What is up with the F-35? Part II

[Stitch]

I still prefer the style and graceful lines of previous generation birds. However, as long as the f-35 lived up to it's billing it will be a great addition to the team.

Don't think it really matters; the F-35 is the wave of the future, for better or for worse, until we go all the way with armed drones. In the end, I think it'll turn out to be an EXCELLENT fighter/bomber after a five-year teething period.

[TopHatter]

Don't think it really matters; the F-35 is the wave of the future, for better or for worse, until we go all the way with armed drones. In the end, I think it'll turn out to be an EXCELLENT fighter/bomber after a five-year teething period.

Yeah, I mean how many classic world-beating planes had a tortured gestation? We could discuss that all day long in whole other thread.

[NUS]

Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again | Danger Room | Wired.com

Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again

America’s latest stealth fighter just got heavier, slower and more sluggish.

For the second time in a year, the Pentagon has eased the performance requirements of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The reduced specs — including a slower acceleration and turning rate — lower the bar for the troubled trillion-dollar JSF program, allowing it to proceed toward full-rate production despite ongoing problems with the plane’s complex design. Under the old specs, the stealth fighter, due to enter service in 2018 or 2019, probably wouldn’t pass its Pentagon-mandated final exams.

At the same time, newly identified safety problems could force F-35-smith Lockheed Martin to add fire-suppression gear that will only increase the plane’s weight and further decrease its maneuverability. The JSF is meant to be a jack of all trades, equally capable of dropping bombs and fighting other aircraft — the latter requiring extreme nimbleness in the air.

For the pilots who will eventually take the F-35 into combat, the JSF’s reduced performance means they might not be able to outfly and outfight the latest Russian- and Chinese-made fighters. Even before the downgrades, some analysts questioned the F-35′s ability to defeat newer Sukhoi and Shenyang jets. Despite the JSF’s lower specs, Lockheed bizarrely claims its new plane is now more maneuverable than every other fighters in the world except the company’s own F-22.

In short, the F-35 program is losing altitude as Lockheed’s claims grow loftier. The result is a widening gulf between expectations and reality for a jet that’s supposed to represent the backbone of U.S. air power for the next 50 years.

The latest bad news came in mid-January the form of the annual weapons-testing report (.pdf) overseen by J. Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. The report revealed that the government’s F-35 program office had changed performance specs for all three JSF variants: the Air Force’s F-35A; the vertical-landing Marine Corps F-35B; and the carrier-launched F-35C flown mainly by the Navy.

“The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by eight seconds,” Gilmore’s report stated. The F-35B and F-35C also had their turn rates and acceleration time eased. The B-model jet’s max turn went from 5.0 to 4.5 g’s and its acceleration time to Mach 1.2 was extended by 16 seconds. The F-35C lost 0.1 g off its turn spec and added a whopping 43 seconds to its acceleration.

The changes likely reflect higher-than-expected drag on the JSF’s single-engine airframe, according to Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week. The implications for frontline pilots are pretty serious. Less maneuverability makes the F-35 more vulnerable in a dogfight. And the slower acceleration means the plane can spend less time at top speed. “A long, full-power transonic acceleration burns a lot of fuel,” Sweetman explained.

This is not the first time the Pentagon has altered its standards to give the JSF a pass. In early 2012, the military granted the F-35 a longer takeoff run than originally required and tweaked the plane’s standard flight profile in order to claw back some of the flying range lost to increasing weight and drag.

Despite the F-35 growing heavier, slower and more sluggish by the Pentagon’s own admission, Lockheed insists its product is still the second most maneuverable warplane in existence. Company test pilot Billy Flynn told Flight‘s Dave Majumdar that the JSF accelerates better and flies at higher angles than every other fighter except the Lockheed-made F-22. “The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin,” Flynn said.

Majumdar promptly ran Flynn’s claims past several active-duty military test pilots. The feedback was not surprising in light of Lockheed’s history of overselling the JSF. One Navy aviator called Lockheed’s boasts “fantastical.” An F-22 pilot expressed his doubt that the jet manufacturer has accurate data on the F-35′s flight energy and maneuverability so early in testing. “The reality is that I would be floored if they had accurate E-M diagrams right now,” the F-22 flier said.

In any event, the F-35 is likely to get even less maneuverable as development continues. Gilmore’s report warned that the F-35A’s tightly-packed airframe has essentially zero room for weight growth without losing nimbleness. “The program will need to continue rigorous weight management through the end of [development] to avoid performance degradation and operational impacts.”

But in the same report, the Pentagon admitted to a chain of safety problems that could force Lockheed to add weight to the radar-evading plane. Extra mass doesn’t necessarily affect the JSF’s ability to avoid detection, but it does impact maneuverability. Several years ago, to save around 50 pounds, the F-35′s designers removed some fuel safety valves. As a result, the JSF is now 25 percent more likely to burn if struck by enemy weapons, making it “overall more vulnerable [to fire] than most” older warplanes, Jennifer Elzea, a DOT&E spokesperson, told Bloomberg.

The Pentagon should tell Lockheed to “immediately reinstall” the valves, Rep. James Moran, a Virginia Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, wrote in a letter to the Defense Department dated Feb. 5.

If and when that happens, expect yet another downward revision of the F-35′s performance specs, as America’s future jet fighter grows steadily more disappointing.

[Chogy]

In any event, the F-35 is likely to get even less maneuverable as development continues. Gilmore’s report warned that the F-35A’s tightly-packed airframe has essentially zero room for weight growth without losing nimbleness.

As usual, the media cannot let go of the notion that fighters must be hyper-nimble, and if they are not, they are doomed to mediocrity.

[diablo49]

Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again | Danger Room | Wired.com

oh cmon its danger room.

[Stitch]

As usual, the media cannot let go of the notion that fighters must be hyper-nimble, and if they are not, they are doomed to mediocrity.

Besides, "nimbleness" isn't nearly as important as it used to be, anyway; as an F-15C pilot once said, "At the end of the day, if you are dogfighting in an F-22, lots of mistakes happened in the previous 80 miles".

The USAF excels at BVR combat, so being "nimble" really isn't a requirement for a 21st-century fighter anymore.

[YellowFever]

Sorry for the digression but I always wanted to ask chogy this:

Chogy, how long will it still be about the "man in the cockpit"?

With the advent in technology wrt avionics, missiles and platforms in general, I'm wondering how long that saying will hold true.

[TopHatter]

As usual, the media cannot let go of the notion that fighters must be hyper-nimble, and if they are not, they are doomed to mediocrity.

I know you hate point-by-point refutations but can you have a go at some of the more ridiculous items in that article?

[Chogy]

I know you hate point-by-point refutations but can you have a go at some of the more ridiculous items in that article?

I will certainly try, but remember I have been out of the game for some time, and am not up to speed on what are no doubt some of the "blacker" portions of the F-22/F-35, and the overall architecture of the modern (Western) concept of the air-air battle. And this is going to be a novel... it's hard to encapsulate these thoughts with one-liners. ;)

For the second time in a year, the Pentagon has eased the performance requirements of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The reduced specs — including a slower acceleration and turning rate — lower the bar for the troubled trillion-dollar JSF program, allowing it to proceed toward full-rate production despite ongoing problems with the plane’s complex design. Under the old specs, the stealth fighter, due to enter service in 2018 or 2019, probably wouldn’t pass its Pentagon-mandated final exams.

At the same time, newly identified safety problems could force F-35-smith Lockheed Martin to add fire-suppression gear that will only increase the plane’s weight and further decrease its maneuverability. The JSF is meant to be a jack of all trades, equally capable of dropping bombs and fighting other aircraft — the latter requiring extreme nimbleness in the air.

No, no it doesn't.

Pentagon specs for fighters like this have been evolving since Vietnam. We all know the history; jets I'd consider interceptors were tasked for air combat against 1950's era gunfighters. The premise of the "missile only" platform was painfully premature. This is no longer the case, and with the advent of truly effective and reliable missiles, the need for extreme maneuverability correctly took a back seat to sensors and weapons.

Even 20+ years ago, we were already separating an aerial fight into phases... Pre-merge, and merge/turning + separation. What we found was that those jets with strong BVR capabilities had an enormous advantage pre-merge. When we fought F-16 + AIM-9, all these guys wanted to do was practice prolonged, old-school turning fights. They would give us complex sort and shoot problems, then we'd merge, and give them the turning fight they wanted - and to be honest, we wanted it too, because it was fun. But we definitely took the search, sort, and shoot portion as seriously as the turning fight when it came to critique and debrief. The F-16 guys didn't care too much about that. Remember, this was at a time when the F-16 did not have BVR. They wanted to simply get in there and mix it up.

"Real men turned and burned." But deep down, we knew that the future battle would be won pre-merge, and post-merge maneuvering was more mop-up than anything else. And one BIG lesson we were learning, and this is critically important... with AIM-9M or better, separating, escaping from a turning fight, was approaching a physical impossibility. It WAS impossible to separate from an aggressive enemy with AIM-7 or AIM-120. You were unable to accelerate quickly enough to kinematically defeat the missile. So to enter a massed turning fight meant very few would survive, and was not a decision taken lightly.

What we found... the transition from the AIM-9P (stern aspect) to AIM-9L (all-aspect) made the large turning fight almost a death sentence. You could see these swirling towers of merged and turning fighters from vast distances, and it was a simple matter to poke your nose at it, find a victim, and let rip with an AIM-9L in a matter of seconds. But if you got sucked into one, you were the next victim. The preferred air combat methodology became one of high speed dashes, short, sharp hooks, shoot, get out.

Time and time again, we'd hear a guy on the radio "I'm engaged and anchored over the Farms" or similar - he's turning, and cannot separate. We'd try to get him out, and simply add to the mess, and the air over the Farms became "death" for anyone foolish enough to drop an anchor there and start turning.

For the pilots who will eventually take the F-35 into combat, the JSF’s reduced performance means they might not be able to outfly and outfight the latest Russian- and Chinese-made fighters. Even before the downgrades, some analysts questioned the F-35′s ability to defeat newer Sukhoi and Shenyang jets. Despite the JSF’s lower specs, Lockheed bizarrely claims its new plane is now more maneuverable than every other fighters in the world except the company’s own F-22.

Define "outfly and outfight..." Again, even the "professional" military media is stuck in the Korean war. The image of the guns-a'blazin fighter is very hard to shake. But we need to.

The Pk (probability of a kill) of a modern AIM-9 launched in parameters is better than 90%. And in the Gulf War, there were more AIM-7 kills than AIM-9, which says two things - the AIM-7 (and AIM-120) are no longer unreliable, and pilots will not fly through the envelope of a long-ranged missile to engage in a close, turning fight. To do so is extremely foolish. Thus, sensors and weapons which allow the first shot are critical.

In short, the F-35 program is losing altitude as Lockheed’s claims grow loftier. The result is a widening gulf between expectations and reality for a jet that’s supposed to represent the backbone of U.S. air power for the next 50 years.

The latest bad news came in mid-January the form of the annual weapons-testing report (.pdf) overseen by J. Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. The report revealed that the government’s F-35 program office had changed performance specs for all three JSF variants: the Air Force’s F-35A; the vertical-landing Marine Corps F-35B; and the carrier-launched F-35C flown mainly by the Navy.

“The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by eight seconds,” Gilmore’s report stated. The F-35B and F-35C also had their turn rates and acceleration time eased. The B-model jet’s max turn went from 5.0 to 4.5 g’s and its acceleration time to Mach 1.2 was extended by 16 seconds. The F-35C lost 0.1 g off its turn spec and added a whopping 43 seconds to its acceleration.

Again, specs change as technology evolves. Those with intelligence understand that it is preferable to give up turning capability for reduced RCS and better sensors. Everything in aviation is a compromise.

The changes likely reflect higher-than-expected drag on the JSF’s single-engine airframe, according to Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week. The implications for frontline pilots are pretty serious. Less maneuverability makes the F-35 more vulnerable in a dogfight.

Dogfight. We stopped calling them "dogfights" in 1984.

And the slower acceleration means the plane can spend less time at top speed. “A long, full-power transonic acceleration burns a lot of fuel,” Sweetman explained.

Sweetman is a moron.

This is not the first time the Pentagon has altered its standards to give the JSF a pass. In early 2012, the military granted the F-35 a longer takeoff run than originally required and tweaked the plane’s standard flight profile in order to claw back some of the flying range lost to increasing weight and drag.

Again, compromise. It is impossible to avoid.

Despite the F-35 growing heavier, slower and more sluggish by the Pentagon’s own admission, Lockheed insists its product is still the second most maneuverable warplane in existence. Company test pilot Billy Flynn told Flight‘s Dave Majumdar that the JSF accelerates better and flies at higher angles than every other fighter except the Lockheed-made F-22. “The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin,” Flynn said.

I believe Flynn and Lockheed.

Majumdar promptly ran Flynn’s claims past several active-duty military test pilots. The feedback was not surprising in light of Lockheed’s history of overselling the JSF. One Navy aviator called Lockheed’s boasts “fantastical.” An F-22 pilot expressed his doubt that the jet manufacturer has accurate data on the F-35′s flight energy and maneuverability so early in testing. “The reality is that I would be floored if they had accurate E-M diagrams right now,” the F-22 flier said.

The F-22 is the supreme A-A machine, and will remain so for decades, IMO. We must remember that the F-35 is the replacement for the F-16. A-A capability will naturally be lesser than the F-22.

In any event, the F-35 is likely to get even less maneuverable as development continues. Gilmore’s report warned that the F-35A’s tightly-packed airframe has essentially zero room for weight growth without losing nimbleness. “The program will need to continue rigorous weight management through the end of [development] to avoid performance degradation and operational impacts.”

But in the same report, the Pentagon admitted to a chain of safety problems that could force Lockheed to add weight to the radar-evading plane. Extra mass doesn’t necessarily affect the JSF’s ability to avoid detection, but it does impact maneuverability. Several years ago, to save around 50 pounds, the F-35′s designers removed some fuel safety valves. As a result, the JSF is now 25 percent more likely to burn if struck by enemy weapons, making it “overall more vulnerable [to fire] than most” older warplanes, Jennifer Elzea, a DOT&E spokesperson, told Bloomberg.

Again, the almost child-like inability to see past maneuverability as the key to victory.

A Pitts S-2 biplane is infinitely more maneuverable than any jet fighter in existence. It's turn rate and radius, on paper, would make an enemy shit bricks. But it's not a fighter.

As far as desirable A-A fighter attributes go, I'd place reduced RCS, sensors, and weapons, well above agility. It's remarkable that the F-22 combines them all, but at an astronomical cost. And it is not a fatal flaw that the F-35 is "only" as agile as an F-16.

[TopHatter]

Great points all around, thanks!

[gunnut]

Again, the almost child-like inability to see past maneuverability as the key to victory.

Top Gun 3D is coming out. The mighty Tomcat will ditch its supreme long range detection and firepower to tangle with the dreaded MiG-28 in a heart-pounding dog fight sequence bound to make every reporter jizz his pants...

[Stitch]

Top Gun 3D is coming out. The mighty Tomcat will ditch its supreme long range detection and firepower to tangle with the dreaded MiG-28 in a heart-pounding dog fight sequence bound to make every reporter jizz his pants...

Yeah, why waste $1,000,000 Phoenix missiles on some POS Ruskie planes when you can get up close & personal and waste them with a $50,000 Sidewinder instead?

[S2]

Air to air combat seems one of those arenas where the attrition fight still holds value. There are not many nations that can throw thousands, even hundreds of sophisticated air combat aircraft (and their equally sophisticated pilots) into a national struggle. It would take a national struggle to provoke such a commitment, particularly a sustained determination to own the skies. It would seem, therefore, that it's to this scenario for which aircraft are developed and pilots trained. All else falls below the threshold in aircraft performance and pilot capability.

Winning this struggle is predicated upon having air dominance upon completion. Achieving such demands that both airframes and pilots to fly them survive. Discretion, then, is not just "the better part of valor" but an operational, even strategic imperative. Some body of men and women-very, very smart men and women- reached the conclusion some years ago that we hold a decisive advantage in stealth, detection, and engagement technologies which allow us to reach out and touch an opponent, count coup and leave the fight before they'd gathered their wits.

And do so again and again. Chogy's treatise above makes clear that no sane man would accept a knife fight in a phone booth when offered the chance to snipe his opponent undetected and withdraw from the scene undisturbed. Or, better yet, simultaneously snipe numerous opponents with equal accuracy from a single platform and STILL withdraw undetected. No nation can tolerate that attritional imbalance long without crying "UNCLE!".

[Chogy]

Spot on, S2. I was thinking about this the other day, and tried to come up with analogies.

Entering a tight turning fight, anchoring, is like:

- A sniper at 600 meters dropping his rifle to engage a vulnerable enemy with his M-4 at 75 yards rather than taking the shot
- A British soldier at Rorke's drift leaving the mission station's perimeter to have it out with the Zulus on his own
- Two WW1 soldiers vacating their trenches to engage in bayonet combat in no-man's land
- And yes, the knife fight in a phone both. One or both is guaranteed dead.

And in each case, you'd shake your head and think "Brave. But very, very stupid."

[Firestorm]

I have a doubt. If traditional WVR combat is so irrelevant with today's super-reliable long range missiles and the US's obvious lead in high performance LPI radars, why was the more agile YF-22 selected over the less agile but stealthier YF-23? The YF-23 probably has unmatched rear-aspect stealth (and IR suppression) because of the design of its shrouded exhaust nozzles. The YF-22 sacrifices some of that to include TVC nozzles which are useful only in the WVR regime. Yet the YF-22's agility and super-maneuverability somehow scored over the YF-23's stealth advantage in the final analysis.