F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[WingsofFury]

I know the F-15 is a very old design. Rumour was that it was what our Air Force really wanted, way back when, when we finally selected the CF-18. But is still is a formidable interceptor and an interceptor is what our NORAD role needs, right?

Not really surprising given their history with the Eagle. 

What you should read up on though is the fact that the SE, much like the SLAM and Strike Eagles, is a strike platform with A2A capabilities which it rarely uses.

I'd love to see Canada purchase a split fleet of -35's and SLAM's, but sadly it would never be approved given the limited cap already put on the purchase.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I know the F-15 is a very old design. Rumour was that it was what our Air Force really wanted, way back when, when we finally selected the CF-18. But is still is a formidable interceptor and an interceptor is what our NORAD role needs, right?

Actually, the F-15 did not even make it into the short list. It was a choice between the F-16 and the F-18 in the end.

The Air Force may have "wanted" the F-15 (like they probably would now prefer to get their hands on F-22 if they could), which was then the top dog, but it was probably in the same way that the Navy wanted to replace the BONAVENTURE with a MIDWAY class American carrier in the late 60's: Ain't wasn't gonna happen.

Remember that even the US could not afford large numbers of high-end [figuratively as the "low-end" planes ended up holding themselves pretty well in the end] fighters in the 70's, which led them to the Hi-Lo mix concept: Hi F-15 and Lo F-16 for the Air Force and National Guard (the ANG ended up buying mostly the low end F-16) - the Navy had the Hi F-14 and the Lo F-18.

 

[Underway]

Speaking to a friend of mine who flew the first delivery of CF-18 when they arrived in Germany he said the airforces ideal choice was F-15 and F-16 mixed fleet because one did air superiority the best and the other strike the best. However as that wasn't going to happen they had to look for the best multirole and that was as Oldgateboatdriver stated.  He told me that most other nations in Germany he flew with thought we were nuts to select a naval aircraft.  As it turns out it was a pretty good choice and a large number of other nations copied us.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Actually seven non-US buyers:

...Australia, Canada, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain and Switzerland....
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.displayPlatform&key=32F08227-0DE1-437F-93AB-C7241517AA8D

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SupersonicMax]

Underway, which one did strike the best, F-15 or F-16?

 

[Underway]

Underway, which one did strike the best, F-15 or F-16?

In his opinion the F-16  was the best strike fighter as F-15 is an air superiority fighter.

 

[SupersonicMax]

In the 70s, the F-16 was a point defence, air-to-air fighter.  Late in its development (1978 IIRC was is decided to make the Viper a multi-role platform (not a dedicated strike platform). The F-15 was, back then, only a Air Superiority Fighter (in the late 1980s, the Strike Eagle was rolled out.  Based on the F-15A, it was modified for multi-role).  The Hornet was the right choice for Canada, being a truly designed multi-role aircraft. 

Would I want an F-22?  Not really.  It doesn't really do what our primary mission is in contingency operations: self-escort strike.  If we go 5th Gen: F-35 hands down.  If we go 4.5 Gen: Strike Eagle with AESA radar and a robust EW suite.  Notice how much the later cost compared to the projected JSF costs.

 

[Haletown]

Looks like the ILS crew have sharpened up their LCS cost models now that they have 7000 hrs of flying logged.


www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-21/f-35-support-costs-fall-22-pentagon-manager-estimates.html



I'd guess the Test Bed program has much more data and a lot more answers now as well.

 

[Inquisitor]

Actually seven non-US buyers:

Mark
Ottawa

Make that eight. Israel may get their first, after the US, of course.

 

[StudentPilot23]

I'm just worried about how the F-35 will fare in a close-up within visual range dogfight. Supposedly it "won't have to dogfight" because of its advanced technology. However, time and again this whole "the era of the dogfight is over" scene has been played out many times (WW2, Korea, Vietnam), with the same result. The wing loading is higher than the current hornet, 107.7lb/ft2 vs 93lb/ft2 for the hornet. The thrust to weight ratio is lower than the hornet, at 0.87 compared to 0.96. Also, the aspect ratio of the wing, so far as I can tell by looking at it, is lower than the hornet's as well. I have not logged a single hour in a combat aircraft, but it seems to me that the F-35 might have some trouble in a dogfight scenario. Furthermore, the F-35 is theoretically detectable using new IRST (infrared track and scan) sensors, so the hunter might've become the hunted. Will this aircraft be able to fulfill the role of self-escort strike if it cannot defend itself, and perhaps now not hide itself?

On Sept 18/08, Lockheed Martin fired back in “F-35: Setting the Record Straight .” It takes direct aim at both the Australian press reports, and the CDI article, noting that external weapons clearance is indeed part of the F-35′s current test program. Lockheed Martin added that:

“…The Air Force’s standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios… In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois… In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented “see/shoot first” and combat radius advantages.

The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament… We do consider all of this in today’s fighters…

…Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access — all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again.”

Note that Lockheed Martin’s release does not address infrared stealth against modern IRST (infra-red scan and track) air to air systems, which are present on advanced European and Russian fighters. The F-35 will use a clever system that circulates fuel near the aircraft skin to remove some frictional heat, but it still has a 40,000 pound thrust turbofan in the back, and Russian IRST designs already have ranges from 50 km (OLS35, head on) to 90 km (OLS35, rear). Nor does it make any claims concerning superior maneuverability against thrust-vectoring opponents like Russia’s MiG-29OVT and the most modern members of the SU-30 family, or canard-equipped “4.5 generation” aircraft like the Dassault Rafale, EADS Eurofighter, or Saab’s Gripen.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-controversy-05089/

[\quote]

 

[Inquisitor]

HAD to share this one, just for the title alone:
"F35 fighter would be clubbed like baby seals in combat"

Reference to post immediatly prior:

 

[StudentPilot23]

Point made!  :nod:

 

[Kirkhill]

F-35 Support Costs Fall 22%, Pentagon Manager Estimates

Bogdan estimated that basic production costs, including engines, for the three variations of the aircraft will fall as much as $35 million per plane by fiscal 2018, when full-rate production is scheduled to begin.
If current trends hold and production rates increase, Bogdan said, the Marine Corps version will fall to $110 million a plane from $153 million under the fifth production contract signed in December.
The Navy’s version will drop to $100 million from $140 million and the Air Force’s to $85 million from $120 million, he said.

Canada's version: 85 MUSD by 2018

Link

 

[Haletown]

Point made!  :nod:

My understanding of IRST sensors are that they are very narrow area, restricted point detectors, kind of like looking at the sky through a drinking straw. Without knowing where to point them, they are not very effective.

So consider a scenario where 4 F-35’s are on a patrol and at 80 – 100 miles out they detect a flight of 4 4th gen enemy fighters – all that stuff hanging off the wings, like gas bags & missiles make for much more distant detection .  The F-35’s have the significant advantage of first detection and superior situational awareness and plan a surprise attack on the enemy.  The F-35’s manoeuvre into position to  press home a surprise attack.

Even if they are detected by the enemy radar or IRST, the time advantage the F-35 stealth characteristics provides the flight with a major advantage going into a fight.

It would be a good discussion for the zoomies  point of view to rate  the value of first detection and situational awareness . . .  above my pay grade.

 

[Haletown]

Canada's version: 85 MUSD by 2018

Link

Well that can't be correct. The PBO and the CBC  told us they would be much more expensive.  And everyone knows the PBO and the CBC never, ever screw the pooch.  ;D

 

[CougarKing]

Defense News link

Pratt, DoD Reach Agreement on F-35 Engine Lot

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has reached an agreement in principle with Pratt & Whitney on the sixth batch of jet engines for the F-35 joint strike fighter, and the company hopes to submit a proposal for its next batch within 30 days.

The contract will cover the production of 36 F135 engines, along with two spares. Official cost details are still being worked out, but it will likely be similar to the $1 billion agreement for the fifth low-rate initial production (LRIP-5) lot reached in May.

“In general, the unit prices for the 32 common configuration engines, which are used to power both the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft and the aircraft-carrier variant (CV) aircraft, [were] reduced in LRIP 6 by roughly 2.5 percent compared to the previous LRIP 5 contract for 35 engines,” wrote officials from the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) in a statement. “The unit prices for the 6 short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft engines [were] reduced in LRIP 6 by roughly 9.6 percent compared to the previous LRIP 5 contract for 3 STOVL engines.”

“This agreement represents a fair deal for Government and Pratt & Whitney,” US Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the F-35 program executive officer, said in an official statement. “Driving down cost is critical to the success of this program and we are working together – in each successive contract – to lower costs for the propulsion system.”

The agreement closes negotiations on low-rate initial production (LRIP) lot six of engines.

Lockheed Martin, the F-35’s prime contractor, announced an agreement July 30 for the production of lots six and seven of the single-engine stealth warplane, although a Lockheed spokeswoman confirmed the agreement has yet to be finalized. The two buys cover the production of 71 new jets, including the first models built for Italy, Australia and Norway.

LRIP-6 procures 18 F-35A conventional takeoff models for the US Air Force, six F-35B jump-jet variants for the US Marine Corps and seven F-35C carrier models for the US Navy, as well as three F-35As for Italy and two F-35As for Australia. Deliveries of this block would begin in mid-2014.

With the LRIP-6 engine agreement in place, Pratt is hoping to build on the momentum to complete a joint package of LRIP-7 and LRIP-8 engines early next year.

(...)

 

[Haletown]

More downward bending of the cost curves. . .


"Lockheed Martin Corp said it is close to an agreement with the Pentagon for a more portable and 40 percent cheaper version of the operations and logistics system that controls the F-35 fighter, the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program."


http://www.4-traders.com/LOCKHEED-MARTIN-CORPORATI-13406/news/Lockheed-Martin-Corporation--Lockheed-eyes-40-percent-savings-on-next-F-35-logistics-contract-17210464/?countview=0


Sure to make headline news on the CBC etc.  Can't wait for the Pierre Sprey interview or the comments from the Rideau Institute explaining to Canadians why this is bad, bad, bad.

 

[observor 69]

Boeing flies prototype of Advanced Super Hornet configuration

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

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

 

[NavyShooter]

Is it just me, or does that not look a *LITTLE* bit like an F-15....ish...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Well they would, wouldn't theY? More at AW&ST:

Boeing Targeting U.S. Navy For Super Hornet Upgrades
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_08_29_2013_p01-01-611097.xml&guid=2013-08-29

Mark
Ottawa