F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2)

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

I'd like it if when people disputed something, they put up a source or data or whatever supporting why they dispute it.

I don't trust APA figures either by the way.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120


The US Department of Defense's decision to relax the sustained turn performance of all three variants of the F-35
was revealed earlier this month in the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 2012 report.
Turn performance for the US Air Force's F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's.
The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from five to 4.5 g's, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated
from 5.1 to five sustained g's.

I get the feeling that the DoD knows that A2A is as rare as hens teeth and probably will continue to do so in the future.

It's also why they gutted F-22 numbers.

A2A capability means little when your opponent's pathetic mainly 1970s vintage fighter fleet with dubious airworthiness is blasted on the tarmac.

And stealth jets are a great way of blasting them without opfor even knowing it's happening until their museum pieces have been turned to pikes of charred metal.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

Agree on that totally-in the case of US,
but this is where the differences occur, i'm not from US, we wont be fighting a totally inferior foe, if ever,
we would have focus on defense against said bombers/strikers, and so F-35 ain't for us.

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 261

Lets see with basic at hand just how close those APA "guesses and nonsense" were, and compare that to both L.M "guesses and nonsense"
and actual number, as it came to be.

APA Claim: STOL 5.3g @15k ft /M0.8
APA Claim CV 5.1g
APA Claim STOVL 5.0g

Reality STOL 4.6g (reduced from 5.3g)
CV 5.0g (reduced from 5.1g)
STOVL 4.5g (reduced from 5g)

On closer examination, it turns out that APA's claim was IDENTICAL to performance specifications (see bracket)
Then whomever it concern can fill out following of what was speculated by L.M

L.M Claim/Objectives STOL [insert wish] (like F-16/18)
CV [likewise]
STOVL [likewise]

The US Department of Defense's decision to relax the sustained turn performance of all three variants of the F-35
was revealed earlier this month in the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 2012 report.
Turn performance for the US Air Force's F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's.
The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from five to 4.5 g's, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated
from 5.1 to five sustained g's.

The chart is Bowman's who I referred to before, and from a news article in 2009 and some APA guesses, the news article was closer
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html

Lockheed Martin says it ran the F-35 through the Pentagon's TAC Brawler simulation for air combat systems analysis, using what would be the "ideal" air combat configuration, taking the conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A, the only model designed to perform full 9g maneuvers.

The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg. The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration -- also known as the 240-4 -- are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay.


I was wrong wirh 30k ft, that was for acceleration, turn is 15k ft, sorry for any confusion

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

F-22 really does introduce a whole new level of brutality in A2A field doesn't it?

It'll be interesting to see Pak Fa numbers.

Agree totally, this has got to be the the most mind-blowing out-class in aviation history :eek:

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

Have you seen pictures of Beirut in the 1980s?...

Oh yes. I watched it on TV, right through the various wars. But the Israeli bombardment in 1982 was a minor episode in the destruction of central Beirut. Most of the wrecking was done by the 15 years of street fighting & shelling by assorted Lebanese forces & Syria, plus occasional Israeli bombing. And throughout that, parts of the city functioned relatively normally most of the time.

Easy for military nerds to talk about "overestimating" deaths. But the impact of this kind of stuff on people, the economy etc is huge. I've experienced it first hand.

Don't make assumptions. I think I have a fair idea of the disruption & suffering that would be caused, as far as one can without experiencing it myself. I don't think I underestimate how ghastly it is for the people under it. What I am disputing is the apocalyptic scenarios conjured up about Seoul, & the false numbers given.

As already said, most North Korean artillery isn't within range of any part of Seoul. Any discussion which counts the entire DPRK artillery park when referring to damage to Seoul is silly. A large proportion of the total consists of pieces without the range to hit any part of the city from any part of N. Korea. Most of the rest can hit only a small part of the northern suburbs from a very small area of N. Korea, said area being bare countryside, thoroughly mapped, & completely covered by S. Korean artillery from two sides.

And yet, we are constantly treated to claims of massive casualties in a very short time, just from conventional artillery, from many thousands of N. Korean pieces, & told that because of the vast numbers, the chance of S. Korea suppressing N. Korean artillery & saving the city is non-existent. THAT is what I was arguing against. And you, I am afraid, were guilty of it. You did note that only a proportion of N. Korean artillery would be on that sector, but apart from that, you repeated the apocalyptic scenario.

If you want to engage in a reasoned discussion, fine. But please, don't lay into me for pointing out the flaws in the Seoul apocalypse story.

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 261

obligatory, I didn't read your post properly and assumed you had quoted the right numbers.
APA numbers are the ones with the X next to them, also there are a few version of the Bowman chart that APA altered, some are even more silly

Member for

16 years 8 months

Posts: 959

APA adjusted the Bowman numbers (which probably should not have been in there - AF Uni dissertations give the security people grey hairs) for known weight growth. Logical really.

The problem with the requirement was that it used the F-18 and F-16 as benchmarks, and in each category the lower-performing of the two set the threshold and the higher set the objective. This in turn reflected the rather insular and arrogant assumption that nothing except the F-22 had a tactically significant advantage in air combat maneuverability and controllability over the teen-series.

Unsurprisingly, the difficulty of the whole JSF mission has driven almost everything to threshold, so what you get (except where KPPs have been further relaxed) is an F-16 at low speeds and an F-18 (most likely with the -400 engine at that) at the top end.

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 1,348

I must apologise for taking so long to respond to comments in the previous F-35 thread regarding the F-117 shoot-down, but even at my age, work has a terrible habit of demanding priority.

According to Sergeant Dragan Matić, who was identified in 2009 as the soldier who fired the missiles, they detected the F-117 at a range of about 50 to 60 kilometres (31 to 37 mi), operating their equipment for no more than 17 seconds to avoid being locked on to by NATO anti-air suppression.[2] According to Dani in a 2007 interview, his troops spotted the aircraft on radar when its bomb-bay doors opened, raising its radar signature.[6]

The reported tracking the F-117 at 50-60 km range was presumably done by the unit’s P-18 surveillance radar.

The bit about spotting the aircraft when its bomb bay doors opened sounds realistic. The open doors make an effective radar target, and for that reason stay open only briefly. Had the doors failed to close, the F-117 would have remained a conspicuous radar target.

But it is nor clear whether the sighting at 50-60 km was the moment that the bomb doors open. It seems likely that while the surveillance radar was observing the aircraft at this range (but not necessarily tracking it), the ‘Low Blow’ tracking radar could not find the F-117 until its weapons bay doors had opened.

In practice his modified P-18 provided stable plot of F-117 movements from just 25 km,

As a solution, this was barely enabling, with detection taking place at a range similar to that of the SA-3 missile. Had the P-18 not been positioned within 25 km of the flight path, there would have been no target handover to the ‘Low Blow’.

Here we see the effect of stealth on a VHF radar able to track a MiG-21 sized target at a range of around 200 km. Useful tactical range had been reduced by almost an order of magnitude. So much for claim by some forum members that VHF radar is a solution to the problem of countering stealth aircraft.

But the kill chain was not complete; the ‘Low Blow’ was not able to see the F-117 until the aircraft’s bomb doors opened. Perhaps someone who has ballistic tables handy can tell as the likely range bracket at which weapon release took place.

What happened when the doors closed? Was the ‘Low Blow’ able to maintain a radar track? We are a bit short of facts. However, we do know that Dani’s unit was positioned close to a regularly-used F-117 flight path, and one of the upgrades devised by Yugoslavia for the ‘Low Blow’ radar was an add-on thermal imager.

In good weather, a modern thermal imager might have a range of around 40 km against a fighter-sized target. The SA-3 missiles are reported to have been fired at the F-111 from a range of around 13 km, which was well within the 4 km minimum range of the missile. Even with a last-generation sensor, this would have been practical.

Well, from an environment like the Serb airspace, clouded with UAVs, SEAD resources, and EW support the P-18 has a demonstrated effective range vs the F117 of 25km. (That is twice the "jammed" range in the chart btw)

In practice, the F-117 in question had received little jamming support. The nearest EA-6B was too far away to be effective.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

APA adjusted the Bowman numbers (which probably should not have been in there - AF Uni dissertations give the security people grey hairs) for known weight growth. Logical really.

The problem with the requirement was that it used the F-18 and F-16 as benchmarks, and in each category the lower-performing of the two set the threshold and the higher set the objective. This in turn reflected the rather insular and arrogant assumption that nothing except the F-22 had a tactically significant advantage in air combat maneuverability and controllability over the teen-series.

Unsurprisingly, the difficulty of the whole JSF mission has driven almost everything to threshold, so what you get (except where KPPs have been further relaxed) is an F-16 at low speeds and an F-18 (most likely with the -400 engine at that) at the top end.

Nothing, "insular and arrogant" whatsoever about the requirements for the F-35. Given finite resources it was necessary to prioritize what was truly important.

The Pentagon's experience with the F-16 and F-18 led to the decision that that level of performance was adequate and that the greatest potential for increased real world effectiveness was in stealth, sensors, networking, etc. Similar thinking was evident in the Super Hornet and has resulted in an aircraft the Navy is extremely happy with.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Pentagon finalizes $7.8 bln in F-35 contracts with Lockheed

The Pentagon on Friday said it had finalized two contracts with Lockheed Martin Corp valued at $7.8 billion for 71 more F-35 fighter jets, citing what it called significant reductions in the cost of new radar-evading warplane.
The Defense Department said it signed a $4.4 billion contract for a sixth batch of 36 F-35 aircraft, with the average cost of the planes down 2.5 percent from the previous deal.
The two sides also signed a $3.4 billion contract for 35 aircraft in a seventh batch, which reflected a 6 percent drop in the average price from the fifth batch, it said in a statement.
The Pentagon said the cost of each F-35 conventional takeoff A-model jet would drop to $98 million in the seventh batch of jets, excluding the engine. The government buys the engines directly from Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, under a separate contract.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-finalizes-7-8-bln-211719899.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 261

hopsalot, it wasn't really budget driven, it was the weapon load, distance and RN/USN requirements. Those are very early specs that didn't even make it to the first one built.
The USAF had a 1,000lb bomb and from memory between 4-500 mile radius.
USN had a higher lift above the intakes that created more drag etc.
someone nay ask for a source that I can't give, it was something I read ages ago

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

hopsalot, it wasn't really budget driven, it was the weapon load, distance and RN/USN requirements. Those are very early specs that didn't even make it to the first one built.
The USAF had a 1,000lb bomb and from memory between 4-500 mile radius.
USN had a higher lift above the intakes that created more drag etc.
someone nay ask for a source that I can't give, it was something I read ages ago

With an unlimited budget who knows what might have been done? The point is that the aircraft was designed within a number of constraints, from cost, to space, weight, etc.

If the design had accepted smaller weapons bays that would have allowed increased performance in other areas, etc, but clearly the larger weapons bays were seen as more valuable.

The bottom line is that as in any aircraft many competing priorities needed to be balanced. The Pentagon decided quite intentionally that the level of kinematic performance it already had with the F-16 and F-18 was sufficient. This was no more a product of "arrogant" or "insular" thinking than was the F-16's fixed inlet, which limited it to a lower, but still sufficient, top speed. (Or one could point to the Rafale's lower top speed than its predecessor, the Mirage 2000. The only question that matters is whether the Rafale is fast enough to do its job.)

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

No. The question is was the speed downgraded requirement for the Raf* pertinent with the 21st threat scenario and the derived concept of an all Raf force.
I think there is some parallel with the USAF/USN scenario. The fact that the USN is looking alrdy for a 6th**, presumably, more kinetics airplane (but we still hven't seen what are the requirements) tells us that both those design didn't encompass one segment of the threat.

And the most acute question, partially answered by the USN procurement policy: Is multi-decade procurement still a valid policy?

*Raf stand for RAFALE
**or a SUPER LightningII derivative (Lightning2+ ?)

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

Not a great deal of new news here, but relevant to the discussion of F-35 kinematics...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-mbda-reveals-clipped-fin-meteor-for-f-35-347416/

MBDA has revealed a slightly modified Meteor that would allow four of the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles to be stored inside the Lockheed Martin F-35.

A miniature Meteor mock-up featuring four clipped fins appeared for the first time in the company's display at the Air Force Association's Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition in Washington DC.

The missile's total fin area is reduced by roughly 20% compared with the original design, says Rob Thornley, MBDA sales and business development executive. The new shape allows the Meteors to squeeze into the space designed to house four Raytheon AIM-120C7 AMRAAMs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=36058

...

Lockheed has previously shown off a modified weapons bay door that creates enough room to store as many as six AMRAAMs.

US Air Force officials, meanwhile, are seeking approval in the next budget cycle to develop a new, long-range missile to replace both the AMRAAM and Raytheon's AGM-88 high-speed anti-radiation missile. The dual-role air dominance missile remains in early technology development.

"We need to move forward with fifth-generation weapons for a fifth-generation platform," Air Combat Command chief Gen William Fraser said during the AFA conference.

As newer missiles enter service the advantage offered by marginally greater kinematics will shrink while that offered by increased stealth will increase.

Member for

11 years 1 month

Posts: 253

Was wondering what was happening with Meteor on F35. Nice to see there working on internal carage as well.

Interesting that no one is willing to fund integration of it on F35? Does that mean no one wants it or does it mean they think benefit to MBDA of integration are so high that company should fund it itself. Maybe a case where they think LM should be paying for it.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

Was wondering what was happening with Meteor on F35. Nice to see there working on internal carage as well.

Interesting that no one is willing to fund integration of it on F35? Does that mean no one wants it or does it mean they think benefit to MBDA of integration are so high that company should fund it itself. Maybe a case where they think LM should be paying for it.

The US isn't interested in Meteor and won't be funding it. That means one of the European buyers would have to do it...

It will happen eventually, the question is when.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

Integration of Meteor would mean death of AMRAAM program...

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

Integration of Meteor would mean death of AMRAAM program...

:rolleyes:

The "death" of a program that scored its first kill 20+ years ago and already has its replacement in the works?

Seriously for a moment, the AMRAAM will one day go out of production but it is more than sufficient for the threats in service today and its price advantage over the Meteor virtually ensures it will stay in production for some time to come.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

Integration of Meteor would mean death of AMRAAM program...

And in reverse, NOT integrating the Met on the 35 was a plus for the export chances of the Raf/Typhoon.

But since now, with the recent success of 35 sales to Eu countries, the fire is in the house, the "embargoed" integration doesn't makes any sense anymore for anyone (if it had once).