Lockheed Martin F-35A, B, C and other ideas

[PR19_Kit]

The door has to be open for the lift fan to work, and with the short deck of those assault carriers they need the fan running to get enough lift at high weights.

I must admit I much preferred the twin sideways opening doors they had for the fan intake on the X-35 though.

[pyro-manic]

Possibly something to do with the length of the Wasp's deck limiting the take-off run? The longer deck plus ski-jump on the QE might mean it can do a "straight" conventional take-off?

It does look pretty silly though.

[sandiego89]

I had the pleasure of watching several "B" models in the circuit at Patuxent River Naval Air Station a few weeks ago doing takeoffs and landings.  I can attest that the door above the lift fan does indeed stay open at quite a few knots forward airspeed. Must be an impressive hinge to take those loads- truly barn door. I agree Kit the sideways doors on the X-35 looked much better.

All the numerous landings I witnessed were rollers at about 50 knots.  Good short field perfomance.  Did not witness any VTOL.  Also witnessed a few conventional takeoffs, military thrust (no afterburner) with a F-18 as chase. 

Sound is very impressive, ie: LOUD, especially on take off.  Can not really notice any special noise from the lift fan.   

   

[Librarian]

Ok. I've googled, youtubed and read every article, pro and con, about this plane for the past week. All I want to see is a fly-off between this "thing" and the plane its supposed to be replacing, the F-16. Has this happened? As far as I can tell, for a variety of reasons including one made on an earlier thread, this IS the F-104 all over again....a cluster-**** waiting to happen. The only people defending this aircraft are those that like the way it looks, paid/ordered (USAF personnel) to defend it or those with shares in Lockheed-Martin. One of the worst things I could possibly say is we can only wait for a war to come along and see what happens....GOD help us all.

[PR19_Kit]

Hmm, I'd like to see an F-16 do a short or vertical take-off or landing...........

[Librarian]

Kit, you're absolutely right. That's what we need. Twenty years and billions of dollars and they couldn't just upgrade etc the AV-8. I hope this machine is good, I really do, because its our pilots that are going to pay the price if it isn't. Right now we would have a problem against the Ethiopian Air Force if it came to it. I'm starting to believe that future aviation historians will regard stealth on a fighter in the same withering tones as removing the gun all those years ago. Still, with everything hanging down it looks gorgeous.

[rickshaw]

Ok. I've googled, youtubed and read every article, pro and con, about this plane for the past week. All I want to see is a fly-off between this "thing" and the plane its supposed to be replacing, the F-16. Has this happened? As far as I can tell, for a variety of reasons including one made on an earlier thread, this IS the F-104 all over again....a cluster-**** waiting to happen. The only people defending this aircraft are those that like the way it looks, paid/ordered (USAF personnel) to defend it or those with shares in Lockheed-Martin. One of the worst things I could possibly say is we can only wait for a war to come along and see what happens....GOD help us all.

I think you're being unduly harsh both on the aircraft and it's proponents.

At the moment, it's the only horse in town.  It is at least 15 years ahead in technological terms compared to all it's competitors and has systems most of them don't or won't ever have.  All the moaning and carping appears to me more based upon "It isn't the aircraft I like", than rational analysis of it's pros and cons.   Always remember, no weapon system is perfect nor can one like the F-35 do all the roles it's intended to do as well as one purposefully design to do fulfill it.  They are a compromise and as such some things will lose out over others.

The F-104, despite it's limitations in the end turned in actually quite a good performance in the roles in which it was used by all those varied air forces.   I do hope you're not suggesting that bribery was involved in the F-35 program, as it was in the F-104?

It is an interesting technical solution to a difficult technical problem.  It manages to overcome a great many hurdles.  I fully expect that in 20 years time, this will be seen as a storm in a teacup and people will wonder what all the controversy was all about as they're looking for it's replacement.

Now, to get a few things out of the way -

1) I am indifferent to how it looks.  It looks "OK" as far as I am concerned.  It could have a horn growing out it's head for all I care as long as it does the job, aesthetics isn't a consideration as far as I'm concerned;
2) I am not being paid for this opinion.  Indeed, I wish I was.  It would help pay the bills; 
3) Nor am I a member of the USAF; 
4) I have no shares in Lockheed Martin, indeed, I have no shares in anything;

[kitnut617]

---- and they couldn't just upgrade etc the AV-8.

I'm a full blown fan of the Harrier and like others, sad to see it go but it is a 1950's concept.  To have 60 years (from prototype to the latest) is something not many aircraft types get and it was developed to the max'.  I've read that to make it better it needed a new and bigger engine (which RR had on paper) but would have needed a bigger fuselage to take it.  So if a new fuselage was needed to be designed, why not start with a fresh bit of paper and design the next generation Harrier -----

[Librarian]

At the moment, it's the only horse in town.  It is at least 15 years ahead in technological terms compared to all it's competitors and has systems most of them don't or won't ever have.  All the moaning and carping appears to me more based upon "It isn't the aircraft I like", than rational analysis of it's pros and cons.   Always remember, no weapon system is perfect nor can one like the F-35 do all the roles it's intended to do as well as one purposefully design to do fulfill it.  They are a compromise and as such some things will lose out over others.

The F-104, despite it's limitations in the end turned in actually quite a good performance in the roles in which it was used by all those varied air forces.   I do hope you're not suggesting that bribery was involved in the F-35 program, as it was in the F-104?

[/quote]

Correct. It's all we've got so let's buy it. My kids do the same in a toy shop.
As far as I can tell there has been a huge amount of debating about the pros and cons and the cons are standing tall.
I don't like the F-15 but would have seen then as now what a superb machine it is.
Compromises do not work in a high tech environment. See batteries, 787.
You wouldn't need bribery this time, see the first point.

I'd hate to think what the view from the cockpit is like if trying to check six. Seems to have been designed to look down.
It's stealth but to carry a useful load you have to festoon it with pylons. Bang goes the stealth. This is fun.....

[ChernayaAkula]

<...> All I want to see is a fly-off between this "thing" and the plane its supposed to be replacing, the F-16. Has this happened? <...>

And who would then decide which is better? The only people who could do that are the ones you think are biased because they're either paid or ordered to favour the F-35. One test pilot said that an F-35 will outperform a similarly armed and fuelled F-16. So there.  

<...> Twenty years and billions of dollars and they couldn't just upgrade etc the AV-8. <...>

Aircraft only have so much growth potential. And even if you could cram all the advanced F-35 avionics into a Harrier, you'd still have a non-stealthy, firmly subsonic Harrier. If you cram all the F-35 avionics into an F-16 (and look how much weight and drag the younger F-16 blocks have accumulated already), you'll have an advanced, but non-stealthy F-16.
Then there's maintenance. The AV-8 and F-16 are getting old. Their airframes have only so much life left in them. The older an aircraft gets, the more maintenance hours it's gonna need. Sure, you could refurbish them, but you'd still have non-stealthy aircraft.

<...> I'm starting to believe that future aviation historians will regard stealth on a fighter in the same withering tones as removing the gun all those years ago. <...>

I'm not so sure about that. There's the report about the F-22 that single-handedly swatted eight Aggressor F-16s (and these guys usually know what they're doing) without even getting to the merge. The F-16s never even knew where the Raptor was. Or the interview with an F/A-18E driver. She reckoned she would have been able to hold her own against a Raptor in a turning dogfight thanks to the F/A-18E's manoeuvrability and the AIM-9X/JHMCS combo. Had she been able to get to the merge, that is, she said, as they would've been "killed" before even detecting the Raptor.

<...> As far as I can tell there has been a huge amount of debating about the pros and cons and the cons are standing tall. <...>

Are they? According to whom? Those involved in the program are fairly impressed. Oh, wait, I forgot, they'd have to say that, wouldn't they?

<...> I'd hate to think what the view from the cockpit is like if trying to check six. Seems to have been designed to look down. <...>

If an F-35 driver finds himself in the situation that he will have to visually acquire a bandit on his six, he has seriously f****d up. Information and energy management will make sure no one will get on their six.

<...> It's stealth but to carry a useful load you have to festoon it with pylons. Bang goes the stealth. <...>

Define useful load. And stealth doesn't go bang quite that fast. Even when you hang a couple of bombs on it, the RCS will still be a lot smaller than a similarly equipped F-16. And that's just with today's generation of air-to-ground weaponry. Stealthy bombs will become increasingly necessary, as there already are AAA/SAM systems that are able to target non-stealthy bombs and missiles.
An F-35 will carry internally two bombs (up to 2000lb each) and two AIM-120 internally. That's what an F-16 (with two more AIM-120s) or AV-8 will carry externally. The F-35 will do that while supercruising and being stealthy. With all the stuff hanging from it, an F-16 won't go supersonic (at least not for long before it runs out of fuel). An AV-8 won't go supersonic even when clean.
Okay, big stuff like Storm Shadows will be carried externally. Since it's a stand-off weapon, that not too big a deal. And even then the RCS of an F-35 will be much smaller than, say, a Tonka's. Especially since it's stealthy again the moment the Storm Shadows are punched off. On a Tonka, the Storm Shadows would probably be the stealthiest bits.
Defining useful loads again. Only a couple of days after OEF and OEF kicked off, carrier-based planes started flying with reduced warloads. Simply because there weren't enough targets and because they didn't want to have to jettison the bombs over the sea to get down to landing weight again.
A stealthy F-35 may need more sorties to get a certain amount off explodey bits on target. On the other hand, it'll need less SEAD/jammer support (which in turn mean less tanker support for the strike package support).

[jcf]

A compromise on batteries for the 787 would have been to use existing NiCad systems and
accept weight/performance penalties instead of going with newer Li tech. As to why they've
had problems with chosen system, well that gets into issues of, engineering offload, systems
integration and planning that I won't get into at the moment.

The rear canopy, and thus view to the rear, is different on the STOVL variant due to the lift-fan door
and fuselage top-deck profile.

You seem to be labouring under a common misperception about stealth and the incorporation
of low observability features into an airframe. The F-35 is not a pure-stealth aircraft ala the
F-117, nor was it ever intended to be. The LO features are intended to improve effectiveness
in the strike role, particularly at the start of a conflict. After the balloon goes up, it switches
to standard strike role. If p to 4,000 lbs of modern, smart ordnance when fully buttoned up is
not a useful load, then what pray tell is?

[Librarian]

OK. Lets see if I can get this. You're answer to the batteries, which you won't get into now, could have killed a lot of passengers. Well done.
View to the rear is still, on a modern design, bloody awful. 4000lb is a pretty mediocre payload, you'd expect more bang for your buck. I did read that one plane can target and all the others data link to drop on this cue...that could be useful. I'll give you that one . Start of a conflict....I'd like to see it get that far.

"One" test pilot..."will"...well, I'm impressed. So there . Subsonic has consistently proved itself. The F-35 is already under review for high downtimes and maintenance costs. I'm not knocking the F-22. That a/c has delivered. Yes..they would, as "they" have done throughout history. I can not believe you even made the statement about a pilot with a bandit on his six. This is not sci-fi. You belong to the "let's get rid of the gun" brigade. Have some respect for our adversaries...they could actually be quite good, you never know. Don't really know too much about modern bombs etc so I'll buck out on that one.

I'm bugging out on this. I'll leave it to hindsight. I'm going back to the wonderful world of whiff.

[rickshaw]

Correct. It's all we've got so let's buy it. My kids do the same in a toy shop.

How does it go?  "The enemy of adequate is often the desire for the best."   We'd all like the absolute best but as I said, all weapon systems are a compromise and often the biggest compromise is cost.   For what ever reasons, all the eggs are now in one basket and that is the only basket on the shelf and it's labelled "F-35".

Most of your criticisms were levelled at the F/A-18 when it first entered service.  Today, what ever version it is, it's still in use around the world and has been considered an excellent aircraft by it's users.  With the "E" Super-Hornet, it's become a   As a half-way house between the F-16 (in it's original form, the simple, lightweight fighter) and the F-15 (the sophisticated, heavyweight fighter).   Time I am sure will also be kind to the F-35.  Most of the criticisms will fall by the wayside.

As far as I can tell there has been a huge amount of debating about the pros and cons and the cons are standing tall.

Yes, there has been a lot of debate and great deal of it has been rather emotionally based, I'd suggest.  The F-35 was never going to be an F-22, no matter how much some people seemed to wish it would be.  It's a different aircraft and it's intended purpose is different.  Most of the Con arguments have been, I'd suggest based more upon rumour and innuendo rather than fact.   Like all new aircraft, the F-35 has had it's share of problems.  Like a lot of new aircraft programs, most of the criticism has been unfounded.  I remember when F-104s, F-111s, etc., used to fall out of the sky quite regularly, yet those seem to be forgotten.

I don't like the F-15 but would have seen then as now what a superb machine it is.
Compromises do not work in a high tech environment. See batteries, 787.
You wouldn't need bribery this time, see the first point.

I'd hate to think what the view from the cockpit is like if trying to check six. Seems to have been designed to look down.
[/quote]

The F-35 is equipped with EO systems which look in all directions, continuously.  The pilot doesn't actually need to "check six" personally, he has a computer system which does it better than he ever could and alerts him to anything approaching his aircraft.

It's stealth but to carry a useful load you have to festoon it with pylons. Bang goes the stealth. This is fun.....

As Jon has indicated, there is stealth and then there is stealth.   You must define what is a "useful load" and when it is required, before you can really use that criticism.  You should also remember, it's not intended to be a bomb truck and nor is such an aircraft really required nowadays with the advent of smart munitions.  Fewer bombs which are much more accurate is the order of the day so there is really no necessity to make it look like a Christmas tree any more.

[ChernayaAkula]

<...> 4000lb is a pretty mediocre payload, you'd expect more bang for your buck. <...>

4000lb is only what can be carried internally. You can hang more stuff on the wings, should the need arise. It won't be as stealthy as a clean F-35, but it's RCS will still be a lot smaller than similarly armed legacy platforms.
And looking at the aircraft the F-35 is set to replace, how often did or do they fly with bomb loads in excess of 4000lb? "Not very often" is actually too much. "Hardly ever" is more like it. For an F-16, 4000lb is the maximum useful load. Anything more and you have to sacrifice fuel tank stations. Harriers usually carry less than 4000lb. On rare occasions, Legacy Hornets flew with three 2000lb GBU-31, but that much weight made the jet sluggish. Usually, 3-4000lb are carried. Tornadoes and A-10s also carry about 3-4000lb operationally.
Sure, all of these could theoretically carry more, but operationally? Very unlikely.

<...> "One" test pilot..."will"...well, I'm impressed. So there .  <...>

Well, the test pilots, especially those who have flown both types, are the ones who should know best. So their word should carry some weight.

<...>Subsonic has consistently proved itself.  <...>

Well, bi-planes proved themselves at some point. Along came the monoplanes and, by and large, wiped the floor with bi-planes.

<...> I can not believe you even made the statement about a pilot with a bandit on his six. This is not sci-fi. You belong to the "let's get rid of the gun" brigade <...>

Yup, I totally went there. And I'll go there again. Should an F-35 driver find himself in the situation that he will have to spot a bandit lining up on his six for a gun run, he has totally messed up. Why a gun run? Because all other air-to-air weaponry (including today's IR-guided AAMs) would most probably be fired from (near) outside visual range and/or other angles. You're right, this is not sci-fi. The days of Vader lining up on X-Wings flying along a trench are well and truly gone.
The F-35 pilot will have the speed and situational awareness to choose when and how to engage. Sneaking up on him is not very likely. So, citing the lack of rearward vision as a fatal flaw ("clubbed like baby seals", as on particularly silly article put it), while conveniently disregarding the other means providing situational awareness (including DAS, which will allow the pilot to look "through" his plane in all directions), is ridiculous.

<...> Have some respect for our adversaries...they could actually be quite good, you never know. <...>

The thing is, even the USAF's Aggressors, guys who are at the top of the air combat game, couldn't touch the Raptor because the latter could choose when and how to engage, thanks to its speed and superior situational awareness. Speed won't be as good in the F-35 (but still better than other fighters currently in use), but situational awareness will be even better.

[Librarian]

I have to say I'm glad I kicked off this debate. What the hell, good plane. I truly hope it lives up to these expectations. I still feel the gut instinct that we have drifted down the wrong path if a long term conventional war does erupt (then God help us all). If this should happen I believe when dealing with this phenomenally high tech equipment and cost that within a short space of time new simpler equipment will come on line quite quickly. Its sabre rattling when you really look at it in detail.

I suppose this generation of fighters will do for the future packed with probable short term bush wars and conflicts in and around the middle east. Let the pilots have some fun, their days are numbered anyway as drone technology is coming on line.

My only anger is that I've tried to get away from this stuff, hence what-if. I should never have got het up and involved but my pills had run out. Just got a new batch from the doctor. Back to the bliss of prescribed chemicals..... .

Are we getting any F-22s?