F-35 Code One

[tigershark]

Just reading about some of the info stuff on the F-35 and am very impressed with this aircraft.   The article is too long to start quoting parts but lets just say "wow".    The US could start selling off the Vipers in bulk once the F-35 are produced in numbers..

The story
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2007/articles/apr_07/flighttest/index.html

[Viggen]

Thanks, that was an intresting read. It all sounds very good and the HMD must be great for a F35 pilot, or any pilot in the future if you are on the right side of it. 

"For example, the F-35 often forces the chase aircraft into afterburner when it is in military power."   ( I just thought this was very funny to read). 

[RecceJet]

That was rather informative! It's nice to see some positive light cast on the F-35, even better when it's the words of a test pilot.

[valkyrian]

That was rather informative! It's nice to see some positive light cast on the F-35, even better when it's the words of a test pilot.

I wouldn't expect from a test pilot to express negative impressions from whatever he flies....

He said that he has more endurance than the F-16, no surprise, it is a smaller aircraft. What if an F-15 was the chase plane?

What i am trying to say, is that one should take such statements with much thought. By the way, indirectly, this article makes a comparison with the F-16, with which it seams that it has more endurance....but how about maneuvrability?

[RecceJet]

That was rather informative! It's nice to see some positive light cast on the F-35, even better when it's the words of a test pilot.

I wouldn't expect from a test pilot to express negative impressions from whatever he flies....

He said that he has more endurance than the F-16, no surprise, it is a smaller aircraft. What if an F-15 was the chase plane?

What i am trying to say, is that one should take such statements with much thought. By the way, indirectly, this article makes a comparison with the F-16, with which it seams that it has more endurance....but how about maneuvrability?

Very valid points, Valkyrian, but at the same time I also believe that a lot of negativity cast on the F-35 isn't always the most accurate comparison either.

Yes it's true he is asked to compare the F-35 to his previous aircraft flown. That in itself means he is making comparison to older aircraft and inferior capability. But at the same time there are people out there comparing the F-35 to the F-22. Because it looks similar maybe? It is apples and oranges as you and I can easily see.

The article does make mention of aspects of maneuverability, but I agree with you that all statements regarding the F-35 - positive or negative - should be carefully considered and put into perspective. I was simply surprised to see a fairly lengthy article promoting the F-35 from a seemingly non-governmental origin.

I'm definitely not happy having the F-35 as a total solution for the RAAF; to cover the roles of both the F/A-18C/D and F-111.

[valkyrian]

Dear Recce, i agree with you. The newer design is always a newer design. As technology evolves, every aspect of capability will be improved....

What i "don't buy" is that the F-35 will be an all around player. It is stealthy, it has a nice fuel fraction, powerful engine, electronics, carries internally its weapons, alot of virtues, but i doubt if it will ever be what the Falcon has been, that is the yardstick with which all the other fighters will be compared...

Give an F-111 pilot the F-35 and let us see if he likes the endurance of the F-35....i am sure he won't..........

The idea of an all can do aircraft was tried in the past and it failed. Technology has made steps forward since then, but again, as an english saying says :"Jack of all the trades , master of non"

I believe that you can have an excellent fighter (F-16), an excellent bomber (Tornado), but an average fighter bomber (Hornet), if you decide to design for both....for simple laws of aerodynamics, and propulsion thermodynamics.

I am still anxious to see, what this thing can do in air to air....will it be a 9 g airframe? will it outmaneuver a Falcon? or they simply created a better A-7 Corsair with enough maneuvrability to defend itself?

[Webmaster]

It will be a 9 G airframe as far as I know (of course without external stores). It will probably outperform the F-16 in about every field, but it should, lol. I say it's not just a better attacker, and apart from the F-22A, it is a better fighter as well (doesn't make it the best platform for interception though) it has a very powerful multi-mode radar, HMS, off-boresight SRAAM, AMRAAM, stealth, much better thrust management, datalink, so it will do great in A-A at short to medium range. Close range, I still have to see as well, but no need to get to it. At least not the way the USAF will be using it.

The Typhoon is said (RAF source) to fly the same in full QRA load (4x AMRAAM, 4x ASRAAM, 2x Fuel) as in 'empty' load. If that's true, and the same will apply for the JSF, it will be a greater fighter than the F-16 and F-15. But will it?

I'm actually more in doubt of its CAS capabilities, in the most traditional sense, as it will replace the A-10 as well. Will it carry enough punch? (Hornet: negative on the strike, needs to refuel. JSF: negative, only have a couple of rounds left...) What about TGP? I think it needs to externally carry a TGP pod in order to designate targets itself or for a strike package of JSF. Good thing, the F-15E will be around for some time.
But well maybe you don't need much stealth when used in such a role anywayz. What about ECM package? Recce? It looks like every piece of kit apart from the radar needs to be carried externally... especially on the -B version. The USAF has dedicated aircraft for most of these things, but what about other countries...looks like they really need USAF support. New age of netcentric warfare, great if you have the network with all sensors. IMHO, this is were most countries can and will only be able to deliver shooters, and the JSF is not changing that.

You need a jack of all trades if you don't want to have a fleet of 3-4 types or more. I reckon it will be the best jack of all trades produced ever... when finally everything is integrated and all.  Just not the most independent or economical.

The RAAF is buying new tankers, these should make up for the reduced range compared to the F-111 in any interdiction mission. Thanks to the stealth, supercruise, datalink with AWACS/ISR or escorts, the JSF can fly a far more fuelefficient mission profile+route than the F-111! Then take in consideration the stand-off weapons. So I don't think that it's that big a gap. Also the JSF can probably achieve the same result in one pass, as a flight of F-111 bombers would in a few waves. Two JSF even better, thanks to datalinking of targetting information (destroyed targets) and radar picture. I do think however, that Australia does and will lack a good CAP aircraft/interceptor...but the need/threat is not high enough to sustain the cost yet.

The good thing about the Tornado, Hornet, F-15, F-16, or just about any third generation aircraft, is that you can bolt anything on it or use a few pylons for it. You loose performance of course, so it's not the greatest solution... but with the new generation, especially the stealth aircraft, you can't, because of the expensive materials, US software, and losing precious stealth capability. So how expensive will the JSF get, when it needs to be upgraded/updated.

I am wondering how it will eventually perform compared with 4+ generation aircraft, like the Typhoon and Rafale. I wouldn't be surprised that in 2020, US flown JSF strike package or fighters are just as easily detected as RAF flown Typhoons.

I'm saying too much in one single post again, hehe. Sounded like I was a JSF fan, so I added some of my concerns.

One final thing: those ex-USAF F-16s will first go to ANG and AFR units mostly, with the JSF delays, once they enter the market they will be very high houred, especially with Iraq and Afghanistan now. If you wanted second hand ex-USAF F-16s, you about had your chance. For the West-Europeans ones, they'll be heading for the scrap yard when JSF arrives. There are many other F-16 operators though, that will also go JSF with less hours flown, but most of these countries will keep their F-16s for quite some time because they still need to retire an ealier type, couple of Phantoms for example, and takes longer for them to get JSF.

[valkyrian]

I see that you know alot of things, so we can have a nice conversation, over a cup of tea............i will mention a few points just to argue a little......

1) 9 g airframe. Correct me, but the F-35 was facing weight problems, and strentghening an airframe for 9 g would add weight. Do u have something official that refers to 9 g's? The F/A -18 is itself a 7.33 g fighter....it wouldn't surprised me if the F-35 would be restricted to that load.

2) Supercruise. It is not a supercruiser. This capability is said that is only achievable by the F-22. Personally i doubt even for this.

3) Electronics. I will agree with you, it will have every state of the art exists.......

[Webmaster]

1) It is said to be equal or exceed the F-16 in flight characteristics by LM. So I find it hard to believe if its airframe wouldn't be build from the start to sustain 9G. Of course the limit might be set lower for certain configurations or early flight control system standards or just for econominal reasons, to do with wear and tear on certain parts. It's something all aircraft have/will have. You say it wasn't designed as a 9g airframe?
The excess weight was mostly on the STOVL version. The A and C didn't exceed their target weight that much for them to drop the airframe G limit...

2) Okay, I mistaken it here, you are right, no supercruise. I guess it's lacking power to weight ratio, as the F-135 engine seems up for it. It still has a high subsonic cruise speed though.

3) So will most alternatives and adversaries by the time it's ready though...

You know what I also think, it's a very boring aircraft for the aviation fan. Hopefully it will grow on me!
 

[Icarus]

Can I drop in too ? 

The F-35 is a probable supercruiser. It packs an awesomely big thrust and although not tested, it could go supercruising without external stores. The Typhoon can do it without external stores as well, it just doesn't match the (proven  ) supercruising abilities of M1.5+ of the Raptor. Probably more in the 1.2 regime, just like the Typhoon. L2 can also carry stuff on external pylons and wings, but the main superiority of these aircraft is that they are as aerodynamically streamlined as a "clean" Viper or Eagle, when they carry a very big punch inside them. However, just as mr. Webmaster here, I don't trust it for CAS. Come on...The Equalizer is no match for the Avenger ! Down there, also, it has to go where stealth doesn't matter - "trash" fire is your worse enemy. Plus watch the price....EFA ->  $162.8 million per piece (RAF paid 19 billion pounds for 232 EFAs, do the maths and the conversions and look at this number ), and yes, that's more expensive than the Raptor ! On the other hand - F-35 ? $40-50 million. You can buy 4 F-35s for each EFA and get an equal - if not superior - product.

But basically, what's the point to compare a ready aircraft with one that is still in development and testing ? And how do we compare aircrafts that are optimized for 2 different roles ? The Typhoon still cannot drop anything worthwhile (save the JDAM), and definitely not in the SAM's lair, On the other hand, the F-35 may not be able to fight on the air as well, but it can drop what a B52 can drop with its SDBs, make a sightseeing ride above the tourist attractions and come back - and the opponent will still wonder what hit 'em I'd say the Typhoon and the F-35 complement each other. And both aircraft can be killed only in one way: bomb them on the ground

On-topic now, Interesting read. I'll keep this for personal file for sure

[Webmaster]

watch the price....EFA ->  $162.8 million per piece (RAF paid 19 billion pounds for 232 EFAs, do the maths and the conversions and look at this number  ), and yes, that's more expensive than the Raptor ! On the other hand - F-35 ? $40-50 million. You can buy 4 F-35s for each EFA and get an equal - if not superior - product.

You are comparing total programme cost for the RAF with early unit cost estimates for the USAF? That $40-45 estimate is from the time the market size was expected to be 5000 aircraft, in what? FY97 dollars?

The US total cost for the JSF has already risen to nearly $300 billion. With a requirement of 2400-2500 aircraft. That's 120-125 million per aircraft, with 1600-1700 of them being the least expensive F-35A. In 2000-2001, the pricetag for export customers was already estimated at 85-90 million per aircraft. In 2005-2006, it was 100 million. Let's see where the off-the-shelf price will end, as well as the cost for the USAF.

You can't even get a new F-16 Block 40 for that. $40 million is what India thinks its Su-30MKIs cost, produced with cheaper labor, based on an existing design with existing engines and parts... reportedly Chavez paid the same for its less capable Su-30MKVs. The "affordable" Gripen has been selling at $80 million per aircraft (okay with support and what not), with development already paid for by Sweden.

By the way, cost per unit for the Raptor has already been upped to 180-200 million, since the last time USAF dropped it's order as far as I know. And the B-2 with it's highest 1-1.2 billion per piece estimates, has risen to a 2-2.1 billion estimate now more has become known about the development program's cost.

Now, since all contracts have different terms, and it's too early to tell how much they will eventually cost, I don't want to go on about this. But the $40-50 price tag is well dated. It is not going to be cheap! It's actually looking rather nasty, even the US account office calculations proved the estimated price already to be well exceeded. I think it was something like 20% per year?

You're right, it's better to compare when both have proven their capabilities and performance. But the same goes for their cost. 

Typhoon full A-S suite is scheduled for 2010. Currently Block 7 aircraft will get limited LGB capability. We'll see Typhoon with bombs over Afghanistan next year probably. That's still 5 years earlier than any JSF optimist might say, hehehe.

You're not serious about "drop what a B-52 can drop" I hope? Maybe 'could in theory drop' what a B-52 'does drop nowadays'?

[valkyrian]

Can I drop in too ? 

The F-35 is a probable supercruiser. It packs an awesomely big thrust and although not tested, it could go supercruising without external stores. The Typhoon can do it without external stores as well, it just doesn't match the (proven  ) supercruising abilities of M1.5+ of the Raptor. Probably more in the 1.2 regime, just like the Typhoon.

I agree, it has enough power and aerodynamics to go supersonic on dry thrust, but just this doesn't mean it is a supercruiser, as it also needs a high fuel fraction, to sustain those speeds over a noteworthy (operational wise ) distance.
Imagine F-35s taking off from Tanagra to intercept incoming intruders. It would be a very nice thing if they were able to reach Limnos supersonically, and make the interception, or even better if they could go to Crete supersonically. But what if this "supercruise is only for a couple of hundrends of kms?