F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[F-15 Eagle]

Hey guys I don't know if this has been posted yet or not but according to the Pentagon the projected range for the F-35, the A model in particular will only have 85% as much range and previously planed.

F-35 fighter faces range shortfall - pentagon report | Reuters

And I hate to post this because I just know the anti-F-35 crowd will be all over this, their going to have a field day about this.

" The radar-evading aircraft's "A" model is currently estimated to have a combat mission radius of 584 nautical miles, just short of the required 590 nautical miles, a Dec. 31-dated report to Congress said.

Program officials originally estimated that the F-35A would be able to hit targets 690 nautical miles away, unrefueled, or 15 percent more than now, the Department of Defense's "Selected Acquisition Report" showed.

The current combat radius prediction is based on estimates of the amount of compressed air diverted from the engine to run onboard systems as well on aircraft performance and fuel capacity that are not yet fully known, the report said.

"Current estimates have built-in margin that may not be realized," it said, adding that aircraft modifications were possible to add fuel capacity that would boost the range."

Read more in the news article.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Also the thing is not built for A2A, that is the job of the F22.

Let's See:
1. 6 Internal AAMs ... Check
2. 10 External AAMs ... Check
3. Most advanced fighter radar in production (including LPI, A2A SAR imaging, etc) ... Check
4. Most powerful fighter-based jammer... Check
5. Combo 3rd gen Long Range IRST/FLIR ... Check
6. Full FOV multi-head DIRCM ... Check
7. Cooperative EW which will severely reduce the effectiveness of a missile using HOJ ... Check
8. Automatic tracking of all WVR airborne objects which allows the F-35 to launch and guide the AAM without the pilot ever having to use his Mk1 Eyeball to line up a shot (via HMS). In case you missed it, current HOBS missiles do not get post-launch updates unless the launching fighter can turn to put it's radar or IRST on the target. ... Check
9. F-16/18 class maneuverability ... Check

What exactly is it missing to be A2A fighter?

Surely the PAK-FA and J20 are built to counter the F22, and therefore will be superior to the F35 in A2A.

Your assuming too much. For the PAK-FA & J-20 (which are early prototypes like X-32/35 were in 2000) to be built for the F-22, they have to know what the F-22's capabilities are. More importantly, what the F-22's capabilities will be in 7-10 years when these things goes IOC. By then the F-22 will likely have better RAM, updated avionics (IRST, MLD WVR Tracking, radar, RwR, etc), and much better weapons (AIM-9x Blk3, AIM-120D+, JDRADM, etc)

Just to be clear, all F-35 references are to Blk5 (goes IOC before PAK-FA & J-20)..

 

[Abraham Gubler]

LM had a powerpoint presentation in 2002, it was a dummy senario as the present situation unquestionably highlights, Unfortunatley the "Dummies" bought into it.

Err that would be the powerpoint that they could build a stealthy, highly networked, sensor filled, long rang fighter plane? Seems to be what they are doing…

Hell I'd be embarresed to say I cocked up a multibillion decision. Your asserting that Eurofighter GmbH are full of it in regard to an in service aircraft, and that LM's data to the US DoD for an aircraft in development has a much better fidelity and is fundamentaly more honest!!nfloorl:

I never made any claim about fidelity of data. You seem to be projecting some kind of anti F-35 desire onto the opinions of other people. I claimed, rightly, that the Eurofighter ATA scenario was a joke.

This is a program that is struggling, LM would be using every trick in the book to hide the bad news( hell they have even invented a few new ones),

Anything else you want to make up?

the JSF and the F-22 are tracking the same( are you worried now?), I don't see much reason to be optimistic, the old chestnut about virtual testing is no longer being bandied about by LM (this was supposed to be the most tested aircraft ever before it left the drawing board) yet it still run into the usual problems and a couple of unusual ones.

No one is denying the aircraft schedule has been hit hard. But it’s far from the end of the story like you seem to be making out. There are multiple deliveries and more coming. The virtual testing regime continues along with the real aircraft.

LM provided the data to the US DOD, or do you think the US DoD is just making stuff up?. Even the Australian AVM has hinted the JSF has reached its elastic funding limit in Australia.

And Lockheed don’t work in a vacuum either they meet requirements and program structures designed by the DoD.. Unlike you who just make shit up like your claim that F-35 funding is “elastic”. Any evidence for this? NO. The funding level remains the same that it has always been. The initial batch is approaching the upper limit of its contingency but one would expect the higher cost low rate batches to cost more, especially as the project schedule is under stress.

Firstly where is this performance information coming from that these assements are made from? oh its LM with its yet to be demonstrated capability...
Eurofighter has done a "professional assesment", they have access to "detailed information" and their findings did not back the JSF, therefor your assertion is (once again) false, you can whine all you like about it but its from the horses mouth.

LOL. Sure their scenario was very detailed. But entirely loaded against the F-35. You don’t seem to want to address this and just keep to your Lockheed is bad mantra. Now you claim I’m making false assertions but won’t address the engagement scenario? Talk about ostritching it up. You avoid this point and just about every one to focus on your never ending stream of conspiracy allegations. That Lockheed, Defence, DoD, me and anyone else who can make a series of cogent points in favour of the F-35 are all lying to you.

SAR baseline was 690 nautical miles
Quote from the pitch to Norway
Current estimates are its 584 nautical miles, now they were either wrong on capability claims or lying, so which is it? source http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR.pdf

Also note these figures are yet to be demonstrated, and the figures are going backwards as development continues.

Ehh what configuration was that 690 NM radius mission? You do understand that aircraft can fly different ranges depending on how much weight they are carrying? Like a long range ocean surveillance mission without any ordnance…

PS: The USAF mission profile, which the baseline for the F-35A is based around, had a mission radius of 590 NM. So if the latest SAR is saying it is only 584 NM that is a loss on this KPP of 1.1%. Wow! Stop the program! Buy Eurofighter! The F-35A only has 98.9% of its radius KPP! Disaster!

I feel I'm in the presence of a master, and can only aspire to the dizzying heights of the 99% crap your spruiking, I have got the answer I wanted - You have the same attitude as Defence. -The JSF is the answer independant of the question, it doesn't matter what I say to you and not the sort of reasoned discussion I was looking for.

You haven’t listened or responded to every point about why people are in favour of the F-35. You continue to produce fictional reasons against it, like you crap over Australian funding levels, program structure and dodgy Eurofighter scenarios. Your response is simply to declare no one else wants to listen and we are all part of a conspiracy.

OK i'm off to bed and plan to to do heaps of landscaping in the morning.

Shovelling more shit no doubt.

 

[Sea Toby]

Its the find a very small fault to make mountains out of mole hills... Chasing every red herring...

I am more interested in the range of the aircraft fully loaded with external fuel and external weapons for different scenarios which the aircraft will be doing the bulk of the time...

Granted the testing program has fallen behind, but the aircraft are being purchased and built as scheduled.... The overall program has not come to a complete stop as the cynics will lead you to believe...

The cynics continue to use FY2002 numbers with the FY2012 budget... They use simple arguments dealing with complex situations... Before reading anyone's tripe, understand their agenda, whether hidden or not, before coming to false conclusions...

 

[jack412]

The official source - Ah as calculated by the contractors panel of experts for carrier ops which assumed the same performance of the CV and assigned it to the the STOVL varient, and moved the carriers nearer to the targets to "help".
:

BTW they did other studies which change the capability score but didn't keep the paperwork!! I'm sure they musta been the better ones for the JSF

independant disspassionate analysis???.

OK i'm off to bed and plan to to do heaps of landscaping in the morning.

Good night.

It is what it is, a navy report to GOP with the GPO assesment of it
you are assuming that the contractor panel of experts wasnt appointed by both Boeing and LM, as both would have been needed for the data

"The study concluded that, because of the expected increase in the
capabilities of F/A-18 E/F and the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, both the
previously planned force and the recommended new smaller force were
more effective than today’s force."

I used the link simply to show you how wrong you were, to put the fa-18 and f-35 on the same page

 

[JWCook]

<Snipped AG drivel>

I never made any claim about fidelity of data. You seem to be projecting some kind of anti F-35 desire onto the opinions of other people. I claimed, rightly, that the Eurofighter ATA scenario was a joke.

Your the one asserting the JSF is the best by far and that every assesment has validated it, I claim just as rightly that is a joke. I have offered proof that your original assertion is wrong, why don't you name one fair impartial assesment that makes the claim the JSF is "by far the best".

PS: The USAF mission profile, which the baseline for the F-35A is based around, had a mission radius of 590 NM. So if the latest SAR is saying it is only 584 NM that is a loss on this KPP of 1.1%. Wow! Stop the program! Buy Eurofighter! The F-35A only has 98.9% of its radius KPP! Disaster!

I refer you to somone who in your eyes is beyond reproach colonel Dwyer Dennis of the JSF project office in 2002.

he stated:
“I'm going to talk a little bit about what we call KPPs, or Key Performance Parameters. The key performance parameters on a program are those requirements that are the make or break on a program. You miss a KPP and your program is subject to cancellation or major rework. …….”

You may not think missing a Key Performance Parameter is important but he disagrees, the reason a KPP is important is the Key bit(they dont call it Key for nothing), failure in this is cancellation or major rework, the rework in this case will be extra fuel cells crammed into nooks and crannys in the airframe, "no biggy" you will undoubtably whine, but then in the back of your head that quiet sane voice of reason that you ignore so well will be whispering, Isn't the JSF on its weight margin already, don't those fuels tanks weight a fair bit, will there be knock on effects, retesting, thermal issues etc etc... and that is the best outcome.


Hmm how to explain it in a way you''ll get - Its like the difference between being nearly dead and dead. and that can be far less than .0001%


Cheers

 

[JWCook]

It is what it is, a navy report to GOP with the GPO assesment of it
you are assuming that the contractor panel of experts wasnt appointed by both Boeing and LM, as both would have been needed for the data

I think youll find the contractor refered to in the GAO document are Whitney, Bradley & Brown.

The study by Whitney, Bradley & Brown on the force restructure are the same Whitney, Bradley & Brown on the Wyle team which has been competitively awarded a $318 million five-year task order to provide engineering and integration support services to the Joint Strike Fighter.:eek

I would expect a JSF support service provider to do nothing less than praise it.

Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Your the one asserting the JSF is the best by far and that every assesment has validated it, I claim just as rightly that is a joke. I have offered proof that your original assertion is wrong, why don't you name one fair impartial assesment that makes the claim the JSF is "by far the best".

LOL. Ahh the RAAF for starters. Ohh that’s right you don’t accept them as “fair and impartial” they must be part of the ‘great F-35 conspiracy’ probably helped fake the moon landing too... You’ve rejected the GAO in a post above, they must’n be “fair and impartial” because they use contractors to provide them with an expertise they don’t have. Pretty much everyone except Eurofighter and their dodgy ‘blind, deaf and dumb F-35’ scenario has validated the F-35. And of course you get real Typhoon operators in a room with the camera and microphones turned off and they will admit it’s not up to F-35 spec.

<Snipped AG drivel>

More refutations you won’t respond to? You make a trend of this. The only refutation to you offer us this time is on the range KPP. Though you’ve conveniently forgotten your original 680 NM assertion…

You may not think missing a Key Performance Parameter is important but he disagrees, the reason a KPP is important is the Key bit(they dont call it Key for nothing), failure in this is cancellation or major rework, the rework in this case will be extra fuel cells crammed into nooks and crannys in the airframe, "no biggy" you will undoubtably whine, but then in the back of your head that quiet sane voice of reason that you ignore so well will be whispering, Isn't the JSF on its weight margin already, don't those fuels tanks weight a fair bit, will there be knock on effects, retesting, thermal issues etc etc... and that is the best outcome.

Hmm how to explain it in a way you''ll get - Its like the difference between being nearly dead and dead. and that can be far less than .0001%

LOL. You must be crazy to present this kind of religious fervour to sane and reasonable people and expect us to all line up and agree with you. So the radius is down from 590 NM to 584 NM. You tell me how this is a deal breaker? A 1.1% reduction in a KPP. If you had a house built and the energy rating of it came in 1.1% below spec would you knock it down and start from scratch again?

Then you offer up the only response to this KPP issue is that Lockheed must redesign the aircraft with new fuel tanks. Even if the project office demands this KPP be reached there are more ways to give the F-35A a 1% increase in radius than a new fuel tank in a nook and cranny. Many more ways. But if you weren’t so obsessed with defaming this aircraft perhaps you would consider that.

You keep making foolish assertions, run away from them when they are shown to be rubbish and come back with the mantra the F-35 is bad. Now who is the one who is acting in a blind manner unable to change the answer or question? The only factoid you offer up is a terrible Eurofighter claim that they back away from when ever confronted by people who know the slightest about air combat mission planning and capability. A scenario which I have refuted and you don’t offer up any argument in relation to it, just blind adherence.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think youll find the contractor refered to in the GAO document are Whitney, Bradley & Brown.

The study by Whitney, Bradley & Brown on the force restructure are the same Whitney, Bradley & Brown on the Wyle team which has been competitively awarded a $318 million five-year task order to provide engineering and integration support services to the Joint Strike Fighter.:eek

I would expect a JSF support service provider to do nothing less than praise it.

This defamatory, grossly simple, childish and foolish point of view indicates that you are immensely ignorant of the nature of professional business practice. If WBB are in the business of making false assessments for clients as you suggest then who would hire them? Why don’t you go and publish an article with a wide distribution alleging that Misters McMullen, Gahr, McCartin, Olsen et al are engaging in writing false reports in order to curry favour with potential clients? Go on I dare you to. You’d lose all of your possessions and be indebted for the rest of your life in a defamation suit. Maybe, just maybe such tough love might see a bit of reality penetrate that tin foil wrapped around your skull.

 

[jack412]

I'm a bit uncertain as it wasnt crystal clear, but isnt the 587nm with the reserve plus the testing 5% extra and that by bring it back to just the reserve fuel, will get ~40nm more, ?
In the 2009 SAR the f-35a had a combat range of 610nm, so its been down for a while, by the look of it

now that aside, needing more bypass for IR management to suppliment the fuel heat sink, sounds a fair trade for VLO in the IR band

 

[Haavarla]

As the F-35 does not come with any APU.
The power for all the onboard system has to be taken out from the engine itself.
No small wonder the Range will suffer.
Still remain to see the end result here.

In a SAR mission, the F-35 should fly with DT anyway, don't think this is a big issue.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35 most certainly does have an APU. It's called the Integrated Power Package (IPP).

UNIQUE INTEGRATED SYSTEM STARTS F-35 ENGINE IN JOINT TEST BY LOCKHEED MARTIN, PRATT & WHITNEY | Lockheed Martin

Here is a photo:
View attachment 4672

 

[jack412]

yes, but I think Haavarla means once started, the f135 then drives the IPP as a generator

 

[SpudmanWP]

The engine mounted generators and the IPP are separate systems that are run independently. In fact, the in-flight F-35 generator failure that happened earlier this year demonstrated this because the IPP kicked in and provided power for the F-35 after the generators failed.

 

[jack412]

you're right, I wasnt clear about the 3 generators and didnt use the 'total' system name, because i'd have to look it 'all' up and see, my memory isnt that good

Are you saying the IPP engine is running all the time, generating additional power when in flight ?
my belief was it was just in an emergency and the IPP starter come generator was run by the f135 engine in flight.
Have I got the wrong end of the stick to how it works ?

 

[SpudmanWP]

You have it right. The IPP only runs "when needed", ie when the generators are not producing enough power or when starting the F-35 (as it does not need a "start cart").

 

[Haavarla]

I'm curious Spud..
I read your link on the IPP. But i'm confused..
What does this 'as it does not need a "start cart"' mean?
Can the F-35 start up the engine without any external power?

I was not aware this even was a requirement by USAF.
If true, it will be the first to have this capability..right?

I mean, for a fighter, this capability to do a 'cold startup' is something dating back to SV airforces units like Su-27 etc etc, due to poor airbase infrastructure.
Having an independed APU has its pro and cons, like extra weight and more cabling and plumeting.. and it just complicate service TBO too i guess.

I think VVS still have this as a requirements today, but i'm not sure.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Correct, it can start on it's own. It also has it's own boarding ladder so stairs are not needed. I am not sure whose requirement this was (or that it is the first to have it), but it is shared across all three versions.

 

[jack412]

spud, then I think I did have the wrong end of the stick, I had the idea that the IPP starter/generator was still driven in flight by the f135, giving a total of 3 generating

so in flight its just the 2 gen on the PTO and the 3rd starter/generator is on standby, so when the 2 gen pto failed, the IPP motor started and drove its starter/generator ?

 

[SpudmanWP]

There is actually 4 sources of power on the F35.

1st & 2nd are generators on the F135 that provide all the power during the flight of the F-35 . They are actually two separate generators that share a common shaft off the F135. Unfortunately, as recent events have shown us, they both can be affected by a single problem in some instances.

3rd is the IPP which we have been discussing. It is used to start the F135, provide power during flight if needed, and can (as recently shown) provide emergency power if the main generators fail.

4th is a battery-based system. Think of it as a UPS for the F-35. It is used mainly as the initial power source for starting the IPP during engine start and to start the IPP in case of in-flight F135 generator failure. IIRC, It also acts a power buffer & conditioner for the IPP & F135's generator power (again like a UPS). I am not sure for how long it can provide the F-35 with basic power in the event of a F135 generator and IPP failure.