Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Shadow]

The one interesting feature about the YF-120 that wasn't in the YF-119 was it apparently could mimic a turbojet in high-altitude cruising conditions.

Regarding upgrading the F-14. For the Tomcat21, I think plans were to move to the F110 GE-129s uprated maybe to around 30,000 while the idea of throwing in F119s was also played around with for a later update.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Shadow

[Vifam7]

A boy has the right to dream.

Apologies for trying to ruin a boy's dream.

If it's any consolation, I've dreamed that GD had won the ETF competition with the F-16XL.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Vifam7

[SchizophrenicMC]

The one interesting feature about the YF-120 that wasn't in the YF-119 was it apparently could mimic a turbojet in high-altitude cruising conditions.

Regarding upgrading the F-14. For the Tomcat21, I think plans were to move to the F110 GE-129s uprated maybe to around 30,000 while the idea of throwing in F119s was also played around with for a later update.

There were a few plans for the F-14's further development around the mid-90s, ranging from the F-14D Quickstrike, which would have just been an F-14D with APG-71 radars (which were planned for the D anyway, but most of them were scrapped at the last minute) and modified software and hardpoints to handle more types of stand-off weapons, to the ASF-14 which would have been a totally new airframe in a vaguely Tomcattish skin. Cost projections for the ASF-14 actually outperformed the F/A-18E/F, but the Super Hornet was ultimately chosen because our military didn't trust Northrop after the B-2 cost so much.

Apologies for trying to ruin a boy's dream.

If it's any consolation, I've dreamed that GD had won the ETF competition with the F-16XL.

Let's play Ace Combat, where all of these planes became combat realities.

[David Hingtgen]

The turbofan to turbojet "mode conversion" was THE key design feature of the YF120. Still nothing like it now AFAIK. (And is why it's so remarkably superior to the F119 in supercruise).

[SchizophrenicMC]

The turbofan to turbojet "mode conversion" was THE key design feature of the YF120. Still nothing like it now AFAIK. (And is why it's so remarkably superior to the F119 in supercruise).

According to GE engineers, the whole system only added around 10lbs to the engine, over the valveless prototype. I believe the X-43B, if they ever made it, was supposed to use a modified YF-120 that could bypass the engine core completely and operate as an afterburning ramjet in addition to its turbofan and turbojet modes of operation. Ultimately the X-43 project was scrubbed before it ever got that far, too.

I think I'm right in saying the closest thing to a production jet engine that could change its mode of operation is the J58 turboramjet, which could famously bypass its turbine and compressor at high mach numbers.

In any case, it's also impressive that the YF-120 was a 35,000-lbf class engine, given its size. (About 4" narrower than the F110, around 20" shorter) The F-119 didn't reach 35,000lbf until they got the go-ahead for a production variant, and it's longer than the F110. (Remember that whole conversation a couple months ago about GE9x adding more stages for more power) Of course, we know the engine has even more potential; the derivative F-135PW100 makes well in excess of 40,000lbf. I just wonder what GE could have pulled off with the same amount of R&D money appropriated to them, considering what their prototype could do. They do, historically, have a record of doing really good in this field.

[grigolosi]

Everything I have read on the ETF competition, the XL would have won it if the GE engine had been approved for use in the F-16 at the time. Unfortunately the GE was in the testing phase on the F-16 at the time so GD had to use the Pratt and Whimpy in the XL frame, which made it under powered compared to the split tail Strike Chicken. But that is the way things went so we have what we have now.

It makes me wonder though if the advancement of tech the 23 would have made somewhat frightened the AF also. I wouldn't doubt that some rep from LM made sure to harp on the "instabilities" of such advance tech , especially in the engine to the AF leadership. But if anything like that happened it did so behind closed doors and we will probably never know.

A little interesting information though is that over here we have had a LARGE number of thermal disconnects with the generators on the Block 60's this past year. One of our electricians poised an interesting theory that relates directly to the F-35. The 35 now has too used cooled fuel when refueled to prevent the same issue on it using the 35K thrust engine. That is with the aircraft stateside so it hasn't really encountered real field conditions. These block 60's are flying in 115-120 degree heat during the summer here and the 132 is rated at 32K. The electrician suggested that the fuel is not sufficiently cool enough to cool the oil system, especially in the generator. We do know that the fuel trucks are kept outside in the sun all day in the heat and the storage tanks are probably being heated the same way. I know a lot of folks in the maintenance world threw a fit when they heard about the fuel issue on the F-35 but I honestly believe in this case it is very true. This is something the engineers didn't put into teh equation when have designed these higher and higher thrust engines.

Edited March 1, 2016 by grigolosi

[SchizophrenicMC]

When you try and cram as much stuff as they did, into as small an airframe as the F-35, you run into cooling trouble. The F-16 isn't much bigger. And of course a more powerful engine generates more heat. So you need to pack even more cooling solutions into an even more cramped airframe than before. Just another reason to go with big twins, in my opinion.

And no, Lockheed Martin, play dirty? Never.

[Shadow]

It makes me wonder though if the advancement of tech the 23 would have made somewhat frightened the AF also. I wouldn't doubt that some rep from LM made sure to harp on the "instabilities" of such advance tech , especially in the engine to the AF leadership. But if anything like that happened it did so behind closed doors and we will probably never know.

An ironic turn given the AFs aversion to low-tech airplanes now. I can just imagine a room of old brass looking at both designs and tilting their heads at the YF-23 like it's some new tech gadget they can't make heads or tails of.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Shadow

[F-ZeroOne]

Seeing as the Plane-That-Must-Not-Be-Named has reared its lift-fan hatch here again, some more comments from the Norwegian pilot who has been largely positive about the aircraft (and actually flying it). This obviously indicates that someone who actually knows what they're talking about does indeed have a more informed opinion than the entire Rest of the Internet/Is obviously a paid LockMart shrill (delete according to how you feel about the F-35... ):

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/

(scroll down for English version).

[SchizophrenicMC]

I do not believe that aircraft has a lift fan hatch.

I also do not believe the program has proven itself to be worth the billions we've spent on it, considering we still have none combat-ready aircraft, 10 years after they were supposed to be in mass production.

[David Hingtgen]

Hey, they just said today they dropped their first actual training bombs at Hill, vs their previous simulated training bombs.

[grigolosi]

The new higher thrust engines we are moving into are a new realm for the engineers. I am not a big fan of "that" plane myself. I agree with Schizo that the amount the US government has spent on it has given very little in return so far but when I saw that information on the cooling issues for the engine lube systems and then witnessed them happening on a "proven" frame that has a newer higher thrust engine I realized in respect that engineers like always have missed something. The cooling system on most modern fighters is a FOHE type (Fuel Oil Heat Exchanger). The oil is piped through an section of the aircraft's fuel cell to alleviate the heat it builds circulating through the engine systems. The Hydraulics are also cooled the same way but hydraulic fluid is a not quite as hot ( the max operating temp for F-16 hydraulic systems are 260 degrees). The engineers I doubt even took into consideration the affect of increased heat from the engine on the other birds FOHE system. The turbine oil is circulated straight through the core of the engine when operating (the center shafts have several oil sumps located in them). The temps have got be incredible. Unfortunately we are stuck with this jet now and all 3 branches are going to have to make it work. As long as they are actually dropping something from the bomb bays in order to train the pilots it shows some progress is being made. It is going to be curious to see what happens when they get over to this part of the world during the summer and see what happens. I know F-22's operate here and they don't seem to have any issues with the over heating of their systems like the "other" bird does in places that are a relatively cool climate wise.

Edited March 2, 2016 by grigolosi

[F-ZeroOne]

My view on the F-35 is rather pragmatic; I agree that the program has been an over-expensive mess (though thats not actually unusual for military programs; look at the development of the Bradley), but really, what choice is there now anyway? I'm British, and the Royal Navy needs something to fly from HMS Her Maj, and we're past the point where theres any conceivable alternative (as much as the French would love to sell us some Rafale-Ms, which still wouldn't be suitable now... ).

Probably its been overly ambitious, but look at it another way - how many supersonic STOVL fighters have actually got to the stage of entering service (even as "IOC"; and yes I know the "B" does not represent all the F-35s), and I think theres a disconnect between what people think the F-35 should be able to do and what it was designed to do (I wonder, if more F-22s were in service, would we still be having some of these arguments?); theres also the fact that its the first fighter of the internet generation and we all know what a reasonable, rational forum for cool-headed discussion that is...

[David Hingtgen]

Hmmn, RAF Super Hornets....

(Too late now, but was a Naval Tornado ever considered? Swing-wings on carriers rock)

[grigolosi]

F-Zero I definitley agree with you on what you said. We are way past the point of no return on the 35 now. Like I said all 3 US branches and some of the other countries are going to have to make the aircraft work now. I think you are right when you said there is a major disconnect between what people think that jet should do and what it actually does by design. I know the French would love to be able to tell everyone that the RAF and RN came to them asking to buy those damn Rafale's (noisy ass aircraft for such small engines). As far as navalized GR-1's and F-3's go I honestly have no idea whether the idea was ever proposed David. I have never read of it but I have never actually looked into it either.

I know from what I have seen in the facebook groups I belong too ( USAF Crew Chiefs and F-16 Crew Chiefs) the very term "F-35" causes some serious yelling. A lot of the old heads like me that crewed the 4th gen fighters get livid over the idea of the jets they crewed being replaced, especially by an aircraft that has had so many development problems. They say the same thing many have. " We just need to build new F-16's and F-15's". A good friend of mine pointed out that back in the 70's if all we used that mentality we would have never had the 4th gen birds. we would have been still using the F-4's, F-100's and F-105's because "meh....these jets work just fine". I have come to the conclusion that very few people can have a calm rational discussion about the F-35.......ever.

[F-ZeroOne]

David, I'd forgotten about the Super Hornet! Though again, as our new carriers are being built without catapaults now its a bit of a moot point.

I don't know if there was ever a proposal for a naval Tornado, I've certainly never seen anything either on-line or in books.Oddly enough, when the RAF was shipping around for a new fighter back before the ADV variant, the F-14 was considered, but presumably for a land-based role only.

A naval Typhoon was proposed at one point and theres some debate about how straightforward a conversion that would have been.

grigolosi, I believe I've mentioned on here before that the "We don't need any of that new-fangled rubbish!" point-of-view is a very old one; they were saying that back when monoplanes started to replace biplanes... I guess I should perhaps I have said that the issue of what the F-35 can do is arguably slightly less important for the USAF (which has F-22s, F-15s and F-16s) and possibly to a lesser extent for the RAF with its Typhoons than those nations which will be relying on it as their sole major aircraft type.

Edited March 2, 2016 by F-ZeroOne

[SchizophrenicMC]

I think the key difference between the 5th gen fighter and the 4th gen fighter is, in 1970 we had a legitimate military adversary capable of the same level of aerospace development as us. By 1990, that adversary no longer existed. By 2000 they were a distant memory, and by 2005, we didn't even have any national governments who openly posed a military threat. There was strong justification to advance from the 3rd generation fighter to the 4th generation fighter. And, in 1980, when the ATF program was first conceived there was still justification to develop the 5th generation fighter, even as good as the gen-4.5 fly-by-wire teens were. But by the time ATF had aircraft to show for it, the USSR had folded. There wasn't any reason to propose the JSF program. There certainly has yet to be any reason to spend the kind of money that has been spent thus far on JSF, and there is still yet more money to spend before a production-ready aircraft is available. I mean, preparedness is great and all, but who are our potential military adversaries, capable of projecting air power? After all, the T-50 was made as a response to the F-22's production, and only really has theory backing up claims of its performance; the modern variants of US-deployed aircraft all carry much more sophisticated equipment that suits the modern modes of operation, ie long-range standoff deployment. The F-14 was designed to blow up targets over 100 miles away, and since we proved the concept 45 years ago, we've put a lot of development into standoff interception and attack. Get into a field of operation, identify and attack targets before you are capable of being engaged, and exit the field of operation. That's the modern MO. That's why the F-22 and F-35 have been designed for multi-aspect low observability. It decreases the minimum effective standoff range. Not that there was a ton of need for it, given the advancements to our missile and tracking systems. (Again, I'll give the ATF a pass since it was developed during a time when there was need of such advancements)

The problem with the low-observability brief is, it drove the entire design philosophy of the aircraft, by necessity. Which in turn means the small, low-volume airframe has trouble being serviced, packaging all the cooling it needs, carrying munitions and fuel, and still supporting its advanced electronics. Add the STOVL system to the mix and it's even more hopeless. And while the aircraft may still be capable of long-range standoff engagements, and perhaps even close-in aerial combat (which is no longer relevant), if it's intended to replace the F-16, F/A-18, and A-10 as a close air support platform, there are serious concerns about the survivability of an aircraft as delicate and composite-armored as the F-35.

As good as the Gen4.6 fighters are, I'm not convinced there has been sufficient financial justification for the $391 billion the program is expected to cost by 2037. For reference, Apollo cost $110 billion, adjusted for inflation. F-22 cost $66 billion when all was said and done.

And for all of this, we don't even get F-23s!

[areaseven]

[Sildani]

The Chinese are quite busy with their J-10s and J-20s. And their modernization of their ADF system.

I don't think the F-35 is worth the money. But it's what we have to work with, and I believe that in the end it will work rather well. I'd love it if some of the gold-plated crap on it could be deleted, though.

[Shadow]

I'm pretty much in with the "We're stuck with the F-35; have to just iron out the problems." crowd. I still have issues with the philosophy inside the AF of essentially creating a 2 fighter aircraft force. I think it leaves some critical gaps that I don't see the F-35 being able to fill. I feel that there is still a strong place for a deep interdiction aircraft (F-111 & F-15E), especially with the advances in AD capabilities among China and Russia. The proposed FB-22 never got off the ground which really disappointed me and the B-1R seems to have been shelved.

[grigolosi]

Schizo I absolutely;y agree the 391 Billion dollar tag over all was/is not justifiable. The program snowballed so quickly it was scary. I know someone in the Forums tried to justify it by comparing it to older aircraft programs, it didn't fly with me nor a lot of other folks and in the end he sounded like a salesman for LM. I believe the whole stealth/LO issue has restricted the practical design of modern aircraft like you said. I believe a lot of this is from the West looking at these newer AD missile systems and placing western tech standards in the evaluations. We did this in the late 60's with the MIG-25. When you looked at the Foxbat on paper and looked at it as though it was designed and built by the Western nations it scared the hell out of everyone. After one was examined closely the realization of its actual capabilities struck like a iron skillet to the head. The F-35 is a result of this fear of the "modern" battlefield. All these "You have to have LO to survive.....blah blah blah" statements by all these analyst just propagates the issue further. I believe we could have gotten a good aircraft that balanced the the needs of LO and practicality but like always engineers and generals want push button weapons. This program now is a big S#$% sandwich and now all we can do is try to make taste better since we have to take a big bite as taxpayers sadly enough.

[Vifam7]

(without facts or figures to backup my claim) I blame 2 factors for the delays and costs inflation.

1. The F-35B variant. The STOVL variant alone probably contributed the biggest airframe compromises. I just don't understand the USMC's infatuation with STOVL and the need to have them on their amphib. carriers. Same with the Brits. Why operate STOVL jets from a decently sized carrier (HMS Queen Eliz)?

2. The desire to incorporate every last state-of-the-art techno wizardry into the airframe from the beginning. Why not deliver the F-35 with off-the-shelf components and leave some room in the airframe for the eventual upgrades? Perhaps that could've mitigated the delays, cost overruns, and bad press?

[shrug]

Just some thoughts.

[David Hingtgen]

Re: point 2.

Look at the F-18A+. It's better than the F-18C now, because it didn't have all the goodies from the start. It had space and weighed less. Then, years later, it gets all the C's goodies, and then some. But tech advances so quickly, all those goodies are now miniaturized compared to the C's, so the A still weighs less the C and has more room for even more future goodies.

While most C's are stuffed to the gills with older heavier equipment which they've had from the start. (Except, ironically, the one thing that was supposed to truly make the C, a C, its DECM equipment).

[Nazareno2012]

1. The F-35B variant. The STOVL variant alone probably contributed the biggest airframe compromises. I just don't understand the USMC's infatuation with STOVL and the need to have them on their amphib. carriers. Same with the Brits. Why operate STOVL jets from a decently sized carrier (HMS Queen Eliz)?

What's worse is that when the construction of the ships started, it was decided to build them to the CATOBAR configuration, but due to "cost issues" it was decided to revert back to STOVL. CATOBAR carriers have more flexibility with the airwing (as there are several manufacturers of non-STOVL naval aircraft) and thus has more long-term benefits.

[grigolosi]

(without facts or figures to backup my claim) I blame 2 factors for the delays and costs inflation.

1. The F-35B variant. The STOVL variant alone probably contributed the biggest airframe compromises. I just don't understand the USMC's infatuation with STOVL and the need to have them on their amphib. carriers. Same with the Brits. Why operate STOVL jets from a decently sized carrier (HMS Queen Eliz)?

2. The desire to incorporate every last state-of-the-art techno wizardry into the airframe from the beginning. Why not deliver the F-35 with off-the-shelf components and leave some room in the airframe for the eventual upgrades? Perhaps that could've mitigated the delays, cost overruns, and bad press?

[shrug]

Just some thoughts.

One answer to the USMC infatuation with placing STOVL's on the amphib carriers is directly related to USMC aviation doctrine. If you ask any Marine pilot what their purpose is and they will tell you "support the ground pounder Marines". The entire purpose of Marine aviation is to support their ground operations. With their deployable forces stationed on the Amphib carriers they see the best option as having their MAW/MAG support right there with them. But the STOVL configuration did add more weight and slowed down the development program and added costs to it. The STOVL version was the last of the versions to begin flight testing. Because of the design of the engine it doesn't even have a tail hook and nor internal gun. The gun pod for it is still in development.

The scary part is that the F-35 is not a small aircraft by any means. I have been around them up close and it is a fairly large aircraft frame wise. It isn't as big as an F-22 but it definitely shadows the F-16. A lot of compromises were made system side in simple stuff like cannon plug connectors. If you look at most 4th gen birds and older these plugs are all metal. The crew chiefs on the 35's pointed out that they are plastic on that jet and they told me they tend to break fairly easily especially if you try to use a set of cannon plug pliers on them to disconnect them (these plugs can be a PITA to disconnect depending on where they are and how tight they thread on already). Plastic itself tends to not deal with certain climates very well as is, they can get very brittle from the cold or high heat climates. But this was a compromise made to save weight on the frame.

Edited March 4, 2016 by grigolosi

[F-ZeroOne]

I don't know the precise reasoning behind why the UK went with non-CATOBAR carriers to start with. Bear in mind we're talking about decisions that were made three UK governments ago (the carriers were started by the Labour Party, very approximately equivalent to the US Democratic Party). There were probably several elements in the decision. Usually with the UK, the overriding one is cost. Steam catapaults (EM ones would only have, at best, been on the drawing board back then) obviously require upkeep that a simple take-off/landing deck doesn't. The RN had been operating STOVL aircraft for a couple of decades, there was an established body of experience with the Harrier whereas CATOBAR would mean establishing a coventional carrier-trained trained force almost from scratch. STOVL aircraft came in handy during the only recent carrier-involved conflict the UK fought; theres an argument that militaries always seem to prepare to fight the last war, not the next one. Other alternatives would have been politically unacceptable, with - as David suggested - the exception of the F-18 but governments get distracted by new gadgets just as much as the rest of us, and the F-35 would have been the hot sexy thing back then...

Edited March 4, 2016 by F-ZeroOne

[Vifam7]

One answer to the USMC infatuation with placing STOVL's on the amphib carriers is directly related to USMC aviation doctrine. If you ask any Marine pilot what their purpose is and they will tell you "support the ground pounder Marines". The entire purpose of Marine aviation is to support their ground operations. With their deployable forces stationed on the Amphib carriers they see the best option as having their MAW/MAG support right there with them.

The problems I see with that (in relation to STOVL aircraft) is the following -

1. The amphib carrier typically only carries like 6 F-35Bs. 20 at most if the helos are eliminated. Better than nothing but really, that isn't much to work with IMHO (particularly knowing that fixed wing air ops on an amphib is nowhere near that of an actual carrier).

2. In any amphib operation, I would assume a supercarrier and its aircraft (that are far more capable) will also be involved in supporting the troops. So why the need for a handful of jump jets on an amphib?

3. Any major operation is going to be an all-out joint operations warfare. Meaning... Marine Corps troops on the ground isn't restricted to getting air support from just Marine aviation. So again, why need a handful of jump jets? Just so a few Marine jets are real nearby on an amphib? I don't know, I'm no expert, but the whole idea of jump jets seems like a complete waste of money to me.

[grigolosi]

Typically the Amphibs are also used quite often as a quick reaction force. They are deployed on a moments notice and generally operate by themselves until the larger fleet carrier(s) arrive to help provide support. The reading I have done on it show the Marines planning on buying 340 B and 80 C model's with most of them being stationed on either carriers or on shore installations. The limited number of B models on the America class assault carriers will be there again primarily for quick reaction force support until a fleet carrier BG joins up with them. When you consider where the fleet carriers are typically performing their deployment cruises, they are typcially not close to where these quick reaction crisis arise (never in the right spot at the right time). Plus the Marines discovered in Lebanon in the early 80's that helicopters do not fair as well against AD systems alone. So they make it SOP to ensure that there is some form of fixed aircraft support with the Amphibs even though it very limited. Also I know for a fact they receive CAS from other branches but in a situation again where there are no shore based assets within range nor a fleet carrier either than they have to use the support they themselves provide.

Ironically enough though I was looking at the cost per aircraft and the C models will cost more than either the A or the B. The beefed up Navy requirements really ran the bill up on the F-35C.

[David Hingtgen]

Is the only reason the USN wants C's, is to have a stealth fighter? Because with all the gadgets the Super Hornet keeps getting, I wonder why they couldn't just get more of those.

The F-35 is slower, more expensive, SINGLE-ENGINED and I think has a smaller payload. Probably better range though, as that's always been a Hornet issue.

[grigolosi]

Unfortunately the continuing test of the frame has caused restrictions on the airspeed from what i was reading. Even the AF had to say screw you to LM and the DoD when it came to starting up the low level training of the pilots because of all the safety restrictions that were placed on the frame. That now infamous dogfight between the F-16D (with external 370's) and the F-35 was not actually a true gauging of its ability. The 35 that was used was one of the test flight birds and wasn't equipped with production standard hardware. The 35 was also restricted in its maneuvering by the same restrictions as the low level production models are. The whole program is being pushed along at the speed of a snail. As much as I believe this aircraft program has cost too much I see the engineers and other folks in charge of it as much too blame on the lack of progress. I know P&W have rated the 135 engine at 50K now (after GE provoked them by basically telling both the AF and Navy their 136 produced more thrust) and the actual production blocks are now cleared for speeds from Mach 1.6 to 1.7. If they want this bird to work they are going to eventually have to bite the bullet and start lifting some of the restrictions on the frame.

The older Hornets were always under powered compared to the F-14's, F-15's and F-16's (thrust to weight on the F-16 is far better). The Super Hornet fixed that with the newer engines. I know the Marines are planning on replacing their EA-6's with Jammer equipped 35's, but I honestly don't know what the Navy's true motive behind the 35 acquisition is other than it maybe being forced on them.

[anime52k8]

something I've been wondering. Would things be better or worse had they gone with the X-32 instead of the X-35?

[grigolosi]

Does aesthetics count? Because good lord, the 32 was not easy on the eyes. It looked like a flying Basking shark.....but that does pose a good question though.

Edited March 5, 2016 by grigolosi

[grigolosi]

This may have been almost as good as the other two if development had continued in the manned fighter arena....

[SchizophrenicMC]

Is the only reason the USN wants C's, is to have a stealth fighter? Because with all the gadgets the Super Hornet keeps getting, I wonder why they couldn't just get more of those.

The F-35 is slower, more expensive, SINGLE-ENGINED and I think has a smaller payload. Probably better range though, as that's always been a Hornet issue.

My gut feeling is, the Navy was forced into the deal. The Air Force couldn't justify what JSF was going to cost on its own and the Navy was left high and dry after the F-22 turned out unsuitable for NATF. So the DoD said the Navy gets its own variant of JSF, and the F-35C was born. Even though it goes against every part of Naval aviation doctrine.

something I've been wondering. Would things be better or worse had they gone with the X-32 instead of the X-35?

If we bought the F-32, they'd be in production by now. Unlike Lockheed, Boeing is pretty good at meeting production deadlines.

Unfortunately the continuing test of the frame has caused restrictions on the airspeed from what i was reading. Even the AF had to say screw you to LM and the DoD when it came to starting up the low level training of the pilots because of all the safety restrictions that were placed on the frame. That now infamous dogfight between the F-16D (with external 370's) and the F-35 was not actually a true gauging of its ability. The 35 that was used was one of the test flight birds and wasn't equipped with production standard hardware. The 35 was also restricted in its maneuvering by the same restrictions as the low level production models are. The whole program is being pushed along at the speed of a snail. As much as I believe this aircraft program has cost too much I see the engineers and other folks in charge of it as much too blame on the lack of progress. I know P&W have rated the 135 engine at 50K now (after GE provoked them by basically telling both the AF and Navy their 136 produced more thrust) and the actual production blocks are now cleared for speeds from Mach 1.6 to 1.7. If they want this bird to work they are going to eventually have to bite the bullet and start lifting some of the restrictions on the frame.

The older Hornets were always under powered compared to the F-14's, F-15's and F-16's (thrust to weight on the F-16 is far better). The Super Hornet fixed that with the newer engines. I know the Marines are planning on replacing their EA-6's with Jammer equipped 35's, but I honestly don't know what the Navy's true motive behind the 35 acquisition is other than it maybe being forced on them.

I wouldn't necessarily blame the engineers. The bureaucrats have really slowed it down. They're also trying to engineer the impossible in a few areas. (Thanks to the bureaucrats) That takes time. And money. So much money. It benefits Lockheed to drag this out, you know. Budgets are allocated year over year. It's not like there's been a fixed program budget at any point. The longer it takes to get the plane in the air, the more money Lockheed makes without ever producing an aircraft. And at this point they know we're into the program too deep to pull out now, so they're counting on collecting that sweet, sweet child support for a long time to come.

[F-ZeroOne]

"Just the sort of bloody silly name they would choose!" - Happy 80th birthday, the Vickers Supermarine Spitfire:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-35729686

Edited March 5, 2016 by F-ZeroOne