F-35 Lightning info

[Clark Griswold]

Trying to get three more partners on the 35 team...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-australia-lockheed-idUSKBN16A0DW

And from the internet so caveat emptor, some F-35 vs. Su-35 analysis...

https://www.asian-defence.net/2011/05/usa-f-35-jsf-vs-russian-su-35s.html

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-35-stealth-fighter-vs-russias-su-35-who-wins-13855

Two Youtube videos on a hypothetical 4 v 4, defending and attacking setups with Flankers vs Lightings:

Part 1

Part 2

 

[Sprkt69]

Those videos are awful. 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Sprkt69

[HU&W]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Two Youtube videos on a hypothetical 4 v 4, defending and attacking setups with Flankers vs Lightings:

Part 1

Part 2

 

You've been assesses five penalty shots for posting those videos.  Beverage of choice.  That sock puppet was slightly below average compared to most intel briefings.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Sprkt69 said:

Those videos are awful. 

Can't argue they are wanting.

8 minutes ago, HU&W said:

You've been assesses five penalty shots for posting those videos.  Beverage of choice.  That sock puppet was slightly below average compared to most intel briefings.

Thank you sir may I have another!

Yeah, they are not to referenced in a 3-1 or besides my spurious post but they stir the pot for a discussion on a "4++" vs 5th gen.  From his musings, I thought there was one point worthy of discussion, can a 4th gen that is likely one of the best of its class, can it maximize its best qualities (energy potential, combat load, radar/IRST) to overcome an LO opponent?

[HU&W]

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

can a 4th gen that is likely one of the best of its class, can it maximize its best qualities (energy potential, combat load, radar/IRST) to overcome an LO opponent?

Yes

[Clark Griswold]

Agreed - from the articles/videos, the super flankers stand a chance if enough can survive either the first volley and/or get close enough for the surviving formation to overlap sensors to get SA (still BVR but close enough to find a Lighting)

Break, break...

Possible Polish F-35s in a few years:

https://www.defence24.com/251668,new-fighter-for-the-polish-air-force-f-35-complementing-the-f-16

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

Long article on the F-35, basically a huge airing of grievances...

Read with a dash of salt but worth the time

https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-is-a-terrible-fighter-bomber-and-attacker-and-unfit-for-aircraft-carriers/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xcraftllc]

Sweet Jesus that was long. I'd say about 6-9 times longer than the average millennial could take.

Mostly issues that are already known and basically a reminder that this program has some serious lessons learned (and relearned) that can't happen again (again). Frankly if you look at many other acquisition programs, most end up being a flying circle jerk circus like this anyway, a sad result of politics and the shear complexity of such endeavors. (Knocking on wood) at least no one has died during this one. I'm not sure about the accuracy of some of that, but that hourly operating cost is alarming if it's even remotely accurate. We need GE's Adaptive Cycle Engine for the A model like yesterday. That ALIS stuff was pretty comical and I can totally believe it having been a maintainer myself in a previous life. In their defense, they're probably stuck with 10 year old computer technology due to contract BS and software issues.

[Clark Griswold]

Sweet Jesus that was long. I'd say about 6-9 times longer than the average millennial could take.
Mostly issues that are already known and basically a reminder that this program has some serious lessons learned (and relearned) that can't happen again (again). Frankly if you look at many other acquisition programs, most end up being a flying circle jerk circus like this anyway, a sad result of politics and the shear complexity of such endeavors. (Knocking on wood) at least no one has died during this one. I'm not sure about the accuracy of some of that, but that hourly operating cost is alarming if it's even remotely accurate. We need GE's Adaptive Cycle Engine for the A model like yesterday. That ALIS stuff was pretty comical and I can totally believe it having been a maintainer myself in a previous life. In their defense, they're probably stuck with 10 year old computer technology due to contract BS and software issues.

Yeah - it was a laundry list and while it has plenty of faults it also has a lot of good points just not the price tag. I am very skeptical of the purported decreases in price and think that is the most important and legitimate criticism of the JSF - the effect that it likely has had on other modernization/replacement programs. My suspicion is as the program grew in cost money was reprogrammed ahead of required public disclosures or decisions were made not to even propose other acquisitions as there was no money left as the JSF got further over budget - that is probably its biggest fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[daynightindicator]

I wonder if we (DOD) also happened to make this mistake at the worst possible inflection point. When requirements were being drawn up and put under contract, the internet was a novelty, cell phones were just moving out of he zack Morris era, computing power and data storage was very limited, concepts like cloud storage, social media were in their infancy, and end-to-end encryption was still the sole property of major world governments.

The democratization of data and technology unfolded at a blinding pace while this machine was moving at the speed of government. Bad time to get caught in bureaucratic quicksand.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, daynightindicator said:

I wonder if we (DOD) also happened to make this mistake at the worst possible inflection point. When requirements were being drawn up and put under contract, the internet was a novelty, cell phones were just moving out of he zack Morris era, computing power and data storage was very limited, concepts like cloud storage, social media were in their infancy, and end-to-end encryption was still the sole property of major world governments.

The democratization of data and technology unfolded at a blinding pace while this machine was moving at the speed of government. Bad time to get caught in bureaucratic quicksand.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Maybe but I think the idea for a joint program for a new strike jet was a hedge against cancellation or curtailment given the track record of the first stealth and 5th Gen programs.

Just conjecture but given the cost overruns of the 117, 2 and 22; the cancellation of the A-12 & RAH-66 with nothing to show (publicly) for the money spent, I think the idea of a joint program was to prove to Congress that DoD and learned its lessons and that this stealth / 5th Gen program would be different.  History, different requirements, operational philosophy and costs be damned...

Not trying to be too negative, the service I believe did not and doesn't truly want to just waste money but they will propose technically ambitious / risky programs, collude in some ways with contractors, think tanks, congress, etc. and build programs TBTF by distribution of sub-contracts and leap first look second ideas like concurrency.  

There is just no established mechanism in government acquisitions  to "price in" risk in large, technically ambitious projects as there is in the private market with higher borrowing costs for institutions embarking on something analogous.  My suggestion would be to make the branches spell out a Plan B if Plan A goes to shit, what will they offset or discuss openly and honestly if there plan is to just ask for more money if the project goes over X %.  There are laws like Nunn-McCurdy but they are after the fact, we the taxpayers should basically expect that they won't stay on budget and force them to plan on what they will load shed.

That's not perfect by any means but might keep the Bigger, Faster, Farther, Higher crowd in check when coming up with requirements that will drive costs.  Develop ambitious but realistic requirements, there's just not enough money for boondoggles anymore. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Clark Griswold
minor

[Clark Griswold]

Just vaporware but an interesting idea ala the never realized F-16XL, an F-35XL.  

Not sure if the A or C model would be easier for this mod (or any) but a new bigger wing to hold all the gas and give the 35 a new internal weapons bay.

and another with the cranked wing 

Think in lieu of a clean sheet A-X, this XL variant would fill that role.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[Sprkt69]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Just vaporware but an interesting idea ala the never realized F-16XL, an F-35XL.  

Not sure if the A or C model would be easier for this mod (or any) but a new bigger wing to hold all the gas and give the 35 a new internal weapons bay.

and another with the cranked wing 

Think in lieu of a clean sheet A-X, this XL variant would fill that role.

For the cost issues, might as well just get LockMart to build the F-16XL and save some money

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Sprkt69 said:

For the cost issues, might as well just get LockMart to build the F-16XL and save some money

But if you built the 35XL to meet the A-X requirement you get the economy of scale with the already existing F-35 program, while getting a 5th gen LO attack platform capable of self-escort / defense.

There was a push for an FB-22 but as the 22 line has sunset and there is no realistic way to restart it without a metric shit ton of money, getting an FB-35XL is in the realm of the possible IMO.

With the increased wing / fuel, you probably could get a 1000+ NM combat radius depending on mission profile on internal fuel alone, this is the capability 5th gen strike aircraft have been needing, particularly considering A2AD / Pacific operations.  

Edited May 21, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[VMFA187]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Just vaporware but an interesting idea ala the never realized F-16XL, an F-35XL.  

Not sure if the A or C model would be easier for this mod (or any) but a new bigger wing to hold all the gas and give the 35 a new internal weapons bay.

and another with the cranked wing 

Think in lieu of a clean sheet A-X, this XL variant would fill that role.

Sharp looking airplane.

I'd hate to have to go to the merge in that thing, however.

[Clark Griswold]

56 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

Sharp looking airplane.

I'd hate to have to go to the merge in that thing, however.

Yup - doubt it would be a BFM beast but with that extra gas it could probably keep up the speed to get out of a bad situation

[VMFA187]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yup - doubt it would be a BFM beast but with that extra gas it could probably keep up the speed to get out of a bad situation

Valid.

[Inertia17]

4 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

Sharp looking airplane.

I'd hate to have to go to the merge in that thing, however.

The F-35 wasn't made for the merge anyway...apparently it is a thing of the past, would never happen. Or at least that's how they want to justify it's awesome maneuverability...

Edited May 22, 2017 by Inertia17
Enhanced sarcasm

[magnetfreezer]

More likely justification is "jointness", with the mandate for common requirements/platform for all services, putting room in the fuselage for the B model's STOVL hardware couldn't possibly have helped things. There's probably a reason the Marines have both the hornet and harrier.

[Clark Griswold]

Maybe, but as the software develops and is updated, the 35 will get a bit sportier I suspect.  

The aircraft with the operational software load is not a pig according to the OT&E community, referencing the article from the Norwegian test pilot here.  It's just different than a Viper/Hornet/Harrier and will need the TTPs developed to fight accordingly in the WVR arena.   

Probably not as maneuverable as a Viper with the GE engine but with LO, sensor fusion, good maneuverability and an HMD with high off foresight weapons, it's setup for success.

Not that my rantings on BO.net add up to anything but I've come to accept the F-35 as a large part of the future of the USAF and likely the AFs of many of our Allies, hating on it reflexively is pointless, it is done.

Embrace it and try to improve because we have bet the farm on it.

Break - Break

Might get another partner in the program:

Germany asks U.S. for classified briefing on Lockheed's F-35 fighter

Edited May 22, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[Clark Griswold]

Engine upgrade proposal:

https://www.defensenews.com/articles/pratt-whitney-pitches-new-f-35-engine-upgrade

 

[xcraftllc]

Very interesting. If the AF opts to do that hopefully it all happens swiftly cuz the F-35 fuel consumption and operating cost is truly concerning.  I'm a much bigger fan of going all out with the adaptive cycle engine though. That article mentions it briefly at the end. It offers much better gains than the measly 6-9% better fuel consumption and thrust of the F135 upgrade. Here's what they're talking about:

https://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/ge-adaptive-cycle-engine

Frankly with regards to the disappointing issues we've had with Pratt's current engine, I think a switch to GE would be appropriate. What would suck though is a franken-fleet of jets with various software blocks and engines of widely varying performance much like the Strike Eagle and Vipers out there. If that would be the case it might just be better to go with the upgrade to the F135 that the article mentions.

[Clark Griswold]

53 minutes ago, xcraftllc said:

  ...I'm a much bigger fan of going all out with the adaptive cycle engine though...

If that would be the case it might just be better to go with the upgrade to the F135 that the article mentions.

2

Developing that technology would be ideal but as you said, it may be better to just upgrade to the new hotness rather than wind up with a motley fleet and the cost / logistics of maintaining two engine types.

If GE's numbers are realistic for AC engine then it would be worth at least testing IRL on a F-35 test aircraft.

35% increase in range (from GE site), cut in half to 17.5% for an increase in combat radius and that's another 130+ NM for the A model in an air to air config (760 NM to 893 NM just using LM's public numbers) - serious improvement.

American needs to get back into the X-plane business and/or at least pushing the envelope again in aircraft performance with existing designs, this would be a good project to develop a 5th gen with extreme combat radius capability if only for investigation/demonstration.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[Breckey]

GE already was working on an alternate engine (F136) before the funding was pulled. It wasn't af adaptive cycle, just a normal turbo fan based on their earlier F120. The whole argument for two engines came from the great engine war in the 1980s and hadn't been talked about before or since then. The F-4 rocked the J79 for x-thousand aircraft, there is no reason F-35 cannot do the same.

[BFM this]

26 minutes ago, Breckey said:

GE already was working on an alternate engine (F136) before the funding was pulled. It wasn't af adaptive cycle, just a normal turbo fan based on their earlier F120. The whole argument for two engines came from the great engine war in the 1980s and hadn't been talked about before or since then. The F-4 rocked the J79 for x-thousand aircraft, there is no reason F-35 cannot do the same.

Yeah, how about four decades with the same engine, countless requests for a new engine, one or two go aheads only to have the funding "redirected"

What if.