The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[JFC Fuller]

Is there a similar damage detection system in the Harrier?

The Harrier does not have a lift fan, so the obvious answer to your fatuous question is "no".

 

[Rlewis]

The concern with combat damage to the lift fan is that there are no systems that detect such damage. Consequently the risk is that a damaged system will fail catastrophically when it is engaged for VL. This is non-recoverable and will destroy the aircraft.

There are no systems detecting damage for a lot of parts on a lot of aircraft, yet the crew finds out from various indication. However, let's assume the fan blade is damaged in such a way that there is no indication it's been severely hurt while in conventional flight. The transition to powered lift is not instantaneous, and when the process begins, the aircraft is still safely wingborne. As soon as the clutch is engaged, the system may not be able to detect what the cause is (battle damage), but will be able to detect there is something wrong with the fan and abort the startup and keep the aircraft wingborne, whereupon the F-35 proceeds to a conventional landing. Similar thing, but more manual (i.e. the plane starts flying like crap), if the nozzles or their rotating mechanism are damaged on a Harrier. Now if the F-35 had been taking advantage of STOVL's ability to land in worse weather without a lot of external aids, or coming in with the smaller fuel reserves needed than a CTOL and so can't go off to a runway, well then the pilot will just have to do the same thing that a CTOL does when battle damage prevents extension of the landing gear--eject.

this is completely correct

 

[sferrin]

Right, Arjen.


Sferrin - So the mighty, game-changing, Z-axis WonderJet's airworthiness/survivability benchmark is a 1970s evolutionary development of a 1950s experimental prototype? Does that make sense?

Ah, so that's a "no the Harrier doesn't have such a system and would be just as dead". Just as I figured.

 

[Rlewis]

Is there a similar damage detection system in the Harrier?

The Harrier does not have a lift fan, so the obvious answer to your question is no.

believe he is talking about the ability to land vertically here my friend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esCe7qeOf6I#t=2221

harriers don't really have the option of landing conventionally as it it there breaks are not strong enough. and there air brake can scrape on the ground it can be done but its only in an emergency. the current procedure is like the video "try and see"
I don't like the JSF. I think its a flawed idea from the get go and think the delays and cost bear that out. but some of these news stories are over the top. finding cracks in testing is why you test. the only way the fan on an f-35b is going to get damaged is by battle damage. regular maint and standard checks should keep it in operation just fine and it has covers on both ends so nothing is going to hit it. the intake is on top so the fod will have a hard time getting in. f-117 is like that too. that is not an option in a harrier where the vertical system is the same as main engine and its more open for something to hit.
im sure if i keep posting here you will get my problems with the JSF. people seem to have a hard time looking for trees and missing the forest. that is my problem with it. even when all the trees are fixed its a bad forest. the super hornet had plenty of problems in its testing and development and now it is one of the finest most well rounded medium strike fighters in the world. people are confusing test problems with real problems and real problems with test problems
there are plenty of big problems without drama like if it takes a single fragment the plane will explode. that also may explain why there is no damage monitor for the fan! ha! so which drama do i believe? one hit and its dead or it can be hit and the pilot not even know it. can we all see the opposite extremes being shown here? as well it is true of any aircraft providing it hits the right spot that it can explode. i know he is refering to the gyrenes taking out the firefighting gear because the weight issues on the b are so scary its not funny but this is childish. be critcel of the jSF the right way sorry for the long windy post. from here i will try to talk about how the f-35 compares to the Super hornet. i will try to be fair to both sides and show where the jsf went wrong without having to resort to exageretion

 

[LowObservable]

RL - That is not what the DOT&E says. Hypothetically, consider that a lift fan blade or vane has taken a hit from a blast-frag warhead. The lift fan is not throttled up - it is clutched in, and although the IGVs start at low power and low torque, it goes to full revs very quickly, and then quite rapidly to full power (as the aft nozzle continues to come down). If the weakened component lets go once the aircraft is even partially jet-borne, it may generate a thrust differential that there is actually no way to overcome (the lift system is also the pitch control effector) and the aircraft will depart.

How big an operational risk is it? Don't know, but if the survivability spec is to survive a blast-frag event of a certain size and proximity and leave the aircraft flying, or at least a safe ejection platform, it may be relevant.

 

[Rlewis]

RL - That is not what the DOT&E says. Hypothetically, consider that a lift fan blade or vane has taken a hit from a blast-frag warhead. The lift fan is not throttled up - it is clutched in, and although the IGVs start at low power and low torque, it goes to full revs very quickly, and then quite rapidly to full power (as the aft nozzle continues to come down). If the weakened component lets go once the aircraft is even partially jet-borne, it may generate a thrust differential that there is actually no way to overcome (the lift system is also the pitch control effector) and the aircraft will depart.

How big an operational risk is it? Don't know, but if the survivability spec is to survive a blast-frag event of a certain size and proximity and leave the aircraft flying, or at least a safe ejection platform, it may be relevant.

it does have an auto eject system? i know the rear view sucks but are there mirrors to at least check the skin and see what would hopefully be obvious shrapnel damage? and if there is any question as f-14 explained, there is some chance of "try and see?" there are better margins when it comes to options with this than the harrier. not that that says much. but the ability to divert and land conventionally and maybe tank on the way providing that isn't damages to that is much better than the harry hog. hopefully you would get degraded lift but not catastrophic failure that would be obvious enough to try something else. or if the weight margins werent so damn tight try it anyway.
i once saw a f-4 throw a blade that hit a fuel tank after take. it looked like the hand of god just came down and disappeared it behind a cloud of fire. i will never forget that as long as i live. one second jet with two people the next just nothing. im dating myself but you just cant see for everything that can happen. you are looking at a single point failure that toasts the aircraft. like when a tail hook comes off or the wires break. there just isn't much you can do.
thank you for the response

 

[Arjen]

it does have an auto eject system?

AES (Auto Eject System) is active on STOVL variant only.
Specs of Martin-Baker seat available here.

 

[LowObservable]

In the unlikely event of the lift fan failing catastrophically the aircraft would pitch inverted in 0.6 seconds, and the pilot is protected by auto-ejection signalled by pitch rate and attitude (derived from the YAK 38 & 141 systems).

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassociation/hanewsletters/hanewsletter030nvu/testflyingjointstrikefighter.html


(I believe that the transition switch arms the AES.)

 

[F-14D]

Yes, the fan spins up very rapidly. But one must assume that there is some electronic system in this computer max'ed aircraft that nearly instantaneously detects a problem at startup and stops the conversion. Remember, the conversion is automated. If the aircraft is already in powered lift when it happens, yes, unless you had a lot of altitude, you are going to lose the aircraft, just like you would a Harrier if one of the nozzles fell off at that point. I find it curious that there could be such a catastrophic hit, though that would have no other sign of damage so that the pilot would be unaware that there could be a problem and maybe it should be checked at higher altitude.

Again, think of the lift system on this or the Harrier as invisible landing gear, with the consequent benefits and risks. Sometimes a CTOL has gear problems that don't generate any warning until a loud scraping noise is heard.

Remember, these are warplanes and there are lots of things that bring them down. It's what level of risk you're willing to accept. The military accepts operational risks even in peacetime that would get you thrown in jail in the civil world. KC-135 pilot: "Balanced field length? What's that?".

Yes the Harrier can tank. The Marines usually don't always carry the probe because the whole point of the aircraft is to be based close enough to the action that you don't need to tank. If you're staging from an airfield far enough away that you need to regularly tank on mission, you'd use a CTOL anyway. Also, Harriers can and do land conventionally when it's warranted, either a short ground run or longer roll out. Check out films of Harriers landing with big loads in Afghanistan on a hot day.

 

[lastdingo]

AV-8B - No big issues that I recall.

The accident rate, concerns about resistance to SPAAG defences and lack of a radar were major issues.

---------------

About F-35 in general; RAND has kind of changed its mind on joint programs:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9759/index1.html

Recommendation Informed by this analysis, PAF recommends that, unless the participating services have identical, stable requirements, DoD should avoid future joint fighter and other complex joint aircraft programs

RAND Project AIR FORCE
("PAF")


I wonder whether they had come to the same conclusion if they had a "RAND Project Marine Corps" instead, though.

 

[Rlewis]

Yes, the fan spins up very rapidly. But one must assume that there is some electronic system in this computer max'ed aircraft that nearly instantaneously detects a problem at startup and stops the conversion. Remember, the conversion is automated. If the aircraft is already in powered lift when it happens, yes, unless you had a lot of altitude, you are going to lose the aircraft, just like you would a Harrier if one of the nozzles fell off at that point. I find it curious that there could be such a catastrophic hit, though that would have no other sign of damage so that the pilot would be unaware that there could be a problem and maybe it should be checked at higher altitude.

Again, think of the lift system on this or the Harrier as invisible landing gear, with the consequent benefits and risks. Sometimes a CTOL has gear problems that don't generate any warning until a loud scraping noise is heard.

Remember, these are warplanes and there are lots of things that bring them down. It's what level of risk you're willing to accept. The military accepts operational risks even in peacetime that would get you thrown in jail in the civil world. KC-135 pilot: "Balanced field length? What's that?".

Yes the Harrier can tank. The Marines usually don't always carry the probe because the whole point of the aircraft is to be based close enough to the action that you don't need to tank. If you're staging from an airfield far enough away that you need to regularly tank on mission, you'd use a CTOL anyway. Also, Harriers can and do land conventionally when it's warranted, either a short ground run or longer roll out. Check out films of Harriers landing with big loads in Afghanistan on a hot day.

You said it better than me. i wasn't aware of that with the harriers in a-stan though so thank you. can't imagine the pilot beeing unaware of being damaged at all. if you manage to actually hit a fast jet with an AK at all let alone in that very specific spot even if the aircraft got that low i would buy you your own f-35. a 100 million dollar value! even then an AK round may not do much damage especially considering the velocity of the round as it approaches heights that aircraft are still thousands of feet above. so its a golden BB. mister axe just seems to play a lot of video games. the blisks in the F414 are damn tough and we have had some pieces of fod get sucked in and then flown for sorties afterward and we didn't know anything was wrong until the engine overhaul came do. it was more a cost issue than a safety issue becuase it did damage the engine more than we would like but it never failed. you can damage a blade and providing it doesn't come off it will keep working just not as well as it could. don't know just how tough the lift fan is in a f-35b. have to ask RR. its just subterfuging the issue to say a single hit means disaster because every emergency has its own factors and needs to be managed one at a time. if gilmore thinks it should have a monitoring system he probably has good reasons. but in this case we are talking about a very specific event that would happen in combat and with the weight margins where they are. it doesn't surprise me that it doesnt have something there to tell the pilot. how do i feel about that? i think they can get away with it. if it somehow happened multiple times in combat something may need to be retro fitted but they can probably get away with it even then nothing would happen until the fight was over other than banning operations that require the fan to get safely landed. it would still have to be a lot of damaged fans and crashed birds though before operational changes or retro fits. :'(

 

[Triton]

Meanwhile in Canada:

"Canadian firms gather for F-35 public relations push"

Source:
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/01/30/canadian-firms-gather-for-f-35-public-relations-push/

News release from the companies involved:

Ottawa, ON, January 30, 2014 – As Canadian companies gather in Ottawa for an F-35 industry partner conference, conference co-chairs Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions and GasTOPS Ltd. welcome their colleagues and encourage a productive exchange of ideas with Members of Parliament about how Canada’s continued commitment to the production of the F-35 can bolster global security, contribute to economic recovery, and build a long term aerospace infrastructure in Canada that Canadians will benefit from for decades to come.

Industry conference Co-Chair, GasTOPS Ltd., is recognized worldwide for its innovative contributions to the productivity and safety of critical machinery, and as an important partner of Lockheed Martin in the production of the world’s only 5th Generation Fighter, the company recently celebrated the delivery of its 10,000th MetalSCAN sensor across all the aerospace and industrial sectors.

“For us and our colleagues in the aerospace industry throughout Canada, working on the F-35 has opened up doors that would not have been opened otherwise,” said GasTOPS President and CEO, Dave Muir. “We have access state of the art technology, relationships within the aerospace community, and worldwide partnerships that will help us compete globally for years to come.”

Fellow industry conference Co-Chair, Curtiss-Wright, is an example of an industry partner that is firmly embedded in the production of the F-35 as a manufacturer of rugged high performance processor modules.

“We are pleased to join our Canadian industry partners in communicating the key role that Curtiss-Wright and our colleagues play in supporting the production of the F-35,” said Lynn Bamford, Sr. VP/GM, Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions division. ”We take pride in helping to expand the Canadian defense and aerospace industry by creating jobs in Ottawa that help strengthen the local economy and community. Our Ottawa business operation, founded in Kanata decades ago, is today recognized around the world as a leading supplier of rugged processing modules used in critical national security programs. We join with our partners in asking the Canadian government to continue the support that helps keep industry and the nation strong.”

 

[GTX]

For example, Lorraine Martin, JSF manager for Lockheed Martin, pledge to journalists on December 17, 2013: "By 2019, the F-35A (the Air Force version) will cost $75 million a copy in current dollars ($85 million in good ole then-year dollars, i.e. counting future inflation), which will be “less than any fourth generation fighter in the world.”

Considering its not 2019 yet or have you a time machine to prove this wrong (can I borrow it )? ;D

not the famously inexpensive Gripen, not the French Rafale, the Russian MiG-35, the Boeing F-15 Eagle, or the European Typhoon."

You were saying? :

The famously inexpensive Gripen??
The French Rafale
The European Typhoon

Didn't bother with the others since I don't believe they will be on offer come 2019.

costs are rising

Costs are rising?

So how can anyone at Lockheed Martin or the JSF Program Office make statements concerning cost of the F-35 as if they were facts?

Its called a prediction or target…or isn't that allowed?

Is it disingenuous, or nihilistic duplicity, on the part of Lockheed Martin and a Marine aviation spokesman to insist that the Block 2B software will release "on time"

Why either?

... I guess we will see in July 2015 if Lockheed Martin meets this release date for Block 2B software or if IOC of the F-35B occurs no later than December 2015.

I like that you are willing to wait until the specified deadline this time before declaring it late…or are you using that time machine again?

Unfortunately, they make these forward-looking statements without qualifying them as speculation and subject to change, but rather as factual statements concerning the F-35 program.

It's almost like when they made these statements they actually believed them, and didn't think they were speculation. You also appear to think these statements are made just 'off the cuff' without any prior consideration. I can assure you, it is usually quite the opposite.

Lorraine Martin used the present tense rather than the future tense. She did not qualify her remarks by using words such as "believe," "estimate," "anticipate," "plan," "predict," "may," "hope,", "should," "expect," "intend," "is designed to," "with the intent," or "potential."

So, what we have to assess on linguistics and grammar now do we? I guess LM, NG, P&W, BAE, JPO all better start hiring language teachers/experts... ;D

 

[GTX]

At the beginning of the Joint Strike Fighter project there seemed to be an emphasis on affordability and addressing the "death spiral." Unfortunately, during the development of the F-35 emphasis on affordability was lost and a technically complex, risky, and expensive fusion of radar and onboard sensors was added to the project.

What hardware on the F-35 wasn't specifically intended to be there from the get go? AESA radar? DAS? EOTS? Steath? STOVL? Interested parties would like to know.

Yes, I would be interested to read this as well...

 

[sferrin]

RL - That is not what the DOT&E says. Hypothetically, consider that a lift fan blade or vane has taken a hit from a blast-frag warhead. The lift fan is not throttled up - it is clutched in, and although the IGVs start at low power and low torque, it goes to full revs very quickly, and then quite rapidly to full power (as the aft nozzle continues to come down). If the weakened component lets go once the aircraft is even partially jet-borne, it may generate a thrust differential that there is actually no way to overcome (the lift system is also the pitch control effector) and the aircraft will depart.

How big an operational risk is it? Don't know, but if the survivability spec is to survive a blast-frag event of a certain size and proximity and leave the aircraft flying, or at least a safe ejection platform, it may be relevant.

What happens to a Harrier when it's fan comes apart in the hover?

 

[GTX]

How big an operational risk is it? Don't know, but if the survivability spec is to survive a blast-frag event of a certain size and proximity and leave the aircraft flying, or at least a safe ejection platform, it may be relevant.

Some nice qualifiers there Bill, though you still seem to want to paint this issue as a point of concern. Good on you

This whole lift fan damage detection system discussion is a joke. it is another case of complaining that the F-35 doesn't have a system or capability but also failing to also acknowledge that no other equivalent platform also doesn't have it. One might as well decry the F-35s lack of deflection shields, active cloaking and warp drive…none of which are on the F-16, F-15, Super Hornet, Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, T-50...

 

[GTX]

What happens to a Harrier when it's fan comes apart in the hover?

Or if its nozzle translation system is damaged?

 

[LowObservable]

So, we're all agreed that it is totally unreasonable to expect JSF, after all the time and money, to be an improvement in survivability and airworthiness over a 1959 design?

And that it is (contrariwise) perfectly OK to pull random media articles from 2011, 2012 and, Gawdelpus, Lewis Page to show how expensive Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen are, even though all of them use different cost bases, and compare those with a report of how fantastically cheap the F-35 is, as long as it doesn't have an engine? How often are you going to pull that stunt, GTX? How stupid do you think people are?

Go argue with Gilmore about why the lift-fan is a survivability issue - but presumably, since his job is about OT&E, and OT&E is about determining that the product performs according to the spec (aka "what we are paying you $55 billion to deliver") there is a spec for survivability and the jet is at risk for not meeting it.

 

[Triton]

Its called a prediction or target…or isn't that allowed?

Last time I checked the dictionary, the word pledge meant "vow" or "guarantee" rather than "prediction" or "target."

Costs are rising?

The targeted F-35 price for LRIP 6 and LRIP 7 also excludes retrofits which were estimated by the Pentagon at $7.4 million. Cost would be split between Lockheed Martin and the government for LRIP 6 while the government would pay for all retrofit costs for LRIP 7. As more problems are found, the price of retrofits will increase. Or did you believe that Lockheed Martin would throw in the retrofits gratis?

It's almost like when they made these statements they actually believed them, and didn't think they were speculation. You also appear to think these statements are made just 'off the cuff' without any prior consideration. I can assure you, it is usually quite the opposite.

Especially when Lockheed Martin confirms that Block 2B software will be released on time in July 2015 and a Marine aviation spokesman states that there are no plans to change the IOC dates after the FY 2013 OT&E Annual Report states that the Block 2B software is 18 months behind schedule.

 

[quellish]

as long as it doesn't have an engine?

Cheap, ephemeral engine sure is a lot easier to get onboard during an unrep evolution.

 

[sferrin]

So, we're all agreed that it is totally unreasonable to expect JSF, after all the time and money, to be an improvement in survivability and airworthiness over a 1959 design?

That's quite a leap even for you. Pray tell, when did the STOVL method become the only indicator of survivability? I'd think little things like stealth, performance, etc. would matter far more to air defenses than how an aircraft gets back on the ground.

 

[F-14D]

What happens to a Harrier when it's fan comes apart in the hover?

Or if its nozzle translation system is damaged?

sferrin: Same thing that happens to an F-16 if its fan comes apart on short final...you lose the aircraft (it might even blow up). The fan on the Harrier is the front of the Pegasus engine.

GTX: If you're talking about damage that occurred earlier but the plane' still flying wingborne, then when you start transition, the plane makes all kinds of noises and vibrations that tell you, "Don't' do that!", and you stop transition. If the plane is in high hover, and someone blows off a nozzle, the same thing that would happen if someone puts an RPG into the main gear or the intake of an F-16 on short final or rolling down the runway...you lose the aircraft. Frankly someone doing that to an F-16 is arguably somewhat more likely because its path will be more predictable at that phase.

With respect, IMHO these are kind of "oh yeah?" questions. You can always find some risk associated with some unique feature of some aircraft. These are the same questions as, "What if a helicopter's rotor comes off when it's 150 feet up?", or "What if a big hole opens on the top of a submerged submarine "? You weigh the cost of all the flexibility and responsiveness you get with STOVL against the costs of being able to use air for your runway.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

So, we're all agreed that it is totally unreasonable to expect JSF, after all the time and money, to be an improvement in survivability and airworthiness over a 1959 design?

That's quite a leap even for you. Pray tell, when did the STOVL method become the only indicator of survivability? I'd think little things like stealth, performance, etc. would matter far more to air defenses than how an aircraft gets back on the ground.

The point was whether JSF's STOVL method gives it an improvement in airworthiness and resistance to battle damage over the Harrier's STOVL method (vectored thrust) or whether another STOVL method (LPLC e.g. lift plus lift cruise) would have been superior in these respects.


Having stealth or supersonic dash isn't magically going to make the fan more resistant to damage or make the vertical transition less risky.


The Northrop / McDonnell-Douglas / BAe JSF proposal used LPLC and had a couple of useful features from that - use of a standard F119 (cost/commonality saving), ability to fly on lift jet only up to 310km/h in emergency engine-out situation, and the lift jet was smaller than the rival lift fan. On the flip side, it had a hot exhaust which might have caused greater operational problems.

 

[LowObservable]

Sorry. I should have been more specific and used the word "vulnerability" rather than "survivability".

The Harrier is a product of the nadir era of vulnerability, when the assumption was that if you were going to be hit by anything, it would be the size of a Hawk or a Bloodhound, or at least a Sparrow. Goodnight nurse.

After VN experience, vulnerability was reinstated and mandated as a specifiable requirement, analysis techniques were invented and matured, and LFT&E techniques were developed to test that systems met those specs.

F-35 LFT&E, with which the DOT&E is concerned, is about showing that the F-35 meets the vulnerability requirement that the contractor signed up to meet. It therefore has the cube root of ****-all to do with the Harrier, stealth or supersonic flight.

F-14D - DOT&E (p45) is quite specific. "Conversion to STOVL flight puts high loads on the quickly accelerating system components that can result in catastrophic failure before the pilot can return to wing-borne flight."

By the way, one result of vulnerability specs has been some remarkably tough aircraft (see photo); clearly this isn't weapon damage, but redundant systems, routing and check valves all play a part.

 

[sferrin]

So basically, "uhm, we're using a different yard stick against the Harrier".

"F-35 LFT&E, with which the DOT&E is concerned, is about showing that the F-35 meets the vulnerability requirement that the contractor signed up to meet. "

Is there evidence to show that it doesn't? Or will you have a tizzy when they find out they need to make some tweaks to meet it? (You know, like they did with the F-22's wing spars?)

"By the way, one result of vulnerability specs has been some remarkably tough aircraft (see photo); clearly this isn't weapon damage, but redundant systems, routing and check valves all play a part."

I wonder what would happen to a Harrier with that kind of damage. (Or a Typhoon for that matter.)

I wonder if a Typhoon could make it back to a safe landing with this kind of damage:



No? Whoa, you mean the Typhoon is worse than the 40 year old F-15? You guys are getting ripped off.

 

[Arjen]

That's a roundabout way of saying an F-35B is more vulnerable than an F-15 or F-18. No, I don't know how Typhoon will stand up to damage, but that's just you changing the subject, isn't it? Got something to hide?

 

[sferrin]

That's a roundabout way of saying an F-35B is more vulnerable than an F-15 or F-18. No, I don't know how Typhoon will stand up to damage, but that's just you changing the subject, isn't it? Got something to hide?

Not at all. I just think it's amusing how obsessed some are with the F-35. You'd think it called their mothers a bad name or something. ;D

 

[Arjen]

I rest my case.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Not at all. I just think it's amusing how obsessed some are with the F-35. You'd think it called their mothers a bad name or something. ;D

As you demonstrate on a regular basis.

 

[LowObservable]

Oddly enough, the last few pages have been entirely free of any statements suggesting that the F-35 in any version will be uniquely vulnerable. It started when I corrected F-14D's reading of the DOT&E report:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,537.msg210929.html#msg210929

At which point the usual suspects started throwing entirely irrelevant comments about Harriers &c into the discussion. Irrelevant, because the issue is not whether the F-15 is more survivable than a Harrier (or an F-16 or F-18 for that matter) but whether tests are adequate to demonstrate that it meets the spec.

As for "obsession" with the F-35, there are 250-billion-plus reasons to focus on it.

 

[sferrin]

Not at all. I just think it's amusing how obsessed some are with the F-35. You'd think it called their mothers a bad name or something. ;D

As you demonstrate on a regular basis.

Really? Are you seriously going to try to tell me I write as much about the F-35 as BS, Arjen, or Triton?

Oddly enough, the last few pages have been entirely free of any statements suggesting that the F-35 in any version will be uniquely vulnerable. It started when I corrected F-14D's reading of the DOT&E report:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,537.msg210929.html#msg210929

At which point the usual suspects started throwing entirely irrelevant comments about Harriers &c into the discussion. Irrelevant, because the issue is not whether the F-15 is more survivable than a Harrier (or an F-16 or F-18 for that matter) but whether tests are adequate to demonstrate that it meets the spec.

As for "obsession" with the F-35, there are 250-billion-plus reasons to focus on it.

Replacing three different fighter types is expensive? No way.

 

[F-14D]

Actually, I don't see how that changes that much of what I said; it's going to have to be some kind of automatic system that detects a failure (not necessarily from combat) in the fan and aborts the conversion...not necessarily the pilot. As I see it, he doesn't have as much control of the process as does one in the Harrier (where nozzle malfunction can ruin your day). It's much more automated in the F-35, so it's going to have to be the myriad of computers that will abort the process in the first instants or if there isn't time, punching the pilot out.

 

[Triton]

Dr. Loren B. Thompson Chief Operating Officer of the Lexington Institute, and Lockheed Martin compensated, gives his two cents:


"Five Reasons The Latest Pentagon Testing Report On The F-35 Fighter Doesn't Matter"
by Loren Thompson
2/03/2014

Source:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/02/03/five-reasons-the-latest-pentagon-testing-report-on-the-f-35-fighter-doesnt-matter/

Two weeks ago the annual report of the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation was leaked to the Reuters news agency in advance of its public release. The subsequent dissemination of its contents has afforded critics of the tri-service F-35 fighter program the opportunity for a new round of complaints about the supposed mis-steps of those engaged in developing the plane.

(Disclosure: Many of the companies working on the F-35 program including prime contractor Lockheed Martin LMT -1.78% contribute to my think tank; so do companies building rival planes.)

For example, I read one commentary about the test report posted on the influential RealClearDefense web-site that stated the F-35 “could fly into combat unreliable, confused, defenseless, toothless and vulnerable.” That claim reveals such abysmal ignorance about the status of the program that it discredits anything else the author might choose to say on the subject. It echoes the irresponsible critics of earlier generations who warned that programs like the F-15 fighter, Abrams tank and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor would be battlefield disasters. In fact, all three went on to become world-class combat systems.

The reality of the F-35 program is that it is making steady progress in retiring risk and reducing costs; that Pentagon officials are increasingly pleased with its performance; and that most of America’s key allies have signed up to buy the plane despite the availability of impressive alternatives (most recently Japan and South Korea). Nonetheless, the fact that program critics level such sweeping denunciations has to have a demoralizing effect on the thousands of workers engaged in building what Senator John McCain has said “may be the greatest combat aircraft in the history of the world.” With that in mind, I would like to offer five reassuring reasons why the F-35 program is going to do just fine.

1. The problems were already known. The test director’s report did not identify any new problems with the fighter. As the head of the F-35 joint program office observed in response to the report’s release, “There were no surprises in the report; all of the issues mentioned are well-known to us, the F-35 international partners and our industry team.” That was predictable because the report relied on information generated by the program office as it conducts a rigorous testing regime that includes over 8,000 flights. With half of flight testing now completed, no show-stoppers have been found and the program is developing fixes for each instance where aircraft performance fails to match goals. Program executive officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan states that finding such problems is typical of what happens at this stage in a development program: “This is the time we want to discover issues through testing so we can implement solutions and provide an extremely capable and lethal aircraft to the warfighter.”

2. Program progress has been understated. To read some accounts of what the test chief reported, you would think the F-35 is making little progress. In fact, the very first sentence in the report’s executive summary states, “Flight test teams operating the 18 test aircraft assigned to the developmental flight test centers nearly matched or exceeded flight test sortie goals through October 2013.” During 2013, the program conducted 1,153 flights and completed more than 9,000 separate test points (tasks). Accomplishment of some test points has been delayed due to lagging software development and other issues, but the program executive officer says, “the basic design of the F-35 is sound and test results underscore our confidence in the ultimate performance” of the planes. He says software issues will not slow the operational debut of the Marine Corps variant, scheduled for next year.

3. The severity of problems has been exaggerated. In discussing issues cited by the report, critics have omitted important context and qualifiers. For instance, peeling of stealth coatings on the tail is described without including report language that it was caused by “extended use of the afterburner not expected to be representative of operational use.” Buffeting and “trans-sonic roll off” (wing drop) is noted without mention of the fact that this is common in many fighters and may not impact mission capability. Engine susceptibility to damage is cited without including report language that testing results “were consistent with results from prior legacy engine tests.” Problems with the pilot’s helmet-mounted display are detailed without recounting the various fixes that have improved performance to the point where plans for a backup system could be canceled.

4. The testing chief always finds problems. If you read through the full report of the Director for Operational Test & Evaluation, it becomes clear he has questions of one sort or another about every weapons program the Pentagon is pursuing. For instance, the report complains about radar deficiencies, electronic countermeasure shortfalls and inadequate weapons testing on the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, even though that plane is generally regarded as the most capable carrier-based aircraft in history. Pentagon officials were downright dismissive of the test chief’s complaints about a new Navy patrol aircraft. Those officials recognize that the testing community is seldom satisfied with the performance of combat systems because it benefits from doing testing. As the joint force’s biggest development program, the F-35 offers an especially lucrative target for bureaucrats who never want to stop testing.

5. Outsiders seldom understand fighter development. Few people have actually read the F-35 chapter in the test director’s annual report, and fewer still have understood it. To grasp the full significance of what it says, you would first need to have some grounding in aeronautical engineering and operational testing. It would also be helpful to have some historical knowledge of how other major weapons systems have fared during development. Most of the reporters who cover the F-35 don’t have those insights, and so they tend to rely on other people to explain to them what documents like the test report indicate. Since the joint program office and contractors seldom are forthcoming on that front, journalists turn to the critics who, shockingly enough, render unduly alarming interpretations of what it all means.

The F-35 program may be the most complicated project in the history of military technology. It entails development of three distinctly different aircraft for domestic military services and a host of foreign allies, along with sophisticated training and sustainment systems. Much of the hardware and software incorporated into the airframes is secret — secret because it is the key to preserving global air dominance through mid-century. It was inevitable there would be challenges in engineering and integrating such systems. The Director of Operational Testing & Evaluation has illuminated some of the challenges that remain to be resolved, but one by one they will be overcome as they must be if America is to retain its role as guarantor of global security

 

[F-14D]

F-14D - DOT&E (p45) is quite specific. "Conversion to STOVL flight puts high loads on the quickly accelerating system components that can result in catastrophic failure before the pilot can return to wing-borne flight."

Not denying that at all. So can a MANPAD missile down the intake. It's a decision they have to make, increased flexibility/responsiveness vs. a possible new vulnerability point. Since the F-35 system is activated by pushing a button rather than a more manual method, and with all the redundancy they're supposedly putting in, I'm just opining that there's going to be a system that would detect the problem in microseconds and stop the process. Look how fast airbags start deploying.

 

[lastdingo]

I wonder if a Typhoon could make it back to a safe landing with this kind of damage:



No? Whoa, you mean the Typhoon is worse than the 40 year old F-15? You guys are getting ripped off.

It's a rather untypical damage pattern. The F-15 and likely the MiG-29/Su-27-ish aircraft can take such a damage because much lift can be generated with the wide hull (positive AoA). The Typhoon has huge wings to generate lift, and a relatively small belly cross section.

Furthermroe, Typhoon was developed with national and collective defence in mind, not with bombing of third world countries. This kind of damage is a write-off in wartime, and thus not really better than an immediate crash. The pilot returns, fine, but in a European great powers-style of war this wouldn't mean much as there would quickly be a pilot surplus once aircraft losses mount anyway.

 

[sublight_]

Since the F-35 system is activated by pushing a button rather than a more manual method....

That is the best decision they made in the entire program. My biggest complaint on the Osprey is the human controlled rotor transition.

 

[sferrin]

I wonder if a Typhoon could make it back to a safe landing with this kind of damage:



No? Whoa, you mean the Typhoon is worse than the 40 year old F-15? You guys are getting ripped off.

It's a rather untypical damage pattern. The F-15 and likely the MiG-29/Su-27-ish aircraft can take such a damage because much lift can be generated with the wide hull (positive AoA). The Typhoon has huge wings to generate lift, and a relatively small belly cross section.

Furthermroe, Typhoon was developed with national and collective defence in mind, not with bombing of third world countries. This kind of damage is a write-off in wartime, and thus not really better than an immediate crash. The pilot returns, fine, but in a European great powers-style of war this wouldn't mean much as there would quickly be a pilot surplus once aircraft losses mount anyway.

It was a rhetorical question. There's no way in hell a Typhoon could land with one wing missing.

 

[Triton]

"All's Well on JSF -- Lockheed Martin Consultant"
Posted by Bill Sweetman 4:11 PM on Feb 04, 2014

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:6ff015c4-53c6-4833-a584-9ba4e80d450a

Not too surprisingly, Lockheed Martin consultant Loren Thompson is back in action in Forbes, assuring us that it is safe to disregard the latest report on the F-35 program from the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation.

More surprisingly, there is not a lot of what Thompson says that I would disagree with.

That's because most of his points don't refer to what was new in the report: most importantly, the DOT&E presented detailed evidence showing that since last year, the risk of software-driven delays to the program has increased; that on the latest measured trends, the 2B software needed for the Marines to declare initial operational capability will be more than a year late; and that 2B delays will directly affect the progress of the Block 3 software that is needed for Air Force, Navy and partner IOC, with the capabilities required by the initial development contract in 2001.

Thompson does dredge up one of his old allegations -- that some shadowy testing Mafia just wants to delay the program and waste money for its own self-interested reasons. "The testing community is seldom satisfied with the performance of combat systems because it benefits from doing testing... the F-35 offers an especially lucrative target for bureaucrats who never want to stop testing."

There is no "monolithic testing community." There are many people in the military, and associated with the F-35 program, who do testing. Today, most of the work (development test) is being carried out by the JSF combined test team, most of whom either report to the JSF Program Office or work for the contractors. Operational test will involve a combination of program test people and many regular service personnel. There is no mechanism by which these diverse groups could be delaying the program "to close out their home mortgages and get their last kid through college", in Thompson's disgraceful language from 2012.

This isn't the first time that Thompson has pointed the finger of blame at this nonexistent conspiracy. But it should be the last. Nobody on the contractor team has any right to blame the customer for the program's status - seven years late, and eight if DOT&E's predictions are on track, with a so-far-unsolved massive overrun in life-cycle costs, all despite full funding and requirements that have changed only to the contractors' benefit.

 

[sferrin]

Oh look, another Bill Sweetman F-35 rant. No doubt Solomon is already foaming at the mouth about it and the War Is Boring blog is front-paging it.

 

[Triton]

Cheers to Grey Havoc for finding this article:

OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] TOLD THE NAVY: YOU CAN’T TAKE A ‘BREAK’ FROM THE F-35C: According to a congressional source, in its 2015 budget proposal, the Navy asked to take a three-year “break” from its production of the F-35C, its variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. Concerned this was a first step toward walking away from the program permanently, OSD told the Navy: no way.

It’s an open secret that the Navy would prefer to invest more in its F-18 fighters rather than buy the F-35C. But if the Navy pulled out of the program, the unit cost — already under scrutiny — would go up for the Air Force and the Marine Corps.

Source:
http://www.politico.com/morningdefense/0214/morningdefense12888.html

Looks like the United States Navy is trying to pull out of the F-35 program.