F-35 Lightning info

[Lawman]

The disconnect is the customer. The person between the engineers designing this stuff and the end users flying it.

The customer has 6900 different metrics to juggle and tries to do it all on a budget. Since they are the ones buying the shit we're designing, they get to make the calls at the end of the day when it comes to the final design. A lot of the time that means a suboptimal design to meet budget constraints.

So... What your saying is we need better people skills.

[Bullet]

I HATE the F-35. Our senior acquisitions folks are in bed with congress who are in bed with LM and the end result is an overpriced, under-performing aircraft that no real fighter pilot wants.

Read Boyd - the gold plated fighter returns. We need a Boyd right now to kill this cancer in the DOD.

If I were to design a fighter it would have:

10-11g capable airframe

Very low wing loading

Specialized for the mission (I.e. A-10 vs. F-22)

Excellent cockpit visibility

LOTS of internal fuel

Two motors to provide for a high thrust to weight ratio and thrust vectoring

Stealthish design but not at the expense of maintainability

Internal gun with lots of bullets

Internal reprogrammable EA capability

Sensors commensurate with the latest F-35 stuff

I take it you haven't been talking to the guys flying it already, who have very high praise for it. They would like to see the F-35 get all of the capes designed into it now, but they're only a few years away from that.

When we go into full rate production on F-35 in about 5 years, each will cost about $80M fully combat loaded. Want similar capes in a Block 50 Viper? Well, you'll need to add an AESA radar, better EA/EP, fused sensors, fly around with 3 external bags of fuel to get similar range (which removes your EW pod), and add a SNIPER pod. And will be nearly the same in cost then. But it still won't be able to go where the F-35 goes because it won't have stealth, and all it's combat capability will be externally carried

You know what I hate? "Boyd says" critiques. Were Boyd's observations and rules important in their day, and still have usefulness in today's air fight? Certainly. But the nature of aerial combat has changed since the days Boyd was around. Radars and other sensors are exponentially better so detection ranges are longer. Weapons are more reliable and lethal. SAM threats were much less capable.

BFM; still important. But NOT the first priority for today's air fight which the "Boyd says" critics think it remains.

In response to your "design specifications":

- F-35A = 9 Gs, which is what we've been saying was the safe physiological limit for decades now. Want more Gs? Get rid of the pilot. And we ain't there yet in unmanned capability to be effective in the air fight yet, and won't be for a while.

- Very low wing load design comes at the expense of RCS. Helps in BFM, sure, but see my point above.

- Blame OSD and Congress for this one, as they said we could only have one new fighter development program at a time. Guess they never heard of McNamarra and the F-X. Would have been nice to not to have to compromise and meet everyone's needs in separate programs, but them's the breaks. F-35 still does a pretty good job at it, though.

- Bubble canopy = RCS impact. However, there is the DAS on the F-35, which gives 360 degree visibility. Can you see through the aircraft in an A-10?

- F-35 = 18K # of internal gas, nearly twice as much internally as a Viper.

- Got me there. I'd prefer two engines as well.Oh well. Would have liked thrust vectoring as well, but the priority for F-35 was tactical fighter payload and range. Compromises in the name of cost.

- 9G fighter combat loaded, with stealth. So that WAS answered in the F-35 design.

- ACC's requirement (which is the warfighter's requirement) called for a larger caliber bullet. Would have been nice to have more of themn though. Again, oh well.

- Internal and reprogrammable EA? F-35 has it, and better than any fighter out there.

- A fighter with F-35's mission systems? So, you want an F-35, right?

Edited June 1, 2013 by Bullet

[Kenny Powers]

So... What your saying is we need better people skills.

http://youtu.be/RAY27NU1Jog

Yes, because you know what happens when you piss off an engineer:

Contrary to popular belief, we are all ######ing badasses, and we are smarter than everyone else .

Edited June 1, 2013 by Kenny Powers

[di1630]

I take it you haven't been talking to the guys flying it already, who have very high praise for it."

I've talked to both pilots in the test world and the ops (if you can call it that) side. Nobody argues the jet looks great on paper but 12 years after the flyoff and still years behind schedule, extremely over budget and now causing the USAF to cut single role aircraft to pay for it.

Lets face it, the JSF is a jobs program. Built in 46 states, joint, too big to fail. They should have kept the F-22 line open, upgrade to block 60 vipers/Super hornets and keep the A-10 flying.

[Swanee]

I've talked to both pilots in the test world and the ops (if you can call it that) side. Nobody argues the jet looks great on paper but 12 years after the flyoff and still years behind schedule, extremely over budget and now causing the USAF to cut single role aircraft to pay for it. Lets face it, the JSF is a jobs program. Built in 46 states, joint, too big to fail. They should have kept the F-22 line open, upgrade to block 60 vipers/Super hornets and keep the A-10 flying.

This is most definitely not what the Marines I know who fly the thing say. Given the choice between a Rhino and an F-35, the F-35 wins hands down.

[Day Man]

This is most definitely not what the Marines I know who fly the thing say. Given the choice between a Rhino and an F-35, the F-35 wins hands down.

can the -35 fly an ILS?

[EvilEagle]

I take it you haven't been talking to the guys flying it already, who have very high praise for it. They would like to see the F-35 get all of the capes designed into it now, but they're only a few years away from that.

- A fighter with F-35's mission systems? So, you want an F-35, right?

I have two good friends that fly it at Eglin. They are both very underwhelmed and do NOT have any praise for it - not high, not low, none. Obviously Bullet has a hand in Lockmart, but the facts are that it doesn't work. The DAC - doesn't work. The helmet - doesn't work. The speed & maneuverability requirements keep getting lessened so they can be passed with this jet we are stuck with. What are we down to now? Mil power 3 g turn at 10k'? Yeah, that's awesome performance.

The avionics do sound sweet - they should put them on a proven airframe.

Edited June 2, 2013 by EvilEagle

[brabus]

Come on day man, you know it's against Navy regs to fly anything more precise than a TACAN when not on the bo-at!

[Swanee]

can the -35 fly an ILS?

Well played.

They'd have to certify it to fly in IMC first.

[Bullet]

I have two good friends that fly it at Eglin. They are both very underwhelmed and do NOT have any praise for it - not high, not low, none. Obviously Bullet has a hand in Lockmart, but the facts are that it doesn't work. The DAC - doesn't work. The helmet - doesn't work. The speed & maneuverability requirements keep getting lessened so they can be passed with this jet we are stuck with. What are we down to now? Mil power 3 g turn at 10k'? Yeah, that's awesome performance.

The avionics do sound sweet - they should put them on a proven airframe.

Nope, not connected with Lockmart or any of the other sub-contractors tied to the program. Not even part of the Program Office. I am however very familiar with the F-35 and the reasons why the AF needs it, and wanted to address the fallacies and misconceptions folks keep incorrectly stating on performance and capabilities, and get them to understand a few things on why the focus of their complaints are simply wrong.

Sounds like your buds are frustrated with the limited syllabus and mission sets they are currently flying at Eglin in the current 1B configuration in their F-35s. Frankly, I would be as well, as the 1B jet has very limited combat capability and a lot of flight restrictions. Must be very frustrating to folks who want to go out a employ it like it was intended and fly like the combat aviators they are trained to be. They will be getting jets in the 2A configuration in a few months (and upgrading their current jets to that config as well) and start flying a 2A syllabus in January. MUCH more mission system capability in 2A. The Distributed Apeture System (DAS, not DAC) will be validated and in use (it works now, it's just not VALIDATED and certiified through developmental test as of today). The guys I talked to (and continue to talk to regularly) at Eglin must understand this a little better than your buds, but they are frustrated as well and want to see what the F-35 can do when all the systems are validated.

The Helmet? Well, the Program Office does say that they got the almost all early technical challenges under control, and the Helmet will be ready when we go IOC in 2016, but I'll let the folks at the 31st and 422 be the judges of that through ops test validation.

Speed? Well, frankly yes, the acceleration requirement was lowered. We added 6 seconds for the requirement to accelerate from .8M to 1.2M, about 10% lower. And yes, the sustained G rate was lowered as well, but not the instantaneous 9G requirement.

But the folks down at ACC, the warfighters themselves and NOT LockMart or the Program Office, quickly came to the conclusion that even these lowered requirements had MINIMAL impact on the jet's operational utility and were not worth the cost to start over. Mostly a physics problem, as keeping RCS low tends impact aircraft performance. We could have fixed them, but the cost to redesign the aircraft was simply too high at this stage, and the higher priority is stealth. However, we won't be stuck in 3G turns in MIL as you state (which I assume was a humorous exaggeration on your point to make your point).

See, that's the issue. We COULD put all these neat toys in a proven and current airframe. And they would make these jets AWESOME. Right up until the point where they were blown out of the sky. We're not spending ungodly amounts of money to build a fighter for today's fight, we're making a jet to fight tomorrow's (and for the next 50 years). And in a very short timeframe, no matter WHAT you put on our current fleet, they still won't be able to operate and survive in tomorrow's high-end threat environment. They simply don't have the inherent stealth in their design, and that is something you simply can't "slap on".

We also need to buy new fighters as our legacy fleet is getting old fro being rode hard and put away wet for so many years, and their service life can only be extended so much. So, if you were making the decision, would you buy more of the old jets with better toys, and still be limited in where you can go with them? Or would you buy the new jet, which I admit will be 10-25% more expensive, but you can still do the mission anywhere? Remember, Congress and OSD said you can only have one or the other, because I'd rather have a mix of both. Hopefully, we can convince them of that.

[SocialD]

When we go into full rate production on F-35 in about 5 years, each will cost about $80M fully combat loaded.

Assuming we buy how many? I'm sure the F-22 had a much smaller price tag when we were going to buy 800 of them....how'd that work out for us? How many 35s do you think we'll buy? I'd say we're lucky if we get 8-900.

I'm not a hater of the 35, I'm just a bit skeptical of it's ability to show up on time and our ability to procure very many. I'm sure it has great technology but I'm not sure i would want to convert to it just yet. Not ready to spend more time in the sim and less time in the air.

- F-35 = 18K # of internal gas, nearly twice as much internally as a Viper.

What's the fuel burn rate? Serious question.

[Bullet]

Assuming we buy how many? I'm sure the F-22 had a much smaller price tag when we were going to buy 800 of them....how'd that work out for us? How many 35s do you think we'll buy? I'd say we're lucky if we get 8-900.

I'm not a hater of the 35, I'm just a bit skeptical of it's ability to show up on time and our ability to procure very many. I'm sure it has great technology but I'm not sure i would want to convert to it just yet. Not ready to spend more time in the sim and less time in the air.

What's the fuel burn rate? Serious question.

Good questions, and more appropriate than the questions on aerodynamic performance.

First, when talking about cutting the buy, you need to understand the difference between Unit Recurring Flyaway costs (URF, the price for just the plane, spares, and engines during each production lot) and Acquisition Program Unit Cost (APUC, the cost for the plane same as URF, + development, MILCON, and all the infrastructure required to get the system mission ready). Cut the buy, and there will be a slight impact to URF (depending on the number you buy each lot). However, there is a SIGNIFICANT impact to APUC. The less you buy the higher the APUC cost.

Let's use the F-22 as the prime example of this. All the development was complete when the powers that be decided to cut production at Lot 10. URF for Lot 10 and beyond was about $140M/copy. However, stopping production at Lot 10 at only 183 F-22s drove the APUC to nearly $400M each. It was perhaps the dumbest time to kill production in my opinion, as the URF was pretty reasonable (for a F-22), and the APUC was going down with each lot we bought.

What does this mean for the F-35? Well, the SDD portion finishes in just a few more years, with the vast majority of the development costs already been sunk. Cancelling the program now would be foolish, but perhaps reducing the buy after a fe years of multi-rate production would allow us the benefit of getting more jets at prices just slightly higher than buying new F-15s or F-16s, but with more 5th gen capability and much better survivability.

Honestly,the question you are ultimately asking is the key -- Can we afford the planned F-35 buy? Is there a better option, balancing capability against cost.

Your fuel burn rate question == Have you seen the F-135 engine's exhaust? E-Normous! Needed the bigger engine to get you to acceptable levels of performance (the debate here seems to be "what IS acceptable for a stealth fighter?"). Fuel burn rate IS higher, but the range of a F-35 fully combat loaded is significantly greater that of a similarly loaded F-16 (exact percentage escapes me, but I think it's about 40% greater)

Your concern on waiting to convert? Valid,and I would say to most to wait a couple of years. That being said, they ARE delivering in numbers now, and the program has been relatively stable for a couple of years.

[Nineline]

This is most definitely not what the Marines I know who fly the thing say. Given the choice between a Rhino and an F-35, the F-35 wins hands down.

Keep in mind that the F-35 is also the Harrier's replacement. All the Marine Harrier pilots I know aren't impressed.

-9-

[Tulsa]

Keep in mind that the F-35 is also the Harrier's replacement. All the Marine Harrier pilots I know aren't impressed.

-9-

How are they not impressed? I mean I would love to time share a TGP and LGB between my wingman and I, but the guys on the ground deserve more. Seriously, what do they not like?

[di1630]

Fuel burn rate IS higher, but the range of a F-35 fully combat loaded is significantly greater that of a similarly loaded F-16

Lets talk about loadout......2 A/A missiles and 2 bombs, everything else external which has an effect on the RCS??

-So what we have is a jet that does not to A/A as well as the F-22 (see argument for buying F-22's instead)

-Carries about the same as an F-16 that cost 1/4 the amount....but we have a great RCS...not F-22 great.

-Let's not even compare its CAS/Loiter/strafe (Real CAS) abilities to the Hog.

The Marines I talked to said that the RAM coating upkeep will be almost impossible and their plan is to load it down like a hornet with external everything.

Looks good on paper though. I have not heard a good thing about this program from anyone involved except the LM guys and the cool-aid drinkers who have to sell the USAF on it.

[17D_guy]

The Helmet? Well, the Program Office does say that they got the almost all early technical challenges under control, and the Helmet will be ready when we go IOC in 2016, but I'll let the folks at the 31st and 422 be the judges of that through ops test validation.

Oh good, this things been punctual for everything else. I'm sure the helmet won't get delayed.

[Vprdrvr69]

Shack. It's anyone's guess how long it will take for the AF to recover from the Gates/Scwartz reign of terror... If ever. But hey, at least we have a metric shit ton of defenseless RPAs optimized for the third world.

I say the metric shit ton of damn UAV's are the answer to double digit SAMS! Launch the whole fleet!

[brabus]

Lets talk about loadout......2 A/A missiles and 2 bombs, everything else external which has an effect on the RCS??

-So what we have is a jet that does not to A/A as well as the F-22 (see argument for buying F-22's instead)

-Carries about the same as an F-16 that cost 1/4 the amount....but we have a great RCS...not F-22 great.

-Let's not even compare its CAS/Loiter/strafe (Real CAS) abilities to the Hog.

Here's a mind-blower for a lot of people: Every phase of "the war" does not require "full" LO. Everyone is so wrapped around the axle on the 2x120s + 2x2000LB bombs. Firstly, there's SDB, which it can carry more of internally, and secondly it carries as much as a strike eagle (way more than a Viper) when the external stations are used. Shockingly enough, it will actually carry a "shitload" of weapons for a fighter after it + other assets accomplish Step A of the war.

Just curious what the basis is for your statement it won't do as well at A/A as the Raptor?

No arguments from probably anybody on the Hog...just a dumb idea all around.

[EvilEagle]

Here's a mind-blower for a lot of people: Every phase of "the war" does not require "full" LO. Everyone is so wrapped around the axle on the 2x120s + 2x2000LB bombs. Firstly, there's SDB, which it can carry more of internally, and secondly it carries as much as a strike eagle (way more than a Viper) when the external stations are used. Shockingly enough, it will actually carry a "shitload" of weapons for a fighter after it + other assets accomplish Step A of the war.

Just curious what the basis is for your statement it won't do as well at A/A as the Raptor?

No arguments from probably anybody on the Hog...just a dumb idea all around.

That's true about the full L.O. - having the non-LO option is a life saver for the 35. Especially for the Navy since they can't mx LO on the boat anyway...

It won't do as well at A/A as the Raptor - with less turn performance and speed than an Eagle, it's obviously not as good as a Raptor. The AMRAAM likes speed and altitude - both weak places for the 35 - even in L.O. config. (I can only imagine how crappy it will be with externals). Also LO intercepts require a lot more a/c performance than you might think. I can't think of a better way to say what I mean by that on an open forum.

[di1630]

Here's a mind-blower for a lot of people: Every phase of "the war" does not require "full" LO.

Hmmm, sounds like a great idea to buy upgraded legacy jets for 1/3 the cost for everything after day 6-9 of the war.

[DFRESH]

I can't think of a better way to say what I mean by that on an open forum.

BO SIPR

[brabus]

It won't do as well at A/A as the Raptor - with less turn performance and speed than an Eagle, it's obviously not as good as a Raptor. The AMRAAM likes speed and altitude - both weak places for the 35 - even in L.O. config. (I can only imagine how crappy it will be with externals). Also LO intercepts require a lot more a/c performance than you might think. I can't think of a better way to say what I mean by that on an open forum.

Completely down with that, I only asked because I've literally heard answers such as, "because it carries less missiles," which is obviously a stupid answer. Anyways, the above is a great reason why we should have not fucked up by shutting down the Raptor line...what a giant mistake.

[Ram]

Completely down with that, I only asked because I've literally heard answers such as, "because it carries less missiles," which is obviously a stupid answer.

Valid point. Parts of this thread (a vast majority of the posts) aren't much different than reading YouTube comments. I gave myself a cranium ache from face-palming so hard.

[B52gator]

Long, but good article.

F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was meant to improve the U.S. air arsenal but has made it more vulnerable instead

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

[StoleIt]

I am NOT an Aero Engineer...but it seems like the article is mostly knocking the F-35's large fuselage area. Isn't that not necessarily a bad thing? Doesn't the F-15 make a considerable amount of lift from its fuselage?

Dumb it down for me here...