Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

A Marine Corps photo set this week shows a squadron of veteran AV-8B Harriers at work in Afghanistan supporting troops on the ground, and it brought to mind one of the capabilities the Marines’ F-35B Lightning II will have that the Harrier doesn’t. Everybody knows that the B can  “transform,” like a Decepticon, for short takeoffs and vertical landings on Navy amphibious ships at sea. But unlike a Harrier, the B also can land like a conventional airplane, said Lockheed Martin vice president Steve O’Bryan at the company’s big media day last month.

So what, you might say. Well, the Harrier doesn’t land conventionally: Every time it comes back, even to a ground base, it needs to do a vertical landing or a rolling vertical landing, O’Bryan said, burning fuel and working its jet nozzles more or less the same way. But if a Lightning II pilot wants to, she’ll be able to land down a runway like a normal fighter jet, without engaging the lift fan or all those other ports and hatches and bells and whistles.

If many — or most — of the flights that a fighter makes over its life are not under operational circumstances, because pilots are training or ferrying their jets, that could mean that a typical B won’t need its vertical landing capability most of the time.

“I don’t want to speak for the Marine Corps, but as we do analysis for the STOVL variant, [we think] most of the landings will be conventional landings — you can come back and land on a normal 8,000-foot airstrip without stressing all those components,” O’Bryan said. “Of course it’s up to the operational units, but why would I stress those if I don’t have to? … That is an option that’s not available on the current generation of STOVL airplanes.”


Join the Conversation

In his desperation to show how superior the F-35B is to the Harrier, Mr. O’Bryan has managed to undermine the existence of the same plane. If it is a useful weapon “most” of the time when taking off and landing like a conventional jet, then why not make it “all” the time? Exactly what extra utility do you get with vertical landing capability, and what payload range restrictions do you put up with as a result?

Why wouldn’t the F-35B be able to land conventionally? Am I just assuming that the Harrier was able to land conventionally, when it actually couldn’t?

Wow, you learn something new every day.

Lockheed marketing at a new low — when they aren’t touting failure as success they are sprouting simple lies.

The real difference between the F-35B and the harrier is that the harrier isn’t loaded down with half a ton of completely useless lift fan and drive when it makes a conventional landing.

And if you listen to Lockheed PR it will be wrong.
Most Harrier landings are conventional.

AmicusCuriae · wrote…Exactly what extra utility do you get with vertical landing capability, and what payload range restrictions do you put up with as a result? First question; VL utility is the ability to routinely land on USMC ships or forward operating bases without runways. This allows it to maximise CAS time-on-station. Second question; none, the specification for the fuel margin and the weapons load was written into the design of the a/c, which with close scrutiny, it meets.

Read more: http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​1​/​0​6​/​0​7​/​l​o​c​k​h​e​e​d​-​m​a​n​y-f

they take one prob (vertical landing) and use advantage of the plane (can make conventiona landing) for cover that, absolutely stupid.
Like when they give bn$ and say one month later the price of each plane go down…
This program was so stupid

The Marines will train like they fight. So they will use STOVL during training in the same ratio as they plan to in combat. Assuming less is a rationalization.

The X-32B proved the Harrier system is NOT superior for the JSF requirements. It didn’t have enough thrust to carry a useful payload. In testing they even had to remove the landing gear bay doors.

As usual Bill defends lies and failure with completely irrelevant gibberish about an unrelated aircraft,

And look at all the airframe life still in the USMC Harrier. BTW, which has more cost per flying hour? And since the F-35 won’t be able to handle the threats that are the job of the F-22, what use will it be anyway?
The F-35 costs more than an F-22. It can’t do the job of the F-22. Yet when top threats don’t exist, many other existing aircraft designs offer more utility and don’t cost as much.

Let me try to explain this to you slowly Oblatski. Boeing’s X-32 was the competitor to Lockheed’s X-35. The lift-fan based STOVL system of the X-35 proved superior in testing and may have well been the deciding factor in that competition. The STOVL system used by the X-32B was very similar to that of the Harrier, and proved incapable of meeting requirements for the JSF. See the connection now?

You’re complaining because Lockheed Martin is doing some PR work? Your beloved Eurofighter does the same thing.

IIRC there isn’t much life left in the USMC Harrier fleet. Plus it has been out of production for a long time now. The F-35B is the last hope for a STOVL fighter in the near future.

What threats can’t the F-35 handle? The PAK-FA? It would only have an advantage in a dogfight. In BVR the F-35 still has superior stealth and situational awareness. With today’s missiles it isn’t very likely that both aircraft will get down to cannons?

I would prefer if the F-35 has capability to carry 6 air-to-air missiles, including the AIM-9X Block II, from the start. I would also like to see an enhanced ‘AIM-120E’ AMRAAM in the interim before JDRADM is fielded. Yet I don’t think these are grounds to scrap the entire F-35 program.

In BVR the F-35 still has superior stealth and situational awareness.

we don’t know that for sure (well, the sit. awareness maybe true).

In 2500 hours of operating military aircraft I’ve learned that if you don’t exercise a component or system regularly it breaks. Sure the conventional landing is a nice feature, but I’d be very surprised if the USMC doesn’t require at least one vertical takeoff or landing per flight just to keep the system conditioned.

Good Evening Folks,

Just assuming that this is not a joke. I guess we can reclassify the F-35B as a STOSL. For a couple of years now near everything about the F-35 has been bazaar so nothing really makes this information any different.

I see the usual crowd is making excuses. Pay Day is Friday. So many rational arguments have been made for years as to why the JSF/F-35 program should be canceled, any more would just be a waste of efforts. For the money we are throwing into this utterly useless program we could well fund another branch of the military services. Have fun butternuts.

Byron Skinner

No, the Harrier is incapable of conventional landing.

In his desperation to bash the F-35, AmicusCuriae domonstrates he has no clue what he is talking about. While it may be “news” to Philip Ewing, the F-35B was ALWAYS going to do mostly short/rolling take-offs & conventional landings — the USMC is even working out a short/rolling landing for on amphibs. The extra utility is the ability to do rolling/short take-offs &/or short/rolling landing or vertical landing when conventional take-offs &/or landing are not possible.

The AV-8B is a reason why the USMC has/had received procurement priority…

No the F-35 (already) costs LESS than the F-22. And at full rate production it will cost even less (likely less than HALF the cost of the of the last MYP F-22s — even if F-22 procurement had continued & gotten its flyaway cost down to $120 million you would STILL be looking at 5–6 full rate production F-35As for the cost of just 3 F-22s).

The F-35 is more capable of doing the F-22’s job than any other fighter (other than the F-22). There is NO existing aircraft design that provides as much utility as the F-35 & the F-35 will cost LESS than most anything that even comes close.

More correctly V/STOV/SL…

The rest of your (usual) garbage is not even worth the effort.

They will of course check all systems during each & every pre-flight but there is no need to do “
at least one vertical takeoff or landing per flight”…

Some people collect dog turds. Bill collects anecdotes about failed defense projects.

And yet they do it all the time

summary: if the F-35 was the aircraft that it isn’t it would be capable.

Some people have interesting things to say. Oblat just spews his verbal diarrhea all over the comment section and whines about America.

No it would be more capable if planned upgrades were ready earlier. The PAK-FA won’t be doing everything as advertised when it reaches IOC either.

summary: failure it’s inevitable.

pfcem really should contact the DoD they would be overjoyed to hear about the cache of low cost F-35s he has found — presumably in his basement.

Meanwhile Bills stream of non-sequitors in response to every F-35 criticism continues.

In the recent interview with Lockheed’s CEO he noted that they are aiming for a cheaper lower skilled labor force as a way to cut costs. JSF is leading the way with this.

Landing on amphibious assault ships. Duh.

I see. The ability to land on USMC ships and forward operating bases is its own virtue. I still do not understand the need for this. I do see some utility that comes from removing the second engine from the STOVL and replacing it with 5000 lbs of fuel. That way, you could have the option of basing it further away from enemy artillery and missile attack, or more time loitering on station, or operations from short fields at intermediate weights, etc., etc.

I know this is going to come as a shock to you but the Harriers don’t have 40 more years of life in them (and never mind attrition and the fact that compared to an F-35B they’re absolute junk).

Bastards at Lockheed Marting Strike again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Worthess RDACHANG, Carter and the rest of these morons need to be removed from OFFICE… Wasting Funding yet again.

Lockheed Martin should never be allowed to bid on another contract.

asdf: JSF does not have Superior STEALTH… NONE in FACT; No SA and NO BVR, hell it cannot communicate with anyone if the piece of shit located anything. Cannot shoot down anything if it runs out of missiles, it has no fucking Internal GUN… Worthless piece of shit.

Besides all the other arguements, the F-35 is JUST PLAIN UGLY to boot!

Better tell this guy that. http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​R​t​4​p​d​e​c​p​7DY

“the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that a larger order of 70 additional [F-22] aircraft could have brought that number down to $70 million a pop”

Well that is certainly not true so I guess we have exausted all the negative arguments against the F35.

”…the harrier is that the harrier isn’t loaded down with half a ton of completely useless lift fan and drive when it makes a conventional landing…”

FYI: It is more like a ton and a half, maybe 2 tons

The Harrier’s landing gear is not strong enough to take the hard hit of a conventional naval style landing. If you look closely at the YouTube video, you’ll notice that as the plane passes close to the camera its nozzles are straight down, I suspect that final speed was well below stall. Can a harrier land w/o down thrust? Yes, if you land it like a Cessna, a nice gentle flared landing, but if you stick it like every other conventional USN aircraft you’ll drive the pogo sticks up through the wings and break the back of the plane.

I do appreciate you summarizing your own posts, but it really isn’t required.

The AV-8B should be upgraded its capability. We need to STOP this JSF Butfucking by Lockheed Martin NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! An upgraded AV-8B, C, D, E or F model would be much more capable than this $160,000,000.00 dollar each piece of shit.

The Marine Corps could upgrade the AV-8B and purchase the F/A-18E/F at 1/3 the cost of one JSF piece of shit and they would not have to wait more than a year. The stupid Leadership at the Pentagon needs to be fired. Hopefully Panetta will come in and clean house. We have to many Generals and Admirals that have retirement in sight and are manipulating the System just like Goldman Sachs and the Oil Market, so they will have a nice high paying position when they retire from the DOD. WE need Leadership, not individuals who are liked by everyone. All these academy graduates but fuck each other all through school and learn all the politically correctness and have NO leadership capability. They do not know how to SAY NO… Does not seem politically correct. Fuck Being Politically correct. If these Integrators are WRONG… they need to be TOLD they are WRONG and get the HELL OUT>… STEALTH IS DEAD>

I take it you’ve never seen the X-32.

OK, first of all, the Harrier CAN land conventionally, it just can’t “cat” or “trap” like the Hornet, etc., (but it doesn’t need to) maybe THAT’s what they meant.
The lift-fan is a nightmare, with all the doors that need to open and all those actuators to operate them, not to mention that rotating exhaust nozzle on the engine! Too many moving partsand a mechanical disaster waiting to happen!
Sadly, the Harrier is maxed out. The cost to upgrade it would be too expensive and it is almost impossible to keep them flying already due to parts obsolescence. Such a small population is causing suppliers to decline requests to manufacture spare parts.
I have been a Harrier guy since 1979 with the original AV8A, then the “C” model and now the AV8B (all variants, Day, Night, Radar and Reman). It will be sad to see it go, but go it must. The F-35 JSF just doesn’t cut it though.

Are you kidding? 5000lbs of fuel and greater payload gives you way more time on station than the ability to launch from some hypothetical forward operating base. An F-35C would be a much better choice than a F-35B who has to stretch to fly a 1.2. I guess he can hit the tanker, but that just beggs the question of why be close to the FLOT if you have to retrograde to get gas? OBTW, why do you need a stealthy 5th gen fighter when you are in artillery range of the enemy? The ONLY defensable justification for the B is flying off of amphibs, and that one is pretty weak.

@ ELP — Indeed, I strongly agree the F-35 costs more to buy and maintain than the F-22. Now the price for the JSF program costs $1.3 Trillion certainly not affordable and it’ll never be affordable. Definately the JSF cannot do the job of the F-15, F-22, F-111 and A-10. The JSF’s fuselage is too thinned skinned, which means the 22mm bullet or any gun fire can very easily penetrate the JSF’s engine and can catch on fire and creating like a blow torch, with fuel circulating around the engine.

Yes the JSF is a dog in all of its multi-role capabilities. It’s too heavy and sluggish to be successful as an air superiority fighter in aerodynamic terms. The JSF is 50 times worse in long range strike and close air support operations. Is because the JSF is so much easier to shoot down, so much more flammable etc. It doesn’t have an ability to stay and wait over the battlefield, until the situation develops when is needed, with no loiter time with huge fuel flow very inefficient. It’s hopeless and doesn’t have any weapons to do that.

The JSF = F-105 Thunderchief II?

I have trouble prenouncing the word “F-35 Lightning”, is because the lightning bolts in the aircraft is certainly not there. Perhaps the new nickname “BABY SEAL” but certainly not the Lightning.

@ ELP — You certainly cannot have an combat aircraft that anything relies only EWSP jammers, short to medium range AESA radars, BVR and cruise missiles as stand off and straight level you’re a dead duck, which the F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-35 JSF have very poor characteristics. They are unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence due to very pittiful limited long range endurance, limited missile payload, limited supersonic speed and low power radar and sensors.

All combat aircraft really need and got to have all of these criteria for surviavability such as:

1. Acceleration up to Mach 2+ and extreme agility with 2D or 3D thrust vectoring circular nozzles.

2. Long range endurance without refuelling, for combat radius 1,000nm or more

3. Bigger missile payload

4. Much more powerful and bigger AESA radars, EWSP and other sensors and systems available.

5. Two engines for safety, for overwater operations and faster throttle response.

@ ELP — And thats what the large airframes with high capability (F-14, F-15 ‚F-22 and F-111) are optimised for and does the job so much better for heavily defended airspaces. Not small airframes (F-16, Rafale, Typhoon, F/A-18 family, Gripen and JSF) which they are optimised for light threat environments only.

Flying off amphibs .…. pretty weak reason to pursue another VSTOL aircraft after the Harrier was considered an operational failure, only good for airshows. The Brits, the originator of the AV-8 even abandonned the concept. Bottom line: amphibs are very rarely out from under the shadow of a carrier strike group which can provide all the fixed wing air support required anyway.

I can’t understand why the smallest service in DoD, the USMC, is allowed to conduct their own aircraft development programs? The USMC should only be allowed to leverage off certified and fielded aircraft by the other major services, and only allowed to modify aircraft with mission equipment. The V-22 and F-35B are two of the largest investments in developmental aircraft in DoD by the smallest uniformed service.

Will the matting that Marine engineers currently use for Harrier landing pads melt when the F-35 B vertically lands on them? If so what is the solution and when will it be ready?

Panetta needs to Stop the JSF Program the first day in Office. Stealth is DEAD and so is this Program. A total waste of funding. Yet they are taking at the Pentagon in addition to the Senate Armed Forces Committee and their Republicans would rather cut Veteran Healthcare Funding than Programs. Now all you Republican idiots out there in the Military, and I use to be one, need to seriously consider what is being said. These Moron Republicans want to cut our Healthcare for the benefit of Wall Street. None of these Senators are worth there salt. We fight and die for these morons and now they want to take away not only our healthcare systems given by our service to this country but also to the rest of America so the Pharmaceutical Industries, Doctors and Lawyers can make more money. When does this END!!!!! These Republicans are out of control. They need to shed blood for this Country just as we have. They need to be shipped to Afghanistan and thrown into Battle were money and Politics are none existent. Bastards.Fuck Wall Street and these fucking politician liers.

The RNZAF did that sort of upgrade at one point, Pulled all the old analogue 70’s stuff out of the A-4’s as part of Project Kahu and installed all new F-16D radars and avionics. Then within months Helen Clark shut down the whole combat arm of the RNZAF and left us with only a few transport planes and some P3’s…
Couldn’t carry as much or as far as the F16, but otherwise it could do anything the F16’s could, the Harriers could get the same sort of upgrade and soldier on for a while longer.

Well, once again the DOD has decided to CUT Veterans and Retirees Health Benefits. Let me also add the GI Bill and DoD Tuition Assistance Rates. Yet we continue to fund the JSF Platform that is worthless since Stealth is Dead. Yet we continue to Fund this worthless Platform while our Veterans, Widows, Children and Healthcare System “Guaranteed” to our troops are now going to be CUT along with Medicare. So now we fund an Un-Stealthy aircraft with Open Intakes and an Augmenter Section which is seen in the IR as well as Radar. Yet, Lockheed Martin Continues to lead the DOD on a Highway to Hell. We would rather keep Wall Street and Lockheed (I need more funding) Martin along with the steer riders in Texas fully funded do to George babies home state. At the same time we throw all our Patriotic Troops who fight and die for this country along with the widows and children under the bus along with Grandma. They would rather purchase a 16 year JSF development program that has tripled in cost. This will cost the US $160,000,000.00 each X 2600 Each Platforms at a total cost of over 3 Trillion over 20 years in total cost. WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, the F-35 costs LESS to buy and maintain than the F-22. The CAN do the job of the F-15, F-22 & A-10 (I will give you the F-111 but the F-35 is not & never was intended to do the job of the F-111). The F-35 is no more vulnerable to gun fire than the F-15, F-22 & F-111 (I will give you the A-10 but the F-35 won’t “down in the weeds” like the A-10).

You have no clue what you are talking about. The F-35 is not too heavy or too sluggish to be successful as an air superiority fighter in aerodynamic terms (even ignoring that aerodynamic performance is not the most important factor for air superiority success). 4th/4.5 generation fighters REQUIRE 2–3 external fuel tanks to get the combat radius of the F-35 has with ‘just’ internal fuel. The F-35’s sensors (& sensor fusion) make it the most capable CAS aircraft any air force has.

The F-35 will do everything the F-16 & F/A-18 do BETTER than they could ever hope to.

Such an aircraft does not exist & NOBODY is even bothering to try to creat such a ‘impossible’ aircraft. The F-22 & PAK-FA/T-50 do not meet your wet dream requirements.

Large airframes with high capability are unaffordable is large numbers. “Small airframes” are NOT optimised for light threat environments only.

What alternate reality do you live in?

No, Harrier pad will not melt. They just would not last as long with the F-35B vs the Harrier. The solution, which is already in use, is new pads built to handle the F-35B.

pfcem & JSF advocates — I RECKON YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU“RE TALKING ABOUT. The F-35 is too heavy and too sluggish to be successful as an air superiority fighter in aerodynamic terms. Aerodynamic performance is the most important factor for air superiority success. The F-35 will not do everything in multi-role. Seriously why don’t you go to the APA to find out for yourself. Large airframes with high capability are NOT unaffordable is large numbers. “Small airframes” are OPTIMISED for light threat environments only. YES, the F-35 costs MORE to buy and maintain than the F-22. Remember the F-35 is more vulnerable to gun fire, SAMs and Sukhois. How can you say the F-35 will not be vulnerable to any gun fire, ITS IMPOSSIBLE. The fuselage is again too thinned skinned. Even though the F-35 has large internal fuel (with 18,000 lb), its huge fuel flow is way too inefficient, with no loiter time.

Wanted to share some information for all you Lockheed Martin Lovers out there that think the US should continue to build these worthless Stealth Aircraft and keep Wall Street and the stear ropers in Texas happy. Sealth is DEAD.

“I will continue to seek improvements in how the Department of Defense spends taxpayer dollars. Those efforts led to the 2009 passage of legislation to reform Pentagon procurement efforts, and to efforts to end unnecessary programs such as the F-22 fighter.”

pfcem & JSF advocates — From what Puckindog 01 and other opponents to the JSF, APA, GAO, retired generals and pilots will ALL tell YOU and your colleagues from Lockheed Martin, is the JSF DOES NOT HAVE Superior STEALTH… NONE in FACT; No SA and NO BVR, it cannot communicate with anyone. Cannot shoot down anything if it runs out of missiles, it has limited rounds of ammunition in the internal cannon. You’re buying this aircraft not only to defend the Americas air power and other countries air power, you’re going to ruin All the air forces, navy and marine corps making the entire western forces INEFFECTIVE, the JSF is going to make the pilots feel horrified with very pittiful limited missile payload, limited acceleration, limited long range endurance, limited agility, thinned skinned fuselage for the 22mm bullet from the rifle or any gun fire to penetrate the airframe and engine to catch on fire, (which will create like a blow torch).

pfcem & JSF advocates — In addition, the JSF is eight years late. Strangely that does not matter because by 2019 the Chinese, Russians, Indians and Indonesians will have aircraft that will run rings around the JSF. Any RAAF pilot who engages pilots from any above nations will suffer the same fate as those RAAF pilots in World War 11 who were given Buffalo aircraft to take on Japanese Zeros.

pfcem & JSF advocates — The comparison between the JSF and the rival Russian and Chinese aircraft are based on the JSF achieving specifications. Unfortunately that is also now in doubt. The JSF December 2010 Selected Acquisition Report reveals that the JSF is not meeting specifications. The base line development estimate was that the JSF would have a combat radius of 690 nautical miles (1,277 kilometres). That was the aim which everyone thought would be met or exceeded. But there was a technical written minimum combat radius specification of 590 nautical miles. The latest SAR figures say that the current JSF combat radius is only 584 nautical miles (1,081 kilometres).

The Indonesians have woken up to the idea that because of the JSF shortcomings Australia will no longer be a significant airpower in the region, so the Indonesians are buying 180 latest generation Russian/ Indian aircraft.

pfcem & JSF advocates — Look the JSF does have some wonderful systems (with touch screen cockpit features), but its airframe design shape itself is absolutely wrong and very controversial. What the experts say is that the Americans should use the JSF systems to upgrade the excellent F-22 and other aircraft as well. YOU and your colleagues from Lockheed Martin are setting out to cheat all the customers that have joined the BABY SEAL (JSF) program. It proves YOU and your colleagues got it ALL WRONG. The customers will suffer more. As trusted friends YOU and your colleagues are certainly not helping the US Allies to get out of this mess by just creating more and more naysaying arguments claiming that is a true 5th Gen Fighter for the 21st Century with protending affordable cost to buy and maintain. Again, why should the customers deserve to be partners with Lockheed Martin to join up the most pathetic failed program? If I was the Minister of Defence, I’ll definately back out and completely scrap the entire JSF program all together and look for another alternatives that isn’t in the 5th Gen. class.

This is much ado about nothing. The USMC in the JPO defined F-35B usage for design several years ago. Lockheed does not have the authority to change that. There is no evidence in the article showing the contract was changed to alter usage or that Lockheed asked to change it. After any aircraft is fielded its usage will change over time, based on unit type (e.g. training vs deployed), economics, and sometimes by geography. This happens with every aircraft type without exception. That is what O’Bryan was alluding to, and that is what many people here have taken out of context. Many people in these spaces try to pass themselves off as tough minded, expert critics, but time and time again they expose themselves as cynics with little more than a superficial knowledge of the topic.

pfcem & JSF advocates — YOU really don’t get the warning message, don’t you. Whatever you like it or not. Do you UNDERSTAND that single engine is THE MOST VULNERABLE AND THE MOST DANGEROUS THING on every combat aircraft. Remember our 41 Mirages were lost because of every engine failed in RAAF service and most pilots died from these accidents at the time. Its not surviavable and risks for overwater operations, its going to make all pilots to feel very horrified when it fails and flies like a glider and dropping like a stone. Again YOU cannot have an combat aircraft that anything relies only EWSP jammers, short to medium range AESA radars, BVR and cruise missiles as stand off and straight level. With very pittiful limited long range endurance, limited missile payload, limited supersonic speed and low power radar and sensors. Do you realise this warning message “YOU’LL BE A DEAD DUCK”, which the Super Hornet and JSF have very poor characteristics. Small airframes are ONLY suited for light threat environments.

pfcem & JSF advocates — the JSF will be truly unmentally useless. It’ll degrade every airpower further, the pilots will fly worse, they’ll get less training, which is the certainly the most important part to train every pilots, they’ll be FAR less pilots is because the whole forces will have to shrink. And you’re just having a show piece air forces, navy and marine corp that they can’t do anything. They’ll be ineffective for years to come. Ask yourself. Why is the large airframes needed to defend the countries needs? Is because they have the best aerodynamic performance as possible from the technology base, as well as the most powerful long range AESA radars, EWSP jammers and other sensors available, with much better missile payload and long range endurance etc, which is very important for most air forces needs ok. If you’re hot to do that, you can still very easily put new 5th Generation features on existing aircraft, even though it won’t get you much, but it can be done if desired.

pfcem & JSF advocates — Do you have any idea that the taxpayers money is going to get wasted down the drain, by putting all the eggs into the failed JSF programs basket. Is because the JSF is suffering potential for significant variations in capability, cost and schedule timelines with high likelihood of current risks materialising and further risks arising eg. software problems, partners leaving program, Congressional intercession. It still remains in development with difficulties in performance, weight and cooling capacity PLUS significant software and system integration

pfcem & JSF advocates — I really find that Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Tom Burbage and the colleages are the biggest liers, cons and crooks to believe that the JSF is protending to be cheap, stealthy and true 5th Generation aircraft. And its not fighter, is because it doesn’t turn very well. The F-35 will not perform everything in multi-role, even though it does try perform that, all that means you’re engaging lots of trade offs, on the performance on the aircraft, for each to perform on the missions. Its full of design compromises.

pfcem & JSF advocates — “ABSOLUTELY NOT”. The JSF can’t do the job of the F-15, A-10 and F-22. What ever your colleagues from Lockheed Martin say the JSF can do all that mission, to me its a made up information you got from your predecessors.

pfcem & JSF advocates — How is it that the much touted tyranny of distance that helped drive the two engined F-111 and F/A-18 procurement decisions all those years ago can now be swept aside and suddenly we are comfortable with a pathetic single engine jet with limited range when Australia still lives on the same island surrounded by the same vast oceans and with the same limited internal operational basing infrastructure?

For those who think a small handful of air refuelling aircraft will give us an operational capability
I recommend they think again. Current planning for air refuelling aircraft addresses as little as
one quarter of the operational need. Equally, a similar complement of Wedgetail AEW&C
surveillance and control aircraft will not overcome the shortfall in stealth, speed, endurance, sensor reach and agility exhibited by the JSF in comparison to the F-22.

pfcem & JSF advocates — Moreover, there is one overriding consideration — whether the JSF is actually cheaper than the F-22 is irrelevant; the JSF is not capable of doing the job in our nearer and wider regions awash with advanced Russian fighters and thus cannot guarantee regional air superiority.The fundamental point must be that no matter how many JSFs are procured, if the aircraft
cannot guarantee control of the regional battlespace at a time and place of our choosing, then
what utility does it have for this nation ~ defence? Can the JSF or any small airframes assert dominance over Su-27 and Su-30 Flanker variants, upcoming T-50 PAK-FA and Chengdu J-20 Black Eagle? The very clear answer is no.

@ Puckindog 01 — Indeed, Lockheed Martin should never be allowed to bid on another contract. They are complete crooks and liers. It proves they got it all wrong, especially the JSF program. The customers will suffer more and more cost overruns and delays etc. As trusted friends, Lockheed Martin are certainly not helping the US Allies to get out of this mess. Tom Burbage, his colleagues and JSF advocates are just creating more and more naysaying arguments claiming that the JSF is a true 5th Gen Fighter for the 21st Century with protending affordable cost to buy and maintain. The customers should never be deserved to be partners with Lockheed Martin to join up the most pathetic failed project? If I was the Minister of Defence, I’ll definately backout and completely scrap the entire JSF program alltogether and look for another alternatives that isn’t in the 5th Gen. (e.g. F-15E variants and F-16 variants) class. Look what its done to the nations taxpayers. Its going down the drain, the JSF program is a complete waste of money and time.

@ Puckindog 01 — It’ll be great to see the JSF program get jeapardised even more. So there for, cancellation for the entire project.

pfcem delusional — then how CAN the F-35 do the A-10s job if it “won’t ‘down in the weeds’ like the A-10″? That’s the whole point! you have some serious issues with inability to think straight. Plus, you have a sad habit of attributing present term characteristics to a system for which there is no DATA to support your claims. You’re a sorry, sloppy scientist.

Engineer Economist & JSF advocates — I reckon ALL of you JSF people have very serious issues with inability to think straight claiming this aircraft can do everything. For example LOOK at the Russians, do you ever see them with single engine. The very clear answer is no. The red forces will think the Western nations “Are absolutely crazy with a single engine, a 5th Generation JSF with no agility, no range, no acceleration, limited missile payload with weak firepower which is not capable of do the job and cannot compete us”. They’ll think that for sure. You’re selling this aircraft to put ALL air forces at HUGE risk and horrifying the pilots. Plus, when there comes a loss or any failure to this aircraft in the future, you and your team will one day have a very sad day. You’ll be sorry, for the entire stuff up you’re going to cause for customers to find ways to pay to maintain this rip off project.

Engineer Economist & JSF advocates — They’ll be a attributing present term characteristics to a system for which there one day be DATA, to support my or somones claims, not yours. Why should I support your explanation. Most won’t be supporting your DATA claims. You’re a very sorry, sloppy engineer.

MiG-21 had one engine…

And the MiG-21 had an engine that was totally reliable for its 250 hrs nominal operational life with little more than filled gas tank and a quick check of the dip stick. BUT for 250 hrs there was rarely if ever a need to have an extra engine onboard. The Russians often did things differently than we normally would, not wrong since they arent stupid, but differently! Dont try to use their logic to justify our mistakes!

A number of F/A-18s were hit by shoulder fired SAMs during the Gulf wars, along with some AV-8s and F-16s. Some would say that the more numerous battle damage repair reports for the F/A-18s show a significantly greater vulnerability because of the twin “hot spots” attracting the missiles. I might draw a different conclusion.

I’m afraid that you are going to do the same thing if you stick an F-35B, also. It has weaker landing gear than the F-35C in order to save weight for vertical landings.

@ ExAF but thinking & Guest A — I’ll cetainly try to use their logic to justify the entire mistakes you JSF advocates are going to do now. Well that was in the Cold War era, when the Soviets had MiG-21s and MiG-23s in there inventory, until they discovered they need twin engines for safety, faster throttle response and over water operations. And thats why the Russians have developed the Su-27 Flanker, MiG-29 Fulcrum and MiG-31 Foxhound for improved surviavability. I was talking about now for example, saying do any of you see the Russians have any single engine aircraft. Just because, a number of F/A-18s were hit by shoulder fired SAMs during the Gulf wars, along with some AV-8s and F-16s, that does not mean you can develop the production of the single engine JSF at all. Remember single engine is “now” an old hat and old habit. Again when the RAAF had 116 Mirages, we’ve lost 41 of them and the some pilots got killed in those accidents at the time.

@ ExAF but thinking, Guest A & JSF advocates — Also not just in conflict. For example, if you’re over the ocean behind the controls of any single engine jet, deploying to another country. What’s going to happen to you when the engine fails while flying over the ocean far away from your home base? Ummmm. You’ll be flying like a glider, losing airspeed and dropping like a stone. Don’t even think that the one engine is going to save your day and the pilots day. You’re not only buying the JSF for defends needs, you’re just buying the aircraft for the sake of it, claiming its cheap, maintainable, reducing man hours, you’re going to put pilots lives and missions at HUGE jeapordy. I’ll be much better off going for twin engines. Because its better to be safe than sorry.

@ ExAF but thinking, Guest A & JSF advocates — The JSF will definately show a significantly greater vulnerability because of the single huge “hot spot” attracting the IR missiles. Not even a super reliable 21st Century turbofan engine that can’t survive birdstrike and attracting the IR missiles. To me twin engine aircraft does not get hit very much as the single engine does get hit the most. Single engine was good in there day. Surviavability is the most important now and to the future and that’s why two engines are developed, the most needed for EVERY combat aircraft right now. The JSF is certainly not a very trusting aircraft, too unreliable and way too vulnerable. Now if you JSF advocates have a problem with that, I suggest that you take it up to the Air Power Australia and GAO to explain why is the JSF wrong for the future nations needs? You JSF advocates really need to WAKE UP.

F-16 has one engine…

Guest A & JSF advocates — Only for NATO forces, like Europe can have small airframe single engine F-16, Mirage F.1 and 2000 variants, JAS-39 Gripen and two engine F/A-18 and MiG-29. The reason for that is there countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Demark, Norway, France, Sweden, Italy, Finland, Spain and other Eastern Europe nations as well, plus some nations in South America and Asian countries too can operate single or two engine types. Not for Australia. Why? Because the island is surrounded by the vast oceans which is not suitable environment for single engine aircraft for overwater operations for maritime strike sorties and as I mentioned earlier about safety for the air crews.

Guest A & JSF advocates — So twin engines again provide superior flight safety in long range or over water operations, as the loss of one engine does not guarantee the loss of the aircraft, although it is apt to cause the mission to be aborted. For Australia’s geography this is likely to result in a smaller number of lost aircraft during decades of peacetime training, but also a better ability for these aircraft to survive battle damage over a target and recover to home base to be repaired. It also reduces demands on Navy warships to be available to rescue aircrew in the event of engine failure, and thus become exposed to enemy air attack. Even though Australia is a small country, again single engine JSF, F-16, Gripen, not suitable for overwater environment and safety precautions. If it was up to me which aircraft is the right choice for Australia’s needs for a perfect punch. I very much prefer either the F-15E variants or F-22 to replace the F/A-18A/B Hornets in air superiority role.

Guest A & JSF advocates — In hindsight Australia should’ve kept continuing upgrading the F-111 fleet despite its age. The F-111 is extremely difficult to properly replace it, that NO small airframe can do what the F-111 can do. Because it was performing fantastic in strike bombing roles which offers over 50 percent in strike capability. For the small country like Australia, the F-111 is a contemporary of the US B-52H and B-1B bombers, both of which the US Air Force intends to operate well past 2030. None of the arguments presented by Defence in Federal Parliament to justify the early retirement of the F-111 were successfully defended in the public debate, as none were truthful. Thanks to the pathetic and idiotic generals, bureaucrats and RAAF that got rid of this beautiful warplane last year with that very nasty mistake. Again the JSF is 50 times worse in long range strike.

Guest A and JSF advocates — Refusing to sell the F-22A Raptor to allies is an complete insult that will also harm American interests, by scrapping the production and closing American options. Thanks to the pathetic and idiotic US Law, Obama Administration, Pentagon and Congress with very foolish mistakes.

Japan is an island and they have single engine fighters…

I have no idea where in the hell you guys are getting your information. Out of 160 Combat missions I flew in Iraq, I did ONE vertical landing and ZERO rolling vertical landings. ALL of the rest were either Fixed Nozzle Slow or conventional landings. “Well, the Harrier doesn’t land conventionally: Every time it comes back, even to a ground base, it needs to do a vertical landing or a rolling vertical landing, O’Bryan said” This is ridiculous. This idiot has absolutely NO CLUE what he is talking about. It is beyond me that these comments about the Harrier made this website. Completely baseless and WRONG. What a joke

Stealth is the next best thing man. Like it or not. Thinking that it is dead shows that you don’t see what is actually going on. It is a fact that if you are detected you are as good as dead. Stealth increases your chances of success. What will you do when Russia, India and China will have stealth fighters and you won’t. They will send in fighters that you can’t detect and you send in fighters that are sitting ducks for both their fighters and anti-aircraft units.

Bill, you don’t have interesting things to say. The X-32 proved that it wasn’t well designed. The idea of using the same engine to take of would have been better because the aircraft would have been lighter. Yes, that fan is useless extra weight. Let’s see what the hell they will be doing with the F-35B.

A lighter weight doesn’t matter when you still don’t have enough vertical lift to be capable of STOVL operations. The lift-fan on the F-35B may be dead weight in normal flight, but the additional lift it generates allows it to perform STOVL operations and carry a useful payload.

The system employed by the X-32B could not do this for an aircraft with the JSF’s specifications. It works for a lighter attack aircraft like the AV-8 but that’s the limit with current engine technology.

The Harrier can absolutely perform a conventional landing.
But saying as it doesn’t need to, why should it?

The truth is that performing a rolling vertical landing doesn’t stress the components any more than a conventional one.
Trying to suggest that RVLs are a drawback to the Harrier is really quite absurd.
What components are there to actually stress?
The nozzles are doing exactly the same job as always always, regardless of the phase of flight, and an RVL requires much lower engine settings than the kind of high-speed and low-level flight the RAF Harriers performed daily.

We’re talking about sets of chains that rotate the nozzles in the Harrier.

I still have hopes that the F-35B will live up to its original specifications and be a good, solid aircraft, but the more you hear this kind of reasoning, the harder this becomes.


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.