Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/137504/

Topic: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-09-01 05:01:23 and read 10612 times.

In what seems like a never ending stream of bad news for the F-35 program, Aviation Week reports that the 'B' model has moved another step closer to the chopping block.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Strike%20Fighter&channel=defense

Quote:
Navy Undersecretary Robert Work told the Navy and Marine Corps in July to provide lower-cost alternatives to the Navy’s current tactical aviation plan, and to examine the consequences of terminating either the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) version or the carrier-compatible F-35C. Work is seeking decisions in time for the 2013 budget submission.

Just kill the 'B', already. It's the number one thing stalling the entire program and it would save further billions in development and production costs. As well, it would probably reduce the price per unit of the 'A' and 'C' models and get them to the customers significantly sooner.

As the article points out, there are serious questions about the forward deployment capabilities of the 'B', and even more questions about it's tactical abilities even if it can be forward deployed. If the Pentagon is right and each plane needs a special 1000sq ft landing pad made out of exotic concrete landing pad, it kinda takes away the advantage of mobility if each plane needs a cement truck as support equipment necessary for deployment, it would seem to reduce its usefulness somewhat.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2011-09-01 06:08:57 and read 10561 times.

Fairly damning article about the 'B', for sure, from a practicality p.o.v.

Once again (I know I sound like a broken record) the 'one size fits all' solution mentality just generally speaking does not work. Terminate it and move on, perhaps to a Marine-focussed UCAV.

Related, I believe, I see from my latest AIR International that the USMC has purchased 40 now-retired Harrier GR.7/9s from the RN for use as a spares source, for something like $150M. Yes, the Harrier and the AV-8B are not identical, but there is a fair bit of commonality.

If they need that many spares, they intend to keep the AV-8Bs operational for far longer than originally planned. Which may mean they see the writing on the wall for the F-35B.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Oroka
Posted 2011-09-01 07:38:13 and read 10491 times.

Im still not clear on why an amphibious army needs supersonic stealth fighter jets.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: FoxTwo
Posted 2011-09-01 09:46:07 and read 10394 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 2):

I second that. Why is the hornet not suitable? I suppose the economy / intense spending may have something in common with this.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: garnetpalmetto
Posted 2011-09-01 14:41:25 and read 10191 times.

Quoting FoxTwo (Reply 3):

I second that. Why is the hornet not suitable? I suppose the economy / intense spending may have something in common with this.

F/A-18s can't operate off of LHA/LHD decks and a CVN isn't necessarily always available to support amphibious operations, especially with talk of a shrinking carrier force.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Oroka
Posted 2011-09-01 16:33:26 and read 10093 times.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 4):
F/A-18s can't operate off of LHA/LHD decks and a CVN isn't necessarily always available to support amphibious operations, especially with talk of a shrinking carrier force.

Maybe if the USN didnt have to operate 10 mini aircraft carriers, they could afford to keep their super carriers. Give the USMC's fighter assets to the USN, and let the Marines do what marines were meant to do, invade with ground assets from the sea, not zip over head in fighter jets.

You have the USAF with fighter jets, then you have the USN with fighter jets, and the USMC with fighter jets... 3 of 4 branches of the US military has an air force... might as well make a F-35D and give the Army 300 of them. You could call it the US Army Air Corp.


Really, why does the USMC need fighter jets at all?

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-09-01 16:44:16 and read 10088 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 1):
Fairly damning article about the 'B', for sure, from a practicality p.o.v.

A damning article about an ill-conceived program that should have been shot down before politicians and bureaucrats fell in love with it and convinced themselves it could work. Lightning II? More like the Aardvark II.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 4):
F/A-18s can't operate off of LHA/LHD decks and a CVN isn't necessarily always available to support amphibious operations, especially with talk of a shrinking carrier force.

Perhaps someone needs to remind the Corps what the H in LHA is.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
Really, why does the USMC need fighter jets at all?

They need some close air support ability beyond helicopters. That said, in the near term the Hornets are fine and I would favor a highly modernized A-10 for the USAF and USMC to fulfill this role. It has to be cheaper than the F-35, which is in all liklihood going to be subpar for this mission anyway.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2011-09-01 17:25:47 and read 10060 times.

Take this report with a major grain of salt and skepticism; Bill Sweetman is known for being openly anti-F-35 (and anti-Marine Corps for that matter), to the point where his editors actually censored him a while back.

And many of the things he said are half-truths. The biggest example:

Quote:
Navy construction specifications continue to warn that the F-35B will impose temperatures as high as 1700F (several hundred degrees higher than a Harrier exhaust) on vertical-landing pads, with a transonic exhaust velocity. This is enough to cause standard concrete to “spall”—that is, shed surface flakes in a near-explosive manner—with a 50% chance of damage on the first landing.

In reality, see this lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8wSeIz9uL8

And I will note that the F-35B exhaust temps on deck plates were characterized in formal testing conducted by the government in January 2010 . The government, the Navy and LM know exactly what the exhaust temperatures are. The jet wouldn't be going to the ship next month if there were problems -- the Navy brass would never allow the sea-based test flights to proceed if it did.

Further, the temperature of 1800 degree F is measured at the nozzle. The temperature at the pavement surface can be as high as 1400 degrees F. The velocity of 1000 degrees F is at the velocity at the nozzle. The pressure of 36 psi is on the pavement. That 1700 degree F temp was based off of a preliminary Navy document that came out well before the F-35B first flew, and thus did not have any real world information to back it up.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Spacepope
Posted 2011-09-01 17:25:56 and read 10059 times.

And it keeps piling on:

http://defense.aol.com/2011/09/01/f-...fix-found-navy-version-unaffected/

Quote:
UPDATED Washington: A new problem -- described in a Pentagon email as "not a serious issue" -- has been found with the wings of the Air Force and Marine versions of the F-35.

The problem is with the wing's forward root rib and was discovered in standard durability tests. The ribs -- which provide the core strength of the wings -- must be redesigned. The problem appears to be one stemming from design -- not quality control -- and a redesign production plan for the affected F-35 fleet's wings will be in place by the fourth quarter, a Capitol Hill source tells AOL Defense.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Oroka
Posted 2011-09-01 18:02:32 and read 10032 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
They need some close air support ability beyond helicopters.

And the USN or USAF cant perform these roles because?

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: HaveBlue
Posted 2011-09-01 19:49:11 and read 9973 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
Really, why does the USMC need fighter jets at all?

The Marines have a long and sacred tradition of backing up their own infantry with their own air support, and I admire that. I believe they all go thru the same boot camp and their is supposedly a much tighter bond between the fighter jocks and the infantry they are supporting.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
And I will note that the F-35B exhaust temps on deck plates were characterized in formal testing conducted

Good points you make their, and just an aside... we had a AV-8B Harrier practicing for an airshow here at Daytona Beach around 1990 that, during the hover part, blew apart a good section of runway which caused airlines and military arrivals to be diverted... so even the Harrier can be fickle when it comes to exhaust temps effects (granted a landing wouldn't have been as detrimental as hovering).

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2011-09-01 20:09:18 and read 9964 times.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 8):
And it keeps piling on:

http://defense.aol.com/2011/09/01/f-...cted/

So the Flight Test Program continues to work.

Excellent news.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: wvsuperhornet
Posted 2011-09-01 23:02:55 and read 9889 times.

I agree kill the B and quit wasting money on this thing and get it built already.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: HaveBlue
Posted 2011-09-02 00:19:07 and read 9868 times.

I for one hope the B model gets produced... it is an amazing machine, and something lots of countries tried to make happen from the '50's onward but wasn't able too. As an aviation fan I can't imagine wanting to see all that work and progress cast aside.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Eagleboy
Posted 2011-09-02 10:04:15 and read 9589 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 2):
Im still not clear on why an amphibious army needs supersonic stealth fighter jets.
Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 10):
The Marines have a long and sacred tradition of backing up their own infantry with their own air support, and I admire that. I believe they all go thru the same boot camp and their is supposedly a much tighter bond between the fighter jocks and the infantry they are supporting.

I too can see the attachment to your own organic air element. But in this day and age the duplication of resources doesn't seem worth it, especially when the USMC model is the major problematic part of the program.

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 13):
I for one hope the B model gets produced... it is an amazing machine, and something lots of countries tried to make happen from the '50's onward but wasn't able too. As an aviation fan I can't imagine wanting to see all that work and progress cast aside.

Well the UK (who really were the only country to actually make V/STOL work operationally) have given up on their sacred Harrier's and the F-35B.

(USSR had the Yak-38 Forger but it wasn't very successful in service. Spain, Thailand, India and Italy use or have used Harriers on their own carriers. And of course the USMC operate AV-8B's which are 2nd generation Harrier's)

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-09-02 12:31:11 and read 9526 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 9):
And the USN or USAF cant perform these roles because?

Do you want to be the guy to tell the Marines that they can't have something?

Anyway, I don't see a problem with them having their own planes as long as they are the same planes the Air Force and Navy use. Just buy more of the same and spare themselves the huge development costs of dedicated variants.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Oroka
Posted 2011-09-02 12:38:04 and read 9518 times.

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 10):
The Marines have a long and sacred tradition of backing up their own infantry with their own air support, and I admire that. I believe they all go thru the same boot camp and their is supposedly a much tighter bond between the fighter jocks and the infantry they are supporting.

That is becoming a really expensive tradition to keep up with, creating a duplicate capability. $29B a year is a lot of money to have a second army that can be deployed from the sea, with their own ships, and own fighter support.

I just with the entire Canadian military had half the capacity of the USMC.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2011-09-02 12:41:20 and read 9518 times.

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 14):
Well the UK (who really were the only country to actually make V/STOL work operationally) have given up on their sacred Harrier's and the F-35B.

Yes, the Harriers are gone, but only becuase there is no more money available in the UK. Even less than the US. So the Harriers had to go, also the Nimrods, also the older Hercs, and some of the Tornados. And some of the Typhoons are being sold off to Saudi Arabia even before delivery.

Actually, the Marines with the AV-8B did rather better than the Harriers as it could carry more and had a bigger 'bring back' factor.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
Anyway, I don't see a problem with them having their own planes as long as they are the same planes the Air Force and Navy use. Just buy more of the same and spare themselves the huge development costs of dedicated variants.

Quite. For CAS I don't see anything wrong with a mix of AV-8Bs and A-10s -- although the A-10 is definitely not carrier capable, but the point being it's a very effective CAS platform. When you've got battalion/regiment-sized forces on the beach, I don't quite see the point of stealth a/c.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2011-09-02 12:43:43 and read 9513 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
I just with the entire Canadian military had half the capacity of the USMC.

Also with less than half the budget and half the man-power. You can't compare the size of the USMC to the entire Canadian Military. Both have different objectives and roles.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
$29B a year is a lot of money to have a second army that can be deployed from the sea, with their own ships, and own fighter support.

Says who,a Canadian?

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: cmb56
Posted 2011-09-02 16:42:23 and read 9410 times.

So what would be the effect if the conventional A model was dropped as well and all three services flew a variation of the C model? Going back a few decades the F4 Phantom was basically the same across the three services.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2011-09-02 16:57:38 and read 9404 times.

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 19):
So what would be the effect if the conventional A model was dropped as well and all three services flew a variation of the C model? Going back a few decades the F4 Phantom was basically the same across the three services.

The A model is too far along, and development and testing has gone very well for the A model. Also, many partner nations prefer the A model compared to the other variants.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2011-09-02 18:12:28 and read 9372 times.

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 19):
So what would be the effect if the conventional A model was dropped as well and all three services flew a variation of the C model? Going back a few decades the F4 Phantom was basically the same across the three services.

The 'C' is or will be overbuilt (i.e., heavier than necessary) w.r.t. the 'A' variant:

- strengthened landing gear for deck landings;
- arrester hook assembly
- not sure if the AAR probe is different (likely not, even if probably a minor change)
- bigger wing with folding mechanism (therefore heavier)

which I would guess in the best of all world of the F-35 means less payload/radius.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2011-09-02 20:46:13 and read 9328 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 21):
The 'C' is or will be overbuilt (i.e., heavier than necessary) w.r.t. the 'A' variant:

- strengthened landing gear for deck landings;
- arrester hook assembly
- not sure if the AAR probe is different (likely not, even if probably a minor change)
- bigger wing with folding mechanism (therefore heavier)

which I would guess in the best of all world of the F-35 means less payload/radius.

The C variant has bigger fuel tanks, and is has the longest range of all 3 variants.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2011-09-02 23:03:51 and read 9284 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
The C variant has bigger fuel tanks, and is has the longest range of all 3 variants.

And that would be due to ... no fuel in the folding section of the wing. Aha ! unless the wing doesn't fold therefore the whole extended wing is available for fuel. I can't see that there would be more volume in the fuse for extra fuel.

There have been a couple of comments, and I will try to dig them out, that the "C" variant may itself be in some difficulty now, and the UK MoD has made it fairly clear that if the USN buy is reduced substantially, the UK is out and will look for a European (i.e., navalised Typhoon) solution. I'd guess if the "C" purchase reduction were true, then more F/A-18E/Fs are in the cards. Or a reduced deployed force.

Not sure if any USN reduction would be to known technical issues, but it might well be due to the fact that the US is, well, broke.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2011-09-03 01:00:34 and read 9245 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
And that would be due to ... no fuel in the folding section of the wing. Aha ! unless the wing doesn't fold therefore the whole extended wing is available for fuel. I can't see that there would be more volume in the fuse for extra fuel.

There have been a couple of comments, and I will try to dig them out, that the "C" variant may itself be in some difficulty now, and the UK MoD has made it fairly clear that if the USN buy is reduced substantially, the UK is out and will look for a European (i.e., navalised Typhoon) solution. I'd guess if the "C" purchase reduction were true, then more F/A-18E/Fs are in the cards. Or a reduced deployed force.

Not sure if any USN reduction would be to known technical issues, but it might well be due to the fact that the US is, well, broke.

There is more room for fuel in the C variant; it can take 8,900kg of fuel, compared to the 8,390 kg of fuel the A variant can. Not to mention the larger wing which provides more lift.

The Navy won't give up F-35C; it is the only new fighter type they will be fielding in the near future. The Navy has no future fighter in development, as practically every other proposal is a only a concept. The Air Force won't give up on the A variant; they are backed into a corner as they have zero new fighters on purchase other than F-35.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2011-09-03 04:20:29 and read 9336 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
There is more room for fuel in the C variant; it can take 8,900kg of fuel, compared to the 8,390 kg of fuel the A variant can. Not to mention the larger wing which provides more lift.

The Navy won't give up F-35C; it is the only new fighter type they will be fielding in the near future. The Navy has no future fighter in development, as practically every other proposal is a only a concept. The Air Force won't give up on the A variant; they are backed into a corner as they have zero new fighters on purchase other than F-35.

Interested to know where the extra 500kg of fuel is stored.

Whether or not the USN gets the numbers of F-35Cs they want is a political decision. Not a military one. Good thing, too, given the history of this beast. Basically I think that less than what is currently forecast, again due to the fact that the US can no longer afford these types of expenditures, something has to give (or several things), and one of them will be the Defense Appropriation Bill. It will be much leaner.

So, bye-bye F-35B. Fewer F-35Cs, and likely fewer F-35As. Fewer international partners, UK might pull out, Oz looking even now for more F-18E/F

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: FoxTwo
Posted 2011-09-03 09:25:54 and read 9240 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
Do you want to be the guy to tell the Marines that they can't have something?

Oh common, is that what all this is about? Not being able to say NO for the first time in US Military History? WW2 ended nearly 70 years ago. Why can there not be ONE integrated Air Branch where they specialize in each role? Does the USMC really have no use for ANYTHING other than the ancient harrier? Have the USN guys work alongside the AF / MC as one joint branch ? Why can the Marines not use the F/A-18s or any other support platform? They must have a VTOL or something similar to park on "their" decks ready for when "they" may need them. I am very excited about the F-35 program, however the line needs to be drawn somewhere. The USMC does not NEED their own specialized air branch anymore. Are army pilots not suitable enough to transport them from point a-b?

Once again, does the economy have anything to do with this insane spending? How many times a day is the USN / USMC / USAF / USA each launching their own individual missions - pursuing their own individuals interests? Other than "pride" , there is no way to justify trillions per year.

There is smart - and then there is overkill. This is overkill.

[Edited 2011-09-03 09:27:56]

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-09-03 12:01:08 and read 9305 times.

Quoting FoxTwo (Reply 26):
The USMC does not NEED their own specialized air branch anymore.

Then you need that many more planes flying in the Air Force and Navy. The savings probably wouldn't be that much, mostly administrative. As long as the Marines aren't spending tons of money getting their own planes developed, I don't see much of a problem at all.

Quoting FoxTwo (Reply 26):
I am very excited about the F-35 program,

The JSF was idiocy from the start.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2011-09-03 13:06:05 and read 9279 times.

The pentagon should reclassify the F-35 as a Black Project just to stop the idiotic news stories by reporters that have zero knowledge of of aircraft development.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
The JSF was idiocy from the start.

Idiocy is the US economy. The JSF will become the benchmark for 5th gen fighter jet technology for years to come, whether internet arm-chair general fan bois like it or not. I don't see Boeing, Europe, Asia or Russia developing anything close to what LockMart has done with the F-35 and F-22 for decades to come.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Spacepope
Posted 2011-09-03 14:19:23 and read 9238 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 25):
Interested to know where the extra 500kg of fuel is stored.

The wing is bigger on the C front to back WRT the A/B, and has almost 20% more area. An overhead view shows it quite well, with the trailing edge of the C's wing having cutouts for the elevators, where the A/B doesn't come close.

A/B planform:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Agustin Anaya



C planform: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/f35_schem_03.jpg

Comparison here, the wing is noticeably larger all around http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A..._WzUbduzT5iLFz_Vn4vFBAS5agTScu0Rpw

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-09-04 03:05:49 and read 9079 times.

It wouldn't take much of a catapult to launch an A-10 from a ship. JATO packs would do it...and the A-10 is probably the best ground attack/support aircraft ever...much better for marine applications than the 'B'.

Regardless, the 'B' is dragging the entire F-35 program down...double tap it and put those resources into getting the other two models into the air.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-09-04 05:26:01 and read 9007 times.

The F-35A also is the only version with a cannon built in.... The others will have to carry a gun pod.  

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: spudh
Posted 2011-09-04 07:43:00 and read 8959 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 32):
It wouldn't take much of a catapult to launch an A-10 from a ship. JATO packs would do it...and the A-10 is probably the best ground attack/support aircraft ever...much better for marine applications than the 'B'.

Hell, put floats and a lifting eye on it and it would still be the best Marine close support aircraft available. 

With the wing it has I'd say getting it off the ship might not be that big a problem but getting it back might, does it have an arrestor hook?

I see its stall speed is quoted in Wikipedia as 120knots. I find that real hard to believe.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-09-04 07:48:49 and read 8949 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 32):

There is a lot more to making the plane carrier ready than that. The entire structure needs to be beefed if to handle the pounding, though the A-10 is fairly tough already, plus adding the hook and associated structure not to mention adding folding wings.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: LMP737
Posted 2011-09-04 09:41:15 and read 8897 times.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 4):
F/A-18s can't operate off of LHA/LHD decks and a CVN isn't necessarily always available to support amphibious operations, especially with talk of a shrinking carrier force.

I think that if there ever was an amphibous assault a CBG would be made avaliable to provide air cover.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Oroka
Posted 2011-09-04 11:53:45 and read 8829 times.

Says someone who knows their countries economy is directly tied to a certain neighbouring country that it

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 34):
I think that if there ever was an amphibous assault a CBG would be made avaliable to provide air cover.

But then that would mean that non marines were providing air support... better to spend billions of dollars than let that happen.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2011-09-04 12:48:22 and read 8801 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 30):
Regardless, the 'B' is dragging the entire F-35 program down...double tap it and put those resources into getting the other two models into the air.

All 3 variants of the F-35 are already in the advanced stages of flight testing. Even the proposed wing issue will take 45 days to resolve and fix, and the repairs for the already produced aircraft incorporated during Block 3 conversion as it's a planned long-term maintenance cycle.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2011-09-04 15:14:40 and read 8754 times.

Back in the real world, the F-35B program continues.....

http://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=498&newst=8

Quote:
Marines in SC getting ready for new F-35 jets

The Marine Corps broke ground Thursday on a $70 million first installment toward a new era of F-35 jets at the air station in Beaufort. The stealthy aircraft are designed to be the next generation of fighters for the Marines, Navy and Air Force and will replace the F-18 Hornets flown out of Beaufort. The Marine version will be able to take off and land vertically and the new construction at the base will include a vertical lift off pad for pilot training.

The work begun on Thursday includes a $37 million, 60,900-square-foot hangar.

The $33 million pilot training and simulation center will support 78 pilots a year and includes classrooms, briefing rooms, flight simulators, equipment rooms and administrative offices. It is 101,000 square feet.

Construction will take about two years.

In all, there will be about $350 million in construction at the base as it prepares to house the new stealth fighters.

Hyland said security will have to be tighter for the stealth aircraft, which are designed to evade opponents' radars and electronic attacking devices.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: LMP737
Posted 2011-09-05 07:18:51 and read 8568 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 35):
But then that would mean that non marines were providing air support... better to spend billions of dollars than let that happen.

Four carrier air wings have a USMC F-18 squadron assigned to it so they would still have fellow Marines flying cover. If the F-35B were cancelled I could see more USMC suqadrons deploying on USN carriers.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Flighty
Posted 2011-09-05 20:20:15 and read 8336 times.

The people who broke programs like this (I am talking about cost overruns) should be publicly shamed. They should absolutely not be employed right now. But my guess is, they are employed. This is more $$ than has been wasted by nearly any humans on earth.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2011-09-05 23:37:25 and read 8287 times.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38):
Four carrier air wings have a USMC F-18 squadron assigned to it so they would still have fellow Marines flying cover. If the F-35B were cancelled I could see more USMC suqadrons deploying on USN carriers.

The CVN's can't get in as close because they are high value assets. No way will a carrier commander risk placing his carriers within 100 or 200nm of shore, as shore-based anti-ship missile batteries become a major threat, not to mention the ASW nightmare littoral waters present.

LHA's and LHD's on the other hand, are more plentiful and are supposed to get in closer because they are landing troops and equipment.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-09-06 00:27:54 and read 8252 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):

Shore batteries are old news...any boat larger than a dingy can be targeted by a missile, either from shore, the air or sea. Anything large enough to launch F-35's is just as easy to target as the Nimitz.

Besides...what's 100nm to an f-35? At 500kts, that 12 minutes.

The B won't be able to land vertically on unimproved chunks of land and they will still launch and be recovered from a ship...so what's the advantage in actual combat?

How much closer can these ships safely get to shore?

The closer you get to shore, the less you need jet speeds to support landing troops and the more the advantage goes to helicopters...which are superior to fast movers as ground support in almost every way.

I wonder how much it would have cost to mod the A-10 as a carrier craft in relation to how much has been sunk exclusively into the 'B'...and which one would be the superior ground support aircraft...

[Edited 2011-09-06 00:37:40]

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: spudh
Posted 2011-09-06 02:29:25 and read 8196 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 41):
I wonder how much it would have cost to mod the A-10 as a carrier craft in relation to how much has been sunk exclusively into the 'B'...and which one would be the superior ground support aircraft

I'd guess the two biggest problems would be with the undercarriage. The nose wheel is definitly not designed for catapulting and being off centre might create other problems on the cat stroke. Having said that the entire area is designed for the recoil of the cannon so should be very strong.

The other problem would be with the sink rate on the main gear. Again I doubt they were designed for high sink rate and being as widely spaced as they are I'd imagine it'd take a fair bit of redesign to fix that. I'd imagine that a wing fold could be accomodated easily enough outboard of the undercarriage although thats where all the flying control surfaces are.

Arrestor hook? I'd guess that would be straight forward enough given the simplicity and strength of the airframe.

On the plus side they are incredibly strong with loads of built in redundancy to take battle damage so maybe not much else bar avionics would need to be done (Handheld GPS to find the ship again?)

As regards superiority, I really don't think stealth is much of an advantage in close support and for the grunts on the ground nothing would come close to the A-10. Miltary planners might see it otherwise but I'd guess the grunts want screaming hot lead on the ground not sh!t hot LCD's in the cockpit.

I think if you were redesigning the A10 to go marine you'd incorporate a back seat guy in a good percentage of the reman'd airframes. I know it sounds a bit left of field but any of the articles I read about the CAS operations in GW2 and Afghan the airframes with two sets of eyes and a trained Observer in the rear seemd to be much more effective. The loitering ability of the A10 would make it superb at that role. Maybe I'm behind the times on this and the UAV's have completely taken over the observer role but I doubt there is any better enemy suppression device than a 30mm Gatling gun being directed by a guy in direct contact with the guys needing it..

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2011-09-06 13:27:38 and read 7908 times.

Quoting spudh (Reply 32):
I see its stall speed is quoted in Wikipedia as 120knots. I find that real hard to believe

very large straight wing works wonders for the low stall speed. Its also why the A-10 is by far the best anti-helicopter platform we have. Well that and the gun since missles are rather unreliable tracking targets close to the ground and most helicopters don't have a huge thermal plume like a jet so sidewinders are iffy.

Quoting spudh (Reply 42):
I'd guess the two biggest problems would be with the undercarriage. The nose wheel is definitly not designed for catapulting and being off centre might create other problems on the cat stroke. Having said that the entire area is designed for the recoil of the cannon so should be very strong.

It likely would have a harness to cat with the MLG. That said a A-10 "navalised" would likely be literaly a whole new plane that just looked like an A-10 since while you are cutting up the wings for folding you might as well reprofile them. Might as well throw on a modern engine with enough power. 2nd seat adds wieght so need to up the MTOW and MLW so new undercarrige, etc. Still would be quite cheap to do as you would only use off the shelf parts and systems with no fancy new junk to cause billions in overruns.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2011-09-06 14:33:21 and read 7853 times.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 39):
The people who broke programs like this (I am talking about cost overruns) should be publicly shamed.

Every fighter program since the Korean War has been delayed and overbudget, the JSF is nothing new.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 41):
I wonder how much it would have cost to mod the A-10 as a carrier craft in relation to how much has been sunk exclusively into the 'B'...and which one would be the superior ground support aircraft...

With the invention of advanced aircraft sensors the A-10 Warthog is rapidly becoming obsolete as you no longer need to fly low and slow to take out ground targets. You can now do it with stealth, speed, and altitude greatly increases safety and reduces the risk of loosing an aircraft. The F-35 sensor technology was just recently validated at “Northern Edge” so we know the technology works as advertised. The days of the knife fight in the phone booth are over because once one F-35 gets sensor resolution of an enemy target all the F-35’s know where that target is and what is doing and creating firing solutions in all the F-35 cockpits. So to engage one F-35 is to engage the entire flight of F-35's and F-22's in the air at that particular moment of time. Add to this any sea or ground assets that are sending and receiving advanced telemetry.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: spudh
Posted 2011-09-06 17:55:40 and read 7806 times.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 43):
very large straight wing works wonders for the low stall speed.

Thats what I was thinking, I reckon the A10 stall speed is way lower than 120kts. Maybe 120 is its fully laden stall speed. The F18 lands at 125kts, the F-14 originally came in at 115 but view over the nose was prioritised so 125kts was selected with a lower AoA. With the wing on the A-10 I'd guess a stall of 90-95kts maybe even lower.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 43):
It likely would have a harness to cat with the MLG.

Thats exactly what was going through my head when I was writing that post, visions of A4's and F4's being launched with wire ropes, i just thought that was too old fashiond to hold any water.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
Every fighter program since the Korean War has been delayed and overbudget, the JSF is nothing new.

Every fighter programme maybe but I know Lockheed handed back money on the U2 project they were so far below budget. Maybe they've learned their lesson since and retired their conscience with Kelly and Rich. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the F5 programme and maybe even the F104 met all targets. But then again they were not wanted by and meddled with/FUBAR'd by USAF/USN so private enterprise was allowed to just get on with two of the most successful post war US fighters.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
With the invention of advanced aircraft sensors the A-10 Warthog is rapidly becoming obsolete as you no longer need to fly low and slow to take out ground targets.

The A10 will only be obsolete when the bullet is obsolete. You can't blind/Jam/fool a bullet. A bullet is a hell of a lot cheaper/more plentiful than anything used by a high fast mover. The A10 is also the only USAF aircraft flying today that has any hope of surviving an EMF strike. I don't know enough about its engine management systems to say that for certain but I know that in its original bare bones spec it was to be tactical nuclear blast resistant. The F35 is a lawn dart in that scenario or in a counter stealth scenario that employs EMF (I don't know of any such technology but if I was in that business I'd sure be working hard to find it)

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: rwessel
Posted 2011-09-06 18:42:33 and read 7791 times.

Quoting spudh (Reply 45):
Thats exactly what was going through my head when I was writing that post, visions of A4's and F4's being launched with wire ropes, i just thought that was too old fashiond to hold any water.

It's called a bridle. And they've been in the process of being phased out for decades. The USN has removed the bridle catchers (the thing that sticks out from the flightdeck/hull in front of the cats) from most of the carriers (Big-E retains hers, apparently because nobody wanted to spend the money to remove them given her imminent retirement).

At this point no active USN aircraft regularly operated from carriers need bridles. They can still use bridles if needed (apparently there are some provisions for visiting French aircraft, if nothing else), since it really just requires a certain shape hook on the catapult shuttle. But without the catcher, you get to use each bridle exactly once, before it ends up in the drink.

[Edited 2011-09-06 18:44:07]

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-09-06 22:22:24 and read 7735 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 35):
But then that would mean that non marines were providing air support... better to spend billions of dollars than let that happen.

Except for the Marines having to develop their own F-35 variant, where do these billions come from? You can get rid of the Marine squadrons and roll them into the Navy or Air Force. But you'll still have all the planes and pilots.

Quoting spudh (Reply 42):
I really don't think stealth is much of an advantage in close support and for the grunts on the ground nothing would come close to the A-10.

It's not. When you are in a situation where the enemy can see and hear you while possessing guns and MANPADS, stealth won't go as far as good armor. It isn't really money and effort well spent in that situation. A sports car might be faster, but it won't do the job of a tank.

Quoting spudh (Reply 42):
I think if you were redesigning the A10 to go marine you'd incorporate a back seat guy in a good percentage of the reman'd airframes.

I think that you would have to design an all new plane, but using the same paradigm and tricks as the A-10. Make it carrier capable and give it to the USAF and Marines. It would be updating and improving on a proven formula and it wouldn't have to be fast or invisible. We know what we need to do, we know how to do it, and it needs to be neither invisible nor fast. In other words, such a program should offer excellent bang for the buck, like the original A-10. The only problem is that Congress may have thrown that buck away on the F-35.

And let's not forget that the A-10 is more survivable than any helicopter.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
The days of the knife fight in the phone booth are over because once one F-35 gets sensor resolution of an enemy target all the F-35’s know where that target is and what is doing and creating firing solutions in all the F-35 cockpits.

Sounds a lot like what planners were saying before Vietnam. The issue is that there will come a time when a weapon needs to be on a target, and pilots may not have the luxury of a laser target or GPS coordinates. When that time comes we need a plane that can get where it needs to be and put a weapon on a target. All that technology can be incorporated into what could be the world's best CAS platform, but I don't buy that F-35 pilots can do just as good a job cruising around at a comfy 15,000 feet and get their weapons where they need to be when they need to be there.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
Every fighter program since the Korean War has been delayed and overbudget, the JSF is nothing new.

Of course, the JSF isn't a fighter program. It's a fighter program and a bomber program and a STOVL close air support program and a low cost, high volume program. Put that all together, and it isn't a program as much as a fantasy. Lockheed Martin should be commended for doing as well as they have.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-09-06 23:03:10 and read 7734 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
With the invention of advanced aircraft sensors the A-10 Warthog is rapidly becoming obsolete as you no longer need to fly low and slow to take out ground targets.

Every new plane since Vietnam has been so sophisticated it didn't need a gun...except when it did. Guns have proven their worth time and again and I'm surprised they still have to justify their existence.

A gun is the most consistently reliable weapons system since the knife. There is no electronics suite more reliable or even as reliable.

As long as bad guys can hide under rocks and shoot down planes with hand held weapons, and people have to go root them out on foot, there will be need for close support...and that always comes down to a gun.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Devilfish
Posted 2011-09-07 00:20:17 and read 7700 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
Quoting spudh (Reply 42):
I think if you were redesigning the A10 to go marine you'd incorporate a back seat guy in a good percentage of the reman'd airframes.

I think that you would have to design an all new plane, but using the same paradigm and tricks as the A-10. Make it carrier capable and give it to the USAF and Marines.

Problem is convincing the powers that be to give up expensive, bleeding edge whiz-bang systems in favor of an effective, lower tech platform.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
In other words, such a program should offer excellent bang for the buck, like the original A-10. The only problem is that Congress may have thrown that buck away on the F-35.

Congress has been threatening to cut the Osprey (though there may not be any more money in that program, too).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 48):
As long as bad guys can hide under rocks and shoot down planes with hand held weapons, and people have to go root them out on foot, there will be need for close support...and that always comes down to a gun.

Which is a whole lot more practical and cheaper than letting loose a brace of several-thousand-dollar smart munitions just to neutralize a small bevy of fighters.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2011-09-07 06:46:03 and read 7629 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 41):

How much closer can these ships safely get to shore?

The closer you get to shore, the less you need jet speeds to support landing troops and the more the advantage goes to helicopters...which are superior to fast movers as ground support in almost every way.

The proximity to shore should not be the issue. Neither is a full up invasion with many branches involved.

The real issue is with the continuous reduction of overseas US bases, the Marines (in one small battle group) would be the first at the scene at any hot spot (shooting or otherwise). These type of missions usually do not involve a full CVN task force.

So, it may be do-able to have Marines of the Ivory Coast without fixed wing air support, but wouldn't it be much better to have the capability in case something goes wrong?

Really, if this doesn't get resolved soon, the Marines may end up having to arm a bunch of V-22s an A-160s as their close air support.

bikerthai.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Bennett123
Posted 2011-09-07 07:59:21 and read 7587 times.

What is a A160?.

Not a type that I have heard of.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-09-07 08:03:45 and read 7618 times.

It is a UAV helicopter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_A160_Hummingbird

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2011-09-07 10:04:29 and read 7553 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
With the invention of advanced aircraft sensors the A-10 Warthog is rapidly becoming obsolete as you no longer need to fly low and slow to take out ground targets. You can now do it with stealth, speed, and altitude greatly increases safety and reduces the risk of loosing an aircraft.

The A-10 has allways been viewed as obsolete by most of the USAF, including at its own roll out. Its small and slow. Underpowered so MTOW flights barely can generate positive climbrates.

And yet, In Desert Storm it stole mission after mission from its "betters". Recon, search and destroy, Wild Weasel, etc. Things that the book says an A-10 should NEVER be anywhere near it did, and did well. This was the case with an A-10 that has none of the fancy electronics of the current A-10's in service. It didn't even have an autopilot then.

What was its "replacement" the F16 doing? Getting A-10's to do its jobs. The Republican Guard camps deep in Iraq? A-10's took those while F16s were trying to bomb lightly defended targets closer to the border. Scuds? F16s proved completely useless at scud hunting with thier loiter time being a handful of minutes vs the hours for the A-10. Even Air to Air, the A-10 grabbed 2 kills and the F16 went home with 0. They might have "only" been helicopters, but as events proved, the A-10 was the only way those two helicopters would have been shot down. Sidewinders refused to lock, and they were right off the deck so radar based missiles wouldn't have a target. They proved very difficult to strafe for the very slow A-10, an F16 with its much higher stall speed and less capible gun would need a great pilot and an even greater bit of luck.

I have yet to see or hear of any new advance that would make the F35 any better than a F16 in replacing the A-10. All the fancy lasers, bomb computers, FLIR, etc allready exists and has proven to be less than a big gun, big loiter time, and unmatched manuverablity.

In the end, the loss of the A-10 from the USAF inventory would remove not only thier CAS ability, but several other vital abilites, not the least of is helicopter hunting and "scud hunting" style search and destroy.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2011-09-07 11:38:05 and read 7484 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 52):
It is a UAV helicopter.

As a soldier would you prefer CAS or have the ability to take out the target yourself?

An long endurance armed UAV that is linked to the local commander field display will allow the commander to attack the target directly. It's like having your own artillery without having to carry it on your back.

"The A160T was flown for 8 hours while carrying a 1000-pound payload on September 27, 2007."

Two A160, with 4 small diameter bomb each, loitering overhead for 8 hours sounds reasonable?

bikerthai

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-09-07 12:38:07 and read 7463 times.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 49):
Problem is convincing the powers that be to give up expensive, bleeding edge whiz-bang systems in favor of an effective, lower tech platform.

A new A-10 doesn't need to be low tech. Just add the applicable technology to an already proven system.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 53):
The A-10 has allways been viewed as obsolete by most of the USAF, including at its own roll out. Its small and slow. Underpowered so MTOW flights barely can generate positive climbrates.

It doesn't fit their image.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-09-07 12:42:45 and read 7465 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 54):
As a soldier would you prefer CAS or have the ability to take out the target yourself?

Both please!  

Just having the A-10 or Apache overhead is usually enough to get the bad guys to look for softer targets. It's like Taliban kryptonite... 

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: TaromA380
Posted 2011-09-07 13:19:11 and read 7441 times.

I am asking myself ...
The F-35 cost per copy is constantly raising.
Initially the F-35 was thought as a "budget" plane, in contrast with the very expensive top end F-22.
However, now, why don't they simply order more F-22 instead ?
The F-35 might be very good, but F-22 is even better.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2011-09-07 13:37:36 and read 7436 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
A new A-10 doesn't need to be low tech. Just add the applicable technology to an already proven system.

From Wiki
"The A-10 is scheduled to be in service with the USAF until 2028 and possibly later"

They are (or have already) re-winging the A-10 and upgrading avionics. Maybe the old war horse will stay in the inventory as long as the B-52's.   

bikerthai

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2011-09-07 13:40:25 and read 7433 times.

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 57):
However, now, why don't they simply order more F-22 instead

Don't know how the F-22 Stealth paint will hold up under salt water condition?   
I guess it's the price you have to pay.   

bikerthai

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: TaromA380
Posted 2011-09-07 15:47:54 and read 7371 times.

Then keep the F-35C for the USN & Marines !
Ooops, that's exactly the near-canceled version !!! (after the B)

[Edited 2011-09-07 15:49:26]

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: rwessel
Posted 2011-09-07 16:09:45 and read 7365 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 59):
Don't know how the F-22 Stealth paint will hold up under salt water condition?

They appear to hold up poorly under *non*-salt water conditions. I can't imaging regular exposure to salt water would help things.

The USAF seems to be moving towards replacing them with radar absorbant coatings from the F-35 program, which are supposed to be more rugged.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2011-09-07 16:17:46 and read 7362 times.

I think this forum takes the cake for the most anti-F35 members that have zero background in Military Aviation or Fighter Jet tech, yet they continue to post crap with zero knowledge or understanding. I guess its easier to hate something, rather than understand it. The F-35 really is a whole new way of fighting war. It's like going from muskets to riffles all over again.

Quoting spudh (Reply 45):
The F35 is a lawn dart in that scenario or in a counter stealth scenario that employs EM

Fact or opinion?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
I don't buy that F-35 pilots can do just as good a job cruising around at a comfy 15,000 feet and get their weapons where they need to be when they need to be there.

Why, because you need to be 50ft over the target or else you aren't accurate? I suggest you talk to a fighter pilot that knows a thing or two about CAS before "buying" something.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 48):
Every new plane since Vietnam has been so sophisticated it didn't need a gun...except when it did. Guns have proven their worth time and again and I'm surprised they still have to justify their existence.

What are you talking about? Every version of the JSF will have either an internal or external gun in a pod. Not every mission requires all that extra weight to sacrifice fuel and range.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 53):
In the end, the loss of the A-10 from the USAF inventory would remove not only thier CAS ability, but several other vital abilites.

Let the military commanders make that judgement. Due to the secret nature of the F-35's missile, sensor, RCS, IRST, RwR & radar performance not you or I can make an accurate prediction of what it can or cannot do. I think that after the first F35 combat mission in theatre, all the critics will be silenced.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-09-07 17:30:18 and read 7329 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):
Why, because you need to be 50ft over the target or else you aren't accurate?

In certain situations, quite possibly. What is more disturbing is you continuing assertion that technology renders the fundamentals of a mission obsolete. We have missiles now, so pilots don't need to dogfight. We have smart bombs now, so pilots don't need to fly on the deck. It's been disproven (in blood) before, and I think it will be again.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):
The F-35 really is a whole new way of fighting war.

Just like the F-111 was supposed to be. The issue isn't that the F-35 is bad, just that the F-35 is going to be asked to do things it really shouldn't be doing and potentially making meaningful sacrifices in the attempt.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):
Every version of the JSF will have either an internal or external gun in a pod.

There are guns, and then there is the Avenger.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):
Not every mission requires all that extra weight to sacrifice fuel and range.

You're right. And to that end you'd think that we'd have some planes specially designed for close air support, and then other planes that could go be fighters. Oh, wait...

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2011-09-07 18:10:36 and read 7318 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
You're right. And to that end you'd think that we'd have some planes specially designed for close air support, and then other planes that could go be fighters. Oh, wait...

You don't know how good or lousy the F-35 will be as a CAS aircraft, it's not even operational. Making a judgement on it now would be speculation at best. Only the test pilots know its potential, but I guess you can't take their for it either since they work for Lockheed.  

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2011-09-07 18:21:57 and read 7316 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
In certain situations, quite possibly. What is more disturbing is you continuing assertion that technology renders the fundamentals of a mission obsolete. We have missiles now, so pilots don't need to dogfight. We have smart bombs now, so pilots don't need to fly on the deck. It's been disproven (in blood) before, and I think it will be again.

F-35 is not only just a fighter, it is also a ISR asset as well. The EO-DAS has the resolution to track ballistic missile launches and moving aerial and ground targets in all directions simultaneously. The radar has the resolution and software required to create a SAR map of the ground for the pilot, and even better, the avionics can compare the SAR radar map generated to a SAR map that was stored to look for anomalies and generate a display showing the difference between fixed and moving targets, land or maritime.

F-22s and 35s are not just “fighters”—they’re F-, A-, B-, E-, EA-, RC, AWACS-22s and 35s. They’re flying sensors that allow us to conduct information age warfare inside adversary battlespace whenever we desire.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-09-07 18:32:29 and read 7314 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 65):
They’re flying sensors that allow us to conduct information age warfare

except the programing is reputed to be about 4 years late (there's another thread on that)

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2011-09-07 19:01:03 and read 7304 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 66):
except the programing is reputed to be about 4 years late (there's another thread on that)

Actually, included in Block III, which has already seen some flight testing by BAE's BAC 1-11 test platform at the recent Northern Edge exercise.

[Edited 2011-09-07 19:01:19]

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: wvsuperhornet
Posted 2011-09-07 23:35:24 and read 7225 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 2):
Im still not clear on why an amphibious army needs supersonic stealth fighter jets.

They dont its just another duplication of service that we can no longer afford, naval avaiation could fill the void very easily.

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 13):
I for one hope the B model gets produced... it is an amazing machine, and something lots of countries tried to make happen from the '50's onward but wasn't able too. As an aviation fan I can't imagine wanting to see all that work and progress cast aside.

Its a nice thought and in some ways I agree with you but right now the money is not there to build something just because its an amazing machine I hate to see progress and money wasted also but this thing is becoming a never ending money pit.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Devilfish
Posted 2011-09-07 23:52:50 and read 7229 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
A new A-10 doesn't need to be low tech. Just add the applicable technology to an already proven system.

Please note that I wrote "lower" precisely to highlight that point compared to the JSF. And as pointed out in Reply 58, they are even now integrating many of those features into the existing airframes, to wit:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...e-a10c-pe-program-03187/#more-3187

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_A-10_Takeoff_Bagram_lg.jpg
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.co...ges/AIR_A-10_Takeoff_Bagram_lg.jpg

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 65):
F-22s and 35s are not just “fighters”—they’re F-, A-, B-, E-, EA-, RC, AWACS-22s and 35s. They’re flying sensors that allow us to conduct information age warfare inside adversary battlespace whenever we desire.

And so too will the A-10, if to a much lesser extent.....

Quote:
"Each Spiral 1 Precision Engagement kit consists of a new cockpit instrument panel. A new computer called the Central Interface Control Unit (CICU) adds new cockpit controls and displays, including a pair of 5×5 inch multi-function color displays that include moving digital map functions. The new integrated Digital Stores Management System (DSMS), meanwhile, keeps track of weapons and launches them; it will be linked into applications as diverse as video from the targeting pod, weapons status reports, and the data link. These upgrades require a major change to the aircraft’s wiring, and consume a lot more power. Not to worry, though; a second DC generator will double the A-10’s generator capacity.

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_A-10C_Cockpit_lg.jpg
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_A-10C_Cockpit_lg.jpg

For the pilot, a new stick grip and right throttle provide true hands-on-throttle and-stick (HOTAS) fingertip control of aircraft systems and targeting pod functionality. Using the HOTAS, the pilot can designate the targeting pod to monitor an area of interest, confirm target identification, and provide laser guidance to weapons from his A-10 or from another platform – all without taking his hands from the controls. Upgrading 6 of the A-10C’s 11 pylons to ‘smart’ weapons capability via MIL-STD-1760 is the final piece of the basic infrastructure upgrades.

Key add-ons build upon these initial steps, and targeting pod integration is touted as the final piece of spiral 1. PE Program modifications will allow the A-10 to carry either the Northrop-Grumman/ Rafael LITENING AT or the Lockheed Martin Sniper XR targeting pod on an underwing pylon as fully integrated devices, with connections to all of the aircraft’s other systems. The pods, which include long-range TV and infrared cameras with zoom capabilities and a laser target designator, will enable the pilot to identify targets from medium altitudes on the order of 20,000 to 30,000 feet day or night, then illuminate them for homing, laser-guided or GPS guided bombs. during the initial deployments in Iraq, their heat-sensing capability has even proved useful for finding buried land mines, which tend to retain a differential heat signature.

The targeting pods will help reduce mistaken attacks on friendly forces and noncombatants by giving the pilot a closer look at potential targets, and experience with other jets indicates that their stabilized, 'point and stare' capabilities are likely to prove especially important in urban operations. Eventually, they will allow A-10 aircraft to engage targets from a higher altitude using advanced sensors and targeting pods and precision guided weapons, including the JDAM and their companion WCMD kits for cluster bombs.

Integration with ROVER devices carried by ground troops also becomes possible, allowing front line forces to communicate using annotated map displays and specific positional data.

Another very significant Increment 3.2 upgrade involves Raytheon’s SADL data link. SADL was added after the A-10 Precision Engagement program requirements were finalized, which is usually a predictor of trouble. Instead, it went from requirements to delivery in just 17 months, thanks to a general sense of urgency and extraordinary contractor efforts."


It's enlightening how $420M could deliver this much capability. And a bit ironic that LockMart primes on this integration which brings the logic of a single, "affordable" super platform to minimize costs, in stark contrast.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tyler Rogoway - Hangar Seventy One Aviation Photo Works

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-09-08 06:32:03 and read 7138 times.

I believe many of you are casting this CAS umbrella a bit too far.

The F-35's primary role is Not to provide CAS. It Is designed to penetrate hostile and denied airspace and accurately place weapons on hardened targets while fighting its way in and out of that airspace.

Will the F-35 be any good at CAS? Yes... compared to other fast jet aircraft.
It will Not be better then purpose built CAS aircraft like: AC-130, A-10 or Apache gunships, etc...

Almost any aircraft can provide some form of CAS... The level of support that it can provide, is dependent many things: Communications, weapons load, visual or sensor confirmation of friendly and enemy positions to name the obvious...

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: spudh
Posted 2011-09-08 17:53:29 and read 6994 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 70):

I believe many of you are casting this CAS umbrella a bit too far.

To be fair I think the issue is the B model with US Marines as its primary purchaser. As the Marines operate both V/STOL and Catobar aircraft at present then the B model is viewed as the AV-8B replacement. What is the AV-8B's primary mission for the Marines, CAS.

CAS is not a big issue for the Royal Navy and Italians and the F-35B would offer most if not all the touted order of magnitude improvements over the Harrier for their operations. However it looks like these orders are going to fall away leaving the US Marines as potentially the only purchaser of the F-35B.

So you now have billions being poured into the development of a variant of an aircraft for a role that it is inherently not the best conceptual design for. If the Marines put out a request for proposal for a dedicated CAS aircraft, cutting out the secondary missions which the F-35C does better anyway, then the proposals would look nothing like the F-35B and a lot like the A10 or SU25.

The F-35B is not and never will be a Harrier, able to operate from unprepared forward air bases with minimum support, its vertical landing characteristics and technology level have seen to that.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):
I think this forum takes the cake for the most anti-F35 members that have zero background in Military Aviation or Fighter Jet tech, yet they continue to post crap with zero knowledge or understanding.

It's a public forum, if the depth of knowledge or understanding isn't up to your standards then there are alternatives. Part of the problem of being military is that there is a risk of indoctrination preventing you from being able to see another point of view. If I was a British, Italian or Spanish taxpayer I'd feel pretty entitled to air my politically, not militarily, driven view that the F-35 program doesn't represent the best use of my hard earned cash and that I'd rather my government was spending that billion euro investment on my kids education and up bringing so that maybe we might not actually have as much need for such sensor fusion on an all singing all dancing multi role 'super' fighter.

But I'm not, instead I'm a military aviation enthusiast and historian who studies fighter jet tech for fun. I've no vested interest one way or another which puts me in a very small minority on this forum. It also gives me rare objectivity on this divisive subject. The F-35 project and the B model in particular is ill-conceived. The Jack-Of-All Trades concept has been tried many times in the past with fighter aircraft and everytime its been a failure. The reasons for those failures are the same reasons that an F15 looks a lot like an SU 27, less like a Tornado, even less like a Harrier and nothing at all like an A-10. One of the better definitions of insanity is when you keep doing something the same way but you fully expect a different result.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):
It's like going from muskets to riffles all over again.

It's a bit more like going from Lee Enfield to an M16, better in lots of ways when it works but not all even when it does.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):


Quoting spudh (Reply 45):
The F35 is a lawn dart in that scenario or in a counter stealth scenario that employs EM

Fact or opinion?

Its my opinion that a relaxed stabilty FBW aircraft will crash if it doesn't have its electrons running through its wires in the right order. Its a fact that EMP disturbs the flow of electrons in electronics. All of them. So unless LM have come up with gamma ray shielding that civilian physicists haven't heard of I'm quitely confident that my opinion will prove factual.

Look, I'm sure the the F-35 A and C are going to turn out to be amazing fighting machines and I'll probably be a Fanboy at the end of it all. My problem is how much better would the A be if it didn't have the inevitable compromises that commonality with the B and C have brought. As spelled out above I think the B, while incredibly cool, is a flawed concept from the outset. And the C, well since the A-7 in the 60's the USN (or any other navy that I can think of) has not developed a single engined fighter. The decision to go that way was one arrived at after 20 odd years of operating jets in open water. Would the next carrier attack plane be single engined if the USN was going it alone? Will it be successful, most likely. will it be as good as it could have been? I think single engine apart (and thats a big caveat for a blue water jet) its the least compromised but its mission scope may have been too broad.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):
What are you talking about? Every version of the JSF will have either an internal or external gun in a pod. Not every mission requires all that extra weight to sacrifice fuel and range.

And the B model lugging that lift fan around contributes to fuel capacity and range in what way exactly?

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):
Let the military commanders make that judgement.

A casual perusal of military history, particularly airwarfare related, might disabuse you of the military commanders oracle like vision.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-09-08 18:21:18 and read 6995 times.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 69):

Hey Devilfish... Those Infrared Countermeasures in the bottom photo are unusual!  

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2011-09-08 18:21:51 and read 7000 times.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 69):
And so too will the A-10, if to a much lesser extent.....

Quote:
"Each Spiral 1 Precision Engagement kit consists of a new cockpit instrument panel. A new computer called the Central Interface Control Unit (CICU) adds new cockpit controls and displays, including a pair of 5×5 inch multi-function color displays that include moving digital map functions. The new integrated Digital Stores Management System (DSMS), meanwhile, keeps track of weapons and launches them; it will be linked into applications as diverse as video from the targeting pod, weapons status reports, and the data link. These upgrades require a major change to the aircraft’s wiring, and consume a lot more power. Not to worry, though; a second DC generator will double the A-10’s generator capacity.

F-35's greatest advantage is better integration of the sensors, and the ability to display the information in a readily usable format. It is capable of independently finding its own targets, designating them, and then attacking them, while being able to defend itself.

Quoting spudh (Reply 71):
And the B model lugging that lift fan around contributes to fuel capacity and range in what way exactly?

F-35B has 50% more combat radius compared to AV-8B, and can carry 50% more in weapons payload, while being faster.

Quoting spudh (Reply 71):
The F-35B is not and never will be a Harrier, able to operate from unprepared forward air bases with minimum support, its vertical landing characteristics and technology level have seen to that.

Wrong. F-35B is being flight tested using the same scenario's the Harriers are using. Currently, when Harriers operate from forward air bases, the pads they land are built using AM-2 matting. They have been doing VSTOL take-offs and landings with F-35B on the same matting at NAS Patuxent River, 136 times this year in fact.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: rwessel
Posted 2011-09-08 20:42:16 and read 6964 times.

Quoting spudh (Reply 71):
Its my opinion that a relaxed stabilty FBW aircraft will crash if it doesn't have its electrons running through its wires in the right order. Its a fact that EMP disturbs the flow of electrons in electronics. All of them. So unless LM have come up with gamma ray shielding that civilian physicists haven't heard of I'm quitely confident that my opinion will prove factual.

EMP is not gammas, and shielding against it is well understood (and has been for half a century), and that’s doubtless a prime consideration for any military electronic system. A simple Faraday cage will do wonders for starters. And bits that are difficult to shield can often be designed to be able to recover quickly. For example, you may be able to shield the electronics easily, but have difficulty shielding long wire runs, so you might design the communications over those wires to be able to tolerate a short error burst. Alternatively, get rid of the wire, and run fiber between the shielded black boxes.

Unless the various militaries have screwed up horribly, EMP is not going to knock any (military) aircraft out of the air.

OTOH, civilian infrastructure is almost completely unshielded.

All of which, of course, says nothing about the sanity (or lack thereof) of using the F-35 in the A-10's CAS role.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: BMI727
Posted 2011-09-08 22:13:04 and read 6938 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 64):
You don't know how good or lousy the F-35 will be as a CAS aircraft, it's not even operational.

I feel pretty confident that the F-35 won't be as good as updated A-10s. Even if it is, it will be more expensive. And lest we forget, part of the reason the F-35 isn't operational yet is because the bureaucrats decided that it had to be a CAS plane, a fighter, a bomber, etc.

Had it just been what it should have been, an F-16 replacement incorporating technology from the F-22, the F-35 would have been a great plane. Unfortunately the government decided to ask for a miracle, and miracles rarely show up on time or on budget.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 65):
F-35 is not only just a fighter, it is also a ISR asset as well. The EO-DAS has the resolution to track ballistic missile launches and moving aerial and ground targets in all directions simultaneously.

That's wonderful, but it still has to be a fighter. Not just a way of getting missiles and radars to a war zone.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 70):
Almost any aircraft can provide some form of CAS...

Some better than others, and some cheaper than others.

Quoting spudh (Reply 71):
So you now have billions being poured into the development of a variant of an aircraft for a role that it is inherently not the best conceptual design for.

  

Quoting spudh (Reply 71):
If the Marines put out a request for proposal for a dedicated CAS aircraft, cutting out the secondary missions which the F-35C does better anyway, then the proposals would look nothing like the F-35B and a lot like the A10 or SU25.

The price tag would probably look a lot more like the A-10 and Su-25 too.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Devilfish
Posted 2011-09-09 01:54:30 and read 6870 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 72):
Hey Devilfish... Those Infrared Countermeasures in the bottom photo are unusual!

   I think a "bug" sneaked in there and they were trying to find it!   

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-09-09 15:52:47 and read 6666 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 58):

From Wiki
"The A-10 is scheduled to be in service with the USAF until 2028 and possibly later"

What the hell...? How did this sneak by the powers that be? Why on earth would they want to keep around a crappy, slow, straight winged, stable, bullet proof and proven aircraft whose simplicity is an advantage in the role it was specifically designed for, is unsurpassed in that role, has the biggest gun on a fighter and can fly with half a wing?

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2011-09-10 20:07:54 and read 6503 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 77):
What the hell...? How did this sneak by the powers that be?

I think the US army and marines have politely told the USAF that they will have alot of problems if the don't keep the A-10 around for them. Also while the USAF is still way way to focused on pointy nose fighters and way to lax in other roles, the A-10 has built up a base of upper level support it hasn't had prior to the gulf wars.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: Devilfish
Posted 2011-09-11 08:16:29 and read 6400 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75):
The price tag would probably look a lot more like the A-10 and Su-25 too.

I'd be a lot less confident on this.....business is business.           

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: spudh
Posted 2011-09-11 09:28:54 and read 6385 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 73):
Wrong. F-35B is being flight tested using the same scenario's the Harriers are using. Currently, when Harriers operate from forward air bases, the pads they land are built using AM-2 matting. They have been doing VSTOL take-offs and landings with F-35B on the same matting at NAS Patuxent River, 136 times this year in fact.

That's fair enough but I was thinking more along the lines of the cold war RAF deployment of the Harrier operating from roadways and such like in this picture:

Maybe the Marines have no requirement for such rudimentary operations but it was a big trump card for the Harrier back in its day and many strategists felt that the forward deployed Harriers (along with the similarly deployed Saabs in Sweden) would be the last fighters standing if the USSR ever did a first strike.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 73):
F-35B has 50% more combat radius compared to AV-8B, and can carry 50% more in weapons payload, while being faster.

As I said in my earlier post I think the F-35B will be an order of magnitude improvment over the AV-8B in most respects. But I wasn't comparing it to the Harrier, I was comparing it to the A and C models.

Topic: RE: More Grief For The F-35...
Username: kanban
Posted 2011-09-11 10:05:26 and read 6374 times.

Quoting spudh (Reply 80):
That's fair enough but I was thinking more along the lines of the cold war RAF deployment of the Harrier operating from roadways and such like in this picture:


Gads, was back when the Harrier had a wood fired boiler? Or was it the carrier that needed cord wood?      


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/