F-35 Lightning info

[spaceman]

Kinda looks like it has a stache...and lipstick on.

It goes all the way around though so really it's more like this:

[TreeA10]

From the Bloomberg article -

Really? Couldn't tell that just by looking at the darn thing? I guess that was supposed to be remedied by the newest magical helmet. Taking cues from 70's Soviet designs with 0 aft visibility probably wasn't wise for a *cough* fighter - even with a new wizard's hat that's supposed to let you look through the floor to see around you. McNamara's Folly take 2.

For the low, low price of $250,000 per helmet, I think we got a hell of a deal.

[17D_guy]

Well, that's a space helmet right?

Somebody tell me I'm wrong, but the space shuttle was cheaper -

With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program

And the plane's not even f#cking flying yet!

edit: forgot source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program, normally wouldn't cite wiki, but this isn't my Master's class.

Edited March 8, 2013 by 17D_guy

[Clark Griswold]

More good news about the greatest defense accquistion in history...

From Time... and the Project on Government Oversight...

[Bullet]

Words from the Eglin pilots who were interviewed for the articles above or were included in DOT&E's report: "We mention 100 positive things, and add one comment that can be taken out of context negatively, and guess what they publish." Also, take a closer look at the author of the POGO article -- Wilson Wheeler. Hasn't been a fan of the program since its inception. Takes a LOT of the issues out of context, and worse yet he knows he is.

GAO's annual report came out just a few days ago, and guess what their assessment is? The program is seeing improvement. Challenges still remain for sure (just like in any developmental program), but improving none the less.

[HuggyU2]

The F-35 is maturing quickly, but still needs some more time to develop. All part of the "normal process". Don't believe everything you read in the press... do I really have to mention that?

Barring any major setbacks, it is an aircraft that will eventually replace 6 or 7 fighter air frames. Air frames that we are wasting on 5 hour sorties over Afghanistan, doing non-traditional ISR. While you complain about F-35 costs, where is the indignation over the cost of throwing away the useful life of capable fighters currently in the fleet?

We will need a multi-role replacement. The F-35 makes is a new ballgame.

As one F-35 experienced pilot told me, "if we end up in a BFM engagement,... well, that just should not happen."

Edited March 13, 2013 by Huggyu2

[billy pilgrim]

As one F-35 experienced pilot told me, "if we end up in a BFM engagement,... well, that just should not happen."

Isn't that the exact same logic that led to the F-4 being designed with no internal gun?

[Buddy Spike]

Isn't that the exact same logic that led to the F-4 being designed with no internal gun?

This. That's an incredibly naive statement to make. But what is "experienced" in the F-35 anyway? 25 hrs?

[HU&W]

Isn't that the exact same logic that led to the F-4 being designed with no internal gun?

The F-35 was also designed with no internal gun in some cases for the same reason. Only the conventional A model has one. The B and C will both have to use a gun pod if BFM engagements are considered a risk.

Edited March 13, 2013 by HU&W

[RTB]

As one F-35 experienced pilot told me, "if we end up in a BFM engagement,... well, that just should not happen."

Hope that works out for them.

[HuggyU2]

Isn't that the exact same logic that led to the F-4 being designed with no internal gun?

Well, sort of.

Except that was based on

- the F-4 being about 10 years ahead of the fighters it was compared to the F-35 being about 30+ years on similar comparisons.

- the F-4 having no sensor fusion, per se.

- the F-4 having no stealth capability

- the F-4 having no reliable long range air-to-air missile

- the F-4's tactics being from half a century ago. Keep that in mind. The time from the Wright Bros first flight to the 1st flight of the F-4 was 55 years. And now, it's been 55 years since the first flight of the F-4. Is it possible some things have change in aerial warfare, and maybe we can quit scoffing at errors from the past that might actually have no significance in the current threat scenario?

[SurelySerious]

- the F-4 having no reliable "long range" air-to-air missile

F-35's carrying AMRAAM, right? Whatever it is, it's better than when the Brits around Nellis talk about how great the ASRAAM is.

[BB Stacker]

The F-35 is maturing quickly, but still needs some more time to develop.

You'll forgive me that I don't really give a shit that it needs "more time to develop" when LockMart/the Program office sold everyone a bill of goods about concurrency.

[Clark Griswold]

Words from the Eglin pilots who were interviewed for the articles above or were included in DOT&E's report: "We mention 100 positive things, and add one comment that can be taken out of context negatively, and guess what they publish." Also, take a closer look at the author of the POGO article -- Wilson Wheeler. Hasn't been a fan of the program since its inception. Takes a LOT of the issues out of context, and worse yet he knows he is.

GAO's annual report came out just a few days ago, and guess what their assessment is? The program is seeing improvement. Challenges still remain for sure (just like in any developmental program), but improving none the less.

Fair enough. didn't read the test pilots' positive comments but will readily admit I don't think that the eggs in one baskest idea of the JSF is a good idea, not that it matters, and that having an alternative 5th gen light strike fighter would at least lower risk...

But to balance everything out, Forbes is positive on it here

[Bullet]

Fair enough. didn't read the test pilots' positive comments but will readily admit I don't think that the eggs in one baskest idea of the JSF is a good idea, not that it matters, and that having an alternative 5th gen light strike fighter would at least lower risk...

Concur that the whole "all the eggs in one basket" thing is not the best plan in the world. But the fact remains we couldn't afford more than one fighter program at the time. Options were limited not by need, but by fiscal reality.

Just to add some more "perspective" on how the jet is doing, here are a few more words from the guys flying this jet down at Eglin:

"From a pure flying perspective, the F-35 is comparable to flying the F-16. It is very responsive to in-flight maneuvering and is even easier to land with superior braking capability. The scalable portals on the Panoramic Cockpit Displays provide unprecedented situational awareness and flexibility. The RADAR (APG-81) has been very easy to use in both air-to-air and air-to-surface operations providing capabilities well beyond 4th Generation aircraft."

Some highlights on recent progress in the program:

"Despite what has been in the news lately, there are a tremendous amount of positive things going on with this 'young' weapons system.

Another 6 USAF pilots completed their first sorties in the F-35A this week and there are currently 17 Pilots (UK,USMC,USAF) and 53 Maintainers

(USAF,USMC) going through the academic program at Eglin.

Eglin was approved this week from the JSF PEO to begin using classified courseware in the ATC and we will start teaching basic A/A and A/G capabilities for the first time starting next week. Students going through the current class will perform Tactical Intercept sorties using Radar and simulated A/A missiles as well as perform A/G missions using SAR Mapping and dropping simulated JDAM. The Electro Optical Targeting System is also expected to be cleared for use at Eglin in the very near future. From my experience so far, the long range detect capability and ability to maintain track on multiple Radar targets is unmatched - even at this stage in the program."

As to the "concurrency" issue: it wasn't that LM and the Program Office sold everyone a bill of goods. OSD and the services were front and center in pushing for this concept, mostly becuase they needed to start replacing their aging legacy fighters quickly becuase they simply were getting too expensive to fly and maintain. Particularly for the Marines, whose Harriers and older model Hornets are quickly reach the end of their useful lives on the ramp. Concurrency was a decent plan when the fligth test portion of the development phase was relativley short (3 years, one year for each of the planned blocks of capability upgrades, a "crawl, walk, run" approach). In those 3 years, a very limited number were being purchased (less than 20). This allowed the services to train a small number of pilots for Ops Test and the first few IPs for the FTU (so we could start training Ops pilots when the number of jets we accepted rapidly increased. What the issue became was that the program and the services didn't MANAGE concurrency well when devleopment started extending in length. We shouldhave tied incrreasing production to results in development.

[Clark Griswold]

All true (financial constraint) at the time and our financial situation is so much better now than the late 90's we're going to be able to afford all kinds of new aircraft... still it would have been nice to not just feed Lockheed Martin the entrie contract but all in the past now...

[deaddebate]

Air Force establishes F-35 IOC target

The Air Force announced today it expects to declare F-35A Lightning II initial operation capability in December 2016.

Services Deliver F-35 Initial Operational Capability Timelines to Congress

Based on the current F-35 Joint Program Office schedule, the Air Force F-35A will reach the IOC milestone by December 2016, while the Marine Corps F-35B will reach the IOC milestone by December 2015. F-35C, attached to Navy carrier air wings, will reach the IOC milestone by February 2019.

[billy pilgrim]

Well, sort of.

Except that was based on

- the F-4 being about 10 years ahead of the fighters it was compared to the F-35 being about 30+ years on similar comparisons.

- the F-4 having no sensor fusion, per se.

- the F-4 having no stealth capability

- the F-4 having no reliable long range air-to-air missile

- the F-4's tactics being from half a century ago. Keep that in mind. The time from the Wright Bros first flight to the 1st flight of the F-4 was 55 years. And now, it's been 55 years since the first flight of the F-4. Is it possible some things have change in aerial warfare, and maybe we can quit scoffing at errors from the past that might actually have no significance in the current threat scenario?

While your facts are correct, I don't agree with your conclusion.

1) Offensive capability is MUCH more costly than defensive capability. Example; Stealth technology vs. electronic attack.

2) Sensor fusion is a great concept but still think it's nice to keep a man in the loop. Example; I don't want my jet to have a check engine light - I want to analyze what's going on by looking at the instruments.

3) If long range missiles were so reliable all our fighters would be designed with the same g capabilities as a C-17 and much cheaper, lighter, faster, and have much better range.

4) On tech / tactics - I would say flight that like almost any other technology has a curve of diminishing returns. The Wright Brothers flew in the early 1900's. Less than 70 years later we* put a man on the moon. The F-22 or F-35 doesn't fly 10x as fast as the F-4 or 10x as high - the progression is not linear.

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

* real men with slide rules and mustaches.

Edited June 1, 2013 by billy pilgrim

[DEVIL]

If I were to design a fighter

It'd be the coolest looking thing around, and probably not even get off the ground. Thats why I let the engineers figure that stuff out.

Edited June 1, 2013 by GoCanes7

[billy pilgrim]

It'd be the coolest looking thing around, and probably not even get off the ground. Thats why I let the engineers figure that stuff out.

I'm not saying I want to design it - I'm just saying our focus is wrong. There is often a disconnect between the engineers and the end user.

Edited June 1, 2013 by billy pilgrim

[HU&W]

It'd be the coolest looking thing around, and probably not even get off the ground. Thats why I let the engineers figure that stuff out.

Rule #1 for a fighter to be effective is that it MUST look cool.

[Spinner]

Rule #1 for a fighter to be effective is that it MUST look cool.

Pentagon Wars, anyone?

[Kenny Powers]

I'm not saying I want to design it - I'm just saying our focus is wrong. There is often a disconnect between the engineers and the end user.

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.

[MKopack]

Rule #1 for a fighter to be effective is that it MUST look cool.

[disgruntledemployee]

Looks like its humping itself.