tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post4962207792420312425..comments2023-11-01T02:19:14.796-05:00Comments on Elements Of Power: David Axe on the F-35: Still Making S**T Up…SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-58228274866534394062014-11-30T20:52:39.942-06:002014-11-30T20:52:39.942-06:001) No. ‘Pre-JAST’ the USN wanted a twin engine air...1) No. ‘Pre-JAST’ the USN wanted a twin engine aircraft, with two crewmen in their predecessor effort, the Advanced-Attack/Advanced/Fighter-Attack (A-X/A/F-X) program (http://www.jsf.mil/history/his_prejast.htm). That program only ran from 1992 to 1993, never got beyond planning and requirements phase and was mercifully killed in Les Aspin’s (spit) 1993 “Bottom-Up Review” aka the ‘BUR”. The Pre-JAST airplane the USAF wanted was in their Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) program, and it was to be a single engine, single-crew airplane like the F-16 it was to replace. Budget cuts and a lack of urgency once the Cold War ended, merged the two services’ efforts into the JAST program. Concurrent with the Navy and USAF pre-JAST efforts, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was working on the Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) concept for a future Harrier replacement. DARPA in the process of the ASTOVL’s travails approached Lockheed for ideas, and the lift-fan concept became the working basis for the ASTOVL. JAST was a technology maturation program, which absorbed the ASTOVL effort, first by agreement between the programs and then by FY95 legislation. This meant JAST had two of three possible users wanting single–engine designs. With advances in modern engine reliability, the Navy agreed to the single engine approach for commonality purposes, and for all three services, the attraction of just one engine was affordability.<br />2) No. The F-35’s wings are sized as a balance of many factors. The A and B model wings are actually smaller than they would have to be for the F-35B to use an LHA ship elevator (the limiting size constraint factor without a wing fold). The wing span is about a foot shorter, and wing area about 40 sq ft less than it could have been if the LHA requirements were the only consideration. As to the ill-defined adjective ‘stubby’ claim, if one compares the F-35s to the aircraft they are replacing, the F-35s are as long as or longer than two of the primary aircraft they are replacing. The illusion of being ‘stubby’ is an artifact of the internal carriage scheme, which is in turn an artifact of the need for Low Observability and range.<br />3. No (Obviously). With systems that enable the pilot to have 360 degree spherical situational awareness, including being able to actually ‘see’ through the aircraft structure, the idea that the F-35 has a vulnerable blind spot from behind is Pierre Sprey-grade ludicrous. There are obviously more blind spots to be found on any other aircraft flying than the F-35. <br />SMSgt Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-27887601616817056592014-11-29T16:54:19.736-06:002014-11-29T16:54:19.736-06:00"and he can’t name anything on any of the var..."and he can’t name anything on any of the variants that adversely affect the other variants."<br /><br />He didn't, but there is something. Namely, STOVL requirement. USMC insisted on the STOVL capability, which meant that:<br />1) F-35 had to be single-engined (IIRC, USN wanted a twin-engined aircraft while USAF didn't really care)<br />2) F-35 had to have small wings and stubby body<br />3) rearward visibility suffered<br /><br />These three things are the most often brought up issues with the aircraft.Picard578https://www.blogger.com/profile/11421288305324827562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-13501653208972580342014-08-30T17:09:25.095-05:002014-08-30T17:09:25.095-05:00LOL. Glad you cleared that up.
First, I understand...LOL. Glad you cleared that up.<br />First, I understand Goon has made all kinds of claims about the F-35's performance, but I haven’t paid much attention to him as he doesn’t get the bigger picture of what ‘performance’ is in a 5th gen (for lack of a better term) aircraft with superior situational awareness and low observability. Since the top-level requirements like all fighters) are for some value of ‘x’ lethality with ‘y’ survivability at ‘z’ cost, those are the facets/measures that matter. There is a trade space between all three of those facets no matter how they are defined, and underneath them is the trade space for all other parameters. I presume by use if the term 'dog' you are referring to kinematics? [BTW: Kinematics support/affect, but do not define, the lethality and survivability measurements.] <br />If we are talking kinematics, then any complaint Goon might have would to refer to the only two parameters we know the F-35 has changed, or is potentially changing. (I’m assuming even Goon is not still calling the F-35 variants overweight spec-wise) I've addressed the 'sustained G' turn spec change pretty thoroughly here: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html. Combine the information there with my post on modern E-M theory (http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-backgrounder-on-energy-maneuverability.html), factor in the publically acknowledged F-35 superior (50deg) high AoA and post-stall maneuvering and that pretty much covers anybody's handwringing on the Sustained G side, I never bothered with the remaining trans-sonic acceleration 'issue' for three reasons. One, because it is acknowledged the spec was written based on legacy 'clean' aircraft configurations. Two, the spec is for level flight and does not allow the plane to 'punt over' and unload the wings to punch through the trans-sonic region. And three, the word coming out of the pilots is that the F-35 is faster accelerating in the subsonic region than the legacy aircraft. I do not underestimate the advantage of a head-start. I expect the spec to be waived or a deviation granted based upon the fact it is not combat relevant as specified. The unloading technique is a time-honored one whereby the pilot can regain his altitude at higher speed and lower cost above Mach1.1 or so.<br />SMSgt Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-71469874505391109792014-08-30T06:43:32.062-05:002014-08-30T06:43:32.062-05:00Sorry that should be Peter Goon.
Peter Moon is a ...Sorry that should be Peter Goon.<br /><br />Peter Moon is a very funny comedian who knows nothing about fighters.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05651800102411120359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-41007729205289021752014-08-30T06:03:12.881-05:002014-08-30T06:03:12.881-05:00OK...
Peter Moon also thinks you have a dog of an...OK...<br /><br />Peter Moon also thinks you have a dog of an aircraft that can never meet it's design goals.<br />I'd like to hear your critique of his expose.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05651800102411120359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-60288405175975512242014-07-19T14:09:04.505-05:002014-07-19T14:09:04.505-05:00The good news about being a newly unemployed bum i...The good news about being a newly unemployed bum is I get to catch up with your blog.<br /><br />Let me know if you have any jobs for a laid off Reliability/Maintainability Safety type!<br /><br />"Have spreadsheet, will travel."Don Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06057058763094040058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-60332232112785034432014-07-16T02:14:13.955-05:002014-07-16T02:14:13.955-05:00Welcome back! The really sad part is that poor Bil...Welcome back! The really sad part is that poor Bill Sweetman has been reduced to competing with the likes of David Axe for Reuters guest slots. Marauderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12349162894534446767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-52709172299778721612014-07-15T08:24:39.657-05:002014-07-15T08:24:39.657-05:00Welcome back, you were missed.Welcome back, you were missed.SpudmanWPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808856347047254385noreply@blogger.com