F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[jack412]

It could be worse, from a couple of weeks ago a Su-30MK2 fighter jet crashed during a post-construction test flight.....
Su-30 Caught Fire Before Crash

“While executing acceleration to a maximum speed, the first pilot reported a fire in the right engine,” the spokesman said. “The flight controller immediately ordered the crew to eject.”

 

[rip]

The Phantom did a similar abort on it's maiden flight, then went on to serve with distinction across the world. Go have a look at the history of aircraft development in the jet age and notice how many pilots previous programs had killed by now in their equivalent stage of development and testing.

F35 will be fine, I'm sure of it.

We would all like things to be perfect but we seldom get our wish. What history I have been able to learn about the combat aircraft of the past is that there has never been one that was perfect even if they completely dominated the battle space of their area. Even the greatest ones of their time all had quarks or problems or deficiencies of some kind. But remember the aircraft itself is only part of a large complex system and it is the complete system and the men and woman that must staff it, which will be tested in combat.

The only questions to ask are “is it good enough?” Can it get the job done? Can you afford it? Can you maintain it? Can pilots fly it? Is it flexible enough to adapt when it becomes necessary, to new and probably at present completely unforeseen requirements in the future for the pilots that are as yet unborn? And finally can you continuously make it and the system that supports it better?

Criticism and debated is a proven useful tool to make anything better and we must respect the process but perfect is not possible. The F-35 in all of its variants is a game changer. After it is deployed, whenever it is deployed, it will make all other systems that it may face be put to a great disadvantage. And they, whatever or wherever they are, will have to be highly improved with great difficulty and expense just to stay in the game.

There is no indication that the F-35 will not answer all of the questions above with a confident “yes” with the possible exception of the total cost for some of its potential users.

No matter who or even why some critics still dream of killing the F-35 it will continue to progress, ether larger or smaller quantities than currently envisioned. I expect that it will still be a creatable combat aircraft flying forty years from now when many of us on this board will already be dead. Shouldn’t we be talking about how it make it and the system that will support it better and stop wasting our time debating issues that are effectively already decided?

 

[gf0012-aust]

There is no indication that the F-35 will not answer all of the questions above with a confident “yes” with the possible exception of the total cost for some of its potential users.

the difficulty is that those who are exposed to the actual capability and who are involved in planning and evolving the new tactical warfighting constructs are more than impressed. for them it is a big YES, not a small yes

for obvious reasons they're not even remotely interested in the internet chatter as they are dealing with these things in real time.

having been exposed to some of it at a work level, I have changed my own behaviour from needing to defend the capability to ignoring the persistence of hysteria emanating from the usual crowd.

there's no point in even trying to engage in some of the debate as it can't be discussed for a number of reasons, and why some people have pet visions of why they are right and the force planners are clueless.

I've actually taken the other approach where I'm quite happy for some of the more rabid to engage in froth and bubble as all its doing is reinforcing how desperate some have become in promoting their view of the "western" air combat world collapsing in a quivering mess at the mere thought of some eastern designed/developed combat jet presenting itself in the fight. All of their scenarios conveniently but persistently create vignettes where its a platform fight construct. good luck with that - and lets ignore everything done in force planning since 2001

the people who do it for a job are more than comfortable with what these assets are going to do to change and enhance the way we will develop force capability. irrespective of how some in the media regard themselves as subject matter experts, I am going to continue to place my faith in what I see (and they can't - no matter how loudly they flash their journo credentials) and continue to place my faith in those who are defining and developing future force capability.

every program has interruptions.

the sky however is not falling in

all of a sudden 13 countries have become incompetent at force development and abandoned all their capacity to evolve and improve doctrine with the companion GIS/INT/COP changes that are coming along in parallel (and in some cases ahead of) the JSF (or any future gen fused platform)

I don't think so

 

[the road runner]

Lock Mart just posted a new video of F-35 A.
The are flying local sorties at Eglin Air force base.

The 33rd Fighter wing are receiving and flying JSF,and people say it will never fly nfloorl:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbEgmCbpzLc&feature=g-u-u&context=G248b5d4FUAAAAAAAJAA"]F-35A Takes Flight at Eglin AFB - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Air Force Brat]

Lock Mart just posted a new video of F-35 A.
The are flying local sorties at Eglin Air force base.

The 33rd Fighter wing are receiving and flying JSF,and people say it will never fly nfloorl:

F-35A Takes Flight at Eglin AFB - YouTube

Nice video, I did mention the first flight out of the school house at Eglin yesterday, didn't see the landing on Loch Marts video, Col Smith had to abort 15 minutes into a 90 minute mission, possible fuel leak, but at least they recovered the aircraft nicely. I just think we need to have a little more intellectual integrity, I don't dislike the F-35, in fact thats my screensaver. It was designed to be a strike aircraft, with an A2A capability. The US has a lot of money invested in the F-35, its having some teething problems, yes or no? If it works for you guys great, I do get discouraged when I hear our allies are cutting their orders, and the news was that Australia was cutting their initial buy from 14 to two, the minimum allowed to be able to play at the school house. Whats up with that! Sounds like somebody in your government is concerned. I present my concerns in a matter of fact way, this venue is billed as a professional forum, The fact that the F-35B was placed on a two year probation says lots of people in the US military have concerns, they don't air their dirty laundry on Defense Talk. And Yes I Do Know that Sec Panetta lifted the restriction!

 

[jack412]

Air Force Brat, mate, I don't have the patience of everyone else, when you state what you think is a fact, eg aussie 14 reduced to 2, can you give a link showing such.
Also when you make one of your sweeping statements, can you the add 'because' and make your case supporting it

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It was designed to be a strike aircraft, with an A2A capability.

It was designed to be an aircraft that could fly out a few hundred miles, shoot two AMRAAMs at enemy planes (and defeat them), fly some more, find a hidden target, drop two JDAMs on it and then fly home. It was not designed to be a strike aircraft with A2A capability but a multi role aircraft able to defeat air and surface targets simultaneously. People who keep clinging to this libel that it’s not an air to air combat aircraft or somehow deficient in this area are just making fools of themselves.

I do get discouraged when I hear our allies are cutting their orders, and the news was that Australia was cutting their initial buy from 14 to two, the minimum allowed to be able to play at the school house. Whats up with that!

Nothing, you’re just got your facts wrong. You can only buy F-35s as they come around to be produced in yearly batches. The Aust. Govt. has authorised the DoD to buy two F-35As in the next year, followed by 12 in the year after that. They will be considering this year authorising the DoD to buy another 58 in various years as appropriate.

If you don’t know anything about the F-35 or how the US buys aircraft then I guess you could misconstrue hearing Australia was going to buy 14 and then was contracting for two to mean there was a cut. But if you’re that ignorant of how the project is structured you really shouldn’t be forming an opinion and broadcasting it to the rest of the world.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Air Force Brat, mate, I don't have the patience of everyone else, when you state what you think is a fact, eg aussie 14 reduced to 2, can you give a link showing such.
Also when you make one of your sweeping statements, can you the add 'because' and make your case supporting it

No Jack, I read that on the DT news sight, and someone on this thread mentioned it, I'm just asking if thats true or not? Like I said, I have a good idea whats going on over here, and I mentioned the first flight out of the school house in Eglin yesterday, so I may get that kind of news before you do. I will try to watch my "sweeping statements". I was just asking you guys whats going on over there. I've been keeping up on US aircraft since the early 70s, I know first hand about our succeses and failures. I am very honest about my limitations, hence my user name of Air Force Brat. I am a pilot, and yes I am proud of that, it took a lot of my own money to earn that priveledge. So, is there any truth to that? or not? Ya know you don't have to flame me every post. On the other hand I have lived and breathed airplanes and flying since I was a child, my Dad was quite knowledgeable and where we went and what we did, depended on where he went, so I have more than a passing interest in the military and have been very well informed by the Air Force Magazine, its online daily now, a great source of accurate information. Regards

 

[jack412]

It was designed to be an aircraft that could fly out a few hundred miles, shoot two AMRAAMs at enemy planes (and defeat them), fly some more, find a hidden target, drop two JDAMs on it and then fly home. It was not designed to be a strike aircraft with A2A capability but a multi role aircraft able to defeat air and surface targets simultaneously. People who keep clinging to this libel that it’s not an air to air combat aircraft or somehow deficient in this area are just making fools of themselves.
.

I would go further and say that in its multi-role, when loaded with 4-6 internal or more external A2A missiles, it is infact being an air to air combat aircraft

No Jack, I read that on the DT news sight, and someone on this thread mentioned it, I'm just asking if thats true or not? Like I said, I have a good idea whats going on over here, and I mentioned the first flight out of the school house in Eglin yesterday, so I may get that kind of news before you do. I will try to watch my "sweeping statements". I was just asking you guys whats going on over there.
Ya know you don't have to flame me every post. Regards

we have approval to buy 14, we had an initial plan 2 for 2014, then the 12 in 2016 and 17 to be Australian delivered end of 2017 for 2018 stand-up.
we have the 2 for 2014 ordered because of long lead time for some parts and the decision on what year the remaining 12 will be bought will be made in 2012/13 as planned, as was the year for the total 14 was to be made, re long lead time reason for the 2 already.
I don't know or have any idea really, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 12 will be from later years than 2016/17 because of the delayed SD and the estimated USAF IOC
From memory, I have only had 2 critical comment posts to you and don't think I'm flaming you, I'm just a pleb but some of what you post I find frustrating, no harm, no foul, just saying

 

[Marc 1]

Most of the frustration surrounding this debate arises from bow and arrow proponents from centuries ago (3rd gen, 4th gen) trying to assess a rifle (5th gen). If you took a longbowman from the battle of Agincourt in 1415 and asked him to assess a modern assault rifle his report would look like this:

"The modern assault rifle is shorter (therefore inferior) isn't anywhere near as flexible - huh, how are you going to fire an arrow with something that doesn't bend (way inferior) and its string (sling) is too thick and hard to nock and arrow. Therefore as a killing device the assault rifle is hopeless."

The F35's top whack is 'only' Mach 1.6 (but the haters will tell you less) - but it doesn't really matter if it was only Mach 1.2 - compared to the Mig 25/31's Mach 3+ or the Su-35's Mach 2.25. Therefore inferior.

The F-35's range is 600nm using internal fuel whereas an F-16 with FAST kit and 3 huge big jug externals can cover 2000nm (and the arguments can be that pathetic - ferry range versus combat range). Inferior.

The F-35 can only carry 4 AMRAAM's where as the Sukhoi can carry 10 (?) AAM's - therefore inferior.

The transonic accelleration is xyz compared to the Sukhoi's xyz/2 time. Inferior

The sustained turn rate is, I dunno 5 elephants per degree second, whereas the SU-35 is 15 elephants etc etc...

Are we seeing a parallel here? Obviously 99% of the time a modern assault rifle will be far more lethal than a longbow, but without an appreciation of what the new metrics are (not the old ones we used to assess weaponry by) some people just will not recognise that.

I can unequivocably say that the Su-35 has overall better kinematic performance (hell even an F-104 outdoes the F-35 in many of the basics such as speed altitude etc). I can say that in a typical combat configuration (ie LO - no junk hanging off pylons) an F-35 will go into combat with probably less AAM's and or a smaller bomb load than competing 2/3/4th gen machines. If the F-35 was not a true 5th gen design, it would be toast compared to other 4th gens and possibly evenly matched to some 3rd gen aircraft.

But the F-35 is a 5th gen aircraft designed with LO from the get-go. The LO characteristics and the sensor fusion combined with other supporting elements (AWACS, tankers, LINK 16 etc) should mean the F-35 will be the most survivable and effective aircraft with the possible exception of the F-22 in some roles. Now there is a possibility that LO could turn out to be "The emperor's new clothes" (i.e. - not work). If that is the case we have purchased a fat turkey of an aircraft that will be "clubbed like baby seals" to quote from the clown club. However, given the proven success of LO in war, and the fact the People Who Know a Lot More About This Than Me reckon it will work - to the point that 13 of the best, most experienced and knowlegdgable airfleets in the world are betting on this, I'd reckon its a pretty sure bet.

So, you can argue all you want that the F-35 is too fat and doesn't have the correct L/D ratio or is too slow or has failed it's range KPF (by 6 miles!!!!) - at the end of the day it really sounds like the Longbowman complaining that the M16 or Steyr AUG is too short. Until the first combat encounter we won't know for sure but the initial signs are very reassuring.

If we listen to the naysayers, buy some greyhound of a 4th gen (F-15K or Eurofighter or Superbug) we risk being the longbowman bringing Yew to a gunfight.

My 5 cents worth.

 

[Hoffy]

Most of the frustration surrounding this debate arises from bow and arrow proponents from centuries ago (3rd gen, 4th gen) trying to assess a rifle (5th gen). If you took a longbowman from the battle of Agincourt in 1415 and asked him to assess a modern assault rifle his report would look like this:

"The modern assault rifle is shorter (therefore inferior) isn't anywhere near as flexible - huh, how are you going to fire an arrow with something that doesn't bend (way inferior) and its string (sling) is too thick and hard to nock and arrow. Therefore as a killing device the assault rifle is hopeless."

The F35's top whack is 'only' Mach 1.6 (but the haters will tell you less) - but it doesn't really matter if it was only Mach 1.2 - compared to the Mig 25/31's Mach 3+ or the Su-35's Mach 2.25. Therefore inferior.

The F-35's range is 600nm using internal fuel whereas an F-16 with FAST kit and 3 huge big jug externals can cover 2000nm (and the arguments can be that pathetic - ferry range versus combat range). Inferior.

The F-35 can only carry 4 AMRAAM's where as the Sukhoi can carry 10 (?) AAM's - therefore inferior.

The transonic accelleration is xyz compared to the Sukhoi's xyz/2 time. Inferior

The sustained turn rate is, I dunno 5 elephants per degree second, whereas the SU-35 is 15 elephants etc etc...

Are we seeing a parallel here? Obviously 99% of the time a modern assault rifle will be far more lethal than a longbow, but without an appreciation of what the new metrics are (not the old ones we used to assess weaponry by) some people just will not recognise that.

I can unequivocably say that the Su-35 has overall better kinematic performance (hell even an F-104 outdoes the F-35 in many of the basics such as speed altitude etc). I can say that in a typical combat configuration (ie LO - no junk hanging off pylons) an F-35 will go into combat with probably less AAM's and or a smaller bomb load than competing 2/3/4th gen machines. If the F-35 was not a true 5th gen design, it would be toast compared to other 4th gens and possibly evenly matched to some 3rd gen aircraft.

But the F-35 is a 5th gen aircraft designed with LO from the get-go. The LO characteristics and the sensor fusion combined with other supporting elements (AWACS, tankers, LINK 16 etc) should mean the F-35 will be the most survivable and effective aircraft with the possible exception of the F-22 in some roles. Now there is a possibility that LO could turn out to be "The emperor's new clothes" (i.e. - not work). If that is the case we have purchased a fat turkey of an aircraft that will be "clubbed like baby seals" to quote from the clown club. However, given the proven success of LO in war, and the fact the People Who Know a Lot More About This Than Me reckon it will work - to the point that 13 of the best, most experienced and knowlegdgable airfleets in the world are betting on this, I'd reckon its a pretty sure bet.

So, you can argue all you want that the F-35 is too fat and doesn't have the correct L/D ratio or is too slow or has failed it's range KPF (by 6 miles!!!!) - at the end of the day it really sounds like the Longbowman complaining that the M16 or Steyr AUG is too short. Until the first combat encounter we won't know for sure but the initial signs are very reassuring.

If we listen to the naysayers, buy some greyhound of a 4th gen (F-15K or Eurofighter or Superbug) we risk being the longbowman bringing Yew to a gunfight.

My 5 cents worth.

Very well written mate. Perhaps the most well written summary in such a short number of sentences I have read in relation to this topic so far. No personal abuse - which is refreshing given that some here seem to think that personal abuse is ok.
You have really hit the nail on the head.
Very well informed , please keep up the post count.

 

[CheeZe]

Does anyone know whether Singapore has started considering whether to buy some F35s? I've not seen anything on the Straits Times or MinDef site. According to wikipedia (obviously not the best source), the Israelis have put in an order.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I would go further and say that in its multi-role, when loaded with 4-6 internal or more external A2A missiles, it is infact being an air to air combat aircraft



we have approval to buy 14, we had an initial plan 2 for 2014, then the 12 in 2016 and 17 to be Australian delivered end of 2017 for 2018 stand-up.
we have the 2 for 2014 ordered because of long lead time for some parts and the decision on what year the remaining 12 will be bought will be made in 2012/13 as planned, as was the year for the total 14 was to be made, re long lead time reason for the 2 already.
I don't know or have any idea really, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 12 will be from later years than 2016/17 because of the delayed SD and the estimated USAF IOC
From memory, I have only had 2 critical comment posts to you and don't think I'm flaming you, I'm just a pleb but some of what you post I find frustrating, no harm, no foul, just saying

Well Jack, thank you for your honesty, when the deputy air vice Marshall testifies before the senate and says we are buying two this year and keeping our options open on the other twelve, thats what I was talking about, and if you read Marc's post on the F-35, he lists what many of us old heads consider weaknesses, these are in addition to the fact that the US military has delayed purchasing 179 F-35s due to its many serious deficiencies which "are" at present, and "will" in the future delay its production. This is not naysaying or backbiting, or even crying over spilt milk, this is the reality of our situation. The United States is doing SLEs on 350 F-16s, and who knows how many A-10s and F18s to cover what will be a critical shortfall in our fighter capability. Vice Marshall Osley also affirmed that "Super Bugs are a very definate option if delays and rising costs continue", that from Reuters on Feb 15.

 

[jack412]

our situation is, how long we can keep our legacy hornets in the air, at this stage we are looking at 2020

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well Jack, thank you for your honesty, when the deputy air vice Marshall testifies before the senate and says we are buying two this year and keeping our options open on the other twelve, thats what I was talking about,

The options on the second 12 are to do with the timetable. There is no point buying 12 jets to equip the joint training unit if said joint training unit isn’t operational thanks to delays in the project. The Government – which controls the spending of monies – has authorised their purchase but that doesn’t mean the DoD will run in and buy them too early.

and if you read Marc's post on the F-35, he lists what many of us old heads consider weaknesses,

LOL. Well just in case anyone could construe this as a LOL of support let me clarify: LOL@Y [Laugh Out loud At You].

these are in addition to the fact that the US military has delayed purchasing 179 F-35s due to its many serious deficiencies which "are" at present, and "will" in the future delay its production. This is not naysaying or backbiting, or even crying over spilt milk, this is the reality of our situation. The United States is doing SLEs on 350 F-16s, and who knows how many A-10s and F18s to cover what will be a critical shortfall in our fighter capability. Vice Marshall Osley also affirmed that "Super Bugs are a very definate option if delays and rising costs continue", that from Reuters on Feb 15.

None of this is new but it’s a hell of a long way from the Australian DoD cancelling F-35 buys as you made out earlier.

 

[the road runner]

these are in addition to the fact that the US military has delayed purchasing 179 F-35s due to its many serious deficiencies which "are" at present, and "will" in the future delay its production.

So what are these "serious deficiencies"? I find this point brain numbing.You would rather build the Aircraft just to have it fielded by a certain date,instead of having a "defect free" Aircraft?

Anything that is cutting edge will have issues,but it seems to me LM have fixed issues as they arise.I think people underestimate the technology and engineering that has gone into the JSF.They just see it as another plane,but fail to see it is being built in 3 variants,while also retaining LO and being a flying sensor,that will feed this info onto other assets.

Show me any aircraft being built today(or ever) that is built for the 3 services, air force ,navy and marines,and has had a better development history than the JSF?

 

[jack412]

The f-16 that people wanted cancelled because of problems, over budget and being late.
Further reading on Block 1/5/10 is well worth it

read from page 5
http://archive.gao.gov/f0902c/105793.pdf
UNCERTAINTIES IN F-16 PROGRAM
In reviewing the F-16 program, GAO identified
a number of uncertainties. The following
are the most important, but there
are others. (See pp. 14 to 17.)
-- Critical development and operational
flight testing remains. (See pp. 17 and
!8.)
-- Issues of the F-16's ability to survive
and remlain invulnerable in battle remain
unresolved. Proposals to incorportate
modifications to increase the
F-16's survivability remain undecided.
(See p. 19.)
--The F-100 engine problems on the F-16 are
serious because it has only one engine
(compared to two for the F-15). (See
pp. 8 to 12.)
--The rate of loss for the F-16 due to engine
nmalfunction is currently estimated
by the Air Force to be three times higher
than that called for by Air Force specifications.
(See pp., 12 and 13.)

 

[the road runner]

There was a article on JSF and other Aircraft designs in the "HOME" section of Defence Talk a few months ago.I recall the F-18 hornets had 2000 airframe issues while it stated the JSF has 40 odd airframe issues.

Will try and find the link and post here.

Edit.I looked thru the defence Home page ,100 pages later i could not find the article.The article gives a flight cost per hour on the F-18($22k per hr) F-15($48k? per hr) and F-16($18k per hr) (Approx estimates)

 

[RobWilliams]

Thought i'd repost the link from another thread into this one (to prevent the other from going OT)

U.K. Reviewing Lockheed

In October 2010, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, who is scheduled to visit the U.S. and meet with President Barack Obama March 13-14, announced that Britain wouldn’t buy the F-35B model. Instead, the U.K. expressed interest in the Navy’s aircraft carrier version, which is projected to be cheaper than the short-takeoff and vertical landing model.

The U.K.’s reconsideration of the F-35B model is a “relatively new development” driven by “national U.K. financial constraints and what it costs” to modify its two future Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers so they could carry the U.S. Navy’s F-35C, Venlet said after a presentation to a Credit Suisse conference on defense programs yesterday in Arlington, Virginia.

IIRC wasn't the decision to opt for the C variant over the B mainly down to it being an ultimately cheaper and more effective platform for the UK to run?

Personally I hope they stick with the C.

 

[colay]

Some interesting feedback on the F-35 Mission Systems that were put to the test in the recent Bold Alligator 2012 exercises off the US East Coast. One can sense how much the Marines are looking forward to deploying the jet and the major impact it will create beyond the traditional roles as a weapons platform.

SLD Forum: Debating the Future

SLD: You were on the BAC1-11 where you saw the F-35 combat systems in operation. The platform is not an integrated sensor suite, but you could see the AESA radar function and the DAS system among others. How would describe the migration from the Harriers to the F-35s in terms of what these systems can do and will do?

..I just witnessed tremendous potential on the BAC1-11 to bring in high fidelity data, not only to know what is out there but also to be able to able to target at a much higher degree of accuracy than I have ever been able to do before. I almost felt like I was in an E2D, able so see that much battle space. What was missing for me was there was not another BAC1-11 out there to tie into and to share the sensor data, as we will do with the operational F-35s.

But even as a single platform, it was exponentially better than anything that I have seen in any platform. And I fly both the F-18s and Harriers now...

Maj. Gen. Jon M. Davis
2nd Marine Aircraft Wing Commanding General