US Air Force buying F-35 vertical lift

[Chris Werb]

Luke, it was news to me, but I have found some sites that call the F-16As with 30mm pods F/A-16s:

http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html

http://www.goang.com/officesite.aspx?offic...id=89&page_id=1

 

'A-16':

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabe.htm

 

and 'F-16A Close Air Support':

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/age.../usaf/174fw.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/age.../usaf/138fs.htm

 

The USAF museum site, which is usually pretty good, surprisingly fails to mention an F/A-16 or an A-16.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/ind/ind.htm

 

Nor does the 174th FW's own unit history page:

http://www.nysyra.ang.af.mil/

 

I was well into aircraft at the time of ODS and can't remember a single contemporary reference to these airframes as anything other than F-16As. I wonder if this was a 'retrospective' designation - as 'Achillies' was for M10s fitted with 17 pounders.

 

Curious!

 

[Edited by Chris Werb (25 Feb 2004).]

[Chris Werb]

Originally posted by jua:

Gun pods often have this problem AFAIK. Didn't the 20mm used in F-4's in Vietnam end up having accuracy problems as well?

 

The RAF stuck with them and (AFAIK) used the centreline pod right up to the Phantom's retirement from service. I have read that they weren't as accurate as built in guns, but not specifically from any sources dealing with RAF/RN usage.

[Chris Werb]

Ooops! I've done another 'Time On Target' post with Joe!

[Smitty]

Originally posted by JOE BRENNAN:

It makes more physically possible my idea that the US tacair force should all (or much more of it) be carrier capable. Now and if all USAF F-35's were A  model perpetuates large short range USAF tac fighter force one hand, half empty carriers on the other. And to those who'd remind USMC fighters can augment USN on carriers I'd counter remind that now USN and MC are counting on doing that more in nornal ops with JSF (USMC F-35B STOVL's deployed on CVN's)just to stay at the half full mark. So I like this.

 

In general, I like this concept.

 

My personal opinion on the future of tac air,

 

For everyone,

 

-Focus more on munitions, less on platforms. (e.g. AMRAAM/DRM and/or FMRAAM, SSB, MALI, HyStrike/FastHawk/JSSCM, Affordable Weapon)

 

For the USAF:

 

Face up to the fact that you don't need 1900 new, short-ranged fighters anymore.

 

-Scrap the F-35A

-Buy a viable (500-700) number of F/A-22s, with block upgrades over the life of the program.

-Buy a smaller number (300-500) of F-35Bs & crosstrain pilots to operate from CVNs & LHAs.

-Fill out the short term need with a small buy of F-15E/Fs and/or F-16E/Fs.

-Retire all of the high-mileage F-15s & -16s, ASAP.

-Do the minimum necessary to keep the A-10 fleet viable for the short term. (no new engines)

-Bet the mid-term, strike farm on a truly joint UCAV (preferably a variant of the X-45, not the bigger, more costly J-UCAS)

-Ensure full funding of Low Density/High Demand assets.

-Spend more on advanced weapons for all platforms.

-Investigate the FB-22, QSB & other long-ranged options for the post F-35B buy period, but make no commitments.

 

 

For the USN:

 

- Dump the F-35C for the F-35B. It has a shorter range & lighter payload, but you'll be leveraging the large buy made possible by the USAF, USMC, & RN.

- Continue the F-18E/F buy.

- Bet the strike farm on the joint UCAV.

 

For Congress:

 

- The USN & USAF talked you in to funding two different UCAVs and three different aircraft programs, all called 'F-35'. Demand true jointness to the point of having one large USAF/USMC/USN buy of F-35Bs & training all pilots to operate off of CVNs & LHAs.

- Demand a single, cheaper UCAV for everyone. (think $12-15mil, not $30mil each) If that means no 2000lb JDAMs & 7-900nm vs 11-1300nm radius, then so be it.

- The single UCAV should be operable off of CVNs & USAF crews should train accordingly. Investigate adding STOL capability to future batches, to permit operations off of LHAs & rough fields.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[gewing]

Well, it might give the Air Force the capability to operate planes if an opponent had a capable military... Air bases would be a primary target for missiles.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The USAF does not dedicate aircraft to the CAS mission including the A-10 which is not a dedicated CAS aircraft.

 

Originally posted by Gunguy:

Absolutely! The A-10 will be retired with F-35s. Gen. Jumper found out that the A-10 had unique abilities that were needed by the Air Force. The F-35 vertical lift is the only plane on the horizon that also had that same ability. He is talking about keeping a hard core group of planes dedicated to CAS like the A-10s are now. I think it is a very good idea. It gives CAS proponents a bigger voice in the Air Force as they will be flying a high tech new plane. Not a vintage aircraft. (I'm a big A-10 fan myself.)

[Kenneth P. Katz]

You are correct, the dynamic pressure over the conventional flight control surfaces at those speeds would be insufficient for control.

 

Originally posted by Ol Paint:

BTR12 on the LOMAC board indicates that Jumper is not interested in the "V" capability of the F-35B, but I seriously doubt he is going to get an STOL aircraft without the associated roll-control jets, etc., as the aircraft will still need control authority at the likely 50-60mph touchdown speeds required for a Short Landing.  Kenneth Katz could probably speak to this better, but chances are that the conventional control surfaces are not going to have sufficient authority in this flight regime to do away with everything but the lift fan.

[Brasidas]

Back when Ken and I were going round and round on expeditionary airfields, I did come up with data that showed the USAF was trying to get into the expeditionary airfield business as well. The USMC has Marine Wing Support Squadrons that specialize in expeditionary airfield setup, ops, and ATC. Last I saw, I think it was about a year ago, USAF was acquiring airfield matting, expeditionary prefab buildings and maintenace vans. I'm not overly surprised by this proposed F-35C acquisition as a result.

 

Also, AV-8Bs land vertically and not on a short landing approach because if their brakes fail during the recovery, nothing can stop them in time with a straight deck landing on LHA/LHDs. Additionally, on a short landing approach, the engine has to be at idle to kill forward thrust as it lands, thereby removing the capability of a go around due to excessive spool up time if the brakes fail.

 

Finally, the operational envelope for Harriers in severe sea states isn't that much better then regular flat tops. Also, CVNs are fast enough to be able to avoid most rough weather within their operational areas (as most knowledgeable people will tell you any vessel than can avoid rough weather, will do so), therefore the trade off of lack of operational capability in rough weather that can be avoided for lack of platform capability in weather that cannot be avoided. This (to me) does not seem to offset the huge gains of operating conventional fixed wing aircraft compared to the miniscule advantage of operating a platform in one sea state worse weather with severely limited AEW support.

 

Regards,

 

Brasidas

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by jua:

Gun pods often have this problem AFAIK. Didn't the 20mm used in F-4's in Vietnam end up having accuracy problems as well?

 

From 'Flying Guns: the Modern Era':

 

"The M61 is capable of about 3-4 mils when internally mounted, although the centreline gunpod used in the F 4 is less rigid and can manage only 8-10 mils."

 

and:

 

"This would appear to be the ideal solution to the perennial question of whether or not modern combat aircraft should be fitted with guns, given the increasing performance of guided missiles in both the air-to-air and air-to-ground roles. Leaving that question aside for the moment, there are nonetheless certain drawbacks with gunpods. In the first instance, the gun has to be carefully aligned with the sights each time it is fitted. This is not a simple task and can take a ground crew several hours. Even then, it is easily disturbed from alignment; the RAF discovered that the 20 mm SUU-23/A centreline pod fitted to their Phantom FG.1 and FGR.2 could be knocked out of line by a heavy landing. Attempts elsewhere to use the powerful 30 mm GPU-5/A gunpod attached on the centreline of the small F-5E fighter resulted in heavy vibration which also shook the gun out of alignment. Even at best, the accuracy of a gunpod is considerably worse than with integral guns due to its lack of rigidity, as indicated above. Wing-mounted pods would experience an even greater dispersion."

 

Incidentally, Joe, I am not hung up on retaining the GAU-8/A. In fact, if I were designing my own air force and its equipment from scratch I wouldn't use it, since IMO the system is too big and heavy. A gun is nowadays very much a secondary weapon (although still well worth having for a range of purposes) so shouldn't dominate the design of the aircraft in the way that it does the A-10.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[Ivanhoe]

What can happen with pod and turret mounting is that the recoil forces create structural vibration in the fuselage/wing structure to which the turret/pod mounts, and the vibration ends up exciting barrel modes. The proper marketing term is "area weapon".

 

If you want low speed control authority, use boundary layer control. The core engine on the F-35 family is more than big enough to horse that airframe around, and will have buckets of excess bleed air available, at least during approach. Adds weight, complexity, and maintenance burden, but if you really want STOL its an option.

 

On Joe's point about the Army's jointness or lack thereof, seems to me the Army is the most heterogeneous service in DOD. Hard to imagine an Army-wide jointness doctrine detailed enough to mean anything. How do you have one doctrine to cover 81st Airborne, 101st Airborne, and 1st Cav? All have different needs from fixed-wing. This is why I think it would be best to form semi-permanent air/ground groups a la MAGTFs that generally stick together and train together. Dunno where they could run frequent joint exercises, though.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

In general, the USAF has recently been adopting a variety of USMC concepts. These include the Air Expeditionary Forces (AEF, the USAF counterpart to the MEU), the Aerospace Basic Course for new officers (like TBS for USMC 2Lts), increased field work in basic training and enhanced physical fitness standards. Some of these are just good practice, some of these are the result of the end of the Cold War when the USAF could plan on fighting the Big One from its fixed bases in CONUS, Asia and Europe.

 

Originally posted by Brasidas:

Back when Ken and I were going round and round on expeditionary airfields, I did come up with data that showed the USAF was trying to get into the expeditionary airfield business as well. The USMC has Marine Wing Support Squadrons that specialize in expeditionary airfield setup, ops, and ATC. Last I saw, I think it was about a year ago, USAF was acquiring airfield matting, expeditionary prefab buildings and maintenace vans. I'm not overly surprised by this proposed F-35C acquisition as a result.

[Ol Paint]

Originally posted by swerve:

I've been informed by an ex-RN aviation person (helicopter avionics, not pilot) that they have long enjoyed operating Harriers off their little ships in sea states at which much larger USN carriers are battened down (preferably within sight of said CTOL carriers) because conventional landing is not possible in the conditions, although T/O is. Hence the VL. He said they don't have to use it all the time, but train for it because often it's the only way to land. I presume the same is true for the USMC.

 

NB. This is hearsay. I have no personal knowledge of this matter.

 

 

You may be right. However, I would have thought that the ship motions generated on a 19,000ton ship by waves sufficient to shut down flight ops on a 90,000ton CV/CVN would exceed the recovery limits for the AV-8. The deck motion would run the risk of tossing aircraft over the side and possibly run the risk of green water on deck. Not to mention trying to manage descent rate and touch down when the ship is motionless in a trough or on a wave crest. Also, heavy seas are often accompanied by high winds (although not always). If the wind is steady-state, this isn't as much of a problem. But if it is gusting, it could probably exceed the AV-8's control authority in a hover. Interesting thought though. I'll keep it in mind. No AV-8 pilot handy to ask.

 

Brasidas and Kenneth,

 

I guess I missed the discussion on the Expeditionary Airfields. I don't get to follow the Air Force as much as I would like, but I am pleased by the bits I am hearing.

 

Regarding short-landing the Harriers, if they set up the approach with a steady descent rate to touchdown, they should have the engine at partial power when they impact the deck. Spool-up shouldn't be as much of a problem, although they couldn't simply stuff the throttle into Max Mil power on touchdown like the carrier jockeys. I can understand why they would prefer not relying on brakes for landing on the axial decks of the LHA/LHD. I was letting myself start thinking about AF STOVL jets in the CV pattern concurrently with standard, arrested-recovery, aircraft. Just getting a feel for the operations...

 

Ivanhoe,

 

The one problem I could see with Boundary Layer Control in this application is that you are already drawing a lot of power off the engine to run the lift fan. Maybe the bleed air for the BLC wouldn't impact things too much. However, now we would be swapping the roll-control ducts, etc., for a new BLC system. If we have a system aboard that already performs the function, and it is common to the USMC/RN version, I don't think it is the best idea to remove it in favor of the BLC system. Better to keep the commonality, rather than designing a new system (minimizing differences between USAF & USMC versions being one of the reasons the STOVL buy is being considered). Which is, I guess, right back where we started!

 

Douglas

 

[Edited by Ol Paint (26 Feb 2004).]

[JOE BRENNAN]

Originally posted by Ol Paint:

 You may be right.  However, I would have thought that the ship motions generated on a 19,000ton ship by waves sufficient to shut down flight ops on a 90,000ton CV/CVN would exceed the recovery limits for the AV-8.  The deck motion would run the risk of tossing aircraft over the side and possibly run the risk of green water on deck.

 

I think the claims of wider envelope for RN Harriers refer to ceiling/visibility limits, not sea state. Or at least that's how I've seen it in print. If RN guys did say they operated in sea states that prevented CVN's 4 times as large from operating I'd say I doubt it. Overall I doubt weather envelope is really serious issue in favor of STOVL at sea. RN attitudes toward naval av. since the demise of their previous real carriers tend toward making a virtue of necessity, IMO. STOVL a/c so far, US experience anyway, have notably high accident rates overall. The whole picture of safely launching and recovering wouldn't seem to favor them.

 

Like I said, I like AF adopting STOVL because it's a realistic way to move toward a single carrier capable tacair fleet: USAF isn't going to buy F-35C's CTOL's (or just turn the tacair mission over to the USN) which would be my ideal solution. But I don't think in general STOVL is what its proponents crack it up to be, when looking at design sacrifices as in apples-apples F-35 case it's doubtful, I think.

 

Joe

[Ivanhoe]

Originally posted by Ol Paint:

 The one problem I could see with Boundary Layer Control in this application is that you are already drawing a lot of power off the engine to run the lift fan.  Maybe the bleed air for the BLC wouldn't impact things too much.  However, now we would be swapping the roll-control ducts, etc., for a new BLC system.  

 

I was assuming we were talking about a STOL-only version of F-35C, I just can't imagine the USAF going for anything which doesn't require a base w/ golf course. Yes, if you retain the lift fan and control jets, then adding BLC is bad news. Better to upsize the control jets as needed.

 

If we have a system aboard that already performs the function, and it is common to the USMC/RN version, I don't think it is the best idea to remove it in favor of the BLC system.  Better to keep the commonality, rather than designing a new system (minimizing differences between USAF & USMC versions being one of the reasons the STOVL buy is being considered).  Which is, I guess, right back where we started!

 

Given the Corps' always iffy funding situation, I would bet that the USAF wouldn't want to gamble on the "anchor customer" evaporating, likewise I wouldn't want to trust the USN to follow thru on threats to add STOL/VTOL capability to their air fleet. I think the safest approach would be to develop a joint USN/USAF F-35C with STOL capability first, then look at B models for USMC, USN, RN etc. when the big boys are irrevocably committed.

[Gunguy]

Originally posted by Kenneth P. Katz:

The USAF does not dedicate aircraft to the CAS mission including the A-10 which is not a dedicated CAS aircraft.

 

 

Ken, you are getting pretty picky with guys who usually agree with you! My point being that you do not see an A-10 doing air to air, long range bombing (B-52, B-1) etc. It is what the average guy would call a dedicated CAS plane, even if technically it is not "dedicated 100% to CAS". Gen Jumper wants certain capabilities that the other jets did not have. He did not say what they were in what I read. I wish it was spelled out better. I also believe he wanted VTOL not STOL. I'll ask him next time I see him.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

OK, I was getting a little picky, but my point is that the A-10 is at least as much an interdiction aircraft as a CAS aircraft. The same is true for USMC tacair. The reason why I made this point is that much of the sentiment on this site is:

 

- CAS is the best use of airpower; the rest is just for fun.

- The USMC can do CAS and the USAF can't.

- The A-10 is the one bit of evidence that the USAF will do CAS, and the USAF hates the CAS mission and the A-10.

 

The truth is that there have at various times been little bits of truth in each of those statements, but the little bits of truth have been exaggerated and overgeneralized to the point of untruth; furthermore some of those things which were true in the past are not true today as supported by actual combat in OEF and OIF. I'm not trying to be an apologist for my former service, they have their problems, but I believe that CAS is not one of the big ones in 2004.

 

Originally posted by Gunguy:

Ken, you are getting pretty picky with guys who usually agree with you! My point being that you do not see an A-10 doing air to air, long range bombing (B-52, B-1) etc. It is what the average guy would call a dedicated CAS plane, even if technically it is not "dedicated 100% to CAS". Gen Jumper wants certain capabilities that the other jets did not have. He did not say what they were in what I read. I wish it was spelled out better. I also believe he wanted VTOL not STOL. I'll ask him next time I see him.  

[Ol Paint]

Originally posted by JOE BRENNAN:

I think the claims of wider envelope for RN Harriers refer to ceiling/visibility limits, not sea state. Or at least that's how I've seen it in print. If RN guys did say they operated in sea states that prevented CVN's 4 times as large from operating I'd say I doubt it. Overall I doubt weather envelope is really serious issue in favor of STOVL at sea. RN attitudes toward naval av. since the demise of their previous real carriers tend toward making a virtue of necessity, IMO. STOVL a/c so far, US experience anyway, have notably high accident rates overall. The whole picture of safely launching and recovering wouldn't seem to favor them.

 

Like I said, I like AF adopting STOVL because it's a realistic way to move toward a single carrier capable tacair fleet: USAF isn't going to buy F-35C's CTOL's (or just turn the tacair mission over to the USN) which would be my ideal solution. But I don't think in general STOVL is what its proponents crack it up to be, when looking at design sacrifices as in apples-apples F-35 case it's doubtful, I think.

 

Joe

 

That makes sense, Joe. I, too, would generally think that the CTOL F-35C would make more sense for the AF, except for the AF's apparent movement to expeditionary warfare--provided Ken and Brasidas are correct. In that case, STOVL might make a nice addition.

 

Thanks for straightening me out, guys.

 

Douglas

 

[edited for inappropriate participation in LETTERS NORTH! TM.]

 

[Edited by Ol Paint (27 Feb 2004).]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

F-35A CTOL (USAF version)

F-35B CV (USN version)

F-35C VSTOL(USMC/British version)

 

Originally posted by Ol Paint:

CTOL F-35C

[Smitty]

Originally posted by Kenneth P. Katz:

F-35A CTOL (USAF version)

F-35B CV (USN version)

F-35C VSTOL(USMC/British version)

 

 

Err.. Isn't it,

 

F-35B VSTOL(USMC/British version)

F-35C CV (USN version)

 

?

[Ol Paint]

Originally posted by Smitty:

Err.. Isn't it,

 

F-35B VSTOL(USMC/British version)

F-35C CV (USN version)

 

?

 

 

The F-35C is the Carrier variant, and the F-35B is the STOVL Version. I misused the term CTOL, but was trying to make the point that the F-35C would seem to be better optimized for the things the AF likes to do with its larger wing, etc. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Douglas

 

[Edited by Ol Paint (27 Feb 2004).]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

I think that you are correct. As one of our alleged experts on things aeronautical, I will hang my head in shame.

 

Originally posted by Smitty:

Err.. Isn't it,

 

F-35B VSTOL(USMC/British version)

F-35C CV (USN version)

 

?

 

[Ivanhoe]

I'm glad to find out that the CRS demerit in this case goes to Ken rather than me. I collect way too many of the things myself.

 

I'm uneasy about the USAF's ability to pay for the F-35 after they get done fielding our medium bomber concept.

[tanker_karl]

BTT to prevent pruning.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Recent press accounts say this (three wings of F-35 STOVL's for USAF) is now a planning given within the AF. However not a done deal obviously until the money is spent, and F-35 emerges successfully as a real operational plane. They would start to "put up or shut up" with $'s in FY 06 budget, I think.

 

Recent debate was whether the AF would ask for enough changes in their STOVL to make it virtually an "F-35D", but Congressional staff sources are quoted saying no way they'd allow that and apparently thinking has shifted back to getting by with maximally common F-35B in USAF. Among ideas floated for changes were bigger internal bays than the 1000# capable ones of the F-35B after redesign to solve weight problems, internal gun (B will have pod like AV-8B) and propulsion system re-optimized for STOL rather than STOVL. A fourth version of a paper plane with still lots of hurdles to cross to reality would be nuts IMO, and it's sensible people saying forget it.

 

Joe

 

[Edited by JOE BRENNAN (10 Nov 2004).]

[Bob Lyle]

A friend suggested that if the AF buys some F35B w/o the lift fan you have an aircraft with a substantial empty bay with a power take-off from the main engine.

 

That offers possibilities for high-energy equipment and ... weapons?