Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[skullmilitia]

I love the V-22's, they are just like.. a design that just looks universal in it's beauty.

To bad the damn things have had so many deaths related to its operational use.

I have a feeling it won't be long before some sort of pulse drive technology gets used to make

the VTOL a much better platform. The rumors of pulse engines have been around for a decade now.

GE has a patent similiar, and IRC Boeing has a patent that is "pulse drive engine technology" or something

rather straight forward. Obviously that could just be a place holder, hoping the investment will end up being worth it.

[F-ZeroOne]

I would love to have seen a Hawker typhoon flying in formation with the Eurofighter in a matching color scheme.

Are there any flying (original) Typhoons anywhere? I've never heard of one... it was a useful aircraft, but its never been a loved one much. Obviously didn't help that its early days were plagued by bugs (of the "I say, old chap, is that your entire rear fuselage thats just detached from your aircraft? Bit of a sticky wicket, what?" kind... ).

[wmkjr]

I don't think there are even any complete surviving airframes left. Maybe one on display, let alone a flying one. Closest I seen are some Tempests undergoing restoration . I love the look of it's huge lower intake, wing cannons, and loaded for ground attack.

[Sildani]

I was wondering that myself. Even so, if you think a Merlin engine is tough to keep maintained, that'd be nothing compared to the 24 cylinder Napier Sabre in the Tiffie. I have no doubt each part would have to be fabricated on the spot.

[Vifam7]

So there was some official docs behind David Axe's F-35 vs F-16 report. See here: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb

However, read how a former Viper/Hornet pilot sees it: http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well, that makes things all the more interesting. And while I agree with the Viper/Hornet guy, I think this just stands as one more example of how the aircraft is deficient relative to its cost. For what this plane has cost, and the amount of time it's taken to make it (can we really say an aircraft that's over 20 years into its development is still in its infancy?) it really should have better performance. And it's not like this test pilot was wet behind the ears, like the Viper pilot makes him out to be. This guy has over 2000 hours in F-15s, at least notable seat time in F-16s, and apparently some test pilot time in F-18s. (At least that seems the most likely reason a test pilot would end up in high AoA flight in a plane that isn't his main assigned airframe) I have to imagine the test pilot knew how to get good results from a twin-tail fighter.

If you read the report, a lot of his complaints come down to the fly-by-wire software getting in the way, especially in blended region flight. He would try and affect a maneuver, and then the computer would tell the aircraft not to respond, even though it was within the physical abilities of the plane to maintain control in spite of the input. If your only maneuvering advantage is yaw rate, and the computer locks out yaw, or gives you a reduced roll rate, that makes for a pretty frustrating flight, to say the least.

This isn't the only reason the Lightning II sucks, it's just one of the many.

[Noyhauser]

So there was some official docs behind David Axe's F-35 vs F-16 report. See here: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb

However, read how a former Viper/Hornet pilot sees it: http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/

He wrote that article before seeing the document itself, so its a bit dated but it provides a lot of good context.

The critical aspect of the study is that it refers to high AoA testing: it wasn't a "dogfight test" as people have claimed. The F-35's strongest asset is its instantaneous turn rate: it is as good as the F/A-18's which is that aircraft's strongest asset. Nose pointing is perhaps one of the most valuable traits an aircraft can have: it allows for quicker repositioning and setting up direct missile launches. Its sustained turn fairly good, but it cannot match the F-16's ability, which is that aircraft's strongest trait.

The whole point of the test was to see how the aircraft operated in a high AoA: that means when the nose is pulled up hard. Every aircraft put into that state is going to bleed energy, the F-35 is no different. However its really only a small part of the aircraft's maneuvering envelope, and one that pilots should avoid. Nevertheless, the test was intended to improve how the aircraft performs here... that's really boilerplate work. The document pretty clearly says that the aircraft's control laws are too conservative in order to prevent spin departure, and he offers quite a few suggestions.

Its really discouraging to see people who have almost no grounding in this area state with certitude that the F-35's maneuverability is poor, when the report really doesn't say that.

[Vifam7]

-Deleted-

Noyhauser above explains it better.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Vifam7

[Noyhauser]

Every avionic feature on the F-35 has found its way into other airframes because it's been over a decade since they were invented, and electronics tend to have that trickle-down effect. The only advantage the F-35 offers is multi-aspect stealth, but even that has drawn criticism for being potentially inadequate anyway.

Once the initial wonderment waned, I ceased to see the viability of the JSF.

I don't know why you think that, but its completely not true. No aircraft, save for the F-22, has the sensor fusion system on the F-35, none of them have DAS, or the APG-81's sensor and jamming capabilities. None of them have data sharing capability of the F-35. That package is unique, and is really what 40% of the F-35's cost relates to. In short, claiming that every, or even some, avionics features on the F-35 has found its way onto other aircraft is just plain ignorant.

But hey, don't take my opinion on it... lets listen to a USMC commander with thousands of hours on the F/A-18, F-16, F-22 and the F-35B.

If you have any interest in this area, you owe it to yourself to listen to a real professional talk about his trade.

Said it years ago, will say it again:

Australia was smart, saw how the F-35 program was going, and decided to get really high-end uber-spec'd Super Hornets instead. Cheap, good, proven and already in service. Their Super Hornets are better than any in the U.S. Fleet, and have many features that the F-35 touts. ASRAAM capability alone gives it a boost to close-in fighting, and it's got every sensor you can think of plus a nice AESA radar IIRC.

They didn't do it for that reason. Basically Australia calculated the capability and cost of the F-111 fleet and decided to retire the aircraft prematurely. However that would leave them with a capability gap between the pig's retirement and the expected F-35 IOC. Hence they chose to go with the F/A-18E and EA-18G as a stopgap. Its quite likely that the aircraft will all become growlers by 2025, as the 72 F-35s get delivered.

I think the overarching concern isn't just in the F-35's ability to fight close-in, but its overall survivability, which is hampered by its single engine, and moreover by its poor maneuverability. Its role isn't long-range air superiority, either. The F-35 is designed to infiltrate and launch primarily air-to-ground ordinance. For that mission, high adaptability is necessary from a single-seat fighter-attacker. This isn't a bomber with tons of space for countermeasures, and a squad of escorts to draw heat away, it's a single-man infiltrator. So it has to be able to do everything. The fact is, once the bomb bays open up, the F-35's stealth is entirely defeated, giving it a clear position on anyone's radar. That's not even to mention concerns that the multi-aspect stealth design of the jet isn't up to the task of subverting modern radar systems. And it's not like the plane is invisible to visual or infrared tracking.

You can't always predict the scenario, and intelligence can be incomplete. I don't know if I personally would feel comfortable with the prospects for airframe survivability in less-than-ideal operating conditions. All it takes is one misplaced digit, and some pilots won't be coming home today.

I know that those are major reasons many in the Navy aren't exactly pleased with the notion of being forced into the F-35, and they're among the reasons Canada's air force has a faction that is pushing to drop the JSF program completely- they've already ordered a number of Super Hornets in the meantime, citing the lower cost and greater reliability of having twin engines as being important to their aerial mission.

I'm not going respond to the points above the last paragraph; its just full of incorrect conjecture... most of which I can identify which crackpot organization came up with, and has now become E-reality for the internet armchair aviation experts.

However you're very wrong about Canada. The RCAF wants the F-35, badly. Pilots I know have seen the capability and want it. Senior officials are pretty well convinced at this point. Really, its a political decision, in part informed by all of incorrect assertions that are present in the public sphere.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Noyhauser

[SchizophrenicMC]

The F-35 was amazing 20 years ago when it beat out the Boeing offering. It was impressive 10 years ago when it was supposed to go into production. It was frustrating 5 years ago when it was ridiculously over budget. It's disappointing today. And 10 years from now, fully 3 decades after it was chosen to be the JSF, I don't even know what words we'll be using to describe it.

It's a boondoggle. It's the most overbudget program the US military has ever encountered, and we built ten Nimitz-classes. If anything else had gone this far past schedule, this far over the budget allotment, it'd be fodder. But no, no, not the precious Joint Strike Fighter. That's a special marvel, the brainchild of amazing military minds, the thing that will give us the edge in modern warfare because it has... Things. Let's be real here: the F-35 has only been saved from the scrap heap because it'd cause too much political furor if the military admitted their hugely expensive, past-due, broken plaything had not only failed to bring results, but also left all our allies with a broken promise. Even more than it'd leave Lockheed Martin bankrupt, it'd end some political careers. Politicians hate that.

I live in Arlington, Texas. I'm less than 20 miles from where they're supposed to build the damn things. Forget the pilots, I know technicians and engineers who've actually had their hands on F-35s. Not a single one of those bastards is impressed with what's become famous in Lockheed circles as the most mis-managed project since they lost the Rocketdyne F1 schematics. The only people I know who still think it's a good idea are Lockheed executives, pilots who've seen videos, and politicians who need to save face more badly than they need to save tax dollars.

[Vifam7]

The only people I know who still think it's a good idea are Lockheed executives, pilots who've seen videos, and politicians who need to save face more badly than they need to save tax dollars.

So the 9 different countries that signed on to the program, plus 2 others (Israel & Japan) that chose to buy it over any other Gen 4.5 fighter are all making a mistake? And that the air force men and test pilots from around the world who have given their approval to the F-35's capabilities are all liars?

[anime52k8]

So the 9 different countries that signed on to the program, plus 2 others (Israel & Japan) that chose to buy it over any other Gen 4.5 fighter are all making a mistake? And that the air force men and test pilots from around the world who have given their approval to the F-35's capabilities are all liars?

clearly.

[Sildani]

Because we, who have no security clearances, no stick time in any current fighter, no aerodynamic education, and no current military/DoD/Lockheed employment, have picked up bits and bobs from the Internet which taken as a whole may well add up to less than the true capabilities of the aircraft?

If any of you do, please say so. I honestly don't know who may have the Truth.

One thing is beyond question: no matter its abilities, even if it does everything it says it will on the tin, this is grossly late and too expensive by half. Worthy airplanes like the TSR.2 where killed for less than half of this crapola.

Sir Camm had yet to see an airplane like this, which may have length, width, and height imperfectly conceived but which has absolutely NAILED the political dimension.

[SchizophrenicMC]

So the 9 different countries that signed on to the program, plus 2 others (Israel & Japan) that chose to buy it over any other Gen 4.5 fighter are all making a mistake? And that the air force men and test pilots from around the world who have given their approval to the F-35's capabilities are all liars?

Like I said, it was impressive a decade ago. Now you have a LOT of politicians who've spent money on this thing, and they really can't afford to give up the ghost on it. Doesn't matter what the test pilots say about the test planes, if the thing can't reach production.

[Vifam7]

Like I said, it was impressive a decade ago. Now you have a LOT of politicians who've spent money on this thing, and they really can't afford to give up the ghost on it. Doesn't matter what the test pilots say about the test planes, if the thing can't reach production.

But it is in production. Something like 120+ are already in various stages of testing and training with various squadrons.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Lockheed projected 5,179 planes would be demanded. Even today, Lockheed and Canada's industry minister are claiming "up to 5000" airframes, even though third party analysis puts demand around 3500 airframes at the most. The US alone is supposed to buy around 2500 of the planes, for which there are around 3100 confirmed orders to date.

115 F-35s of various specification have been built since "production" began in 2006. If it takes 9 years to manufacture 115 airframes, it's going to be 242 years before the rest of the line is up and flying, unless Lockheed pulls some miracle out of their hat and actually puts it into a production scale that matches what they're claiming for demand. The plane isn't a production aircraft yet, it's a 115-unit prototype fleet. Until Lockheed commits to the full production run, in a reasonable amount of time, it's not in production. It's just a motley bunch of hand-built demonstrators. That's a bit embarrassing for a plane that's cost $40bn to develop, even though it was projected at $25bn, and was supposed to enter full production a decade ago.

From the conception of the Lightweight Fighter Program in 1965 to the service introduction of the F-16 in 1978, 13 years passed developing the most advanced fighter of its time and putting it into full scale production. Since 1973, (when "production" began) over 4500 F-16s have been built. Lockheed announced participation in the Joint Strike Fighter Program in 1994. They still don't have a service-ready aircraft, let alone the numbers to really qualify it as a combat plane.

Oh, but let's give it another decade, right guys? It'll be fine. We'll just keep underwriting it until 2025. Lockheed will have it by then. I'll see, right? It'll be fine, and it'll be the fighter of the future, and it won't break twice the initial program budget in development alone, and unit costs won't keep climbing and climbing past what was projected during the sales pitch where all the politicians decided to back it. There'll be thousands- a composite cloud- ready to rain justice and democracy on the undeveloped world.

What a damn farce.

[raptormesh]

I've read your rants but I still do not understand your point past the "I hate it, it has to go." amidst the cloud of rhetoric. We understand that it's a product of delays, budget overruns and political fencing. It's also an ambitious undertaking, trying to fit multiple requirements into one frame. Perhaps in hindsight that's not the way to go. I have no idea. What's for sure though is that It's not an enviable project at this moment.

But what's with the hate? All over the web people are parroting the same damn thing. It's getting tiring. It's also probably the most publicised fighter project, coinciding with the rise of social media and "armchair" experts, who latch on certain blogs and wouldn't let go due to some form of crusade. Techs and engineers talk bad about it, sure show me a tech that doesn't bitch about their planes. Even F-14 techs have their grievances.

Let's face the facts though? It's getting built. Countries are buying it. Perhaps from political pressure. Perhaps as a desperate move. Perhaps both. Tactics will be built around its weaknesses, and its strengths. The sensor fusion kinks will be worked out, and hopefully before when it's actually needed.

What can you do though? Write your senator perhaps, if you are worried about your tax dollars? Or come up with an alternative. No, I mean a real one.

I still think it's the culmination of aviation we have so far in terms of engineering and technology. I will not begrudge you if you think it's a spawn of cthulhu that will not out manuever an A380 and would soon bankrupt the nation just because it looks at you funny. See? This is rhetoric and pointless.

[electric indigo]

The JSF might be the best aircraft of it's kind that can be built today, but it's also another cycle in the great how-to-not-learn-from-past-mistakes loop.

[Noyhauser]

Because we, who have no security clearances, no stick time in any current fighter, no aerodynamic education, and no current military/DoD/Lockheed employment, have picked up bits and bobs from the Internet which taken as a whole may well add up to less than the true capabilities of the aircraft?

If any of you do, please say so. I honestly don't know who may have the Truth.

I don't know exactly what you looking for, but I've worked closely on this file. My area of expertise is comparative procurement policy, but I also studied military strategy for a masters and worked in the field, so I try to understand the nexus between technology, policy and strategy. I don't have a lot of time (because I'm working on some stuff F-35 related as we speak) but I'll try to answer any question you have.

One thing is beyond question: no matter its abilities, even if it does everything it says it will on the tin, this is grossly late and too expensive by half. Worthy airplanes like the TSR.2 where killed for less than half of this crapola.

No, I don't think that's fair... if we look at historical antecedents, they are far far worse... we just don't really have the context to see that, which is in part due to how the media completely overhypes things.

So the F-35 has basically exceeded 30% of its projected contract cost... that's called a Nunn Mccurdy Breach in acquisition parlance. Programs like the TSR2 or the Avro Arrow typically did far worse... like in the Arrow's case, 120% of its projected costs, and it was still going up when it was cancelled. In the last 50 years only one new fighter program did not have a cost overrun, and that was the EA-18G, which was basically an upgrade of the F/A-18E.

I'm not trying to be flippant about costs overruns, but defence acquisitions are among the hardest areas to predict and budget for a government. The F-35 is probably the most complex technical achievement being made by man today... and in 2000 you had to predict how much it will cost, its exceptionally tough. Still its not nearly as bad as people have made it out to be... especially compared to the F-22 or other aircraft.

Sir Camm had yet to see an airplane like this, which may have length, width, and height imperfectly conceived but which has absolutely NAILED the political dimension.

I don't think its imperfectly conceived at all.

Back in the 2000s I had the opportunity to see how the U.S. was implementing new battlefield control systems that were intended to revolutionize its C2. The F-35 basically reflects the information warfare trends that we started in the late 1980s, and put into practice in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I look at stuff like Army's WIN-T, or the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability, the F-35 is just another system that plugs into it, but its far and away beyond everything else. I'm struggling for an analogy, but its like if you went back in time today to 1995 and tried to explain the virtues of Facebook, without being able to show it or letting people use it. they probably wouldn't get it. Really warfare is a much different environment than what has gone on before. I posted a video earlier of an USMC Col. describing this area, which you should watch... he gives a very clear view of how the times have changed.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Noyhauser

[Shadow]

More bad luck for the Russian air force.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/07/14/russia-tu-95-crash/30130517/

Considering the age and supposedly poor safety standards (I'm not an expert on Russian standards), flying these aircraft is just inviting increased incidents like this. I was alittle surprised to read of an Su-34 crash recently aswell.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Shadow

[frothymug]

Damn, Schizo! If you didn't put "[REDACTED]" on your location, I would have offered to meet up with you for a drink or two... I got my degree at UTA last year and I JUST MOVED to Seattle to work on my masters at UW.

I pretty much agree with you on a lot of what you say about the F-35 program. You and I are in the minority on this issue, but I just simply say that I am not optimistic on the F-35 program, based on a mixture of conditions, such as overbudget, missed deadlines, underwhelming performance, and many other areas of focus. I'm not an expert on jet fighter design, but my intuition just tells me that it's not going to work out. After graduation, I spent a lot of time applying for jobs at companies like Lockheed-Martin. While there were lots of great positions, I think I pretty much passed up every job that had something to do with the F-35, simply because I don't believe in the project.

Part of me HOPES that I'm wrong, so that all of this extra money and time spent does turn out to yield a great new machine. However, I'm not holding my breath. I anxiously await any news of a request for proposal put out by the military. It might mean a job for me!

[F-ZeroOne]

There is no doubt that as a programme, the F-35 has taken too long and cost too much. However, it is also not unique in this regard - they made a movie about the development of the Bradley IFV and they were saying similar things about the AH-64 after it went into production. I do think that calls for production to somehow be stopped are simply unrealistic; there are too many nations and other factors involved now, leaving asides the fact that alternatives are going to be a bit thin on the ground (restarting F-22 production would probably take years at best; virtually every other alternative on offer is unlikely to be as stealthy as the F-35, and the only other position seems to be "PAK-FA is better than everything so nyah nyah nyah!", which is unlikely to be a suitable option... ).

The main difference I feel with the F-35 compared to other, previous programs is that its basically been the first fighter to be developed during the Internet age. And we all know what a wonderland of reason, balance and rationality the Internet is...

Whether or not the F-35 will prove itself as a fighter remains to be seen...

[SchizophrenicMC]

Damn, Schizo! If you didn't put "[REDACTED]" on your location, I would have offered to meet up with you for a drink or two... I got my degree at UTA last year and I JUST MOVED to Seattle to work on my masters at UW.

I pretty much agree with you on a lot of what you say about the F-35 program. You and I are in the minority on this issue, but I just simply say that I am not optimistic on the F-35 program, based on a mixture of conditions, such as overbudget, missed deadlines, underwhelming performance, and many other areas of focus. I'm not an expert on jet fighter design, but my intuition just tells me that it's not going to work out. After graduation, I spent a lot of time applying for jobs at companies like Lockheed-Martin. While there were lots of great positions, I think I pretty much passed up every job that had something to do with the F-35, simply because I don't believe in the project.

Part of me HOPES that I'm wrong, so that all of this extra money and time spent does turn out to yield a great new machine. However, I'm not holding my breath. I anxiously await any news of a request for proposal put out by the military. It might mean a job for me!

I dropped out of UTA last year because, after realizing I wasn't good enough at math to do engineering, I realized I didn't have enough money to pursue a generic business degree either.

Maybe pursue a career with Boeing? You're already in Washington, after all, and based on Lockheed Martin being appropriate to your field of study, I can't see why Boeing wouldn't be. (Unless you were applying to LHM's missile division in Grand Prairie, in which case, Boeing Aerospace?) Hey maybe you can get Yellowstone back on track.

[frothymug]

I tried several times to get a job with Missiles and Fire Controls through a manager I'd met at an information session they held on campus a few years ago, but no luck there. I will be applying to Boeing up here as soon as I finish getting settled in to my new place. Coincidentally, my new landlord is a 19-year veteran at Boeing. Maybe he can help me out a bit.

Anyway, back on topic, I can understand the animosity over the project. Designing a complicated machine to be able to do so many things is extremely difficult. The more successful projects usually yield a product that is specialized to some task, with some modicum of flexibility in its role. I think that they're just asking too much out of one vehicle that is built around one difficult-to-engineer capability: STOVL.

[electric indigo]

A fake news from the french radiocockpit blog made it into the headlines today.

http://www.radiocockpit.fr/2015/07/16/le-pilote-dun-avion-de-chasse-grec-se-pose-illegalement-en-turquie-pour-retirer-de-largent-au-distributeur/

My (german) newspaper devoted a quarter page to this.

[F-ZeroOne]

Well, at least it is a picture of a F-16. You're lucky they didn't use an image of a 747...

[spanner]

A fake news from the french radiocockpit blog made it into the headlines today.

http://www.radiocockpit.fr/2015/07/16/le-pilote-dun-avion-de-chasse-grec-se-pose-illegalement-en-turquie-pour-retirer-de-largent-au-distributeur/

My (german) newspaper devoted a quarter page to this.

Hehe! got a laugh out of this anyway.. Problem is I don't there they can afford the fuel to fly any of their F-16 to begin with!

[Sildani]

Well obviously, that's what the pilot needed the ATM for. His FAST packs were dry!

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

Marine Corps Announces F-35B Fighter Jet Ready for Initial Operations

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/31/marine-corps-announces-f35b-fighter-jet-read-initial-operations.html

[SchizophrenicMC]

Earlier in the week, Davis acknowledged that Marines will have to "make do" with a less lethal version of the airplane. For example, the early operational F-35Bs won't include a new night-vision helmet, Small Diameter Bomb II or GAU-22/A four-barrel 25mm Gatling gun -- or the ability to stream video or simultaneously fuse sensor data from four aircraft.

Well that's disappointing. It looks like the only thing that's actually working on the plane is the STOVL. Hopefully we've got that at least.

[Sildani]

The B has the gun AND STOVL? I must have missed that.

[F-ZeroOne]

The Bs gun is an external, stealthy gunpod, its not internal like the A. Hollywood always gets that wrong, too.

[Loop]

Sea-fair is going on up here in Seattle, I just had the Blue Angels fly right over my house. Freaking awesome

Been at work all week, so I have not heard them zooming around until today.

http://q13fox.com/2015/07/29/i-90-bridge-to-close-during-blue-angels-practices-seafair-shows-starting-thursday/

Edited August 1, 2015 by Loop

[frothymug]

Heard the distinctive sound of WW2 warbirds flying overhead. Got to my window just in time to catch a glimpse. Wish I was at Seafair.

Marine Corps Announces F-35B Fighter Jet Ready for Initial Operations

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/31/marine-corps-announces-f35b-fighter-jet-read-initial-operations.html

This is just PR activity. I would be surprised to see the F-35 doing something actually worth its enormous price tag anytime soon.

[Noyhauser]

Well that's disappointing. It looks like the only thing that's actually working on the plane is the STOVL. Hopefully we've got that at least.

Yeah, dropping guided weapons, the most advanced radar and sensor package currently installed on any fighter in the world: not worth mentioning at all.