F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[harryriedl]

The UK hasn't placed an order yet so it could all change, but as tier 1 partner it was given an early delivery slot, which it then gave to someone else. I think initial production of the UK's fighters is starting in 2015 with full scale deliveries planned for 2017.

the UK going to get some of the preproduction models plus all the test aircraft have been stressed tested in the UK (sorry can't find the aritical). The UK must have pretty early slots as FOC going to be 2018

 

[Sea Toby]

Don't forget, most likely the F-35 will shoot first too, the other aircraft not being able to target stealth as quickly. Overall, not one nation has dropped out of the program, and this after a considerable number of test aircraft have been built. If this aircraft was a dog, surely this would have shown up in the tests that have already been done.

 

[Vivendi]

On another note, a good article by Andy Nativi in the latest issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology. An overview of the F-35s capabilites and a couple of interesting performance metrics. For instance a previous (though not conclusive) estimate for dash speed is Mach 1.67 and a 55 degree AOA capability, or roughly twice the F-16. Lockheed Martin, likely using conservative numbers until the envelope is fully explored. Who said it couldn't fly?

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

No doubt F-35 will be an excellent aircraft. However it seems it may have a few weak points as well?

Yet, such performance numbers appear to leave the F-35 short of the kind of air-to-air capabilities provided by other combat aircraft, such as the Russian Su-30MKI or the European Typhoon. And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35—although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine—could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft’s large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage—meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals.
...
In the meantime, and without discussing specific performance characteristics, Italian air force fighter pilots involved with the F-35 program tell Aviation Week that the aircraft’s performance falls “between the F-16 and the F/A-18 in terms of flight envelope—and is actually closer to the F/A-18, considering its high angle of attack and slow-speed maneuvering capabilities.”
...
Nevertheless, the F-35 may have notable weaknesses for pure air-to-air combat. For one, it is not designed to conduct engagements in a high-speed, high-altitude, sustained turning environment.

To me it seems that what makes F-35 able to achieve a 400% kill ratio is the combination of VLO and sensors, and the fact that the simulated engagements were against a/c of "today" and not future adversaries, which, in my opinion would have been more interesting. After all, F-35 is a plane for the future, not for today's battles.

The question is, what happens when F-35 is facing not 4. gen fighters but 5. gen VLO fighters? Presumably engagement distance will be reduced, and the assumption that only 7% of engagements will be close-in combats may fall flat on it's face. Of course, the US has F-22 for such scenarios. However, F-22 will not be exported to other countries, and those other countries need to rely on F-35 also for close-in combat with yet-to-be-developed 5.gen fighters from other countries. It will be interesting to see how F-35 will fare in such scenarios. I am sure F-35 will still have advantages, but probably less than what it seems today.


Vivendi

 

[gf0012-aust]

To me it seems that what makes F-35 able to achieve a 400% kill ratio is the combination of VLO and sensors, and the fact that the simulated engagements were against a/c of "today" and not future adversaries, which, in my opinion would have been more interesting. After all, F-35 is a plane for the future, not for today's battles.

Not so. RAAF get access to some of the same Brawler type software matchups that USAF gets. eg the Mig35 TVC was simmed based on a combination of known performance vectors and theoreticals.

sim software is not just tested against contemp aircraft - they test on likely threats and the weighting is loaded up accordingly.

 

[energo]

To me it seems that what makes F-35 able to achieve a 400% kill ratio is the combination of VLO and sensors, and the fact that the simulated engagements were against a/c of "today" and not future adversaries, which, in my opinion would have been more interesting. After all, F-35 is a plane for the future, not for today's battles.

The question is, what happens when F-35 is facing not 4. gen fighters but 5. gen VLO fighters? Presumably engagement distance will be reduced, and the assumption that only 7% of engagements will be close-in combats may fall flat on it's face. Of course, the US has F-22 for such scenarios. However, F-22 will not be exported to other countries, and those other countries need to rely on F-35 also for close-in combat with yet-to-be-developed 5.gen fighters from other countries. It will be interesting to see how F-35 will fare in such scenarios. I am sure F-35 will still have advantages, but probably less than what it seems today.

Vivendi

Good point. The norwegian evaluation included simulated air-to-air scenarios against the PAK-FA, in which the F-35 came through with little or no losses. Of course little is known about the russian jets capabilities, so there is an notable uncertainty to these results. However there was no doubt that a 4. gen fighter would stand little chance against the PAK-FA.

Although not publically acknowledged it is certain that the dutch evaluation also involved similiar studies against future threats, like the PAK-FA, and that being based on much of the same InTel, it is unlikely that they arrived at a very different conclusion. Tac Brawler is also used throughout NATO and its allies as a tool for combat analysis.

As far as the close-in performance of the F-35 is concerned, the picture is not quite as simple as the AW article might suggest. The sensors, EODAS and HMD will give the F-35 a situational awareness advantage over any projected adversary and further reduce the need for close-in maneuvering. Consider that the F-16 is still one of the best dofighters in service anywhere, arguably top dog as long as it maintains its energy and is within the airspace it was designed excell in (up to 40000 or so feet and Mach 1.6). The F-35 will for the most part be on par or surpass this.


B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[Alatien]

There were some worries that F-35 does not perform well in intercept and identify roles due to its poorer high altitude and high speed performance. For these missions F-35 came out worse than F-16. Could that affect the Norwegian or Italian purchases?

As for the Dutch evaluation, not much is known (of course) on the details, but several Dutch articles stated that in simulations and operations Rafale performed better than F-35. The studies were performed by a state-private research institute (TNO), and from what I know of TNO, the sims were probably quite objective. It doesnt mean that F-35 is worse than Rafale, it only showed that for missions considered by the Dutch, Rafale performs better.

Also, as F-35 borrows VLO technologies form F-22, I would expect that F-35 is also affected by similar maintenance "nightmare" as F-22's stealth is. That means in stressed environment the AF has too choose between VLO with mediocre mission capable rate (60-70%), and higher mission capable rate but reduced LO. So I would rather be realistic about VLO, and not consider it an assured "win".


On other note, anyone has some details about countermeasures on F-35?

 

[Grand Danois]

Alatien,

No one of the partners have any worries about JSF capabilities.

The ones who are "worried" are the concern trolls, who are in their death throes, as the programme is beginning to realize deliverables.

 

[Aussie Digger]

There were some worries that F-35 does not perform well in intercept and identify roles due to its poorer high altitude and high speed performance. For these missions F-35 came out worse than F-16.

A "clean" F-16...

Not one loaded up with 5000lbs of weapons and similar fuel loads...

 

[Alatien]

Alatien,

No one of the partners have any worries about JSF capabilities.

The ones who are "worried" are the concern trolls, who are in their death throes, as the programme is beginning to realize deliverables.

You mean that the JSF program starts to deliver items after initial scheduling and over budget? And how many of these deliverables have been tested for simulated combat roles (weapon drops, simulated engagements, ground strikes, simulated air-defense penetration)? As far as I know, none, but correct me if I am wrong.

I dont say that F-35 is a bad airplane. It is not. I just refuse to call is "awesome" only because it has stealth and is "made in America". The only way to clarify its performance is to wait for real testing. I also dont think that Typhoon or Rafale are superior, but that doesnt weaken my point. So far we are talking about partial simulations and comparing parameters.

And the parameters are for F-35 loaded T/W = 0.57 and F-16 loaded T/W = 0.65, and wing loading 470 kg/m2 for F-35 and 430 kg/m2. In both cases F-16 has about 10% better performance. Even including AA load on F-16 (extra drag) I doubt that this margin can erode, especially in face of F-35's larger frontal area. Both of these parameters (T/W and wing loading) dictate high altitude performance, so F-16 does seem to have a better high altitude intercept. Notice that it is not limiting for USAF, since they have F-22 to meet that role, but for countries like Norway, Denmark, or Netherlands it can be more critical.

There is usually a price for designing a device that can do everything. IMO it starts to show in F-35.

 

[Grand Danois]

You mean that the JSF program starts to deliver items after initial scheduling and over budget?

Strawman, I said capability. And as far as budget and time slippage JSF is a choir boy compared to other programmes.

And how many of these deliverables have been tested for simulated combat roles (weapon drops, simulated engagements, ground strikes, simulated air-defense penetration)? As far as I know, none, but correct me if I am wrong.

But it's coming, that's why the criticism is on a last feverish power drive while the argument that it's untested sticks.

I dont say that F-35 is a bad airplane. It is not. I just refuse to call is "awesome" only because it has stealth and is "made in America". The only way to clarify its performance is to wait for real testing. I also dont think that Typhoon or Rafale are superior, but that doesnt weaken my point. So far we are talking about partial simulations and comparing parameters.

I don't think it's "awesome" due to stealth or because it's American. This would be a strawman. I give the JSF what it's worth because it's a superior concept of what a fighter in the future is.

And the parameters are for F-35 loaded T/W = 0.57 and F-16 loaded T/W = 0.65, and wing loading 470 kg/m2 for F-35 and 430 kg/m2. In both cases F-16 has about 10% better performance. Even including AA load on F-16 (extra drag) I doubt that this margin can erode, especially in face of F-35's larger frontal area. Both of these parameters (T/W and wing loading) dictate high altitude performance, so F-16 does seem to have a better high altitude intercept. Notice that it is not limiting for USAF, since they have F-22 to meet that role, but for countries like Norway, Denmark, or Netherlands it can be more critical.

Remember to include the massive body lift of the JSF. Remember to account for burnt fuel, remember that the JSF has the frontal area of Rafale, remember to include external carriage...

You forget all these things, and yet I have no problem, because I recognise the superior concept: lofting superior avionics on a LO platform with an aeroperformance in the class of a clean F-16 - and that's when loaded up for combat.

You're looking at things from an old concept of air warfare.

There is usually a price for designing a device that can do everything. IMO it starts to show in F-35.

Yet technology has advanced to a point where the trade offs are marginal - the returns of VLO is greater than the returns on having supermaneuverability.

It's the supermaneuverables who are paying the price of betting on speed and agility.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Abe and I both attended the JSF briefing with LM's Tom Burbidge, the US Project Leader and RAAF's VAM Project Manager yesterday. There are some very interesting stats to come out of the briefing.

I'll let Abe do the talking however when he gets time to drop by.

 

[energo]

And the parameters are for F-35 loaded T/W = 0.57 and F-16 loaded T/W = 0.65, and wing loading 470 kg/m2 for F-35 and 430 kg/m2. In both cases F-16 has about 10% better performance. Even including AA load on F-16 (extra drag) I doubt that this margin can erode, especially in face of F-35's larger frontal area. Both of these parameters (T/W and wing loading) dictate high altitude performance, so F-16 does seem to have a better high altitude intercept. Notice that it is not limiting for USAF, since they have F-22 to meet that role, but for countries like Norway, Denmark, or Netherlands it can be more critical.

Those numbers don't really say much about either aircrafts flying capabilites. Wing loading is not a good performance metric on modern fighter aircraft, and did you use similar fuel fractions? Either way such comparisons are more academic these days as SA, missiles and sensors will determine the fight long before you can close to guns.

I don't know which particular analysis you refer to, but the recent dutch canditate evaluation was carried out by TNO together with NLR, audited by the defence and economic affairs ministries as well as RAND. Considering that the other 4. generation fighters were clearly outclassed by the F-35 it seems unlikely that the Rafale would do much better.


B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[Feanor]

Strawman, I said capability. And as far as budget and time slippage JSF is a choir boy compared to other programmes.

Absolutely. But it doesn't change the fact that the procurement system itself is generally broken when it comes to being on time and on cost. The JSF in this case is benefitting from international cooperation, which makes it much harder to renegotiate for higher prices or more time and money.

 

[OPSSG]

@Feanor, I normally do not like to disagree with moderators. In this case, I humbly disagree with your point of view.

Absolutely.

So you agree with Grand Danois' point that any budget and time slippage on the JSF program should be taken in it's proper perspective.

But it doesn't change the fact that the procurement system itself is generally broken when it comes to being on time and on cost.

In the next sentence, you make a general criticism of the US procurement system in general - the kind of statement that a typical irresponsible self serving politician would make from time to time. Please consider directing specific criticism to the JSF program only - otherwise, it becomes a meaningless hyperbole.

IMHO, you will need to demonstrate a better understanding of the USAF's military development and procurement risk model so that your comment will be seen by me as a fair comment.

The JSF in this case is benefiting from international cooperation, which makes it much harder to renegotiate for higher prices or more time and money.

Every fighter development program carries a certain amount of risk. You cannot remove the element of risk in developments, otherwise it would be pointless (and would produce a new product that is not a real advance). Further, the JSF is based on F-22 technology, which is an operational fighter.

Even today's very successful platforms (like the F-16s) carried a certain amount of risk and had initial teething problems post development, which resulted in certain risk mitigation mechanisms which have been institutionalized. Please consider reading a 2007 Rand note on the alternate fighter engine program or better known as the the Great Engine War (for the F-15s and F-16s to deal with the issue of contractor responsiveness), as a risk reduction mechanism that has been institutionalized by Congress against any immediate shortsightedness by the USAF procurement bureaucracy. Please see the 2008 CRS report on the F136 alternate engine report for the JSF and the GE website on the Great Engine War, which is an example of risk reduction.

The current production base and risk management tools available to the USAF are very sophisticated. Further, the stability in elements of the USAF's procurement bureaucracy (in contrast to other countries) can be seen as a source of strength in of itself, depending on the perspective you adopt.

The JSF by virtue of its international cooperation model (and used with the F-16 development program of the past) gains the substantial benefit in terms of its scale and production scope (which reduces developmental risk by spreading it out over a large number of planes). You have reversed the argument against the flow of conventional logic and I do not agree with your point of view.

Further, the F-35, unlike the F-22, has been designed from the outset for export. Allied participation in JSF program development, and sales stemming from program participation, have been actively pursued as a way to defray some of the cost of developing and producing the aircraft. Eight countries — Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, UK,
Turkey — have pledged about $4.5 billion to join in JSF development. In addition, all eight partner nations have signed the subsequent Production, Sustainment, and Follow-on Development (PSFD) Memorandum of Understanding stating their intentions to actually purchase the aircraft. Israel and Singapore have both signed letters of intent to become Security Cooperation Participation (SCP) nations in the JSF program and contributed $50 million.

International sales of F-35s could exceed 2,600. Please see the March 2009 GAO report on the JSF for more details. The GAO report details the conclusions of the Pentagon’s Joint Estimating Team, which predicts that development will cost $5 billion more than projected – a total of $51.8 billion – and will not be completed until October 2016.

Please explain your point further to a person who deals with risk management issues in real life.

 

[superhornet]

Alatien,

No one of the partners have any worries about JSF capabilities.

The ones who are "worried" are the concern trolls, who are in their death throes, as the programme is beginning to realize deliverables.

exactly. BTW, do you know the date for JSF to conduct intial mass production ?
or at least provide some schedule information...
from my perseptive(from US potential strategic competitor),
there are many controversies around F-22 and JSF in my country. to my shame, many people are denying the superiority of F22. Even,many people,including military fans and personnel, believe Su-27/30s from Russia and J-11B have much chance to bring down F-22/35s. well, i have to admit by acquiring F-22, although it's extremely expensive, US has established absolutely air dominance over its rivals. with regards to JSF, personally i don't want to see it go as schedule or withouth troubles and setbacks. F-22 is enough to russia and china, so, JSF delivery and production also have many problems at hand. should let russia and china have some time to catch up with the current...my patriotism leads to my comments

 

[Sea Toby]

The first production aircraft for the USAF starts this year. Test aircraft are still being built, and leading production aircraft, but only a few. The program is building up steam slowly. It will be a few years before the program starts building aircraft numbers in numbers.

A new administration is in. Some think Obama will build a few more Raptors, and cut Lightning IIs significantly. I think Obama will kill the Raptor program and cut Lightning IIs production significantly.

The USAF is going to end up losing squadrons under Obama. The liberal Democrats are in control, and they have never supported the Pentagon or the defense industry as well as the Republicans. Defense will be cut, social programs will rise under Democrats.

 

[Feanor]

@Feanor, I normally do not like to disagree with moderators. In this case, I humbly disagree with your point of view.

Do not mind that I'm a moderator. I'm human, fallible, and open to debate on any issue. It's how we all learn.

So you agree with Grand Danois' point that any budget and time slippage on the JSF program should be taken in it's proper perspective.

Within the perspective of other programs that tend to slip far more. Yes.

In the next sentence, you make a general criticism of the US procurement system in general - the kind of statement that a typical irresponsible self serving politician would make from time to time. Please consider directing specific criticism to the JSF program only - otherwise, it becomes a meaningless hyperbole.

What I am referencing is the fact that the current procurement system includes strong incentives for underestimating costs and technology risks when initially presenting a new program.

IMHO, you will need to demonstrate a better understanding of the USAF's military development and procurement risk model so that your comment will be seen by me as a fair comment.

Every fighter development program carries a certain amount of risk. You cannot remove the element of risk in developments, otherwise it would be pointless (and would produce a new product that is not a real advance). Further, the JSF is based on F-22 technology, which is an operational fighter.

Absolutely.

Even today's very successful platforms (like the F-16s) carried a certain amount of risk and had initial teething problems post development, which resulted in certain risk mitigation mechanisms which have been institutionalized. Please consider reading a 2007 Rand note on the alternate fighter engine program or better known as the the Great Engine War (for the F-15s and F-16s to deal with the issue of contractor responsiveness), as a risk reduction mechanism that has been institutionalized by Congress against any immediate shortsightedness by the USAF procurement bureaucracy. Please see the 2008 CRS report on the F136 alternate engine report for the JSF and the GE website on the Great Engine War, which is an example of risk reduction.

The current production base and risk management tools available to the USAF are very sophisticated. Further, the stability in elements of the USAF's procurement bureaucracy (in contrast to other countries) can be seen as a source of strength in of itself, depending on the perspective you adopt.

Sure. Procedurally this is all great. But the results are not.

The JSF by virtue of its international cooperation model (and used with the F-16 development program of the past) gains the substantial benefit in terms of its scale and production scope (which reduces developmental risk by spreading it out over a large number of planes). You have reversed the argument against the flow of conventional logic and I do not agree with your point of view.

My claim is that because the JSF is developed internationally it not only inherently carries less risk, but also carries more pressure to stay on budget.

This is differnet from many other US programs which have found themselves far over budget and behind schedule because the technology risks were underestimated (I suspect intentionally) and the cost estimates were low-balled, in order to get the program funded in the first place.

 

[OPSSG]

Many thanks for the detailed reply.

I may not agree with all points made, but I respect the flow of your arguments and provide my response.

What I am referencing is the fact that the current procurement system includes strong incentives for underestimating costs and technology risks when initially presenting a new program.

IMHO, the US development system and the procurement budget is so large and varied, that it is very difficult to generalize. Therefore, I prefer to refer to a specific program. Again you have clarified a conceptual issue (which Robert Gates has also identified) without drilling down to any specifics.

Sure. Procedurally this is all great. But the results are not.

Are you referring specifically to the JSF program?

The initial intended build volume of 2,600 F-35s allows the program to easily absorb the projected variance in development costs (compared to any other current fighter development program), currently estimated at $5 billion more than projected. The US is a open democracy and is relatively open about fighter development progress (compared to other fighter developers). Their intention is to enable good governance via transparency and to address concerns. Their decision makers are also fairly well informed and served by various audit and research bodies.

Bill Sweetman commenting on the March 2009 GAO report states that the JSF office is optimistic about flight testing and software development, which indicates that the $5 billion estimated cost over run will grow. In fact, it was reported last year that the USN estimated that the cost over run for the JSF to be up to $13 billion. However, do not mistake JSF program transparency for weakness.

In comparison, the proposed Russian (and Indian joint development) for India's next gen fighter program will be even less transparent.

My claim is that because the JSF is developed internationally it not only inherently carries less risk, but also carries more pressure to stay on budget.

Yes but compared to what other international developmental program?

Unlike the European aircraft developmental model (which requires intergovernmental consensus), the Americans are clearly in charge and hold veto power in the JSF program. The troubled A400M program comes to mind. :shudder

 

[OPSSG]

1. In the March 2009 GAO report (link initially provided 2 posts ago), it is clear that there is a multi-billion dollar cost over-run in the JSF program and the actual cost over run figures may get worse due to certain assumptions made by the program office, which includes optimistic flight testing and software development estimates. For more details read Bill Sweetman's comments on the GAO report.

2. There is also an article on the "F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed", portions of which were cited by our fellow forums member earlier (but without a link) which is based on information released by Lockheed Martin. Keep in mind that Lockheed Martin is keen to talk up the F-35's air combat skills to bolster its chances for new foreign military sales - namely, to Japan, Turkey and Greece.

...Lockheed Martin says it ran the F-35 through the Pentagon's TAC Brawler simulation for air combat systems analysis, using what would be the "ideal" air combat configuration, taking the conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A, the only model designed to perform full 9g maneuvers.

The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg. The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration -- also known as the 240-4 -- are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay.

Yet, such performance numbers appear to leave the F-35 short of the kind of air-to-air capabilities provided by other combat aircraft, such as the Russian Su-30MKI or the European Typhoon. And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage -- meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals.

Nevertheless, Brawler modeling showed the F-35 could achieve a loss-exchange ratio better than 400% against its nearest "competitor," according to Lockheed Martin executives. They demur about naming the competitor, but their comparison charts indicate it is the Sukhoi Su-30 or Typhoon.

That engagement ratio comes from the combination of F-35 characteristics, executives argue, including stealth, the performance of the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar, sensor fusion using data links and the 360-deg. situational awareness afforded by the distributed aperture system of infrared and electro-optical sensors and electronic support measures.

In the meantime, and without discussing specific performance characteristics, Italian air force fighter pilots involved with the F-35 program tell Aviation Week that the aircraft's performance falls "between the F-16 and the F/A-18 in terms of flight envelope -- and is actually closer to the F/A-18, considering its high angle of attack and slow-speed maneuvering capabilities."

...[click to see full article]

3. Please note that 3 weeks ago, Abraham Gubler informs us that the F-35 will have and I quote:

Four AMRAAM sized stores per bay in one configuration (I said nothing about two dual launchers) and in another "rule breaking" configuration six AMRAAM sized stores per bay. There is heaps of volume in each of those F-35A/C bays (less in the F-35B). There is also structural support for other options than the current inboard AMRAAM store and outboard JDAM/JSOW store.

I hope he will do a drive by with an update again when he is able to find some time in his schedule.

 

[gf0012-aust]

1. In the March 2009 GAO report (link provided 2 posts ago), it is clear that there is a multi-billion dollar cost over-run in the JSF program and the actual cost over run figures may get worse due to certain assumptions made by the program office

Actually, Abe and I were at the JSF briefing last week. It was made clear that the GAO had changed its mind because it had tried to look at aircraft development through the prism of how F-14, F15, Hornet etc had been done. The development cycle however is very different.

The aircraft is actually ahead of schedule (by 3 months IIRC), it's more than ahead in tech development and it's at 80% (??) of its software tech tree.

I haven't commented before as Abe took notes (I didn't, I just took the "vanilla releases".

He probably will add more when he comes by (but he gets paid for articles, so might hold his fire )