The F-35 thread

[buka001]

Your source says nothing of the sort, just "dual engine failure".

Again, just because the Kutsnetzov is terribly maintained does not invalidate the fact its an aircraft carrier of which similar classes are in use by both India and China.

It ran out of fuel as the arrestor cable had failed. Fuel starvation - leads to an engine failure (in a polite sense of the definition).

- https://www.rt.com/news/369209-admiral-kuznetsov-su-33/

 

[Arthur]

Talking about STOVL, anyone remember what later was known as the Yak-141? Soviet-era supersonic VTOL demonstrator. I was at Farnborough in '92, but missed it. Apparently, after the collapse of the USSR, Yakvolev did a deal with Lockheed, and who knows what lessons learned ended up in the X-35...

I also haven't found any good info on why the F-35 Charlie variant changed the top sliding-folding doors on the LiftSystem inlet to the one-hinge tip-up version we see in production.

 

[Blu82]

“While in the holding area, both of the fighter’s engines shut down,” read the translation.
“A preliminary explanation is that they were no longer receiving fuel. ln such situations, a fighter falls like a rock, and the pilot has only one option — to eject.”

Source

So after some reading it seems there are some advantages to single engined carrier fighters given improved engine reliability combined with the ease of maintenance and smaller size. See the quote below from a blog discussing land based aircraft but loosing an aircraft due to engine failure in open ocean will mean you likely loose the pilot. Given my previous examples I still would like two engines on a navy aircraft.

Overall, statistics show that single-role air superiority fighters tend to be safer than contemporary multirole fighters regardless of number of engines (ref. F-106 vs F-4, F-15 vs F-16, Typhoon vs Rafale vs Gripen). And while loss of engine in a single-engined fighter invariably means that the aircraft is lost, engine is not the leading cause of loss (especially today), and lesser reliability of some other systems can make survivability benefits of having a second engine irrelevant.

Blog source

The F-35C is however no small Gripen since it is the heaviest single engined fighter in existence. The engine requirement might have been more due to the US Airforce requirement for a replacement single engined fighter than the US Navy since they wanted a twin engined stealth fighter.

 

[Blu82]

Talking about STOVL, anyone remember what later was known as the Yak-141? Soviet-era supersonic VTOL demonstrator. I was at Farnborough in '92, but missed it. Apparently, after the collapse of the USSR, Yakvolev did a deal with Lockheed, and who knows what lessons learned ended up in the X-35...

I also haven't found any good info on why the F-35 Charlie variant changed the top sliding-folding doors on the LiftSystem inlet to the one-hinge tip-up version we see in production.

They had problems with the doors during supersonic flight during initial testing. The LiftSystem is based on the Yak design as from what I read.

 

[Arthur]

Thanks.

If course it's Bravo not Charlie. Brainfart.

 

[FoXtroT]

Source

So after some reading it seems there are some advantages to single engined carrier fighters given improved engine reliability combined with the ease of maintenance and smaller size. See the quote below from a blog discussing land based aircraft but loosing an aircraft due to engine failure in open ocean will mean you likely loose the pilot. Given my previous examples I still would like two engines on a navy aircraft.


Blog source

The F-35C is however no small Gripen since it is the heaviest single engined fighter in existence. The engine requirement might have been more due to the US Airforce requirement for a replacement single engined fighter than the US Navy since they wanted a twin engined stealth fighter.

I haven't read anything about the Navy wanting a dual engine config from the outset.

The F-35 program wasn't forced on the Navy, they chose to be a part of it and were part of the development and in choosing the requirements. So saying the airforce forced the Navy to accept a single engine aircraft is hogwash. They knew full well right from the beginning what they wanted.

 

[Arthur]

So after some reading it seems there are some advantages to single engined carrier fighters given improved engine reliability combined with the ease of maintenance and smaller size. See the quote below from a blog discussing land based aircraft but loosing an aircraft due to engine failure in open ocean will mean you likely loose the pilot. Given my previous examples I still would like two engines on a navy aircraft.

Also, we've gotten much better at location, search and rescue in blue water. And since it's unlikely that an F-35 will fly alone, the network is presumably smart enough to know exactly where a plane ditched.

And let's not forget Ford-class flat-tops. CVN-78 gets commissioned later this year, and it joins the Network.

 

[Blu82]

Also, we've gotten much better at location, search and rescue in blue water. And since it's unlikely that an F-35 will fly alone, the network is presumably smart enough to know exactly where a plane ditched.

And let's not forget Ford-class flat-tops. CVN-78 gets commissioned later this year, and it joins the Network.

It is not really the location that is the problem it is the overall SAR time and distance. It doesn't really help if the SAR helicopter gets there two hours after ejection or can't at all. Research shows that 4 in 5 ejected pilots will be dead or captured inside two hours. So limping back on one engine might be worth it.

It should be note that I am discussing peace time here since in battle damage will usually take out both engines unless it is a similar configuration to the A-10.

Source

 

[Arthur]

Good points. Makes sense.

 

[Blu82]

I haven't read anything about the Navy wanting a dual engine config from the outset.

The F-35 program wasn't forced on the Navy, they chose to be a part of it and were part of the development and in choosing the requirements. So saying the airforce forced the Navy to accept a single engine aircraft is hogwash. They knew full well right from the beginning what they wanted.

Browsing through the procurement process it seems the JSF was forced on everybody by Congress due to the notion that a common aircraft would be cheaper. This is partially due to industry lobbying telling them all the technologies are mature. The US Navy, Airforce and Marines were all looking for new aircraft and Congress told them buy one. The decision to cancel the individual programs came from above.

In the summer of 1993, the Secretary of Defense Bottom-Up Review acknowledged the Services’ need
to affordably replace their aging strike assets to maintain the nation’s combat technological edge. In September 1993, during the presentation of the Bottom-Up Review, the Secretary of Defense formally announced his intent to cancel the Navy Advanced Attack Fighter (AF/X) and the Air Force Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) programs and create the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) Program. Together, the AF/X and MRF programs were unaffordable.

Source
Source
Source

 

[buka001]

The biggest factor I think that led to the cost and programme overruns is the B variant. Trying to push commonality with this variant and the others is what complicated the programme.

 

[Arthur]

Meanwhile, if this report is to be believed, the Israelis are finding their recently-delivered F-35s are invisible to Russian S-400 SAM system deployed around Damascus. Just a handful of jets change the balance of power in the region. This must be a real shocker for the Russians - their latest SAM just got devalued.

[video=youtube_share;IDQLYHJnI9U]http://youtu.be/IDQLYHJnI9U[/video]

Published on Feb 28, 2017

In Israel, expressed admiration for the operational potential of the new fighter of the 5th generation F-35, to which the latest Russian air defense systems were powerless.

However, speaking at the annual conference in tel Aviv the commander of the Israeli air force General A. Eshel mentioned that for aircraft of the 4th generation, which is equipped Israeli air force, C-400 represent a critical threat.

With regard to the newest stealth bombers, F-35, the first couple of which were transferred by the Americans to Israel in January, they Eshel said how about the factor that will help to maintain air superiority for decades to come. The total amount ordered by Israeli aircraft of this type that were recently involved in the bombing of a strategic air force base of the Assad regime in Damascus, which is guarded by Russian s-400, amounted to 50 units. “This is a revolution. Much better than anything we have, and everything that flies in this region,” said Eshel.

In turn, speakers at the same conference, air force General USA, retired Gary North, who is now a Vice President at Lockheed Martin, also pointed to the advantages of the F-35 under conditions of high threat, such as the Russian s-400. According to him, the F-35 will not only provide strategic deterrence of the enemy, but also the possibility for aircraft of the fourth generation and they currently constitute the backbone of the Israeli air force and the U.S. — to move freely in the airspace no matter where it was.

The F-35 uses stealth technology to such a level that they can remain undetected even coming close to the enemy. This will allow the pilot to about the object of persecution provides a full picture before he will have to decide whether to attack or retreat. The F-35 is capable of destroying advanced Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighter in a dogfight, said in turn, the manufacturers of the plane and the Pentagon.

 

[Blu82]

The F-35B also successfully fired its gun pod recently. Then I noted that only the F-35A carries an internal gun while the F-35B and F-35C requires a gun pod. It might be worth it to start research into hard kill DIRCM's for aircraft.

Source

 

[Dave]

The F-35B also successfully fired its gun pod recently. Then I noted that only the F-35A carries an internal gun while the F-35B and F-35C requires a gun pod. It might be worth it to start research into hard kill DIRCM's for aircraft.

Source

Though I saw a quote from an F35 pilot some time ago, along the lines of "if I have to use the gun, something has gone really wrong with the mission I'm flying".

 

[buka001]

Meanwhile, if this report is to be believed, the Israelis are finding their recently-delivered F-35s are invisible to Russian S-400 SAM system deployed around Damascus. Just a handful of jets change the balance of power in the region. This must be a real shocker for the Russians - their latest SAM just got devalued.

[video=youtube_share;IDQLYHJnI9U]http://youtu.be/IDQLYHJnI9U[/video]

Arthur thanks for this. Very positive (if true) report on the F-35 stealthiness. Do you have a link for the text?

Just wondering if the F-35 was detected by the S-400, would the Russians have made it known (i.e. lulling them into a false sense of security) and I do know there is some agreement between Russia and Israel in terms of Israel's actions in Syria. Not sure if this affected the S-400 detection of the F-35.

I know that the F-35 would know if it was detected and tracked by a radar system.

 

[Blu82]

Though I saw a quote from an F35 pilot some time ago, along the lines of "if I have to use the gun, something has gone really wrong with the mission I'm flying".

Its easy... missiles can be exploited or hard killed while 20mm cannon shells can't. Hard kill systems are starting to make an appearance on ground vehicles but I guarantee research is being done to move them to aircraft. If that happens the no gun small internal payload philosophy is going to backfire badly.

 

[FoXtroT]

Arthur thanks for this. Very positive (if true) report on the F-35 stealthiness. Do you have a link for the text?

Just wondering if the F-35 was detected by the S-400, would the Russians have made it known (i.e. lulling them into a false sense of security) and I do know there is some agreement between Russia and Israel in terms of Israel's actions in Syria. Not sure if this affected the S-400 detection of the F-35.

I know that the F-35 would know if it was detected and tracked by a radar system.

I highly doubt they would. In any case if they did they would probably not know that it was an F-35 they were picking up. They would need to gather a lot more information to be able to successfully classify a return by an F-35 as an F-35.

 

[buka001]

Its easy... missiles can be exploited or hard killed while 20mm cannon shells can't. Hard kill systems are starting to make an appearance on ground vehicles but I guarantee research is being done to move them to aircraft. If that happens the no gun small internal payload philosophy is going to backfire badly.

The payload capacity of the F-35 is a weakness. The best way to improve the effectiveness of the F-35 platform is to augment them with a missile/bomb platform (i.e. F-15's, B-1, B-52 etc). Letting the F-35 penetrate and co-ordinate strikes is probably the role it will perform.

 

[Dave]

Its easy... missiles can be exploited or hard killed while 20mm cannon shells can't. Hard kill systems are starting to make an appearance on ground vehicles but I guarantee research is being done to move them to aircraft. If that happens the no gun small internal payload philosophy is going to backfire badly.

Except the F35 is designed to kill it's targets at ranges far in excess of what the 25mm p) cannon can reach, in other words, if the F35 is overflying its target something has gone wrong with the mission...

 

[buka001]

I highly doubt they would. In any case if they did they would probably not know that it was an F-35 they were picking up. They would need to gather a lot more information to be able to successfully classify a return by an F-35 as an F-35.

Possible. Or they picked up an anomaly, were uncertain and now the Israeli's have said yeah we went in with a few F-35's. Russians are going ahh so that's what it was.

P.s. not really serious with this post.

I am inclined to believe it was not picked up at all.