F-35 news roundup

[wh1skea]

Test I'm waiting on is the carrier catapult test for the F-35C

[-Neu-]

Ask you shall receive:

[GreyGhost]

Right now, the tricky part is the arrested landing ...

-Gregg

[wh1skea]

I knew they did the on land cat launch, I'm waiting for the elevated cat launch.

[MarkW]

I knew they did the on land cat launch, I'm waiting for the elevated cat launch.

There certainly will be a cool factor, but it too should be uneventful unless the cat fails. As you probably noticed from watching the video, the jet actually doesn't have any trouble and takes off pretty cleanly. I wouldn't expect to see a big dip from an elevated launch, especially when you factor in such things as wind over deck.

As for the whole AIM-9X during the weapons test bit, keep in mind flight test is highly scripted and there is very little of what we would call "opportunistic" testing. Those missiles were carried during the bomb drop simply because they were supposed to be on the aircraft during the bomb drop, there's nothing more complicated to it than that.

[Kei Lau]

As for the whole AIM-9X during the weapons test bit, keep in mind flight test is highly scripted and there is very little of what we would call "opportunistic" testing. Those missiles were carried during the bomb drop simply because they were supposed to be on the aircraft during the bomb drop, there's nothing more complicated to it than that.

Will the AIM-9X be carried internally or externally in a typical bombing mission? How would the external AIM-9X impact the radar cross section of the JSF?

I understand that flight test is highly scripted. But wouldn't it be scripted to mimic a real mission?

Droping bomb is not a real challenge. I suspect that the real test is how fast F-35 can open bomb bay door, dispense bomb and close door. It will be a fantastic video. It is a stealth aircraft which wants to be undetected.

[11bee]

How would the external AIM-9X impact the radar cross section of the JSF?

Anything external would have a big impact on the RCS. All depends on the threat environment. An F-35 with a couple of AIM-9's mounted externally would surely still be much less detectable then a similarly configured F/A-18E.

[GreyGhost]

I agree, the AIM-9s were probably on there to see if they'd affect the airflow at all with the bomb deployment ...

-Gregg

[MarkW]

AIM-9X isn't intended for internal carry. The vast majority of F-35 missions won't require stealth, so carrying the AIM-9X most of the time makes sense.

[mawz]

Will the AIM-9X be carried internally or externally in a typical bombing mission? How would the external AIM-9X impact the radar cross section of the JSF?

I understand that flight test is highly scripted. But wouldn't it be scripted to mimic a real mission?

Droping bomb is not a real challenge. I suspect that the real test is how fast F-35 can open bomb bay door, dispense bomb and close door. It will be a fantastic video. It is a stealth aircraft which wants to be undetected.

Dropping bombs can be a real challenge, look how badly the Super Hornet's performance was affected due to canted pylons necessary to get good weapons separation. All because someone, somewhere assumed that the behaviour wouldn't change significantly from the legacy Hornet.

[mawz]

AIM-9X isn't intended for internal carry. The vast majority of F-35 missions won't require stealth, so carrying the AIM-9X most of the time makes sense.

AIM-9X Block II has Lock after Launch capability and is intended for Internal Carry on F-35 and F-22, it's currently in testing and likely will enter service with the F-35.

[Aggressor01]

VMFT-401, my squadron, the only aggressor squadron in the USMC, will be heading to Eglan AFB later this month to do some blue vs red with the JSF. I'll keep my ear to the ground for some juicy morsels to drop on this thread.

[Kei Lau]

The vast majority of F-35 missions won't require stealth.

Your point being??? :wacko:

I am confused.

[mawz]

Your point being??? :wacko:

I am confused.

External ordnance is going to be commonly carried on the F-35 unless the mission profile requires stealth. Since the most common Air-to-ground mission is going to be JDAM/CAS, it's likely that the F-35 will normally carry AIM-9X externally when dropping bombs.

[Kei Lau]

External ordnance is going to be commonly carried on the F-35 unless the mission profile requires stealth. Since the most common Air-to-ground mission is going to be JDAM/CAS, it's likely that the F-35 will normally carry AIM-9X externally when dropping bombs.

Are we paying for all those stealth feature for nothing, or very little benefit? Why not just build more Strike Eagle for the USAF and more Super Hornet for the Navy and supplement them with a small number of JSF? Both of them can carry more bomb on external pylon than the F-35 anyway, if that is the mission calls for. The F-35 can be dedicated to missions that require stealth.

I don't know enough to proposed that, but I have heard those argument before. It seems to me that you guys were saying the same thing.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Kei Lau

[mawz]

Are we paying for all those stealth feature for nothing, or very little benefit? Why not just build more Strike Eagle for the USAF and more Super Hornet for the Navy and supplement them with a small number of JSF? Both of them can carry more bomb on external pylon than the F-35 anyway, if that is the mission calls for. The F-35 can be dedicated to missions that require stealth.

I don't know enough to proposed that, but I have heard those argument before. It seems to me that you guys were saying the same thing.

The F-35 can do both missions, the F-15E and the F-18E can't do the stealth mission (and F-35 is the F-16 replacement, not F-15E, which will continue to be used for heavy strike missions that the F-16 and F-35 lack the legs and payload for)). Also the F-35 is a fair bit more flexible than the F-18E doing the same mission, it doesn't lose its supersonic capability when carrying pylons, has a larger payload (albeit only marginally, 18,000lbs vs 17,750) and has longer range. Frankly the F-35 can do most of the current F-18E loadouts on internal fuel/armament only, or with only AAM's on pylons.

Frankly, the F-18E is not nearly as good a strike platform as the F-35, the little oops with the pylon design constrains its performance envelope too much when carrying any pylons. F-15E is better than F-35, but it's still going to be in the inventory until a future replacement is developed. F-16 is not as capable as F-35 either, and has similar constraints to the legacy Hornet (less legs than F-35 or F-18E, but without the F-18E's pylon issue).

The F-35 makes sense as the Hornet replacement (and remember, it's replacing legacy Hornets and F-16's as well as AV-8B's for the initial procurement), it offers more capability than either Hornet variant (Legacy or SH) and does pretty much every strike mission better than the Hornets. A clean Hornet is arguably a better pure fighter in terms of manoueverability, but without the datalink capability and stealth of the F-35. And of course since there's only so many aircraft available on a carrier, going F-35 gives a fair bit more flexibility to the Carrier's Air Wing, since it can do most of the Hornet missions (All but Growler or Buddy Refueling) and can do penetration strikes that Hornet cannot do.

[MarkW]

AIM-9X Block II has Lock after Launch capability and is intended for Internal Carry on F-35 and F-22, it's currently in testing and likely will enter service with the F-35.

It doesn't matter what the weapon is designed for in this case. What I said was accurate. The AIM-9X isn't intended for internal carry on F-35, which is true. Internal AIM-9X launchers are not part of the program of record, and until someone plans for and budgets for that capability, it is simply speculation. Looking at all the weapons planned for the jet that will be waiting for the post 2020 timeframe before they are certified, an internal carry AIM-9X isn't quite on the list yet. Which means in real terms internal AIM-9X is a decade away, give or take.

Are we paying for all those stealth feature for nothing, or very little benefit? Why not just build more Strike Eagle for the USAF and more Super Hornet for the Navy and supplement them with a small number of JSF? Both of them can carry more bomb on external pylon than the F-35 anyway, if that is the mission calls for. The F-35 can be dedicated to missions that require stealth.

The F-35 brings so much more to that table than LO. But keeping that in mind, if the F-35 was available in 2001, would you have had them sit out the last ten years of war in Afghanistan? And not sure where you get math, but the F-35 has just as many stations dedicated to weapons as the F/A-18E/F (ignore the total payload number for now). The F/A-18E/F has three hard points per wing, at least one of which is for an external fuel tank. The F-35 has two per wing (ignore stations 1 & 11, which are the AIM-9X only stations), and two internal, none of which need to be used for fuel. 5 < 6, if my math is correct. And Superbugs rarely go heavy with just one gas bag.

The overall payload number is almost completely irrelevant, because even with 6 2000 bombs on board, both jets only get up to 12,000. Throw in your 4 AIMs on an F-35 or Superbug, you still only get up to maybe ~14,000.

Also, I'm not 100% positive a Strike Eagle is better. For going heavy, the most I've seen is 5 2000lb JDAMs, which is one less than F-35. While the F-15E has 12 body stations and the centerline, they usually don't use them all at the same time. You could put 12 500lb JDAMs,, which is more than the F-35 is currently planned to carry, but there is no reason you couldn't put dual externals on the F-35 hard point and carry conceivably 10 500lbg bombs (note I am kind of making this up as there isn't a plan for this yet). The F-15E does have far superior combat range, though.

Back to the LO, the one time you need it, you have to have it. You can climb an 8 foot fence with a 10 ft ladder or a 25 foot ladder. You can't ever climb a 20 foot fence with that 10 ft ladder, though. Over the 30 years we plan to operate the F-035, we expect there will be a lot more 8 ft fences, but we also expect we'll run into a 20 ft fence every now and then too.

There's a lot more to F-35 than the LO, too, as has been pointed out. The level of in cockpit SA will be unprecedented, as well as the ability for a four ship to operate seamlessly. If we could bring the F-35 sensor suite to Afghanistan today, versus having our fighters externally queued by Predators and Reapers (or the manned ISR platforms), I'd be surprised if it didn't make a difference with fleeting targets and CAS.

[Devilleader501]

This argument is kind of dumb if you ask me. The F-35 was developed to make use of a bunch of technologies not just stealth. Anyone asking why would we develop a stealth aircraft but never use it is ridiculous. Its like going on a long trip with a mechanic sitting in the back seat and not bringing tools along for him to use if there is a break down. Its always better to have and not need rather than need and not have. The F-35 is kind of like a do it all aircraft. It can do everything any other aircraft can do only it does it with one aircraft and not 5. Dont think there wont be a variant of an Electronic Warfare F-35 sometime in the near future. The Marines are currently working on a pod designed for the Harrier that ultimately does the same thing the Prowler does.

That being said the F-35 has an internal fuel load of 2,700 gallons the F-18E-F have roughly 2,100. The F-35 is lighter and can also take off with more weight than the Hornet as well. The harrier carries almost 1,200 gallons internally and is outdated and needs to be replaced. the costs of fixing an aircraft will be cut as well. 1 engine instead of 2 for starters and also there being more of one aircraft, parts will be mass produced in huge volumes reducing costs rather than producing 50 parts for 15 different aircraft.

[11bee]

The F-35 brings so much more to that table than LO. But keeping that in mind, if the F-35 was available in 2001, would you have had them sit out the last ten years of war in Afghanistan?

Absolutely. If anyone can explain why we need a $400 million dollar, stealth fighter to provide CAS support against an enemy that has zero air defense capabilities when we have multiple legacy platforms, including UAV's, that already do the job just fine. What are we afraid of? That someone with a bias will make a big deal about the F-35 not getting in on the action, in the same manner that they are slagging the USAF for not deploying the F-22 in these conflicts?

What exactly does the F-35 "bring to the table" that is so critical and is not provided by the current force? I highly doubt that the radar is going to be able to track a single Taliban on foot, so that can't be it. Don't think we have a big need for it's sophisticated electrical attack capabilities against an adversary that uses cell phones and Radio Shack walkie talkies. If it's the IR system, we seem to be making out pretty well with the current targeting pods. So what else does the F-35 bring to a low intensity conflict like this?

Also, to date, I think the US has lost 6-7 jets to operational issues while supporting the mission. I know the F-35 is just so much better than all the other jets but I'd still wager a guess that if it was deployed at the same tempo, beginning in 2001, we would have probably had a couple of them go down. No jet is perfect and the loss of even a single F-35 in theater would be a big PR event for the bad guys and the skeptics over here.

Lastly, is the USAF not making a huge issue of the impact of this conflict (and Iraq) on the lifespan of it's existing fleet of tactical jets (and transports for that matter)? Not sure of how many hours the F-35 is designed for but do we really want to burn a good percentage of it's design life on a mission like this? It's not like the AF can wear them out, park them out in the desert and then order another few hundred. Those days are long gone.

Edited August 13, 2012 by 11bee

[-Neu-]

Absolutely. If anyone can explain why we need a $400 million dollar, stealth fighter to provide CAS support against an enemy that has zero air defense capabilities when we have multiple legacy platforms, including UAV's, that already do the job just fine. What are we afraid of? That someone with a bias will make a big deal about the F-35 not getting in on the action, in the same manner that they are slagging the USAF for not deploying the F-22 in these conflicts?

Because Afghanistan and Iraq will be the exception, rather than the rule. We dodged a bullet in Lybia as the Russians did not deliver the AD capabilities they had on order. One of the complicating factors with an intervention with Syria or Iran s the fact they do possess advanced SAM systems not previously faced. Most of our near-term potential adversaries have the S-300 system in their inventory, if not the S-400. Does that mean the F-35 is be all and end all vs them? Of course not. But it does have features that enhance its survivability over that of legacy systems. CAS in the future very likely will not be in benign airspace, but a semi-contested one where low observable systems will have an advantage.

What exactly does the F-35 "bring to the table" that is so critical and is not provided by the current force? I highly doubt that the radar is going to be able to track a single Taliban on foot, so that can't be it. Don't think we have a big need for it's sophisticated electrical attack capabilities against an adversary that uses cell phones and Radio Shack walkie talkies. If it's the IR system, we seem to be making out pretty well with the current targeting pods. So what else does the F-35 bring to a low intensity conflict like this?

Actually, yes the radar will be able to track a single Taliban on foot, the EOTS is significantly ahead any system currently in service, as is being able to fuse data onboard from X number of off-board sensors... all of which will enhance our ability to conduct low intensity operations. Its tough to say that we're "doing well" or not with our current systems. There are always instances where we could have more data, or be able to more effectively process the information we do have. Basically the F-35's avionics better integrates pilots into the information stream so they can make better decisions. Having the ability to draw together data from several different aircraft, then processing it in order provide a better picture of the situation is the real wizbang capability of the F-35, not the stealth.

[11bee]

Because Afghanistan and Iraq will be the exception, rather than the rule. CAS in the future very likely will not be in benign airspace, but a semi-contested one where low observable systems will have an advantage.

Agree 100% and in those scenarios you mentioned, the F-35 will be a game changer. However, I was replying to a previous poster's specific question on whether the F-35 (had it been available in 2001) should have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Even if it does bring new tricks to the game, I still don't think it would be worth deploying the F-35 to Afghanistan when other, vastly cheaper platforms, seem to be getting the job done.

I am still curious as to what the design life is of the F-35. I did a very quick Google search, didn't see much out there.

[-Neu-]

Agree 100% and in those scenarios you mentioned, the F-35 will be a game changer. However, I was replying to a previous poster's specific question on whether the F-35 (had it been available in 2001) should have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Even if it does bring new tricks to the game, I still don't think it would be worth deploying the F-35 to Afghanistan when other, vastly cheaper platforms, seem to be getting the job done.

I am still curious as to what the design life is of the F-35. I did a very quick Google search, didn't see much out there.

8000 hours which might be able to be extended if need be. The diagnostic system on the F-35 will likely be extremely useful in fleet management, identifying problems with individual airframes, as well as systemic ones.

And I'd be careful about making predictions about the F-35's operational costs. It is intended to operate differently from traditional maintenance practices. LM has tried to adopt some of the best practices associated with the civilian aviation industry to drive down operational costs. How (and whether) that will work in practice is anyone's guess.

[MarkW]

I'd approach it just from the logistics tail. In Kandahar, there were numerous A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18s, Tornados, etc. Imagine if there was only one airframe, and one airframe that could actually loiter for more than an hour. Get rid of the Project liberty guys and Predators/Reapers, and how much did you just save?

[GreyGhost]

I'd approach it just from the logistics tail. In Kandahar, there were numerous A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18s, Tornados, etc. Imagine if there was only one airframe, and one airframe that could actually loiter for more than an hour. Get rid of the Project liberty guys and Predators/Reapers, and how much did you just save?

Just imagine if there's just the one airframe in service and there's a Fleet-Wide grounding ... <_<

-Gregg

[11bee]

I'd approach it just from the logistics tail. In Kandahar, there were numerous A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18s, Tornados, etc. Imagine if there was only one airframe, and one airframe that could actually loiter for more than an hour. Get rid of the Project liberty guys and Predators/Reapers, and how much did you just save?

It is an appealing concept, replacing every single fighter and ISR platform in the theater with the F-35. I just don't think it is even close to practical, both from a logistical and cost standpoint. How many jets would you need to fill all those slots, even if the F-35 is the ultimate multi-tasker?