The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sublight]

Interesting
"The fundamentals of the shaft-driven lift fan system for the STOVL variant remain unchanged as well".

I wonder if they pulled the shaft drive know how from a defunct classified project. They came up with it pretty quickly and it worked perfectly from the get go.

 

[sferrin]

Interesting
"The fundamentals of the shaft-driven lift fan system for the STOVL variant remain unchanged as well".

I wonder if they pulled the shaft drive know how from a defunct classified project. They came up with it pretty quickly and it worked perfectly from the get go.

They'd been working on it for some time.

 

[AeroFranz]

Click on the photos at the bottom of the following page to view the changes.
Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2008/articles/apr_08/f35transition/index.html

Good reference. Thanks.

 

[lancer21]

Hello,

I know this is a neophite question , but what is this (please see image below)? I've seen it on all versions of the F-35...is it the heat exchanger intake ?

Thanks.

 

[sferrin]

Gun port

 

[Sundog]

Gun port

To the best of my knowledge, the gun is the in the bump on the left side and it has a frangible front section that is blasted open when the pilot first fires, thereby maintaining the LO until it's fired.

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's a closeup.

 

[sferrin]

Gun port

To the best of my knowledge, the gun is the in the bump on the left side and it has a frangible front section that is blasted open when the pilot first fires, thereby maintaining the LO until it's fired.

As far as I can tell you're right. I'd thought they'd shoot through the gap there at the front of the air inlet there had it been a gun port (if the hole is small enough it appears solid to a radar depending on the frequency of course). Shooting a hole in the aircraft everytime you want to shoot the gun sounds utterly retarded to me. I hope that part is cheap and the internal damage minimal. Maybe the first round is a blank to blow the cover off? ???

 

[Stuka]

The circled bump on the right side of the plane is the fuel/air heat exchanger inlet.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2008/articles/apr_08/f35transition/x-35b_top.html
The bump on the left side of the plane is where the gun will go on F-35A. The gun won't have a frangible door. It will have an actuated door just like F-22.

 

[Steve Pace]

Other views.

 

[F-14D]

I believe the gun is on the port side? It's think it's that fairing that's over the left intake. Something that is common to all three versions won;t be the gun, because only the CTOL version has an internal gun.

 

[lantinian]

Let not forget that internal gun is only present on the CTOL model F-35A.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

F-35A internal gun.

 

[Stuka]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipMfsAGP9Gk

 

[fightingirish]

The latest video from Lockheed Martin shows a F-35B during approach & landing tests on 3/10/2010. B)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIyZ98EWnOc

I found the video at the Ares blog.

 

[Mike Pryce]

It's down to 40kts - fully jetborne.

 

[sferrin]

The latest video from Lockheed Martin shows a F-35B during approach & landing tests on 3/10/2010. B)


I found the video at the Ares[/url] blog.

Strange, I wouldn't have expected them to post an F-35 video unless it crashed.

 

[bobbymike]

The F-35 had a bad day in Congress today. I am really starting to believe the program is in serious trouble and I mean "no more funds" trouble. Many in Congress have "next generationitis" and like to look out in the future and say "Hey let's wait and just buy UCAVs or F/A-XXs or a 6th generation air force plane.

 

[Sundog]

The F-35 had a bad day in Congress today. I am really starting to believe the program is in serious trouble and I mean "no more funds" trouble. Many in Congress have "next generationitis" and like to look out in the future and say "Hey let's wait and just buy UCAVs or F/A-XXs or a 6th generation air force plane.

A lot of that is for show for their constituents at home. "look at me, I'm tough!" Although, they do have a right to be angry at how the program has been managed.

However, they aren't about to cancel it. There are too many other nations that are relying on it and have anted up for it and it would most likely cost more to cancel it now and try to go with a sixth gen aircraft than to continue it. Not to mention all of the jobs at stake in the current economic climate. I'm sure there will be some financial pain as a result; of which there has already been some.

 

[SOC]

They might not cancel it outright, but...is anyone foreign buying the F-35C? No. I'd bet that the F-35C is the first one down the drain if it comes down to it. Now, it'd cost some export orders, but if they really wanted to turn this thing around, they'd drop the F-35B. That'd give them a lot more room to jack around with the airframe, slim things down and make it lighter, and really turn it into a "mini-Raptor". Losing the B/C won't really do anything, they weren't going to be the saviors of Navy air or the USMC. The idea of somebody flying an F-35B out of a remote strip close to the battlefield to support Marines is a pipe dream anyway. It'd work, but who in their mind would order it and risk damaging the jets?

 

[sublight]

The F-35 had a bad day in Congress today. I am really starting to believe the program is in serious trouble and I mean "no more funds" trouble. Many in Congress have "next generationitis" and like to look out in the future and say "Hey let's wait and just buy UCAVs or F/A-XXs or a 6th generation air force plane.

The related linkage:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/business/12plane.html

 

[sferrin]

They might not cancel it outright, but...is anyone foreign buying the F-35C? No. I'd bet that the F-35C is the first one down the drain if it comes down to it. Now, it'd cost some export orders, but if they really wanted to turn this thing around, they'd drop the F-35B. That'd give them a lot more room to jack around with the airframe, slim things down and make it lighter, and really turn it into a "mini-Raptor". Losing the B/C won't really do anything, they weren't going to be the saviors of Navy air or the USMC. The idea of somebody flying an F-35B out of a remote strip close to the battlefield to support Marines is a pipe dream anyway. It'd work, but who in their mind would order it and risk damaging the jets?

And what about those 11 flight decks you just lost for operating fixed wing aircraft? And after you do that you want to modify it more making it even later and more expensive? ???

 

[SOC]

Better to be late and right than on time and wrong. The USN won't be any worse off than it is right now, they won't stop flying Stupid Hornets anytime soon. If push comes to shove they can always accelerate the "6th Gen" SH replacement. Besides, a smaller, lighter airframe should not end up with a more expensive unit price at the end of the day. Cheaper means more attractive to export buyers, and the development costs to do a redesign wouldn't be too much to bear at this point in the game anyway, especially if it's a choice between "fix it" and "lose it". Getting rid of the USMC option would also allow you to really slim the back end down and use a flat 2D nozzle like the F-22, helping to overcome rear-hemisphere RCS issues.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Now, it'd cost some export orders, but if they really wanted to turn this thing around, they'd drop the F-35B. That'd give them a lot more room to jack around with the airframe, slim things down and make it lighter, and really turn it into a "mini-Raptor". Losing the B/C won't really do anything, they weren't going to be the saviors of Navy air or the USMC. The idea of somebody flying an F-35B out of a remote strip close to the battlefield to support Marines is a pipe dream anyway. It'd work, but who in their mind would order it and risk damaging the jets?

None of that is a solution to the F-35's problems. It doesn't need a structural redesign to be more lethal or survivable: this is not the problem, outside the loud but baseless complaints of the 'Flanker Uber Alles' lobby. The problem with the F-35 is schedule, management and money. It isn't a F-111 with the wings falling off or a Typhoon that can’t fight air to air, it’s a Me 262 taking longer and having to jump more hurdles to be service ready. (I really do hate historical analogies but they seem to be a currency in this issue’s debate.)

Trimming the program may help in terms of keeping overall cost down while delivering the aircraft. From a systems perspective the US forces can survive without a F-35B and F-35C. But this would mean (at least) two more USN carriers (to replace LHD F-35Bs) more Super Hornets and making CV UAS the X-47B in numbers. The RN can always build their CVFs as catapult/arrestor and fly Super Hornets or Rafales the same for Spain and Italy perhaps as part of a wider EU joint carrier plan. Of course this argument could have been made in the 1990s along with cancelling V-22 and EFV but as Truman said the Marines have better public relations than Satan.

 

[sferrin]

Better to be late and right than on time and wrong. The USN won't be any worse off than it is right now, they won't stop flying Stupid Hornets anytime soon. If push comes to shove they can always accelerate the "6th Gen" SH replacement. Besides, a smaller, lighter airframe should not end up with a more expensive unit price at the end of the day. Cheaper means more attractive to export buyers, and the development costs to do a redesign wouldn't be too much to bear at this point in the game anyway, especially if it's a choice between "fix it" and "lose it". Getting rid of the USMC option would also allow you to really slim the back end down and use a flat 2D nozzle like the F-22, helping to overcome rear-hemisphere RCS issues.

And what about those 11 flight decks you just gave up for fixed-wing operations? (LHDs/LHAs)?

 

[SOC]

And what about those 11 flight decks you just gave up for fixed-wing operations? (LHDs/LHAs)?

And where are the Marines logically going to go without substantial USAF or USN support that they'd require an LO platform for air to mud work? Sometimes deleting a capability does actually make sense. They still have the decks to operate attack and transport helos and Ospreys.

None of that is a solution to the F-35's problems. It doesn't need a structural redesign to be more lethal or survivable: this is not the problem, outside the loud but baseless complaints of the 'Flanker Uber Alles' lobby. The problem with the F-35 is schedule, management and money. It isn't a F-111 with the wings falling off or a Typhoon that can’t fight air to air, it’s a Me 262 taking longer and having to jump more hurdles to be service ready. (I really do hate historical analogies but they seem to be a currency in this issue’s debate.)

Trimming the program may help in terms of keeping overall cost down while delivering the aircraft. From a systems perspective the US forces can survive without a F-35B and F-35C. But this would mean (at least) two more USN carriers (to replace LHD F-35Bs) more Super Hornets and making CV UAS the X-47B in numbers. The RN can always build their CVFs as catapult/arrestor and fly Super Hornets or Rafales the same for Spain and Italy perhaps as part of a wider EU joint carrier plan. Of course this argument could have been made in the 1990s along with cancelling V-22 and EFV but as Truman said the Marines have better public relations than Satan.

The EF-2000 can't fight A/A? Did I miss something? The JSF does have some areas that could be improved, such as rear-hemisphere LO. Not that big of a deal with hundreds of Raptors around to take up the A/A mission, but oops, we killed those off already. Enhancing the F-35 to allow it to serve as a credible A/A platform rather than a striker with A/A ability would make a whole truckload of sense at this juncture. The Truman quote was hilarious, by the way.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The EF-2000 can't fight A/A? Did I miss something?

LOL, I meant the first Typhoon! Sir Sydney Camm’s Hawker “Tiffy” Typhoon with the wings too thick and draggy for medium and high altitude maneuverability so it was used to rocket zie Germanz. Another good example why these historical analogies suck.

I was trying to find analogies for three types of unsuccessful development outcomes: doesn’t fly, can fly but not as well planned, and is delayed but successful once finished. Of course in this day and age the air vehicle side is very much in second place to the mission systems side.

The JSF does have some areas that could be improved, such as rear-hemisphere LO. Not that big of a deal with hundreds of Raptors around to take up the A/A mission, but oops, we killed those off already. Enhancing the F-35 to allow it to serve as a credible A/A platform rather than a striker with A/A ability would make a whole truckload of sense at this juncture.

Is there any evidence that the F-35 has poor rear hemisphere LO or is it just conjecture from a noted group of anti-F-35 polemicists? No one in the services who has worked on the F-35 is complaining about its ATA lethality and survivability. The project is not in trouble because it has to be redesigned for more ATA capability.

As to the Raptor it did a pretty good job of killing itself. Are they ready for combat deployment yet? Will they ever be…

The key issue here is can the current system of Government and industry development in ‘advanced’ western democracies can continue to manage big projects.

 

[sferrin]

And what about those 11 flight decks you just gave up for fixed-wing operations? (LHDs/LHAs)?

And where are the Marines logically going to go without substantial USAF or USN support that they'd require an LO platform for air to mud work?

Who says that's all they'd ever do? The LHA-6s are being designed to be used in a secondary sea control role. You don't always need a full blown CVN. 22 flight decks are better than 11 no matter how you slice it. Take that capability away and now you HAVE to have the USAF or USN there to support the effort. As for the USMC requiring fixed wing aircraft, when's the last time they DIDN'T have them?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Who says that's all they'd ever do? The LHA-6s are being designed to be used in a secondary sea control role. You don't always need a full blown CVN. 22 flight decks are better than 11 no matter how you slice it. Take that capability away and now you HAVE to have the USAF or USN there to support the effort. As for the USMC requiring fixed wing aircraft, when's the last time they DIDN'T have them?

That's not the case Sferrin. The offesnive support requirements for even the smallest USMC amphibious assault are considerable. 1-2 CVNs plus B-52s or similar. Re-roling a LHD to a sea control ship means no amphibious landing force on board and even then half the strike aircraft as a CVN.

Even if it was the case then why does the USMC currently have so few AV-8Bs compared to F/A-18C/Ds? The fixation with STOVL is all about uniqueness of capability which has been a tool the USMC used for decades to survive as an independent force. But the days of flying significant fighter forces from Henderson Fields cut from the jungle and small carriers are long since gone.

 

[sferrin]

Who says that's all they'd ever do? The LHA-6s are being designed to be used in a secondary sea control role. You don't always need a full blown CVN. 22 flight decks are better than 11 no matter how you slice it. Take that capability away and now you HAVE to have the USAF or USN there to support the effort. As for the USMC requiring fixed wing aircraft, when's the last time they DIDN'T have them?

That's not the case Sferrin. The offesnive support requirements for even the smallest USMC amphibious assault are considerable. 1-2 CVNs plus B-52s or similar. Re-roling a LHD to a sea control ship means no amphibious landing force on board and even then half the strike aircraft as a CVN.

Even if it was the case then why does the USMC currently have so few AV-8Bs compared to F/A-18C/Ds? The fixation with STOVL is all about uniqueness of capability which has been a tool the USMC used for decades to survive as an independent force. But the days of flying significant fighter forces from Henderson Fields cut from the jungle and small carriers are long since gone.

I wasn't really referirng to a full blown D-Day type amphibious assault. The CVN force is being cut back and not every instance of "it'd be nice to have some air power in the area" requires a CVBG. The idea is to be able to place airpower in more places. For instance maybe you need wide coverage but not dense coverage. The F-35 gives you the option to temporarily assign one or two LHAs to a CVBG and spread them out for a larger presence rather than tying down 3 CVNs. Amphibious assault is still the LHAs main priority but it gives you options. Without the F-35 you just have another mission soaking up CVN assets because now you HAVE to assign a CVN to tag along with the LHAs unless you don't want any integral air cover. So not only do you lose 11 flight decks for fixed wing operations, you've made it so your CVNs are tied down even further than before. I really couldn't care less about fighters flying from the jungle, if LHA/Ds had catapults and arresting gear I wouldn't care if we ever saw STOVL again. I'm looking at it purely from being able to have integral air cover in more places at once.

 

[bobbymike]

I have to agree with sferrin. Having Marines with supersonic STOVL capability will enable carrier aviation to be used only where it is needed. Britain took on Argentina's air force thousands of miles from home with a few Harriers. F-35B equipped Marines will probably defeat 95% of the third world's air forces.

 

[SOC]

Is there any evidence that the F-35 has poor rear hemisphere LO or is it just conjecture from a noted group of anti-F-35 polemicists? No one in the services who has worked on the F-35 is complaining about its ATA lethality and survivability. The project is not in trouble because it has to be redesigned for more ATA capability.

It doesn't necessarily NEED more A/A capability, but with the Raptor shortfall it'd make a lot of sense to have it. The F-35 force was intended to operate with the Raptor force. As it stands now, you could easily envision a scenario where there aren't Raptors around for support, so having that added A/A versatility would be a big plus. Rear hemisphere LO isn't horrible by any stretch, but it is the aspect that is the "worst". My point is that if you came up with the F-35 today, it'd be a bit different from what they came up with a while ago due to changing factors in the perceived threat and the force structure.

As to the Raptor it did a pretty good job of killing itself. Are they ready for combat deployment yet? Will they ever be…

It's ready for combat deployment (IOC was a good long time ago), but nobody has seen fit to send it overseas to fly holes in the sky over Iraq or Afghanistan with very little to do.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I wasn't really referirng to a full blown D-Day type amphibious assault.

Neither was I. But rather referring to the way the USN and USMC plan to do business rather than enthusiasts’ hypothetical counter factuals.

The CVN force is being cut back and not every instance of "it'd be nice to have some air power in the area" requires a CVBG. The idea is to be able to place airpower in more places. For instance maybe you need wide coverage but not dense coverage. The F-35 gives you the option to temporarily assign one or two LHAs to a CVBG and spread them out for a larger presence rather than tying down 3 CVNs. Amphibious assault is still the LHAs main priority but it gives you options.

This is just fantasy. The USN does not assign ESGs to CSGs and has only once or twice configured a LHD to the sea control role. Nor too are CSGs assumed to be ‘tied down’ when providing offensive support to amphibious operations. Rather they are doing their job. And as a CSG is a far more mobile and flexible force than an ESG concentrating the air power within a CSG actually provides less wastage of assets.

Without the F-35 you just have another mission soaking up CVN assets because now you HAVE to assign a CVN to tag along with the LHAs unless you don't want any integral air cover. So not only do you lose 11 flight decks for fixed wing operations, you've made it so your CVNs are tied down even further than before. I really couldn't care less about fighters flying from the jungle, if LHA/Ds had catapults and arresting gear I wouldn't care if we ever saw STOVL again. I'm looking at it purely from being able to have integral air cover in more places at once.

Again more fantasy. The LHD only carries six STOVL jets. This is not a large enough force to provide any kind of sustained air defence, sea control or strike coverage. These ships carry the AV-8B/F-35B flight as part of the USMC’s unique integration of air land combat elements.

If one distorts the actual capability to meet some self determined idea of it then its hard to have a reasonable discussion about how to change it for the better.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I have to agree with sferrin. Having Marines with supersonic STOVL capability will enable carrier aviation to be used only where it is needed. Britain took on Argentina's air force thousands of miles from home with a few Harriers. F-35B equipped Marines will probably defeat 95% of the third world's air forces.

The differences between the RN’s Falklands Task Force and a USN/USMC ESG are huge. The RN had 20-30 Harriers and an ESG only six. The RN’s Harriers flew over 1,000 CAPs and only >100 strike missions in a month and a half of operations. No one in an ESG is planning to take on any kind of Argentine level air force (>100 combat jets) with their puny jet force.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It doesn't necessarily NEED more A/A capability, but with the Raptor shortfall it'd make a lot of sense to have it. The F-35 force was intended to operate with the Raptor force. As it stands now, you could easily envision a scenario where there aren't Raptors around for support, so having that added A/A versatility would be a big plus.

The F-35 was conceived as an adjunct to F-22 but it was NOT designed as one. The F-35 can carry out every F-22 assigned ATA mission, just in some cases (DCAP) you need to assign two F-35s for one F-22 because of the shortfall in interception speed to achieve airspace coverage. But when it comes to shooting down Su-27s and 51s it does so because it’s stealthier and has better sensors, weapons and decision making no matter what the polemicist say.

It's ready for combat deployment (IOC was a good long time ago), but nobody has seen fit to send it overseas to fly holes in the sky over Iraq or Afghanistan with very little to do.

If USAF could send the F-22 to the M iddle East without them embarrassing themselves they would have. And it’s not just about showing off the new goods but a serious military requirement thanks to the cold war with Iran. But the F-22 still struggles with connectivity and maintainability and that’s just the first half. The second half are so different they will probably have their own problems. The F-22 is a deeply troubled program that was cancelled because the US probably couldn’t even build another 200.

 

[sferrin]

I wasn't really referirng to a full blown D-Day type amphibious assault.

Neither was I. But rather referring to the way the USN and USMC plan to do business rather than enthusiasts’ hypothetical counter factuals.

The CVN force is being cut back and not every instance of "it'd be nice to have some air power in the area" requires a CVBG. The idea is to be able to place airpower in more places. For instance maybe you need wide coverage but not dense coverage. The F-35 gives you the option to temporarily assign one or two LHAs to a CVBG and spread them out for a larger presence rather than tying down 3 CVNs. Amphibious assault is still the LHAs main priority but it gives you options.

This is just fantasy. The USN does not assign ESGs to CSGs and has only once or twice configured a LHD to the sea control role. Nor too are CSGs assumed to be ‘tied down’ when providing offensive support to amphibious operations. Rather they are doing their job. And as a CSG is a far more mobile and flexible force than an ESG concentrating the air power within a CSG actually provides less wastage of assets.

Without the F-35 you just have another mission soaking up CVN assets because now you HAVE to assign a CVN to tag along with the LHAs unless you don't want any integral air cover. So not only do you lose 11 flight decks for fixed wing operations, you've made it so your CVNs are tied down even further than before. I really couldn't care less about fighters flying from the jungle, if LHA/Ds had catapults and arresting gear I wouldn't care if we ever saw STOVL again. I'm looking at it purely from being able to have integral air cover in more places at once.

Again more fantasy. The LHD only carries six STOVL jets. This is not a large enough force to provide any kind of sustained air defence, sea control or strike coverage. These ships carry the AV-8B/F-35B flight as part of the USMC’s unique integration of air land combat elements.

If one distorts the actual capability to meet some self determined idea of it then its hard to have a reasonable discussion about how to change it for the better.

LHA6s are supposedly being designed to embark up to 20 F-35s.

edit: Apparently the "Plug-Plus" configuration of the LHA-6 was dropped. That was the one that could have operated 20 F-35s as a secondary role.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lha-r-lhd-plug-plus.htm

 

[Abraham Gubler]

LHA6s are supposedly being designed to embark up to 20 F-35s.

edit: Apparently the "Plug-Plus" configuration of the LHA-6 was dropped. That was the one that could have operated 20 F-35s as a secondary role.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lha-r-lhd-plug-plus.htm

This is the same as the LHA1s and LHDs. If you take out all the landing force and its stores you can load the ship as a carrier. The 'sea control' role. But you can't do both at once. USS Nassau deployed to ODS and Bom Homme Rishard to OIF as 'harrier carriers' and its the only time its happen AFAIK. Of course it was done because the amphibious landing was a fient.

 

[SOC]

If USAF could send the F-22 to the M iddle East without them embarrassing themselves they would have. And it’s not just about showing off the new goods but a serious military requirement thanks to the cold war with Iran.

What? 6 (I think) of them have been in the UAE (or were recently) exercising with various nations.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What? 6 (I think) of them have been in the UAE (or were recently) exercising with various nations.

That's very different to being operationally deployed.

 

[AeroFranz]

The F-22 is a deeply troubled program that was cancelled because the US probably couldn’t even build another 200.

Can you expand on this? Not making any judgement, but I'm curious to know on what grounds you think this is so.