Well, that was a major error on my part.

I always thought the 2D TVC SERN nozzle rotated down to provide thrust for vertical takeoffs. Watching it again on youtube 15 years later. I forgot the nozzle does not!

Edit- eagle already caught it. The lift nozzles provided much of the thrust.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250470[/ATTACH]

Hi All,
FBW & Sintra,
While I know next to nothing about how far the programme has advanced in the as you say 16 years since the competition was won all I can se and comment on was the documentary and if I am not mistaken the F-35 has suffered just as the Harriers have with in-gestation of hot gas. I am certain had the Boeing team been given adequate time they would have solved the problem.

The F135 is the most powerful fighter engine in production. I’m not sure if there would have been a solution to the hot gas ingestion issue. What’s worse is that there are thermal issues with the F-35B landing on a LHA/LHD, or an untreated concrete pad. Those would have been worse with the F-32.

Am wrong saying that the F-35 has been proven an easy target to other apposing aircraft ? Has it not already been out manoeuvred by current generation fighter on exercise ?

There has been little feedback on it’s manuverability during exercises it has participated in. There is the http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/08/operational-assessment-of-the-f-35a-argues-for-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent-development-process
report polling pilots opinions of the F-35 compared to thier former aircraft. From the pilot comments about the F-35 on recent exercises, the F-35 has performed as expected. By that, they have stressed the dominance of the F-35 in situational awareness, and as a force multiplier. There are some anecdotes about F-35’s going undefeated vs. this or that. In reality, they are just training exercises and the operators have barely scratched the surface on integrating the F-35 into the force.

What you are referring to is a leaked test pilot report. The report was a look at the CLAWS (control laws) of the F-35. The target aircraft was an F-16D and the F-35 was fitted with a rudimentary HUD and was sent through a series of set ups to test controllability, recovery, anti-spin logic especially at high AoA. The report was largely negative as the pilot decribed the control laws as over dampened and slow to respond to pitch and yaw control imputs. This became the “F-35 can’t dogfight” headline of “War is Boring”. L-M had stated previously that the control laws may have be too restrictive due to early TRO, wing drop issue expected on the “c” variant.

Edit- Having read flight test reports, they are supposed to critical. I read one flight test from the 1970’s on the F-15 buffeting at high AoA. You would have thought the F-15 was dangerous and uncontrollable due to the severe buffet reported in the test report. As it turns out, this is a characteristic of twin tailed fighters at higher angles of attack.

As far as I am aware the Delta wing shape means it can manoeuvre better than other wing layouts
(Please correct if wrong) so it would have been able to in my eyes been in abetter position to defend itself.

No, every wing layout has different advantages and disadvantages. The U.S. favors the trapezoidal wing.

The project in my and many others is simply too costly and still the aircraft is plagued by problems, the one I mentioned above being able to defend itself I would have thought a must if it is a multirole and one of those roles is as a fighter then it has failed hasn’t it ? I understand that development costs can make aircraft lag behind projected figures across the board but to me it feels like your trying to fill a bucket with water when the bucket has no bottom.

It has had a rocky history, there is no doubt about that. Public perception of the F-35 program has lagged behind reality throughout it’s history. When the program was in serious trouble circa 2008-2010, there were many media voices advocating the killing of the F-22 for the more “affordable” F-35. We are now in the opposite cycle, many of the early issues are still dredged up in news about the F-35 having long since been corrected. Like all major U.S. weapon systems: Los Angeles class, M1 tank, F-15, AMRAAM, the gestation was long and painful. There were serious cost overruns and while the end result may not be quite as envisioned, it is a da@n sight better than public perception would believe.

While you say that there are 200 aircraft already completed how many of them will be recalled for faults ? add to that that some are now cancelling or downgrading their requirement because the increase in cost of each unit. Just look at the state the RN is in now concerning the programme not getting as many as they wanted on top of that having US aircraft and personnel on board what a complete shambles and I fear rather than getting better it will only get worse.

No, concurrency is not a recall, there are engineering fixes that have been applied as the program progressed. Concurrency is due to run it’s course in the next year or two. The technology refresh approach to the avionics system ensures that the majority of early F-35’s will be as capable as new build (opposed to the Typhoon tranche 1 issues).

Hi All,
Sorry to put the cat amongst the pigeons with this thread post, but I recently re-watched the battle of the x-planes documentary on the PBS channel. The reason why the X-35 was chosen ahead of the Boeing X-32 was down to better value. Can this aircraft still be considered best value considering the overrun in budget,development and the escalating cost per aircraft the partners are now it seems more often to stump up ?

If the cost overruns to the F-35 seem unacceptable to you, than a F-32 would have been an unmitigated disaster. The Boeing team still had some serious engineering issues to solve had they been chosen to bring the X-32 program forward.

Surely it would have been more cost effective to have Boeing iron out it’s teething troubles ? In the documentary they appeared minor compared to what has been happening with the F-35, which is looking increasingly like a white elephant with the continued costs just spiralling out of control. Also rather than an alternative F-18 that Mr Trump has asked for why not offer the restart of the X-32 programme ?

Those simple teething troubles would have set the F-32 far behind where the F-35 started. The Boeing team still had to solve:
Their lift system issues which would have been exacerbated as the JSF gained weight (as every aircraft does in development)
The maneuverability requirements, which the X-32 layout could not meet. Sure, the F-35 has had some of the requirements relaxed, how would the F-32 have fared when it’s layout wouldn’t have met the requirements from the start?
Manufacturing process of the wings.
The heavier weight of the X-32 compared to the X-35, as it is the F-35 weight growth margins are razor thin in the F-35B/C.

I would rather disagree with the “white elephant” moniker. The aircraft is in service, with over 200 completed and orders ramping up. And again, for those unfamiliar with U.S. presidential powers: Trump can tweet, but he can’t legislate. The F-35 program is relatively safe in the hands of a Republican controlled congress.

well, why not… but what is funny is that all the western “experts” explained to us ever since the late ’80ies (when russians came with their “stunts” that it was unusable in combat as you want to keep your speed high… and if you do something like that, you’re a sitting duck = dead…

also they often stated as they’d loooove their oponent to get there, as he’d be easy kill for them

now, does throwing your nose around while dropping more or less like a stone help you get a shot? we’ll see when they get into close combat scenarios… but in any case: changing direction requires speed and G-loads… pointing nose around at extreme AoA means you follow a more or less ballistic path.. you better not be in someone’s sights at that time

Always has been a last ditch tactic. The ironic thing is that “conventional wisdom” on here states that “BVR missiles…not as advertised, therefore combat will end in a merge with traditional dogfight”. There is the entire intermediate range from 3-12 miles comfortably with a radar guided missiles NEZ (ever a rear aspect shot), and where modern IIR missiles have the energy and g to outmaneuver target (under 10 miles for aim-9x). It isn’t just about the dogfight, the target isn’t going to be able to defeat the missile kinematically, not going to outturn the missile. Pitch and roll rate become critical (as well as countermeasures).

That is the empty weight of the F-16A. The MLU has structural mods and added equipment. Flight manual is online, but I’m away from my laptop. Can’t open it on phone. They likely weigh somewhere between the empty weight of the F-16C block 50 and the F-16A blocks 10-20.

The MLU is block 50 equivalent, with block 10 power. They are not the most powerful (by a long shot), nor the most maneuverable (anymore). That probably goes to the few block 30 still flying.