F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Air Force Brat]

There is unfortunately a mountain of negative publicity regarding this aircraft and I thought it would be interesting to pull together research on the issue to see what the real case may actually be.

The criticisms seem to fall into these main areas:

1) Over budget. Not in itself a surprise or even a major concern in view of the fact that the concept itself is very advanced and NATO is looking for the aircraft to be the mainstay of it's fighter capability for the next 40 years.

2) It's offensive missile capability is insufficient. Apparently it carries only 2 air to air missiles.

3) It's maneuverability is inferior to it's competitors; worryingly one of these could be the Sukhoi SU-35.

4) The program is running increasingly late, and latest estimates have put the in service date optimistically as 2014 and some sources as late as 2018. Is this a concern? What is the life span of the current F16's and does NATO have any other new build fighter aircraft available within a shorter time frame? Does it leave a serious time gap within which NATO aircraft could be lacking in the event of a conflict with one of the other (semi) superpowers?

5) The software has still not been finalised and because of the aircraft features is overly complex and will be difficult to de-bug.

6) There are a host of mechanical problems; see below for list :

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7) It's stealth rating has already been downgraded from 'very low observable' to 'low observable' with apparently major implications.

So politics aside and looking at the issue from the aspect of NATO capability what does this all add up to?

Better pull on your raincoat and overshoes Jr., your treading on Hallowed Ground, no one is allowed to critique the JSF, just wait till they start payin the bills for their own ThunderHoggs, then the cryin an moanin will go on forever, IMHO.

 

[RobWilliams]

To understand the issue you must understand why maneuverability has historically been important. The main reason was to get your target in front of your missile's seeker in order to achieve a lock. With the F-25's EODAS, they do not have to maneuver in order to achieve a lock. This is not to say that the F-35 is not maneuverable as it was designed to be in the same class as the F-16/18 in that area.

I recall reading somewhere that it's agility has been regarded extremely similar to the F-16, i'm also under the impression that plenty of people seem to put too much emphasis on this and seem to forget the extremely capable sensor suite the F-35 has, specifically its EODAS

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfCCw-yH6LI"]F-35 Distributed Aperture System (EODAS) - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[SpudmanWP]

Another aspect of maneuverability and by extension HMS/HOBS combos, is that the pilot has to use his HMS to line up a shot while trying to maneuver his plane and find the target to begin with.

EODAS allows the mission computer in the F-35 to do all the tracking & cuing automatically and continuously. This will save precious seconds in a fight.

For the sake of argument, think of the classic merge fight. Depending on range, the F-35 can launch immediately while the enemy has to turn towards the inbound missile in order to get its missile's seeker to lock onto the F-35. No matter what the enemy's tries to do, the F-35's EODAS (through datalinks) will keep its missile on track. Assuming a 10 degree/second advantage (SU-35 vs F-35), this would give the F-35 up to a 9 second advantage over the Su. In a furball, 9 seconds is a lifetime.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I recall reading somewhere that it's agility has been regarded extremely similar to the F-16, i'm also under the impression that plenty of people seem to put too much emphasis on this and seem to forget the extremely capable sensor suite the F-35 has, specifically its EODAS

F-35 Distributed Aperture System (EODAS) - YouTube

Well historically Rob, there have been proponents and opponents of manueverability, and to date the proponents have been right, the latest missles, or super wahoo weapon system have often failed to live up to the advertizing hype. Its never a bad idea to have an aircraft that has supermanuerability, supercruise, and stealth or l/O, as well as situational awareness. It does cost a little more upfront, it has historically proven to be a life saver. Its nice to be able to not only engage, but to disengage and I am old enough to remember the old fighter pilot mantra, "speed is life".

 

[Sea Toby]

There is already a JSF thread, but I'll bite:

It's only is limited to 2 AAMs when in it's most stealthy config and doing a bombing run. If there is a high enough threat, then F-35s can be dedicated to the escort role and carry 4 internal AAMs. They are already designing an upgrade tentatively planned for Blk5 (pre 2020) that will give the F-35 6 internal AAMs.

To understand the issue you must understand why maneuverability has historically been important. The main reason was to get your target in front of your missile's seeker in order to achieve a lock. With the F-35's EODAS, they do not have to maneuver in order to achieve a lock. This is not to say that the F-35 is not maneuverable as it was designed to be in the same class as the F-16/18 in that area.

No. Worst case you spend a few extra million or trim ops for a couple of years.

There is no evidence of any "debug" issues with the software. Since the F-35 is still in SDD, the software is obviously not done yet (although a vast majority of it has been written).

Problem will always crop up in SDD, that's the point. The important thing to see is that they are minor and none are "Program Killers".

Not officially. The Program Office and LM continue to call them VLO. Anybody else saying otherwise is guessing based on "looks".

In recent testimony (I asume under oath), LM stated that due to thier verification of the F-35's true RCS and updated sims (both computerized adn piloted), that the F-35's LER (Loss Exchange Ratio) has been upgraded from 3:1 to 6:1. If there was any truth to the VLO to LO change then this would not have happened.

NATO's capability will evolve to levels that only the F-22 and F-117 have enjoyed up to this point.

Every item on Gazzzwps list was shot down by SpudmanWP. Gazzzwp needs to read all of the information available from several web sites, not just those of the cynics. Keep in mind all of the websites/blogs have not so hidden agendas.

The truth of the matter is the JSF isn't as expensive as a Typhoon, and while some nations have cut their planned orders for budgetary reasons, none of the nations have cancelled all of their aircraft they plan to buy. On the contrary, more nations are planning on buying the JSF. While nothing is certain, it appears these additional nations will be buying enough aircraft to overcome those aircraft which are being cut.

Furthermore the JSF is a multi-role fighter, not just an interceptor. It appears some confuse the two. I suspect the US process is too open, leaving a lot of released information to be twisted by the cynics.

Then there are those cynics who gripe about the price not being completely set. We are talking about multi-role fighters, not television sets. When was the last time you went to an auto dealership and faced a set price for an automobile? Numbers of a fleet do matter with autos and aircraft. When nations firm up their orders, the price of the aircraft will firm up as well. However, there will never be a set price, not when you comprehend the US and other nations multi-year appropriations process.

 

[StobieWan]

the latest missles, or super wahoo weapon system have often failed to live up to the advertizing hype.

The thing about this debate tends to be that the F35 doubters turn unhesitatingly towards aircraft that either have been built in high teen numbers only, or not at all beyond a couple of prototypes, add to them missiles with no track record at all, and assume they'll all work *just fine* while taking every single criticism of the F35 as gospel.

F35 comes to the fight with the same range of knife fighting capability as an F16, but has a much higher alpha limit, is heavily optimised for transonic dogfighting, carries more fuel internally than an F16 does with a pair of whopping great external tanks, and has an excellent radar. Add the LO stuff and the situational awareness gear and you're looking at something which is going to be very hard to pick out before it cranks off a BVR missile, and if you get into WVR combat, it'll be toting missiles it can pickle off to pop 80G turns right off the rail.

If speed is life, I'd argue having 18,000 lbs of fuel is a lot of speed ...

And all the manoeuvrability in the world won't save you if the first clue the other guy is in the air is when the AIM-120 that F35 driver just parked on your canopy goes active.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well historically Rob, there have been proponents and opponents of manueverability, and to date the proponents have been right

thats odd, because all the data we see on both red and blue flag events is showing quite dramatically that the old mantra of manouvre and speed is meaning squat in a modern COP construct.

its a pity that those who so knowingly claim about fighting constructs of the past and their impact on the future don't grip it up and actually speak to the planners and tac fighters dealing with contemp exercises.

time and time again we see it..

I'm guessing that those whom profess knowledge of how we'll fight the future fight are still stuck on E3A's, EC 121's and 2 dimensional GCCS solutions.

they're so out of touch its laughable - and made more apparent when they trot out their ridiculous vignettes of weighted red team placement (eg APA and their Indon scenario being a classic example of intellectual onanism)

 

[gf0012-aust]

And all the manoeuvrability in the world won't save you if the first clue the other guy is in the air is when the AIM-120 that F35 driver just parked on your canopy goes active.

and they still don't get it.

especially when the hand off can literally be done from 2-3000+ km away

wtf do these people think tac planners, the GIS, INT and COP shop staff are doing?

 

[highsea]

Hmmm, worth pondering... :

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hmmm, worth pondering... :

it just drives me bonkers seeing the same old canards trotted out as some kind of wisdom where apparently a number of modern militaries have switched off their force development brains because flight agility is king.

its the SA and systems construct which is king, the plane is but a part of that construct.

its akin to the old debates about armour where people look at it only through the prism of RHA thickness...

its impossible to have rational debate if the material is dumbed down to a level where those tactical constructs weren't even relevant in 1999, let alone 2007 - let alone now.

it just does my head in :hitwall

on another note, which you'll appreciate, it sure is a sight to see when the wedgetails are all lined up and then heading off on jobs.

 

[RobWilliams]

Anyone got any links or info in regards to what munitions the F-35C is/will be able to carry?

My google searches come up with very little sadly.

 

[the concerned]

I'm a bit scepitical about the f-35 being less maneuverable as the su-35. On a cap a su-35 is going to be fully armed with say 8 missiles thats a lot of drag ,then you have a f-35 with 2 aim-120 plus say 2 asraam no drag at all with more power to weight ratio than an f-16. Remember about the most maneuverable aircraft was the original f-16a's with just 2 sidewinder thats the type of agility we could expect from the jsf

 

[jack412]

Better pull on your raincoat and overshoes Jr., your treading on Hallowed Ground, no one is allowed to critique the JSF, just wait till they start payin the bills for their own ThunderHoggs, then the cryin an moanin will go on forever, IMHO.

In my opinion you are starting to troll, no doubt someone will ask to be given a link if his views are found wanting or misquoted

as long as facts are factual or that opinions are identified as such and expanded in debate, I haven't seen too many get upset unless unfounded nonsense is just repeated over and over

 

[jack412]

I recall reading somewhere that it's agility has been regarded extremely similar to the F-16, i'm also under the impression that plenty of people seem to put too much emphasis on this and seem to forget the extremely capable sensor suite the F-35 has, specifically its EODAS

F-35 Distributed Aperture System (EODAS) - YouTube

yes a lot has been released on the eo das, which was said to be just a missile warner originally.
I'd like to see some more released on the AN/ASQ-239 that will aslo be fused with the eo das and other systems and all the information presented as a SA 'picture'



Electronic Warfare: Australia's mixed record | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
The EW suite for this aircraft is understood to comprise:

the APG-81 AESA radar to provide a Stand-off RF jammer capability.


the AAQ-37 Defensive Aids Suite that provides a missile warner capability. Six IR sensors are distributed around the aircraft to provide a near spherical IR detection capability.


the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda Passive Radar System (PRS), developed by BAE Systems that provides sensor fusion of RF and IR tracking functions and includes data links that form part of the Northrop Grumman-developed Communications, Navigation and Intelligence (CNI) suite.

The PRS provides basic radar warning, and multispectral countermeasures for self-defense against threat missiles, situational awareness and high-sensitivity electronic surveillance. Sensors are placed at 10 locations: on the wings' leading edges (6), trailing edges (2), and on the horizontal stabilizer's trailing edges (2).

Future development of the EW suite is expected to address an integrated network and exploitation functions.

 

[RobWilliams]

Better pull on your raincoat and overshoes Jr., your treading on Hallowed Ground, no one is allowed to critique the JSF, just wait till they start payin the bills for their own ThunderHoggs, then the cryin an moanin will go on forever, IMHO.

That's a bit immature isn't it.

If you believe you have valid, accurate and reasonable issues with the JSF program (and can support them with credible material) then feel free to voice them. However don't get all uppity and snide when people disagree with you and CAN back it up.

One should note that he wasn't directly criticising the program, more bringing up the more commonly seen negative propaganda and wanting answers. The logical way to do things.

 

[Haavarla]

I'm a bit scepitical about the f-35 being less maneuverable as the su-35. On a cap a su-35 is going to be fully armed with say 8 missiles thats a lot of drag ,then you have a f-35 with 2 aim-120 plus say 2 asraam no drag at all with more power to weight ratio than an f-16. Remember about the most maneuverable aircraft was the original f-16a's with just 2 sidewinder thats the type of agility we could expect from the jsf

No its not. Su-35S Standard mission config is 6 A2A missiles, two short range and four medium/long range missiles.
Just like all the rest of the Flanker fleet.
I know there exists lots of pics with Flankers dressed up with 8-10 A2A missiles, but its mostly for marketing stunts and has little to do with reality.

Also keep in mind that the Su-35S will always fly(regular missions) with its wing-tip station occupied.. those jammer pods.

What gives an Su-35 more advantage than its teoretical weapon load-up chart, is higher AB duration time due to large fuel capacity.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Anyone got any links or info in regards to what munitions the F-35C is/will be able to carry?

The F-35C can carry the same types of weapons as the F-35A&B. There are several things to consider about what the F-35Family as a whole can do (and when).

1. Add IOC (Blk3F) the pic attached shows what munitions will be internal vs external. The Purple ones are Blk3 and the rest will come later as integrated.
View attachment 5277

2. The per-station weight limits are attached in a pic below.
View attachment 5278

3. There is a new feature called UAI (Universal Armament Interface) that is being build as part of the F-35. Think of it as a plug-n-play "driver" for weapons. Basically, it allows weapons to be added to the F-35's repertoire without having to do a Block Upgrade. You still have to do separation qualifications, but you do not have to write any new software.

UAI is currently being implemented on the F-15E, F-16 Block 40/50, and EPAF(European Participating Air Forces) F-16 aircraft, Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) I and II, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Laser JDAM, Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) and Precision Guided Munitions Planning Software (PGMPS).

Currently, many weapons have finished their UAI software creation and just need the separation tests on each airframe to be used. What this means is that as time grows by, you will see less &less weapons tied to Blk upgrades as they are converted to UAI.

To put in simple terms:
1. Company A develops a new weapon with UAI codes
2. LM take the weapon out and drop it a few times and verify its UAI functionality
3. If it passes then that weapon can be used, that same day, on ANY F-35 in the world without the need to change the Blk software on the F-35 that uses the weapon.

The current focus of weapons is A2G due to the diversity of features and modes. Later, they will be adding support for A2A and sensor/EW pods.

Here a the last three years of Budget timelines for UAI:

View attachment 5280

View attachment 5281

View attachment 5282

yes a lot has been released on the eo das, which was said to be just a missile warner originally.

I am not sure what you mean by "originally", the F-35's EODAS was always advertised as much more than just a MAWS. Here is a slide from Sept 2010 (before the X-35 first flew) that shows what it was designed to do.
View attachment 5279

 

[jack412]

I was just repeating what was said in this link, spud
it seems that this guy thinks the other functions of the IR sensors are linked to AN/ASQ-239

yes a lot has been released on the eo das, which was said to be just a missile warner originally.
I'd like to see some more released on the AN/ASQ-239 that will aslo be fused with the eo das and other systems and all the information presented as a SA 'picture'



Electronic Warfare: Australia's mixed record | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
The EW suite for this aircraft is understood to comprise:

the APG-81 AESA radar to provide a Stand-off RF jammer capability.


the AAQ-37 Defensive Aids Suite that provides a missile warner capability. Six IR sensors are distributed around the aircraft to provide a near spherical IR detection capability.


the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda Passive Radar System (PRS), developed by BAE Systems that provides sensor fusion of RF and IR tracking functions and includes data links that form part of the Northrop Grumman-developed Communications, Navigation and Intelligence (CNI) suite.

The PRS provides basic radar warning, and multispectral countermeasures for self-defense against threat missiles, situational awareness and high-sensitivity electronic surveillance. Sensors are placed at 10 locations: on the wings' leading edges (6), trailing edges (2), and on the horizontal stabilizer's trailing edges (2).

Future development of the EW suite is expected to address an integrated network and exploitation functions.

 

[SpudmanWP]

NP

Although I cannot read that link to verify, I can guess how he got confused. BAE (the maker of the ASQ-239) is also working on the RF and IR countermeasures systems. Some may think that this includes the advanced features that he thought were not part of EODAS. In reality, it's just the chaff and flares.

Another explanation might be that the ASQ-239 takes all the data from the EODAS, fuses it with its own, and then passes the info to the mission computers. Not enough is publicly known about the details involved to understand the exact route the info takes.

 

[jack412]

maybe it's the other way around and the eo das fuses data from the ASQ-239 to form a SA 'picture' then