Comments on: Gates Calls JSF’s Heinz on Carpet

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:25:49 +0000

"...tell me if there is a problem with landing gear torque when f35 is landing vertical? The harrier has caster wheels of sorts to prevent this problem."=== I always thought the 'outrigger' wheels on the Harrier were necessary due to the narrow track of the mlg wheels. Also thought that due to crosswind restrictions, VTOL's were into the wind and never heard 'crabbing' was an issue. It's so critical, mfg's put that little windvane ahead of the windscreen for the pilot to factor wind direction.

By: Trophy

Trophy — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:55:36 +0000

J.R. the F-35 doesn’t have the same stealth design characteristics to make it anywhere near as stealthy as the F-22. From the design of the intakes, to the undercarriage, to the exhaust tail, and the fact that in order to have a decent payload it’ll need externally-mounted stores. It’s internal carriage only has room for a combination of four missiles or 500+ lbs bombs.

The Air Force version, the F-35A would be capable of 9g turns, however the Marine Corps and Navy versions (the B and C, respectably) would be much less restricted in g-force capability due to the naval version requiring sturdier structures for violent carrier operations and the Marine version incorporating the lift fan for VTOL capability. However the maximum g rating isn’t the full indicator of how maneuverable a fighter is… after all, the Su-37 is also a 9g fighter but it’s safe to say the F-35 won’t have anywhere near as tight a turning radius, even with it’s purported ability to sustain an AOA of 55-degrees.

The thrust-to-weight ratio is actually comparable to an F-16, if slightly worse without the use of external fuel tanks. But the point of lack of parasitic drag from internal stores is moot since the aircraft would most definitely need external stores to carry an adequate payload for most mission profiles.

That’s not to say that the F-35 doesn’t have it’s virtues. It definitely will be a very cost-effective fighter and it’s avionics package is powerful, with much potential. In this modern age, avionics is just as important (if not more so) as raw turn-and-burn abilities. Finally, the long awaited dream of a single unified fighter across the branches may actually be realized. We’ve come a long way since the days of the F-111 and F-4. My biggest worry is that too many are seeing the F-35 as being more capable than it really is.

By: roger

roger — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:19:51 +0000

f-22 pilots in alaska told me that maintence issues abounded with the f-22 and it seems that politics are at the forefrom as GE is in Obama’s pocket giving him millions to his coffers. Sounds like politics playing with the military!

By: wtpworrier

wtpworrier — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:08:21 +0000

These guys will argue about anything, now it’s money. If the second engine is so much better than the first engine, whats the point of having a first engine?

By: Dale Airs

Dale Airs — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:09:59 +0000

If you buy an extra engine then buy more landing gear. My reasoning is in the form of a question. Can anyone tell me if there is a problem with landing gear torque when f35 is landing vertical? The harrier has caster wheels of sorts to prevent this problem. Does the f35 compensate for bounce and crab to side. When landing vertical the f35 will experience a crab motion that is un avoidable. No matter how good the pilot some sideways motion may occur. I estimate a high failure rate of gears. The gear struts and drag links will fail rather fast with all that twisting motion during landing or taking off vertical. Just my couple of cents worth and sorry to bring up other potential issues.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:02:33 +0000

Josh,
Every point you make about the F-35 is … wrong. Your information comes from the legions of unbriefed “experts” whose conclusions are based on uninformed assumptions, who have never received a classified F-35 briefing, and who have essentially zero insight into the F-35’s capabilities. Why not reference the U.S. Air Force’s TAC Brawler simulations, which are indeed based on classified information, and which show the F-35 to have at least six times the air-to-air capability of the very best 4th-gen (and that inlcudes the so-called 4.5, 4.75, 4.9, etc.) fighters worldwide, and eight times the air-to-ground capability. The F-35 has more payload, not less, than the aircraft it is designed to replace, and it will carry the largest variety of weapons of any fighter. It is a VLO (very low observable) fighter — same stealth classification as an F-22. The notion that it is only “kind of stealthy” is totally manufactured. The F-35A is a 9-g fighter, same as the F-15, F-16 and F-22. Thust-to-weight ratio in a comparable combat configuration is very little different from F-16, and it enjoys considerable performance gains from the absence of parasitic drag caused by external weapons carriage.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:37:45 +0000

We should have great concern of our leadership when their influence often leads us on a historical snafu. I worry about a leader whose chosen words lend so easily to a misquote. If Mr. Gates called on Gen Heinz, it was probably because of those chosen words the General used that may be reflecting his biases. The history of the F100 engine speaks for its self. Although with growing pains, and admittedly P&W arrogance during the mid 70’s, we must not forget that if a component improvement program is not adequately funded, then the results are often seen in a reported reliability decrease. We must stop citing the “Great Engine War”, for it reflected a short period in history full with editorial assumptions. We must focus on the future and National defense success. I’m not surprised at Gen Heinz biased perception because the DoN has flown GE engines in most of their fleet almost three decades. I ask the General to be neutral and positive in execution as the JSF PEO. Have we forgotten that the Services chose the F135 engine after a rigorous trial and selection process?

By: richard

richard — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:26:30 +0000

For those of you who may be unenlighted, it is a well known fact in most conservative circles that GE’s CEO Geoffrey Imelt is now and has been in bed with the current administration for quite a while, having been a major contributor to the big O’s campaign, and a major supporter and donor to the Democratic Party, and oh, by the way, GE also owns NBC. So who do you think will win this go round in the end ?

By: Colin Clark

Colin Clark — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:29:03 +0000

Longrifle, You are COMPLETELY right. I made a mistake. It has been corrected. Apologies to all, especially Maj. Gen Heinz.

By: madashell

madashell — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:42:20 +0000

I feel that money is real tight right now but cutting our defence spending and the develment of new and better equipment for our armed forces is just plain stupid, There are three things that should never be cut and we need to increase that expence and they are defence spending,health care, social security, our older people are relying on there social security checks to get the things that are needed to live, and by stopping any cost of living increas for at least two years is stupid as they don’t have enough right now to buy what they need for living the cose of living increase on the econmey dose not stop for the older people just because the government says that our older people do not need the cost of living increase. and the national defence can not be cut just because the government says that we do not need the new TECH. all thatt is doing is putting the UNITED STATES in harms way and the UNITED STATES can be blowen off the face of the earth because of the government says that we can not afford to make new weapons.
and our health care is set up to help people live longer and stay in good health. ansd the UNITED STATES government needs not meddle in our health care system. All the present adminstration is doing is saying who can live and who they (UNITED STATES) is doing is saying who will die.

The UNITED STATES government needs to get out of the bussiness of doing what the present adminstration trying to run every one’s lives so they need to get a life and quit trying to run A buessiness

By: Phoenix

Phoenix — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:23:47 +0000

General Cartwright, VCJCS, stated “Good Enough” is OK for costly space assets. Maybe one engine is “Good Enough” for those who fly and fight. Seems we have thrown away all logic, reasoning, and experiences because of some kind of imposed spending profile. Those who are making the decisions hopefully have children whose lives may be impacted by their decisions. I do not believe the real basis for two sources should be competition, it should be sources to quickly restore and repair what may need to be maintained or replaced.

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:15:04 +0000

Politics and the militarys needs don’t mix at times the military has alot more insight then the politions ever thought of having to the military needs, etc You have managsd to get this country so far in debt it will never get out, with your worthleess hidden spend, you can’t reform yourselfs much less military spendin, medical care is not worth it..

By: ReconTeam

ReconTeam — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:33:33 +0000

The USAF should be looking at three manned aircraft for it’s future in the short term. irst we should have some 620 or so F-22s to replace all our superiority Eagles. Then their F-35 fleet (1400+) which would replace our F-16s. Finally 150 or so FB-23s which would provide a long range strike aircraft and ease the wait until our next strategic bomber enters service. Besideds for that we should certainly keep our A-10s and upgraded F-15Es.

By: ReconTeam

ReconTeam — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:30:17 +0000

How about if GE can develop the F136 on their own, the US Military and Navy will agree to buy a certain % of them for their F-35s. Certainly the profits for GE would outweigh the development costs?

By: longrifle

longrifle — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:06:16 +0000

Odd, HQMC thinks Heinz is a MajGen (https://slsp.manpower.usmc.mil/GOSA/biographies/rptBiography.asp?PERSON_ID=162&PERSON_TYPE=General). What about it, Colin Clark?

By: OCM

OCM — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:50:17 +0000

My understanding of the comment made by Brig. Gen. David Heinz is that the P&W engine was having quality issues which translates to not meeting Key Performance Parameters. If the engine does not meet the parameters, the government should identify another contractor that can meet the requirements. With new and evolving technolgies this is an opportunity to find a more effective product.

By: George

George — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:36:35 +0000

Competition ALMOST always results in a better product.

I’ve been in engineering disciplines (mostly not aircraft, granted) for quite some time, and a 40% improvement for the same exterior size engine is typical, not unexpected. That’s true even for reciprocating engines. Just look at the newer car engines compared to their counterparts from just five years ago. Even my motorcycle, in which I had the pistons and cams changed, got a power uprate of 33% with no other changes to the engine. That holds true for turbines, too.

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:29:18 +0000

The real issue here is that GE is in bed with the current administration, they have a desk next to Obamas in the Oval Office, and I’d put my money on GE to get the go ahead even if it costs the taxpayer more. Any takers?

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:49:41 +0000

Yes WE DO NEED A SECOND ENGINE! I test both the F100 and F110 engines. All of the operators I work with will tell you that they like the F110 and do not want to work on the F100. I know from experience that when there is an issue with either engine and we need support, GE is always available and tries to be helpful. P&W, on the other hand, are terrible when it comes to help. If you can finally get them to come out, they send out a contractor that doesn’t know squat! Most F-16 pilots that I have talked to would rather have the F110. I also remember years ago when we tested the TF30, it was a total piece of crap! The Navy knew this as well, that’s why they upgraded to the F110-400 for the Super Tomcat. This whole story about the F119 and F135 is pure politics, period.

Quit crying about the costs and budget cuts, we would have plenty of money for both engines and double the amout of Aircraft if we were throwing away 65% of the federal budget on entitlements. I would cut Welfare right away and put all of that money into defense where it belongs. All of you people need to get off your cans and deamnd your congressmen and senators do their jobs which is to protect and defend our country, not take care of a bunch of lazy bums. Then we would not even have this stupid arguement about if we can afford a second engine or not.

By: Buffalo

Buffalo — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:33:41 +0000

Why don’t we stick to the real issue. The general pointed out that lack of quality was a big problem, yet he is called on the carpet for it. I would think SECDEF would want to shake his hand for a job well done. Unfortunately politics have toenter into every phase of our lives even when a person tries to do what is good for the country