F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the Friday, Feb 3 daily report, put out by the Air Force Magazine, Secretary Michael Donley stated he is tired of answering questions about the Air Force committment to the size of the F-35 fleet, insisting that "those are questions for the2020s". He stated this in response to a reporters question, Feb 2, 2012 in Arlington, Va. asking if the Air Force was going to buy new F-16s to hold the Air Force over until F-35 production was up to speed, Secretary Donley stated it was far more practical to upgrade current F-16s.:gun
 
jack412 said:
Australia is doing the same with our hornets, we have just increased an upgrading contract by 50%, which indicates the talk of more super hornets is put to bed
BAE, L-3 win contract extension for Australian Hornet modifications
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link, is this the centre barrel upgrade?
I was under the impression that the centres were not as bad as first thought and we could get the extra airframe life out of the classic Hornet fleet due to the fact they have not seen the stress of carrier landings.
 
L-3 is the Canadian company did the center barrel, so it's possible.
I don't know what this part of the contract includes, perhaps someone else does, I've seen it said on a forum that we need to keep about 50 minimum
 
t68 said:
Thanks for that link, is this the centre barrel upgrade?
I was under the impression that the centres were not as bad as first thought and we could get the extra airframe life out of the classic Hornet fleet due to the fact they have not seen the stress of carrier landings.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the contract obviously but I suspect not. I'd suggest it's an enhancement of the "discrete structural modification" project (blending and patching"as they are known) operations undertaken during varying servicing phases designed to address fatigue problem areas as they find them, or potential problems that may occur later.
 
t68 said:
Thanks for that link, is this the centre barrel upgrade?
I was under the impression that the centres were not as bad as first thought and we could get the extra airframe life out of the classic Hornet fleet due to the fact they have not seen the stress of carrier landings.
Click to expand...

There are several areas of ongoing concern for the Hornet fleet beside the center barrell replacement, to include airleron hinges, leading edge flap actuators, and nose landing gear, the SLEP is always faithfull to bring the aircraft back to the highest standards possible and while the initial SLEP extended the aircraft life from 6000 hours to 8500 hours, now we're talking 9000 to 10000 hours. As USN/MAR aircraft get a very detailed log review, aircraft that have had a more difficult service life are moved to less strenous assignments and replaced by lower timed aircraft. I believe there is a numerical limit on cat launches and I'm not aware of how that is affected by the SLEP, I would be interested in hearing .
 
ADMk2 said:
I haven't seen the contract obviously but I suspect not. I'd suggest it's an enhancement of the "discrete structural modification" project (blending and patching"as they are known) operations undertaken during varying servicing phases designed to address fatigue problem areas as they find them, or potential problems that may occur later.
Click to expand...

Yes and now to muddy the waters further, BHOs acquisition czar is going to pile on the poor little F-35 and try to make political hay. Its ashamed that politicians get to play these games and Mr. Kendall is certainly gamey. It would be nice to get back to business on the JSF as it really does sound like they have some solutions for the buffeting and structural issues and now is the time to get it up and running as opposed to exclaiming all over again how did this happen? I believe most of us will agree we got the cart before the horse, but now its time to get back to business. The Hornet also had vertical stab issues very similar to the F-35, and ended up being an aircraft like nothing else up to that time, with some hard work and dedication the F-35 could follow that leader.
 
Now that Obama has outlined the cuts for the USAF that they'd have a total number of aircraft closer to 1,000 than 2,000. Do you folks now think that a 3,000 F-35 purchase is now practically impossible?

Up to today, all cost projections are based on a 3,000 fighter purchase. I don't think the international orders will ever cover for what the US will cut. The DOD did say they're not going to make any decisions until 2017 on that, but my hunch is that they're probably buy a LOT less than 3,000 aircraft -- perhaps 1,000 F-35s total including international orders. And if I'm right, that will probably double the cost of the F-35, no?
 
The United States Air Force (USAF) variant of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 will likely fail to meet two of the Korean Air Force’s key requirements — the ability to carry weapons externally and fly at Mach 1.6 (1,930 kilometers per hour) or faster, an industry insider said Tuesday.

He pointed out that the Korean military has clearly outlined the two key features as compulsory requirements in its request for proposal (RFP) released Jan. 30.

“The maximum speed of the F-35 Lightning II, which is still under development, is Mach 1.6, the bare minimum the Air Force has stated as a mandatory requirement,” the insider familiar with the RFP said.
Click to expand...

Read more: F-35 May Fail to Meet Key South Korean Requirements | Aviation & Air Force News at DefenceTalk

How many fighters can go faster than Mach1.6 carrying munitions?

And the F-35 will have the possibility of using external pylons, so why is that mentioned as possible issue at all?

Sounds fishy -- I am surprised this is posted as "News" on this site!?
 
Vivendi said:
Read more: F-35 May Fail to Meet Key South Korean Requirements | Aviation & Air Force News at DefenceTalk

How many fighters can go faster than Mach1.6 carrying munitions?

And the F-35 will have the possibility of using external pylons, so why is that mentioned as possible issue at all?

Sounds fishy -- I am surprised this is posted as "News" on this site!?
Click to expand...

Mach 1.6 or faster? Check.

http://defensetech.org/2011/11/07/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-hits-max-speed/

External weapons and pylons? Check.

http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/f_35_external_load1_190.jpg

Something fishy alright...
 
F35

Let me be very clear, The F35 is an awesome concept that should be fully developed and implemented, definitely!

I would though venture to say the following:

F35A scrap the idea, why? Simple, the F35C has larger wings and more range etc.
So what I mean is develop the F35C to allow the same 9G capabilities as the F35A.

It also means that there then is greater commonality. I'm just trying to be practical, all you have to do is remove or not use the tail-hook of the F35C in the F35A environment.

The F35C design also incorporates the stronger undercarriage which will allow a measure of operation from austere fields in an emergency.

The F35B should be placed on the back burner and technology in propulsion etc. allowed to mature for a few years i.e. get the thing to function properly without a glitch then produce it. Take your time on this one and do it rite!!

The UK has changed their CV requirement to the CATOBAR concept and so no F35B to them in the short to medium term.

Now getting to the heart of the matter.

The US and it's allies should use the 1 in 3 formula as it concerns 5th generation fighter technology deployment i.e. 1 fifth generation fighter alongside 2 fourth generation fighters.

Most countries in which wars are fought are not advanced to the level of the USA and Russia etc. So you don’t need huge numbers of 5th generation aircraft. Just enough to destroy the opponents C4i and Anti-Air infrastructure, this usually happens in the first week or so. After that, use legacy fighters because they are cheaper to operate. Oh yes very important. The A10 should never be scrapped, it is legacy must have and production of an updated version should be restarted if necessary, its simply to crucial a technology to loose, rugged, reliable and tough as nails, need I say more? The F16 and F35 can't replace it.

So again, please complete the F35 properly and implement A.S.A.P!

Military technology is the basis of most civilian technology and we all need the latest good stuff to make a positive difference in society on many levels.
 
Italy says F35A is cheaper than Typhoon

Italy bought its first three F-35As on 8 February, 2012 for US $80 million each. They expect the price to fall when production speeds up to US $70 million each for the As, and US $73 million each for the Bs. Italy paid US $79 million for Typhoons.

Italy buys its first three F-35s. W...JSF will cost less than a Eurofighter Typhoon

And the JSF cynics have quoted prices as being twice as much in this thread, off by half...
 
Hi i'm just wondering if LM offered the jsf to india that must mean it is capable of opertaing from a small aircraft carrier say 40,000 tons which would also mean that the naval variant could theoretically operate from the new USS America class assault ships if they fitted it with a launch system. I personaly think that the Jsf'b should be scrapped because if u take a likely adversary that America is liable to face over the next ten years they all have a credible strike capability which means the US is never going to send assault ships in without proper CV support which would make the Jsf'b redundant anyway.It would be far better for the USMC to be able to provide an extra Jsf'c squadron to rotate from the main CV's than just provide minimal support with just say 6-8 aircraft.
Also hasn't the jsf been flown to mach 1.6 and 9.9g which is pretty good in anyones books it sounds alot like similiar performance capability's as the old jaguar but with much better range and power and the jaguar performed very well on numerous occasions against so called better aircraft.
I know i'm going on a bit but the eurofighter losing the Japanese contract i think was down to the British government not willing YET AGAIN to back industry because we need Mpa's which japan has just developed and transporters i'm sure s deal could have been done which would have been beneficial to both countries
 
the concerned

focus on the system - not the platform. concentrate on what the platform provides as an enabler to the rest of the system construct
 
the concerned said:
Hi i'm just wondering if LM offered the jsf to india that must mean it is capable of opertaing from a small aircraft carrier say 40,000 tons which would also mean that the naval variant could theoretically operate from the new USS America class assault ships if they fitted it with a launch system.
Click to expand...
1) F-35B can & will operate from USS America without any modification of either aircraft or ship. It will also operate from the older LHDs.

2) America is big enough to operate F-35C, if fitted with catapults & arresting gear, but would need considerable redesign to incorporate them. It would also negate its primary purpose, i.e. amphibious warfare. Such a modification would be very expensive, time-consuming, & pointless. You'd turn a good LHA into a poor carrier. If you wanted a carrier that size, you wouldn't build USS America.

I suggest we don't take this discussion further, but return to the F-35.
 
the concerned said:
Hi i'm just wondering if LM offered the jsf to india that must mean it is capable of opertaing from a small aircraft carrier say 40,000 tons which would also mean that the naval variant could theoretically operate from the new USS America class assault ships if they fitted it with a launch system. I personaly think that the Jsf'b should be scrapped because if u take a likely adversary that America is liable to face over the next ten years they all have a credible strike capability which means the US is never going to send assault ships in without proper CV support which would make the Jsf'b redundant anyway.It would be far better for the USMC to be able to provide an extra Jsf'c squadron to rotate from the main CV's than just provide minimal support with just say 6-8 aircraft.
Also hasn't the jsf been flown to mach 1.6 and 9.9g which is pretty good in anyones books it sounds alot like similiar performance capability's as the old jaguar but with much better range and power and the jaguar performed very well on numerous occasions against so called better aircraft.
I know i'm going on a bit but the eurofighter losing the Japanese contract i think was down to the British government not willing YET AGAIN to back industry because we need Mpa's which japan has just developed and transporters i'm sure s deal could have been done which would have been beneficial to both countries
Click to expand...
Mach 1.6 yes, 9.9 gs, no, the A is rated at 9, the B at 7, and the C at 7.5, which is great because even the supermen who fly these rods are done somewhere over nine. You and I would likely be taking a nap somewhere around 5 or 6, and the to be honest the F-35 has "significant" buffetting in this same range, which would likely shorten its service life. Read the CLR and the detailed report, it seems the buffeting is focused in the vertical stab area, and I didn't realize until I did some research that the Hornet also had a very simular problem, some tweaking and beefing up here and there provided us the bullet proof Hornet. P.S. if memory serves the Hornet is about a 7.5g limit as well.
 
Last edited:
Air Force Brat said:
You and I would likely be taking a nap somewhere around 5 or 6,
Click to expand...

Not while wearing G Pants. I very much doubt anyone is flying off in a F-35 without their G Pants. Even with G Pants on you can black out at 2-4 Gs if it is sustained long enough and you can have a laugh at 7-9 Gs if you just touch this level.

But for aircraft, all aircraft, it is time spent at G which will determine you fatigue life exhaustion and there are measures and indices to monitor this.

For maximum G this is about the level the plane can reach without the wings or other structural feature breaking off instantaneously. The F-35 is likely designed with a 50% margin so will not break up until 12 Gs. That being said a few seconds at a 10-11 G pull is likely to eat up a huge amount of your fatigue life index and cause a lot of damage to the aircraft.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Not while wearing G Pants. I very much doubt anyone is flying off in a F-35 without their G Pants. Even with G Pants on you can black out at 2-4 Gs if it is sustained long enough and you can have a laugh at 7-9 Gs if you just touch this level.

But for aircraft, all aircraft, it is time spent at G which will determine you fatigue life exhaustion and there are measures and indices to monitor this.

For maximum G this is about the level the plane can reach without the wings or other structural feature breaking off instantaneously. The F-35 is likely designed with a 50% margin so will not break up until 12 Gs. That being said a few seconds at a 10-11 G pull is likely to eat up a huge amount of your fatigue life index and cause a lot of damage to the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Right the minimum g rating to achieve an aerobatic rating in the US is six gs, the aircraft I flew all the time was rated at 4.4 gs and licensed utility and I may have pulled about four or five playing around, mostly making tight turns, a g suit isn't really a requirement until somewhere above 6 or so. Even with a g suit unless your in good physical condition and know how to grunt, you will take a nap, just get on you tube and watch the blue angel videos, that one of their little thrills when they're doing a pressor. You are correct in that all US aircraft are required to have a 50% design g overload built in, in order to achieve certification at that limit so all aerobatic aircraft certified to six gs are technically good to 9, but that would void the warrenty. The F-35 buffeting is occuring as angle of attack is increased in tactical turns and manuevers, and is aerodynamic in nature. caused by turbulent, violent airflow over the vertical stabs and not over g in a mechanical sence. The fix will likely involve tweaking the location, size, or stiffness of the vertical stabilzers. One of those serious, but fixable design problems, in fact the test pilots reported "some" improvement from flight control sytem tweaks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top