Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

"Death-defying moves"? What part of the 1920s is that headline-writer trapped in?
 
Singapore (which has been a JSF Security Cooperative Partner since 2003) has finally confirmed / announced plans to purchase F-35s. However, they'll only initially be purchasing a small quantity from which they intend to perform a presumed 9-12 month long evaluation of the jet before deciding on how big a fleet they should procure:

https://twitter.com/Ng_Eng_Hen/status/1086160101482815488
Our F-16s will have to retire soon after 2030. Happy to report that DSTA and @TheRSAF have completed their technical evaluation, and decided that the F-35 would be the most suitable replacement fighter. We will procure a few planes first, before deciding on a full fleet.
Click to expand...

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-f-35-fighter-jet-replace-f-16-rsaf-lockheed-11139654
 
It has long been speculated that Singapore would buy F-35s. It is also speculated likely to be F-35Bs.
 
GTX said:
It has long been speculated that Singapore would buy F-35s. It is also speculated likely to be F-35Bs.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if South Korea will do a Japan and put F-35Bs on flat tops.
 
sferrin said:
GTX said:
It has long been speculated that Singapore would buy F-35s. It is also speculated likely to be F-35Bs.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if South Korea will do a Japan and put F-35Bs on flat tops.
Click to expand...

The equivalent Japanese ships are substantially larger with room for larger air wings and support.
While it’s very likely the Korean ships could carry and operate the F-35B that would have to be very small numbers and potentially could limit their helicopter complement to the point of having not enough of either.
Especially when taking into account everything that has to be brought along to sustain operations.

However a relatively token F-35B deployment aboard what historicaly would have been considered light carriers may become a new fashion for countries in the region with regional power aspirations.

The likes of India could (and have) done worse.

And it had been my understanding that Singapore’s interest in the F-35B was more related to concepts of dispersed deployment of them away from their small in number major airbases due to concerns related to their almost complete lack of strategic depth and potential vulnerability to first strikes.
 
LowObservable said:
"Death-defying moves"? What part of the 1920s is that headline-writer trapped in?
Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/cdp8IKJIqxA

This video taken at Luke AFB in Arizona,
Yes has a "cheesy" title as Death-Defying but I'm very impressed by the
Post Stall maneuver ability of the F-35 in this video
with out the (supposed) benefit of thrust vectoring.

F-35 can do some impressive and controlled low speed post stall maneuvering.

In the video the pilot does a fairly fast climb, followed by a tight little loop, slows down airspeed in the loop, performs a falling leaf
maneuver while doing a Right rudder turn while keeping the nose pointed high...all while full controllability.

Very impressive. I thought the F-35 would have the maneuverability of and F-105, I was wrong.
 
I thought the F-35 would have the maneuverability of and F-105, I was wrong.

There was never any reason to believe that. On the other hand, if you actually read the original 2015 report and the common-sense accounts of it, what you're seeing on the video is consistent with the report.
 
I've encountered quite a few people who thought similarly about the F-35's performance becoming comparable to that of a 3rd gen fighter or whatever; you have to remember that there's been dissenting opinions in the media like Pierre Sprey claiming that it wouldn't be able to out-manoeuvre a MiG-21 during his appearances on Canadian TV & international branches of Russia Today, or the whole "can't turn, can't climb, can't run", "clubbed like baby seals", "doubly inferior", etc statements that came from the Pacific Vision 'study' and have been echoed over the years by dozens of news outlets. There was also the "dogfight report" interpretation from War Is Boring that has some people today thinking that the F-35 is actually inferior to the F-16 in overall air-to-air combat.
 
Here is the report itself:

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/06/F-35%20High%20AoA%20Maneuvers.pdf

There was a lot of overheated rhetoric on both sides, but the very short summary of the report is that while the F-35 exhibited good low-speed controllability, it was inferior in energy maneuverability (basically, thrust and lift versus weight and drag) to the F-16 - which was not the best F-16 you could find, being a two-seat Block 40, heavier than a 30 and less powerful than a 50. One observation was that the EM deficiency made it harder to exploit the low-speed, high-alpha advantages because once the jet was in a low-energy state it took too long to get out of it: Verbatim:

So, in general, the high AoA capabilities of the jet could not be used in an effective way without significantly reducing follow-on maneuvering potential.

This is visible in the most recent display video. The low-speed turns are impressive, but are followed by a long gallop the length of the airfield in which energy can be regained. The vertical climb maneuver is topped with a low-speed, high-alpha maneuver and what looks like a partial gunship turn, but at the same time the jet starts a long descent before entering the next maneuver.

The S/W can be tweaked to improve some aspects of low-speed performance, but EM is one of those pesky I-canna-alter-the-laws-of-physics issues. And it's not that the F-35 flies like a third-generation fighter (whatever that is) but that aircraft design is full of trades and compromises.
 
I have no disputes with the report itself (that would be dumb), but I did take issue with the common interpretation that was made of it - that it was some sort of IOT&E-style final operational evaluation of the F-35's dogfighting capability rather than just a single developmental test that was searching for issues with high AoA control laws (as the first sentence of the report states).

The F-35 certainly isn't pushing the limits of modern fighter capability when it comes to T:W or sustained turn performance, but the report makes multiple references to control law issues inhibiting performance, such as:
During a tree, the anti-spin logic engaged as a direct result of this unpredictability. The F-35 had gained a 3/9 advantage and the pilot desired to maneuver behind the bandit. A full rudder input had no result initially but after a few seconds the jet began to maneuver simultaneously to the command being abandoned and replaced with stick input. Once the delayed result appeared from the initial rudder input, the rudder was promptly re-input to encourage the aircraft to continue. A fantastic yaw rate followed, only to be spoiled by the anti-spin logic. The anti-spin logic was surprisingly pronounced. As has been experienced on other high AOA missions, there is ample control authority for arresting yaw rate. Whereas rudder inputs often feel sluggish/gradual or delayed, the anti-spin logic is immediate, abrupt, and forceful.
Click to expand...
Therefore, there were multiple occasions where it would have been tactically sound to accept excessive energy loss in order to achieve a fleeting WEZ. The CLAW prevented such shot opportunities (and hindered defeating shots).
Click to expand...
However, during a dynamic fight, where attention is focused on the bandit rather than the specific AOA, the lateral/directional response was often confusing. There were multiple times where a roll rate was expected yet not achieved or a body-axis yaw rate was expected and beta resulted. In other cases, the response changed during the maneuver as the AOA blended into this region.
Click to expand...
Pitch rates were too slow to prosecute or deny weapons. Loads remained below limits and implied that there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe.
Click to expand...

This article was also written about the testing, a couple of months before WIB leaked the test report [Nelson was the test pilot in the report]:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers
Although the F-35 is designed primarily for attack rather than air combat, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft’s recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. “The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability,” says Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David “Doc” Nelson.
Click to expand...
“It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”
Click to expand...
“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson.
Click to expand...

LowObservable said:
And it's not that the F-35 flies like a third-generation fighter (whatever that is) but that aircraft design is full of trades and compromises.
Click to expand...
It's not that either, it's just a fact that popular segments of the media have mistakenly or purposefully contributed to the notion (sometimes very literally arguing) that the F-35 is vulnerable to 60 year old fighter designs in a dogfight. Kcran's mistaken / prior judgement of the F-35's agility is not a unique one. I've encountered countless people (and still continue to) who believe things like that the F-35 is inferior to F-16s and F/A-18s in any air-to-air work, that the F-35 has a shorter range than the F-16 & F/A-18, that the F-35 has no utility outside of being a strike aircraft, etc.
 
It's not that either, it's just a fact that popular segments of the media have mistakenly or purposefully contributed to the notion (sometimes very literally arguing) that the F-35 is vulnerable to 60 year old fighter designs in a dogfight.

I can see why you disagree with this, but actually almost anything can be vulnerable to a 60-year-old design in a dogfight. Tangle with an F-5BR (basic design 1956) upgraded with an HMD and Python 5 and the result is up to chance, particularly as the F-5 will VID you first. And if you're in LO mode in an F-35 you are at a serious disadvantage toast.

I've encountered countless people (and still continue to) who believe things like that the F-35 is inferior to F-16s and F/A-18s in any air-to-air work.

One encounters lots of silly people, and I blame the Internet. Of course LO has advantages in A2A, but you have to be in a position to exploit lower detectability by taking the first effective shot. So while your quoted claim is invalid, it is not a corollary that the F-35 is superior in all A2A under any circumstances.
 
kaiserd said:
sferrin said:
GTX said:
It has long been speculated that Singapore would buy F-35s. It is also speculated likely to be F-35Bs.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if South Korea will do a Japan and put F-35Bs on flat tops.
Click to expand...

The equivalent Japanese ships are substantially larger with room for larger air wings and support.
While it’s very likely the Korean ships could carry and operate the F-35B that would have to be very small numbers and potentially could limit their helicopter complement to the point of having not enough of either.
Especially when taking into account everything that has to be brought along to sustain operations.

However a relatively token F-35B deployment aboard what historicaly would have been considered light carriers may become a new fashion for countries in the region with regional power aspirations.

The likes of India could (and have) done worse.

And it had been my understanding that Singapore’s interest in the F-35B was more related to concepts of dispersed deployment of them away from their small in number major airbases due to concerns related to their almost complete lack of strategic depth and potential vulnerability to first strikes.
Click to expand...

Or they could build larger ships. I don't necessarily mean exactly like Japan, and put F-35s on existing ships, but maybe put something into service that's large enough for the task. I know Japan has been eye-balling the USS Wasp class pretty hard. (Not saying they'd buy some, but I would not be at all surprised to see them build something larger than the Izumos.
 
Japan is reviewing indigenous F-35 production to evaluate potential production cost savings.
One option is to acquire all the second batch of 105 F-35s from the Fort Worth line. The Nagoya line will probably keep going another 4-5 years to complete its original 38 aircraft order.

What does this mean for F-3? In theory the production capacity could be available at Nagoya, but if the government is looking to save costs on the F-35 order then it opens questions as to whether it can realistically afford to develop and build the F-3 alone.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/tokyo-casts-frugal-eye-over-domestic-f-35-productio-455175/
 
Thought this was interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCEfMRiXSJM
 
'Lethal' F-35A heading to Red Flag 19-1

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah -- --
Pilots and maintainers from the 388th Fighter Wing are bringing the F-35A and ‘increased lethality’ as they take a lead role in Red Flag 19-1 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada,

From Jan. 26 - Feb. 15, approximately 200 Airmen from Hill AFB, including reservists from the 419th Fighter Wing, will participate in what is known as the Air Force’s premier combat training exercise.

The 388th FW debuted the F-35A Lightning II at Red Flag in 2017 and came away with a 20:1 kill ratio. The jet is even more capable now, pilots say.

“We have an upgraded software suite that has improved our sensor fusion. We’ve got an expanded flying envelope with more maneuverability. We have the ability to employ more weapons, including the 25-mm cannon,” said Lt. Col. Yosef Morris, 4th Fighter Squadron commander. “When you couple those things with the two years we’ve had to improve our tactics, we’re bringing a much more lethal F-35A to this Red Flag and ultimately to the battlefield.”
Click to expand...
More at the JUMP

https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1740800/lethal-f-35a-heading-to-red-flag-19-1/
 
When you've been in development for 22 years and "lethal" is still in quotes.... ;D
 
Does that mean that the Eurofighter, Rafale, and F-22 are no longer lethal?
 
LowObservable said:
When you've been in development for 22 years and "lethal" is still in quotes.... ;D
Click to expand...

That would explain why countries keep buying Eurocanards instead of F-35s. Oh, wait. . .
 
Triton said:
LowObservable said:
When you've been in development for 22 years and "lethal" is still in quotes.... ;D
Click to expand...

Haven't the Israelis flown their F-35s into combat?
Click to expand...
Yes, as have the USMC.

btw, we're straying off the "news only" path.

Please, see Reply #1512
 
LowObservable said:
When you've been in development for 22 years and "lethal" is still in quotes.... ;D
Click to expand...


I'm with LO: single quotation marks in headlines are an archaic holdover from
printed media and can imply a paraphrase when this was clearly a direct quote
worthy of double quotation marks.

And I don't care what the AP Manual says.
 
Btw, official dev did not start till 2001 as X-35 and X-32 were tech demonstrators, not "prototypes".

Factual correction: The X-35 and X-32 were, from Nov 1996 onward, part of a well-defined formal development program that was unambiguously planned to continue through to procurement, as is made abundantly clear here:

http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3814
 
LowObservable said:
Btw, official dev did not start till 2001 as X-35 and X-32 were tech demonstrators, not "prototypes".

Factual correction: The X-35 and X-32 were, from Nov 1996 onward, part of a well-defined formal development program that was unambiguously planned to continue through to procurement, as is made abundantly clear here:

http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3814
Click to expand...

However they were much further from production aircraft than say a YF-16 was to an F-16A, hence the "X" designations.
 
Interesting...

In his first press conference since assuming the role of acting secretary of defense, Shanahan called concerns about him favoring Boeing "just noise."

"I am biased towards performance," he said. "I am biased towards giving the taxpayer their money's worth. The F-35, unequivocally I can say, has a lot of opportunity for more performance."

https://www.investors.com/news/secretary-of-defense-shanahan-boeing-bias-lockheed-f35-troops-colombia/
 
LowObservable said:
Interesting...

In his first press conference since assuming the role of acting secretary of defense, Shanahan called concerns about him favoring Boeing "just noise."

"I am biased towards performance," he said. "I am biased towards giving the taxpayer their money's worth. The F-35, unequivocally I can say, has a lot of opportunity for more performance."

https://www.investors.com/news/secretary-of-defense-shanahan-boeing-bias-lockheed-f35-troops-colombia/
Click to expand...

Considering what F-35 pilots say about it, that's saying something about it's potential.
 
"Performance". At least in this context...
 

Attachments

  • pbridequote.jpg
    pbridequote.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 161
LowObservable said:
"Performance". At least in this context...
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying (that's what I get for reading one line out of context) but then he also thinks the X-32 would have been better, which was demonstrably false.
 
Given Boeing's record on the "should have been a no-brainier" KC-46, saying that they could have done JSF better is utter BS.
 
The 2018 DOT&E report is out
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/dod/2018f35jsf.pdf

Takeaways:
1. Only 14 pages compared to last year's 30 and 2016's 60+
2. 90% of 2017's "Open Deficiencies" closed leaving ~100 (15 Class 1) as of May 2018
3. F-35A's gun has alignment issues but the F-35B/C does not
4. Very few aircraft-specific issues mentioned as most of the report focused on supporting systems (ALIS, MDL, Parts & Depots, etc)

Here are the report recommendations:

• The program should:
1. Continue to work with the Services to prioritize and correct the remaining Category 1 and 2 deficiencies discovered during SDD.
2. Apply lessons learned from SDD and other programs for scoping the amount of C2D2 testing that can be done in laboratories and simulations, compared with the need for flight testing.
3. Reassess the C2D2 plan to ensure adequate test infrastructure (labs, aircraft, and time) is provided and modifications are aligned with other fielding requirements.
4. Assess the annual cost of software sustainment.
5. Determine the cause of the accuracy problems with the F-35A gun firing and implement a solution for increasing gun accuracy for the fielded aircraft.
6. Develop a consolidated and adequate ALIS test venue to ensure ALIS capabilities are fully tested prior to fielding to operational units
7. Conduct a study to determine the optimum balance of additional spare parts procurement versus adding depot capacity to repair spare parts, in order to decrease the percentage of NMC aircraft waiting for spare parts.
8. Continue implementing measures to improve fleet availability.
9. Make actual aircraft or appropriate hardware- and software-in-the-loop facilities available to enable operationally representative air vehicle cyber testing.
10. Continue conducting periodic rounds of cybersecurity testing and correcting open cyber deficiencies.
11. Continue testing the integrity and security of the JSF supplychain, expanding on initial testing conducted in 2018.
• The JPO should:
1. Complete contracting actions to procure a second F-35B ground test article in order to complete at least two lifetimes of structural durability testing to validate the wing-carrythrough structure.
2. Fund and contract for the 16-20 recommended signal generators called for in the JPO’s own 2014 gap analysis study.
3. Fund and contract for the necessary hardware upgrades to the USRL to support Block 4 development and testing.
Click to expand...

The whole "F-35B has 2100hrs of life" thing was taken out of context and only applies to early LRIP F-35Bs. The program already has plans to update them as needed.

Based on durability testing, the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected service life of 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Fleet F-35B aircraft are expected to start reaching their service life limit in CY26, based on design usage. The JPO will continue to use Individual Aircraft Tracking (IAT) of actual usage to help the Services project changes in timing for required repairs and modifications, and aid in Fleet Life Management.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • 2018_DOTE report.pdf
    285.2 KB · Views: 13
Thanks for summary, Rosie. (As in "Rosie Scenario")

However....
 

Attachments

  • availability.JPG
    availability.JPG
    95 KB · Views: 271
It's going to be like this until they get the depots up and running and update the older jets.

This is what you get with a bunch of "Continuing Resolutions" rather than proper budgets.
 
LowObservable said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Click to expand...

I've noticed that is almost exclusively used by those who wish to accuse others while attempting to shield themselves from criticism for the same thing. Typhoon availability must be truly abysmal for you to avoid trumpeting it here. ;)

Joe: "You need to cut your grass."
Joe's Neighbor: "Uhm, yours is four feet high."
Joe: "OMFG WHATABOUTISM!!!"

::)
 
The difference is that some people (including senior AF leaders and the SecDef) appear to have concerns relating to the ability to meet the goals of the NDS with the resources available, while others are interested in scoring debating points.

If you want to go and find foreign-aircraft availability data (in comparable format), knock yourself out, but it has less-than-the-cube-root-of-****-all to do with meeting the needs of the US forces, since nobody is saying that the USAF needs to go buy Typhoons.
 
LowObservable said:
The difference is that some people (including senior AF leaders and the SecDef) appear to have concerns relating to the ability to meet the goals of the NDS with the resources available, while others are interested in scoring debating points.

If you want to go and find foreign-aircraft availability data (in comparable format), knock yourself out, but it has less-than-the-cube-root-of-****-all to do with meeting the needs of the US forces, since nobody is saying that the USAF needs to go buy Typhoons.
Click to expand...

And nobody is disputing that the F-35 might have issues. However some, I won't say who, think the best thing Europe in general could do is follow Germany's lead and buy Typhoons instead of F-35s. (That the Hornet is the mix is a fig leaf for German politicians, nothing more.) So no, Typhoon availability rates, as they compare to the F-35, aren't exactly irrelevant.
 
Many EU air forces fielding Eurocanards dream of availability rates above 60% or having short term realistic planning in effect to bring this to 80.
 
LowObservable said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Click to expand...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom