Indeed. I HATE it when even THE sources don’t update all their information…
No, the F-35C, just like the F/A-18 will be cleared for +9g during war but limited to +7.5g during peacetime operations.
The F-35B has a +7.0g rating.
An aircraft today does not have to have been designed specifically for air domination to be a good BVR or WVR air-to-air fighter…
I was just making a point about how much fuel the F-35 carries INTERNALLY (which just so happens to work our quite closely in said examples), thus MUCH LESS need for external drop tanks. External drop tanks for the F-35 would probably only be used for ferry missions. When a F-35 needs more fuel than it can carry internally, it will most likely get it from a tanker.
IIRC AA-1 came in within 150 lbs of its projected weight so there is little reason to doubt that the production models will not also come in quite close to theirs’.
No, for the F-35 the Norway brief says “The resulting radius is 740 nm (or total distance of 1480 nm). The range of altitudes during the cruise is 33,200 ft to 40,400 ft“.
Yeah true. Until you look at all the Norway briefs and then look at the time line.
Those range numbers are from a Jan 2006 Norway sales brief by LM. Note the date. This is well before the first flight of AA-1 (which doesn’t even represent a production jet, like BF-1 or more importantly, AF-1 which has yet to roll out and fly, and fly someday with war systems (or something following AF-1)…
Next… DOD drops the 426gal drop tank requirement for the end of SDD. And note too that it is no longer in purple in the well known Sep 2006 status brief. (p 38 & 41 )…..
So after some time of having F-35 flight testing of something that kinda represents the F-35 or at least looks like it on comes the 2008 Norway brief….
Note the cruise altitude now (lower left hand corner). That tells us there is weight growth. And of course that is a light load. Lockmart/Pentagon are doing over-hype in huge measure before having a usable amount of test hours on jets that have real war systems on board . But wait there is more:
Note on this 2008 Brief same time as above… LM/Pentagon still wants the gullible buyer to believe drop tanks are on the menu when there is no funding in sight for this store.
.
===
An aircraft today does not have to have been designed specifically for air domination to be a good BVR or WVR air-to-air fighter…
Well it does if it has to go up against aircraft that because they are faster can decide when and how to enter the fight on their own terms. Having said that the F-35 is a strike fighter no matter how much over-hype is going on.
The above article has been copied and pasted from JDW, and the original was followed by a powerful rebuttle from industry leaders.:mad:
Granted Spey/Wheeler need some special help. However a few of their statements… well… a broken clock is right twice a day…
Lets take a closer look at that “powerful rebuttle” {sic.}…. with some of my colored text put in for amusement…
===
PROGRAMME LEADERS RESPOND – BY TOM BURBAGE AND MAJ GEN CHARLES DAVIS
The great American humorist Will Rogers once said: “It ain’t what people don’t know that hurts ’em – it’s what they do know that ain’t so!”
Starting out brave with Will Rogers. I think if you look closer at Will Rogers, you will find a large amount of his work that is more useful to those that question the F-35 JSF program.
It’s not clear why the authors of the previous article chose to defile the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, other than their claim of expertise in legacy fighter performance and procurement. That expertise is largely irrelevant today because that game has changed.
It is clear that they do not understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 programme, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team.
Fortunately, leaders throughout the tri-service, multinational partnership that will be tasked with making difficult acquisition decisions in the next few years do understand. While it is not our intent to challenge the authors’ right to recount their personal opinions, it is important to put them in the context of facts.
Fortunately LM/Pentagon understands that the F-35 is there as much as a sales effort to push the last remaining U.S. export: Weapons.
Fact: F-35 unit costs have increased 38 per cent since the contract was awarded in 2001 (not 54 per cent). Fully 35 per cent of that increase is due to economic factors outside of the programme’s control, including cost of raw materials, such as titanium and carbon fibre composites, and inflation factors. The average per-unit cost of the F-35 is USD77 million in future-year dollars on a programme expected to be in production through at least 2036.
Interesting claim. One may want to consider what USAF ( the biggest F-35 customer) thinks the average cost will be. The first few LRIPS will be mistake jets that will require more upgrading. And of course whatever “discovery” from testing yields. 
Fact: It is true that the F-35 has barely begun its flight-test programme. We have two aircraft in flight test and one in ground test. Over the next 18 months, 17 more ground- and flight-test vehicles will enter the programme.
Sharing is caring. The first step: “Hi I am LM/Pentagon I spend lots of your money. Most of the time on projects that don’t deliver on time, perform badly and are over-cost.”
Recognising this concurrency challenge, the F-35 programme broke with traditional programmes like the ones the authors are familiar with. Very large investments were made in a vast and highly integrated laboratory system and a first-ever, full-fusion flying testbed. All F-35 sensors are flying today on surrogate test aircraft. The flight test for the F-35 is, for the first time, verification of projected performance and not discovery-oriented.
Good try if the audience has a short memory. Breaking new ground huh? “First ever full-fusion flying testbed”. Ooops what is that funny 757 that supporting the F-22 program? I love the spin of the last sentence. There in fact will be a LOT of discovery if they ever get the test program going.
It is important to note that the F-35 flight-control software and avionics have performed flawlessly, contrary to the authors’ assertion. A single electrical anomaly was discovered very early on in the first test aircraft and was related to manufacturing process control, not a technical shortcoming, proving the value of early test aircraft to reduce technical risks. In addition to the 19 developmental test aircraft, the F-35 is producing 20 fully instrumented, production-configured operational test aircraft. No programme in history has employed this many test vehicles.
Hmmm. That would be an in-flight emergency with some of the flight controls affected. Good flying by the test pilot for sure to get it on the ground in one piece. Yet I guess if you stick your head in the sand stating it wasn’t a technical shortcoming, you are only warming up the spin and hype. I guess that is why things were redesigned after the incident and a DOD contract was let to fix existing PW engine power generators to put out more juice. I’d certainly call that discovery oriented testing.
Fact: On the F-35, the referenced 19 million Software Lines of Code (SLOC) span the aircraft, the logistics systems, flight and maintenance trainers, maintenance information system and flight-test instrumentation. So far 9 million of that total SLOC has been completed on cost and on schedule.
And the definition Block I, II and III software capability has been watered down since 2006. I’d say having a ton of flight testing to do and now pushing capability out to block 4, 5, and 6 is part of that. USMC IOC isn’t far off. And there is a lot of work to do.
Fact: At peak production the F-35 programme will produce 231 jets annually: better than one per manufacturing day. In this year’s budget the DoD funded a peak rate of 150 aircraft per year for the three US services. The additional aircraft will be built for the international partners, providing unprecedented economies of scale for all parties.
USAF didn’t agree with that statement last year. They stated that it would be a lot of work to ramp up to that number. And congress has still not authorized the extra 5 billion or so it will take to get USAF up to their original 110 per year instead of the 80 per year at USAF peak stretched out to 2035-37 ! And the big one… USAF stating 48 per year is all they can afford until congress spits out some serious cash. Unless of course one wants to turn the USAF into even more of a train wreck of parked old aircraft and facilities. The money has to materialize. Add to that, the “economies of scale” don’t happen if all of the F-35 JSF partners don’t sign up. Some of them are in fact looking at other solutions.
Fact: The ‘dog’ referred to by the authors is in fact a ‘racehorse’. The take-off weight reference to 49,500 lb is true but misleading as the programme brings ‘traditional external fuel’ internal to the F-35 for stealth reasons. The F-35 carries 18,500 lb of internal fuel which, coupled with the very low drag that results from internal carriage of weapons in the stealth mode, allows unprecedented combat radius performance.
Which doesn’t explain why the latest Norway sales brief talks about the long range coming from external drop tanks. Something DOD cut from SDD funding back in 2006. At this time there is no funding for external drop tank stores quals….except maybe a range improvement mention in Block 5. A big difference from the 2006 Sep brief showing drop tanks. Pretty shoddy salesmanship.Then too why did the first Norway brief show a long cruise going up to 35-40k ft? And…. the latest brief shows 25k ft? Hmmm Me thinks Tornado and B-1. Heavy and step climbing…. then again it was meant to be mostly…. a strike fighter….Which I have no problem if it comes out being a stealthy variant of the good ol A-7. Just as long as it is sold that way.
The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter programme the authors remember did not include combat-range fuel, sensors or armament. Fighter performance demonstrated by fourth-generation aircraft in airshow manoeuvres is not relevant to performance in a combat loadout. Lightweight fighter dependence on energy management and manoeuvrability has little relevance in the threat environment for which the F-35 is being designed.
Sounds great. Down-sell proven things and hope that the techno-ability of the F-35 (again unproven) is some how better.
Fact: The F-35 has the most powerful single engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F-18 E/F aircraft.
Gee…that really hurts. Claiming you have more thrust than a Super Hornet might win friends at a Rotary Club. However the Super came off the line underpowered. You see… those engines only generate the printed thrust sitting on a test stand. And of course when you load up a F-35, it is going to need all that power. It can’t go to the races with the afterburner on all the time now can it?
The conventional version of the F-35 has 9 g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with internal carriage of ‘external fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons’, the F-35’s aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.
And of course this has been tested with real flying has it? Next you are going to spin a yarn that somehow the F-35 is cheaper to operate than an F-16 aren’t you? All of that 9G stuff sounds great until you take into account wing loading. Then too, one would think with all of the alleged advances of this aircraft that are being hyped… comparing it to a 70’s technology airframe might be a little harsh?
When the threat situation dictates that it is safe for legacy aircraft (like the ones the authors reference) to participate, the F-35 can carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations. External weapon clearance is part of our current test programme, contrary to the authors’ claim. This racehorse can also enter the fight from any base. One of the F-35’s many advantages is its ability to be stealthy whenever the situation dictates – a distinction that is absent in all fourth-generation fighters. Anyone who doubts the value of stealth need only look over the grotesquely lopsided victory-to-loss ratios of F-22s in mock combat exercises such as ‘Red Flag’ and ‘Northern Edge’.
Some good points and…well of course… the F-35 is not an F-22 which can super-cruise at Mach 1.8@60+k feet. Depending on stealth only …especially bow tie export stealth might run into a few problems as the year go by. And of course if most missions don’t require stealth…. all of that comes at a cost: weight and maintenance time.
Fact: The F-35’s data collection, integration and sharing capabilities will transform the battlespace of the future and will redefine the close air support mission. The reference to the F-117 incident in Serbia had far less to do with stealth than it did with the inability to share tactically important information. The F-35 is specifically designed to correct that deficiency.
And we find out that the only network known to be fielded with the F-35 will be Link 16. Which everyone else can do. I would’t completely poo-poo the F-117 comparison. After all, in a negative stealth event, if you don’t have good super cruise… you may be in trouble. And I wouldn’t poo-poo a 4th gen Super Hornet Block II that well… has a towed decoy and a much improved self-protection jammer system. When stealth goes away due to any number of things, it will suck really bad not having speed and….. a good wider aspect defensive suite a-la Super Block II. One more interesting thing from the F-117 shootdown? LM coming out and saying that even a simple turning event can increase your RCS by a factor of 100 or more. Yikes.
In January the US will inaugurate a new president. He will be required to rebuild frayed alliances and form new coalitions to deal with future conflicts. He will see that one programme has been designed from the beginning to provide both the military and eco-industrial underpinnings to facilitate that need. He will see why, for the first time, economies of commonality and scale are reversing the trends of the past. When a programme of the scale and truly transformational nature of the F-35 comes along, detractors often try to relate to the world we are leaving behind and not the world we are trying to change. Their opinion is a valuable part of the checks and balances we employ. We appreciate the chance to respond.
Maybe a new president will also realize LM/Pentagon expects their fief every year and if one wants to stay in office you best not *&%^ with them. Remember too that Congress and the President have to go by an AIPAC approved policy. Pulling on my heart strings by bringing up what a future president might do does get that effect of bringing tears to my eyes. But not for the idea of saving the F-35. After all how much more CHICOM inspired credit can a in-debt nation withstand? The next president does have some work to do. And I wouldn’t count on them saving the F-35 if it becomes even more of a budget albatross.
Friday, February 23, 2007
McCain: Supplemental Request “Inappropriate”
Among the items included in the Pentagon’s supplemental funding request for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is nearly $400 million for two F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and an additional $146 million for one CV-22 Osprey. The Air Force request explained that the F-35s would replace one F-15 and one F-16 lost in combat operations.
In a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne, the contents of which were first reported by Politico.com, McCain knocked the request:
In an emergency supplemental, you are proposing to replace combat loss with unproven platforms that not only are not yet operational but will also ultimately cost a lot more than they do now . . .
Both the JSF and Osprey are controversial, next-generation programs that require considerable congressional oversight . . . Your including the requests to procure both aircraft types in an emergency supplemental effectively insulates these programs from this committee’s routine oversight. This is inappropriate.
What I find most troubling about the request is that for $400 million, the Air Force could have requested an F-22, which is a far superior aircraft and is already in production. Also, the F-35, especially the Air Force variant, should cost no more than $50 million each. The whole purpose of the F-35 was to provide the Air Force with an affordable alternative to the F-22. If it stops being affordable, than there isn’t much point to the program. Which all just proves McCain’s point–major military procurement programs require a great deal of Congressional oversight.
McCain’s letter is also just good politics, making clear that he is fulfilling his responsibilities as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee despite the rigors of his campaign for president. John Kerry was criticized for his prolonged absences from the Senate during his run for president. And as I mentioned here before, Senator Clinton is on no less than five Senate committees, including the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. It will be interesting to see if she follows McCain’s letter with one of her own, just to let the public know that she, too, can find the time to fulfill her responsibilities in the Senate–that she doesn’t devote all her time to fending off criticism from the likes of David Geffen.
LM/Pentagon may have some trouble if it ever ended up being McCain. Obama isn’t any gift either. Good luck.
…
Sign In
