F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Haletown]

Nice looking plane . . .  Pictures & video

www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:e254e9d9-2cd7-4810-88e3-6aa01dc446f6.

 

[tomahawk6]

Tech Sgt. Russ Fontaine, of the 33rd Maintenance Group, maneuvers the guided-bomb-unit-31 into position to be loaded onto an F-35A Lightning II Aug. 27 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. This marked the first time Airmen have loaded weapons onto the new joint strike fighter here. Each step and procedure was analyzed to ensure it was correct or needed to be changed. The weapons load procedures perfected by the MXG Airmen will be taught to maintenance students in the future. (U.S. Air Force photo/Samuel King Jr.)

 

[Quirky]

Those are either really short people or that is a very large aircraft.

 

[Haletown]

from the "more things change, the more they stay the same file" . . .  a Friday alternative to a sudoku.

" Fill in the Blanks:

    Despite its ability to dominate the XX arena, the F-XX attracted a vocal and influential group of detractors who continued to fight a battle for small, cheap dogfighters. Gathering advocates from several walks of life, a splinter group of congressmen, journalists, aircraft designers, former fighter pilots, and military analysts marched under the banner of XX XX XX XX to demonstrate the folly of the F-XX…

    ...The XX who focused on money saw the F-XX as too expensive at $XX million, seven times the cost of an F-XX and twenty times the cost of an F-XX. They further argued that the airplane was XX XX and easy to XX that the pilot of a XX F-XX XX fighter could easily get inside the F-XX pilot’s OODA loop and wreak havoc. Ironically, the very argument XX XX used proved the case against them. The XX was XX, but its XX and superb XX not only gave the F–XX pilot the first chance to observe, orient, and decide, they also gave him the first chance to act. The XX had good arguments, but they were based on old information. A new paradigm XX XX, and it was the paradigm of a very large battlefield, with reliable missiles that could truly “reach out and touch someone.”

Hint: There is no correlation to word length and number of X's, 'XX' was used for every blank."

Give it a try  . . . answer here.

http://tinyurl.com/o5un7no

 

[AlexanderM]

Boeing flies prototype of Advanced Super Hornet configuration

http://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/9474925200/in/photostream/

http://skiesmag.com/news/articles/19762-boeing-demonstrates-advanced-super-hornet-touts-fighter-as-a.html

Have to say, that Advanced Super Hornet with the upgraded engine package looks very nice, even sexy.  If the price they quote is accurate, we could purchase 100 of them under our budget for initial purchase, and yes I know the maintenance end of the budget would change, likely go over.  Still, could be an option.  I expect we'll still purchase the F-35.

 

[Infanteer]

from the "more things change, the more they stay the same file" . . .  a Friday alternative to a sudoku.

" Fill in the Blanks:

I've seen the same for ground based weapons systems.  I remember reading of similar arguments against the M1 Abrams and the M2 Bradley, both of which are battle proven systems.

 

[Inquisitor]

I've seen the same for ground based weapons systems.  I remember reading of similar arguments against the M1 Abrams and the M2 Bradley, both of which are battle proven systems.

Indeed, the M2 is the hero of the of the wildly funny and true movie "Pentagon wars", book as well.

Todays's trivia  fact " Elements of the F-35 design were pioneered by the F-22 Raptor. In June 1994, Lockheed revealed that it had entered into a collaborative relationship with Yakovlev on their bid for the Joint Advanced Strike Technology competition, consisting of the purchase of design data from the Russian company" Source Wikipedia

Heck 5th generation fighter at the rate things are going it may well be a 6th generation fighter before all the bugs are out;D

No one seems to take into account the damage that bungled development efforts do to other parts of the military, in terms of direct and indirect costs

 

[The Bread Guy]

Boeing sticks its nib in....

The Boeing aerospace company has provided the Canadian government with cost and capability data for an advanced version of its F-18 Super Hornet fighter jet which Boeing suggests would cost $1.7-billion less for a fleet of 65 jets than the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter project that the federal government has temporarily put on hold.

Like the F-35, the Advanced Super Hornet, a more powerful version of Canada’s aging fleet of Boeing CF-18 Hornet fighter jets, is still in development stages. But unlike the F-35, the new Boeing plane builds on an existing version of Boeing’s Super Hornet fighter jet, itself a generation after the Hornet jets Canada acquired in the 1980s.

But the latest Boeing cost entry into an options analysis which the government is conducting in the wake of Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s scathing report on the F-35 project last year is likely to fuel calls from the House of Commons opposition parties and critics outside Parliament for a full-blown competition to find a replacement for the CF-18s.

Mary Ann Brett, Boeing’s senior of manager of international communications, told The Hill Times the company included data on its new fighter, which underwent successful flights this summer, in final response the aerospace giant sent in July to the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat as part of a review of four fighter jets, including Lockheed Martin’s F-35.

“We have responded to all three questionnaires and had some follow-up questions, which have now been answered,” Ms. Brett said in an email response to questions on Wednesday ....

Hill Times, 5 Sept 13

 

[AlexanderM]

I wondering if that latest increase of 20% additional thrust puts the Advanced Super Hornet over the 1:1 power to weight ratio, or is most of it used up by the extra fuel in the conformal tanks?  I'm thinking, power wise, it might be inching closer to the F-15.

 

[Quirky]

I wondering if that latest increase of 20% additional thrust puts the Advanced Super Hornet over the 1:1 power to weight ratio, or is most of it used up by the extra fuel in the conformal tanks?  I'm thinking, power wise, it might be inching closer to the F-15.

AFAIK the Adv SH has the same engines as the E/F/G - power wise. The more powerful EPE engine was cancelled infavour of the EDE (enchanced durability engine). The Navy doesn't have a need for a more powerful version and Boeing and GE are not willing to fund it on their own dime.

 

[Haletown]

I wondering if that latest increase of 20% additional thrust puts the Advanced Super Hornet over the 1:1 power to weight ratio, or is most of it used up by the extra fuel in the conformal tanks?  I'm thinking, power wise, it might be inching closer to the F-15.

Assuming this source has accurate data

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1082

then the Advanced Super Hornet is heavier and has shorter legs.  Don't know if the conformals are part of that range calc.

For comparison the Super Hornet data is here

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=257

Looking at the pictures of the ASH makes me wonder how to  load that weapons pod - it is very close to the ground and when the doors are open it is really, really close to the ground.  Maybe the pod is weaponed up and then the whole pod is attached ?


And what happens when one lands heavy on an aircraft carrier. 

 

[OldSolduer]

And what happens when one lands heavy on an aircraft carrier.

BOOM?

 

[dapaterson]

And what happens when one lands heavy on an aircraft carrier.

They jettison everything they can at sea.  Just like they do now.

 

[AlexanderM]

AFAIK the Adv SH has the same engines as the E/F/G - power wise. The more powerful EPE engine was cancelled infavour of the EDE (enchanced durability engine). The Navy doesn't have a need for a more powerful version and Boeing and GE are not willing to fund it on their own dime.

The Growler uses the 414-400 engine, the Advanced Super Hornet has been annouced, just recently, as using the 414-440 engine, which was said to be coming.  Do you have a source for the cancellation of the 440?

Here it is identified as the F414-EPE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414

 

[Haletown]

Friday morning F-35 porn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DBI7uiDQA6Y


testing continues apace  . . .  B model at sea.

 

[GAP]

Lockheed Martin says $10.5 billion of Canadian work on F-35 at risk without order
By: Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press 09/13/2013
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/lockheed-martin-says-105-billion-of-canadian-work-on-f35-at-risk-without-order-223638061.html

MONTREAL - Canada's aerospace industry could lose about $10.5 billion worth of contracts over several decades if the federal government ultimately decides not to purchase the controversial F-35 Stealth Fighter, says a senior executive at Lockheed Martin.

Orlando Carvalho, executive vice-president of the U.S. defence giant, says Lockheed will honour $500 million worth of business already awarded to Canadian partners but that other work would be in jeopardy without a Canadian jet order.

"If in fact the Canadian government were to decide not to select the F-35 we will certainly honour the contracts that we have here with the Canadian industry but our approach in the future would be to try to do business with the industries that are in the countries that are buying the airplane," he said in an interview after officially opening its new engine overhaul facility in Montreal.

Carvalho said Lockheed estimates that Canadian industry could potentially receive $11 billion of contracts over 25 to 40 years as its builds 3,000 planes for air forces around the world.

About 72 Canadian companies have secured work on the F-35 project. Industry Canada has estimated that the potential value could be US$9.8 billion, including the amount of contracts already awarded.

Gilles Labbe, the former head of aerospace cluster Aero Montreal and CEO of F-35 supplier Heroux-Devtek (TSX:HRX), last year warned that thousands of jobs would be at risk if lead manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman remove work destined to be completed in Canada by members of the global supply chain.

Ottawa is evaluating potential alternatives to its original plan to purchase 65 F-35 aircraft. A KPMG report late last year warned that the total bill, including service and support, could be as much as $45.8 billion over 42 years to replace the current stable of CF-18s, which are due to be retired in 2020.

Carvalho said Lockheed continues to reduce the F-35's cost. He said each plane will cost Canada around $75 million in today's dollars, or about $85 million including inflation once they are expected to be delivered to Canada in 2018.
more on link

 

[CougarKing]

A major update:

Defense News link

Northrop Unveils F-35 Missile Protection System

WASHINGTON — Northrop Grumman on Thursday unveiled a new anti-missile laser protection system designed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in Washington.

The Threat Nullification Defensive Resource — ThNDR for short, to compliment the F-35’s “Lightning” designation — is a progression from Northrop’s directional infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) family of systems.

DIRCM works by sensing by intercepting an incoming missile with a laser that confuses the seeker head on the weapon, causing it to lose track of the aircraft. The system has been highly successful, with installation on over 50 different platforms, but had yet to be mounted on a fighter jet in large part due to the challenge of getting a system to work with the tight turns and high speeds that pilots would be required to make in a combat situation.

Although not yet part of the F-35 program, Northrop is confident the Pentagon wants to incorporate some form of missile-protection into its fifth-generation fighter.

“We know that requirement does exist and it is on its way,” said Jeffrey Palombo, Northrop’s sector vice president and general manager for the Land and Self-Protection Systems Division. In an attempt to get ahead of potential competition, the company self-funded the research and design of ThNDR.

ThNDR was designed to meet specific size limitations for the F-35. It will be nestled next to the distributed aperture system (DAS), also designed by Northrop, and tap into the cooling system already in the fighter. Each jet will get a pair of systems, one on the top of the plane and one on the bottom, to create 360-degree coverage against threats.

A major feature of the F-35 is its low-observable design, vital to its stealth capabilities. Anything sticking off the plane could threaten those stealth characteristics, so ThNDR will be installed inside the jet, with a window cut out to allow the lasers to operate.

The company expects the requirement for a missile defense system to be included in the Block 5 upgrade, in the 2017 time frame, and be available for all domestic and international customers. “There’s no reason at all that it can’t be retrofitted” into an already-produced F-35, Palombo said, although he declined to go into details on what that might look like.

(...)

Artist's conception of ThNDR system in action:

 

[Good2Golf]

That would be pretty impressive if a furture Canadian fighter jet eventually had the same leading-edge anti-missile system that our C-17s, C-130Js and CH-147Fs already have...  :nod:


Regards
G2G

 

[Haletown]

That would be pretty impressive if a furture Canadian fighter jet eventually had the same leading-edge anti-missile system that our C-17s, C-130Js and CH-147Fs already have...  :nod:


Regards
G2G

What would be really, really  impressive if we could make  our C-17s, C-130Js and CH-147F  "able to the tight turns and high speeds"  this new system is being designed for.    :nod:

 

[Good2Golf]

What would be really, really  impressive if we could make  our C-17s, C-130Js and CH-147F  "able to the tight turns and high speeds"  this new system is being designed for.    :nod:

For people familiar with the AN/AAQ-24(V) Nemesis DIRCM and the inherent design of the system, one realizes that conducting "tight turns and high speed" is not actually condusive to getting a good counter-effect.  I would postulate that an F-35 or any other similar fighter aircraft would actually be better off flying straight and level and let the DIRCM do its job.  That, however, may not 'appear' to be doing the best thing as far as fighter force proponents may be concerned (especially when egos are involved), so Northrup Grumman will likely continue to entertain fighter pilots' desires to develop DIRCM in the more-than-likely-difficult-to-attain-yet-highly-likely-to-still-be-pursued dynamic environment of a highly-agile aircraft trying to fry the gimbals on an otherwise practically implemented system.

A somewhat similarly-principled challenge takes highly-proven seeker/controller technology (laser PGM), and attempts to implement that technology on a highly dynamic vehicle (2.75" folding-fin rocket with high body dynamics, a.k.a. spin - Hydra 70, CRV-7, etc...)  Even using roller-bearinged seeker de-couplers, today's mechatronics are challenged trying to provide suitable control output based on a narrow-FOV seeker system.

Good luck with that, NG.

Let's revive this portion of the F-35 thread in 15-20 years and ponder why the system was never implemented.  Maybe some folks may quote parts of the thread...this part in particular:

  "Just because someone wants to do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea..."

:2c:

Regards
G2G