View Full Version : F-35B Sea Trials
The future of naval aviation warfare is changing dramatically!
Video here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&feature=colike)
Great video. I couldn't help but notice that none of the take-offs were truelly vertical. Granted, they did not use a catapult, but I have seen plenty of videos where this aircraft makes a true vertical take-off with essentially zero runway. The implications are staggering when you consider that every cruiser could someday carry 1 or 2 of these aircraft. The days of massive aircraft carriers being the epicenter of our fleets might be numbered.
The days of massive aircraft carriers being the epicenter of our fleets might be numbered.
Yeah, and good thing too. More baskets, and less eggs in each one. This would obviously greatly reduce the effectiveness of the likely enemy tactic of launching a massive barrage of missiles at our carriers and hoping a few get through.
Great video. I couldn't help but notice that none of the take-offs were truelly vertical. Granted, they did not use a catapult, but I have seen plenty of videos where this aircraft makes a true vertical take-off with essentially zero runway. The implications are staggering when you consider that every cruiser could someday carry 1 or 2 of these aircraft. The days of massive aircraft carriers being the epicenter of our fleets might be numbered.
vertical take off severely limits payload and fuel; normal when AV-8s do vertical take offs they have very little ordnance on them and the first place they go is to the tanker to take on fuel
crusader377
05-11-13, 17:35
I don't think the F-35B is as much of a game changer that is claimed and it will not replace conventional carriers. It has several severe limitations such as the following:
Limited range: The F-35B is very range limited compared to the F-18 super hornet as well as the F-35C which is the conventional carrier version. In addition, it as far less range than the old A-6 intruder or F-14.
Most ships are not suited for F-35B operations. The F-35B has one of the hottest exhausts of any airplane every built and most ships decks would not be capable of sustained operations for the F-35B. It is not that simple of just throwing one or two on a carrier.
Small carriers are a poor value for their cost. The U.S. Navy did several studies over the years and found that small carriers lack the flexibility and capability of the larger ships. A small carrier lets say 30-35,000 tons might still cost half that of the much large carrier such as a Nimitz at 90,000 tons but offer less than a quarter of the capability. Interestly enough in WWII the United States and Great Britain built large numbers of escort carriers also called jeep carriers which could be built at smaller shipyards but once the war ended the escort carriers were quickly scrapped in favor of the larger fleet carriers.
There are other reasons as well but these are three huge problems that an F-35B force would have in compared to a conventional carrier aircraft.
I get the one-aircraft-for-everything dream, but I really 'enjoyed' the days of A4s, A6s, F4s, F8s...all crowded onto one carrier.
crusader377
05-11-13, 17:56
I get the one-aircraft-for-everything dream, but I really 'enjoyed' the days of A4s, A6s, F4s, F8s...all crowded onto one carrier.
Their is a reason for specialized aircraft and that is that one airframe simply can't excel at all roles. IMO the F-35 is resembling the F-111 program in that initially the F-111 was sold as a universal fighter that could perform all roles for the Airforce and Navy and it was a spectacular failure.
crusader377,
Do you not see us moving away from massive carriers as VTOL UAV's proliferate in the next 50 years?
I personally see the launch platforms going underwater -- probably not in 50 years but maybe 75.
crusader377,
Do you not see us moving away from massive carriers as VTOL UAV's proliferate in the next 50 years?
I personally see the launch platforms going underwater -- probably not in 50 years but maybe 75.
I think they should go the other direction. Low orbital launched aircraft could get anywhere fast. :) Not saying it is practical but would be nice.
Cagemonkey
05-11-13, 19:30
Neat video. I'm going to withhold judgement until this platform proves itself. The F35 program has been plagued with technical problems and cost overruns. This particular variation, carries less fuel and weapons payload. The dependance on stealth technology has inhibited this planes conventional flight performance. If the stealth doesn't perform as advertised, this plane flight performance leaves it vulnerable to more conventional high performance adversaries like MIG 29's and Sukhoi 27's in a close in dogfight.
Harrier redux, now with more stealth. :)
Lots of issues with that aircraft.
Same with the F-22.
Sometimes simplicity is better.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
Lots of issues with that aircraft.
Same with the F-22.
Sometimes simplicity is better.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
Not when you're trying to penetrate airspace covered by an Integrated Air Defense Network with overlapping S-300's and have a bunch of Sukhoi's coming to get your ass.
Sure, the F-18's, F-15's, and F-16's can still handle almost all the work that could be asked of them, but for how long?
Issues are exactly what one would expect when trying to field the first 5th Generation fighters. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-11-13, 21:08
Manned aircraft. How quaint.
Is that real footage? Some of it feels cgi to me. Lighting and perspective issues I pick up slightly.
I personally see the launch platforms going underwater -- probably not in 50 years but maybe 75.
The Japs already did that in the 40's. Not practical then either.
Dan
MountainRaven
05-11-13, 21:41
The Japs already did that in the 40's. Not practical then either.
Dan
That's like saying that submarines aren't very practical because the Confederacy tried it during the Civil War and they only succeeded in sinking their own submarine.
UCAVs with VTOL capability would be a good mate for a submarine... although it would give the submarine one more mission that they frankly probably don't need.
And I agree with kwelz: Geosynchronous low earth orbit would be an ideal platform for launching aerial attacks: You can be virtually anywhere on earth in less than an hour all while your launch platform remains within United States airspace. (Or space directly above US airspace.)
crusader377
05-11-13, 22:09
Issues are exactly what one would expect when trying to field the first 5th Generation fighters. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think we definitely need 5th generation fighters but the biggest problem with the F-35 was unrealistic goals. Initially we wanted an affordable 5th generation platform to complament the F-22 and instead the pentagon constantly added missions and so now we are trying to have the F-35 to replace the F-16, F-18, AV-8B harrier, and A-10. In addition, the program management for the F-35 has been inept and unfortunatley since L-M is the only came in town, their is very little incentive for them to run the project well because they get paid either way.
Plus the F-35 now being a "Too big to fail" defense program is now sucking resources from many other worthwhile programs.
crusader377,
Do you not see us moving away from massive carriers as VTOL UAV's proliferate in the next 50 years?
I personally see the launch platforms going underwater -- probably not in 50 years but maybe 75.
The B models are not for aircraft carriers but for the the Wasp Class "gator carriers" operated by the navy for the Marine Corps. They are intended to be deployed in groups of six, like the Harriers before them to augment the mixed helicopter group deployed aboard, in support of the amphibious task force.
kaiservontexas
05-12-13, 03:03
Pretty neat I must say.
The concept of having an airplane launched from something other than a carrier was conducted during the interwar-period with battleships and cruisers. They wanted them to spot for the big guns.
http://youtu.be/hfYl3DHpv6I
They would have to make an area for the ship to accommodate one or two F-35b airplanes, which means they would need to make a bigger ship. All in all may not be a bad idea, but as it has been mentioned functionality to cost/benefit does not sound promising.
As for a submarine carrier now that cruise missiles, SLBMs, and drones exist as something launched from a sub I do not see the practicality of it. That would be one big sub for just one or two airplanes.
Wikipedia actually talks about it with regards to Imperial Japan's submarine carrier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier#Future_designs
Remember you would have to house the aircrew, their support group, and their supplies, plus make room for a hangar to work on the plane itself.
The B models are not for aircraft carriers but for the the Wasp Class "gator carriers" operated by the navy for the Marine Corps. They are intended to be deployed in groups of six, like the Harriers before them to augment the mixed helicopter group deployed aboard, in support of the amphibious task force.
That is their ConOps to support the MEUs; however they can as they did during desert storm and OIF 1 use the LHA/Ds as jeep carriers.
The first two of LHA-Rs, America and Tripoli, sort of will give the USN 2 Jeep carriers to operate in the Pacific. They don't have well decks and are optimized for aviation. They plans both got approved when the Marines had the position for a GO on the OPNAV staff was gaped
Geosynchronous
low earth orbit
Choose one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbits_around_earth_scale_diagram.svg
Also:
while your launch platform remains within United States airspace. (Or space directly above US airspace.)
Geostationary orbits only exist around the equator. As far as I know, the United States doesn't have any territory on the equator. Also even in low earth orbit, you're above what's considered the upper limit of a country's airspace so it doesn't matter if it stays over your country or not.
Great video, but sadly as someone else said, lots of problems with this platform. Hopefully cost overruns will not cause cancellation. Like our gubment has any money anyway.....with all the defense cuts and all.
Alpha Sierra
05-12-13, 08:00
Some day, some technology will make conventional aircraft carriers obsolete. This technology isn't it now, nor will it ever be.
crusader377
05-12-13, 08:04
My responses are in bold and italics
Pretty neat I must say.
The concept of having an airplane launched from something other than a carrier was conducted during the interwar-period with battleships and cruisers. They wanted them to spot for the big guns.
http://youtu.be/hfYl3DHpv6I
That idea went nowhere because the hybred battleship/carrier lacked the close firepower of the battleship and had a far inferior airgroup to the carrier. The Japanese actually converted two of their battleships to a hybrid ship prior WWII but both of these ships had very unremarkable careers.
They would have to make an area for the ship to accommodate one or two F-35b airplanes, which means they would need to make a bigger ship. All in all may not be a bad idea, but as it has been mentioned functionality to cost/benefit does not sound promising.
Why not simple add a large 60+ cell VLS and carry that many more cruise missiles and anti aircraft missiles for far less money.
As for a submarine carrier now that cruise missiles, SLBMs, and drones exist as something launched from a sub I do not see the practicality of it. That would be one big sub for just one or two airplanes.
Housing aircraft from subs is another idea of limited value. The USN would be far better off building more subs similiar to the 4 conversions they did with the Ohio class sub converting them to cruise missile carriers. Each sub carries an unmatched 154 cruise missiles.
Wikipedia actually talks about it with regards to Imperial Japan's submarine carrier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier#Future_designs
Remember you would have to house the aircrew, their support group, and their supplies, plus make room for a hangar to work on the plane itself.
crusader377
05-12-13, 08:19
Great video, but sadly as someone else said, lots of problems with this platform. Hopefully cost overruns will not cause cancellation. Like our gubment has any money anyway.....with all the defense cuts and all.
I think the F-35 program needs to be consolidated and put on notice. Cancel the F-35B which has been technically the most difficult aircraft and move forward with the F-35 A/C. I would give L-M 12 months to fix the aircraft and the cost issues and at the end of the 12 months have a competitive flyoff against an upgraded F-18 Super Hornet Block III and perhaps the F-15 Silent Eagle. Competitors would be expected to bring aircraft in its go to war configuration and the winner of the contract would be expected to deliver aircraft within 12 monts.
I think by doing this we reintroduce competition in the system and by guess is that the F-35 problems would be solved. If not, the military still would have a very good and affordable back up option to recapitalize our tactical aviation fleets.
Army Chief
05-12-13, 10:34
I do realize that there are serious issues with cost, mission, technologies and other factors, but as a vertical flight guy myself, there is something about this machine that just strikes me as one of the coolest developments we've ever seen in aviation. True, the Harrier was a heavy hitter in its own right, but the F-35B brings an entirely new measure of capability to the same flight environment. It may indeed make more sense to cancel it in favor of the A/C models, but I hope it survives. Then again, I had a soft spot for the F-23, too ... and I picked the wrong horse in the Kentucky Derby this year. ;)
AC
The physical portion of program is basically done, its is the software and some of the sensors that are still in the works.
The helmet and some of the SA tools all they are suppose to do may be a bridge too far for the near future.
Heavy Metal
05-12-13, 11:29
I wonder if you could JATO one off fully loaded and fueled and recover it vertically when it's empty?
crusader377
05-12-13, 11:42
I do realize that there are serious issues with cost, mission, technologies and other factors, but as a vertical flight guy myself, there is something about this machine that just strikes me as one of the coolest developments we've ever seen in aviation. True, the Harrier was a heavy hitter in its own right, but the F-35B brings an entirely new measure of capability to the same flight environment. It may indeed make more sense to cancel it in favor of the A/C models, but I hope it survives. Then again, I had a soft spot for the F-23, too ... and I picked the wrong horse in the Kentucky Derby this year. ;)
AC
AC,
No doubt the F-35B vertical takeoff capabilities are cool but I think the insistance of making a vertical takeoff version of the F-35 really damaged the program. The F-35 had to physically made much bigger and bulkier than necessary to have room to fit a massive lift fan into the plane. The F-35 is very much overweight for a single engine fighter and because of this its flight performance is actually inferior to some of the planes it is supposedly replacing. In addition, the military recently had to relax the performance requirements even more and if you look at its numbers it is an extremely expensive aircraft whose flight performance is on the low end for even a 4th generation aircraft and more similiar to some of the better performing 3rd generation aircraft.
With the Harrier with exception of the verticle take off ability is really not that capable of an aircraft especially for its price. Basically it has the payload and performance capabilities of a 1950s vintage A-4 or F-5. It is far inferior in terms of survivability, loiter time, and payload to the cheaper A-10 in the CAS role. For multi-role work, for similiar price the F-16 offers far superior range, payload, avoinics capability, plus extensive air-air capability.
Personally, I think the F-35 should have been a simple F-16/F-18 replacement and if the services desired a vertical take off capability they should have basically built a more simple low observable attack aircraft with at least A-7 range and payload performance with modern systems.
AC,
No doubt the F-35B vertical takeoff capabilities are cool but I think the insistance of making a vertical takeoff version of the F-35 really damaged the program. The F-35 had to physically made much bigger and bulkier than necessary to have room to fit a massive lift fan into the plane. The F-35 is very much overweight for a single engine fighter and because of this its flight performance is actually inferior to some of the planes it is supposedly replacing. In addition, the military recently had to relax the performance requirements even more and if you look at its numbers it is an extremely expensive aircraft whose flight performance is on the low end for even a 4th generation aircraft and more similiar to some of the better performing 3rd generation aircraft.
With the Harrier with exception of the verticle take off ability is really not that capable of an aircraft especially for its price. Basically it has the payload and performance capabilities of a 1950s vintage A-4 or F-5. It is far inferior in terms of survivability, loiter time, and payload to the cheaper A-10 in the CAS role. For multi-role work, for similiar price the F-16 offers far superior range, payload, avoinics capability, plus extensive air-air capability.
Personally, I think the F-35 should have been a simple F-16/F-18 replacement and if the services desired a vertical take off capability they should have basically built a more simple low observable attack aircraft with at least A-7 range and payload performance with modern systems.
But the harrier can exist where other aircraft cannot. So it'll always be better than nothing.
Also, you can't force a competition after they already won the contract unless it was in the original contact. And in the end, it doesn't matter if the f18 or f16 outflies an f35. Can either take off from short runways? Can either penetrate IADS without support? Do either simplify aircraft logistics by consolidating 3 services into one aircraft with the majority of parts commonality? If you simulated dogfights (like red flag), it's kind of hard to kill something that can kill you before you can see it, regardless of almost any other factors.
So while the b variant might be the smallest number of airframes and the most troublesome of the bunch, the program in its entirety definitely has merit.
kaiservontexas
05-12-13, 12:00
Crusader that was my point, not really viable.
MountainRaven
05-12-13, 12:46
Choose one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbits_around_earth_scale_diagram.svg
Also:
Geostationary orbits only exist around the equator. As far as I know, the United States doesn't have any territory on the equator. Also even in low earth orbit, you're above what's considered the upper limit of a country's airspace so it doesn't matter if it stays over your country or not.
First off, keep your reality the hell away from my sci-fi. :p
Second, geosynch can occur at any latitude, you just have to be going to same speed as the world under you. (Which of course affects the altitude of your orbit.)
Third, militarizing space is a delicate proposition and having a military station that as a matter of course will need to pass over sovereign nations that aren't friendly to you will prove to be a point of contention (because people are stupid). It also would allow such countries to destroy your station with an ASAT and claim that they were simply protecting their sovereignty... effectively committing an overt act of war reducing your military capabilities without offering you a means to retaliate without looking like a bully.
MountainRaven
05-12-13, 12:50
The F-35 is very much overweight for a single engine fighter and because of this its flight performance is actually inferior to some of the planes it is supposedly replacing.
IIRC, the F-35B and F-35C are twin engine. You know, that old sticking point that they had with the YF-16 versus the YF-17 that caused the Navy to further develop the YF-17 (despite losing to the YF-16) into the F/A-18.
First off, keep your reality the hell away from my sci-fi. :p
Second, geosynch can occur at any latitude, you just have to be going to same speed as the world under you. (Which of course affects the altitude of your orbit.)
Third, militarizing space is a delicate proposition and having a military station that as a matter of course will need to pass over sovereign nations that aren't friendly to you will prove to be a point of contention (because people are stupid). It also would allow such countries to destroy your station with an ASAT and claim that they were simply protecting their sovereignty... effectively committing an overt act of war reducing your military capabilities without offering you a means to retaliate without looking like a bully.
Geostationary can't occur at any latitude for any reasonable amount of time. It has to be over the equator to be in a true/stable orbit. The reason is if you orbit around anything other than the center of mass of the planet earth, you need to constantly expend fuel or the center of mass of the planet will change your orbit. And you'll probably crash. Edit: I should say, you have to constantly expend fuel at a much greater rate than normal.
A geosynch orbit can be rotated so it passes over places of the planet that aren't on the equator, but the actual orbit DOES move and it's not stationary over that point. It just returns to any given point every 24 hrs, but it will cross the equator twice every day in the same spot.
And a stable geosynch orbit cannot be obtained at any altitude, it can only really be at a single altitude. You can technically orbit at any altitude (outside of the atmosphere), but there's only one spot where your velocity around the planet in a stable orbit also matches the planet's rotational speed. So it's theoretically possible to have a LEO and geostationary orbit match if the Earth were rotating much faster.
crusader377
05-12-13, 14:03
IIRC, the F-35B and F-35C are twin engine. You know, that old sticking point that they had with the YF-16 versus the YF-17 that caused the Navy to further develop the YF-17 (despite losing to the YF-16) into the F/A-18.
All F-35 versions are single engine.
crusader377
05-12-13, 14:07
Crusader that was my point, not really viable.
Agreed, I was just adding to your points.
IIRC, the F-35B and F-35C are twin engine. You know, that old sticking point that they had with the YF-16 versus the YF-17 that caused the Navy to further develop the YF-17 (despite losing to the YF-16) into the F/A-18.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/jsf-family-variants.jpg
The one in the OP video was the F35B (STVL).
F35A (conventional takeoff)http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7LIsv9LJPfU
F35C (carrier variant) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bkYPFn1pV84
MountainRaven
05-12-13, 14:31
Geostationary can't occur at any latitude for any reasonable amount of time. It has to be over the equator to be in a true/stable orbit. The reason is if you orbit around anything other than the center of mass of the planet earth, you need to constantly expend fuel or the center of mass of the planet will change your orbit. And you'll probably crash. Edit: I should say, you have to constantly expend fuel at a much greater rate than normal.
A geosynch orbit can be rotated so it passes over places of the planet that aren't on the equator, but the actual orbit DOES move and it's not stationary over that point. It just returns to any given point every 24 hrs, but it will cross the equator twice every day in the same spot.
And a stable geosynch orbit cannot be obtained at any altitude, it can only really be at a single altitude. You can technically orbit at any altitude (outside of the atmosphere), but there's only one spot where your velocity around the planet in a stable orbit also matches the planet's rotational speed. So it's theoretically possible to have a LEO and geostationary orbit match if the Earth were rotating much faster.
Dammit. You got your science in my soup. Now I'll never be able to watch Star Wars ever again!
All F-35 versions are single engine.
Ayup. I'm batting real well, today!
CarlosDJackal
05-12-13, 14:46
You can really see the lateral stress that its landing gear has to deal with when landing at 2:54. I wonder how may such cycles those can handle, especially the front gear?
crusader377
05-12-13, 14:54
You can really see the lateral stress that its landing gear has to deal with when landing at 2:54. I wonder how may such cycles those can handle, especially the front gear?
Also, despite 15 years of development and tens of billions of dollars spent, the F-35C can't even land on a carrier yet due to a defective design. The level of shear incompetence with the F-35 program is mindblowing. Its not like landing from carriers is something new.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120117/DEFREG02/301170010/F-35C-Tailhook-Design-Blamed-Landing-Issues
Reportedly, it cannot land (vertically, I assume) in very hot weather.
Heads should roll...
"One man with courage makes a majority."
The F-22 suffers greatly as well. Both have been a gross waste of the public's money this far.
And it has been hinted at that someone (another nation) has the plans for the F-35 which caused a re-think/re-design which is what has caused the massive cost overrun.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
The F-22 suffers greatly as well. Both have been a gross waste of the public's money this far.
The F-22 is basically necessary if we want to maintain air superiority. Sure, our current conflicts don't require stealth aircraft, but you should always be preparing for the next conflict or you'll always be playing catch up.
The F-22 is basically necessary if we want to maintain air superiority. Sure, our current conflicts don't require stealth aircraft, but you should always be preparing for the next conflict or you'll always be playing catch up.
I don't disagree with being prepared and looking forward to determine where you need to be but we have no challenges - if one believes the gov't line. I don't but the next major war will be fought with ICBMs - ultimately.
The plane has pilots being deprived of oxygen as well as being nauseated. I don't think it performs as well as claimed, either. At least. It in a dogfighting role. Of course, one has to GET CLOSE to the thing and I believe it's electronics will prevent that for the most part.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
crusader377
05-12-13, 16:59
The F-22 suffers greatly as well. Both have been a gross waste of the public's money this far.
And it has been hinted at that someone (another nation) has the plans for the F-35 which caused a re-think/re-design which is what has caused the massive cost overrun.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
The F-22 does have problems but at least the F-22 met or exceeded its performance and stealth requirements which the F-35 has not. Fundamentally, the F-22 was a good aircraft whose developement was cut short.
IMO, the one of the biggest misstakes that we have made with tactical power was limiting F-22 production to 187 airframes and cancelling the development of the FB-22 which would have been the heavy strike version of the F-22 filling a similiar role to the current F-15E. A stealthy, long range, high performance strike aircraft would have been far more useful than the slow, short ranged F-35 especially in our recent strategic pivot towards East Asia.
The plane has pilots being deprived of oxygen as well as being nauseated. I don't think it performs as well as claimed, either. At least. It in a dogfighting role. Of course, one has to GET CLOSE to the thing and I believe it's electronics will prevent that for the most part.
http://articles.ktuu.com/2012-09-22/cold-weather_34045939
It wasn't the plane.
Or maybe it was. Idk. But whatever it is, it's fixed.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/27/air-force-insiders-reported-f-22-oxygen-problems/57848214/1
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-12-13, 21:52
Reportedly, it cannot land (vertically, I assume) in very hot weather.
Heads should roll...
"One man with courage makes a majority."
Luckily we don't fight wars in hot places....
Isn't the VTOL thing kind of a party trick? Don't they really operate in STOL mode most of the time? If, in a war, there is not more than a 100 feet of continuous pavement left in the world, I don't really care if the F35 is the only plane flying- things have gone pretty bad already...
Given how quickly China and Russia have begun rolling out new tech, we'd be playing catchup already if we hadn't produced the F22 and moved forward with the F35. Ideal solutions? No. But better to have than not to have.
Funny how one of the core functions of a federal government that is actually necessary for us to survive (defense) is always eagerly put on the chopping block by some folks, usually the ones who want all the social welfare BS that is actually what's killing this nation from the inside out.
All these years of peace at home have also allowed the public education system to teach our youth that everyone around the globe is friendly and thinks like us and is reasonable and listens to emotional pleas and happy flower children. Now they're voting age and many often don't see or understand the need for us to maintain a lethal and cutting-edge fighting force.
It wouldn't be such a big deal if their votes didn't also affect us.
Luckily we don't fight wars in hot places....
Isn't the VTOL thing kind of a party trick? Don't they really operate in STOL mode most of the time? If, in a war, there is not more than a 100 feet of continuous pavement left in the world, I don't really care if the F35 is the only plane flying- things have gone pretty bad already...
It's STOVL, short take off vertical landing. The reason is the USMC operates amphibious assault ships that don't have catapults nor arresting cables, so even carrier variant airframes cannot take off nor land from them. They were designed for helos and to launch amphibious craft, but can also operate STOVL aircraft like the AV8 and now the F35B.
Removing STOVL aircraft from the marines makes them dependent on the Navy to transport their fighter wings. That kills a lot of their ability to operate independently and quickly.
Given how quickly China and Russia have begun rolling out new tech.......
What "new" tech?
It's STOVL, short take off vertical landing. The reason is the USMC operates amphibious assault ships that don't have catapults nor arresting cables, so even carrier variant airframes cannot take off nor land from them. They were designed for helos and to launch amphibious craft, but can also operate STOVL aircraft like the AV8 and now the F35B.
Removing STOVL aircraft from the marines makes them dependent on the Navy to transport their fighter wings. That kills a lot of their ability to operate independently and quickly.
Not to mention that "high heat", or high density/altitude has a deleterious effect on ANY and ALL aircraft.
What "new" tech?
I think they're referring to the Sukhoi PAK FA, Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31.
Which are all probably derivatives of technology stolen from the F-35 program and the shot down F-117 over Yugoslavia.
Even when China decides on a stealth fighter and the PAK FA becomes operational, the F-22 will still be ahead of both in essentially every way except maybe numbers. Both governments saved a lot of money by not having to start a stealth fighter program from scratch.
I think they're referring to the Sukhoi PAK FA, Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31.
Which are all probably derivatives of technology stolen from the F-35 program and the shot down F-117 over Yugoslavia.
Even when China decides on a stealth fighter and the PAK FA becomes operational, the F-22 will still be ahead of both in essentially every way except maybe numbers. Both governments saved a lot of money by not having to start a stealth fighter program from scratch.
Nothing "new" there at all. China still can't build a decent turbine engine on their own and The Russian Federation products are state of the art, as long as that "art" is 1988.
Nothing "new" there at all. China still can't build a decent turbine engine on their own and The Russian Federation products are state of the art, as long as that "art" is 1988.
Oh China refurbished an old Russian aircraft carrier. That might count as new.
Oh China refurbished an old Russian aircraft carrier. That might count as new.
Having a boat with a flat roof and operating a carrier task force in the blue water are two completely different things.
It's STOVL, short take off vertical landing. The reason is the USMC operates amphibious assault ships that don't have catapults nor arresting cables, so even carrier variant airframes cannot take off nor land from them. They were designed for helos and to launch amphibious craft, but can also operate STOVL aircraft like the AV8 and now the F35B.
Removing STOVL aircraft from the marines makes them dependent on the Navy to transport their fighter wings. That kills a lot of their ability to operate independently and quickly.
The bigger problem is would require MEU/ARGs to work in close proximity to CVBGs, which they don't do anymore.
Alpha Sierra
05-13-13, 04:21
It's STOVL, short take off vertical landing. The reason is the USMC operates amphibious assault ships that don't have catapults nor arresting cables, so even carrier variant airframes cannot take off nor land from them. They were designed for helos and to launch amphibious craft, but can also operate STOVL aircraft like the AV8 and now the F35B.
Removing STOVL aircraft from the marines makes them dependent on the Navy to transport their fighter wings. That kills a lot of their ability to operate independently and quickly.
Correction. The NAVY operates, and owns, all US amphibious assault ships. And the Marines are absolutely dependent on the NAVY to have both their V-STOL and conventional fighter wings transported anywhere by sea.
I have no earthly idea how anyone can think that amphibious assault and landing SHIPS are operated by Marines. Much less owned by them.
Alpha Sierra
05-13-13, 04:27
The bigger problem is would require MEU/ARGs to work in close proximity to CVBGs, which they don't do anymore.
The only reason MEU/ARGs don't operate closely with CVBGs any more is because we no longer face the kind of threats that only CVBGs can defeat. When that changes, tactics will change again.
There is no ARG that can match the defensive (or strike) firepower of a CVBG with well over 50 F-18s plus a multitude of cruisers and destroyers loaded with SM-2s, Harpoons/SLAMs and Tomahawks.
The only reason MEU/ARGs don't operate closely with CVBGs any more is because we no longer face the kind of threats that only CVBGs can defeat. When that changes, tactics will change again.
There is no ARG that can match the defensive (or strike) firepower of a CVBG with well over 50 F-18s plus a multitude of cruisers and destroyers loaded with SM-2s, Harpoons/SLAMs and Tomahawks.
The reason they and all Navy ships work deintergrated from their battle groups is general shortage of ships; once any BG checks into a CFMCC all the ships become GS ships and are spred to winds to meet the CCDR's naval requirements
Some folks know diddly about aviation or how it goes getting a new aircraft into the air. I was directly involved with the C17 program. The accusations of boondoggle, doesn't perform as advertised were flung against that aircraft as well. The C17 is a terrific plane and flies and performs very well and their aircrews love them.
As we push our technological boundaries to new levels, there will be challenges to make it work as envisioned. Every new high tech aircraft program has had cost over runs, have had design flaws needing to be ironed out and other teething problems. Many of those designs have gone on to give exemplary service records, some have become legendary.
During the birth of our space program, many thought we were wasting our time and money because so many of our rockets kept blowing up on launch or spun out of control and crashed. Yet we kept at it until it worked and with far less loss of of life than the Soviets.
Either the F35 has what it takes to fill the role it was designed to or it doesn't. If it doesn't, what we learned from it will be applied to the next fighter. Chances are, they will do what's needed to make it work and the F35 will go on to earn it's keep like so many aircraft before have. She'll have her quirks and continue to garner criticisms but her aircrews and technicians will grow to love her and gain the know how and experience to get every last ounce of performance from her.
Most of the people involved in the program are dedicated to giving America the best damn aircraft possible and work many long, hard hours to do so. I know, because I've been in aviation a long time and know what it takes to make an airplane happen. They can't pay us enough to make the sacrifices needed if we didn't believe in what we were doing.
Gripe, complain and criticize all you want, it doesn't matter because American aviation is the best in the world and we will continue to give our nation the finest aircraft that no one else can match. We're going to build it and we're going to fly it. Then we're going to build something even better
Alpha Sierra
05-13-13, 11:18
The reason they and all Navy ships work deintergrated from their battle groups is general shortage of ships; once any BG checks into a CFMCC all the ships become GS ships and are spred to winds to meet the CCDR's naval requirements
How I miss our 600 ship Navy.............
Alpha Sierra
05-13-13, 11:20
I don't think it performs as well as claimed, either. At least. It in a dogfighting role.
Jesus what evidence do you have of that? And no, articles in a defense magazine or from a think tank analyst doesn't count.
Correction. The NAVY operates, and owns, all US amphibious assault ships. And the Marines are absolutely dependent on the NAVY to have both their V-STOL and conventional fighter wings transported anywhere by sea.
I have no earthly idea how anyone can think that amphibious assault and landing SHIPS are operated by Marines. Much less owned by them.
You're right, I misspoke. Yes they are all Navy run and owned ships. By "Navy" I meant Carrier Strike Groups.
The days of massive aircraft carriers being the epicenter of our fleets might be numbered.
I disagree, but if it is the direction we're headed in, it's not really a good thing. As the requirement for large carriers diminishes and transitions to smaller carriers, it allows other nations the ability to field them more easily. One of the biggest drawbacks for nations running aircraft carriers is the sheer size in terms of logistics and support. If you reduce carrier operations to small ships that only field a few aircraft, you're making it easier for other nations to enter the game as well.
Again, I don't think that's the course we're headed in, but if we do, it allows for much more of a guerilla-esque Naval warfare style, where stealth is the new advantage and not raw projection power. All you'd need is a small enemy carrier with one or two fighters in a strike capacity to slip past detection and launch an attack at key points.
Reportedly, it cannot land (vertically, I assume) in very hot weather.
Heads should roll...
"One man with courage makes a majority."
That would imply it's vertical operations are affected strongly by high density altitude. Of course, all aircraft are affected to some degree, but if it can't land vertically in very hot weather, that implies a thrust to weight ratio slightly above 1.0 in ISA conditions. Not very... stellar, IMO.
There's a caveat to this whole "can't land vertically in hot weather" thing. It can't land vertically in hot weather IF it is carrying a nearly full payload. That's an important distinction. Also, the problem is expected to be remedied by the time the aircraft is fielded.
There's a caveat to this whole "can't land vertically in hot weather" thing. It can't land vertically in hot weather IF it is carrying a nearly full payload. That's an important distinction. Also, the problem is expected to be remedied by the time the aircraft is fielded.
What about the thrust melting whatever surface it lands on?
What about the thrust melting whatever surface it lands on?
That's interesting. I hadn't read about that part of the issue. But it seems impossible that an easy solution won't be found. Hell I'm a dumbass compared to the engineers working on this thing and I feel like even I could solve that problem.
The F-22 is basically necessary if we want to maintain air superiority. Sure, our current conflicts don't require stealth aircraft, but you should always be preparing for the next conflict or you'll always be playing catch up.
Not necessary true. The F-22 is required if you a) accept the doctrine that stealth is the greatest aspect of air combat and b) assume that the enemy doesn't have stealth technology of equal or greater superiority.
The problem with the above (and it IS a problem) is that the USAAF (when it existed), USAF, Navy and (albeit to a lesser degree) USMC air combat doctrines have made this mistake repeatedly and continue to adopt air combat doctrine in a cyclical fashion. When missiles initially came into air combat, the (foolish) assumption was made that guns were no longer needed because missiles would "kill targets before they ever made it into gun range." We almost lost two air wars because of this doctrine and resorted to strapping retrofitted gun pods on the under the wings of fighters to compensate for the fact that our missiles virtually never hit their air targets (many fighters did not have integral guns/cannons during the Vietnam and Korean war eras because of then-current air combat doctrine).
We did the same again and did away with BCM and ACM training, which resorted in the Navy creating Top Gun, as pilots were finding themselves lacking when going into air-to-air situations that ended up in ACM/dogfight scenarios.
With the F-22, we're yet again transitioning away from the lessons we've learned in air combat and focusing almost entirely on the technological/stealth aspect. If that fails in achieving absolute superiority (and it almost certainly will, if history is any indicator), we're in for another reality check.
What about the thrust melting whatever surface it lands on?
That would (presumably) be accounted for ahead of time with changes to runway/landing area materials. You could also do several things to offset the issue, such as mass airflow from the main engine fan that is diverted around the outside of the main thrust nozzles (such as is done on the Boeing 700 series) to reduce the average temperature, as well as noise. Obviously this would require some modification, but my point is that it's not something that's all that hard to remedy.
In the whole scheme of things, it shouldn't be a huge issue (provided it's acknowledged as one and solved accordingly).
Alpha Sierra
05-13-13, 13:34
What about the thrust melting whatever surface it lands on?
The decks are buckling (deforming) from the heat. It takes a hell of a lot more heat to melt them.
crusader377
05-13-13, 16:57
Not necessary true. The F-22 is required if you a) accept the doctrine that stealth is the greatest aspect of air combat and b) assume that the enemy doesn't have stealth technology of equal or greater superiority.
The problem with the above (and it IS a problem) is that the USAAF (when it existed), USAF, Navy and (albeit to a lesser degree) USMC air combat doctrines have made this mistake repeatedly and continue to adopt air combat doctrine in a cyclical fashion. When missiles initially came into air combat, the (foolish) assumption was made that guns were no longer needed because missiles would "kill targets before they ever made it into gun range." We almost lost two air wars because of this doctrine and resorted to strapping retrofitted gun pods on the under the wings of fighters to compensate for the fact that our missiles virtually never hit their air targets (many fighters did not have integral guns/cannons during the Vietnam and Korean war eras because of then-current air combat doctrine).
We did the same again and did away with BCM and ACM training, which resorted in the Navy creating Top Gun, as pilots were finding themselves lacking when going into air-to-air situations that ended up in ACM/dogfight scenarios.
With the F-22, we're yet again transitioning away from the lessons we've learned in air combat and focusing almost entirely on the technological/stealth aspect. If that fails in achieving absolute superiority (and it almost certainly will, if history is any indicator), we're in for another reality check.
Great Post.
Although I think stealth/low observability is important, I don't think it is going to be the only factor in determining a successful fighter of the future. Throughout history, combat aircraft had to balance several competing requirements such as the following:
Flight Performance (Speed, Agility, Range)
Weapon Systems
Avionics
Cost
Maintainability/Readiness
Growth Potential
and now Stealth/Low Observability/ Electronic Jamming capability capability
Although the F-22s capabilities could make it a game changer, many other aircraft are incorporating technologies have been introduced in the last 10+ years on combat aircraft (IRST, Advanced Jamming, AESA/improved radars, high performance off-boresight WVR missiles Aim-9X, Python IV/V, AA-11 archer, etc... and improved BVR missiles) and since there has been no recent combat engagement against competent opponents we have no way of knowing if the F-22 will truly be decisive. The F-22 could very well be the best fighter and able to rack up impressive kill ratios or technology like electronic jamming against the F-22 primary weapon the Aim-120, and good IRST systems could bring the fight back to close range again where the F-22 although still capable, is at its weakest.
Although the F-22 is a great aircraft in the terms of Flight Performance, Weapons, Avionics, and Stealth. It is a very poor in terms of cost
The F-35 shares many of the same issues as the F-22 except that it has inferior flight performance. Both aircraft due to cost will be deployed in far fewer numbers than the aircraft that they are replacing.
I think the main reason why the USAF/USN has been dominate for so long was that the USAF F-15/F-16 team and the Navy's F-14/F-18 team was a great balance between high capability as well as quantity.
I think the risk moving forward with the F-22/F-35 is that the cost of these aircraft will preclude a high quantity of airframes and making the U.S. more vulnerable to one or two technologies negating our stealth advantage.
The Analogy to this is like the German WWII Tiger Tank although it was a superb weapon and had very high kill ratios, they were eventually crushed by large numbers of American Shermans and Soviet T-34s.
Not necessary true. The F-22 is required if you a) accept the doctrine that stealth is the greatest aspect of air combat and b) assume that the enemy doesn't have stealth technology of equal or greater superiority.
The problem with the above (and it IS a problem) is that the USAAF (when it existed), USAF, Navy and (albeit to a lesser degree) USMC air combat doctrines have made this mistake repeatedly and continue to adopt air combat doctrine in a cyclical fashion. When missiles initially came into air combat, the (foolish) assumption was made that guns were no longer needed because missiles would "kill targets before they ever made it into gun range." We almost lost two air wars because of this doctrine and resorted to strapping retrofitted gun pods on the under the wings of fighters to compensate for the fact that our missiles virtually never hit their air targets (many fighters did not have integral guns/cannons during the Vietnam and Korean war eras because of then-current air combat doctrine).
We did the same again and did away with BCM and ACM training, which resorted in the Navy creating Top Gun, as pilots were finding themselves lacking when going into air-to-air situations that ended up in ACM/dogfight scenarios.
With the F-22, we're yet again transitioning away from the lessons we've learned in air combat and focusing almost entirely on the technological/stealth aspect. If that fails in achieving absolute superiority (and it almost certainly will, if history is any indicator), we're in for another reality check.
That the f22 was chosen over the f23 shows USAF still favors dog fighting capability over stealth and speed, both of which the f23 did better than the f22.
And American fighter pilot training is still the best in the world.
But we don't have enough 5th gen fighters. So they augment our 4th gen fleet, not replace it as originally intended.
Nothing "new" there at all. China still can't build a decent turbine engine on their own and The Russian Federation products are state of the art, as long as that "art" is 1988.
Beg to differ with Russia.
Besides, they've put their money on "big items": ELF, NUKES and SUBS. If you REALLY push the issue they'll vaporize you. Of course, they aren't alone but they either cannot or chose not to spend on guerrilla warfare like we have. They do not have the population pool to draw from, either - 160 million people, IIRC.
At any rate, they have means of stealth that don't involve odd aero - google/bing "particle beam, aircraft, EM, stealth". You may need to add "Russian" in there, too.
Try aren't alone in this, btw. We aren't exactly slouches, either.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
Jesus what evidence do you have of that? And no, articles in a defense magazine or from a think tank analyst doesn't count.
Well unless you've flown it against other aircraft how would you know? I surely haven't flown it nor do I know anyone that has. The bulk of this thread (minis one or two) is exactly that - secondhand info. Could it be misinfo or disinformation? Yep.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
That the f22 was chosen over the f23 shows USAF still favors dog fighting capability over stealth and speed, both of which the f23 did better than the f22.
Without getting into a sub-debate, you should read in detail of the performance of the YF-23 vs the (now) F-22. The YF-23 was superior in many aspects. Just because the F-22 was chosen doesn't mean it was an objective decision - politics plays just as big of a factor here. Think about the GE-engine debacle for the F-35 if you doubt it.
Speed is very much a part of combat maneuvering (ACM) (it's a common mistake for many, including entry-level fighter pilots, to assume it's not). In fact, superior speed is more important than virtually any other aspect of aircraft performance in the context of ACM.
The F-22's ACM performance is currently being paraded because of how effective it is at maneuvering against current fielded fighters, not next-generation. It barely holds its own against next-generation (and even some current generation) Sukhois. The F-22 is primarily a stealth aircraft with good handling and maneuevering characteristics, but not great.
The military put all of their eggs in one basket between the F-22 and F-35 instead of developing multiple next-generation fighters for multiple roles. That, coupled with crippling costs, is very literally a ridiculous decision when you look at the history of air wars over the last 70 years.
Compare this to outfitting special forces teams with Ruger 22LR vs. a group of new civilian shooters with SCAR's and M4's. Pitted against each other, while the civilians have the advantage in technology, they will come up lacking because they (as a generalized whole) are incapable of performing at the level of trained professionals.
Similarly, the shift towards stealth technology forces every performance aspect of the aircraft to be based on... stealth. While you can still have an aircraft that outperforms most based on raw performance statistics, it is still limited from its full potential because everything must be designed around the stealth first and foremost. If stealth roles are reduced (or somehow rendered irrelevant), you have an aircraft that is quite literally hindered in performance... which is the classical history lesson of air combat. This isn't an opinion, this is history repeating itself.
If you look at China and Russia's next-gen fighters, they utilize stealth, but they don't consider it a one-trick pony. Their planes are speculated to be faster and have longer endurance. Should stealth ever go out the window, we're at a severe disadvantage.
I'm not saying the F-22 is entirely a lost cause, it's just that without other next-gen fighters to augment it, it's a step backwards in the lessons we've learned.
Beg to differ with Russia.
Besides, they've put their money on "big items": ELF, NUKES and SUBS. If you REALLY push the issue they'll vaporize you. Of course, they aren't alone but they either cannot or chose not to spend on guerrilla warfare like we have. They do not have the population pool to draw from, either - 160 million people, IIRC.
At any rate, they have means of stealth that don't involve odd aero - google/bing "particle beam, aircraft, EM, stealth". You may need to add "Russian" in there, too.
Try aren't alone in this, btw. We aren't exactly slouches, either.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
Are you talking about plasma stealth? From the 60s?
crusader377
05-13-13, 18:24
Without getting into a sub-debate, you should read in detail of the performance of the YF-23 vs the (now) F-22. The YF-23 was superior in many aspects. Just because the F-22 was chosen doesn't mean it was an objective decision - politics plays just as big of a factor here. Think about the GE-engine debacle for the F-35 if you doubt it.
The F-22's ACM performance is currently being paraded because of how effective it is at maneuvering against current fielded fighters, not next-generation. It barely holds its own against next-generation (and even some current generation) Sukhois. The F-22 is primarily a stealth aircraft with good handling and maneuevering characteristics, but not great.
Similarly, the shift towards stealth technology forces every performance aspect of the aircraft to be based on... stealth. While you can still have an aircraft that outperforms most based on raw performance statistics, it is still limited from its full potential because everything must be designed around the stealth first and foremost. If stealth roles are reduced (or somehow rendered irrelevant), you have an aircraft that is quite literally hindered in performance... which is the classical history lesson of air combat. This isn't an opinion, this is history repeating itself.
If you look at China and Russia's next-gen fighters, they utilize stealth, but they don't consider it a one-trick pony. Their planes are speculated to be faster and have longer endurance. Should stealth ever go out the window, we're at a severe disadvantage.
I'm not saying the F-22 is entirely a lost cause, it's just that without other next-gen fighters to augment it, it's a step backwards in the lessons we've learned.
With the F-22 vs YF-23, IIRC another reason why the YF-23 lost was Northrops marginal performance on the B-2 program in terms of cost.
I think you are absolutely right in terms of an over reliance on stealth. Although the F-22 does have the performance to remain competitive if its stealth capabilities are degraded, I think in is incomprehensible that the United States is paying well over $100 million per aircraft on the F-35 whose performance is more similiar to the better 3rd generation fighters (F-4 phantom, F-5E, Mirage F1 etc..). The F-35 is the slowest fighter deployed by the military since the late 1950s.
If our advantage in stealth is ever degraded I would hate to see what would happen to the F-35 if it was flown against SU-35 with competent pilots let alone the upcoming PAK-FA.
Are you talking about plasma stealth? From the 60s?
Yes.
No word whether we employ it and from cutaways and photos I cannot confirm it.
I've managed a few technical papers over the years and did it fascinating.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
With the F-22 vs YF-23, IIRC another reason why the YF-23 lost was Northrops marginal performance on the B-2 program in terms of cost.
I think you are absolutely right in terms of an over reliance on stealth. Although the F-22 does have the performance to remain competitive if its stealth capabilities are degraded, I think in is incomprehensible that the United States is paying well over $100 million per aircraft on the F-35 whose performance is more similiar to the better 3rd generation fighters (F-4 phantom, F-5E, Mirage F1 etc..). The F-35 is the slowest fighter deployed by the military since the late 1950s.
If our advantage in stealth is ever degraded I would hate to see what would happen to the F-35 if it was flown against SU-35 with competent pilots let alone the upcoming PAK-FA.
Yep. Consider also that China is pursuing a combination Interceptor/Attack role with the J-20. The J-20 actually looks very promising (and therefore threatening) because it relies on tried and true strike tactics common for interceptors. With a greater range and speed than any current or next-gen fighter at both cruise and super-cruise, it's very dangerous if its stealth capacities are even marginally effective. I honestly think it's our most realistic air-to-air threat, provided the program continues development.
crusader377
05-13-13, 19:11
Yep. Consider also that China is pursuing a combination Interceptor/Attack role with the J-20. The J-20 actually looks very promising (and therefore threatening) because it relies on tried and true strike tactics common for interceptors. With a greater range and speed than any current or next-gen fighter at both cruise and super-cruise, it's very dangerous if its stealth capacities are even marginally effective. I honestly think it's our most realistic air-to-air threat, provided the program continues development.
I also read that about the J-20. Some have compared it to a supercruising stealthy F-111. I wonder how the F-35 with its Mach 1.6 top speed and slow acceleration would be able to shoot down such an aircraft.
I think the PAK FA is also very dangerous and even the widespread proliferation of the SU-35 could give us problems.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.