First ever supersonic stealth jumpjet starts hover tests

[rhoenix]

The world's first supersonic stealth jumpjet, intended to replace the famous Harrier in British, US and other forces worldwide, has arrived at the American airbase where it will finally begin to flight-test its vertical-lift and hover capabilities.

The F-35 "Lightning II" B model will, like other versions of the same aircraft, offer supersonic performance and stealth technology - a combo so far offered in only one aircraft in the world, the famous F-22 Raptor ultrasuperfighter. But the F-35B, unlike its tailhook and normal-runway counterparts, is also equipped with a central lift fan mounted in a shaft through the fuselage and can swivel its jet exhaust downwards too.

This means that an armed and fuelled F-35B should be able to make a very short takeoff run to get airborne and then, having burned fuel and perhaps released weapons, make a vertical landing supported entrirely by engine thrust. This Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) capability has so far been offered in the Western-aligned world only by the famous Harrier, originally developed in Britain and now in service with the RAF, the Royal Navy and the US Marines.

STOVL means that an aircraft can operate from a cheaply-built carrier at sea, one without catapults or arrester wires, of the type used by and planned for the Royal Navy and US Marines. It also permits such a jet to operate from a quickly-improvised airstrip ashore, or in some cases from ordinary runways which are too damaged or run-down for conventional aeroplanes to use.

The first F-35B took to the air for the first time last year, with a British test pilot at the controls in recognition of the UK's involvement in the project (Rolls Royce make the lift machinery which attaches to the engine and may get to make some actual engines in future, and BAE make a fuselage section and other parts). This aircraft, "BF-1", should long ago have started trying out its vertical-thrust features in the air, but it has so far flown only as a normal runway aircraft. (Doors and lids have been opened in flight, and a successful ground hover-pit test was announced in April, but actual vertical thrust has not been used significantly in the air.)

This is in part because the engine originally fitted had to be replaced with a modified one following bench-testing failures. There have been other delays, perhaps not surprising when one reflects that this is not just the world's first supersonic jumpjet but the first supersonic stealth jumpjet to boot. Now, however, the Forth Worth Star-Telegram reports that BF-1 has finally arrived at the US Navy's Patuxent River test field in Maryland, where the next month or so should see it flying slower and slower until it is actually hovering in mid-air.

These will be tense days for both F-35 engineers and for many observers. The whole F-35 programme - A, B and C models - has faced a barrage of criticism in the aerospace world, generally on the ostensible grounds that the jet isn't going to be good enough to tackle possible future Chinese and/or Russian planes. This school of thought holds that the Obama administration should have bought more expensive Raptor superbirds and fewer "affordably stealthy" F-35s.

It's possible to note, however, that such a plan would have been excellent news for the Western aerospace sector for business reasons. A smaller US buy of F-35s would drive up its price and so undermine the plane's likely dominance of the world fighter export market in coming years. This would be excellent news for the makers of the Super Hornet, the Eurofighter, the Gripen and the Rafale - thus for just about all the first-rank Western aerospace companies and anyone who makes their living from them - and still pretty good news for Lockheed, as they make the Raptor too.

The fact that the F-35 seems likely to put a lot of its rivals out of business in coming years, then, might account for as much of the criticism it gets as any genuine fear of Chinese or Russian air dominance in future.

That debate would seem to be largely over for now - the President and his defence secretary have made it quite clear that they are having no more Raptors and lots of F-35s - but nonetheless any problems in the F-35B's hover test programme will be pounced on instantly by the plane's many vocal detractors.

And there are other reasons, especially for British observers, to watch the upcoming vertical-lift trials closely. The Royal Navy wants to use the F-35B specifically as a carrier fighter, to protect the British fleet from air attacks at sea - and there are grave concerns that it may have trouble setting down vertically with missiles still aboard in some conditions, even with fuel at a safe minimum.

The RN has plans to get around this using a so-called Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) method in which the F-35B would come down still moving forward fast enough to get useful lift from wings as well as engine. Indeed senior naval aviators have told the Reg that they expect this to become the standard RN deck-landing technique.

But if the F-35B's hover performance should turn out to be poorer than thought, even SRVL might become marginal in hot climates (jet engines lose power in hotter air - this is the problem which did for the Sea Harrier in the end, meaning that it couldn't fly routine armed patrols anywhere very warm). This would invalidate the whole present plan for the navy's new carriers, the more so as the RAF is known to be reluctant to replace its own Harrier force - the light-blue airmen would rather spend that money on other things.

It might make more sense for the UK to equip its carriers with arrester wires and catapults for use by simpler tailhook planes. This isn't cheap or simple, as it would involve either serious engine-room changes or development of new technology, but it would save in the long run on the cost of buying and operating the highly complex F-35B, and by allowing cheaper radar aircraft.

There are indications that the UK government is considering such a plan - which might see the Royal Navy equipped with some other plane altogether such as the Rafale or Super Hornet. The F-35B would still go ahead with the US Marines, but loss of its second-biggest customer early on would be a serious blow for the jumpjet.

Or, as many would argue, the UK could scrap the carriers altogether, or use one of them as an amphibious helicopter ship or something.

For all these reasons, then, the next month's hover tests at Patuxent River will be watched keenly from various places around the globe.

Ah, stress tests. I've had a soft spot in my heart for the F-35, so color me curious to see how it performs.

[Batman]

I hope for the US that the thing actually performs up to spec for a change given it's the ONLY modern bird the US Armed Forces will have in the forseeable future.

[frigidmagi]

I'd like to take an issue with this article. It claims that the F-35 is the "affordable" price when we can honestly say no such thing. The F-35 is still in development and has already had it's price jacked up with years more to go. The price could easily balloon up just as it did for the F-22 or it could fall short of it's requirements and then what? To ignore is either bad research or dishonestly.

Not to mention the fact that Gates has refused to fund a second engine project for the bird, which means if somethings goes wrong with the current engine, it's a dead bird. Only a CIA spook would think that's a great idea.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for producing the F-35 but I don't think we should fool ourselves.

[rhoenix]

I'd like to take an issue with this article. It claims that the F-35 is the "affordable" price when we can honestly say no such thing. The F-35 is still in development and has already had it's price jacked up with years more to go. The price could easily balloon up just as it did for the F-22 or it could fall short of it's requirements and then what? To ignore is either bad research or dishonestly.

Not to mention the fact that Gates has refused to fund a second engine project for the bird, which means if somethings goes wrong with the current engine, it's a dead bird. Only a CIA spook would think that's a great idea.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for producing the F-35 but I don't think we should fool ourselves.

I was hoping you or B4 would weigh in on this. My question for this is that moves such as you describe (no backup engine design for the F-35, among other things) seems to be forcing the manned fighter program into retirement to push UAV's instead. Do you think this is the case?

[Batman]

Well it's MORE affordable than the Raptor, and since those are the only two options unless the US want to start buying foreign...

[frigidmagi]

My question for this is that moves such as you describe (no backup engine design for the F-35, among other things) seems to be forcing the manned fighter program into retirement to push UAV's instead. Do you think this is the case?

Maybe. Hell it does make a certain amount of sense (especially with Gates forcing alot of fighter generals out). If so Gates is being an ass.

But there are things the UAV's can't do yet. I like them. I would to see every infantry platoon assigned one. But they ain't air superiority weapons yet and we don't know how they'll do against a foe who isn't badly equipped by even 3rd world standards. Seems... A bit early to make any calls to me.

To be honest I rather keep manned machines. Wars should be fought by men, not just machines. It does not bode well with me if we turn war into a no cost video game... At least no cost to us.

Well it's MORE affordable than the Raptor, and since those are the only two options unless the US want to start buying foreign... Very Happy

Right now it is. But unless God is whispering in your ear Bats, I'm gonna doubt any future predictions you make. Hell, this could be another Osprey. At which point won't we all be wishing we had bought more F-22s?

[rhoenix]

I hope for the US that the thing actually performs up to spec for a change given it's the ONLY modern bird the US Armed Forces will have in the forseeable future.

This in addition to other news makes me think that the US won't be fielding manned fighters for very much longer.

Well it's MORE affordable than the Raptor, and since those are the only two options unless the US want to start buying foreign...

Ditto for this. It almost makes me think that the current situation is being setup to frame the argument of phasing out manned fighters in favor of remote-piloted UAV's, especially in connection with the US' modern fighter programs.

[Batman]

Well it's MORE affordable than the Raptor, and since those are the only two options unless the US want to start buying foreign... Very Happy

Right now it is. But unless God is whispering in your ear Bats, I'm gonna doubt any future predictions you make. Hell, this could be another Osprey. At which point won't we all be wishing we had bought more F-22s?

As I said before since you bothered to buy the Raptor to begin with you should've bought a lot more of them (probably would've been cheaper, too). And it being another Osprey is EXACTLY what I fear might happen. BUT since buying more Raptors is something that's highly unlikely to happen to begin with, as is the US buying foreign fighters, what other option than hoping the F-35 works out are there?

Ditto for this. It almost makes me think that the current situation is being setup to frame the argument of phasing out manned fighters in favor of remote-piloted UAV's, especially in connection with the US' modern fighter programs.

Been tried before. Didn't work. See the 1960s and SAMs vs manned fighters.

[frigidmagi]

As I said before since you bothered to buy the Raptor to begin with you should've bought a lot more of them (probably would've been cheaper, too). And it being another Osprey is EXACTLY what I fear might happen. BUT since buying more Raptors is something that's highly unlikely to happen to begin with, as is the US buying foreign fighters, what other option than hoping the F-35 works out are there?

Preaching to the choir here buddy.

Been tried before. Didn't work. See the 1960s and SAMs vs manned fighters.

Bats is right on that, and I should point out our current generation of drones have never faced an entrenched and well commanded Anti-Air system. Still they are perhaps a tad more advanced then the 1960s versions.

[B4UTRUST]

Well, the way the fighter community was going around the time I was making my grand exit was that UAVs were gearing up to really be made big. We've already crossed the Predator-B surveillance drones with combat abilities to get the Reaper model. The navy is working on their own version as well. Gen. Mosley (Chief of Staff, USAF) is fully behind the UAV movement within the Air Force. The pilots on the other hand, not so much.

Now, in my limited experience and with my knowledge, I can comfortably say that it will be a good long while before the UAVs ever fully phase out manned fighters. And this is not simply a cost/production issue. UAVs are still like flying a video game. A very expensive, very detailed video game. But it's still not the same as being in the cockpit flying at Mach 1 and feeling the G's. It's the same difference between driving a car in a video game and driving your car on the road. No matter how detailed the controls are, they currently cannot realistically give you the feel and sensation of actual driving/piloting. That leads a lot pilots to be less skilled with UAVs than with your actual F-18s, etc. You're also still looking at long range communication issues. Yes a vast majority of the issues(hell, 95-98% of them probably by now) are solved there's still the occasional issue that occurs with momentary loss of visualization or communication. That in any sort of combat zone is asking for death.

So until some of these issues are addressed UAVs will not be replacing manned fighters for the vast majority. I mean to date the USAF only has about 30 of the things and 200 of the Preds.

[frigidmagi]

I'd rather the Army and Marines had them. They're good shit for close in air support and the Air Force hates doing it anyways. Could you imagine if every platoon had at least a little organic air support? The firepower goes way up.

[Batman]

If the Air Force hates CAS that much they should stop whining everything fixed wing is Air Force and release the CAS birds to the Army

[B4UTRUST]

Normally I'd be the pro-Chair Force voice here, but Frigid is definitely right in this case. Fully controllable CAS by your own people would be invaluable. Because sadly, the AF is responsible for killing as many of our own troops as the enemy at times. At least with the drones the CAS is more directable and usable, as opposed to a pair of 18s coming through and mowing down everything that moves, friendly or not.

Now, that being said, I still have to say that the vast majority of the fixed wing and rotary frames should belong to USAF. It's what the branch is designed to concern itself about. Give the Army and Marines the Ospreys for transport, the Apaches and some others, but the vast majority still need to belong with USAF.

[Batman]

Why? You apparently put a lot of thought into it so I'd like to see your reasoning.
Obviously the 'occasionally pressed into CAS duty' birds like F-16s or the Rhino back in its day need to remain Air Force, but why fixed wings that are for all practical purposes USELESS for anything else, like the Warthog, AC-130, A-7/A-37 back when you had them? The A-1? Why did THOSE need to be Air Force instead of Army? Why the Bronco?

[frigidmagi]

God I would kill for the A-10 to be released to the Marine Corp. Kill I tell you!

[B4UTRUST]

Well, my first argument would be that aircraft, their flight and maintenance is pretty much the whole purpose of the Air Force. Even when we were the Army Air Force we had the controlling interest in aircraft.

But by your question's logic, Batman, why does the Navy need the carriers instead of the Air Force? Why does the Navy need destroyers instead of the Marines? The logical argument is that that is what the Navy is for. It mans, repairs and drives the boats.

Now, why do I feel this way? Frigid can disagree with me here, but this is my mileage varying... The Army and the Marines are soldiers first and their job second in most aspects from what I've seen. Every marine is a soldier first and foremost regardless of his job. Army seems to lean in that direction. The Air Force, however, is different in this mentality. We're a corporation first and a military branch second. The difference in this is that our job in the Air Force is the maintaining and operation of those aircraft. Day in, day out, 24/7/365 that is what we concern ourselves with. Our entire branch is centered around this and supports this in some fashion or other with few exceptions. Can a Marine or Army member maintain the aircraft just as well as we could? Probably if they have the right training and experience. But it still isn't their primary focus. For 60+ years we have worked and focused on this task in one way or another. I was an avionics tech for the AF. I was trained on both Bombers and Heavies meaning I'm qualified to work avionics systems on anything that isn't a fighter. That is my job, my primary focus. I was an avionics specialist who's sub-specialty was FLIR systems. It was not being a soldier. It was not shooting a gun, nor was it being as insanely in shape as the Army and Marines.

To ask a question using the above points: Who do you want working on your computer? The guy who's 'qualified' technically to do it, but whose primary job is say police work in some capacity. Or the guy who wakes up in the morning and does nothing in his job except train, study and work on computers.

To me, it's a matter of focus and priority. Our pilots priority is to be a pilot. Well, that and stuck-up holier than thou egotists, but that's neither here nor there. Their one and only goal is to fly the plane and kill the enemy in that plane. And bring the plane back as broke dick as possible to make my life hell... Again not the point at the moment, moving on!

Same way with our technicians and maintainers be they wrench monkeys or pointy heads. The soul purpose of our existence within the AF is those Air Craft.

Now that I've said that, I'll also say this. In terms of the ability to maintain and utilize aircraft, the AF leads with Navy right behind us in some areas with the Army and Marines trailing. Airpower is not their focus, nor should it be. They're not geared towards that method of combat. It would take years to even begin a widespread movement from what they're doing to what the AF does. At this point, what is the point? Does the Marines need entire wings of B-2s? Does the Army need flights of F-22s? They really don't. They have what they need and there's a few others that I would definitely gear them towards, namely the UAVs. But as far as day to day operations, they're simply not set up to do it. They haven't had to in 60+ years. Yes, again they have the ability, knowledge and skills to maintain and operate what they have. But that doesn't mean they're going to be as equally well suited to doing nothing but maintaining aircraft. Their job is ground fighting and defense. The airpower they primarily need to accomplish this they have.

Edit to comment on Frigid's post:
I'll agree here as well. The A-10 is an Air Force frame that is great. I love working on that thing. It's the only fighter that's classed as a heavy and that thing is a joy to work on avionics wise. 3 boxes. That's it. LOVE it. That aside, we have bombers for when our job is to blow shit up on the ground. When you want a 5 mile radius made uninhabitable, you call in a bomber. When you have a hardened structure that's well defended and you can't get to, you call in a bomber. When you've got enemy Migs swarming, you call in the fighters. The A-10's anti-tank and anti-ground roll is definitely more geared towards the missions of Marines and Army. Even those in the AF who think about it agree with this. They're great planes, low maintenance(Except when shot to shit...) and they excel at their mission, which is to take out enemy ground forces, be they people or tank or jeep. It does this very well. But that's really more of the Army or Marines territory there. The disabling or destroying of mobile ground forces and targets along with CAS is what the A-10 does and that's what the Army/Marines need.

And as a plus note, were they to get them, they would then have to blame their own people for all the friendly fire accidents instead of the Chair Force pilots.

[White Haven]

Your points regarding maintenance and support of aircraft seem better crafted to support attaching maintenance units to CAS-equipped Army and Marine formations than to keeping all the fixed-wing craft under the Air Force umbrella. They need and want and will probably better use the aircraft in question, so just sling a maintenance unit along as a semi-permanent attachment.

[frigidmagi]

I would like to point out that the Marines fly aircraft and maintain them and we do just fine. That said I would prefer the Airforce kept the air superiority craft and the bombers. We don't need the distraction from the ground fighting.

[rhoenix]

My thought is that while it is possible for the US Army and/or US Marines to undertake their own air programs, it wouldn't be feasible as things stand now due to the infrastructure that's grown around each branch's purpose for more than half a century of operations and refinements. While the USAF's main focus is the skies (within an atmosphere), that will not change.

On the other hand, if the USAF's main focus changes from air operations to space operations, at that point in time I would see it would make sense to give over the choppers, A-10's, and the like to the Marines and the Army, as their focus would then be on in-atmospheric planetary staging operations, and the US Air (space?) Force would monitor everything in space.

[frigidmagi]

Aerospace force it would be called. The Air Force has pushed for that in the past and will likely push for it again. There was a time before McNamara when the Air Force had ambitions of creating suborbital bombers.

[Batman]

The Navy seems to do okay with keeping is CAWs operational too (what's left of them, anyway).

[B4UTRUST]

I would like to point out that the Marines fly aircraft and maintain them and we do just fine. That said I would prefer the Airforce kept the air superiority craft and the bombers. We don't need the distraction from the ground fighting.

I didn't say you all didn't maintain them and fly them. In fact I think I pointed out that you are able to handle the operations and maintenance of the assets you all have. I was saying that neither the Army nor Marines are suited to the purpose of making aircraft and their operation/maintenance their primary focus. That's not the point of the Army or the Marines. I think I said that as well.

That's my main reasoning behind why the AF keeps the assets we have now. It's what we do. It's what we're geared for. It's what we know. And it's what we're focused on. You want Marines to be soldiers and shooters first, not wrench turners and spark chasers. Let the AF accomplish it's mission and be of use following its primary focus and we'll happily leave the Marines and Army to theirs.

As for the transition to aerospace, we never stopped pushing for it and are continually expanding into it in just about every way we can get away with. In fact it's one of the things we're taught in AF basic training about how we're gearing towards space warfare and space-based operations and control. We'll get there eventually. It just depends on who's running the show and what their drive is.

Whitehaven, I've already agreed with your point to some degree prior to this. I've stated that UAVs and some of the CAS systems the AF has are unnecessary for our current incarnation and role and would be better suited for the Army or Marines. The Reaper drones, the A-10s and similar systems I would whole-heartedly say need to be utilized more by the ground forces and their limited air combat units rather than by the AF. If for no other reason than the Marines or Army troops operating those systems have a much clearer picture of what is needed in a CAS situation than an AF pilot ever will. Most AF personnel will never be in a situation where we need an A-10 to take out enemy armor because we're pinned down. Marines and Army? That's a constant problem. The AF does not get the necessary experience to adequately deal with these types of situation. You want us to take out every fucking thing parked in a revet? Sure, no problem. Want us to drop a few bunker busters and make a nice hole in the ground where there use to be a hardened structure? Got ya covered. Want us to take out enemy air forces? That's our job. We deal, mostly and to an extent I'll say sadly, with jobs that require lots of boom and little finesse. There is very little finesse overall involved in carpet bombing a town into rubble. Or dropping JDAM. Or firing AMRAAMs. The term, I believe, is fire and forget.

That right there is the biggest drawback to having AF provide any sort of tactical air support by fast moving aircraft. They can't fire and forget. And the Army and Marines usually suffer collateral damage from friendly fire as a result. Because remembering whether your forces are on the north or the south of the battlefield is hard when your plane has spun around 20 times in the last 2 minutes as you're tracking movement and taking shots. Yes, it sucks and yes it happens. So yes, I say that Marines and Army need to be in charge of their own CAS assets. The A-10 among them.

Beyond that, leave the flying to us. For the same reasons we're lousy at CAS seemingly is the same reasons we're reaaaaally fucking good at air-to-air combat and bombing the living fuck out anything that pisses us off. And that makes the groundpounders' lives a whole hell of a lot easier. Why? Because we've just bombed every aircraft they have parked on the ground and then banked around and blew up half their damned tanks in the area in a few passes. Miles and hours before the Army or Marines would encounter them.

Frigid said it best, I think. Let the AF worry about the AF assets and what our mission is. The Army and the Marines need some of our toys for their usage and rightfully so, but they don't need the whole shebang because that would only complicate matters and take away from their primary purpose.