F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Abraham Gubler]

Right the minimum g rating to achieve an aerobatic rating in the US is six gs, the aircraft I flew all the time was rated at 4.4 gs and licensed utility and I may have pulled about four or five playing around, mostly making tight turns, a g suit isn't really a requirement until somewhere above 6 or so.

Civilian non aerobatic aircraft rarely sustain Gs for extended periods of time. A combat aircraft (which is what we are talking about) is very likely to sustain Gs for extended periods of time. 120 seconds of 4 Gs is very different to a spit second pull or 1-2 seconds. G Pants (who wears G suits?) are very much needed for these sustained G pulls.

Even with a g suit unless your in good physical condition and know how to grunt, you will take a nap, just get on you tube and watch the blue angel videos, that one of their little thrills when they're doing a pressor.

Bullshit. I’ve pulled 7.5 Gs with no grunting and no peak physical condition and G Pants, physical solidness and the right attitude made all the difference. I could even move my head. Just because some scared lightweight passed out does not make it automatic.

 

[the concerned]

On another website called scramble they have been following the jsf and on that it tested at 9.9gs look youselves

 

[Firn]

Big news for the Italian armed forces, they will receive no longer 131 but likely 90 planes. Certainly this comes not unexpected.

Of course the even bigger news is the reduction of the forze armate in general:

La riduzione interesserà anche il numero dei soldati: «Oggi ci sono 183.000 militari e 30.000 civili: per orientare lo strumento, dovremmo progressivamente scendere verso 150.000 militari e 20.000 civili, con una riduzione di 43.000 unità». L’obiettivo, ha spiegato Di Paola, «si potrà raggiungere in dieci anni o poco più, attraverso la riduzione degli ingressi del 20-30%, la mobilità verso altre amministrazioni» ma anche attraverso «l’applicazione di forme di part time a certe categorie» o «l’uso più esteso dell’aspettativa per i quadri, ovvero una sorta di cassa integrazione straordinaria».

The following captures the gist of it in English. The target is IMHO a good one, however the roadmap is difficult to get right. With a reduction of new recruits entering the military as a whole will be even more top-heavy, a coordinated, longlasting effort to reduce rises in rank and pay are needed to reduce the very high amount of staff costs and overhead.

The nation will also slash military manpower by about 30,000 soldiers and 10,000 civilians, he said.

The cuts come amid a drive by Prime Minister Mario Monti to tame Italy’s public finances after contagion from the sovereign debt crisis drove borrowing costs to record highs, and are a blow for the F-35, the world’s costliest defense project. The Pentagon will cut $1.6 billion from the program, canceling 13 jets next year, under proposals sent to Congress Feb. 13, while customers including Australia are reviewing their requirements.

The reduction in Italy’s military headcount can be achieved over the next decade by curbing recruitment and transferring personnel, the minister said, with a 30 percent cut in “defense structures” planned over the next five years. He said yesterday that 70 percent of the Italian defense budget goes on staff.

Edit: For those who can read Italian/google translate I just found the following
article

Quel che colpisce è la fotografia di un forte squilibrio: rispetto ai volumi previsti per il 2021, sono addirittura in esubero 31 mila marescialli e 680 ufficiali; mancano invece 20 mila sergenti e i volontari in servizio permanente. L’obiettivo è giungere entro il 2032 a uno strumento militare più giovane e più equilibrato tra le sue componenti: 18 mila ufficiali, altrettanti marescialli, 22.300 sergenti, 56 mila volontari di truppa in servizio permanente e 24 mila volontari in ferma breve.

As I have said, the transformation phase from the 'conscript' to the 'professional' armed forces has been poorly managed and hardly anything has been done to address those urgent problems.

 

[Air Force Brat]

On another website called scramble they have been following the jsf and on that it tested at 9.9gs look youselves

Sorry concerned, that poster had quoted an Aviation Week article, written by Guy Norris, quoting the commander at Edwards, who had flown the aircraft to Mach 1.6 and you are right. There are so many restrictions on this aircraft at present, the DOT&E reports "the magnitude and effects of buffet during elevated g-load and AOA will need to be further examined" and from the same report, "structural loads on the vertical tail of the F-35A are higher than predicted and may require modification of the tail or changes to the flight control system. I noted previously that the F-18 had simular problems during development. I had assumed and believe that there are numerous operations limits?

 

[ADMk2]

Sorry concerned, that poster had quoted an Aviation Week article, written by Guy Norris, quoting the commander at Edwards, who had flown the aircraft to Mach 1.6 and you are right. There are so many restrictions on this aircraft at present, the DOT&E reports "the magnitude and effects of buffet during elevated g-load and AOA will need to be further examined" and from the same report, "structural loads on the vertical tail of the F-35A are higher than predicted and may require modification of the tail or changes to the flight control system. I noted previously that the F-18 had simular problems during development. I had assumed and believe that there are numerous operations limits?

With just over 20% of the flight testing done, there are significant portions of the envelope still to be cleared, but they mostly relate to higher end maneuvering, weapons clearance and flight science flights.

The basic flight envelope has been cleared, albeit with issues identified that need rectifying, the reheat burning the aft end of the aircraft, may need looking at, but it's hardly the lost cause that some of our APA members have told us all it is...

I wonder if they care to look at the position of the F-4 Phantom's engines and comment as to whether or not they were able to fly in reheat for extended periods of time without the exhaust blistering and burning the airframe?

 

[the concerned]

Hi you mentioned that the JSF'bs primary mission is going to be amphibious assault.Then isn't the best option for the v/tol variant is actually to do away with its stealth capability and use the internal weapons bays to increase range after all its a bit hard to launch a stealth plane off a huge ship that everyone is going to see.

Admin: You seriously need to start lifting your game here. Others have been patient and "considerate" till now, but the tone and thrust of your debate is coming across as either someone deliberately being contrarian, or being a bomb thrower.

either of the two forms are not acceptable in here. listen more, pause more, post less and seek qualification more.

maintaining your current form will not result in a good outcome.

 

[Hoffy]

Hi you mentioned that the JSF'bs primary mission is going to be amphibious assault.Then isn't the best option for the v/tol variant is actually to do away with its stealth capability and use the internal weapons bays to increase range after all its a bit hard to launch a stealth plane off a huge ship that everyone is going to see.

You have got to be kidding.

Who exactly is "everyone"? C'mon you are seriously trying to get a reaction for a bit of fun here aren't you?

The B version (or the C version for that matter) is hardly observable for "everyone to see".

By the way - the B version will be operational from airfields/ships etc that a conventional aircraft currently wouldn't entertain.

 

[ADMk2]

Hi you mentioned that the JSF'bs primary mission is going to be amphibious assault.

Amphibious assault is something infantry personnel do. A ship lands them at a certain place, the ramp comes down and out they go onto land. That's what amphibious means, they can move from water onto land.

See the opening few minutes of Saving Private Ryan if you need further instruction on this.

Then isn't the best option for the v/tol variant is actually to do away with its stealth capability and use the internal weapons bays to increase range after all its a bit hard to launch a stealth plane off a huge ship that everyone is going to see.

There is no F-35B "VTOL" aircraft. What the F-35B is capable of is "STOVL" which means: "short take-off and vertical landing". What this means is that the F-35B aircraft takes off normally as any other aircraft does, but with a shorter take-off distance.

IF you need to know how aircraft take-off, then please visit your nearest airport and watch the aircraft take-off. That is what the F-35B does, however it's design allows it to do the same thing in a much shorter distance like for instance, the length of a ship...

It then lands back on said ship vertically. The reason it does so, is because the ship is not long enough, nor equipped with arresting gear to allow the aircraft to land in a more conventional manner.

It is also much lighter at the end of it's mission than it is at the start and the power of it's engine and lift fan allows it to land vertically (ie: straight down) to simplify the landing process. The F-35B therefore can operate from relatively small ships that are cheap enough for many nations to buy.

Bigger ships that allow a more conventional take-off and landing procedure are more expensive and few can afford them nowadays, those that can however are usually stronger more powerful navies.

What VTOL means is "vertical takeoff and landing". That is what helicopters do.

The F-35B is not a helicopter. You can tell this, because it doesn't have any rotors...

 

[Belesari]

Hi you mentioned that the JSF'bs primary mission is going to be amphibious assault.Then isn't the best option for the v/tol variant is actually to do away with its stealth capability and use the internal weapons bays to increase range after all its a bit hard to launch a stealth plane off a huge ship that everyone is going to see.

Admin: You seriously need to start lifting your game here. Others have been patient and "considerate" till now, but the tone and thrust of your debate is coming across as either someone deliberately being contrarian, or being a bomb thrower.

either of the two forms are not acceptable in here. listen more, pause more, post less and seek qualification more.

maintaining your current form will not result in a good outcome.

Harriers rarely do vtol. Its a massive waste in fuel and leaves you with far less payload.

 

[rip]

Amphibious assault is something infantry personnel do. A ship lands them at a certain place, the ramp comes down and out they go onto land. That's what amphibious means, they can move from water onto land.

See the opening few minutes of Saving Private Ryan if you need further instruction on this.



There is no F-35B "VTOL" aircraft. What the F-35B is capable of is "STOVL" which means: "short take-off and vertical landing". What this means is that the F-35B aircraft takes off normally as any other aircraft does, but with a shorter take-off distance.

IF you need to know how aircraft take-off, then please visit your nearest airport and watch the aircraft take-off. That is what the F-35B does, however it's design allows it to do the same thing in a much shorter distance like for instance, the length of a ship...

It then lands back on said ship vertically. The reason it does so, is because the ship is not long enough, nor equipped with arresting gear to allow the aircraft to land in a more conventional manner.

It is also much lighter at the end of it's mission than it is at the start and the power of it's engine and lift fan allows it to land vertically (ie: straight down) to simplify the landing process. The F-35B therefore can operate from relatively small ships that are cheap enough for many nations to buy.

Bigger ships that allow a more conventional take-off and landing procedure are more expensive and few can afford them nowadays, those that can however are usually stronger more powerful navies.

What VTOL means is "vertical takeoff and landing". That is what helicopters do.

The F-35B is not a helicopter. You can tell this, because it doesn't have any rotors...

You are so right. The F-35B is intended to only operate, in the US Marine Core’s doctrine at least, from ships under two circumstances. The first and most important is its’ combat role in the initial assault phase of an amphibious landing. The initial assault phase is the most difficult and critical phase of any amphibious operation. The advantages of having some air support on sight and close at hand, ready, willing, and under control of the assault team outweighs all of the disadvantages inherent in its STOVL design. In WW II this was done by jeep carriers. Who cares, if aircraft "A" is a better that aircraft "B", if it isn’t where you need it most, when you need it, and under the control the people who know what it needs to doing when the danger to the troops is at tts greatest.

As soon as they can, they will operate them from the shore where many of the practical restrictions of operating them from ships are greatly relieved. At first they will be operated just behind the LZ up front. As the SEA-B’s make runways for them, short at first then longer, smother and more secure they can then carry more bombs and fuel in the dirty configuration, making them even more effective in close air support, which is the Marines rit. As soon as they get the runways long enough they will bring in the more capable F-35C’s of which the Marines also buying because in a shooting war most of the Marine aircraft, will most of the time will be operating from land bases anyway.

What the Marine Core is trying to do is not to make all of its amphibious operations completely dependent on close-in Carrier support. All the many reason why this is so important that belongs in the Naval thread not in this one.

Though the B can and will be used for many things very effectively, if somewhat expensively, for in the case of the US it usually has better options for the other tasks it can perform. For the Navy’s that do not have aircraft carries they will primarily be used for fleet air defense. In the clean configuration and when operating under ship board radar control they become formable defensive weapons when used as interceptors. That is where its stealth proprieties really shine.

 

[ADMk2]

AN interesting L-M propaganda video has been put up. Interesting because it includes some operational EOTS and EO-DAS footage for the first time...

http://youtu.be/MemOSGx18sw

 

[Sea Toby]

AN interesting L-M propaganda video has been put up. Interesting because it includes some operational EOTS and EO-DAS footage for the first time...

F-35 at Edwards AFB -- 2011 in Review - YouTube

Yes, seeing is believing. The aircraft flies, it is not a paper airplane, and the B version doesn't burn up the flight deck of a carrier. While Italy may have cut their planned order of aircraft, which I am sure others will do so too, the Italians are impressed the 5th generation F-35s will be cheaper than a 4.5th generationTyphoon...

Another LM video:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXleqieZIEo&feature=related"]F-35 Lightning II in 2011 - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[ADMk2]

Yes, seeing is believing. The aircraft flies, it is not a paper airplane, and the B version doesn't burn up the flight deck of a carrier. While Italy may have cut their planned order of aircraft, which I am sure others will do so too, the Italians are impressed the 5th generation F-35s will be cheaper than a 4.5th generationTyphoon...

Another LM video:
F-35 Lightning II in 2011 - YouTube

Yep and in a few months when it starts dropping JDAM's and fires AMRAAM's one of the last big boxes will be ticked.

In 12 months time we'll see:

A fleet of over 60x JSF's in-service.

JSF's that have cleared most if not all of their flight envelopes.

JSF's that are flying wth Block II plus software.

JSF's that have done most of their weapons testing.

It is getting increasingly difficult for the main critics of this program. It is hitting the goals they said earlier it couldn't do and I can't wait til they fix that tailhook and the -C model starts carrier landings and the Bill Sweetmans of the world start denying they ever tried to make a big issue out of it...

 

[StobieWan]

Yep and in a few months when it starts dropping JDAM's and fires AMRAAM's one of the last big boxes will be ticked.

In 12 months time we'll see:

A fleet of over 60x JSF's in-service.

JSF's that have cleared most if not all of their flight envelopes.

JSF's that are flying wth Block II plus software.

JSF's that have done most of their weapons testing.

It is getting increasingly difficult for the main critics of this program. It is hitting the goals they said earlier it couldn't do and I can't wait til they fix that tailhook and the -C model starts carrier landings and the Bill Sweetmans of the world start denying they ever tried to make a big issue out of it...

Can't wait to see one in FAA colours get launched off the end of a QE

Nice to see results beginning to appear,


Ian

 

[the concerned]

Surely its time to bring one to Farnborough and show the european crowds what they getting

 

[exPrivate]

It is getting increasingly difficult for the main critics of this program. It is hitting the goals they said earlier it couldn't do and I can't wait til they fix that tailhook and the -C model starts carrier landings and the Bill Sweetmans of the world start denying they ever tried to make a big issue out of it...

Don`t get me wrong, but what about the overbudget of the programme?

 

[LGB]

That certainly is going to be the main issue going forward. If one assumes F-35 will be a game changing strike fighter cost remains a very real issue. In the FY2013 Budget the USAF lists the A at $112 million flyaway for 1,763, and the USN has the C at $139 million and B at $144 million or an average cost of $120 million.

Four years ago the FY2009 budget listed the A at $83 million so the projected cost has risen about 50% the past 4 years. Given the trends it would be surprising if the average unit flyaway stayed below $120 million.

Don`t get me wrong, but what about the overbudget of the programme?

 

[jack412]

I think you will need to put a link up showing the costings, the f-35 price is normally quoted in unit recurring flyaway and I think you may have a LRIP year cost

 

[ADMk2]

Don`t get me wrong, but what about the overbudget of the programme?

It's an issue no doubt about it, but the only way to resolve it now are to reduce capability in the aircraft, reduce numbers or to cancel it.

The aircraft is about 12-18 months away now from actually beginning to deliver actual capability so if it were to be cancelled now, you'd see about $60 billion down the drain for no result and a liability that still exists to the tune of hundreds of billions to replace the capability even just with the continued acquisition of legacy jets and no capability enhancement (besides airframe life).

It's funny that some of the people "talking up" the "advanced threats" that are appearing somewhat are also advocating that we sticking with legacy fighter with whch to address these advanced threats...

That seems to me like a poor idea today. How good an idea is it going to be in 25 years, running around with upgraded F-16's and Super Hornets still flying against threats designed decades ahead of them?

 

[LGB]

Costs are normally cited by those against the program in total system costs or gross systems cost. Those in favor often use REC flyaway. The unit flyaway cost I cited is from page 1 of the P-40 in the current FY2013 budget docs. You can easily find them online.

I think you will need to put a link up showing the costings, the f-35 price is normally quoted in unit recurring flyaway and I think you may have a LRIP year cost