F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[thunderchild]

This is what I think, in the arctic our main concern for a fighter would be air defence right? Then buy enough super hornets armed with meteor BVRAAM this will negate the lack of stealth.  Then we would need to buy a fighter that is lighter and less expensive.  We have used this before with the CF-101A Voodoos for NORAD and CF-5A for ground support. If we wanted a stealth strike capability leave it up to the new generation UCAV like the X-47,or Neuron yes they carry lighter bomb loads but if they get shot up during the first wave we build more and we aren't risking a pilot who is worth more than any airframe.  After the shooting starts and the F-35 starts carring bombs, missiles and other stores under the wings what is the point in spending the extra money on stealth?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Now, lets also assume a hit to something other than an engine, like a flight control servo or surface or your landing gear. The number of engines you have won't matter if you can't control your aircraft. My point is, the number of engines when under fire isn't always the deciding factor to whether or not you'll make it back home.

IR seaking missile home on... IR.  What's the biggest source of IR?  Probably the engines, right?  Usually detonated by optical or contact fuse, meaning close or into the engine exaust.  
I'm actually curious to what aircraft type were hit and which crashed or returned to fight another day.  Again, look up at the numbers for F-16 vs F-18 shot at during the Gulf War.  You can probably have acces to that at work, if not readily available on the net.

I'm actually curious to what aircraft type were hit and which crashed or returned to fight another day.

Quite a few Hornets took hits and were back on the line a few days later.  Again, look at the same numbers you'll get from the Gulf War.  I don't think they lost any Hornets on the battlefield.  F-16 however...

While the landing gear has been beefed up, other problems still remain. The Avionics, from what I've read, is horrendous for it's serviceability. The Superhornet is nothing more than a bomb truck built for the USN and its carriers.

That's one of the things we want to be able to do, bring bombs, on time, on target.  Any aircraft will have problems, especially avionics.  Remember when the F-22 crashed in flight while crossing the International Date Line?  These bugs can and will be fixed.  

The current C/D hornets are true fighter aircraft, they have excellent A2A maneuverability at low speeds, the Superhornet is weak....scary weak when it comes to speed and would do poorly against SU-2X/3X threats......China for example.

I guess you have a lot of experience with the SuperHornet... How many hours do you have flying it?  That's what I thought... Don't speculate on things you don't know.  AFAIK, the Superhornet shares the same aerodynamic qualities the Hornet has.  That comes from someone that actually has flown the beast (Boeing Chief Test Pilot on the SuperHornet, he's an RMC Grad.).

Aside from the F-22, I don't see anything in our inventory that could fight in the WVR arena with these planes.  BVR however....

It doesn't fly, but it glides very well.

It glides for 2 miles for every 1000'.  You get shot in the mid 30s', you have 60-80 miles.  Not much.  How far was Kuwait from Bagdad?  How far was Aviano from the Balkans?  Yes, you have to eject in hostile territory.

The Typhoon an excellent new fighter that can do air to air and air to ground effectively as well as patrol the northern shores without a problem on two-engines. Unfortunately, it's a European product and I don't know how well the Americans might take to a European fighter next door. I'd be willing to bet that if the Eurofighter was designed and built by the Americans, it would be in Canadian hands as a replacement.

Not only that but it has a horrible range.  Really, I think it was designed for the small european countries.  Not the big Canadian country.

We do NOT have the money for a use and throw fighter.  We need something that will last.  40-60 F-35 just doesn't cut it IMHO. We can't get top of the line, simply because we do not have the money to buy enough.  In the end, I think we will have to sacrifice quality for Quantity.

 

[Mike Baker]

Not only do we have the money, there wouldn't be much of a push to put the money into DND to get these F-35's.

The Superhornet, however, would be much easier to get, and in greater numbers, the the JSF, IMO.


Beav

 

[belka]

Quite a few Hornets took hits and were back on the line a few days later.  Again, look at the same numbers you'll get from the Gulf War.  I don't think they lost any Hornets on the battlefield.  F-16 however...

According to this: http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html the losses seem quite even for all airframes.

That's one of the things we want to be able to do, bring bombs, on time, on target.  Any aircraft will have problems, especially avionics.  Remember when the F-22 crashed in flight while crossing the International Date Line?  These bugs can and will be fixed.

That F-22 flight didn't crash, some of the systems did. It returned to Hawaii safely due to errors in the coding.

I guess you have a lot of experience with the SuperHornet... How many hours do you have flying it?  That's what I thought... Don't speculate on things you don't know.  AFAIK, the Superhornet shares the same aerodynamic qualities the Hornet has.  That comes from someone that actually has flown the beast (Boeing Chief Test Pilot on the SuperHornet, he's an RMC Grad.).

Oh I don't doubt that a Boeing test pilot would talk up the product that he flies. While the Superhornet shares the same qualities, it's heavy frame with a lack of power attributes to its sluggish performance. The Superhornet was never the right replacement for the F-14. Right now, countries like Australia are buying E/F's to fill-in the gap until the JSF or another fighter arrives. So why should be buy something that needs replacement in less than 10 years?

We do NOT have the money for a use and throw fighter.  We need something that will last.  40-60 F-35 just doesn't cut it IMHO. We can't get top of the line, simply because we do not have the money to buy enough.  In the end, I think we will have to sacrifice quality for Quantity.

JSF and SuperHornet costs are very close, mabye a few million more per flyaway cost for the JSF. However with Canada's involvement in the development, you could see lower costs for the JSF. I would rather have a quality jet with the latest technology, stealth as an example, that will last you three decades instead of an aircraft that was designed to land on carriers.

 

[Loachman]

As for 1 engine vs 2 being a moot point, I beg to differ.  Ever wonder why NONE of our operational manned aircraft are single engine?.

Because we made a grave mistake in retiring the Kiowa rather than upgrading it to D-model status.

And that's not just nostalgia speaking. They have much gainful employment here, of which I am most envious. Funny, though - they forgot to bring application forms with them.

notice the manned part, so the UAV is out...how are things by the way Loachman?)

$%^#^%#^% Sperwer.

And don't anybody even bother seeking further details, as none will be forthcoming from me until at least March.

There - I rose to your goading, a small concession just for you.

Sorry, but we all want 2 engines.

No, we don't. Give me one less engine and one less combining gearbox any day.

And nine fewer fuel tanks with all of the associated plumbing, and one less hydraulic system, and....

And a helicopter built to military specifications rather than a civilian one painted green.

Back to engines: In a seized wing aircraft, engines are independent systems. More are better. In a helicopter, they're not, and the more engines added, the more complex and failure-prone the additional systems become. When I was at 427 Squadron, we had Kiowas and Twin Hueys. The latter's serviceability rate paled compared to the Kiowa's. During my time there, two Twins experienced combining gearbox problems in IFR (why anybody would want to fly IFR in a helicopter is beyond me anyway) conditions in the US and had to do emergency descents, with both landing in schoolyards. I am a firm believer in simplicity (along with VFR under the cloud).

I have yet to see any credible, scientific report indicating that two engines are better than one in the case of helicopters. If somebody has one, please pass it along. I could use the chuckle.

 

[SupersonicMax]

According to this: http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html the losses seem quite even for all airframes.

If you look carefully, you'll see that most the Hornets hit by IR Sams were damaged, not destroyed.  (1 Destroyed, 6 Damaged, 14% Destroyed) More Vipers were destroyed (4 destroyed, 4 damaged, 50% Destroyed).  You see my point yet?

That F-22 flight didn't crash, some of the systems did. It returned to Hawaii safely due to errors in the coding.

That's what I meant.

Oh I don't doubt that a Boeing test pilot would talk up the product that he flies. While the Superhornet shares the same qualities, it's heavy frame with a lack of power attributes to its sluggish performance.

He probably more credible than what you read on wikipedia.  He's flown more than 2 types of airplanes.  The guy has a head on his shoulder and is very objective in his arguments.  He knows how to asses aircraft performance I think...

While the Superhornet shares the same qualities, it's heavy frame with a lack of power attributes to its sluggish performance.

Then why does it have a greater thrust to weight ratio?  To me, it's a BIG factor in aircraft performance, especially with 2 very similar airframes (again, what do I know...  I guess Aircrafr Performance in University was a joke and all my training was useless)  Just for your info, the Thrust to Weight of the SH is 0.93, Afterburner vs generic load weight.  It's 0.90 for the JSF for the same circumstances.  These are the unclass values.

The Superhornet was never the right replacement for the F-14.

They don't have the same role.  Hornet is a multi-role.  F-14 was a fleet protector (later, some converted to bomber).  Can't compare apples to oranges.

So why should be buy something that needs replacement in less than 10 years?

Why would we need a replacement if it does the job?

JSF and SuperHornet costs are very close, mabye a few million more per flyaway cost for the JSF.

Hmmmm.  Let's see...  52M US$ for the Super Hornet, 85M US$ for the JSF.  I don't consider a difference of 34% close.  The price of the JSF will only go up from here.  The Hornet is already being built for export and sold.  We know for sure what the price is.

I would rather have a quality jet with the latest technology, stealth as an example, that will last you three decades instead of an aircraft that was designed to land on carriers.

Again, why do we need this?  Is it REALLY stealth?  What if you want to make it go for longer missions, carry more bombs or missiles? You need to add pylons.  The combat persistance of the JSF is far from being good.  We will need to put pylons on.  Guess what happens to your super stealthy jet when you put pylons on?  It's not stealthy anymore.  With the stealthy version, you can carry 2 AIMs and 2 A/G weapons or 4 AIMs.  I believe the standard load during Kosovo was 4 AIMS, 2 bombs and 3 jugs.  So you WILL need to put on some external stores on to make a good fighter.  What else does it have to offer more than the Superhornet?  To me, it'll be like the attempt to create a Joint aircraft out of the F-111.  It failed miserably...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks, SupersonicMax for excellent primer series on high performance aircraft. This is one old soldier (can one put more emphasis on old?) who is learning and, in the process, putting aside some of my preconceived ideas.

My hat's off to all the serving pilots/aircrew here (even though some wish they were Army  ) who are keeping our discussions in the real world - even, maybe especially, when they argue amongst themselves.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

drunksubmrnr, the point is that the second engine is shielded from the 1st.  If it kills 1 engine, it may not kill the second one.  If it kills the only engine, you WILL have to punch out.  Contrary to what some people think, just because you get hit doesn't mean your plane blows up....  Again, look up the numbers, I believe they are available (Hornet vs Viper).

I don't know much about aircraft, but I've worked with SAM's and AAA a fair bit. Losing one F-18 engine and not the other to either is not a likely scenario.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I don't know much about aircraft, but I've worked with SAM's and AAA a fair bit. Losing one F-18 engine and not the other to either is not a likely scenario.

May you explain why?  The numbers in the linked documents don't lie.  Many Hornets came back after IR SAM hits. Not many F-16. (I'm focusing on IR SAMs for 2 reasons, one being it was the deadliest during the Gulf War and the second being that's the only one that will home on IR (heat)).  To me, it means the Vipers suferred damages that prevented them from coming back home.  Likely cause?  The SAM took the engine out.  Hornets were able to come back home generally.  Cause?  They came back on 1 engine.

 

[Strike]

The F-16 can also fly with one engine out, the Hornet can barely fly with both of its engines running.

I beg to differ, and after your remark above, I am now having a hard time taking anything you say at face value.  If an F-16 loses it's engine, it is no longer flying, it is gliding.

Ninja, I would seriously suggest that you go and find an ex-fighter pilot in your unit and see what he has to say in all this.  I think a good face to face with someone in the know as opposed to the anonimity the internet provides might help you gain a better understanding of the whole subject.

The whole "Without maintainers, there are no pilots" diatribe only shows your immaturity.  I have yet to see someone respond with the opposite, perhaps because we are all a little too mature to go down the Air/Aviation 'I'm better than you' equivalent.

 

[thunderchild]

From what I've been reading here it is coming down to the F-35 or the Supper Hornet block 2 (or 3 if it ever gets built). The next question is how many do we need of each or is a combination of the two diffrent capabilities the way to go? ideas.

 

[Strike]

From what I've been reading here it is coming down to the F-35 or the Supper Hornet block 2 (or 3 if it ever gets built). The next question is how many do we need of each or is a combination of the two diffrent capabilities the way to go? ideas.

A combination of 2 aircraft is always the nicer choice, but not necessarily better when you factor in issues such things as manning and training.  We are going through these issues in the Tac Hel world right now with the Griffon and Chinook.  It's a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul, all based on the current operational tempo, which ends up biting us in the behind at a later date (or right away in the TH world).

Having 2 different aircraft certainly opens up the possibilities in the missions we are able to carry out.  Unfortunately we haven't had a huge increase in numbers on the aircrew and tech side which means that it would be a long time before such a system could be fully functional and operational with multiple aircraft types.

 

[Loachman]

And then there are the Attack and Recce requirements which need to be addressed.

We could crew and maintain two D-model Kiowas for every Griffon, and perform a useful role in this and other theatres.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

May you explain why?  The numbers in the linked documents don't lie.  Many Hornets came back after IR SAM hits. Not many F-16. (I'm focusing on IR SAMs for 2 reasons, one being it was the deadliest during the Gulf War and the second being that's the only one that will home on IR (heat)).  To me, it means the Vipers suferred damages that prevented them from coming back home.  Likely cause?  The SAM took the engine out.  Hornets were able to come back home generally.  Cause?  They came back on 1 engine.

If you look at the page at http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html, the multi-engine types seem to take a lot more losses than single-engine types. Even if you look at F-18 vs F-16 losses. Is there another page with different stats?

Most of the SAM's out there have warheads large enough and sophisticated enough that they'll take out both engines on a fighter-sized aircraft, since the engines are so close together. There's not much solid in a turbine engine...they definitely don't have enough shielding to stop fragmentation damage to both, even if the warhead detonated in a favourable position.

 

[Strike]

If you look at the page at http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html, the multi-engine types seem to take a lot more losses than single-engine types. Even if you look at F-18 vs F-16 losses. Is there another page with different stats?

What that shows is a list.  If it were to compare the number of sorties each aricraft type made to the amount of damage sustained THEN you would get a statistic.  All I see on that link is a list of numbers.  Without the number of sorties of each aircraft, it's pretty useless in determining which aircraft is stronger/better/whatever.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

What that shows is a list.  If it were to compare the number of sorties each aricraft type made to the amount of damage sustained THEN you would get a statistic.  All I see on that link is a list of numbers.  Without the number of sorties of each aircraft, it's pretty useless in determining which aircraft is stronger/better/whatever.

I agree. All that page shows is what caused the loss of or damage to the aircraft involved. It would need a lot more data for a thorough analysis, and even then there'd be a lot of bias/guesswork.

 

[SupersonicMax]

If you look at the page at http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html, the multi-engine types seem to take a lot more losses than single-engine types. Even if you look at F-18 vs F-16 losses. Is there another page with different stats?

Most of the SAM's out there have warheads large enough and sophisticated enough that they'll take out both engines on a fighter-sized aircraft, since the engines are so close together. There's not much solid in a turbine engine...they definitely don't have enough shielding to stop fragmentation damage to both, even if the warhead detonated in a favourable position.

We're talking about IR Sams.  They are usually small, innexpensive missiles.  They are usually short range missiles, small warhead.  Think SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, Stigner.  All MANPADS.  There are some vehicle mounted IR Sams (Chapparal, SA-9, SA-13) but even these are fairly small (Chapparal is a ground-based Aim-9).  So, it is very possible that one of the engine will survive (you'll agree that there are more odds of one engine surviving on a 2 engines aircraft than on a 1 engine aircraft...).  Stories of that happenning (more than once) are actually in military litterature.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

We're talking about IR Sams.  They are usually small, innexpensive missiles.  They are usually short range missiles, small warhead.  Think SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, Stigner.  All MANPADS.  There are some vehicle mounted IR Sams (Chapparal, SA-9, SA-13) but even these are fairly small (Chapparal is a ground-based Aim-9).  So, it is very possible that one of the engine will survive (you'll agree that there are more odds of one engine surviving on a 2 engines aircraft than on a 1 engine aircraft...).  Stories of that happenning (more than once) are actually in military litterature.

Technically, there are SM-2 IR versions out there and they're a lot bigger than a MANPADS.

And no, I wouldn't say it's "very possible" that a second engine will survive a close detonation of even a MANPADS warhead. That's a lot of chunks of prefragged steel flying into an engine spinning really quickly and with tight tolerances. "Remotely possible" yes. Maybe even "somewhat possible" for a little while at least. Not "very possible".

 

[belka]

If you look carefully, you'll see that most the Hornets hit by IR Sams were damaged, not destroyed.  (1 Destroyed, 6 Damaged, 14% Destroyed) More Vipers were destroyed (4 destroyed, 4 damaged, 50% Destroyed).  You see my point yet?

Not really. All it shows is what aircraft were hit and which of those were either damaged (didn't say whether or not damaged beyond repair or how severely damaged) or destroyed. Also it doesn't list how many missions each type flew.

He probably more credible than what you read on wikipedia.  He's flown more than 2 types of airplanes.  The guy has a head on his shoulder and is very objective in his arguments.  He knows how to asses aircraft performance I think...

While the SH might be a good performer on it's own, compared to other aircraft of it's generation, it's a pig. Thrust to Weight might help you accelerate and climb faster, but overall, the current hornet is a little more agile. It all depends on what type of performace you are talking about.

They don't have the same role.  Hornet is a multi-role.  F-14 was a fleet protector (later, some converted to bomber).  Can't compare apples to oranges.

Exactly why alot of people don't like the SuperHornet, it was never a real replacement for the F-14.

Hmmmm.  Let's see...  52M US$ for the Super Hornet, 85M US$ for the JSF.  I don't consider a difference of 34% close.  The price of the JSF will only go up from here.  The Hornet is already being built for export and sold.  We know for sure what the price is.

Overall, the JSF will be alot cheaper in the long run because it already has current technology and is alot more maintenance friendly, IE F-16 friendly. Having only one engine decreases the cost of flight per hour dramatically.

Again, why do we need this?  Is it REALLY stealth?  What if you want to make it go for longer missions, carry more bombs or missiles? You need to add pylons.  The combat persistance of the JSF is far from being good.  We will need to put pylons on.  Guess what happens to your super stealthy jet when you put pylons on?  It's not stealthy anymore.  With the stealthy version, you can carry 2 AIMs and 2 A/G weapons or 4 AIMs.  I believe the standard load during Kosovo was 4 AIMS, 2 bombs and 3 jugs.  So you WILL need to put on some external stores on to make a good fighter.   What else does it have to offer more than the Superhornet?  To me, it'll be like the attempt to create a Joint aircraft out of the F-111.  It failed miserably...

Stealth is something that gives you an upperhand in an aerial battle. It's what makes the Raptor such a dominate force in the sky, without it, it's just a fancy uber expensive F-15 with great radar. The JSF can carry enough internal stores and fuel for it's missions, and there is also AAR which always extends range. No one yet knows for certain the capability of the JSF anyways so it's pointless to speculate. What is certain though is the Superhornet and it's outdated airframe, old, blotchy avionics and weapons systems and horrible reputation in the fighter community. There is a reason why only the USN operates them and why Australia is only buying them to fill the hole for a real replacement - it's a polished C/D model hornet turd. Only reason why some people on this forum like it is because it has two engines. I'm just glad that the people who make the real decisions don't consider only that one "advantage".

[quote author=Strike]Ninja, I would seriously suggest that you go and find an ex-fighter pilot in your unit and see what he has to say in all this.  I think a good face to face with someone in the know as opposed to the anonimity the internet provides might help you gain a better understanding of the whole subject.[/quote]

Pilots in our unit don't know anymore than anyone else does on what our replacement will be.


[quote author=Strike]The whole "Without maintainers, there are no pilots" diatribe only shows your immaturity.  I have yet to see someone respond with the opposite, perhaps because we are all a little too mature to go down the Air/Aviation 'I'm better than you' equivalent.[/quote]

If you see it that way then fine. Simple fact is, without maintainers, there are no serviceable aircraft. If your SuperHornet with a horrible serv rate is always on the ground, it kinda makes the pilot unemployed.

 

[a_majoor]

A little levity for you guys.  ;D

Unless you have $8 billion in your pocket and can sign the cheque, a lot of this is academic anyway: