Steman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1117 posts, RR: 7 Posted (2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2920 times:
Hello everybody,
I was recently reading an article on a German Aviation magazine about the first flight (conventional) of the F-35B Lightning II (STOV/L version).
The article was corredated with some very nice pictures.
I can´t help but notice some points:
this version is slightly different then the A and C versions, in particular, the canopy is not bubble shaped and the rear view is hindered by the fuselage, a bit like it used to be on pre -1970´s fighters (F-4, Mirage III for example).
The hub fan for vertical lift, the additional dorsal air intake, the mechanism to lower the main engine nozzle, occupy a lot of space in the already bulky fuselage.
This, added to the internal weapons bay, certainly reduces the amount of fuel available.
The added complexity of all the nozzles, doors, intakes, mechanism, systems, etc, is yet another disadvantage.
Now my question is. How better than the AV-8B+ / Harrier GR.9 is the F-35B?
Is the leap in overall performace so big to justify the development?
How many customers are going to receive this version? As far as I know only the UK (both RN and RAF), Italian Navy (few examples) and US Marines.
Wouldn´t the F-35A be good enough for these air arms too? Ok, no STOVL capability, but probably superior load/range performance, much lower costs and maintenance.
I know the problem of deploying the A onboard smaller aircraft carriers like the planned British and Italian ones and the change in doctrine that the US Marine would face with the withdrawal of the AV-8 and the STOVL capability.
But is the F-35 really this leap forward compared to the Harrier, to justify its costs?
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5533 posts, RR: 36 Reply 1, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2836 times:
The F-35B when compared to the AV-8B/GR.9 has a lot more capability. It has over twice the thrust and is supersonic. It carries about 30% more weapons payload, the same radar as the F-35A/C, and has much longer range. Plus it is more stealthy.
Steman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1117 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
So, in theory (of course it still has to prove its performances), even with the complexity of the lift fan, the extra air intake, the rotating main engine nozzle, etc etc, it still is "much" more capable than the AV-8B+?
Has LockheedMartin or the Pentagon released some preliminary non classified figures?
Glideslope From United States, joined May 2004, 1279 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2774 times:
Quoting Steman (Reply 2): So, in theory (of course it still has to prove its performances), even with the complexity of the lift fan, the extra air intake, the rotating main engine nozzle, etc etc, it still is "much" more capable than the AV-8B+?
Has LockheedMartin or the Pentagon released some preliminary non classified figures?
Thanks
Stefano
Yes.
There were similar questions with the F-22 and an advanced F-15 type AC.
No question the F-22 had big time teething issues especially with the Flight Software. Today IMO, it's the best ASF in the world. Given a pilot who knows the AC. As is with any AC.
The F-35B will end up the same. Lot's of changes, discoveries, breakthroughs along the way.
These two programs are not a Tanker Competition. The end products will
dominate with the right crew.
Also given the difference in maneuverability of the F35-B compared to an F-4 or Mirage III really in all honesty the canopy is a non issue, IMO.
"He wins his battles by making no mistakes." Sun Tzu
11Bravo From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1491 posts, RR: 28 Reply 5, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2669 times:
Quoting Steman (Thread starter): But is the F-35 really this leap forward compared to the Harrier, to justify its costs?
Assuming the program delivers on its promises, it will be a massive improvement on the AV-8B/GR-9:
Stealth; not as good as the F-22, but very, very good. The RCS is smaller than the F-117.
Speed; Mach 1.5, compared to mach 0.89 for the AV-8B/GR-9
Range; Twice the range of the AV-8B/GR-9 on internal fuel.
Payload; Twice the payload of the 8B/GR-9
Sensors; AESA-radar, Integrated Data Networking, Electro-Optical Targeting System, etc. The electronics and sensors on the F-35 are probably an order of magnitude better than the AV-8B/GR-9, a huge improvement.
Behind the F-22, the F-35 will be the most advanced fighter in the world. I think the F-35B will provide the USMC, RAF, and RN with a very significant increase in their capability compared to the AV-8B/GR-9.
Steman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1117 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2554 times:
Very interesting,
thanks for posting.
So afterall the F-35, if the performance will respect the projected ones, will be a greap leap forward compared to the Harrier, making STOVL finally viable and effective almost as CTOL.
I was rather surprised that the much more complex B version has flown before the carrier based C.
Looking forward to see this new fighter in service...hoping that it will never have to fire in combat with any Air Arm.
EBJ1248650 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 1058 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2508 times:
Quoting Steman (Reply 6): I was rather surprised that the much more complex B version has flown before the carrier based C.
This may be so that development of the F-35B could proceed, in order to get production airplanes in the hands of the Marines and other user services sooner. I don't believe the Navy is in that big a hurry to get the F-35C ... or may be but has had to deal with present priorities. Not sure on that one.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2452 times:
What exactly are the Marines going to use the stealth capabilities of the a/c for, they need a a/c to cover their troops, as with all current Military Industrial Complex projects, it is more about the industry than what the military forces need.
Billion dollars for a Burke, what makes it so expensive the hardware or the software? The F-35 is in the same league, it may be the best single engine a/c since the F-16 and the Navy and Air Force may need all its capabilities, but the Marines really need two things, ability to be deployed close to its forces and carry a load of CAS equipment.
When things go south, the call is where are the carriers, a couple stealth a/c in the area can be a deterrent, but when you call in the Marines, everyone knows they are coming and they are not doing deep strike missions to interdict supplies, that's the Navy's job, the Marines want an a/c to cover the grunts, and in those situations, stealth is not a issue.
Well, since the Brits also want it, costs are probably lower since it would be developed anyway than if the USMC went and tried to design a plane just for themselves.
11Bravo From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1491 posts, RR: 28 Reply 10, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2356 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 8): the Marines want an a/c to cover the grunts, and in those situations, stealth is not a issue.
Really, so when USMC aircraft are engaged by ground based radar directed AAA or SAMs, stealth is not an issue? What about potential air-to-air threats? What about detection by hostile AWACs platforms?
Why doesn't the USMC just use B737s with massive air-to ground payloads. I mean clearly they're in no danger of being shot down right?
Alien From Afghanistan, joined Mar 2008, 362 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 10): Really, so when USMC aircraft are engaged by ground based radar directed AAA or SAMs, stealth is not an issue? What about potential air-to-air threats? What about detection by hostile AWACs platforms?
Why doesn't the USMC just use B737s with massive air-to ground payloads. I mean clearly they're in no danger of being shot down right?
I think you may be missing the point. The Marines should have their own robust CAS capabilty. This mission can be fulfilled by AH-1Zs and AV-8Bs. If another fixed wing platform where to be developed for this role it should have been a STOVL or carrier capable plane similar to the A-10. The F-35B is going to be a poor choice for CAS. No amount of stealth is going to protect them from the enemy tank crewman with a .50 cal machine gun and the first time it takes damage it's stealth is history.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 8): When things go south, the call is where are the carriers,
exactly, the carrier air wing or Air Force should be tasked with counter air and strike, not your CAS assets.
Quoting Johns624 (Reply 9): Well, since the Brits also want it, costs are probably lower since it would be developed anyway than if the USMC went and tried to design a plane just for themselves.
Forget for a moment the British, Italians, Spanish or anyone else who has a STOVL carrier and would want F-35Bs. The inclusion of the F-35B in the JSF program has been the greatest source of cost increase, program delays and design compromise.
Not to mention the enemy on the ground gets little or no warning of inbound hostiles and a CBU coming out of nowhere has a pretty heavy psychological effect. I'm sure my dad would have loved to have had Lightnings overhead when the Chinese came across at Chosin. The PLA forces probably wouldn't have liked it much though.
As for the lack of "six" view on the F-35B I don't think it matters as much as it used to. There are sensors looking in all directions and they'll certainly see anything that's close enough to be a threat, even outiside the radar cone. Couple those sensors with the HMDS and it's off-axis targeting and the Marine can target an enemy right through the bulkhead. Thrown in AIM-9X and it could ugly for a pursuer in just a couple of seconds.
11Bravo From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1491 posts, RR: 28 Reply 13, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2311 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 11): If another fixed wing platform where to be developed for this role it should have been a STOVL or carrier capable plane similar to the A-10.
Perhaps you're right, but is that a viable alternative? As you've mentioned, the costs and development difficulties associated with the B model have created problems, but I'd be surprised if that was anywhere near the cost of fielding an entirely new aircraft just for USMC CAS missions.
The JSF program is ambitious to say the least. They intend on replacing the F-18, AV-8, F-16, and A-10 with variations of a single airframe. I suspect there might be some trade-offs in that scheme. Those four aircraft are all products of the Cold War conflict and I think there is absolutely zero chance of convincing Congress, in a post-soviet world, to replace each with a separate new type.
On the other hand, those airframes are getting old and we have to do something or do without.
Quoting Alien (Reply 11): The F-35B is going to be a poor choice for CAS.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. The F-35B may not be an optimal CAS platform, but "poor" is not a fair characterization in my view.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2236 times:
Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 13): The JSF program is ambitious to say the least. They intend on replacing the F-18, AV-8, F-16, and A-10 with variations of a single airframe. I suspect there might be some trade-offs in that scheme. Those four aircraft are all products of the Cold War conflict and I think there is absolutely zero chance of convincing Congress, in a post-soviet world, to replace each with a separate new type.
That is the crux of the entire problem. OEM's presently look at programs as a 10 -20 year program, therefore it must cost in the billions. Reality is that the single platform has never really worked, it has crippled more than anything else. The F-16 may come the closest, but when youlook at the other platforms that were developed, you can get a general idea. F-117, F-15E, F-18 A/C/D/E/F , A-10 remain in service despite the Air Force desire to kill it.
This is the same argument in another thread on the Navy ships. Does the Navy need a billion dollar Aegis, how many can you afford. It is great to have the latest and greatest, but if you cannot buy it, whats the point? The F-22 is another case in point, the US has the best and Americans are rightly proud of them, now you have to buy them how do you afford it, the Air Force has two options: Make it into a more multi-purpose platform or scrap other things to get it. So far the scrap idea seems to be the main trend, dump F-117 early, dump F-15's early, dump F-16 early before the F-35 is ready, dump C-5's, C-17, the list goes on but you get the general idea, they want the F-22 and need to be able to afford it, so the question remains, do you need the most sophisticated a/c in the world in mass production or as a speciality a/c? The F-117 was such a frame and it served admirably, the Marines need a CAS platform that works for them, the ultra complex F-35 in my opinion is not it, but hey, here's the political point, if your redfine CAS in the Marine context and change the way your assaults work to maximize the "potential" of the a/c, it will do just fne, a/c do not have to fit a role, the role can be redifined to fit the a/c and for the cost of this frame you can bet that is more important, see the Osprey, unless there is a catastrophic failure, it will continue to be built and deployed, and airborne assault by the Marines will probably change forever, the a/c is not armoured in either sense, and until it is, either its role is limited or the job get redifined.
DfwRevolution From United States, joined Mar 2004, 7654 posts, RR: 55 Reply 15, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2127 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 11):
I think you may be missing the point. The Marines should have their own robust CAS capabilty. This mission can be fulfilled by AH-1Zs and AV-8Bs.
The AV-8B is barely an effective combat aircraft by today's standards, and it should not be relied upon in future defense planning (IMO). It's slow, unreliable, short-ranged, carries too few armaments, and has one of the highest accident rates of any fixed-wing combat aircraft in-service.
The F-35B corrects many of those shortcomings. So if you say the AV-8B has any place in the Marine Corps, the F-35B certainly does.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 14): This is the same argument in another thread on the Navy ships. Does the Navy need a billion dollar Aegis, how many can you afford. It is great to have the latest and greatest, but if you cannot buy it, whats the point?
Well apparently we can afford the 22 cruisers and 52 destroyers we have now. We can afford them because the U.S. has an economy that generates $13 trillion dollars each year. That's only $1 trillion shy of the entire EU but the U.S. does it with 200 million fewer people. I don't know where you got the idea that the U.S. is in the poor house, but rest assured that the we are more than capable of affording the vast majority of the military hardware we set-out to build.
The debate over defense acquisitions is more often driven by how many of a given system we need rather than cost. If we need it, Congress will make sure it's adequately funded. Many people today don't think we need 700 F-22s, so Congress is only approving funds for 183. If we need more, Congress will raise the money and build them. It's a fallacy to say the U.S. can only afford 183 Raptors.
Arguably we don't need the Zumwalt-class so it isn't being funded beyond a 2-3 ships. But it is important to develop and demonstrate new technology so that we don't stagnate and find ourselves with inferior weapons systems. Contrary to popular belief these days, the seas are far from being devoid of threats and the U.S. Navy is crucial to ensuring peaceful trade and transport on the oceans. We will likely see a more conservative destroyer designed to replace the Burkes and Ticos, but they will benefit from the work done on the Zumwalt.
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 981 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15): hat's only $1 trillion shy of the entire EU but the U.S. does it with 200 million fewer people
I'm not sure where you got your figures from, but they are wrong. The EU generated in 2007 16.8 trillon $(according to World Economic Outlook Database) compared to 13 trillon$ its a bit more then 1trillon $.
Besides you can't compare it that way. If you compare the most economic powerful countries in Europe with the most economic powerful states in the US you will see a big,big diffrence.
Compare Germany to California, UK with NY, France with Texas, Spain with Florida, .. etc.. (i'm not exactly sure which are the wealthiest states in the US)
To come back to topic:
Of course US can afford such fleets, but IMO there is a point where further spending of tax money for an already very strong force like the US Navy could be described as: throwing money out of the window which could be used for better things.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1936 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15): Well apparently we can afford the 22 cruisers and 52 destroyers we have now. We can afford them because the U.S. has an economy that generates $13 trillion dollars each year. That's only $1 trillion shy of the entire EU but the U.S. does it with 200 million fewer people. I don't know where you got the idea that the U.S. is in the poor house, but rest assured that the we are more than capable of affording the vast majority of the military hardware we set-out to build.
Never said the US is in the poor house, and I don't think anyone mentioned that, we certainely know that if the will exist the funding is there, was only going on the current posture coming from the House, Administration, Pentagon et. al. that programs are expensive, funds are decreasing and cutbacks must be made. If this environment that is being created by various factions of the political and military establishment is false then so be it, I can only comment based one what is being reported.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1117 posts, 
From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5533 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 1219 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Mar 2008, 362 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 981 posts, 
