F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[WingsofFury]

Interesting suggestions, but before we can answer "what?", a clearly-articulated "why?" from the government* would be nice - as folks way smarter than me have said....

At home and in North America, Canadian fighters operate through NORAD [5] to ensure both sovereignty and air defence of the airspace of Canada and the United States. NORAD aircraft are prepared to respond to any potential threat to North America, every hour of every day, and they conduct approximately 200 such precautionary intercepts each year.

Canada is also committed to providing fighter aircraft in support of NATO if required. On a rotational basis, Canada commits its fighters to the NATO Response Force (NRF), a robust and credible high readiness force that can quickly deploy in support of the full spectrum of NATO missions. In the past, our fighters have deployed to contribute vital air power as part of multi-national operations, as they did during the First Gulf War and the Kosovo campaign in the 1990s. 

That sounds like a why to me...the entire link is here -> http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/page-eng.asp?id=1437

As well, from what I'm reading, there's still a lot of talk as to "fifth generation" technology.  Some would consider the LO characteristics to be the biggest technological factor in the fifth generation schematics.  Let's not forget about factors such as increased situational awareness through the DAS is equally important, especially when it comes to perform in support of a NATO operation.

Better yet, lets not use the term 5th generation at all - let's just use the term "advanced" capabilities based on existing platforms.

Just my  :2c: in this billion dollar acquisition.

 

[McG]

Same problem with other programs as well, CCV comes to mind for me. A solid PR program to rationally explain why these items are being procured BEFORE the media and opposition try to spin costs into "extravagance".

There are plenty within the Army (including target user community) wondering if the CCV isn't an extravagance when we might better spend the money investing in existing fleets & platform types.

... but that is a topic for another thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70177.0.html

 

[WingsofFury]

So if the testing works out, it looks like the F-35A will be able to maintain its LO standard while carrying up to 8 SDB II's and 2 AMRAAM's....

Raytheon, US Air Force complete Small Diameter Bomb II fit check on F-35 aircraft
Test shows SDB II is compatible with Joint Strike Fighter
PR Newswire

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla., Jan. 22, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Air Force and Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) successfully completed a fit check of the GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. During the test, four SDB II shapes were loaded into an F-35 weapon bay alongside an Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile. Sweeps of the inboard and outboard bay doors verified there was adequate clearance between the two weapons.

More at the link ->  http://www.equities.com/news/headline-story?dt=2013-01-22&val=949760&cat=tech

 

[PPCLI Guy]

In reality I think the installation of a certain ADM PA a few years ago really harmed the department's ability to communicate its message.

And we have a winner....

 

[a_majoor]

Er, getting back to the actual airplane, it looks like the US may be close to installing another shiney toy in its newest shiney toy; a functional laser weapon. The F-35 has one unique attribute, the VTOL version has a large lift fan powered by a drive shaft from the front of the engine. Removing the lift fan and replacing it with a generator is considered a possible means of powering a laser on board the aircraft, otherwise you might need an external pod with its own dedicated turbogenerator to power the thing (meaning the laser would have to be carried aboard something like an F-15E Strike Eagle):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/01/150-kilowatt-lasers-will-be-installed.html

150 kilowatt lasers will be installed in US Fighter planes as early as 2014

The goal of the HELLADS (High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System) program is to develop a 150 kilowatt (kW) laser weapon system that is ten times smaller and lighter than current lasers of similar power, enabling integration onto tactical aircraft to defend against and defeat ground threats. With a weight goal of less than five kilograms per kilowatt, and volume of three cubic meters for the laser system, HELLADS seeks to enable high-energy lasers to be integrated onto tactical aircraft, significantly increasing engagement ranges compared to ground-based systems.

The program has completed laboratory testing of a fundamental building block for HELLADS, a single laser module that successfully demonstrated the ability to achieve high power and beam quality from a significantly lighter and smaller laser. The program is now in the final development phase where a second laser module will be built and combined with the first module to generate 150 kW of power.

The HELLADS is expected to have a maximum weight of 750kg.

General Atomics has the contract to deliver the lasers. Textron Defense Systems and Northrop Grumman also have laser development involvement.

We had coverage in 2009 of earlier laser work by Textron and General Atomics

The United States Navy and Air Force will be installing “liquid-cooled, solid-state lasers” in combat airplanes. The lasers will shoot down missiles and rockets targeted at the planes. Firing tests will happen as soon as next year.

DARPA continues funding for Phase 3 of the Lockheed Martin Aero-Adaptive/Aero-Optic Beam Control (ABC) program, intended to allow a self-defense laser on a high-speed fighter to shoot aft and sidewards through the turbulent flowfield behind the laser turret.

Here is the DARPA page for the Aero-Adaptive/Aero-Optic Beam Control (ABC) program.

Here is the DARPA page for the Architecture for Diode High Energy Laser Systems (ADHELS) ADHELS is dedicated to investigating new wavelength laser beam-combining architectures to produce a new generation of compact high-efficiency, high-energy laser (HEL) systems. Such an architecture complements current programs developing airborne-based, megawatt-class chemical lasers and ground-based, multihundred kilowatt-class solid-state slab lasers by providing a new class of HELs with record-low size, weight and waste power that can be integrated onto tactical air vehicles.

The solid-state lasers are candidates for the U.S. Army's High-Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator program to test a truck-mounted (of Humvvee) system in 2013-15 that can counter rocket, artillery and mortar projectiles.

DARPA high energy laser project budgets are reviewed here

SOURCES - DARPA, Aviation Week, Technology Review

NBF has lots of internal links in the articles, follow the link and you can determine which embedded links to follow from there.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sorry to disappoint the boosters - this from Hill Times:

The Public Works National Fighter Procurement Secretariat, in charge of reviewing fighter aircraft options to replace Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18 Hornets, has indicated for the first time that it may be considering a short-term bridge of alternative fighters to begin replacing the CF-18s until the trouble-plagued and delayed production of the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jets reaches the stage where Canada can begin acquiring it in numbers it can afford.

The new strategy is contained in a document that the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat sent to five warplane manufacturers last week, including Lockheed Martin, asking them to take part in a review of aircraft that are in production or planned to be in production as the 2020 retirement date nears for Canada’s fleet of 77 CF-18 Hornet fighters.

The document, a statement outlining an Industry Engagement Request, was the latest step in the government’s response to a critical report from Auditor General Michael Ferguson on the F-35 fighter jets project last April ....

 

[WingsofFury]

So...two fleets are impossible....hehe

It'll be just like Australia - Super Dupers with Growler upgrade wiring included and then F-35's.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Sorry to disappoint the boosters - this from Hill Times:

Sure... but bridging won't happen in Canada, particularly given the cost incurred and the acquisitions cap. In reality, the Government is trying to understand how a fighter will deal with near term (next decade) and long term challenges (10 to 30 years out), rather than just propose a single scenario that wouldn't give them the information they need. 

 

[WingsofFury]

Sure... but bridging won't happen in Canada, particularly given the cost incurred and the acquisitions cap. In reality, the Government is trying to understand how a fighter will deal with near term (next decade) and long term challenges (10 to 30 years out), rather than just propose a single scenario that wouldn't give them the information they need.

Is there a penalty for exceeding the cap?  Apart from the obvious political ones....

 

[HB_Pencil]

Is there a penalty for exceeding the cap?  Apart from the obvious political ones....

That would be a pretty obvious political one. And it wouldn't make much sense operationally either. The main reason behind Australia's purchase of the F/A-18F is because they closed their structural maintenance process, so they can't refurb their F/A-18A the way we can. They also spent an extra 10 million per aircraft to outfit them to be growlers, so they could support their F-35As. We're not willing to do that, nor do we need that sort of capability. Bridging would easily add $10~16 billion dollars with little actual utility for the Cf.

 

[WingsofFury]

That would be a pretty obvious political one. And it wouldn't make much sense operationally either. The main reason behind Australia's purchase of the F/A-18F is because they closed their structural maintenance process, so they can't refurb their F/A-18A the way we can. They also spent an extra 10 million per aircraft to outfit them to be growlers, so they could support their F-35As. We're not willing to do that, nor do we need that sort of capability. Bridging would easily add $10~16 billion dollars with little actual utility for the Cf.

Thanks for the response, your insight is very much appreciated.

 

[Good2Golf]

Bridging would easily add $10~16 billion dollars with little actual utility for the Cf.

I think it would be closer to $17,325,724,732 to $32,198,202,409 added with absolutely no utility whatsoever to the CF.

 

[HB_Pencil]

I think it would be closer to $17,325,724,732 to $32,198,202,409 added with absolutely no utility whatsoever to the CF.

Well this is how I came up with that number:

Canada's price for a F/A-18E is $90 million and  Growler goes for $100 to $120 million (depending on whether we get full growlers or F/A-18E/Fs enabled but not fully equipped).  We would also need to purchase more F/A-18Es because their operational availability will be lower than the F-35 according to the KPP.  So that's about $9.0 to $13.0 billion right there, that we would spend in 2015.

Then in 2030, if we went with the F-35, we would not accrue the benefits of the lower price through the JSF partnership, so we would then buy the aircraft through FMS.  That doesn't really account for the difference in O&M costs between the two aircraft (Where the F-35 will probably be higher) or having to buy one set of support equipment then buying a second set when we purchase the F-35.

And what would be the point? We could buy nearly the same capability for the F-35 in 2020 as we would in 2030 and accrue the benefits earlier, without purchasing a whole extra weapon system.

 

[dapaterson]

The US military has lowered the performance standard required for the F-35

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/

"What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications. Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

 

[Haletown]

When we find out under what conditions this maximum sustained G was measured we will know more.

Because there isn't a single max sustained G, there is a wide range.  It could be with no weapons except internal cannon and a half tank of gas.

Or it could be with 2 x 1000lb bombs and 2 x BVR's  . . .

Might be like when other aircraft makers claim their products to be almost as LO as the F-35, except that condition is true only when they are unarmed and not carrying gas bags underwing.  Great marketing but tactically irrelevant.

Time will tell.


Seems to be pretty routine for design specs to be modified to meet developmental reality. 

 

[Haletown]

Hmmmmm . . .  might be time to reconsider everything

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/02/iran-new-stealth-fighter/#.UQ3DNRG9KK0

:nod:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Why?,...will toy models be the way of the future?

 

[RCR Grunt]

Hmmmmm . . .  might be time to reconsider everything

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/02/iran-new-stealth-fighter/#.UQ3DNRG9KK0

:nod:

Looks like another contender for the CF-18 replacement program.  I wonder how it'll hold up against the Super Arrow.

 

[Loachman]

Only one engine ................................ or less.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Plus we can build one of these to make it look like it's a real airplane that actually works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8bZbC-xfMg