F-35 Program - General Discussion

[gf0012-aust]

The problem with F-35 is that it try to be everything, even a kitchen sink.

No, thats a bit of a mythology - it always was a MR platform. The last one that was used across the board for a variety of roles was the F4 Phantom - it just couldn't do STOVL

most of the negative commentary about what the platform collapses when you have sensible debate

unfort there are a few "flat earthers" still around

 

[bdique]

The problem with F-35 is that it try to be everything, even a kitchen sink.

I'm sure that you are aware of the advantages of having a multi-role combat aircraft. The days of having specialised combat platforms are already numbered, just look at the A-10.

 

[ADMk2]

The problem with F-35 is that it try to be everything, even a kitchen sink.

What does the F-35A try and do that the F-16 does not?

 

[Volkodav]

LO, sensor fusion, electronic attack? Basically all good things the F-35A has or will have that the F-16 doesn't.

 

[SpudmanWP]

LO, sensor fusion, electronic attack? Basically all good things the F-35A has or will have that the F-16 doesn't.

Then there is stealthy comms thrown in for good measure.

 

[colay]

I think Pendekar's comment may have more to do with the JPO building 3 variants of the jet in lieu of 3 separate development programs to build bespoke aircraft.

 

[ADMk2]

LO, sensor fusion, electronic attack? Basically all good things the F-35A has or will have that the F-16 doesn't.

Those things all help the F-35A achieve missions the F-16 may not be able to. But fundamentally what mission is the F-35A designed for that the F-16 isn't? It's just better equipped for EVERY mission...

My comment was at the poster who claimed the F-35 is 'trying to be everything'. As if true current multi-role fighters aren't...

They are just less able.

 

[John Fedup]

I think Pendekar's comment may have more to do with the JPO building 3 variants of the jet in lieu of 3 separate development programs to build bespoke aircraft.

I think the real issue in hindsight was combining the STOVL requirement into the JSF. Had it been separate, the AF and Navy might actually have been able to obtain true Raptor "light" fighters with much better kinematic performance while sharing all the new electronic kit and networking capabilities along with stealth that the current program offers. The RN, the Italian Navy, and the USMC may not agree.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I think the real issue in hindsight was combining the STOVL requirement into the JSF. Had it been separate, the AF and Navy might actually have been able to obtain true Raptor "light" fighters with much better kinematic performance while sharing all the new electronic kit and networking capabilities along with stealth that the current program offers. The RN, the Italian Navy, and the USMC may not agree.

The myth that the B played a heavy part in the overall design and lead to the kinematics that the F-35 was debunked long ago.

There are several drivers that lead to the F-35’s overall shape that would still be there even if there were no F-35B:


1. Single engine. Regardless of the USN, the JSF was always going to have a single engine. The biggest customer, the USAF, demanded it.

2. Spot space on a Carrier.

3. Internal 2k bombs. This, combined with a single engine and spot space defined the overall dimensions of the F-35. It's these dimensions that drove kinematics.

 

[the concerned]

I'm always wondered if the the US government had the strength to make it more of a national project rather than mainly a Lockheed project would it be better. Before people start jumping on me what I mean is you could have various companies competing for the main design but once one was chosen the DoD could have got the other companies to join like getting Northrop/Grumman to complete the naval variant and Boeing/Bae to do the stovl variant whilst the main contractor could have concentrated on the land variant. You still could have made Lockheed the main design authority but had help with the rest. Would this maybe have helped towards getting the aircraft delivered on time.

 

[jack412]

With out a link to confirm, I read that the length was uk need, the usn wanted 2,000lb and so more lift fuselage for more weapons and range
AF and Marines were both ok with 1,000lb and shorter range of about 450nm
Then it was rolled together. I don't know if any other partner had base decisions to the final fit

 

[SpudmanWP]

I'm always wondered if the the US government had the strength to make it more of a national project rather than mainly a Lockheed project would it be better. Before people start jumping on me what I mean is you could have various companies competing for the main design but once one was chosen the DoD could have got the other companies to join like getting Northrop/Grumman to complete the naval variant and Boeing/Bae to do the stovl variant whilst the main contractor could have concentrated on the land variant. You still could have made Lockheed the main design authority but had help with the rest. Would this maybe have helped towards getting the aircraft delivered on time.

A lot of the cost saving in production is due to a unified production line. Having each variant built on a separate line would only result in increased costs as build numbers fluctuate up and down.

Delays that have occurred (besides the one-time LM worker strike) have related more with part availability and not with the assembly process. Spreading out the assembly plants would not have helped with this and only would have hurt.

 

[gf0012-aust]

useful excerpt on JSF developments which the hysterical hannahs who decry everything JSF seem to be oblivious about ... (its about speed rather than situational awareness etc apparently.. ) /sarcasm off

I've only cut in the JSF material to suit this thread

" The other new aviation piece, which will come to the USS America, will be the F-35B.

When the F-35B goes to England appears at Farnbrough and at the Royal International Air Tattoo, the focus will be on the plane and its first appearance at a major air show. (Editor’s note: at press time it wasn’t clear if the F-35Bs would fly to the UK.)

But the focus should be on the arrival of the first operational squadron of F-35s at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz.

The squadron is being shaped for its inclusion into the Marine Corps air role via its working relationship with MAWTS. According to one MAWTS F-35 pilot, the advantage of MAWTS and VMFA 121 working together is crucial for the evolution of the way ahead.

“We have developed the infrastructure and process for the standardization of the F-35B within the USMC. We can do this by working directly with the only operational fleet squadron. We can take that forward to future squadrons as they are stood up,” the officer said “And we can introduce the rest of the USMC who participates in the exercises at MAWTS about the capabilities of the F-35 and how those capabilities can change how the MAGTF can operate. We can show battalion Marines on the ground how this aircraft is going to enhance their operational capabilities.”

The current planes are operating with Block 2A software and the Block 2B software arrives later this year in preparation for Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2015. What this means is that the plane operating today with the MAWTS is more limited than what come later in the year. While Block 2B is largely a software upgrade, there are some hardware modifications coming as well.

The F-35 is operating with other Marine Corps air as the blue team –good guys — against the red — bad guys — in various exercises. This means that the Marines are defining the question of how fifth generation aircraft will work with fourth generation planes to shape tactics and to train together for more effective air operations. The combat systems on the F-35 have already demonstrated an ability to enhance the impact of F-18s and Harriers on air combat operations.

As one of the instructors put it:

“We are able to employ the F-35 as a kind of information manager, using its combat systems to to employ the air ordinance carried by the other airplanes. which allows us to conserve our ordinance on the F-35 until we actually need to use it.

“This,” the instructor said, “has already led to interesting results when doing things like the defense of Yuma exercise where the F-18s were enabled to do things they can not normally do against incoming USAF aircraft as the Red Force.”

Another 21st century plane which will appear at the airshow is the new Airbus tanker, in its UK variant. My visit earlier this year to the operational squadron of KC-30As in Australia highlighted some of the innovations the Australians are coming up with. Again, those folks are not appearing at Farnborough, but they are building the new operational realities which that platform can enable.

In March, I visited No. 33 Squadron, at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base Amberley in the state of Queensland. The Squadron operates the KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT). Two of the five planes were at RAAF Base Amberley during the visit.

Air Force receives its fifth KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport

Last year, in combination with Australian C-17s, the KC-30A squadron supported several F/A-18 deployments to Guam as well as Darwin and Tindal in Australia’s Northern Territory. This activity demonstrated the Australian’s ability to move an air wing and support it at extended range with a tanker, while also providing airlift support. This year the squadron has supported the movement of Aussie F/A-18s from the United States across the Pacific and back to Australia.

Both operations underscore capabilities which are part of shaping a 21st century Air Force.

The RAAF has really the world’s first operational squadron of the tanker, and as the launch customer is working through the launch point for the foundational capabilities of the tanker. The Royal Air Force, United Arab Emirates Air Force, and Royal Saudi Air Force operate similar tankers, but Australia is in the lead. India, Singapore and France are currently in the process of procuring MRTTs from Airbus Defence and Space as well.

As they do, the RAAF is flying the tanker and taking it through its paces and preparing for the next phase of expanding its interoperability as the boom system comes on line later this year.

The RAAF is sorting out common procedures with the United States Air Force and regional and global partners, and this is clearly a core effort in the works for the period ahead. With Singapore adding six Airbus tankers to the Aussie fleet of five, a large fleet of allied tankers is in the works, one that can refuel the Marines’ Ospreys, KC-130Js and F-35Bs."


........ One of the best statements of the difference between operational reality and air shows, which I have witnessed, was an exchange between Lt. General Robling, then Deputy Commandant of Aviation and now MARFORPAC, and two journalists. When asked the question: “What aircraft will the USMC fly after the Osprey and the F-35B?”

Robling’s answer went something like this:

“Every few years the F-35B will be more capable and a different aircraft. The F-35B flying in 2030 will be significantly more capable than the initial F-35Bs. The problem is that will look the same at the air shows; but the planes will be completely different inside. So you guys are going to have a tough time to describe the differences. It is no longer about adding new core platforms; it is about enabling our core multi-mission platforms. It is a very different approach.”

complete reference link

Visiting Air Shows Doesn’t Convey The Reality Of Combat « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

 

[gf0012-aust]

early days but it would appear that the after-burning turbofan — not necessarily the integrated power pack was the trigger.


Report: Engine Responsible for F-35 Fire

By Michael Hoffman Monday, July 7th, 2014 6:51 pm
Posted in Air, Policy

A problem with Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine caused the F-35 fire on June 23 that triggered a fleet-wide grounding of the fighter jet, according to a report by USNI News.

An engine malfunction was assumed to be the culprit, given how the blaze started in the rear of the plane. But the article is the first to peg the propulsion system’s after-burning turbofan — not necessarily the integrated power pack — to the incident.

The fire occurred in an F-35A Lightning II as the pilot was attempting to take off from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The F-35A is the Air Force’s version of the jet designed to take off and land on conventional runways. While the pilot was able to power down and safely escape the fifth-generation stealth fighter, the Lockheed Martin Corp.-made aircraft was significantly damaged.


Indeed, the incident appears to be far more serious than originally thought and may cause Defense Department officials to cancel the jet’s international debut in coming days in the United Kingdom.

Three F-35Bs, the Marine Corps’ version of the plane designed to fly like a plane and land like a helicopter, were to be displayed at the Royal International Air Tattoo at Royal Air Force Fairford, which runs July 9–14.

More importantly, the aircraft were scheduled to fly at the Farnborough International Airshow outside London, which runs July 14–20. The show was not only to be the F-35’s first international flight, but also a high-profile opportunity for U.S. leaders to drum up support for the aircraft among NATO allies.

Army Col. Steve Warren, a spokesman at the Pentagon, on Monday said officials haven’t yet decided whether they will send the planes overseas for the shows.

The Defense Department officially announced the fleet-wide grounding of the aircraft late in the day on July 3 — hours after many politicians and journalists had left town for the Fourth of July holiday and days after the Air Force and other services decided to halt flights of the aircraft while investigators tried to determine what caused the fire.

The announcement also said a decision as to whether to fly the planes to England would have to be made early this week, but didn’t specify a deadline.

After the fire, Pratt & Whitney, part of Hartford, Connecticut-based United Technologies Corp., issued a statement saying the company would cooperate with the Joint Strike Fighter program office to identify the root cause. The company hasn’t issued another statement since and a spokesman directed queries to military spokesmen at Eglin.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/07/07/report-engine-responsible-for-f-35-fire/
primary source:
Sources: Engine 'Definitely' to Blame for June F-35 Fire | USNI News

 

[John Fedup]

Defense-aerospace reports the problem as being the F135's third stage compressor.

 

[colay]

So if the inspections have all been done and everything is up to spec, does this make some external event the cause of the fire i.e. a mistake made during maintenance, FOD, .. in which case, maybe a decision to resume flying isn't that far off? RIAT is out but Farnborough is doable.


Pentagon: F-35 fire likely an isolated incident | TheHill

The blaze on an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that grounded the military’s fleet might be an isolated incident, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer told lawmakers Thursday.

“There’s a growing body of evidence that this may have been an individual situation, not a systemic one,” Frank Kendall told the House Armed Services Committee.

Kendall said the department has “inspected all the existing engines that are in service” and “we have not found ... anything that suggests the type of problem that we think caused this failure.”

 

[colay]

Looks like they've figured out what went wrong. I can only assune the PAK-FA engineers went through a similar process though they do not work under the same spotlight as the JSF program. Still the thorough and professional,way the matter has been handled is reassuring and inspires confidence. Perhaps there still is a chance of a Farnborough visit.

FARNBOROUGH: No F-35 appearance for opening day - 7/13/2014 - Flight Global

FARNBOROUGH - The blade rubbing that prompted a fire in an F-35A – leading to a fleetwide grounding July 3 – took place in the third-stage fan of the integrally bladed rotor (IBR) in the low pressure section of the F135 engine, according to Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer for the U.S.–led F-35 program. The three-stage IBR sits behind the front fan in the F135 and compresses the air before passing it into the high-pressure core. Each stage is separated by a stator and rotates within the casing, which is lined with an abradable strip to maintain tight clearances between the blade tips and the inner wall of the compressor casing. This enables tight tolerances while reducing pressure loss and some rubbing is acceptable. In the engine for AF-27, the blades were rubbing far in excess of the design, creating excessive heat and microcracking in the blades. The resulting high cycle fatigue failure forced the section to “come apart,” Bogdan says, prompting the fire June 23 at Eglin. The pilot safely egressed and the flames were extinguished with foam. Senior Pentagon officials say the problem thus far appears isolated; officials have inspected all 98 Pratt & Whitney F135 engines in service, Bogdan says. “All 98 of the other engines did not indicate the same phenomena as the one that failed,” he said. “We have created a body of evidence now that we think is ample enough to fully understand what happened.”

 

[Olaf]

David Axe on JSF

I've followed some of the writings by David Axe. He has always seemed hostile to the JSF, and he doesn't hesitate to quote WW.

://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

I realize that many of his points have been refuted previously in this forum, but I'd still be interested in responses.

Funny that his piece comes the day before the planes are cleared to fly.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'd argue that it's less of a case of people in here taking a stand of refuting, but making a greater attempt to balance it out with other sources - and more to the point - hilight the hypocrisy of some of the rabidly anti-JSF commentariat

 

[StobieWan]

I think the problem with debate on the matter is that a lot of people have received the "shopping list of grievances" wholesale and what happens is you get the list regurgitated items without any real introspection.

I bumped into a customer at work (local police at the time) who had a passing interest in the F35 and he came out with the usual list of things that Palmer, Wheeler et al trot out and I hit each item as it came with a rebuttal. He never blinked, never stopped, just kept listing the issues that remained. No "Oh, didn't know that" or any attempt to have a conversation, just "next item"

It's the same vested process that happens with talking to 911 conspiracy theorists or lunar landing denials unfortunately.