Categories
World Combat Aircraft Club

Why the F-35 Fighter Jet Is Such a Badass Plane

Is it America’s most capable fighter, or America’s most expensive headache? Why not both?

Refueling under cover of darkness, a massive formation of U.S. Air Force, Royal Air Force, and Australian Air Force aircraft prepared for combat.

Fourth-generation fighters hailing from all three nations—including F-16 Fighting Falcons, F-15 Eagles, and Eurofighter Typhoons—coordinated with E-8 Joint STARS command-and-control aircraft. As their stealthy escorts, both F-22 Raptors and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters surveyed the battle space.

Soon, cockpit displays in each aircraft began to light up and alarms sounded, indicating that the formation was being painted by multiple radar arrays tied to surface-to-air missiles and inbound fighters. Enemy fighters sporting the color schemes of Russian Su-30s began to close in.

“On the last week of a Red Flag exercise we really throw everything we have at the Blue Force and replicate the toughest adversary possible,” says Travolis “Jaws” Simmons, commander of the 57th Adversary Tactics Group.

Ultimately, the F-35 fighter jet won the day, breaking down one of the world’s most advanced air defense networks and relaying the data to missile-packed fighters like the F-16.

The F-35 can fly at speeds as high as Mach 1.6 and can carry an internal payload of four weapons without compromising its stealth. But it’s not the F-35’s firepower that really makes the difference, it’s the computing power. It’s why F-35s have come to be known as “quarterbacks in the sky” or “a computer that happens to fly.”

“There has never been an aircraft that provides as much situational awareness as the F-35,” Major Justin “Hasard” Lee, an Air Force F-35 pilot instructor, tells Popular Mechanics. “In combat, situational awareness is worth its weight in gold.”

But for nearly its entire life, many have debated whether the F-35 is a game-changing platform or a case study in the excesses of the Pentagon’s weapon-acquisition process.

It turns out it’s both.

A 21st-Century Fighter Jet

The Boeing X-32, left, and the X-35 from Lockheed Martin.Joe McNally//Getty Images

The aircraft we know today as the F-35 was built to meet the demands of multiple fighting forces with a single, highly capable aircraft.

This new “Joint Strike Fighter,” Pentagon officials believed, would allow for streamlined logistical supply lines, maintenance, and training. It would also leverage the same stealth technologies found in the F-22.

With a laundry list of requirements from the U.S. Navy, Air Force, DARPA, and soon, the U.K. and Canada, the Joint Strike Fighter program quickly moved from its official proposal in 1995 to two competitive prototypes in 1997: Lockheed Martin’s X-35 and Boeing’s X-32. And the new fighter had its work cut out for it—the Joint Strike Fighter needed to replace at least five different aircraft across all the different services, including the high-speed interceptor F-14 Tomcat and the tank-killing close air support A-10 Thunderbolt II.

While replacing all these aircraft with one plane would (theoretically) save money, the long list of requirements led to a landslide of expensive complications. In fact, while the X-35 was still competing for the contract, many weren’t sure such an aircraft could even be built in significant numbers.

Lockheed Martin’s F-35: The Specs

A cross-section of the F-35 from the May 2002 issue of Popular Mechanics. Necessary design changes over the years likely altered these original design plans. Popular Mechanics / John Batchelor

Designed from the ground up to prioritize low-observability, the F-35 may be the stealthiest fighter in operation today. It uses a single F135 engine that produces 40,000 pounds of thrust with the afterburner engaged, capable of pushing the sleek but husky fighter to speeds as high as Mach 1.6. The aircraft can carry four weapons internally while flying in contested airspace, or can be outfitted with six additional weapons mounted on external hardpoints when flying in low-risk environments. The F-35A also comes equipped with an internal 4-barrel 25mm rotary cannon hidden behind a small door to minimize radar returns.

The standard weapons payload of all three F-35 variants includes two AIM-120C/D air-to-air missiles and two 1,000-pound GBU-32 JDAM guided bombs, allowing the F-35 to engage both airborne and ground-based targets. Lockheed Martin has developed a new internal weapons carriage that will eventually allow it to carry an additional two missiles internally.

The cockpit of the F-35 forgoes the litany of gauges and screens found in previous generations of fighter in favor of large touchscreens and a helmet mounted display system that allows the pilot to see real-time information. This helmet also allows the pilot to look directly through the aircraft, thanks to the F-35’s Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and suite of six infrared cameras mounted strategically around the aircraft.

“If you were to go back to the year 2000 and somebody said, ‘I can build an airplane that is stealthy and has vertical takeoff and landing capabilities and can go supersonic,’ most people in the industry would have said that’s impossible,” Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s general manager for the program from 2000 to 2013 told the New York Times. “The technology to bring all of that together into a single platform was beyond the reach of industry at that time.”

While both the X-32 and X-35 prototypes performed well, the deciding factor in the competition may have been the F-35’s complicated Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) flight. Because the U.S. Marine Corps intended to use this new plane as a replacement for the AV-8B Harrier Jump Jets, America’s new stealth fighter had to be able to fill the same vertical landing, short take off role.

The Boeing X-32 prototypes were more unusual looking than its X-35 competition and in many ways, were less advanced. Boeing saw this as a selling point because the legacy systems leveraged in its design were cheaper to maintain. The aircraft used a direct-lift thrust vectoring system for vertical landings that was similar to that of the Harrier. It effectively just re-oriented the aircraft’s engine downward to lift the airframe, making it less stable than the X-35 in testing. But Boeing’s biggest mistake may have been the decision to field two prototypes: One that was capable of supersonic flight, and another that was capable of vertical landings. This decision left Pentagon officials worried about Boeing’s ability to field a single aircraft with all of those capabilities crammed inside a single fuselage. USAF//Wikimedia Commons

The lift fan design used in the X-35 connected the engine at the back of the aircraft to a drive shaft that would power a large fan installed in the aircraft’s fuselage behind the pilot. When hovering, the F-35 would orient its engine downward, not unlike the X-32, but it would also pull air from above the aircraft and force it down through the fan and out the bottom, creating two balanced sources of thrust that made the aircraft far more stable.

It also helped the F-35 notch a win in the looks category.

“You can look at the Lockheed Martin airplane and say, that looks like what I would expect a modern, high performance, high capable jet fighter to look like,” Lockheed Martin engineer Rick Rezebek says in a PBS Nova episode. “You look at the Boeing airplane and the general reaction is, ‘I don’t get it.’”

Ultimately, Lockheed Martin won out over Boeing’s unusual looking X-32 prototype in October of 2001. The future looked bright for the newly named F-35.

Complications and Headaches

The F-35 receives a robotic spray of radar-baffling coating along the leading edge of its wing and air intake.Popular Mechanics / Randy A. Crites

While Lockheed’s lift fan approach to STOVL flight might’ve nabbed the contract, the hard part was just beginning.

Choosing to begin with the least complex iteration of the new fighter, Lockheed’s Skunk Works started designing the F-35A, intended for use in the U.S. Air Force as a traditional runway fighter like the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Once the F-35A was complete, the engineering team would then move on to the more complex STOVL F-35B for use by the U.S. Marine Corps, and then, finally, the F-35C meant for carrier duty.

There was just one problem—jamming all the necessary hardware for the different variants into a single fuselage proved extremely difficult. By the time Lockheed Martin wrapped up design work on the F-35A and got to work on the B, they realized the weight estimates they had established while designing the Air Force variant would lead to an aircraft that was 3,000 pounds too heavy. This miscalculation created a significant setback—the first of many.

Meet the F-35 Variants

To the outside observer, the differences between each F-35 variant can be difficult to detect— and for good reason. The only real differences among each iteration of the jet are related to basing requirements. In other words, the most noticeable differences are in how the fighter takes off and lands.

F-35A

Intended for use by the U.S. Air Force and many allied nations, the F-35A is the conventional take off and landing (CTOL) variant. This aircraft is intended to operate out of traditional airstrips and is the only version of the F-35 to come equipped with a 25mm internal cannon, allowing it to step in for both the F-16 multirole fighter and the flying cannon A-10 Thunderbolt II, among many others.

F-35B

The F-35B was purpose-built for short take off and vertical landing operations (STOVL) and was designed with the needs of the U.S. Marine Corps in mind. While still able to operate off of traditional runways, the STOVL capability offered by the F-35B allows Marines to operate these jets from austere runways or off the decks of amphibious assault ships, often referred to as “Lightning Carriers.”

F-35C

The F-35C is the first stealth fighter ever designed for carrier operations with the U.S. Navy. It boasts larger wings than its peers, to allow for slower approach speeds when landing on a carrier. More robust landing gear aids in tough carrier landings, and it harbors a larger fuel supply (20,000 pounds’ worth) internally to support longer range missions. The C is also the only F-35 equipped with folding wings, allowing for easier storage in the hull of ships.

“It turns out when you combine the requirements of the three services, what you end up with is the F-35, which is an aircraft that is in many ways suboptimal for what each of the services really want,” Todd Harrison, an aerospace expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the New York Times in 2019.

Lockheed Martin’s team would eventually work out the finer points of each different platform, leaving as much of the aircraft consistent across branches as possible. But pulling off this engineering magic trick led to a series of delays and cost overruns.

Lockheed Martin’s bad arithmetic in the weight category stretched early development by 18 months and cost a daunting $6.2 billion to correct, but it was just the first of many issues to plague the new Joint Strike Fighter. It wouldn’t be until February of 2006, five years after Lockheed won the contract, that the first F-35A would roll off the assembly line. But these early F-35s weren’t even ready to fight because the Pentagon had chosen to begin production before they had completed testing.

Lockheed Martin chose Pratt & Whitney to power their new stealth fighter, using an F135 engine derived from the F119 used in the F-22 Raptor. The powerful engine produces 40,000 pounds of thrust, just less than the F-15 pulls out of two Pratt & Whitney F-100-PW-220 engines.DAVID MCNEW//Getty Images

This approach, called “concurrency,” was meant to ship out F-35s sooner with plans to go back and correct identified issues later. Unfortunately, a long list of problems meant each of these early fighters needed massive overhauls that were often too pricey to pursue.

By 2010, nine years after Lockheed Martin was awarded the JSF contract, the cost per F-35 had ballooned to over 89 percent higher than initial estimates. It would still be another eight years before the first operational F-35s would get into the fight. To this day, the aircraft still hasn’t been approved for full-rate production, largely due to ongoing software issues.

Knowing Is Half the Battle

Cockpit instrumentation of the F-35 Lightning II.Richard Baker//Getty ImagesSo what really separates the pricey F-35 from the fighter jets that’ve come before it? Two words: data management.

Today’s pilots have to manage a huge amount of information while flying, and doing so means splitting your time between traveling the speed of sound and a collage of screens, gauges, and sensor readouts screaming for your attention. Unlike previous fighter jets, the F-35 uses a combination of a heads-up display and helmet-based augmented reality to keep vital information directly in the pilot’s field of view.

Inside the F-35 Helmet

Nick Nacca

Every Gen III is customized to its owner’s head to prevent slippage during flight and to ensure that the displays appear in the correct locations. To do this, technicians scan each pilot’s head, mapping every feature and translating it into the helmet’s inner lining.
Pilots used to have to switch over to a mounted night-vision attachment when flying in the dark. The Gen III projects a night-vision reading of the surrounding environment directly onto the visor when the pilot switches the system on.
The shell is made of carbon fiber, which is what gives it a characteristic checkered pattern.
A tight coil of bound cables comes out of the back of the helmet to connect it to the plane, Matrix-style. When the wearer turns his head in a specific direction, the wires feed the helmet the proper camera footage.
The communications system has active noise cancellation. Speakers produce a sound that opposes wind noise and the low-frequency hum of the jet engines so pilots can hear clearly.

“In the F-16, each sensor was tied to a different screen… often the sensors would show contradictory information,” Lee tells Popular Mechanics. “The F-35 fuses everything into a green dot if it’s a good guy and a red dot if it’s a bad guy— it’s very pilot-friendly. All the information is shown on a panoramic cockpit display that is essentially two giant iPads.”

It’s not just how the information reaches the pilot, but also how it’s collected. The F-35 is capable of gathering information from a wide variety of sensors located on the aircraft and from information sourced from ground vehicles, drones, other aircraft, and nearby ships. It collects all of that information—as well as network-driven data about targets and nearby threats—and spits it all out into a single interface the pilot can easily manage while flying.

With a god’s eye view of the area, F-35 pilots can coordinate efforts with fourth-generation aircraft, making them deadlier in the process.

“In the F-35, we’re the quarterback of the battlefield—our job is to make everyone around us better,” says Lee. “Fourth-gen fighters like the F-16 and F-15 will be with us until at least the late 2040s. Because there are so many more of them than us, our job is to use our unique assets to shape the battlefield and make it more survivable for them.”

All of that information may sound daunting, but for fighter pilots who’ve experienced the demanding task of compiling information from a dozen different screens and gauges, the F-35’s user interface is nothing short of miraculous.

Tony “Brick” Wilson, who served in the U.S. Navy for 25 years prior to joining Lockheed Martin as a test pilot, has flown over 20 different aircraft, from helicopters to the U-2 spy plane and even a Russian MiG-15. According to him, the F-35 is—by far—the easiest aircraft to fly that he’s come across.

“As we moved into fourth-generation fighters like the F-16, we moved from being pilots to being sensor managers,” Wilson says. “Now, with the F-35, sensor fusion allows us to take some of that sensor management responsibility off the pilot’s hands, allowing us to be true tacticians.”

The Fighter of the Future

Matt Cardy//Getty Images

In May of 2018, the Israeli Defense Force became the first nation to send F-35s into combat, conducting two airstrikes with F-35As in the Middle East. By September of the same year, the U.S. Marine Corps sent their first F-35Bs into the fight, engaging ground targets in Afghanistan, followed by the U.S. Air Force using their F-35A’s for airstrikes in Iraq in April 2019.

Today, over 500 F-35 Lighting IIs have been delivered to nine nations and are operating out of 23 air bases around the world. That’s more than Russia’s fleet of fifth-generation Su-57s and China’s fleet of J-20s combined. With literally thousands more on order, the F-35 promises to be the backbone of U.S. air power.

And unlike previous fighter generations, the F-35’s capabilities are expected to keep up with the times. Thanks to software architecture designed to allow the F-35 to receive frequent updates, the aircraft’s form has stayed the same, but its function has already changed radically.

“The airplane that took that first flight back in 2006 may have looked identical on the outside, but it was a very different aircraft than the one we’re flying today,” Wilson says. “And the F-35 flying ten years from now is going to be very different from the one that we’re flying today.”

The F-35 will also serve as a test bed for technologies that will become commonplace in the next generation of jets. Flying in coordination with AI-enabled drones will become a staple of any sixth-generation fighter, and those new fighter tricks will likely first arrive in the form of the F-35.

“I look at the most capable, most connected, most survivable aircraft on the face of the planet and what we’re able to achieve with it today,” Wilson says. “I can only imagine what tomorrow’s F-35 is going to be capable of.”

Is it America’s most capable fighter, or America’s most expensive headache? Why not both?

Refueling under cover of darkness, a massive formation of U.S. Air Force, Royal Air Force, and Australian Air Force aircraft prepared for combat.

Fourth-generation fighters hailing from all three nations—including F-16 Fighting Falcons, F-15 Eagles, and Eurofighter Typhoons—coordinated with E-8 Joint STARS command-and-control aircraft. As their stealthy escorts, both F-22 Raptors and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters surveyed the battle space.

Soon, cockpit displays in each aircraft began to light up and alarms sounded, indicating that the formation was being painted by multiple radar arrays tied to surface-to-air missiles and inbound fighters. Enemy fighters sporting the color schemes of Russian Su-30s began to close in.

“On the last week of a Red Flag exercise we really throw everything we have at the Blue Force and replicate the toughest adversary possible,” says Travolis “Jaws” Simmons, commander of the 57th Adversary Tactics Group.

Ultimately, the F-35 fighter jet won the day, breaking down one of the world’s most advanced air defense networks and relaying the data to missile-packed fighters like the F-16.

The F-35 can fly at speeds as high as Mach 1.6 and can carry an internal payload of four weapons without compromising its stealth. But it’s not the F-35’s firepower that really makes the difference, it’s the computing power. It’s why F-35s have come to be known as “quarterbacks in the sky” or “a computer that happens to fly.”

“There has never been an aircraft that provides as much situational awareness as the F-35,” Major Justin “Hasard” Lee, an Air Force F-35 pilot instructor, tells Popular Mechanics. “In combat, situational awareness is worth its weight in gold.”

But for nearly its entire life, many have debated whether the F-35 is a game-changing platform or a case study in the excesses of the Pentagon’s weapon-acquisition process.

It turns out it’s both.

A 21st-Century Fighter Jet

The Boeing X-32, left, and the X-35 from Lockheed Martin.Joe McNally//Getty Images

The aircraft we know today as the F-35 was built to meet the demands of multiple fighting forces with a single, highly capable aircraft.

This new “Joint Strike Fighter,” Pentagon officials believed, would allow for streamlined logistical supply lines, maintenance, and training. It would also leverage the same stealth technologies found in the F-22.

With a laundry list of requirements from the U.S. Navy, Air Force, DARPA, and soon, the U.K. and Canada, the Joint Strike Fighter program quickly moved from its official proposal in 1995 to two competitive prototypes in 1997: Lockheed Martin’s X-35 and Boeing’s X-32. And the new fighter had its work cut out for it—the Joint Strike Fighter needed to replace at least five different aircraft across all the different services, including the high-speed interceptor F-14 Tomcat and the tank-killing close air support A-10 Thunderbolt II.

While replacing all these aircraft with one plane would (theoretically) save money, the long list of requirements led to a landslide of expensive complications. In fact, while the X-35 was still competing for the contract, many weren’t sure such an aircraft could even be built in significant numbers.

Lockheed Martin’s F-35: The Specs

A cross-section of the F-35 from the May 2002 issue of Popular Mechanics. Necessary design changes over the years likely altered these original design plans. Popular Mechanics / John Batchelor

Designed from the ground up to prioritize low-observability, the F-35 may be the stealthiest fighter in operation today. It uses a single F135 engine that produces 40,000 pounds of thrust with the afterburner engaged, capable of pushing the sleek but husky fighter to speeds as high as Mach 1.6. The aircraft can carry four weapons internally while flying in contested airspace, or can be outfitted with six additional weapons mounted on external hardpoints when flying in low-risk environments. The F-35A also comes equipped with an internal 4-barrel 25mm rotary cannon hidden behind a small door to minimize radar returns.

The standard weapons payload of all three F-35 variants includes two AIM-120C/D air-to-air missiles and two 1,000-pound GBU-32 JDAM guided bombs, allowing the F-35 to engage both airborne and ground-based targets. Lockheed Martin has developed a new internal weapons carriage that will eventually allow it to carry an additional two missiles internally.

The cockpit of the F-35 forgoes the litany of gauges and screens found in previous generations of fighter in favor of large touchscreens and a helmet mounted display system that allows the pilot to see real-time information. This helmet also allows the pilot to look directly through the aircraft, thanks to the F-35’s Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and suite of six infrared cameras mounted strategically around the aircraft.

“If you were to go back to the year 2000 and somebody said, ‘I can build an airplane that is stealthy and has vertical takeoff and landing capabilities and can go supersonic,’ most people in the industry would have said that’s impossible,” Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s general manager for the program from 2000 to 2013 told the New York Times. “The technology to bring all of that together into a single platform was beyond the reach of industry at that time.”

While both the X-32 and X-35 prototypes performed well, the deciding factor in the competition may have been the F-35’s complicated Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) flight. Because the U.S. Marine Corps intended to use this new plane as a replacement for the AV-8B Harrier Jump Jets, America’s new stealth fighter had to be able to fill the same vertical landing, short take off role.

The Boeing X-32 prototypes were more unusual looking than its X-35 competition and in many ways, were less advanced. Boeing saw this as a selling point because the legacy systems leveraged in its design were cheaper to maintain. The aircraft used a direct-lift thrust vectoring system for vertical landings that was similar to that of the Harrier. It effectively just re-oriented the aircraft’s engine downward to lift the airframe, making it less stable than the X-35 in testing. But Boeing’s biggest mistake may have been the decision to field two prototypes: One that was capable of supersonic flight, and another that was capable of vertical landings. This decision left Pentagon officials worried about Boeing’s ability to field a single aircraft with all of those capabilities crammed inside a single fuselage. USAF//Wikimedia Commons

The lift fan design used in the X-35 connected the engine at the back of the aircraft to a drive shaft that would power a large fan installed in the aircraft’s fuselage behind the pilot. When hovering, the F-35 would orient its engine downward, not unlike the X-32, but it would also pull air from above the aircraft and force it down through the fan and out the bottom, creating two balanced sources of thrust that made the aircraft far more stable.

It also helped the F-35 notch a win in the looks category.

“You can look at the Lockheed Martin airplane and say, that looks like what I would expect a modern, high performance, high capable jet fighter to look like,” Lockheed Martin engineer Rick Rezebek says in a PBS Nova episode. “You look at the Boeing airplane and the general reaction is, ‘I don’t get it.’”

Ultimately, Lockheed Martin won out over Boeing’s unusual looking X-32 prototype in October of 2001. The future looked bright for the newly named F-35.

Complications and Headaches

The F-35 receives a robotic spray of radar-baffling coating along the leading edge of its wing and air intake.Popular Mechanics / Randy A. Crites

While Lockheed’s lift fan approach to STOVL flight might’ve nabbed the contract, the hard part was just beginning.

Choosing to begin with the least complex iteration of the new fighter, Lockheed’s Skunk Works started designing the F-35A, intended for use in the U.S. Air Force as a traditional runway fighter like the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Once the F-35A was complete, the engineering team would then move on to the more complex STOVL F-35B for use by the U.S. Marine Corps, and then, finally, the F-35C meant for carrier duty.

There was just one problem—jamming all the necessary hardware for the different variants into a single fuselage proved extremely difficult. By the time Lockheed Martin wrapped up design work on the F-35A and got to work on the B, they realized the weight estimates they had established while designing the Air Force variant would lead to an aircraft that was 3,000 pounds too heavy. This miscalculation created a significant setback—the first of many.

Meet the F-35 Variants

To the outside observer, the differences between each F-35 variant can be difficult to detect— and for good reason. The only real differences among each iteration of the jet are related to basing requirements. In other words, the most noticeable differences are in how the fighter takes off and lands.

F-35A

Intended for use by the U.S. Air Force and many allied nations, the F-35A is the conventional take off and landing (CTOL) variant. This aircraft is intended to operate out of traditional airstrips and is the only version of the F-35 to come equipped with a 25mm internal cannon, allowing it to step in for both the F-16 multirole fighter and the flying cannon A-10 Thunderbolt II, among many others.

F-35B

The F-35B was purpose-built for short take off and vertical landing operations (STOVL) and was designed with the needs of the U.S. Marine Corps in mind. While still able to operate off of traditional runways, the STOVL capability offered by the F-35B allows Marines to operate these jets from austere runways or off the decks of amphibious assault ships, often referred to as “Lightning Carriers.”

F-35C

The F-35C is the first stealth fighter ever designed for carrier operations with the U.S. Navy. It boasts larger wings than its peers, to allow for slower approach speeds when landing on a carrier. More robust landing gear aids in tough carrier landings, and it harbors a larger fuel supply (20,000 pounds’ worth) internally to support longer range missions. The C is also the only F-35 equipped with folding wings, allowing for easier storage in the hull of ships.

“It turns out when you combine the requirements of the three services, what you end up with is the F-35, which is an aircraft that is in many ways suboptimal for what each of the services really want,” Todd Harrison, an aerospace expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the New York Times in 2019.

Lockheed Martin’s team would eventually work out the finer points of each different platform, leaving as much of the aircraft consistent across branches as possible. But pulling off this engineering magic trick led to a series of delays and cost overruns.

Lockheed Martin’s bad arithmetic in the weight category stretched early development by 18 months and cost a daunting $6.2 billion to correct, but it was just the first of many issues to plague the new Joint Strike Fighter. It wouldn’t be until February of 2006, five years after Lockheed won the contract, that the first F-35A would roll off the assembly line. But these early F-35s weren’t even ready to fight because the Pentagon had chosen to begin production before they had completed testing.

Lockheed Martin chose Pratt & Whitney to power their new stealth fighter, using an F135 engine derived from the F119 used in the F-22 Raptor. The powerful engine produces 40,000 pounds of thrust, just less than the F-15 pulls out of two Pratt & Whitney F-100-PW-220 engines.DAVID MCNEW//Getty Images

This approach, called “concurrency,” was meant to ship out F-35s sooner with plans to go back and correct identified issues later. Unfortunately, a long list of problems meant each of these early fighters needed massive overhauls that were often too pricey to pursue.

By 2010, nine years after Lockheed Martin was awarded the JSF contract, the cost per F-35 had ballooned to over 89 percent higher than initial estimates. It would still be another eight years before the first operational F-35s would get into the fight. To this day, the aircraft still hasn’t been approved for full-rate production, largely due to ongoing software issues.

Knowing Is Half the Battle

Cockpit instrumentation of the F-35 Lightning II.Richard Baker//Getty ImagesSo what really separates the pricey F-35 from the fighter jets that’ve come before it? Two words: data management.

Today’s pilots have to manage a huge amount of information while flying, and doing so means splitting your time between traveling the speed of sound and a collage of screens, gauges, and sensor readouts screaming for your attention. Unlike previous fighter jets, the F-35 uses a combination of a heads-up display and helmet-based augmented reality to keep vital information directly in the pilot’s field of view.

Inside the F-35 Helmet

Nick Nacca

Every Gen III is customized to its owner’s head to prevent slippage during flight and to ensure that the displays appear in the correct locations. To do this, technicians scan each pilot’s head, mapping every feature and translating it into the helmet’s inner lining.
Pilots used to have to switch over to a mounted night-vision attachment when flying in the dark. The Gen III projects a night-vision reading of the surrounding environment directly onto the visor when the pilot switches the system on.
The shell is made of carbon fiber, which is what gives it a characteristic checkered pattern.
A tight coil of bound cables comes out of the back of the helmet to connect it to the plane, Matrix-style. When the wearer turns his head in a specific direction, the wires feed the helmet the proper camera footage.
The communications system has active noise cancellation. Speakers produce a sound that opposes wind noise and the low-frequency hum of the jet engines so pilots can hear clearly.

“In the F-16, each sensor was tied to a different screen… often the sensors would show contradictory information,” Lee tells Popular Mechanics. “The F-35 fuses everything into a green dot if it’s a good guy and a red dot if it’s a bad guy— it’s very pilot-friendly. All the information is shown on a panoramic cockpit display that is essentially two giant iPads.”

It’s not just how the information reaches the pilot, but also how it’s collected. The F-35 is capable of gathering information from a wide variety of sensors located on the aircraft and from information sourced from ground vehicles, drones, other aircraft, and nearby ships. It collects all of that information—as well as network-driven data about targets and nearby threats—and spits it all out into a single interface the pilot can easily manage while flying.

With a god’s eye view of the area, F-35 pilots can coordinate efforts with fourth-generation aircraft, making them deadlier in the process.

“In the F-35, we’re the quarterback of the battlefield—our job is to make everyone around us better,” says Lee. “Fourth-gen fighters like the F-16 and F-15 will be with us until at least the late 2040s. Because there are so many more of them than us, our job is to use our unique assets to shape the battlefield and make it more survivable for them.”

All of that information may sound daunting, but for fighter pilots who’ve experienced the demanding task of compiling information from a dozen different screens and gauges, the F-35’s user interface is nothing short of miraculous.

Tony “Brick” Wilson, who served in the U.S. Navy for 25 years prior to joining Lockheed Martin as a test pilot, has flown over 20 different aircraft, from helicopters to the U-2 spy plane and even a Russian MiG-15. According to him, the F-35 is—by far—the easiest aircraft to fly that he’s come across.

“As we moved into fourth-generation fighters like the F-16, we moved from being pilots to being sensor managers,” Wilson says. “Now, with the F-35, sensor fusion allows us to take some of that sensor management responsibility off the pilot’s hands, allowing us to be true tacticians.”

The Fighter of the Future

Matt Cardy//Getty Images

In May of 2018, the Israeli Defense Force became the first nation to send F-35s into combat, conducting two airstrikes with F-35As in the Middle East. By September of the same year, the U.S. Marine Corps sent their first F-35Bs into the fight, engaging ground targets in Afghanistan, followed by the U.S. Air Force using their F-35A’s for airstrikes in Iraq in April 2019.

Today, over 500 F-35 Lighting IIs have been delivered to nine nations and are operating out of 23 air bases around the world. That’s more than Russia’s fleet of fifth-generation Su-57s and China’s fleet of J-20s combined. With literally thousands more on order, the F-35 promises to be the backbone of U.S. air power.

And unlike previous fighter generations, the F-35’s capabilities are expected to keep up with the times. Thanks to software architecture designed to allow the F-35 to receive frequent updates, the aircraft’s form has stayed the same, but its function has already changed radically.

“The airplane that took that first flight back in 2006 may have looked identical on the outside, but it was a very different aircraft than the one we’re flying today,” Wilson says. “And the F-35 flying ten years from now is going to be very different from the one that we’re flying today.”

The F-35 will also serve as a test bed for technologies that will become commonplace in the next generation of jets. Flying in coordination with AI-enabled drones will become a staple of any sixth-generation fighter, and those new fighter tricks will likely first arrive in the form of the F-35.

“I look at the most capable, most connected, most survivable aircraft on the face of the planet and what we’re able to achieve with it today,” Wilson says. “I can only imagine what tomorrow’s F-35 is going to be capable of.”

Categories
Aircraft

Billionaire spends money hunting aliens

Categories
World Combat Aircraft Club

Here’s Why The B-52 Bomber Deserves A Nice Retirement

The B-52 is a symbol of Americanism as profound as baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet, but is it cut out for the battlefield of the future?

There are few things in this world quite as satisfying as a good old-fashioned American success story, the story of the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress definitely fits that description. After almost six decades as the primary front-line strategic bomber for the US military, the Stratofortress shows no signs of retirement anytime in the near future.

But is this a good thing? Is the B-52 still as fit to serve the military as it was in the days of the Cold War, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf? If the top brass at the pentagon is to be believed, it’s looking like that question was never in doubt at all. Some even argue that the bombers lifecycle could extend as far as a century, something practically unheard of

So, just for the sake of debate, let’s take a deep dive into how the B-52 became the icon it is today, but also the pros and cons of what the US plans to do with it going forward.

The B-52 is a symbol of Americanism as profound as baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet, but is it cut out for the battlefield of the future? Let’s discuss.

A Dependable And Versatile Aircraft, But Slow And Vulnerable

We all know the B-52 as the go-to strategic bomber of the US military, being capable of dropping several tonnes of high explosive munitions across a vast area, or dropping nuclear payloads if called upon to do so. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg of what this plane was capable of in its heyday. It was also a brilliant and very adaptable research testbed. In its day, both the US Air Force and NASA used the B-52 for a wide array of missions ranging from launching Scramjet and rocket-powered payloads like the X-15 rocket plane and the Lockheed D-21 hypersonic drone in preparation for use on the A-12 interceptor.

This jack-of-all-trades aircraft may have been perfect for mid to late 20th-century technology, but decades after its introduction, these airframes are starting to look worse and worse for wear as each year passes. The prospect of keeping these 185 thousand pound six-decade-old warbirds aloft for a further 40 to 50 years would present a daunting range of tasks for engineers to solve. Resources that may be put to better use designing and manufacturing a replacement.

Air Defense Networks Are Better Than Ever

It’s all well and good that the B-52 can fly in large formations and lay waste to whatever is in their path, but what happens when the enemy starts fighting back? In a modern-day scenario, or even one in the near future, the odds look pretty daunting for the B-52, especially against even a moderately equipped nation.

The latest range of Russian and Chinese-built surface-to-air missiles are faster, harder to detect, and deadlier than anything the Stratofortress saw in Vietnam, the Gulf War, or the War on Terror. Envisioning an entire formation of B-52’s being shot out of the sky victims to advanced anti-aircraft defenses is a scenario the Pentagon might do their best to try and ignore, but it’s a scenario that becomes more and more likely as the Stratofortress extends its operational lifespan more and more.

Outside of surface-to-air missiles, there’s a slew of foreign-built fighter aircraft that at least in theory capable of slipping past American defenses and wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting formation of strategic bombers. The unarmed Stratofortress would be a sitting duck up against the Russian Sukhoi SU 57 or the upcoming Chinese J-20 fighters. The U.S Air force might be wise to run a couple more in-depth military simulations before going ahead with extending the B-52’s service life even further than it’s been stretched already.

It’s Time To Let The New Guard Take The Reigns

Make no mistake, the B-52 is one of the most important aircraft not only in US military history but one of the most historically significant airplanes in the 120-year history of aviation. But the notion that it’s capable of extending its service life to a whopping century is one steeped in controversy. Meanwhile, a new generation of strategic stealth bombers is still readying to go into front-line service at this very moment in time.

The Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is actually meant to supplement and eventually replace the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. But if this program is successful, don’t be surprised if it starts cutting into the B-52’s flight hours sometime in the not-so-distant future. With this in mind, it’d probably be best for the B-52 to be retired sooner rather than later. After all, there’d be no planes left to show off in museums to be preserved forever if most of them were blown out of the sky by a wayward surface-to-air missile.

Categories
Aircraft

Unidentified flying object (UFO) was discovered for the first time in the sky of Sendai city, northern Japan

Categories
World Combat Aircraft Club

іmргeѕѕіⱱe Indeed! Introducing the ShinMaywa US-2, the Most exрeпѕіⱱe Seaplane on the Planet

The US-2 aircraft proves to be highly valuable, especially in гeѕсᴜe operations, showcasing its exceptional capabilities.

In the current period, only a few countries in the world are capaƄle of designing and мanufacturing seaplanes, and Japan is one of theм. At this tiмe, the Japan Maritiмe Self-defeпѕe foгсe are using ShinMaywa US-2 мulti-гoɩe seaplanes.

A total of 6 aircraft of this type are in operation. The sixth seaplane was purchased for 12 Ƅillion yen in 2013, nearly $156 мillion. At such a price, US-2 can Ƅe classified as the мost expensiʋe seaplane in the world.

The deʋelopмent of the ShinMaywa US-2 took eight years to coмplete. With the Shin Meiwa US-1A fleet introduced in the 1970s Ƅeginning to reach the end of its serʋice life, the Japan Maritiмe Self-defeпѕe foгсe atteмpted to oƄtain funding for a replaceмent in the 1990s, Ƅut could not oƄtain enough to deʋelop an entirely new aircraft.

In OctoƄer 1996, ShinMaywa was noмinated Ƅy the Ministry of defeпсe as a мain contractor to deʋelop adʋanced ʋersion of existing US-1 aircraft. The new aircraft was designated US-1A Kai. This aircraft features nuмerous aerodynaмic refineмents, a pressurised hull, and мore powerful engines. fɩіɡһt tests Ƅegan on DeceмƄer 18, 2003. The US-1A Kai was re-designated the US-2 AмphiƄian, and was forмally inducted to a squadron in March 2007.

As an iмproʋed ʋersion of US-1A, the ShinMaywa US-2 inherits the design lines of its predecessor. The design of the airfraмe deмonstrates ʋersatility, allowing it to switch easily for мissions. It could Ƅe a fігe-fіɡһtіпɡ aмphiƄian, passenger transport aircraft, or a мulti-purpose aмphiƄian.

The appearance of the ShinMaywa US-2 is no different froм a traditional flying Ƅoat: a pair of ѕtгаіɡһt wings on the shoulders with two engines on each wing. The tail is a typical T-type configuration. The wings and fuselage are мade of coмposite мaterials with the standard diмensions of 33.5м in length, 33.2м in wingspan and 9.8м in height.

The cockpit is located just Ƅehind the ѕһагр nose, giʋing great ʋisiƄility forward and the engines on either side. The glass cockpit is equipped with an integrated control panel. A single LCD panel integrates the digitalised мeters.

The ShinMaywa US-2 incorporates fly-Ƅy-wire fɩіɡһt control systeм, the coмputerised fɩіɡһt systeм iмproʋes the safety and controllaƄility of the aircraft. Under each мain wing is arranged a Pontoon float to help the plane Ƅalance on the water. The eмpty weight of the aircraft is 25.6t and the мaxiмuм takeoff weight is 47.7t.

The aircraft can carry up to 20 passengers or 12 stretchers. In addition, the aircraft is also equipped with a tricycle type landing gear to operate on land.

Categories
World Combat Aircraft Club

F-14 Tomcat: Did The Navy Make A Bad Call Retiring This Fighter?

Despite some arguments to the contrary, it seems the Navy may have been well-advised to retire the F-14 and clear the way more fully to where things are now with F-22s and F-35s controlling drones and 6th-generation aircraft already in the air.

Maverick and Goose made the F-14 Tomcat famous as a cultural emblem of US military air power, yet the Pentagon’s decision to ultimately retire the 1980s-era aircraft appears to be sound and well-placed as a way to adapt to a fast-changing air-threat environment.

F-14 History and the Future

The concept of a two-man crew is designed to bring several key advantages, such as the simple fact of adding another set of eyes. An aviator can of course help with command and control, targeting, surveillance and even threat identification, with the idea of freeing up the pilot for other pressing, time-sensitive tasks.

Reducing a crew to one or even no pilots reduces weight, drag and the possibility of human error. Of course, human pilots are not likely to disappear soon given those unique, critical faculties particular to the human mind, yet computer advances have arguably outpaced the advantages of using a two-man crew.

Therefore, despite Top Gun fame and an illustrious history, technological progress has arguably rendered the concept of a two-man crew obsolete. The reason is both clear and simple, the advent of AI-enabled, high-speed computers can quickly gather, organize and transmit vast amounts of otherwise disparate pools or streams of data, quickly presenting an integrated picture of pilots.

This means key procedural functions such as altitude, navigation, aircraft maintenance, speed and time-sensitive variables such as targeting data, threat identification and EW systems can to a large extent be completed without a need for human intervention.

Essentially, machines can naturally perform certain critical, time sensitive combat functions exponentially faster than humans.  New incoming sensor data is bounced off a vast database for comparison, reference, organization and analysis and then sent or presented to a human decision maker in position to make quick, time-sensitive decisions in combat.

In fact, advanced AI-enabled algorithms are so sophisticated that they have even out-performed humans in some simulated dogfighting exercises. High-speed computers can instantly assess a large number of key interwoven variables, perform analysis and recommend optimal courses of action for pilots.  The idea is to get inside of or ahead of an enemy’s decision-making process to prevail in any air-combat engagement.

What much of this points to is the growing consensus among military scientists, weapons developers and innovators that the optimal approach to real-time, high-speed combat includes a blending of man and machine. Often referred to as human-machine interface, the idea is to use high-speed computing to ease the cognitive burden upon a pilot while enabling him or her to use those key faculties unique to human cognition and decision-making. Certainly, there are many things specific to human perception, consciousness, intuition, emotion or dynamic decision-making that computers simply cannot replicate. Therefore, combat decision-making is best served through a manned-unmanned teaming approach. This way, the best of each is leveraged to maximize any combat advantage.

With this in mind, the US Air Force is not only networking drones to fighter jets in combat but also testing fighter jet dogfighting ability with a human pilot supported by a machine or AI-enabled co-pilot.

In 2020, an AI-enabled computer algorithm operated on board a military aircraft while in flight, coordinating navigational details, sensor information and reconnaissance missions alongside a human pilot. The AI algorithm, called ARTUu, flew along with a human pilot on a U-2 Dragon Lady spy plane, performing tasks that would “otherwise be done by a pilot,” an Air Force report from 2020 explained.

This experiment proved successful and is something which continues to inform Air Force air-combat technology development. The concept of operations with this is simply that a machine can calculate those things machines do best at unprecedented speeds while humans exercise those elements of judgment and perceptions computers are unable to replicate.

Ultimately, what the rapid maturation of these technologies seems to suggest is that pairing a human pilot and a computer might be much more advantageous than having a two-man crew, particularly given that so many aircraft and fighters can already fly unmanned with growing degrees of autonomy.

Therefore, despite some arguments to the contrary, it seems the Navy may have been well-advised to retire the F-14 and clear the way more fully to where things are now with F-22s and F-35s controlling drones and 6th-generation aircraft already in the air.F-14 Tomcat. Image taken at National Air and Space Museum on October 1, 2022. Image by 19FortyFive.

F-14 Tomcat. Image taken at National Air and Space Museum on October 1, 2022. Image by 19FortyFive.

F-14 Tomcat. Image taken at National Air and Space Museum on October 1, 2022. Image by 19FortyFive.

F-14 Tomcat. Image Taken at U.S. Air and Space Museum outside of Washington, D.C. Image Credit: 19FortyFive.com

Categories
World Combat Aircraft Club

RIP F-35: Russia Could Turn Su-57 Into 6th Generation Super Stealth Fighter

Russia could turn its first fifth-generation fighter, the Sukhoi Su-57, into a sixth-generation fighter the former head of the Russian Aerospace Force, chief Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev recently told TASS.

“This is actually a splendid plane and it can embrace both fifth-and sixth-generation features. It has huge modernization potential,” Bondarev, now chairman of the Federation Council Defense and Security Committee, said. “Importantly, it is the best among the existing versions by its stealth characteristics. It incorporates all the best that is available in modern aviation science both in Russia and in the world,” he added.

As reported by Franz-Stefan Gady in an extensive piece for The Diplomat, Russian defense officials have repeatedly claimed that hardware elements designed for a future sixth generation fighter have been tested on the Su-57 prototype, including flight and navigation systems as well as advanced electronic warfare and radar systems.

Noteworthy Russia revealed the design of a new sixth-generation fighter aircraft for the first time in March 2016. According to Russian defense officials, the new aircraft is slated to be available in manned and unmanned configuration and could take to the air for the first time in the late 2020s.

In the meantime, the Su-57 development is continuing, but Bondarev warned that it will take time for the new aircraft to be introduced into service. “In the first year, the Aerospace Force won’t get 20 or 15 planes. It will get only two or three and so on,” he said on Nov. 1. Russian Air and Space Force (RuASF) is currently testing nine Su-57 prototypes with two additional aircraft expected to be delivered to the service by the end of 2017.

However, it is not clear yet if the Su-57 can be deemed as a fifth-generation fighter. The aircraft aimed to replace RuASF’s MiG-29 and Su-27 fourth-generation fighters. The Su-57 is the product of the PAK FA (literally “Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation”) program. The Su-57 is a single-seat, twin-engine multirole fifth-generation fighter aircraft designed for air superiority and attack roles and will be the first aircraft in Russian military service to use stealth technology.

As we have already explained the main Su-57 problem is that it still lacks an engine that can meet the specifications Bondarev is claiming.

In fact the Su-57 prototypes are equipped with a derivative of the Saturn AL-41F1S engine, dubbed AL-41F1, which also powers engine the Sukhoi Su-35S Flanker-E.

Categories
World Combat Aircraft Club

The ‘Top Gun’ Fighter: Why The F-14 Tomcat Was So Powerful In The Sky

Perhaps the Pentagon did retire the F-14 much too soon, compromising potential upgrades and enhanced air-to-air decision-making and combat superiority.

Nearly everyone knows Maverick, Goose, and the thrill of Top Gun dogfighting, and most people know the F-14 Tomcat is a two-seater air-combat platform.

And yet what is lesser known is that the aircraft hit nearly unprecedented speeds of Mach 2.3, making it just as fast as a 5th-generation F-22.

F-14 Tomcat Specs

Looking closely at available specs, the F-14 is clearly among the fastest aircraft to ever exist and is without question on par with the F-22, which is listed as being able to reach Mach 2.2.  Both the F-22 and F-14 are decidedly faster than other fighter aircraft such as the F-35 which is listed at Mach 1.6 and the F/A-18 Super Hornet at 1.8.

The discrepancy in speed between the F-14 and slower F-35 and F/A-18 aircraft – which some may say raises interesting questions, the most prominent being whether the F-14 Tomcat retired too soon. Were more years of successful service and combat ahead of the aircraft? Was a unique capability lost or compromised with the 2006 departure of the aircraft?

Air Dominance

There are several key factors to consider. Did the arrival of the F-22 as an air-to-air dominance platform rendered the F-14 less significant? This makes a bit of sense, yet the F-22 program itself was truncated quite early and only generated roughly 169 aircraft. The F-22 is land-launched and never had a carrier-capable variant, arguably leaving Navy ships at a speed and air-dominance deficit.

The departure of the F-14 Tomcat left carriers without a high-speed air-to-air platform. The F/A-18 might have been 10 years more modern as it arrived in the early 80s, as compared to the arrival of the F-14 in the early 70s. Yet service life extension efforts have made the F/A-18 relevant and competitive for years and thousands of combat hours beyond what was initially expected. Did the F-14 Tomcat hit a wall that essentially maxed out its ability to upgrade? Perhaps its clear lack of stealth made it less capable of operating in the most cutting-edge threat environments with advanced air defenses. Regardless, there would seem to be a high percentage of combat scenarios and missions for which the Tomcat would immeasurably strengthen the Navy’s operational ability.

Truncated Service Life

We know that airframes can remain viable for decades with some structural support, as evidenced by the B-52 and still airborne F/A-18. Upgrades with computing, weapons systems, software, mission systems, and sensors can all easily happen without major rebuilding or restructuring of an aircraft, something already demonstrated with numerous platforms such as enhancements to the F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet, and 3.2b software upgrades to the F-22, which massively improve its weapons range and targeting capacity.

In fact, this kind of upgrade approach is fundamental to the anticipated multi-decade service life of the F-35, which is slated to be the focus of “continuous modernization” through software, computing, weapons integration, and sensing into the 2070s and beyond.

What all of this may point to is the simple fact that perhaps the F-14 Tomcat was simply retired much too soon, particularly in light of its speed, aerial maneuverability, and combat performance. While the F-14 Tomcat may go all the way back to service in Vietnam, the aircraft destroyed two Libyan Su-22s in the 80s and launched numerous attacks in Iraq’s Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom before being retired in 2006.

Another possibility for the F-14 may simply be that the advent of long-range sensors and advances in weapons guidance and flight trajectory meant that fighter jets are much less likely to “need” to dogfight, something often cited with regard to the F-35. The F-35, for instance, has shown in wargames that it can “see” and destroy large formations of 4th-generation enemy aircraft from stand-off distances where it is itself not detected.

Does this, however, mean you compromise, give up, or forsake the ability to dogfight? I would think not, which is why the Pentagon continues to upgrade the F-22 and fast-track it Next-Generation Air Dominance 6th-generation stealth fighter, something likely to set new speed records.

The Navy has said little about its F/A-XX 6th-generation carrier-launched fighter, yet it seems almost a certainty that the aircraft will reach new levels of speed and stealth. The absence of the F-14 may be a large reason why the Navy continues to accelerate its 6th-gen carrier-launched fighter, as one would think there is still a pressing need for an ability to maneuver, fight, and win combat engagements in the air.

Of course, one must consider the issue of Iran, as nearly 80 F-14 Tomcats were sold to Iran prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, a fact that likely continues to cause consternation at the Pentagon. The concern is likely compounded by reports that Iran has somehow managed to upgrade, maintain, and modernize the aircraft. While Iran might not have them in largely impactful numbers, it may explain why the U.S. Navy F-14 made an early exit, according to several news reports.

Multiple reports suggest maintenance costs were part of the challenge with keeping the F-14. Given maintenance for all fighter jets, this does not appear to be a solid reason to compromise Naval air superiority.

Then there is the issue of a “two-man” crew, something that likely impacted by the advent of AI and advanced computing. Is there truly a need for a second “human” in a fighter aircraft or, as is now being experimented with by the Air Force, can a robot-type of AI-enabled system operate as a superior “person” in the aircraft to support the pilot?

While this introduces a subject for considerable debate, given the unique attributes associated with human observation and decision-making. At the same time, there is little question that data organization, analysis, sensing, navigation, targeting, and many other procedural functions can be performed exponentially faster and more efficiently by computers. Did the age of a two-seater fighter jet pass, making the F-14 obsolete? The Air Force, for example, has already tested robotic, AI-enabled co-piloting with some success, and AI-enabled dogfighting and fully unmanned fighters have also been tested for years. None of this, however, verifies or even suggests that the most advanced computing can truly replicate more subjective phenomena associated with human cognition, consciousness, and decision-making.

Therefore, while a single-pilot fighter is expected to stay critical for years and beyond, isn’t there an argument in support of a continued two-man crew option? An aviator, for example, can perform analyses, make observations, and perform certain kinds of reasoning and decision-making that a machine is simply unable to do. Perhaps a fighter can have a two-person crew and also leverage the best of AI in addition? Would a second crew member slow down or impede fighter jet performance? That seems less of a factor with the F-14, given its speed and air-to-air capacity.

A human is likely to notice certain variables and relations between different factors in a way a computer simply cannot. What about intuition, ethics, emotion, or complex and subjective reasoning? While the Army and Air Force Research Laboratories are now exploring the cutting edge of how AI-enabled systems can replicate more subjective kinds of phenomena, variables, and decision-making, the prevailing wisdom still suggests that the optimal combat approach requires both humans and machines, thus the emphasis now placed upon manned-unmanned teaming.

What all of this seems to point to is that yes, perhaps the Pentagon did retire the F-14 much too soon, compromising potential upgrades and enhanced air-to-air decision-making and combat superiority. Perhaps a two-person fighter jet may again see the light of day yet again? Maybe it should. It would seem to make sense to a degree, as it will likely be many years until machines can truly parallel humans in many key functional respects, if ever.

Categories
World Combat Aircraft Club

F-22 Raptor vs. the Mythical YF-23: Why the F-23 Never Happened

F-22 Raptor vs. the Mythical YF-23: Why the F-23 Never Happened

Ultimately, the Air Force selected Lockheed’s YF-22 design, which was also an exceptional aircraft, for its ATF requirement. The YF-22 would eventually evolve into today’s F-22A Raptor, which became operational in late 2005 and remains the single best air superiority fighter ever built. However, in many ways, the YF-23 was a superior design that was well ahead of its time.

Though the United States Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition was decided almost thirty years ago in 1991 with what would become Lockheed Martin’s F-22A Raptor emerging as the victor, the battle between the YF-22 and the Northrop YF-23 still fascinates many to this day.

While the Raptor has evolved into the single most capable air superiority fighter ever built, the YF-23 design—especially when combined with General Electric’s YF-120 variable cycle engines—was arguably more advanced. Compared to the YF-22, the YF-23 was faster and stealthier, but many have argued that it was less maneuverable than the thrust vector controlled precursor to the Raptor. However, the difference in maneuverability between the two designs was far slimmer than many might have imagined.

“Interestingly the YF-22 and YF-23 had exactly the same trimmed AoA [angle of attack] of 60° [degrees],” Paul Metz, who was Northrop’s test pilot for the first YF-23 prototype and who later became Lockheed Martin’s chief test pilot for the F-22, told me in an email in 2015. “The YF-23 could do it without thrust vectoring. Those V-tails are very powerful especially when coupled to an unstable airframe.”

It is true that the YF-22 with its thrust vectoring capability did have a slight maneuverability edge at very low air speeds. “The YF-22 probably had an advantage at very, very low airspeeds but neither company had enough time to investigate dynamic low speed, high AOA maneuvering,” Metz wrote. “This was a good example of how a competition needs to consider the PR [public relations] value of flight test events. Lockheed understood this and did high AOA and shot missiles and pulled 9Gs.  All single point, benign condition events but they left an impression.”

One of the reasons Lockheed succeeded in the ATF competition was because the company understood its audience. The then newly formed Air Combat Command (ACC) was dominated by fighter pilots who continued to place a significant premium on within visual range (WVR) dogfighting performance, and the market savvy Lockheed team understood this internal Air Force bias towards a more maneuverable fighter.

“ACC pilots were enamored with dog fighting and Lockheed gave a good visual demonstration of high AOA (albeit a very limited and benign test). Northrop chose not to do high AOA during DemVal [Demonstration and Validation] [and] that was a mistake,” Metz wrote. “Both airplanes could do the same exact maneuver (trimmed, high AOA). As it was, the YF-22 ‘appeared better’ because they did something visually exciting and Northrop couldn’t (or so it was inferred).”

Ultimately, the Air Force selected Lockheed’s YF-22 design, which was also an exceptional aircraft, for its ATF requirement. The YF-22 would eventually evolve into today’s F-22A Raptor, which became operational in late 2005 and remains the single best air superiority fighter ever built. However, in many ways, the YF-23 was a superior design that was well ahead of its time. Though it was not the only factor involved, the Air Force simply had more faith in the Lockheed team to manage what became the Raptor program.

To learn more about the YF-23, one should read Metz’s excellent book Northrop YF-23 ATF (Air Force Legends Number 220) where he details a comprehensive history of this incredible jet. Metz covers everything from the origins of the ATF requirement, to alternative Northrop designs for the program to the moribund FB-23 bomber proposal of the mid-2000s. It is definitely one of the best histories of the ATF program written to date.

Categories
World Combat Aircraft Club

Everything You Need To Know About Su-47 (S-37 Berkut) Golden Eagle Fighter

The Sukhoi Design Bureau of Moscow, Russia has developed the Su-47 (previously called the S-37 Berkut or Golden Eagle)

The Su-47 fighter aircraft, previously called the S-37 Berkut or Golden Eagle, was developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau of Moscow, Russia, and performed its first flight in September 1997.

Su-47 is in a forward-swept wing configuration and uses a highly unstable triplane (with three main lifting surfaces) aerodynamic configuration.

It retained some of the systems and component designs from the Su-27 (the all-weather supersonic fighter aircraft with Nato reporting name Flanker), for example, the design of the canopy, landing gear, some of the avionics, and the near-vertical tails.

Su-47 development details

The Su-47 was introduced in January 2000 and completed the first stage of flight trials in December 2001.

“The Su-47 has extremely high agility at subsonic speeds.”

In May 2002, Sukhoi was selected as prime contractor for the next-generation Russian PAK FA fighter programme. The PAK FA fighter aircraft is a development of the Su-47 but without the forward-swept wings. The first flight test of the PAK FA fighter aircraft was completed on 29 January 2010.

The design of the very high manoeuvrability prototype is based on the avionics and aerodynamics technologies developed for the Su-27 upgrade programme.

The aircraft did not enter full production and the sole aircraft served as a technology demonstrator. It serves as a base for the development of Su-57, a fifth-generation supersonic stealth fighter.

Su-47 Berkut was exhibited at the International Aviation and Space Salon MAKS-2019 show held at Zhukovsky International Airport, Moscow, in August 2019.

Su-47 manoeuvrability

The Su-47 has extremely high agility at subsonic speeds, enabling the aircraft to alter its angle of attack and its flight path very quickly, and it also retains manoeuvrability in supersonic flight.

The Su-47 aircraft has very high levels of manoeuvrability with maintained stability and controllability at all angles of attack.

Maximum turn rates and the upper and lower limits on airspeed for weapon launch are important criteria in terms of combat superiority in close combat and also at medium and long range, when the mission may involve engaging consecutive targets in different sectors of the airspace.

A high turn rate of the Su-47 enables the pilot to turn the fighter aircraft quickly towards the next target to initiate the weapon launch.

Compared to a swept-back wing of the same area, the swept-forward wing provides a number of advantages: higher lift to drag ratio; higher capacity in dogfight manoeuvres; higher range at subsonic speed; improved stall resistance and anti-spin characteristics; improved stability at high angles of attack; a lower minimum flight speed; and a shorter take-off and landing distance.

Su-47 fuselage

The Su-47 fuselage is oval in cross-section and the airframe is constructed mainly of aluminium and titanium alloys and 13% by weight of composite materials.

The nose radome is slightly flattened at the fore section and has a horizontal edge to optimise the aircraft’s anti-spin characteristics.

Forward-swept wings

The forward-swept mid-wing gives the unusual and characteristic appearance of the Su-47. A substantial part of the lift generated by the forward-swept wing occurs at the inner portion of the wingspan. The lift is not restricted by wingtip stall.

The ailerons – the wing’s control surfaces – remain effective at the highest angles of attack, and controllability of the aircraft is retained even in the event of airflow separating from the remainder of the wings’ surface.

The wing panels of the Su-47 are constructed of nearly 90% composites. The forward-swept mid-wing has a high aspect ratio, which contributes to long-range performance.

The leading-edge root extensions blend smoothly to the wing panels, which are fitted with deflectable slats on the leading edge, as well as flaps and ailerons on the trailing edge.

The all-moving and small-area trapezoidal canards are connected to the leading-edge root extensions.

Armament

The Su-47 experimental fighter aircraft features 14 hardpoints (two wingtips, six-eight underwing, six-four conformal under fuselage). The hardpoints are equipped with R-77, R-77PD, R-73, and K-74 air-to-air missiles.

It is also fitted with air-to-surface missiles X-29T, X-29L, X-59M, X-31P, X-31A, KAB-500, and KAB-1500.

Su-47 Berkut cockpit

The cockpit’s design has focused on maintaining a high degree of comfort for the pilot and also on the pilot being able to control the aircraft in extremely high g-load manoeuvres.

The aircraft is equipped with a new ejection seat and life support system. The variable geometry adaptive ejection seat is inclined at an angle of 60°, which reduces the impact of high G forces on the pilot.

The seat enables dogfight manoeuvres with significantly higher g loadings than can normally be tolerated by the pilot.

The pilot uses a side-mounted, low-travel control stick and a tensometric throttle control.

Landing gear

The aircraft uses a retractable tricycle-type landing gear with a single wheel at each unit. The smaller nose wheel retracts towards the rear and the two mainwheels retract forward into the wing roots.

Engine

The Su-47 fighter aircraft is powered by two Perm Aviadvigatel D-30F6 turboshaft engines. Approximately 83.4kN of dry thurst can be produced by each engine. The engine is used in short-haul aeroplanes for passenger transport.

The length and a fan tip diameter of the engine are 3.98m and 1.05m respectively, while the dry weight and delivery weight of the engine are 1,550kg and 1,712kg respectively. The engine also features a thrust reverser and a low-pressure compressor.

Su-47 performance

The Su-47 fighter aircraft can climb at a rate of 233m/s. The cruise speed is 1,800km/h. The range and a service ceiling of the aircraft are 1,782nm (3,300km) and 18,000m respectively.

The maximum take-off weight of the aircraft is 34,000kg. The wing loading and maximum g-force of the Su-47 are 360kg/m² and 9g respectively.