Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[?Impact]

The ~140 lbs weight limitation on the F-35 seat is the same current limitation on our current Hornets and the Super Hornet.

Just out of curiosity, why don't the lighter pilots simply bring some weights with them? Can we not have a $10 solution instead of a $1 billion one?

[waldo]

How is sending a retired aircraft to a museum "feeding the gap"? The RCAF has been retiring Hornets no longer suitable to fly for decades now.....so become "gate guards", some become static training aides and some become beer cans and razors.

oh pleeese! It was a joke... lighten up. A joke and a chance to highlight NORAD and the museum - if you get a chance, check it out; there are other Canadian planes there!

and here I thought bumping the thread might get you to finally comment on the last post you chose to ignore!

.

Edited July 9, 2016 by waldo

[Wilber]

The RN has no choice but to buy the F-35. Their two new carriers are built for STOVL aircraft.

[Derek 2.0]

Just out of curiosity, why don't the lighter pilots simply bring some weights with them? Can we not have a $10 solution instead of a $1 billion one?

The force of the ejection effects the human body, not what its wearing........the 140 pound limit is a naked weight, not including under clothes, flight suit, boots, helmet etc....its a moot point for Canada (or Australia) as we already have such a weight limit......smaller pilots would go elsewhere (multi engine or rotary) or start eating carbs.........the program will solve said issue because it will have a greater effect on Asian forces with a greater number of smaller personal.

Light (or heavy) pilots, likewise short or tall, are just limited to the actual seat and aircraft specs............for example, a 6' 5" pilot with long legs, a seated measure from the tailbone to the knees, would be restricted from flying fighters, but a 6'5" pilot with his height in the torso wouldn't.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[waldo]

The ~140 lbs weight limitation on the F-35 seat is the same current limitation on our current Hornets and the Super Hornet........in one of the other threads (I think in discussion with you, but it could have been OGFT) I provided a graphic of the "impact" of the bottom weight limitations for USAF service.......IIRC, it would effect ~5% of males and ~15% of females, granted it would likely have a greater impact in Asian service......but for Canada, no difference then the current bottom weight limits.

huh! "~140 lbs"??? This article speaks to "pilots under 200 lbs"... and this very recent article speaks to delays and supply chain/work agreement impacts. Now... I did mention an impact on that most questionable 'mid 2019' full-rate production target date - I've got my crack research team out looking for that reference... stay tuned. Somehow in your reply you failed to address this point.

.

Hey now, has the lethal Super Hornet oxygen generation faults been solved yet?

testy much! You also confuse me as principally a Super Hornet proponent... I'm the AnythingButF35 guy.

.

[waldo]

It could, but of course the economic impact of BREXIT is but a short-medium term uncertainty........none the less, a decreased pound could be offset by a split purchase resulting in a mixed fleet for the RAF and RN FAA......a mixed fleet of F-35s.

uhhh... your quoted boy (chomping at the bit to buy... more), somehow, doesn't manage to factor Brexit! Considering the broad reference I threw out there drew an analogy to the U.S. sequester, I was sure you would actually address it - you know, that sequester thingee that significantly impacted/impacts upon U.S. military budgets.

your projected invincibility for the F-35 program remains strong... remains resolute! Good on ya.

.

[Derek 2.0]

huh! "~140 lbs"??? This article speaks to "pilots under 200 lbs"... and this very recent article speaks to delays and supply chain/work agreement impacts. Now... I did mention an impact on that most questionable 'mid 2019' full-rate production target date - I've got my crack research team out looking for that reference... stay tuned. Somehow in your reply you failed to address this point.

.

.

And the article would be misleading, as its speaking to risk assessments (with "crash dummies") done several years ago (we then had countless pages on the subject in one of the threads) during testing done on the F-35's seats to determine to bottom weight limit...........risk of (neck) injury is present where any pilot, wearing a heavy helmet (with a helmet mounted display or even night vision goggles) is forced to eject, and that includes pilots flying our current Hornets (Super Hornet, Eagles, Eurofighter etc)........

At the end of the day, ejecting from a moving aircraft is dangerous.

[Derek 2.0]

uhhh... your quoted boy (chomping at the bit to buy... more), somehow, doesn't manage to factor Brexit! Considering the broad reference I threw out there drew an analogy to the U.S. sequester, I was sure you would actually address it - you know, that sequester thingee that significantly impacted/impacts upon U.S. military budgets.

your projected invincibility for the F-35 program remains strong... remains resolute! Good on ya.

.

Of course not, as market instability is a fact of life.............I don't think Brexit, as outlined in the topical thread, will have a long term negative effect on the markets.......hence little effect on the F-35.......of course if the UK purchase F-35As for the RAF versus the F-35Bs it would reduce the overall purchase price for them.

[waldo]

At the end of the day, ejecting from a moving aircraft is dangerous.

which is why, I presume, LockMart is looking to an alternate manufacturer and the need to retrofit/redesign to accommodate that aspect... with accompanying concerns over extended delays to (the TARGET) 'mid 2019' full-rate production. The same point you continue to ignore.

.

[waldo]

.............I don't think Brexit, as outlined in the topical thread, will have a long term negative effect on the markets.......hence little effect on the F-35.......of course if the UK purchase F-35As for the RAF versus the F-35Bs it would reduce the overall purchase price for them.

of course that's what you think! Of course. Your opinion in countering those industry expert possible impacts & projections is noted. That you double-down by quoting a vested interest in purchasing even more - even more, is gold... real gold!

.

[Derek 2.0]

oh pleeese! It was a joke... lighten up. A joke and a chance to highlight NORAD and the museum - if you get a chance, check it out; there are other Canadian planes there!

and here I thought bumping the thread might get you to finally comment on the last post you chose to ignore!

.

I hadn't seen the post, but with reading it, you're continuing to rehash the same point(s) already addressed..........The F-35 was never marketed as superior to the F-22 in aerial combat, as I said, if they could make it affordable, restarting F-22 production with modern (F-35 avionics and computing power) could be a very real solution to the USAF aging F-15 fleets........

I do notice the F-35 critics have yet to address the mock aerial combat between the F-35 and F-15E.......In which the decades long dominant F-15, only bested by the F-22, was unable to even find the F-35........

[Derek 2.0]

which is why, I presume, LockMart is looking to an alternate manufacturer and the need to retrofit/redesign to accommodate that aspect... with accompanying concerns over extended delays to (the TARGET) 'mid 2019' full-rate production. The same point you continue to ignore.

.

I'm not ignoring it, as it would clearly impact (typically) smaller female pilots and those serving in the various Asian forces............addressing this issue is no different then what the USAF did in the 90s to increase the top and bottom weight/height limits of aircrew with the ACES II ejection seat.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[waldo]

I hadn't seen the post, but with reading it, you're continuing to rehash the same point(s) already addressed..........The F-35 was never marketed as superior to the F-22 in aerial combat

I do notice the F-35 critics have yet to address the mock aerial combat between the F-35 and F-15E.......In which the decades long dominant F-15, only bested by the F-22, was unable to even find the F-35........

you can keep that nonsense up! Only in your deflection is there any remote attachment to comparing the F-35 to the F-22. That superiority facet is one where the F-35s aren't superior to anything out there... and require the F-22s for 'in close, high maneuverability' support. You know, just like the former big-chief for the USAF said... just like that.

I've read lots of those "F-35 critics" laugh at LockMart's attempts to counter the prevailing views... with simulators!

.

[waldo]

I'm not ignoring it, as it would clearly impact (typically) smaller female pilots and those serving in the various Asian forces............addressing this issue is no different then what the USAF did in the 90s to increase the top and bottom weight/height limits of aircrew with the ACES II ejection seat.

so you ignoring the move towards an alternate manufacturer (and what that resulting impact means to design/retro-fit requirements... with accompanying delays)... that's you, "not ignoring it"? I'm reading 200 lbs as the problem threshold limit - in several places. Although just now in a cursory look I can't seem to find anything to align with your ~145 pound reference... can ya help out here with current/timely info to that end? That is, while you're ignoring all the rest!

.

[Derek 2.0]

you can keep that nonsense up! Only in your deflection is there any remote attachment to comparing the F-35 to the F-22. That superiority facet is one where the F-35s aren't superior to anything out there... and require the F-22s for 'in close, high maneuverability' support. You know, just like the former big-chief for the USAF said... just like that.

I've read lots of those "F-35 critics" laugh at LockMart's attempts to counter the prevailing views... with simulators!

.

Again, that is not the case, as demonstrated, the F-35 is "better" then the aircraft that it replaces, likewise, is "stealthier" then the F-22, so much so, the decades long dominant F-15 (with its massive, powerful radar) is unable to even track the F-35.....as recently demonstrated.......An opponent can't kill the F-35 if it can't see it.

[waldo]

Again, that is not the case, as demonstrated, the F-35 is "better" then the aircraft that it replaces, likewise, is "stealthier" then the F-22, so much so, the decades long dominant F-15 (with its massive, powerful radar) is unable to even track the F-35.....as recently demonstrated.......An opponent can't kill the F-35 if it can't see it.

sorry... simulation only counts in non-real world circumstances. Hey, did ya know... you can make those simulators do just about anything... and show just about anything! Who knew.

wait a minute here... why you just shifted the focused emphasis away from "close-range, high maneuverability". Well done!

Edited July 9, 2016 by waldo

[Derek 2.0]

so you ignoring the move towards an alternate manufacturer (and what that resulting impact means to design/retro-fit requirements... with accompanying delays)... that's you, "not ignoring it"? I'm reading 200 lbs as the problem threshold limit - in several places. Although just now in a cursory look I can't seem to find anything to align with your ~145 pound reference... can ya help out here with current/timely info to that end? That is, while you're ignoring all the rest!

.

The ~140 pound reference is the current bottom limit on all USAF fighter aircraft (starting page 5 of the pdf), likewise the restrictions on the NACES ejection seats used in USN aircraft (like the Hornet) on page 6, all restrictions born out of the use of helmets made heavier with the use of night vision and helmet mounted displays.

Starting page 7, reference is made to the ACES 5 seat that will be retrofitted to older legacy aircraft and the new mk16 seat for the F-35, both with a lowered limit of 103 lbs........as demonstrated in testing, from the story you linked, the lowered limit (below the stated ~140 lbs) of both seats would pose serious risk (a broken neck) for pilots wearing bulky helmets.............in the ensuing pages, it goes on to demonstrate that there is little data for larger pilots ejecting well wearing NVG/HMDs (heavier helmets), but what is know is that upwards of ~25% of ejections result in death or serious injury(page 11).........as noted, ejecting from an aircraft is dangerous, and always has been, but the risk is accepted vice the alternative.

[Derek 2.0]

sorry... simulation only counts in non-real world circumstances. Hey, did ya know... you can make those simulators do just about anything... and show just about anything! Who knew.

wait a minute here... why you just shifted the focused emphasis away from "close-range, high maneuverability". Well done!

"Non-real world circumstances"...........would that include an F-16 with no under wing weapons or fuel tanks versus a developmental F-35 with no combat suite?

Forgetting the F-35, how do other 4th/4.5 generation aircraft compare to the F-22.........since the F-22 now appears to be your suggested benchmark?

[?Impact]

likewise, is "stealthier" then the F-22

Wrong, it does have a smaller radar cross section when viewed in one direction but that does not make it "stealthier". That is like saying I am stealthier when wearing camo green, but put me in a desert and suddenly I stick out like a sore thumb. There are still many factors that favour the F-22.

[Derek 2.0]

Wrong, it does have a smaller radar cross section when viewed in one direction but that does not make it "stealthier". That is like saying I am stealthier when wearing camo green, but put me in a desert and suddenly I stick out like a sore thumb. There are still many factors that favour the F-22.

No, I'm not.........as gone over numerous times, "stealth" covers more than just radar cross section, but IR signature (The F-35 uses its fuel as a heat sink, the F-22 not so much) and electronic emissions (The F-22 avionics amount to several 386 computers, contrasted with the F-35 numerous quad processors etc).

[?Impact]

No, I'm not.........as gone over numerous times, "stealth" covers more than just radar cross section, but IR signature (The F-35 uses its fuel as a heat sink, the F-22 not so much) and electronic emissions (The F-22 avionics amount to several 386 computers, contrasted with the F-35 numerous quad processors etc).

The super cruise engines on the F-22 reduce the IR signature far more than the F-35 with afterburners. Yes, the electronics on the F-35 are newer and faster, but what does that have to do with electronic emissions?

[Derek 2.0]

The super cruise engines on the F-22 reduce the IR signature far more than the F-35 with afterburners.

No , the F-22 has two large engines verses the F-35 single engine (regardless of Super Cruise verses afterburner), likewise the technology surrounding the F-35's engine incorporates further advances in heat reduction through the use of baffles on the bypass air, including a secondary bypass, that can regulate the air temp going into the exhaust (or can heat it up to increase fuel efficiency), thus cooling it even further.......the F-35's engine (F-135) is after all an improved F-119....the engine used in the Raptor.

Yes, the electronics on the F-35 are newer and faster, but what does that have to do with electronic emissions?

Plenty, but chief among them, the far larger and faster digital data link in the F-35 versus the Raptor, reducing electronic emission well sharing vastly larger sums of data. The other key area is the F-35's DAS, better put, passive electro-optical sensors (something the F-22 is severely limited with, so much so, for passive sensors, the F-14 Tomcat would be the F-22s near peer) that allow the F-35 the ability to forgo the use of its (very powerful) radar........combined with its smaller radar cross section (and many other factors not made public), and that is why the F-35 is more "stealthy" then the F-22.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[waldo]

The ~140 pound reference is the current bottom limit on all USAF fighter aircraft (starting page 5 of the pdf), likewise the restrictions on the NACES ejection seats used in USN aircraft (like the Hornet) on page 6, all restrictions born out of the use of helmets made heavier with the use of night vision and helmet mounted displays.

which, surprisingly, doesn't address what I stated in regards the 200 pound limit/threshold. You're ignoring the source I provided and refusing to actually address the 200 pound reference. Here, try this one:

Exclusive: F-35 Tester At Odds With Program Manager. The director of Pentagon weapons testing is questioning claims by the general in charge of the F-35 fighter jet program that potentially deadly flaws in the plane’s ejection seats have been largely fixed.

The testing official, Michael Gilmore, also confirmed the accuracy of CQ reports last fall disclosing that the F-35’s flawed ejection seat poses a serious risk not just to the lightest weight F-35 pilots, as some Defense Department officials have suggested, but also to pilots weighing up to 200 pounds

or this one: F-35’s Latest Hurdle Could Send It Back To Contracting Purgatory

The timeline for a new American stealth fighter jet, the most expensive weapons system in the world, is getting longer. A top Air Force official said the Department of Defense is considering what it would take to redesign a potentially-fatal safety system in the F-35.

Reports of fatal technology deficiencies, engine failures and budget squabbles continue to slow down development of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II.

The Air Force has not announced that the ejection seat needs to be replaced, but Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch told DefenseNews Friday that they may seek new sub-contractors to redesign the F-35’s ejection seat system, which causes potentially fatal whiplash when deployed.

“We believe it is prudent to look at what it would take to qualify the ACES 5 seat as a potential risk mitigation step if additional things happen as we go through the testing of the Martin-Baker seat,” Bunch said Friday. “We believe it’s prudent to determine what it would cost, how much [impact on] the schedule, what the timeline would be, if something else happened and we wanted to go a different way.”

In Oct. 2015, an internal safety investigation revealed that pilots weighing less than 136 pounds could have their necks snapped they ejected during takeoff or landing, and pilots who weighed less than 200 pounds would also be “at serious risk.”

.

[waldo]

"Non-real world circumstances"...........would that include an F-16 with no under wing weapons or fuel tanks versus a developmental F-35 with no combat suite?

already addressed here in this prior post: you know, that Janes article that you simply ignored! Per summation:

"The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so..... This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not."

.

Forgetting the F-35, how do other 4th/4.5 generation aircraft compare to the F-22.........since the F-22 now appears to be your suggested benchmark?

my suggested benchmark? That's doesn't follow from anything I've stated. Again, it was your reference to the former USAF air-combat command head that prompted me to remind you just what he said about the F-35 not being an air-superiority jet... in regards to "close-in, high maneuverability" combat - that the F-35 needed the F-22 to support it. Your guy - the guy you brought forward and quoted - that guy! And again, he never compared the F-35 to the F-22 directly... but clearly, by implication, his was a most damning testament of the F-35s deficiency relative to the F-22 needing to support it against "other comers... other 4th/4.5 gen aircraft".

.

[Derek 2.0]

which, surprisingly, doesn't address what I stated in regards the 200 pound limit/threshold. You're ignoring the source I provided and refusing to actually address the 200 pound reference. Here, try this one:

.

Ahh.......reread my post you quoted:

Starting page 7, reference is made to the ACES 5 seat that will be retrofitted to older legacy aircraft and the new mk16 seat for the F-35, both with a lowered limit of 103 lbs........as demonstrated in testing, from the story you linked, the lowered limit (below the stated ~140 lbs) of both seats would pose serious risk (a broken neck) for pilots wearing bulky helmets.............in the ensuing pages, it goes on to demonstrate that there is little data for larger pilots ejecting well wearing NVG/HMDs (heavier helmets), but what is know is that upwards of ~25% of ejections result in death or serious injury(page 11).........as noted, ejecting from an aircraft is dangerous, and always has been, but the risk is accepted vice the alternative.

I cited the actual report that your media sources are quoting from...........of note, per the report, a pilot ejecting from an F-35 well wearing NVG/HMDs, from the known data, is at as much risk as a pilot ejecting from a F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Eurofighter etc etc etc.........in other words, ejecting from an aircraft is dangerous, ejecting from an aircraft with added weight on your head is even more dangerous.......