F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[estoguy]

Supersonic Max,

Just out of curiosity and interest, does a load placed on the wing (bombs, missiles, fuel tanks) affect the turn performance and handling qualities of a fighter differently than loads placed internally? (Like the F-35)

There is actually a name for this: parasitic drag - caused by parts of the plane which do not help with lift.

 

[StudentPilot23]

There is actually a name for this: parasitic drag - caused by parts of the plane which do not help with lift.

I should've mentioned in my question "with the exception of drag"  :facepalm:. But what I really meant by my question was if weight placed on the wing affects the handling differently than weight placed in or on the fuselage (Let's assume they create no drag). For example, would a load placed at the wing tip affect the jet differently than the same load placed closer to the fuselage? I hope I didn't make this sound confusing.

Thanks

 

[OldSolduer]

There is actually a name for this: parasitic drag

Kind of like some relatives I know......

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Well, unless we plan on air battles with the US, France, Briton, Germany and other first world countries air forces', why is the Hornet/super Hornet so bad?

Russia?  T-50?

Not sure I like that matchup too well....

I should add that if the US Navy has prioritized the F-35 when they already have a lot of Superhornets on their carrier decks, that should throw up some red flags for the SH proponents.

 

[MarkOttawa]

As for "prioritized"..."The Navy plans to declare IOC in February 2019" vice USMC Dec. 2015 and  USAF Dec. 2016:

USAF Accepts Limited Capability With 2016 F-35 IOC
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_31_2013_p0-583761.xml&guid=2013-05-31

LockMart:

DoD Announces Services’ F-35 IOC Dates
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/department-of-defense-announces-f-35-ioc-dates-for-all-services

Now:

Experts to Study F-35 Software Delays

The U.S. Defense Department’s top weapons buyer is assembling a team of independent experts to study the F-35 fighter jet’s software development delays...
http://defensetech.org/2013/12/26/experts-to-study-f-35-software-delays/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

Russia?  T-50?

Not sure I like that matchup too well....

The Russian's haven't said how they intend to use their T-50s, but it looks destined more to be targeting things like AWACS rather than getting into close-range dogfights.  Have a quick read of Bill Sweetman at Aviation Week.

I now return you to the latest installment of "he said/she said."

 

[SupersonicMax]

Air combat isn't, for most of it, about dogfight, but Beyond Visual Range.  Before they get to the AWACS, you can bet they'll meet western fighters.  It could well be us, as DCA (HVAA) is something we train for.

 

[Infanteer]

So what you are saying is that you never get too close for missiles, hence are never required to switch to guns?

 

[SupersonicMax]

As much fun as it is, very rarely (un)fortunately!

 

[Haletown]

End of the year summary .  .  . 

"Thirteen is looking like the F-35 fighter’s lucky number.  After struggling for a dozen years to make program realities match government expectations, in 2013 prime contractor Lockheed Martin LMT -0.48% saw everything come together.  Technical risks were retired.  Flight testing progressed rapidly.  The price-tag for each plane continued declining.  And a new management team discovered that its government customers weren’t so hard to get along with after all.  So when the history of the Pentagon’s biggest weapon program is written, 2013 is going to look like the point at which the effort really took off — the year doubts melted away and the F-35 became unstoppable."


Www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/12/23/2013-was-the-year-everything-went-right-for-lockheed-martins-f-35-fighter/

 

[MarkOttawa]

Further to dataperson Dec. 20,
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/22809/post-1278100.html#msg1278100

Noted left-wing think tank RAND is underwhelmed, and posits that individual service fighters would have presented lower life cycle costs.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/MG1225/RAND_MG1225.pdf

an article by AvWeek's Bill Sweetman (a long-time F-35 program critic) on LockMart's response to RAND:

Contractors Dispute F-35 Cost Report
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_12_30_2013_p18-650263.xml

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

Reuters

MADE IN CHINA | US waived laws to allow China-made parts on F-35 fighter jets

By:  Reuters
January 4, 2014 11:50 AM

The Pentagon repeatedly waived laws banning Chinese-built components on U.S. weapons in order to keep the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter program on track in 2012 and 2013, even as U.S. officials were voicing concern about China's espionage and military buildup.

According to Pentagon documents reviewed by Reuters, chief U.S. arms buyer Frank Kendall allowed two F-35 suppliers, Northrop Grumman Corp and Honeywell International Inc, to use Chinese magnets for the new warplane's radar system, landing gears and other hardware. Without the waivers, both companies could have faced sanctions for violating federal law and the F-35 program could have faced further delays.

"It was a pretty big deal and an unusual situation because there's a prohibition on doing defense work in China, even if it's inadvertent," said Frank Kenlon, who recently retired as a senior Pentagon procurement official and now teaches at American University. "I'd never seen this happen before."

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, is examining three such cases involving the F-35, the U.S. military's next generation fighter, the documents show.

The GAO report, due March 1, was ordered by U.S. lawmakers, who say they are concerned that Americans firms are being shut out of the specialty metals market, and that a U.S. weapon system may become dependent on parts made by a potential future adversary.

The waivers apply to inexpensive parts, including $2 magnets, installed on 115 F-35 test, training and production aircraft, the last of which are due to be delivered in May 2014. Lawmakers noted that several U.S. companies make similar magnets.

Kendall said the waivers were needed to keep production, testing and training of the Pentagon's newest warplane on track; avert millions of dollars in retrofit costs; and prevent delays in the Marine Corps' plan to start using the jets in combat from mid-2015, according to the documents. In one case, it would cost $10.8 million and take about 25,000 man-hours to remove the Chinese-made magnets and replace them with American ones, the documents indicate.

Lockheed is developing the F-35, the Pentagon's costliest arms program, for the United States and eight countries that helped fund its development: Britain, Canada, Australia, Italy, Norway, Turkey, Denmark and the Netherlands. Israel and Japan have also placed orders for the jet.

The program is already years behind schedule and 70 percent over initial cost estimates. At the time Kendall was granting the waivers, officials were acutely worried that further delays and cost increases would erode the foreign orders needed to drive down the future cost of each warplane.

In the documents, Kendall underscored the importance of the F-35 program to ensure continued U.S. military superiority and counter potential emerging threats from nations developing their own stealth fighter jets, including Russia and China.

He said additional delays would force the United States and its allies to keep its legacy fighters flying longer, which would result in higher maintenance costs. It would also leave them with older jets, which Kendall said "cannot match the offensive and defensive capabilities provided by F-35."

The Pentagon first disclosed problems with non-U.S. magnets in a little-noticed written statement to Congress in the spring of 2013. But the statement did not name companies involved and did not disclose that some of the parts came from China.

Officials at Northrop, Honeywell and Lockheed declined to comment on the issue, referring queries to the Pentagon.

Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) at the Pentagon, said the office was committed to ensuring that federal defense acquisition laws were strictly followed.

"There was never any risk of technology transfer or other security breach associated with these manufacturing compliance issues," he said. "The JPO is working with industry to put in place long-term solutions to avoid the need for future waivers."

In his statement to Congress, Kendall said he took the matter "extremely seriously" and said Lockheed was told to take aggressive steps to identify any further cases, and correct its compliance process.

Bill Greenwalt, a former senior defense official and now an analyst with the American Enterprise Institute think tank, said the risk to national security appeared low since the magnets in question had no programmable hardware.

However, he added: "This is an area that will need considerable due diligence in the future to ensure that components for more high-risk applications are safe from potential tampering and foreign mischief."

SPECIALTY METALS

Since 1973, U.S. laws have banned the procurement of specialty metals produced outside the United States for use on U.S. weapons. A separate 2006 law also bans the purchase of end-use items and components that include such specialty metals.

The documents reviewed by Reuters show that Northrop first discovered the use of non-compliant Japanese magnets on the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar it builds for the F-35 in August 2012, alerting the prime contractor, Lockheed, which then told the Pentagon.

A subsequent investigation of all parts on the F-35 turned up two more cases in which non-U.S. specialty metals were used on the F-35's radar, and on target assemblies built by Honeywell that are used for positioning doors and landing gear.

Northrop's radar was also found to contain $2 magnets made by Chengdu Magnetic Material Science & Technology Co, in China's Sichuan region, according to the documents.

The magnets used on the Honeywell target assemblies were acquired through Illinois-based Dexter Magnetic Technologies Inc.

Dexter and Chengdu Magnetic did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

KNOWING AND WILLFUL?

In June, the House Armed Services Committee asked the GAO to determine whether the companies involved "knowingly and willfully" supplied non-compliant magnets, and how the Pentagon investigated that question. The committee also asked GAO for recommendations on potential changes, such as fines or penalties for non-compliance to deter future problems, as well as suggestions for beefing up Pentagon supply chain management procedures.

In a document approving use of Chinese magnets on the batch of 32 F-35 fighter planes now being built, Kendall said neither Lockheed nor Northrop knowingly allowed the parts to be used.

In his waiver, Kendall wrote that Northrop's initial mistake, involving magnets built in Japan, was an "administrative oversight" and noted the firm quickly reported the matter when it was discovered in August 2012. It led to the comprehensive review that found two additional issues involving Chinese-built magnets.

It is not clear from the waiver documents whether Kendall determined that Honeywell's use of Chinese-built magnets involved a similar mistake.

 

[CougarKing]

Japan getting F35s to help assert its maritime claims against China?

Japan plans to purchase more F-35s for defense of Diaoyutai


Quote:
Facing the expanding Chinese air power over the East China Sea, the Japanese defense ministry plans to purchase a total number of 42 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters from the United States to defend the disputed Diaoyutai islands (called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China), according to the Tokyo-based business daily Nikkei.

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) decided to purchase the fifth generation stealth fighters to replace its older F-4 Phantom II fighters. In addition to 60 F-4 fighters, the JASDF also operates 200 F-15J and 90 F-2 fighters, the paper said.

The new F-35 fighters are likely to coordinate with F-2s in potential missions to attack the naval and ground forces of the People's Liberation Army, while the F-15J would take care of Chinese fighters in the sky.

The Japanese defense ministry is also considering upgrading the F-15J fighters under its Mid-term Defense Program. Around 100 of the aircraft's radar systems are not able to be modified, and Tokyo plans to purchase additional F-35s to replace them. This will eventually allow Japan to have at least 142 F-35 stealth fighters. However, the defense ministry will first have to discuss its plans with the finance ministry as the price of a single F-35 can be as high as US$150 million.

Want China Times

 

[MarkOttawa]

Notihing new about the 42 but will they buy 28 more (also big interest in learning about tech to do themselves later)?
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/AJ201312140033


Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

So much for the idea of using the F-35 as a nuclear strike platform...

Former USAF Chief of Staff: Move Away From Nuclear F-35

WASHINGTON — Barring investment from European allies, the Pentagon should abandon the goal of a nuclear-capable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in favor of spending funds elsewhere, according to former US Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz.

Schwartz, who headed up the Air Force from 2008 to 2012, argued instead that those funds should be put towards the Air Force’s new long-range strike bomber (LRS-B).

“I recognize and fully support the need for nuclear deterrence in America’s defense architecture to include the triad and capabilities on which a number of our alliances depend,” Schwartz said in a speech organized by the Stimson Center, a DC-based think tank. But the Pentagon needs to ask if “pursuing nuclear capability in the F-35 the best use of precious investment dollars, as this is a multiple-hundred million dollar decision, and more if one considers the optimization of the weapon for the F-35.”

Defense News

 

[WingsofFury]

So much for the idea of using the F-35 as a nuclear strike platform...

Given that there are B-1's, B-52's, and B-2's, not to mention subs, all of which are nuclear strike platforms, do we really need another?

 

[Ostrozac]

Might this be driven by allied considerations? Currently a number of NATO countries are set up to employ nuclear weapons only with fighters, and they lack the flexible weapons capability of the US, UK or France. For instance, Italy plans on replacing its nuclear capable Tornado fleet with F-35. So if F-35 isn't nuclear capable, that might put Italy out of the nuclear weapons business.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Canada gave up our buckets of instant sunshine when we converted to CF-18, and life went on. But nuclear armed F-35 are likely a bigger-than-USA issue.

 

[MarkOttawa]

But!!!

Dutch Government says their F-35 fighter jets could carry nuclear weapons
http://theaviationist.com/2014/01/17/dutch-f-35-goes-nuke/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[observor 69]

Canada gave up our buckets of instant sunshine when we converted to CF-18, and life went on.

Ah yes the end of the Voodoo, and not a single tech shed a tear. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Ah yes the end of the Voodoo, and not a single tech shed a tear. 

[OT]

Yes, Voodoos were best slung underneath a Chinook... 

[/OT]