USAF to buy 'hundreds' of STOVL JSFs, Gen. Jumper says

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/jsf09144.xml ^

[Archangelsk]

Dumb decision, if the Air Force wants to be Marines, let them join the Marines.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

Here's an article that's a tad bit more recent.

It seems alot of the pessimism about this aircraft are behind the information curve several months.

[Archangelsk]

The survivability rate for the Harrier (and I believe is also true of the JSF) is terrible

50% and one of my mentors is a 50%er.

[Pukin Dog]

First, that aint no 'article', it is a press-release, designed to shore up their stock against a nervous set of investors.

The key sentence:

The result is an F-35 JSF design recommendation that is expected to meet or exceed all of its performance requirements.

Expected? Give me a break. Especially since they were ORDERED to remove 4500 pounds, and only came up with 2700. Press releases are not news, they are hopes, wishes and propaganda. That aircraft is FAT, and no diet is going to fix it.

[Pukin Dog]

First, that aint no 'article', it is a press-release, designed to shore up their stock against a nervous set of investors.

The key sentence:

The result is an F-35 JSF design recommendation that is expected to meet or exceed all of its performance requirements.

Expected? Give me a break. Especially since they were ORDERED to remove 4500 pounds, and only came up with 2700. Press releases are not news, they are hopes, wishes and propaganda. That aircraft is FAT, and no diet is going to fix it.

[Southack]

"With Weight Issues Resolved, F-35 Focus Turns to Production
Tuesday September 14, 1:19 pm ET
FORT WORTH, Texas, Sept. 14 /PRNewswire"

No, that's *not* an article. Look at the last quoted word above: PRNewswire. That stands for Press Release News.

In other words, you've just sent me a corporate publicity document to counter the military article that I posted.

That's like watching a South African tourist commercial on TV compared to listening to the tens of thousands of woman who get raped while traveling there every year.

The AWB Has Expired - Gun Owners Have Won Again For All Americans!

[Criminal Number 18F]

OK. A few points.

• VSTOL. Why? If you are Marines, the answer is so that we can operate these things from shipboard -- from dinky ships or container ships that the Navy can't fly "real" planes from. The other services have little justification.

• The Naval variant is not VSTOL but is Catapult-TO Arrested-Landing which adds weight and complexity.

• Every aircraft contains: structure, fuel, crew (except UAV), mission equipment (including internal/external stores and weapons), and powerplant. Yes? These are the things that make up 100% of its weight. In any VTOL, VSTOL, STOVL capable aircraft the powerplant fraction goes UP and the structure usually goes up too. At this point you are either adding wing loading or, more likely, deleting something else -- because that 100% is a zero-sum game. Your weight is usually limited by something mundane. Like the ability of the machine to fly.

• What usually gets deleted is fuel, and then mission equipment. This means that a VSTOL aircraft has much less range and capability than a CTOL machine of the same gross weight, and significantly less than a carrier plane of the same weight.

• Initial performance estimates, made when contractors are trying to sell the plane to the services, and the services are trying to sell the plane to Congress, are always wildly, irresponsibly optimistic. Viz. the combat range of the F/A-18 which is not a whole lot farther than the cat can shoot it, without hitting a tanker....

• The Harrier has a mixed record in combat. The British did OK with them against obsolete Skyhawks, Daggers and Mirages operating at extreme range in a lo-lo-lo profile. As a ground attack plane in Afghanistan it was a failure. Due to high/hot conditions, they had to leave too much fuel and armament on the ground. They had, in the hot wx, one dumb bomb, no guns, and no loiter time. One pass and haul ass. The A-10 was a tremendous success and the pilots were willing to go toe-to-toe with 23mm AAA because they knew they could win that fight. The A-10 carries everything but the kitchen sink and can hang around long enough to drop it all effectively.

• The record of the Harrier is relevant because the F-35 offers Harrier equivalent performance, at the price of greater complexity.

• A more complex aircraft is always less available than a simpler one, given equivalent support. The STOVL F-35 will be "up" less than the Harrier, and much less than the CTOL F-35.

• The STOVL variant will be much more expensive that CTOL -- it means the USAF will get fewer planes for the money.

• There's always a runway. If there isn't, or if some inhospitable sonofabitch put holes in in, you would be shocked how quickly Red Horse or the Seabees can build one. Even Army and Marine engineers can do it, they just take longer.

• And finally... VSTOL? Why? I say the case is not made.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Criminal Number 18F]

General Keys said the Raptors cleared the sky of F-15s before many of the Eagles could even get off a shot.

This claim is always made with new missileer type aircraft. It was the plan for the ill-fated F-111B, and the F-4, and the F-14A, the F-15A, and now the F-22. The problem is -- BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagement assumes very liberal ROE (Rules of Engagement). US and allied ROE usually demand visual identification of targets (remember the time the USAF smoked two Army blackhawks over norther Iraq after Desert Storm? That was after a visual tally on the copters.

In some kinds of engagements (fleet or convoy defence, for one) BVR engagement is probably easily incorporated in the ROE. In others it is harder to do.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

PS thanks for posting the USAF press release.

[blackie]

Ya can't have too many aircraft ~ Bump!

[David1]

I guess they solved the weight problem:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040914/datu033_1.html

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-354931.php

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/091504dnbusjsf.188b7.html

It looks like it will happen.

[VOA]

in case you missed it, NOVA on PBS had a good (2-hour?) episode about the
Lockheed-Marting vs. Boeing "shootout" for the advanced plane design:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/

[Pukin Dog]

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter weight issues have largely been resolved, but incorporating both a gun and a boom-refueling capability on the short-take-off variant has not been accomplished, top Navy, Air Force and industry leaders said today."

Well, I was hoping to not have to go into so much detail, but you asked for it.

If you think that the services are going to have to choose between a gun and a probe in order to accept this cow, then I want some of what you are smoking. Again, 2700 pounds and waivers ("okay, you don't have to keep your performance promises, so I wont lose my cool government job") do not add up to 4500 pounds of extra Fat on an Airplane that cannot perform it's mission. I am not arguing this anymore. The Navy doesn't want it, the Air Force doesn't need it, the sucker is going to die.

[David1]

All the articles i've read was always 2700. It is the first time I see from you that i was supposed to be 4500.

[Pukin Dog]

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter weight issues have largely been resolved, but incorporating both a gun and a boom-refueling capability on the short-take-off variant has not been accomplished, top Navy, Air Force and industry leaders said today."

Well, I was hoping to not have to go into so much detail, but you asked for it.

If you think that the services are going to have to choose between a gun and a probe in order to accept this cow, then I want some of what you are smoking. Again, 2700 pounds and waivers ("okay, you don't have to keep your performance promises, so I wont lose my cool government job") do not add up to 4500 pounds of extra Fat on an Airplane that cannot perform it's mission. I am not arguing this anymore. The Navy doesn't want it, the Air Force doesn't need it, the sucker is going to die.

[Southack]

c#29

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

In other words, you've just sent me a corporate publicity document to counter the military article that I posted.

The articles are in post 50. You say this as if 6 month old news is still 100% true and up to date news is all lies.

[Southack]

"This claim is always made with new missileer type aircraft. It was the plan for the ill-fated F-111B, and the F-4, and the F-14A, the F-15A, and now the F-22."

Yeah, but it's a claim that they won't be able to make with a straight face for the JSF. At least with the Raptor, the F-22 delivers. It's got stealth and high speed; that much rocks! Too bad it's so far over-budget that it will impact our force structure, but at least it delivers what it promised.

The F-35 JSF, however, is a pig in a poke. It *doesn't* deliver its promised specs, it's late, it's overweight, and it too is way over budget. The only redeeming thing about the F-35 is the *concept* of that package mated with VTOL, but you don't fly concepts.

I expect it to go the way of the Crusader artillery system; which is to say, I expect the JSF to get cut. So forget the F-35; it's dead.

We'll get 25 to 50 F-22's (I doubt that we can afford more), and we'll use those super-fighters as the "high" part of a new high-low air defense/offensive force that mixes older, cheaper fighters and manned bombers with unmanned aerial combat vehicles.

In the meantime, we've got to kick the snot out of the Air Force brass such that they finally get behind a realistic eventual replacement for the A-10; the F-18 and F-35 clearly don't cut it for close in support. Until said "real" replacement becomes available, we've got to refurbish and maintain our A-10 fleet.

The AWB Has Expired - Gun Owners Have Won Again For All Americans!

[Rokke]

"The USAF never did care much for close air support. They preferred the fighter and bomber roles. They ditched the A-10 Warthog as soon as they could. (They tried to ditch it before the first Gulf War.) The Army and Marines couldn't count on the Air Force for close air, and that's why they have Apaches and Harriers respectively. Now, we have a war where close air is needed and the Air Force has little that can deliver."

Your whole post is so full of crap my entire monitor just turned brown.

A. The A-10 is now performing CAS in exactly the same way every other combat aircraft (F-14/15/16/18, B-1/52, AC-130) performs CAS. From medium altitude using precision guided munitions. That's because the best way to employ CAS has changed since the 1960's. Unfortunately, too many dinosaurs who no longer fly CAS missions (or have never flown CAS missions) can't move from the era of Jane Fonda.

B.The Apache was never designed or purchased to be a CAS platform. The Marine Corps uses its rotary wing aircraft as CAS platforms. The Army intends its rotary wing aircraft to be used as deep strike and anti-armor.

C. More CAS sorties have been flown by USAF aircraft than any other service. Every single combat aircraft in the Air Force inventory now performs CAS with the exception of the B-2 and F-117. The CAS weapon of choice amongst the Army and Marine Corps is USAF AC-130's. In the meantime, the Marine Corps (who is the service that knows THE most about CAS) is phasing out its AV-8B's and relying entirely on the F-18. Amazingly (sarcasm on), the F-18 shares exactly the same capabilities as the USAF F-16 and is employed in precisely the same way. In the meantime, not a single A-10 currently operates in Iraq, because despite being an incredibly capable aircraft, they just aren't needed for the almost entirely CAS missions currently being flown in Iraq.

[Southack]

"The articles are in post 50. You say this as if 6 month old news is still 100% true and up to date news is all lies."

Your first "article" in Post #50 is a corporate publicity press release, not real journalism. That advertisement has already been shredded on this very thread.

The AWB Has Expired - Gun Owners Have Won Again For All Americans!

[Rokke]

"We learned from McNamara's day that you can't design one aircraft for widely different roles."

Better not tell that to F-4, F-14 or F-15 drivers. Or for that matter F-16 or F-18 drivers. Or SU-27 drivers, or Mirage 2000 drivers or F-2 drivers or............