F-35 news roundup

[Ken Cartwright]

AWS&T is doing a series of articles on stealth. In one, they discuss the attributes of the F-22 and F-35. Obviously their info is based on open source data and RCS is an incredibly complex subject. All that being said, they state that the F-22 has a reduced RCS compared to the F-35 (specifically from the front, although the F-22 also is significantly better from side and rear aspects). I found that interesting because for some reason, I was under the assumption that as a later design, the F-35 was superior to the F-22 in this area.

As you say, all the info we'd have access to is unclassified and unconfirmed, but the info I always remember reading was that the F-35 was about as stealthy from the front as the F-22, but not as stealthy from the side or rear aspects, so the AWS&T info is pretty much in line with what I remember hearing all along. Of course, I have no idea how accurate *any* of that is.

[TaiidanTomcat]

As you say, all the info we'd have access to is unclassified and unconfirmed, but the info I always remember reading was that the F-35 was about as stealthy from the front as the F-22, but not as stealthy from the side or rear aspects, so the AWS&T info is pretty much in line with what I remember hearing all along. Of course, I have no idea how accurate *any* of that is.

or if it changed...

[Ken Cartwright]

This has an annoying auto-play video, but it's the LockMart CEO talking about costs on the F-35. To no one's surprise, the current models are cheaper than the early models, down by 57% she says. She also says that they should have the price down to US$85M per plane by 2019.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lockheed-martin-ceo-price-f-110046166.html

[Gordon Shumway]

I've recently seen photos on line of F-35 flying with F-22 in England. It is very cool to see both flying side by side. F-22 is much larger but F-35 still looks pretty big too. You can see some similarities especially up front but F-22 has much larger vertical tails, where as both have similar sized horizontal tails. Wings of F-35 are smaller but not too small given its over all size. F-35 has grown on me by how cool it looks. I know coolness in visuals is not a directive to a capable combat jet, but she has really become a looker to my eyes.

Seeing the story of how its price is coming down and more and more of seeing it work in real service very well IMO it is the best choice for the RCAF.

[Gordon Shumway]

Just thinking, and I have a question. Yes, in the 372 pages here it probably has been answered but meh I'll ask again.

Why does the US Navy require the F-35C to have a larger wing as a major inter-variant difference?

Thanks in advance.

[Tony Stark]

Why does the US Navy require the F-35C to have a larger wing as a major inter-variant difference?

The larger wing permits a slower approach speed, useful when you're landing on the boat.

[Tony Stark]

FARNBOROUGH: USAF reopens door for GE to compete for future F-35 engine

The US Air Force has contractually re-opened the door for GE Aviation to challenge Pratt & Whitney for a potential propulsion upgrade for the Lockheed Martin F-35.

Both companies received separate $1 billion deals in early July to complete detailed designs of rival versions of an adaptive cycle engine, which includes a fuel-saving mode in cruise flight that can extend the range of a fighter by 20% to 30%.

Both deals also include priced options that, if exercised, could have GE and P&W run competing adaptive cycle engines in an F-35 after 2021, says Jean Lydon-Rogers, president of GE military engines. P&W also confirms receiving the same priced option in the contract awarded under adaptive engine transition programme (AETP).

The deals give GE an opportunity to re-enter the F-35 programme six years after Congress ordered the US Department of Defense to cancel the company’s F136, which was being developed as an alternate engine to the P&W F135.

The USAF launched the AETP programme to develop a next-generation engine for future combat aircraft, including a notional concept for a Lockheed F-22 replacement after 2030. Ongoing analyses for the so-called sixth-generation fighter includes a wide range of options, including a major upgrade of the F-35.

“One of the reasons we’re doing those technology programmes is for the possibility of an upgrade to the F-35,” says Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, speaking to journalists on 10 July in London.

GE has participated in the USAF’s adaptive cycle engine development efforts since 2007, keeping the company’s military engine technology up to date as P&W fields hundreds of F135 engines and develops an undisclosed propulsion system for the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber.

“The other thing we see for the [uS] Air Force as an advantage is we need to continue to advance our industrial base in those areas and our technology in the propulsion systems,” says Lt Gen Arnold Bunch, military deputy for the assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition.

An adaptive cycle engine is intended to save fuel in engines designed for high speed and fast acceleration. A conventional supersonic engine uses a minimum of fuel-saving air flow bypassing the engine core. An adaptive engine opens a second stream of bypass air flow in cruise flight, allowing the aircraft to reduce fuel burn while not rapidly accelerating or taking-off.

The USAF kicked off development of the adaptive engine programme in 2007 with GE only. In 2012, P&W and GE were both selected to continue development under the adaptive engine technology development programme. The award of the AETP contracts last will bring both companies to close to a final design of a new engine with adaptive cycle technology.

[Gordon Shumway]

The larger wing permits a slower approach speed, useful when you're landing on the boat.

Thanks, makes sense. Do you or any others know how much slower of an approach speed does F-35C have over F-35A? I know B model has a technically 0.00mph approach speed. :lol:/>

Also any info on how the larger wing on C affect maneuverability both short and quick and also sustained? I seem to recall the max. G load on C is a bit less than A or B variants, why would that be?

Edited July 12, 2016 by Gordon Shumway

[Colin K]

Honestly, the only people surprised by Canada edging closer and closer to buying the SH are the Boeing reps. Why? Because they, in all likelihood, have finally found someone dumb enough to go against all the studies done in F-35 vs SH and actually select the loser in the SH :blink:/>/> . It hurts the head :wacko:/>/> . Yes the Cf-18's need to be replaced and a replacement should have been selected already. But this is nothing new. As another ARC'er posted, this sudden urgency to buy now is just a ruse to save a certain someone's six before the SH can no longer be considered due to production ceasing. I would bet Boeing has been incessant about reminding Canada that it's now or never for the SH...hence the "buy it now" frenzy. Scandalous really. If the RCAF is forced (which is what it will be) to take on the SH it will be because of face saving and nothing more. The losers will be the RCAF and the Canadian tax payers. But hey, he-that-can-not-be-named won't be around when the real fallout starts. He knows that will be someone else's headache a la EH-101.

:cheers:/>/>

That appears to be the way I see things heading. To go from no worries to we now have a capability gap, seemed really suspicious. The "interim" buy will all of a sudden morph into a permanent buy and no competition will be held.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Colin K

[MarkW]

Thanks, makes sense. Do you or any others know how much slower of an approach speed does F-35C have over F-35A? I know B model has a technically 0.00mph approach speed. :lol:/>/>

Also any info on how the larger wing on C affect maneuverability both short and quick and also sustained? I seem to recall the max. G load on C is a bit less than A or B variants, why would that be?

The C has a maximum landing speed requirement of 145kts, the others come in around 160-180 IIRC and depending on what they are bringing back. The Brits and Marines were looking at a 20 kt rolling landing to enable them to bring back more weight for the B model. They've already tested that capability, the jet can do it.

The larger wing should increase drag and lift, so the C is a tad slower than the other two. But keep in mind the 7g versus 9g business is all about what the services do with the jet. It's also why the A has an internal gun, and the B & C carries a pod. The Navy and Corps use it primarily as an attack jet, the USAF as a purer F-16 replacement. The airframes were certified to different g loadings, doesn't mean the B or C couldn't pull 9 necessarily.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Document: U.S. Naval Aviation Vision 2016-2025

10 Jun 2016 USN/NavAir

"...Fifth-Generation Fighter:

F-35B/C Lightning II The supersonic, multi-role, multi-service F-35 Lightning II represents a quantum leap in air superiority capability. Combining the next-generation fighter characteristics of radar-evading stealth, supersonic speed and fighter agility with the most powerful and comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft in history, the F-35 delivers unprecedented lethality and survivability to Naval Aviation.

Advanced avionics equip the pilot with real-time, spherical access to battlespace information. Commanders at sea, in the air and on the ground are empowered with the F-35’s instantaneous, high-fidelity view of ongoing operations integrating data from the MQ-4C Triton, P-8A Poseidon, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, EA-18G Growler and FA-18E/F Super Hornet.

Marine Corps Variant: F-35B

The F-35B represents the centerpiece of the Marine Corps Aviation transformation, replacing both the AV-8B Harrier and F/A-18 Hornet. The single-seat strike fighter will revolutionize close-air support of ground forces by leveraging unmatched, fifth-generation stealth, enhanced precision strike and multi-spectral, integrated sensors, along with the expeditionary responsiveness of a short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) fighter-attack platform. The F-35B can operate from damaged airstrips and austere expeditionary operating sites as well as land bases and large deck amphibious ships.

Carrier Variant: F-35C

The F-35C, flown by the Navy and the Marine Corps, is capable of overcoming a variety of threats—surface-to-air missiles, air-to-air missiles and tactical aircraft— while enhancing mission success through its unprecedented stealth-at-sea capability, fused targeting, advanced jamming, network-enabled operations threat system detection, command and control supremacy, and interoperability with other aircraft. With a broad wingspan, reinforced landing gear and durable coatings, the F-35C can withstand harsh shipboard conditions while delivering a lethal combination of fighter capabilities to the fleet...."

&

"...Strike Warfare: Integrated Lethality

Key Naval Aviation strike warfare capabilities are embodied in the F-35B/C Lightning II, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler, as well as battle management and intelligence support from the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. The F- 35B/C will deliver needed stealth, sensing and command-and-control capabilities to the future air wing. The F-35B/C is also designed to share its operational picture with other aircraft, particularly the F/A- 18E/F, enabling Super Hornets to conduct strike and anti-air attacks with stand-off weapons. The F-35B/C will integrate various active and passive sensors from multiple aircraft into its operational picture. This process automatically formulates weapons tracks for each target to share with other aircraft and ships so they can then engage the target.

Expeditionary Warfare: From the Sea, Ready to Fight with Today’s Force

The Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) is a balanced air-ground, combined arms task organization of Marine Corps forces under a single commander structured to accomplish a specific mission. The MAGTF can move from over the horizon into hostile areas, from blue water into green water, and the commander can project forces ashore at any time or place. Moving forces this way requires sealift, at-sea vertical and surface connectors and a fleet of amphibious vehicles. A critical enabler of a MAGTF is the integration of the air component with the ground component.

As U.S. forces move closer to shore in forcible entry scenarios, ships and units comprising the MAGTF will separate into smaller units to re-form on a fluid battlespace. The Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) is the “middleweight” MAGTF, which can be aggregated for large-scale combat or broken down into smaller, more agile teams below the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) level, and frequently down to the company landing team (CLT) level. The MEB is the steady state for forcible entry, while the MEU is evolving, maneuvering and adapting, posturing its MAGTF for success—in an aggregated or disaggregated form; executing split operations, integrating Special Operations Forces, working from prepositioned equipment and advanced expeditionary bases...."

Interesting:

Report: F-35 Would Have Saved Italy €100M in Libya

12 Jul 2016 Tom Kington

"FARNBOROUGH, England — As the F-35 makes its debut in the UK, an Italian think tank has claimed that if Italy had used the fighter in its 2011 air campaign against Libya it would have saved €100 million (US $110 million)....

...The report takes Italy’s role in the 2011 NATO air campaign against Libya as a test case, analyzing the number and type of aircraft used.

The Italian Air Force participated in the international operation using Tornado aircraft, which deployed the Storm Shadow missile for the first time, and AMX aircraft, also for bombing runs.

Tornado ECR aircraft were used for air-defense suppression, while F-16s and Eurofighters flew no-fly zone patrols. C-130J and 767 tanker aircraft were used for refueling.

Italian Navy AV-8s also made bombing sorties from the decks of the Italian carrier Garibaldi.

The report pointed to the need for Tornado and other aircraft to be re-based to Trapani in Sicily to reduce flying distances to Libya, due to their limited range, adding that both 767 and C-130J tanking flights were still required.

If the F-35 had already been delivered to the Amendola air base in Italy, where it is due to be based, no re-basing would have been required for the aircraft, the report argued. The F-35B STOVL design, due to be ordered by Italy alongside the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, would have been able to fly from land, doing away with the need to involve the Garibaldi, the report added.

Using the F-35 would also have reduced the need for so many types of jet and cut down on the need for airborne early-warning missions, ISTAR missions and tanking missions, the report said.

The end result would have been a saving of two-thirds on the €150 million cost of the mission, the report stated."

That appears to be the way I see things heading. To go from no worries to we now have a capability gap, seemed really suspicious. The "interim" buy will all of a sudden morph into a permanent buy and no competition will be held.

When you have a chance to get Canada out of the air war fighting business you take it. Buy Yesterdays plane, use it for the future, and you never have to fight a day in your life

[Tony Stark]

Tyler Rogoway's least favorite Norwegian, Major Morten “Dolby” Hanche is back. Major Hanche is a pilot from the Royal Norwegian Air Force experienced pilot with more than 2,200 hours in the F-16, as well as a graduate of the U.S. Navy Test Pilot School, and is the first Norwegian to fly the F-35. Earlier this year, Major Hanche "cleared the air" so to speak, about what flying the F-35 in BFM was actually like. And he's back to tell us about his experiences flying against Draken's A-4s

In this post I’m giving a brief overview of my impressions after having flown several sorties over the past few weeks against A-4 Skyhawks. This post is intended as a supplement to my previous posts on modern air combat and stealth.

First thing first – is it relevant to train air combat against an old A-4? Can we draw any relevant lessons from this at all? After all, this is an aircraft that served during the Vietnam war!

I believe this kind of training is relevant for several reasons:

• The F-35’s sensors and “fusion” provides me as a pilot with good situational awareness. For an F-35 to simulate an opponent against another F-35, it has to restrict the effects of fusion and the various sensors. Even then it is difficult to “dumb down” the aircraft enough. It requires discipline to not be tempted to using information that an opponent in reality would not have access to.
  
• The A-4s we faced in these exercises had sensor performance along the lines of our own upgraded F-16s. They also carried jammers intended to disturb our radar.
  
• The pilots we faced were very experienced. We are talking 2000 hours plus in aircraft like the F-16, F-15E, F-15C and the F-22, with detailed knowledge of “fifth generation” tactics and weapons. When also cooperating closely with intercept controllers on the ground (GCI) they could adapt the training and offer us a reactive and challenging opponent. Note the word “reactive.”
  
• The A-4 is a small aircraft with a corresponding signature. Many potential opponents in the air are bigger and easier to find than the tiny A-4.
  

So what did I experience in my encounters with the A-4? I got to try out several different sets. (Everything from one-on-one “Basic Fighter Maneuvers” to one F-35 against two A-4s, two F-35s against two A-4s, two F-35s against four A-4s and three F-35s against four A-4s). I am left with some main impressions.

• The individual sensors of the F-35, one for one, are good. I flew one sortie alone against two A-4s, and limited myself to using only the radar during these sets (no support from ground controllers, no Link-16, no data sharing from other formation members, no support from passive radar warning systems or IFF – Identification Friend or Foe). Nonetheless my radar detected the targets in time for me to optimize my intercept, deliver weapons at range, and if necessary, arrive undetected to the visual arena.
  
• “Fusion” means both automatic control of the various sensors, and the combination of all different sensor data into one unified tactical picture. I believe “fusion” to be one of the most important aspects of the F-35. “Fusion” allows me to focus on the tactics, rather than detailed management of my sensors. In my encounters with the A-4s, “fusion” worked better than I have seen it before. It was reassuring to see how well it worked. The good «situational picture» that I saw provides us with several advantages; we can make smarter tactical decisions, and it takes less time before we can gain full “tactical value” from fresh pilots. (I had to smile a little when two of us in the F-35s effortlessly kept tabs on four opponents. That is no trivial thing in the F-16.)
  
• The most important lesson for me personally was to see just how hard it was for the A-4s to find us, even with GCI support. We deliberately made high-risk tactical decisions to see just how far we could stretch our luck, and still remain undetected. At least for my part, this reinforced my confidence in the effectiveness of our tactics. I hope all my colleagues in the F-35 get to have the same experience as I have.
  

(BFM – F-35 against A-4, might not be fair. Still, the A-4 started as the offensive part every time. At the end of each set, I was pointing at the A-4. Every time.)

[TaiidanTomcat]

Tyler Rogoway's least favorite Norwegian, Major Morten “Dolby” Hanche is back. Major Hanche is a pilot from the Royal Norwegian Air Force experienced pilot with more than 2,200 hours in the F-16, as well as a graduate of the U.S. Navy Test Pilot School, and is the first Norwegian to fly the F-35. Earlier this year, Major Hanche "cleared the air" so to speak, about what flying the F-35 in BFM was actually like. And he's back to tell us about his experiences flying against Draken's A-4s

You for get yourself sir!

I make not a dime from a contractor, have no family related to the program or any other, have never worked for big defense or for the military. Can’t get much more unbias than that.

--tyler rogoaway

So you expect me to believe an actual military/test pilot with thousands of hours in multiple types including the F-35 over a blogger who holds his total lack of experience as a virtue?

Do you even internet, Mr. Stark?

[Emvar]

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/07/11/replacing-the-cf-18-whats-the-plan-mr-sajjan/

Looks like they may not purchase an interm replacement aircraft. Instead upgrade the CF-18 until the replacement aircraft reaches the fleet.

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/07/11/replacing-the-cf-18-whats-the-plan-mr-sajjan/

Looks like they may not purchase an interm replacement aircraft. Instead upgrade the CF-18 until the replacement aircraft reaches the fleet.

Nice link. Thank you.

[Dmanton300]

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/07/11/replacing-the-cf-18-whats-the-plan-mr-sajjan/

Looks like they may not purchase an interm replacement aircraft. Instead upgrade the CF-18 until the replacement aircraft reaches the fleet.

Do the Canadians have that much chewing gum and bailing twine to keep them flying?

[Don]

I think the plan from the previous Canadian Administration was to upgrade the existing Cf-18 fleet to such standards that it would make some of them viable (flyable?) until 2025. In the meantime Canada would begin taking deliveries of the F-35 so that by 2025 when the last Cf-18 was put out to pasture Canada would be well into taking on the F-35. But the current Administration has vehemently opposed and derided the F-35 and said that they would not buy the AC whatsoever, instead searching for a cheaper alternative (enter the Super Hornet talk). What I took from the above linked article is now the current Administration is essentially edging towards adopting the plan of the previous Administration that it criticized so emphatically during the last election with regards the Cf-18 upgrades and possibly the F-35. Perhaps someone is waking up and wondering why the F-35 and not the SH is the AC of choice for NATO countries looking to replace older AC? I hope so. I mean the clock is rapidly winding down on the SH so if Canada doesn't act very soon that option is gone. That's why I thought the big rush was on to buy the SH. Once its no longer an option what's left? It would be much easier for Trudeau to extract himself from the small corner that he painted himself into by saying that with no alternatives available Canada will be forced to select the F-35. Thus, with no other viable option he gets to save face. This will be interesting to watch play out.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Do the Canadians have that much chewing gum and bailing twine to keep them flying?

Basically yes they do, providing they pay to keep them going, and don't dither on the timeline. Even more so because canada is not just buying fighters and you dont want a "bow wave" of stuff all coming due at the same time.

This would require foresight and decisiveness. So you can see why i am worried

Edited July 13, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

LM PR video

[Don]

Cool video. Thanks for posting .

[Emvar]

Cool video.

[Murph]

It would be much easier for Trudeau to extract himself from the small corner that he painted himself into by saying that with no alternatives available Canada will be forced to select the F-35. Thus, with no other viable option he gets to save face. This will be interesting to watch play out.

They could always buy some Flankers instead.

Pulls pin, throws grenade, and runs away.

[Don]

They could always buy some Flankers instead...

Good granny Murph don't give the guy anymore stupid ideas!

:lol:

[Tony Stark]

[11bee]

Not sure I'm feeling good about Turkey flying F-35s. Hope it works out...