F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[ADMk2]

yes i still stand by and say this plane is overhyped and overachieved...

and sorry i didnt see a J-20 thread.

Over-achieved it certainly has. First time in history an aircraft manufacturer is building 3 separate fighter types from a relatively common core and they aredoing remarkably well.

Next time a manufacturer attempts to build a supersonic, low observable strike fighter in conventional, (CTOL) carrier (CV) and short takeoff vertical landing variants (STOVL) then we might have something to compare the JSF program to.

As of right now it is incomparable.

 

[NICO]

U.S. Air Force to base 36 F-35A Lightning II aircraft at Nellis

I went back a few pages to see if this had been posted before as I was unaware the F35 is going to Nellis AFB in the coming years. This is the kind of good news I have been waiting for finally from this program.

 

[JWCook]

U.S. Air Force to base 36 F-35A Lightning II aircraft at Nellis

I went back a few pages to see if this had been posted before as I was unaware the F35 is going to Nellis AFB in the coming years. This is the kind of good news I have been waiting for finally from this program.

JSF Force Grounded


JSF Force Grounded | AVIATION WEEK

A statement from the JSF program office reads that "aircraft AF-4's Integrated Power Package (IPP) experienced a failure ... The engine was immediately shut down and the jet was secured. No injuries to the pilot or ground crew occurred."

The halt in operations "is the prudent action to take at this time until the F-35 engineering, technical and system safety teams fully understand the cause of the incident. Once the facts are understood, a determination will be made when to lift the suspension."

Cheers

 

[NICO]

JSF Force Grounded


JSF Force Grounded | AVIATION WEEK

A statement from the JSF program office reads that "aircraft AF-4's Integrated Power Package (IPP) experienced a failure ... The engine was immediately shut down and the jet was secured. No injuries to the pilot or ground crew occurred."

The halt in operations "is the prudent action to take at this time until the F-35 engineering, technical and system safety teams fully understand the cause of the incident. Once the facts are understood, a determination will be made when to lift the suspension."

Cheers

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


Yeah, just saw that, it is again AF4 and again problems with the IPP. IPP is a real interesting and incredible piece of machinery so it really isn't surprising to have difficulties with such a complex system, what is a bit concerning is it's troubles now. I mean, one would have expected difficulties in initial first stages of testing, I am a bit concerned that this is creeping out now so "late" in the program. Actually, for such a complex and new system, IPP has performed quite well, one could say it was a bright spot for JSF.

Is this something just with AF4 or sign of a more serious problem?

 

[ADMk2]

Yeah, just saw that, it is again AF4 and again problems with the IPP. IPP is a real interesting and incredible piece of machinery so it really isn't surprising to have difficulties with such a complex system, what is a bit concerning is it's troubles now. I mean, one would have expected difficulties in initial first stages of testing, I am a bit concerned that this is creeping out now so "late" in the program. Actually, for such a complex and new system, IPP has performed quite well, one could say it was a bright spot for JSF.

Is this something just with AF4 or sign of a more serious problem?

We won't know until the engineering work is done to identify what caused the issue and what remedies (if any) are required to fix it. Last time was quite minor and the issue seemed to be fixed within only a couple of weeks.

It has done a lot of safe flying since then, so perhaps there was another minor issue this time, or even the same one given the last one was operator error, not any actual design fault with the system itself. If it's the same issue (over-filling the IPP with oil), I would imagine significantly more thought would have to be placed on risk managing that issue and perhaps a longer term engineering fix will need to be devised.

I guess this is why what the F-35 is doing now is called flight "testing"...

 

[wormhole]

Exactly right. These are the sort of problem that one expects to crop up from time-to-time during the flight testing. The engineers do seem to have a good track record in fixing other bugs that reared their ugly head so far.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Exactly right. These are the sort of problem that one expects to crop up from time-to-time during the flight testing. The engineers do seem to have a good track record in fixing other bugs that reared their ugly head so far.

Also noteworthy that 10 years into flight testing with 10-20 aircraft in the air the X-35/F-35 has not crashed. Whereas the YF-22, Gripen and Typhoon all suffered crashes during flight testing (caused by the aircraft) and multiple cases with the European fighters. The Rafale never crashed during development.

 

[jack412]

There was no value in posting suppositions before, but it seems that facts have been released.
Although it was a major even, there seems to be an easy fix which is good news

F-35 grounding explained
F-35 grounding explained | Australian Aviation Magazine
The airplanes are in a stop mode right now because we had a ground incident with an IPP about a week ago where we had a valve that failed,” Burbage said. “It’s (a)…turbine engine that’s driven by fuel and combusted until it starts the main engine of the airplane, and then the main engine takes over and runs it on bleed air. There’s a valve that has to open to shift from combusted to bleed, and there was a problem with that valve.”

Burbage added that there was an “explosive event” that was controlled by the aircraft’s onboard fire bottles. “There was a flame – we don’t know the extent of the damage yet,” he said. “There is some damage in the surrounding area, parched areas.”

Burbage said he hoped some of the aircraft could return to flight as soon as next week.

 

[moahunter]

It is going to be interesting to see what happens to this program. I think one thing that is almost certain now, is that there will be some changes given the budget crises. It is very interesting in that John McCain, former Naval Aviator, is the biggest critic:

Pentagon: Cutting F-35 Would Be Complicated, Costly - Megan Scully - NationalJournal.com

During the committee’s closed-door markup of the defense authorization bill in June, McCain offered an amendment that would have put the F-35 on probation on December 31 because of cost hikes. The fighter would be terminated a year later if the program’s price tag remained 10 percent or more above Lockheed Martin’s target cost.

The committee split, 13-13, and the amendment failed to make it into the bill. But McCain has signaled that he wants to take his fight to the full Senate.

“We’ll revisit it on the floor,” McCain told reporters in June. The committee’s tied vote was “ample testimony to the lobbying power of Lockheed Martin. That’s all it was.”

...

In his letter, Lynn said that the government is responsible for paying for the increases under the cost-plus-incentive fee contracts negotiated for the first three lots of aircraft. After problems forced the Pentagon to restructure the program last year, defense officials negotiated a fixed-price contract for the fourth lot of fighters.

If all four congressional defense committees do not sign off on the reprogramming, the Pentagon will have to move money within the F-35 accounts, including potentially siphoning money from three of the Air Force planes planned for this year, Lynn wrote.

Another approach could be cutting funds for tooling, sustainment, and spare parts for the fifth lot of aircraft, which Lynn said would have the “undesirable effect” of increasing the program’s costs in the future.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It is going to be interesting to see what happens to this program. I think one thing that is almost certain now, is that there will be some changes given the budget crises. It is very interesting in that John McCain, former Naval Aviator, is the biggest critic:

Pentagon: Cutting F-35 Would Be Complicated, Costly - Megan Scully - NationalJournal.com

You can't be that desperate to make a case against JSF to trot out McCains naval aviation experience from the vietnam war as proof of procurement and planning doctrine deficiencies?

why don't we trot out westmoreland to argue against MLRS? or even sikorsky who never wanted his helos to be used as war machines (he wanted helos to be used for civilian medevac), or we could trot out Towers and argue against supercarriers, or how about a conventional sub driver to argue against nukes (or vice versa)

McCains experience as a naval aviator almost 50 years ago is such a long bow to draw it tests your credibility if thats your supporting pitch.

You seem tro conveniently ignore the fact that Gates (often touted as the JSF Dragon slayer) made it very clear that he regarded both JSF and the Virginia future builds as the two programs that should not be cut before any others. - and his replacement is echoing the same.

 

[moahunter]

^I don't think the JSF will be cut, as it is so far down the track (although its not impossible that could happen). I think the program will likely change though, the number of aircraft purchased may reduce (and yes, I know that means cost per unit increases, which will primarily hurt international partners), and the B model may be eliminated (IMO a smart move if this happens).

We will know soon if I am right or wrong on this.

I just think this is a screw up, and hope in future that one manufacturer isn't given a near universal monopoly for various fighters. Yes, there will be operational efficiencies from the approach, but I don't think its a good idea to limit to Lockheed, as that means no price competition / no discipline to keep to budgets. The choices made during the program would have been different if Boeing had received a contract to develop a simple fighter, for example, to replace bomb truck type roles, at the same time.

 

[Todjaeger]

^I don't think the JSF will be cut, as it is so far down the track (although its not impossible that could happen). I think the program will likely change though, the number of aircraft purchased may reduce (and yes, I know that means cost per unit increases, which will primarily hurt international partners), and the B model may be eliminated (IMO a smart move if this happens).

We will know soon if I am right or wrong on this.

I just think this is a screw up, and hope in future that one manufacturer isn't given a near universal monopoly for various fighters. Yes, there will be operational efficiencies from the approach, but I don't think its a good idea to limit to Lockheed, as that means no price competition / no discipline to keep to budgets. The choices made during the program would have been different if Boeing had received a contract to develop a simple fighter, for example, to replace bomb truck type roles, at the same time.

You have managed in this post to ignore much of the history and changes within the US defence and aviation communities, as well as that of the Joint Strike Fighter programme.

In the immediate post-war (WWII that is...) period, there were a number of aviation/defence companies in existance within the US. As various systems were developed and defence programmes run, the different companies began to join together as takeovers and mergers were done. Examples of this would be like when McDonnell and Douglas joined together to become McDonnell Douglas, the company which build the F-15 and F-18, prior to being taken over by Boeing. Another good example would be the merger of Northrup and Grumman to make Northrup Grumman, which has gotten out of the aircraft manufacturing business but still develops avionics and does systems integration.

Now, one argument which was made after Lock Mart was awarded the contract which became the F-22 Raptor, was that Boeing should win the JSF contract, in order to maintain two companies within the US capable of designing and building fighter aircraft. While there is certainly some logic in that, the X-32 (the Boeing entrant) was found to not be as capable as the X-35 design from Lockheed, which is why Lockheed won the JSF contract as well. What good is it to award a programme to a company whose design does not meet programme requirements when the competing design does?

-Cheers

 

[moahunter]

While there is certainly some logic in that, the X-32 (the Boeing entrant) was found to not be as capable as the X-35 design from Lockheed, which is why Lockheed won the JSF contract as well. What good is it to award a programme to a company whose design does not meet programme requirements when the competing design does?
-Cheers

With hindsight, it is not quite so clear that the Lockheed design was superior. Yes, it won, largely because of the superior performance for STOVL due to the lift fan. But, that fan set up has turned into an extremely expensive problem that has dogged the program, and lead to many of the cost over-runs. The complexity of getting these systems working, from a mechanical and software perspective, IMO wasn't fully understood.

Without the STOVL requirement, I think the contest would have been closer, and may even have favored the Boeing. This may have been the smarter move, the F22 could have remained in production as the premier fighter, without then the need to make the JSF as advanced as it now needs to be, to also carry out roles that perhaps the F22 could have covered / been expanded into.

A more interesting question, is whether or not it was every really that smart to think that a stealth aircraft could cost effectively carry out all roles. Yes, stealth is a huge advantage early in the war zone, but once air dominance is achieved with the F22's and cruise missiles for example, maybe a simpler platform to just deliver bombs like the F16 would have been a smarter option for the bulk of the forces fighters?

The whole concept of a JSF that covers multiple roles was interesting, but maybe a bridge too far. The superhornet was an excellent example of this working for the Navy, but I'm not so sure sticking VTOL in, along with stealth was really that doable. For example, there was even nonesense suggesting the JSF would replace the A-10, which suggests how out of reality / wrapped up in a concept fad, the planners had become. Clearly it can't cost effectively be both a high altitude precision fighter bomber and a low altitude ground support aircraft.

 

[gf0012-aust]

For example, there was even nonesense suggesting the JSF would replace the A-10, which suggests how out of reality / wrapped up in a concept fad, the planners had become. Clearly it can't cost effectively be both a high altitude precision fighter bomber and a low altitude ground support aircraft.

10 years ago if someone had said that B52's and B1's would provide better CAS than fighters they would have been laughed out of the room

the reality is that the B52's and B1's have been providing danger close support better than single seaters.

its not about the platform, its about the platforms capability.

thinking that a JSF cannot get weapons onto a target in a CAS role ignores the reality of what we can and do regulalry achieve now with platforms that were never expected to fulfill those roles in tghe first place.

CAS is a capability set. Its not platform specific.

 

[moahunter]

its not about the platform, its about the platforms capability.

And the platforms cost. That's whats been missing here in the equations, by adding more and more capability into the aircraft beyond many of the mundane roles it will perform most of the time (e.g. basic bomb truck, which is much of modern missions), it just pushes up the maintenance. This is esp. the case with the stealth technology.

Yes you can use a Ferrari as your daily commuter, but that doesn't mean something much cheaper couldn't perform just as well. IMO it would have been smarter to leave the F22 as the Ferrari, also expandable into more hostile zone strike operations, and instead of the F35, to have run with a simpler non-stealth design (or just, carrying on developing F16, F18, etc.).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes you can use a Ferrari as your daily commuter, but that doesn't mean something much cheaper couldn't perform just as well. IMO it would have been smarter to leave the F22 as the Ferrari, also expandable into more hostile zone strike operations, and instead of the F35, to have run with a simpler non-stealth design (or just, carrying on developing F16, F18, etc.).

The Ferrari analogy is as bad as all the other ‘my life experience’ analogies that people offer up about complex systems they don’t understand. A Ferrari would be an ideal choice for your daily commute if the highway between your workplace and home was strewn with minefields that would activate with extreme prejudice for any car driving at less than 200 kph. Comparing cars to combat aircraft is just plain stupid. Without the survivability and lethality capability inherent in the F-35’s LO and sensor suite you just won’t survive in a future battlefield.

If you want a low cost CAS orbiter for low intensity air threats just string some bombs underneath a Gulfstream. But air forces have to plan for a range of threat options so something like the F-35 is needed if you ever need to play in the premier league.

For example, there was even nonesense suggesting the JSF would replace the A-10, which suggests how out of reality / wrapped up in a concept fad, the planners had become. Clearly it can't cost effectively be both a high altitude precision fighter bomber and a low altitude ground support aircraft.

The only nonsense is that someone so ignorant of the F-35’s capability would make this claim. The A-10 has to fly low and slow as its primary means of acquiring targets is the pilot’s eyeballs. The F-35 can sit above the trashfire ceiling (~20-25,000 feet) and use its sensor suite and networking to find targets much quicker and safer than any A-10. When it comes to deploying weapons the F-35 has the edge on guided weapons and supplants the A-10’s 30mm gun with a 25mm gun. The 25mm gun is onboard (or attached too) the F-35 for air to ground as it is a far superior strafing gun than the 20mm but not as good an air to air gun (the later with all things being equal but with the F-35’s mission systems and long rang 25mm gun should enable it to do some very interesting air to air shooting like the Pabst manoeuvre). The 25mm is the next best thing to the 30mm gun but without the need to destroy tanks which any number of ATGMs will do quite well enough for the F-35. In its strafing paths the F-35 may not have the armoured cockpit of the A-10 but it will be much faster and with the helmet mounted sight much quicker to get front guns on target. All in all the F-35 should be a much more survivable strafer than the A-10.

 

[moahunter]

Without the survivability and lethality capability inherent in the F-35’s LO and sensor suite you just won’t survive in a future battlefield.

Even with F-22's, a plane well ahead of any potential competition for decades, having secured the area? If we look at modern battlefields like Libya and Iraq, after the initial high intensity combat in the first week or two, all sorts of aircraft operate effectively. You are stuck in a cold-war mindset of an imagined battlefield that has never existed since the cold-war, a fairy tale battlefield of equals where high altitude defenses aren't quickly eliminated by the dominant power.

The only nonsense is that someone so ignorant of the F-35’s capability would make this claim. The A-10 has to fly low and slow as its primary means of acquiring targets is the pilot’s eyeballs. The F-35 can sit above the trashfire ceiling (~20-25,000 feet) and use its sensor suite and networking to find targets much quicker and safer than any A-10.

Yes, I know this, I also know that F-16's and various other aircraft can also perform precision bombing at high altitude. Has that eliminated the value of the A-10? Or the AC130A? Of course not, there is still a value in a slow low aircraft that can linger in the vicinity, the F35 will simply never be effective in that role (although of course, UCAV's are increasingly important).

We can't go back and change the JSF program now, but I think its pretty ignorant to pretend its been a success when the key objective of replacing the F16 and F18 has resulted in an aircraft that is going to be more costly to maintain than either of those, which is disappointing given that lower cost was a key objective of the program from the outset. Yes, the F35 will be cheaper to maintain and operate than an F22, but was an F22 replacement what was really needed to compliment the F22? I don't think so.

 

[south]

The Ferrari analogy is as bad as all the other ‘my life experience’ analogies that people offer up about complex systems they don’t understand. A Ferrari would be an ideal choice for your daily commute if the highway between your workplace and home was strewn with minefields that would activate with extreme prejudice for any car driving at less than 200 kph. Comparing cars to combat aircraft is just plain stupid. Without the survivability and lethality capability inherent in the F-35’s LO and sensor suite you just won’t survive in a future battlefield.

If you want a low cost CAS orbiter for low intensity air threats just string some bombs underneath a Gulfstream. But air forces have to plan for a range of threat options so something like the F-35 is needed if you ever need to play in the premier league.



The only nonsense is that someone so ignorant of the F-35’s capability would make this claim. The A-10 has to fly low and slow as its primary means of acquiring targets is the pilot’s eyeballs. The F-35 can sit above the trashfire ceiling (~20-25,000 feet) and use its sensor suite and networking to find targets much quicker and safer than any A-10. When it comes to deploying weapons the F-35 has the edge on guided weapons and supplants the A-10’s 30mm gun with a 25mm gun. The 25mm gun is onboard (or attached too) the F-35 for air to ground as it is a far superior strafing gun than the 20mm but not as good an air to air gun (the later with all things being equal but with the F-35’s mission systems and long rang 25mm gun should enable it to do some very interesting air to air shooting like the Pabst manoeuvre). The 25mm is the next best thing to the 30mm gun but without the need to destroy tanks which any number of ATGMs will do quite well enough for the F-35. In its strafing paths the F-35 may not have the armoured cockpit of the A-10 but it will be much faster and with the helmet mounted sight much quicker to get front guns on target. All in all the F-35 should be a much more survivable strafer than the A-10.

That may be the case until the A-10C came along,Sniper Pod, Datalink, JDAM, LGB, massive gun with plenty of rounds and I believe that a contract has been issued to get a HMS onboard.

10 years ago if someone had said that B52's and B1's would provide better CAS than fighters they would have been laughed out of the room,

the reality is that the B52's and B1's have been providing danger close support better than single seaters.

its not about the platform, its about the platforms capability.

I agree with the last line, struggle with the first line Can you define better?

For example there are many reasons why a fighter is better in some aspects, e.g. performing a reattack will be much quicker with a fighter (or pair) or if you have a collateral damage consid and the gun is the weapon of choice. There are also 2 pods with a fighter formation which enables you to look at two different areas, target more spitters, plus gives the ability to split up if reqd to go to two different areas, if one jet goes U/S you arent completely Ferked, they can wagon wheel more effectively so if you are waiting for a trigger they will roll in quicker etc. They will also actually have eyes in the target area so will be much quicker and more flexible in some areas. Obviously they don't have the ordnance or playtime of a B52, and most fighters especially single seat don't have some of the Capes that those larger platforms bring. Different capabilities/strengths/weaknesses.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I agree with the last line, struggle with the first line Can you define better?

danger close is a condition where friendly fire could kill friendly forces because its called in close - danger close is usually a situation where your own team is at risk of being overwhelmed and calls in support despite the fact that they may suffer casualties from friendly fire

B1's and B52's have been called in and done danger close support in a number of SF and forward element events. They've done this at altitides that are out of visual range and saved the bacon of quite a few. A10's could not have reached these contact areas and would not have had the ability to sustain the fight, in fact in a number of CAS events small fighters that could attend could only do one pass. - not enough to keep red team at bay and extra support had to be called in

 

[south]

I know what DC is.... A-10's, GR4's Harriers, FA-18's, F-16's F-15E's etc have all done Danger close before.. All of these fighters also have the ability to do it outside of visual range. All of them have saved significant amounts of bacon at times, and all bring something different to the fight.

The events you are describing don't sound like they are typical, suffice to say that to make a blanket statement that a B52 is a better CAS platform (as in your opening line) is bogus. To say that they are better in SOME occasional scenario's is a far more accurate statement. Can you describe why an A-10 couldnt reach the contact area? or why a flight or four ship of F-15E's couldn't prosecute the same...

As I acknowledged, the load out and the playtime of a B52 far outweighs the ability of a F-16 or Harrier to deliver the same... But as an example how long does it take to turn a B52 around at 30kft if they abort the pass but you have a tight attack heading restriction..... 10 minutes? Try 2 minutes in a strike eagle or 1 minute if his wingy is doing a good job.