but it really depends on the situation the pilot is in, the enemy his up against, etc. I just believe, that if it the weight increase is minimal, we might as well give him the option.

Well, apparently that it didn't justify, thus you don't see it, nor hearing any costumers want it.

Perhaps the option will show up eventually, but back in that stage of the design phase, it seemed liked less was expected from the F-35 as a whole.

Yes, experienced pilots can also exploit DAS to maximize its advantage too . See how this kind of vaguely talk with no hard logic lead to? Your argument is too vague to be legitimate. What does it mean to avoid? Does that mean not to use it in the low speed regime at all? What is there to maximize?

Yeah but nothing prevents you from having both. In my opinion the only real concern should be weight (although looking at the F-35's current status I should include cost there too). If you were to argue against TVC on the basis of "our pilots will screw it up" you could apply that to so many other things. I mean our pilots could screw up with the afterburners and use up all their fuel.

Why is it a bit wasted? How do DIRCM, EOTS being a tactically waste in a theoretical scenario with the rather unimpressive raw performance of the f-35? Please elaborate! I can't make a case against these vaguely statements as there's really no content in it to make a case against.

Excuse me but I worded myself poorly. It is not wasted, and it is certainly a good idea to have those systems there. Yet when it comes to missile evasion, they are not used to their full potential on an airframe that is rather lacking compared to other recent designs.

taking from pilots words:
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr010529_1_n.shtml

Thanks for the article, I actually haven't checked out Jane's sight in awhile.

There are 2 possibilities of your first sentence: either you saying I'm insulting you or I'm insulting russian scientists. If it's the former, please don't let your emotion cloud your mind. I never insulted your character, nor your intelligence; I seemly criticize your opinion, and occasionally throw in a little of sarcasm, which is pretty common among a typical debate, even on this board. If it's the latter, I never said they were stupid to put TVC where it doesn't need it. Last time I check, advance flankers and fulcrums that are equipped with TVC didn't have the recent emerging HOBS capabilities that are rapidly introduced. It doesn't have the 360 degree lock and shoot like marketed by the f-35.

Well I was somewhat under the impression you were insulting me. Perhaps my brain is stuck in the 1980s "hordes of Soviet fighters" thinking, but I do know what I am talking about to some degree.

I was under the impression that the later Flankers and Fulcrums (Su-30MK, Su-35BM, Mig-29SMT, Mig-35) had a HOBS capability for the R-74. Wasn't there some sort of early helmet mounted sight for the R-73 on Su-27s and Mig-29s too?

Well, TVC WAS the future until the introduction of f-35 EODAS. And or course, there's no book on how effective EODAS is to make a statement that it's the future of air combat, as it hasn't been tested in combat yet (back to my comment that I'm doubtful that "maneuvering is irrelevant until I see pilot testimony"). And of course, it seems rather lacking when you compare it to the titan-of-capability f-22.

Honestly I suppose most of the problem is that I rather find the F-35 lacking as a whole. For the sake of STOVL capability the the design itself is rather... "simplistic" in a sense. This wouldn't be as much of a problem in my opinion if the F-35 didn't have such large shoes to fill.

 

[donnage99]

True, but it really depends on the situation the pilot is in, the enemy his up against, etc. I just believe, that if it the weight increase is minimal, we might as well give him the option.

Alright, I think we are in the wrong page. I'm not saying thrust vectoring is bad, nor I'm saying it doesn't bring any advantage, I'm saying the advantages are not significant in light of emerging technology. The extra boost in maneuverability isn't that significant. Would I love to have an extra advantage? I would love to have ANY extra advantage. However, this goes back to my earlier comment, aircraft design is about compromise. And apparently Lockheed opted for EODAS. I'm not denying the advantages of TVC, I'm saying that emerging technology has shrink that advantage in a tactical and realistic sense to such a degree that it isn't significant to implement and as far as logic goes, it makes perfect sense.

Perhaps the option will show up eventually, but back in that stage of the design phase, it seemed liked less was expected from the F-35 as a whole.

Nope, its contender, x-32, does have 2D thrust vectoring, rectangular shape just like the f-22. Lockheed just went with a different approach, EODAS, which theoretically is far better in both term of defense and offense as I already explained in previous comments.

Yeah but nothing prevents you from having both. In my opinion the only real concern should be weight (although looking at the F-35's current status I should include cost there too). If you were to argue against TVC on the basis of "our pilots will screw it up" you could apply that to so many other things. I mean our pilots could screw up with the afterburners and use up all their fuel.

Weight, complexity in maintainance, cost, shorten life service, etc. If there's nothing to prevent it, it would have been there. Nobody dislike an extra boost if there's zero of penalty. SEcondly, I never went with the "our pilots will screw it up" argument. I told you I dislike this kind of argument as they are vague and represent. I like to bring it to the table of logic, look at it from different angle on a tactical sense, against foreseeable enemy, and within context, which was exactly what I did. I named the advantages of TVC, which was low speed maneuver and less drag at supersonic. I then demonstrated that low speed maneuvers are suicidal both theoretically and with real life example. I then moved to the supersonic regime, and shown that overlapping sensors can compensate for its lack of maneuverability. Remember that the f-35 isn't agile against the super agile fighters like that of the russians, but that doesn't mean they aren't agile enough when coupled with its sensors to evade missiles or launch an attack and provide a better package in missile evading than the other aircraft out there.

Excuse me but I worded myself poorly. It is not wasted, and it is certainly a good idea to have those systems there. Yet when it comes to missile evasion, they are not used to their full potential on an airframe that is rather lacking compared to other recent designs.

But the other recent design doesn't have its sensors, isn't it? Look at it this way, f-35's agility is a knife, and it's not as shiny as the other guys have, but than it also has a gun, so when you couple the dull knife and the gun together, it beats the crap out of the other guys' big sword. So the question is: would you waste time spending money and time trying to buy a big shiny sword when you have a gun already?

Thanks for the article, I actually haven't checked out Jane's sight in awhile.

Yep, the article prove 2 of my points: the high g's maneuver has become less and less relevant (not irrelevant, that's why the f-35 isn't a subsonic flying wing), and evading missile is about trying to get out of its no escape zone as much as possible.

I was under the impression that the later Flankers and Fulcrums (Su-30MK, Su-35BM, Mig-29SMT, Mig-35) had a HOBS capability for the R-74. Wasn't there some sort of early helmet mounted sight for the R-73 on Su-27s and Mig-29s too?

Yes, there were HMD. However, the off bore sight was very limited, thus the need for supermaneuverability stayed.

Honestly I suppose most of the problem is that I rather find the F-35 lacking as a whole. For the sake of STOVL capability the the design itself is rather... "simplistic" in a sense. This wouldn't be as much of a problem in my opinion if the F-35 didn't have such large shoes to fill.

Well, this goes back to the f-22 production end comment I made in the other thread. Sometimes the best choice isn't the perfect one. In the time of JSF, we realized if we don't combine 3 variants together and make painful compromises to its performance, we not gonna have sufficient numbers of them due to high acquisition cost. It's just like you can either buy something fancy that you love to eat, but than the cost would be too high so you starve from not eating enough, with another choice of getting something adequate but enough so you can go on the day working. The US military assured that simulation shown that f-35 is 4x more effective than anything else save f-22 in air to air combat, and it seems that 9 other countries are convinced, so.... Would I love it to be 6x more effective? DEFINITELY, but not at the price that I can't buy enough of them and to meet my need.

 

[Lampshade111]

Alright, I think we are in the wrong page. I'm not saying thrust vectoring is bad, nor I'm saying it doesn't bring any advantage, I'm saying the advantages are not significant in light of emerging technology. The extra boost in maneuverability isn't that significant. Would I love to have an extra advantage? I would love to have ANY extra advantage. However, this goes back to my earlier comment, aircraft design is about compromise. And apparently Lockheed opted for EODAS. I'm not denying the advantages of TVC, I'm saying that emerging technology has shrink that advantage in a tactical and realistic sense to such a degree that it isn't significant to implement and as far as logic goes, it makes perfect sense.

It is logical from a cost standpoint. It may or may not be from the weight and maintenance perspectives. Even with all of these new electro-optical and infra-red systems I am leaning towards the idea that the benefits of TVC would outweigh the latter two concerns when it comes to the F-35. Then again perhaps such a nozzle would weigh far more than I am imagining.

Nope, its contender, x-32, does have 2D thrust vectoring, rectangular shape just like the f-22. Lockheed just went with a different approach, EODAS, which theoretically is far better in both term of defense and offense as I already explained in previous comments.

Well there is nothing preventing you from having both EODAS and TVC on an aircraft. If there was one thing the X-32 got right, it was the rear nozzle which would have been significantly stealthier, and provided 2D TVC. Yet asides from the X-32s other problems, the STOVL variant wasn't up to expectations.

Weight, complexity in maintainance, cost, shorten life service, etc. If there's nothing to prevent it, it would have been there. Nobody dislike an extra boost if there's zero of penalty. SEcondly, I never went with the "our pilots will screw it up" argument. I told you I dislike this kind of argument as they are vague and represent. I like to bring it to the table of logic, look at it from different angle on a tactical sense, against foreseeable enemy, and within context, which was exactly what I did. I named the advantages of TVC, which was low speed maneuver and less drag at supersonic. I then demonstrated that low speed maneuvers are suicidal both theoretically and with real life example. I then moved to the supersonic regime, and shown that overlapping sensors can compensate for its lack of maneuverability. Remember that the f-35 isn't agile against the super agile fighters like that of the russians, but that doesn't mean they aren't agile enough when coupled with its sensors to evade missiles or launch an attack and provide a better package in missile evading than the other aircraft out there.

Of course there are those factors when you look at such a system (I don't know about the shortened service life bit however). I didn't say you were arguing against TVC on that basis, I was just saying "if you were to". Yes sensors and advanced weapon systems can help compensate for the lack of agility, but the US military should not have been forced into this compromise to begin. I just believe we need to get as much out of the F-35 as we can now, and short of some significant redesigning, that involves giving a 3D TVC nozzle another look.

But the other recent design doesn't have its sensors, isn't it? Look at it this way, f-35's agility is a knife, and it's not as shiny as the other guys have, but than it also has a gun, so when you couple the dull knife and the gun together, it beats the crap out of the other guys' big sword. So the question is: would you waste time spending money and time trying to buy a big shiny sword when you have a gun already?

True but those other aircraft could have those sensors, I am just saying that a platform with greater raw performance could make more use of the advantages in early warning. Yet if the F-35 can turly match the performance of a clean F-16, I may be overemphasizing the lack of agility.

Yep, the article prove 2 of my points: the high g's maneuver has become less and less relevant (not irrelevant, that's why the f-35 isn't a subsonic flying wing), and evading missile is about trying to get out of its no escape zone as much as possible.

Than shouldn't speed and acceleration have been more of a concern back in the design phase? It is outclassed in those regards by several single-engined 4.5 gen fighters like the Gripen NG.

Yes, there were HMD. However, the off bore sight was very limited, thus the need for supermaneuverability stayed.

I was under the impression that the R-74 and the setup on the latest modernized Flankers and Fulcrums was somewhat comparable to our own AIM-9X and JHMCS.

Well, this goes back to the f-22 production end comment I made in the other thread. Sometimes the best choice isn't the perfect one. In the time of JSF, we realized if we don't combine 3 variants together and make painful compromises to its performance, we not gonna have sufficient numbers of them due to high acquisition cost. It's just like you can either buy something fancy that you love to eat, but than the cost would be too high so you starve from not eating enough, with another choice of getting something adequate but enough so you can go on the day working. The US military assured that simulation shown that f-35 is 4x more effective than anything else save f-22 in air to air combat, and it seems that 9 other countries are convinced, so.... Would I love it to be 6x more effective? DEFINITELY, but not at the price that I can't buy enough of them and to meet my need.

Well if you ask me it wasn't the best choice to end production completely regardless of how you look at it. It goes back to the whole hi-lo mix concept, and our problem is that the USAF is not buying enough of the "high-end" fighter to meet their requirements. If not for the VTOL variant, I imagine we could have produced a stealthier, faster, and more agile design than the current F-35. Perhaps the MDD JSF design should have been chosen for further development.

 

[donnage99]

It is logical from a cost standpoint. It may or may not be from the weight and maintenance perspectives. Even with all of these new electro-optical and infra-red systems I am leaning towards the idea that the benefits of TVC would outweigh the latter two concerns when it comes to the F-35. Then again perhaps such a nozzle would weigh far more than I am imagining.

And based on what do you lean toward believe that the benefits outweigh the penalty?

Well there is nothing preventing you from having both EODAS and TVC on an aircraft.

Again, cost, weight, maintenance, service life, etc. against an advantage that provides little significance in tactical sense in light of what the EODAS can already do.[/quote]

Of course there are those factors when you look at such a system (I don't know about the shortened service life bit however). I didn't say you were arguing against TVC on that basis, I was just saying "if you were to".

And what's the point of "if (I) was to" argument?

Yes sensors and advanced weapon systems can help compensate for the lack of agility, but the US military should not have been forced into this compromise to begin.

It's not compromise as much as it's entering a new evolution of air combat, especially WVR, and leaving what is not significant anymore behind.

I just believe we need to get as much out of the F-35 as we can now

the combination of a clean drag free with full combat load f-35 coupled with DAS, DIRCM is superior and much more relevant in today's war than any package out there, so it's back to what I said earlier: Is it worth it to waste time and money on the big sword when we got a gun.

True but those other aircraft could have those sensors

But they DON'T, what's the meaning of this?

Than shouldn't speed and acceleration have been more of a concern back in the design phase? It is outclassed in those regards by several single-engined 4.5 gen fighters like the Gripen NG.

It was a big concern, especially with the Air Force. So one of the stuff the teams (boeing, lockheed, mdd) had to do in the beginning, is to demonstrate to the AF that stealth, sensors could compensate (not replace) for the lack of the aircraft. And apparently, their explaination made sense enough that convinced the military professionals.

I was under the impression that the R-74 and the setup on the latest modernized Flankers and Fulcrums was somewhat comparable to our own AIM-9X and JHMCS.

It's not just about the missile, you need sensor on the aircraft to allow you to lock on from behind.

Well if you ask me it wasn't the best choice to end production completely regardless of how you look at it. It goes back to the whole hi-lo mix concept, and our problem is that the USAF is not buying enough of the "high-end" fighter to meet their requirements. If not for the VTOL variant, I imagine we could have produced a stealthier, faster, and more agile design than the current F-35. Perhaps the MDD JSF design should have been chosen for further development.

Yeah, I looked at it, alright. And it's clear to me no matter how I look at it that it's completely blinded to choose to compromise our men and women in conflicts that they are facing now to save a far fetch futuristic scenario.

 

[sferrin]

Is there a reason you two can't take the love offline?

 

[Lampshade111]

And based on what do you lean toward believe that the benefits outweigh the penalty?

Maneuverability, pure and simple. Yet like I said, I don't have all the details.

Again, cost, weight, maintenance, service life, etc. against an advantage that provides little significance in tactical sense in light of what the EODAS can already do.

Those factors aren't preventing you from having both on an aircraft, TVC may not actually be ideal for what the F-35 was supposed to be, but neither tech excludes the other from being used.

And what's the point of "if (I) was to" argument?

Well you kinda brought it up, I was just responding to it.

It's not compromise as much as it's entering a new evolution of air combat, especially WVR, and leaving what is not significant anymore behind.

You just said yourself that the F-35 was a compromise. I simply don't believe that an aircraft's raw performance is no longer significant. All I am saying is that we can get more out of some of these technologies with a more capable aircraft.

The combination of a clean drag free with full combat load f-35 coupled with DAS, DIRCM is superior and much more relevant in today's war than any package out there, so it's back to what I said earlier: Is it worth it to waste time and money on the big sword when we got a gun.

Relevant in today's wars? If we are just talking about "todays wars" than we should only be producing more A-10s. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter, plain and simple, and should have never been expected to pick up the slack of F-15s and other larger, twin engined aircraft. We may have the gun now, but what if an enemy pulls out a bigger gun in the future?

But they DON'T, what's the meaning of this?

That arguing that such technology is exclusive to the F-35 and won't be incorporated on other fighters in the future makes little sense.

It was a big concern, especially with the Air Force. So one of the stuff the teams (boeing, lockheed, mdd) had to do in the beginning, is to demonstrate to the AF that stealth, sensors could compensate (not replace) for the lack of the aircraft. And apparently, their explaination made sense enough that convinced the military professionals.

Of course back then, we were going to be getting some 400 F-22s too. Regardless, even as a single engined "low cost" aircraft, the design could have been better if there wasn't the need to have a VTOL aircraft with such a high degree of commonality.

It's not just about the missile, you need sensor on the aircraft to allow you to lock on from behind.

Well I guess the F-35 is the only thing with the capability to see behind it like that. We will just have to see what PAK-FA has to bring to the table.

Yeah, I looked at it, alright. And it's clear to me no matter how I look at it that it's completely blinded to choose to compromise our men and women in conflicts that they are facing now to save a far fetch futuristic scenario.

I am blinded by not wanting to rely so heavily on the F-35? If it is all about current conflicts than wasting money on developing and producing the F-35 is also compromising our men when you consider that a slow, un-stealthy, armored ground attack aircraft could do the job in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just slap all of these fancy sensors on a new build A-10 and don't worry about the whole air-superiority thing.

 

[donnage99]

Maneuverability, pure and simple. Yet like I said, I don't have all the details.

You don't know exactly how much more maneuverable it will be with TVC, and how it will play tactically in a typical scenario, than you have ABSOLUTELY no reason to lean toward it. Your motive is not justified.

Those factors aren't preventing you from having both on an aircraft, TVC may not actually be ideal for what the F-35 was supposed to be, but neither tech excludes the other from being used.

And based on what do you think those factors don't prevent you having both on the aircraft. This statement in particular is probably the most illogical and baseless of yours yet made just for the sake of arguing.

Well you kinda brought it up, I was just responding to it.

Well, thank you for taking my words out of context, then.

You just said yourself that the F-35 was a compromise. I simply don't believe that an aircraft's raw performance is no longer significant. All I am saying is that we can get more out of some of these technologies with a more capable aircraft.

Yes, it is a compromise, but that doesn't mean it isn't adequate to project our air to air capabilities well into the future. Why does life has to be so simplistically black and white to you?

Relevant in today's wars? If we are just talking about "todays wars" than we should only be producing more A-10s. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter, plain and simple, and should have never been expected to pick up the slack of F-15s and other larger, twin engined aircraft. We may have the gun now, but what if an enemy pulls out a bigger gun in the future?

I meant relevant in today's war as in NOW and the FUTURE as the philosophy of its air combat has been built upon much more updated understanding of air to air combat, and is a generation ahead of the f-22 in the evolution line of air to air combat. If there comes a day when the potential enemy can develop a bigger gun, than it makes trying to get the shiny sword even more laughable. Technology evolves, and air combat is shaped around it and evolve with it. The EODAS is that next stage in the evolution, where it allows the aircraft to immediately has a lock and shoot while retaining its geometry, energy, and speed to evade the enemy's missile, not hanging around doing pretty maneuvers to get it killed.

That arguing that such technology is exclusive to the F-35 and won't be incorporated on other fighters in the future makes little sense.

Incorporate such technology back into an airframe is about as far as incorporate the superhornet back into the hornet. It requires complete restructure of the internal and likely external structure of the aircraft. So don't expect seeing it on any other fighter any time soon. By the time, when they could do that, the little extra maneuverability provided by TVC would become even more irrelevant. If the other countries could produce an aircraft with the sensor advantages of the f-35, then be sure that we will try to produce more innovative approach toward air combat, not going back to incorporate a tech born out of an increasingly obsolete air combat philosophy.

Of course back then, we were going to be getting some 400 F-22s too. Regardless, even as a single engined "low cost" aircraft, the design could have been better if there wasn't the need to have a VTOL aircraft with such a high degree of commonality.

Stop beating the dead horses. I already said that if we don't have that commonality, then we can't afford them in sufficient numbers. There's no reason to eat fancy food but too few so that you starve.

Well I guess the F-35 is the only thing with the capability to see behind it like that. We will just have to see what PAK-FA has to bring to the table.

Agreed.

Yeah, I looked at it, alright. And it's clear to me no matter how I look at it that it's completely blinded to choose to compromise our men and women in conflicts that they are facing now to save a far fetch futuristic scenario.

I am blinded by not wanting to rely so heavily on the F-35? If it is all about current conflicts than wasting money on developing and producing the F-35 is also compromising our men when you consider that a slow, un-stealthy, armored ground attack aircraft could do the job in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just slap all of these fancy sensors on a new build A-10 and don't worry about the whole air-superiority thing.
[/quote]
But if we do that, we completely compromise our air superiority. Please don't stretch the argument to such an extreme of black and white. The f-35 is the right compromise, it provide adequate capabilities to continue our air superiority while provide excellent air to ground capabilities with reasonable cost. I never said that we are to abandon air superiority. Please don't twist my words.

 

[Lampshade111]

You don't know exactly how much more maneuverable it will be with TVC, and how it will play tactically in a typical scenario, than you have ABSOLUTELY no reason to lean toward it. Your motive is not justified.

Over the years I have read plenty of arguments in favor of TVC, enough to lead me to believe the benefits outweigh the costs in many cases. The fact that I don't have all the details regarding the weight and cost of such a system, does not mean "I have no reason to lean towards it." And my motive is simply believing we should try to get as much performance out of the F-35. I am not saying it is the right solution. But it should certainly be looked at in the light of recent events.

Well, thank you for taking my words out of context, then.

I wasn't, I was giving you a hypothetical response to that hypothetical argument.

Yes, it is a compromise, but that doesn't mean it isn't adequate to project our air to air capabilities well into the future. Why does life has to be so simplistically black and white to you?

Yet we can't know the future, two decades from now things could be far different. The USAF also disagreed with the assessment that just F-35s are enough.

I meant relevant in today's war as in NOW and the FUTURE as the philosophy of its air combat has been built upon much more updated understanding of air to air combat, and is a generation ahead of the f-22 in the evolution line of air to air combat. If there comes a day when the potential enemy can develop a bigger gun, than it makes trying to get the shiny sword even more laughable. Technology evolves, and air combat is shaped around it and evolve with it. The EODAS is that next stage in the evolution, where it allows the aircraft to immediately has a lock and shoot while retaining its geometry, energy, and speed to evade the enemy's missile, not hanging around doing pretty maneuvers to get it killed.

The F-35 was not designed as an air-superiority fighter above all else. Compared to the F-22 for example it's radar isn't as powerful, it currently carries only four air-to-air missiles internally, it doesn't have the speed, nor agility, and it isn't as stealthy. It was designed to be a relatively low cost 5th gen multi-role fighter. It does not represent the future of of air combat no more than the F-16 did back in 1978.

Incorporate such technology back into an airframe is about as far as incorporate the superhornet back into the hornet. It requires complete restructure of the internal and likely external structure of the aircraft. So don't expect seeing it on any other fighter any time soon. By the time, when they could do that, the little extra maneuverability provided by TVC would become even more irrelevant. If the other countries could produce an aircraft with the sensor advantages of the f-35, then be sure that we will try to produce more innovative approach toward air combat, not going back to incorporate a tech born out of an increasingly obsolete air combat philosophy.

If EOTS is comparable to the Sniper targeting pod and similar systems it could certainly be implemented with relatively little trouble. DAS would certainly require more work, and likely a whole new variant, but it wouldn't be impossible. Most of the difficulties will likely be software related rather than the actual airframe. The F-35s approach to air combat isn't truly innovative. Knowing where your enemy is and proper coordination have been first priorities for many years, just look at the whole AWACs mission. The point is, if you don't down them all with AIM-120s and have to get in close, you should still have the agility to mix it up, even with new missiles like the AIM-9X. Perhaps the F-35 has the agility, perhaps it doesn't, all I am saying is that TVC deserves another look unless the USAF's planned future is altered a bit.

I already said that if we don't have that commonality, then we can't afford them in sufficient numbers. There's no reason to eat fancy food but too few so that you starve.

The vast majority of F-35s will be the basic F-35A model. If the VTOL requirement was removed, and the CTOL and CV JSF were based on a more capable design, they could very likely meet the original cost requirements. The VTOL aircraft which has certainly used a good % of the F-35's funding anyway, could have simple used many of the components from those two designs, rather than being based on a common airframe.

Agreed.

And if it is too much, we are going to be kicking ourselves because we blindly choose to halt production of the "high" part of the mix.

But if we do that, we completely compromise our air superiority. Please don't stretch the argument to such an extreme of black and white. The f-35 is the right compromise, it provide adequate capabilities to continue our air superiority while provide excellent air to ground capabilities with reasonable cost. I never said that we are to abandon air superiority. Please don't twist my words.

If the program works out the F-35 could right compromise for a "low cost" 5th gen. multi-role fighter. Perhaps the design could have been better but it will get the job done. Yet it is not the right compromise when it comes to the air-superiority mission. Nor long range strike which would be best filled by something along the lines of the FB-22 or FB-23. Your argument that continuing F-22 production is "jeopardizing and sacrificing the lives of our soldiers" is based on emotion, because the same argument applies to the F-35.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, that was a pointless diversion from a reasonably sensible topic. I removed the last few posts, as even the pointless argument had turned bad.

 

[F-14D]

I originally wanted to put this in "F-35 capabilities, but that topic i locked for now. Here's a picture I came across which I don't believe is elsewhere on the forum that shows the F-35B with its external pylons, which is how the Marines are usually going to fly it. You can just see what appears to be a gun pod on the belly.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Yes, that is the gun pod.

That F-35B is going through vibration testing.

 

[Lampshade111]

Good photograph. Any word on how much weight the main wing pylons can carry? Hopefully they can carry more than the single 500 pound LGBs shown here.

I think that is the first photo of the actual gun pod. I understand that the lift-fan and all of that probably made it a necessity for the F-35B, yet why did the Navy elect to go with the pod too for their F-35C?

 

[F-14D]

Good photograph. Any word on how much weight the main wing pylons can carry? Hopefully they can carry more than the single 500 pound LGBs shown here.

I think that is the first photo of the actual gun pod. I understand that the lift-fan and all of that probably made it a necessity for the F-35B, yet why did the Navy elect to go with the pod too for their F-35C?

The inboard pylons can carry 5,000 lbs/2,268Kg each. The middle pylons 2,500 lbs/1,134 Kg each, and the outboard as of now, 300 lbs/136 Kg each.

The reason why the Marines and Navy went for a gun pod was that experience showed an internal gun didn't have that much value. It wasn't much use air-to-air, and for many a/g missions it wasn't used, partly because Western societies work very hard to minimize civilian casualties/collateral damage, especially in an urban environment, and the shells tend to ricochet. Also, you have to get in fairly close to use it. It's worthy of note that USMC Harriers often fly with their guns empty, just using the cannon housings as an aerodynamic shape, and the RAF Harriers aren't even equipped to carry a gun. However, if the gun is internal, you've got to carry its weight and deal with its maintenance all the time. Navy/USMC just felt it wasn't worth it. Originally, F-35B/C were discussed as having a removable gun on one of the bay doors in order to preserve stealth, but it looks like they may have decided that if they're in a situation carrying a lot of external ordnance and/or a situation where using a gun might be necessary, you're probably not caring that much about radar stealth anyway, so why not go for a simpler solution and only carry it when you need it?

USAF wants an internal gun on the A because it's more macho. My understanding is that it'll be mounted in the space used by the refueling probe on the B/C.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The internal gun is mounted in the upper left shoulder position in the A model and can be seen as a hump on the shoulder.

The B/C refueling probe in nose section to the right of the pilot. Btw, the A model still has space for the probe if the client wants it installed.

 

[GTX]

Some more info on the F-35 gun fits:

F-35A:

F-35B/C:

See following as well for far more info:

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006garm/thursday/maher.pdf
www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004guns/wed/maher.ppt

Also, re the load out in the photo, it looks remarkably close to this old drawing:

Regards,

Greg

 

[F-14D]

The internal gun is mounted in the upper left shoulder position in the A model and can be seen as a hump on the shoulder.

The B/C refueling probe in nose section to the right of the pilot. Btw, the A model still has space for the probe if the client wants it installed.

Thanks for the clarification.

BTW, found a video of the probe in use

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xR_3H0qaTE

 

[bobbymike]

Senior Adviser to Schwartz: F-35 Cost So Large It Risks 'Bleeding the Air Force White'
DefenseAlert, Oct. 1, 2009 -- The Air Force should slash by half its planned purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter -- from 1,763 to 858 -- because the stealthy single-engine combat planes are ill-suited for the types of security challenges the United States is likely to face -- overbuilt for irregular operations and inadequate for fights against sophisticated adversaries such as China.

 

[F-14D]

Senior Adviser to Schwartz: F-35 Cost So Large It Risks 'Bleeding the Air Force White'
DefenseAlert, Oct. 1, 2009 -- The Air Force should slash by half its planned purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter -- from 1,763 to 858 -- because the stealthy single-engine combat planes are ill-suited for the types of security challenges the United States is likely to face -- overbuilt for irregular operations and inadequate for fights against sophisticated adversaries such as China.

And so it begins...

One reason why many in D.C. would champion the F-35 over the F-22 is that with the F-35 you could proclaim how strongly you were for national security, while not having to cough up the real big money now. You can say, "See, I'm stepping up to the plate, but _________is wrong, what we really need is ______________, which I'm all for (as long as I don't have to pay for it until after the next election)". The F-35's really big bills start hitting in the next decade, so you can be "tough" now, without actually having to deliver. This is nothing knew, this was essentially the US policy on acquiring weapons systems for most of the '90s

Now with the F-22 apparently stopped, it's not there to compare to, so now the F-35 is in the bullseye. And, of course, the astronomical cost rise accompanying a massive reduction in quantity bought will be touted as an "overrun" and be used to justify further reductions. Sound familiar?

 

[sferrin]

This is the part that makes it difficult to believe DC even wants the US to have a military. This same scenario has played out so many times with the same results that they can't possibly be so dumb as to think it won't happen again. B-2, Seawolf, Virginia, F-22, DDX (or DD/X or DD-21 or whatever the hell it is this week) to name a few. Thing is if they'd just quite medling with the funding Lockheed could have probably got the F-22's cost down to something reasonable. It's all the on again off again from year to year that drives the cost into the stratosphere. Can you imagine how much a house would cost if you pulled that kind of crap with the contractors?

 

[bobbymike]

It is so hard not to be politically partisan at a time like this. But a certain politician has said repeatedly "No one nation is above another" and he is sure trying to make it happen. What makes the US a superpower, militarily that is, the ability to protect power anywhere on the globe. What programs are being hit the hardest, the deterrent mission, long range strike and soon, when the QDR comes out, the carrier force will be reduced.

OK I won't write anymore but I am upset :-\

My new policy "$1 Trillion for National Defense" or that 1980's Sherlock Holmes movie "The Seven Percent [Defense] Solution" [of GDP that is]

 

[avatar]

yes and while the US DOD is busy castrating itself, the state department is cavorting with China ( G-2 ) and of course Pakistan.

I'll take it a little further afield , even at the risk of going totally off topic.
There's so much talk in the US about a nuclear Renaissance- but guess what is the US capability to make reactor pressure vessels today?- theoretical.

So who has been making those pressure vessels? - Japan.

Guess who'll be making pressure vessels increasingly in the future?- China ( tech transfer from former US companies).

One way to make sure that the US DOD buys F-22s, F-35s , everything else in sizeable quantities is to outsource it to - yes you guessed right- Communist China.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

All of this, what happened with the F-22, what is happening to the F-35, and dozens of other program cuts and cancellations simply sickens me. I am just going to live in my own alternative universe where among other things we are producing 600 F-22s, 1500 F-35s, 200 FB-23s, and 140 NGBs for the USAF. The Army is getting new vehicles and helicopters to replace existing designs. The Navy is getting new ships and a 5th generation equivalent to the F-22. And the Marine Corp is actually getting a working AAVP-7A1 replacement.

 

[mz]

yes and while the US DOD is busy castrating itself, the state department is cavorting with China ( G-2 ) and of course Pakistan.

I'll take it a little further afield , even at the risk of going totally off topic.
There's so much talk in the US about a nuclear Renaissance- but guess what is the US capability to make reactor pressure vessels today?- theoretical.

So who has been making those pressure vessels? - Japan.

Guess who'll be making pressure vessels increasingly in the future?- China ( tech transfer from former US companies).

One way to make sure that the US DOD buys F-22s, F-35s , everything else in sizeable quantities is to outsource it to - yes you guessed right- Communist China.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf122_heavy_manufacturing_of_power_plants.html
Only in Japan at the moment. There will be new forges again though. Not in the USA, but in Russia, Korea and Europe at least.

Westinghouse will make big bucks if their reactors turn out to be good, even if they are just designers and integrators...

 

[F-14D]

All of this, what happened with the F-22, what is happening to the F-35, and dozens of other program cuts and cancellations simply sickens me.

The next things to watch for are the premature retirements of the carriers USS Enterprise, which is approaching the status of a done deal, and maybe Abraham Lincoln, which will sort of be done through a backdoor methodology, with more than 50% of her service life left.

 

[bobbymike]

F-14D - As I stated the "power projection assets" are the one's taking the brunt of the cuts :-[

 

[kcran567]

Not to get too political here but sadly the US is being pushed into global government and our core industries like fighter manufacturing like f-22/f-35 will be cut back to make way for countries like China, India and Russia to move to the forefront...esp this will happen more and more now that the dollar is no longer the global oil reserve currency, the Yen and Euro is now. Thanks to our politicians/deregulated globalist bankers our country is headed for BIG changes soon and we are less and less a soverign nation.

 

[bobbymike]

From Insidedefense.com (subscription required) -

Exclusive: New JSF Assessment Affirms Program Requires Billions More, Additional Time
DefenseAlert, Oct. 22, 2009 -- A new assessment of the Joint Strike Fighter program affirms earlier findings that substantially more money and time are required for the Pentagon's largest acquisition effort, a conclusion that could pose a formidable test of Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recent support for the F-35 program and President Obama's pledge to terminate weapons with bloated price tags.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good thing F-22s are still rolling off the line for YEARS to come :-\

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Preparing to bash my head against the wall in 3... 2... 1...

Yep we are looking increasingly screwed. Of course it seems like Obama and co. would be perfectly fine with cutting our military to the size of Belgium and using the same old designs for eternity.

 

[Stargazer]

There used to be a time when a fighter aircraft was conceived in 3 weeks, developed in 15 months, and procured in 2 years... A time when the finished product could be readjusted and upgraded and made to last for several decades... A time when there was a REAL competition between a series of contenders that rivaled in innovation and cost-cutting to make sure they won the game...

Now we live in a world when there's only two or three contenders for any given weapon system... with absurd price tags that multiply by 10 once the product is completed... The finished aircraft are not half what they claimed to be... Programs get canceled during FSD when they could be better tested at an earlier stage... Some of the current aviation programs that are just seeing completion have been in development for two decades... The most innovative and truly groundbreaking programs get axed... and some of the best and most reliable aircraft on the roster are either decades old or rely upon age-old and proven platforms...

Whatever happened to the aviation industry?

 

[GTX]

Yawn! Here we go again - more F-35 bad, F-22 good garbage...