F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[OTR1]

First, for forum admin folks: thought this best in the F-35 bit but please feel free to move to a UK carrier thread if you think best.

Second, a question or any winged RCAF types out there: anyone fancy doing this, for real?  8)

Vid at link released last week, showing a night Short Rolling Vertical Landing deck landing by an F-35B to a QE-class carrier. From the sim at RAF Warton, with chief UK F-35 TP Peter Wilson's voice to be heard.

Here - https://youtu.be/NyBFv11tFsU

A friend with visibility in this says KIAS will depend on Wind Over Deck, but should average between 40 and 60 at touchdown. Pitch, roll and heave limits are in the 12 to 15 ft range.

Good times ahead for the wheel brake suppliers....  ;D

 

[SupersonicMax]

Yup, people do this for real.  Brake wear is not that bad.  Touchdown at 60 kts and slow down to 0.  I start braking sometimes as early as 120 kts to a stop (full braking, with anti-skid coming on).  This is far worse for the brakes and they seem to be holding fairly well.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/Vimy_Papers/Vimy_Paper_33.pdf

Interesting paper from CDAI.  Somebody seems to have had access.  Quite the read.

 

[observor 69]

Great read. Thanks for the link. 

 

[Good2Golf]

200% accurate... :nod:

 

[dapaterson]

A quick tally: 28 of 86 footnotes are "confidential sources" - that's roughly one third.  Hard to determine whether this presents a balanced perspective or not, when we don't know the sources and are not able to judge veracity, biases or agenda.

 

[Good2Golf]

A quick tally: 28 of 86 footnotes are "confidential sources" - that's roughly one third.  Hard to determine whether this presents a balanced perspective or not, when we don't know the sources and are not able to judge veracity, biases or agenda.

Though in fairness, the author was right up with this fact/concern, hence his methodology to confirm by at least two sources...not perfect, but it would likely look pretty good to those deep inside or at least on the periphery.  :dunno:

Cheers
G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

DAP

That has been one of the ongoing problems with this and every other programme.  Some stuff will not be in the public domain until the last plane/hull has been cut up for scrap.

You can always question motive. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

What the gov't said about the botched 2014 USAF/RCAF four F-35A swap (apparently a real deal until it leaked--see p. 34 PDF at the CDAI paper http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/Vimy_Papers/Vimy_Paper_33.pdf )

Canadian Government Officials: No F-35 Purchase/Swap
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/mark-collins-canadian-government-officials-no-f-35-purchaseswap/

The Conservatives sure could be economical with the truth.

Mr Shimooka's LinkedIn profile--long-term F-35 supporter, scroll down:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-shimooka-1a757042

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

What Boeing's likely to do if some Super Hornets not bought for RCAF:

Boeing Begins Legal Challenge Against Denmark For Fighter Evaluation

Boeing on Thursday [Sept. 15] made its first move to challenge the Danish government’s recommendation of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 over its own Super Hornet, submitting a “request for insight” that would require the country’s defense ministry to provide all data related to the fighter jet’s evaluation.

Denmark’s defense ministry announced in June its recommendation of the F-35 joint strike fighter, a decision that became official in June. The MoD ranked the joint strike fighter above the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in strategic, economic, industrial and military aspects, but Boeing has focused its criticism on the economic evaluation, which estimated that — over the lifecycle of the plane — 38 Super Hornets could cost as much as double that of 28 F-35As.

“As we said when the decision was announced, we believe the ministry’s evaluation of the competitors was fundamentally flawed and inaccurately assessed the cost and capability of the F/A-18 Super Hornet,” said Debbie Rub, vice president and general manager of Boeing’s global strike division. “We’re taking this step because there’s too much at stake for Denmark and, potentially, other countries considering the Super Hornet.”..
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/boeing-begins-legal-challenge-against-denmark-for-fighter-evaluation

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

USAF and the Navy have seemingly moved away from the idea of a 6th generation fighter, and are now looking at networks of systems that cooperate with each other to provide all aspect sensor coverage and cooperative engagements with weapons systems. Rather than the Red Baron flying his F-xx into battle, he may be aboard an F-xx but managing clouds of drones and other aircraft inside the box, and if a threat is detected, it might not be his aircraft that actually senses the threat or releases the weapons.

Having a human in the loop somewhere in a high performance aircraft is still important if only to ensure there is an actual person making a shot/don't shoot decision, and to limit the effect of "light lag"; controlling remote platforms from a bunker in Nevada results in fractions of a second latency as signals get bounced from the platform to a starlit to the bunker and back, not very helpful if you are dealing with supersonic aircraft and hypersonic missiles or even "speed of light" laser weapons. Having a person closer to the action also makes jamming and ECM more difficult (the transmitters and receivers are closer together, so jamming and EW takes a lot more power), and if worst comes to worst, there is still an F-xx somewhere in the cloud capable of taking the fight to the enemy on its own.

Add the idea of "Arsenal aircraft" and miniaturized drones which can be fired from chaff launchers and you can see the scale and scope of air warfare is expanding geometrically.

 

[Jarnhamar]

. We’re taking this step because there’s too much at stake for Denmark

Boeing the humanitarian organization lol

 

[Kirkhill]

Normally I would just be inclined to inform a contractor acting the way Boeing is that if he doesn't shut up he'll be getting no more business from me.

But.

For the guys flogging Boeing fighters if they don't sell these fighters they are going to be out of business anyway.  No leverage to make them shut up and go away.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Chris Pook: As for Boeing's design capabilities:

Boeing Needed International Help to Build New Training Jet

A decade of layoffs forced the US giant to seek engineering and manufacturing talent from partner Saab.

It seemed so all-American: a U.S. aviation giant unveiling its newest military jet to flashing lights and thumping heavy-metal music. But the sleek twin-tailed T-X — Boeing’s candidate to become the U.S. Air Force’s next pilot trainer — couldn’t have made it to the dolled-up St. Louis hangar without a good deal of international help.

For all its deep aviation heritage, the Chicago company needed a partner on the T-X bid. A decade of engineering layoffs had left the venerable American firm without the workers needed to add the trainer competition to its existing workload, particularly with the Air Force requiring demonstration aircraft with a relatively quick turnaround. It also needed a way to do it more cheaply than past endeavors.

So the maker of the F-15 Eagle and F/A-18 Super Hornet teamed up with Saab — builder of the Gripen 4.5-generation fighter jet — to develop a T-X candidate. And less than three years after the two firms announced their partnership, they have now unveiled their first two aircraft, which are expected to fly by year’s end. That’s pretty fast for an American defense firm...
http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/09/boeing-needed-international-help-build-new-training-jet/131510/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[YZT580]

That's what happens when you only buy one new aircraft (F35).  No one else has any reason to keep their designers on staff.  Indeed it is one of the better reasons for trying to re-build Canada's shipbuilding capabilities as they are trying to do now.  Just wait until the U.S. needs a replacement for the C5 or C117.  Airbus is the only market in town now.

 

[BurmaShave]

USAF and the Navy have seemingly moved away from the idea of a 6th generation fighter, and are now looking at networks of systems that cooperate with each other to provide all aspect sensor coverage and cooperative engagements with weapons systems. Rather than the Red Baron flying his F-xx into battle, he may be aboard an F-xx but managing clouds of drones and other aircraft inside the box, and if a threat is detected, it might not be his aircraft that actually senses the threat or releases the weapons.

Having a human in the loop somewhere in a high performance aircraft is still important if only to ensure there is an actual person making a shot/don't shoot decision, and to limit the effect of "light lag"; controlling remote platforms from a bunker in Nevada results in fractions of a second latency as signals get bounced from the platform to a starlit to the bunker and back, not very helpful if you are dealing with supersonic aircraft and hypersonic missiles or even "speed of light" laser weapons. Having a person closer to the action also makes jamming and ECM more difficult (the transmitters and receivers are closer together, so jamming and EW takes a lot more power), and if worst comes to worst, there is still an F-xx somewhere in the cloud capable of taking the fight to the enemy on its own.

Add the idea of "Arsenal aircraft" and miniaturized drones which can be fired from chaff launchers and you can see the scale and scope of air warfare is expanding geometrically.

From my understanding, that's the F-35's game. "Network Centric Warfare", "A Revolution in Military Affairs", call it whatever buzzwords you want. All that stuff (MIDS, MALDs, etc.) is here and now, barring lasers, which, as an offensive system, seem a good ways off, and arsenal ships, which have been a "good idea" since the dawn of missiles.

When some revolutionary change comes along, then we'll see a 6th generation fighter. It might not be for 50 years, it might be a 787 with a huge laser, I dunno. It could be a completely non-airplane tech, maybe 100% coverage jamming that totally invalidates anything radio-wave based (bye-bye RADAR, Link 16, semi/active missiles, interplane radio, etc.), something that forces us to reevaluate what fighters need. Whenever that comes to pass, in whatever form, we'll see new fighters, and you bet your *** the USAF will be at the bleeding edge of that.

 

[CougarKing]

Slanted mainstream press coverage I've seen appears to make it seem like the whole fleet was grounded when only these few were:

Aviationist

15 F-35As (13 USAF and 2 RNoAF) Grounded By “Several faulty cooling lines discovered in their wings”
Sep 16 2016 -
By David Cenciotti
15 F-35A have been grounded at Luke Air Force Base after faulty cooling lines were discovered.

Several faulty cooling lines have been identified in the wings of some F-35A aircraft at Luke Air Force Base, leading to the decision to temporarily suspend flight operations.

Noteworthy, the issue does not involve all the CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) examples but 13 U.S. Air Force and 2 Royal Norwegian Air Force F-35As. Interestingly, among the 4 aircraft already delivered to the Norwegians, only the third and fourth F-35 received at the Partner Training Center at Luke Air Force Base are affected by faulty components.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[MarkOttawa]

DOT&E report:

1) War Is Boring:

The F-35 Stealth Fighter May Never Be Ready for Combat
Testing report contradicts the U.S. Air Force’s rosy pronouncements
https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-stealth-fighter-may-never-be-ready-for-combat-5c1180d6e2b1#.k477bnu9p

2) Norwegian fighter pilot responds:

Lack of perfection does not mean disaster – how I read test reports as a pilot
http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/09/16/lack-of-perfection-does-not-mean-disaster-how-i-read-test-reports-as-a-pilot/

Mark Collins

 

[RyanHealy29]

Can any of the fighter or tech guys tell me what the area outlined in orange overlapping the USAF insignia is? I notice it isn't present on all F-35s. In another photo I've seen it lit up in a similar green colour to formation lights, but it's a curious shape if that's all it is. Can anyone shed some light?

 

[Sub_Guy]

I think it is an access panel, I have seen it in nearly every F-35 photo.  Usually it's not well marked and it is hard to see.