F-35 News thread. Part Deux

[SteveDickson195]

Don't get to caught up about what type of refueling system the Japanese wanted guys, the main point is they didn't want the Typhoon or F-18 but instead wanted the F-35 as it's the more effective product.

[Loke]

How can they evolve? They are not even in production yet.

By 2025 the F-35 will have 18 years of production and post-SDD development under it's belt. How much will Russia or China have? Let's see what they R&C can do before we start claiming that the F-35 in 2025 will not be able to handle them.

By 2025 the F-35 will likely have 6 internal AMRAAMs or 6+ NGMs.

The missiles and parts of the avionics may already be in production.

All fighters have a certain lifespan, typically 40 years. If the F-35 is 18 years old in 2025 it may therefore be half-way. When you're half-way through your life span it often starts to go down-hill...

Anyway I am not claiming that the F-35 will not able to handle them; I am just saying that it's a big unknown.

[Loke]

6 AMRAAMs would mean no internal IIR, which is a good thing since BVR does not involve IIR yet. NGM includes a multi-mode seeker so every NGM is IIR, radar, and HARM.

I don't see how no internal IR missiles is an advantage; in the future F-35 will face stealthy opponents which should make IR missiles more not less important than today.

OTOH 4 AMRAAMS and 2 AIM-9X++ is not too shabby either, and I guess that will be possible in the future?

[LowObservable]

BVR does not involve IIR? I would not make that statement so categorically. News to the MICA IR, ASRAAM and AIM-9X people, particularly AIM-9X Block II with datalink.

My interpretation of what LockMart is saying is that more than four internal AAMs of any type will require some new and smaller missile (there is one under study for well into the 2020s).

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...am-aim-9x.html

And you can look at the historic timelines for missile development - and at the US industrial base and experience in high-speed missile development - and take a guess at when NGM might be ready.

It's succeeded JDRADM as the F-35 fans' magic weapon that will go 200 miles, pack six per bay, and take out everything from a spaceship to an aircraft carrier. Which is all wonderful, but there are nearer-term issues to address, such as finding a supplier closer than Norway for reliable AMRAAM motors.

[bring_it_on]

OTOH 4 AMRAAMS and 2 AIM-9X++ is not too shabby either, and I guess that will be possible in the future?

For a multi role fighter , it isnt bad for the US given they have the raptors, the USN would have liked something more , and the B version is just a waste of design restricitons if you ask me . Most of the partners would be OK in getting the only VLO fighter asset available to them in the international market (at the time they ordered it) , and a 4+2 stealthy configuration , and a 6+2 Signature Compromised position for non FDOW scenarios is NOT BAD.

[swerve]

They did not want the H&D for their tankers, they wanted the boom to work with the EF & F-18.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,240172,00.html

Have you no understanding at all of official statements? I don't believe for a moment that it was a major factor. If it had been, it's hard to see how either F-18E or Typhoon was considered ahead of upgraded F-15s.

That statement is pretty standard fare. It's the usual "Now we've decided on X, we'll add all the trivial stuff to the list of reasons for rejecting Y & Z, putting the worst case for each to make our decision look as good as possible." You take it far too literally.

The JASDF & MoD want a fighter which will work with their tankers. Converting either tankers or fighters is a cost, either all up-front (converting the fighters) or some of both (converting the tankers - which is relatively cheap - & then the tanker crews having to be current on both refuelling modes). But compared to the cost of the fighters, it's minor. They're not such idiots that they'd flatly refuse to consider fitting hoses to their tankers on principle.

[jbritchford]

Don't get to caught up about what type of refueling system the Japanese wanted guys, the main point is they didn't want the Typhoon or F-18 but instead wanted the F-35 as it's the more effective product.

Without getting into what is the more effective product, you have to realise here are other things that are major factors - industrial and political concerns.

If all acquisitions were based solely on what the most effective product was then the makeup of airforces around the world would differ considerably.

[Tribes]

Without getting into what is the more effective product, you have to realise here are other things that are major factors - industrial and political concerns.

If all acquisitions were based solely on what the most effective product was then the makeup of airforces around the world would differ considerably.

Yeah, no Eurofighters or Rafales, and certainly no A400M ....

[Loke]

Yeah, no Eurofighters or Rafales, and certainly no A400M ....

I am not so sure about the Eurofighter an the A400M, but the Rafale may well be the "most effective product" (whatever that really means) for France, given their special situation and requirements.

[SpudmanWP]

I don't see how no internal IR missiles is an advantage;

Sorry, I was not clear enough. What I meant was that there is room for 3 AMRAAMs per bay as opposed to 2 AMRAAMs + an IIR. One gives the option of carriing IIR if needed and the other forces the issue wheter it is wanted or not. Much like the concept of a Multi-Role fighter, it's all about having options.

Also, since WVR combat is quickly becoming a suicidal move, having more BVRs is the better option. However, future AAMs are coming that are Multi-Mode so the BVRs become the best of both worlds.

BVR does not involve IIR? I would not make that statement so categorically. News to the MICA IR, ASRAAM and AIM-9X people, particularly AIM-9X Block II with datalink.

I was specking of Missiles that are for the JSF. btw, ASRAAM does not have a datalink and can "barely" be called BVR, if at all.

And you can look at the historic timelines for missile development - and at the US industrial base and experience in high-speed missile development - and take a guess at when NGM might be ready.

Did you forget the continued development of T3? It should fly by next year:

FY 2011 Accomplishments: ($18.891 mil budget)
- Conducted preliminary design review of T3 concepts.
- Initiated T3 critical design activities.
FY 2012 Plans: ($30.820 mil budget)
- Conduct hardware-in-the-loop integrated subsystem testing.
- Conduct propulsion system ground testing.
- Fabricate and ground test demonstration vehicles.
FY 2013 Plans: ($38.500 mil budget)
- Conduct captive carry test of flight test article.
- Conduct ground launch of test article.
- Conduct airborne launch of test articles against three target types.

I don't believe for a moment that it was a major factor. If it had been, it's hard to see how either F-18E or Typhoon was considered ahead of upgraded F-15s.

I did not say it was a major factor, just a factor in cost estimations.

If you look at the numbers:

The defense ministry says it gave each contender a score in four areas. A maximum of 50 points was available for aircraft performance, 22.5 for cost, 22.5 for domestic industrial participation and 5 for after-sales support.

The cost to adapt the IFR was a small part of a category that itself was less than 1/4 of the total points available.

[Loke]

I noticed the F-35A high up (as this zoomed in spot on my photo above indicates), but refocused my attention on trying to film the UAV as it performed its automatic collision avoidance maneuver. Note how the shock of the boom, which was unexpectedly severe at our location, causes the video to jump slightly at 7 sec. For comparison on the relatively lower boom intensity listen for the double-boom of the decelerating F-16 chase at 18 sec. I am sure someone must know, but does the intense boom represent an acoustic facet of the F-35’s low-observable design and parallel leading and trailing edge alignment?

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...c-5ac09177c61f

[SpudmanWP]

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...sStory&id=5091

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbSin...layer_embedded

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – The F-35 Lightning II accomplished a significant test milestone Aug. 8 when the aircraft successfully released a weapon in flight.

BF-3, a short take-off and vertical landing F-35 variant, released an inert 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) separation weapon over water in an Atlantic test range while traveling at 400 knots at an altitude of 4,200 feet.

“While this weapons separation test is just one event in a series of hundreds of flights and thousands of test points that we are executing this year, it does represent a significant entry into a new phase of testing for the F-35 program,” said Navy Capt. Erik Etz, director of test for F-35 naval variants. “Today’s release of a JDAM was the result of extraordinary effort by our team of maintainers, engineers, pilots and others who consistently work long hours to deliver F-35 warfighting capability to the U.S. services and our international partners.”

The release was the first time for any version of the F-35 to conduct an airborne weapon separation, as well as the first from an internal weapons bay for a fighter aircraft designated for the U.S. Marine Corps, the United Kingdom and Italy.
The milestone marks the start of validating the F-35’s capability to employ precision weapons and allow pilots to engage the enemy on the ground and in the air.

“[Using an internal weapons bay] speaks to how much capability the JSF is going to bring to the troops,” said Dan Levin, Lockheed Martin test pilot for the mission. “Stealth, fifth-generation avionics and precision weapons … coupled with the flexible mission capability of the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B is going to be huge for our warfighters.”

An aerial weapons separation test checks for proper release of the weapon from its carriage system and trajectory away from the aircraft. It is the culmination of a significant number of prerequisite tests, including ground fit checks, ground pit drops and aerial captive carriage and environment flights to ensure the system is working properly before expanding the test envelope in the air.

Aircraft and land-based test monitoring systems collected data from the successful separation, which is in review at the F-35 integrated test force at Naval Air Station Patuxent River.

[Goldust]

the F-35 shown above looks like its got its pitot tube in the same position as on the first prototype of J-20. would production units even have a pitot tube at all?

[SpudmanWP]

No they do not. In fact, most SDD and all production F-35 have been produced without a pitot tube.

Here is the lineup of AF-1,2,3,4,6 & 7 where 3, 6 & 7 do not have it.

[aurcov]

33rd FW commander Col Andrew Toth, an F-15C Weapons School grad and former commander of the elite 57th Adversary Tactics Group at Nellis AFB, Nevada, recently had his first flight in the F-35A on 8 August. Having countless hours in the Boeing F-15C Eagle and Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon (or Viper), Toth shares his impressions of that first ride:

Getting to fly the F-35 for the first time was quite an experience, the aircraft was easy to fly and felt very solid. In my opinion, the aircraft flies like a cross between an Eagle and a Viper on steroids

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...n-picks-u.html

Also this is interesting : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9faW...feature=relmfu

[LowObservable]

A Viper on steroids?

Yes, it grew breasts, its testicles shrank and it attacked people without warning...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaboli...dverse_effects

[SteveDickson195]

Someone sounds angry and upset, what a suprise... :diablo:

[Amiga500]

"Getting to fly the F-35 for the first time was quite an experience, the aircraft was easy to fly and felt very solid. In my opinion, the aircraft flies like a cross between an Eagle and a Viper on steroids"


It flies like a bigger heavier Viper? Not sure if that is favourable or not.

[SteveDickson195]

It flies like a bigger heavier Viper? Not sure if that is favourable or not.

At no point does he say it feels like a bigger heavier Viper. I guess some folks will do anything to turn a positve comment into a negative comment even at the risk of looking like a complete and utter plonker in the process. It seems we have another one in the upset and angry camp, lol.

[SpudmanWP]

Look at the complete section of the quote:

Getting to fly the F-35 for the first time was quite an experience, the aircraft was easy to fly and felt very solid. In my opinion, the aircraft flies like a cross between an Eagle and a Viper on steroids. Even with our current operating limits, it was smooth and quiet with differing airspeed when straight and level like a Viper. At the same time, the jet talks to you when you increase the angle of attack on it like an Eagle as you get a light buffet when flying at 12 units AOA. There is no doubt, as this aircraft matures and all of the systems become fully integrated, that it is the future of combat capability for our services and partner nations.

It sounds like he is referencing different parts of the flight envelope and how it reminds him of the Viper in level flight (quick and quiet) and the Eagle (and how it speaks to him) in higher AoA.

As far as the "On steroids" comment goes, I am inclined to think that he is commenting on acceleration, especially while fully fueled & armed.

[SteveDickson195]

As far as the "On steroids" comment goes, I am inclined to think that he is commenting on acceleration, especially while fully fueled & armed.

It basically means it's like flying an extremely powerful Viper. It certainly offers excellent fighter acceleration as this quote from an ANG pilot that flies it shows -

"I would say the acceleration in a straight line is absolutely comparable to the F-15C equipped with [Pratt & Whitney F100]-220 engines that aircraft is a pretty spy performer, if you will, and it compared very well with that"

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...o-f-35-374470/

[Rii]

A Viper on steroids?

Yes, it grew breasts, its testicles shrank and it attacked people without warning...

I lol'd.

[Peregrinefalcon]

It basically means it's like flying an extremely powerful Viper. It certainly offers excellent fighter acceleration as this quote from an ANG pilot that flies it shows -

"I would say the acceleration in a straight line is absolutely comparable to the F-15C equipped with [Pratt & Whitney F100]-220 engines that aircraft is a pretty spy performer, if you will, and it compared very well with that"

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...o-f-35-374470/

Hm, excellent acceleration . . .if you take something out of the context than we can say that F-35 is flying like extremely powerful Viper and has excellent acceleration.
F-35 may compare in a straight line acceleration to F-15C equipped with [Pratt & Whitney F100]-220 engines but only in some part of subsonic region. The faster it goes the poorer its acceleration gets. And BVR fight is all about transonic/supersonic acceleration/maneuverability. Too much drag, too small wings. Not so good for a BVR fighter plane. . .

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.

Compared to SU-35BM

13.8 secs from 600 km/hr to 1,100 km/hr, and 8 secs from 1,100 km/hr to 1,300 km/hr (with 50% internal fuel, standard A-A configuration, and height of 1,000 m).

We have difference in altitude but still, acceleration time difference is huge!

[SpudmanWP]

Those numbers are "estimated" values, not what has actually taken place.

[Tribes]

We have difference in altitude but still, acceleration time difference is huge!

But isn't this the key line: "The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration -- also known as the 240-4 -- are classified." As for earlier standards, weren't they classified also? If not, why use such a vague and ill defined term like "was credited with"? What stage in the development cycle was this at, and what testing was performed using that build standard: avionics integration, perhaps?

"was credited with": someone plucked a number, and presented it without explanation or context?

[obligatory]

It was previously stated that F-35 flies like F-16 & F-22, now F-15 is added,
which goes to show that F-15/F-16/F-22/F-35 are all the same,
at least in the eyes of some pilots

[SpudmanWP]

The F-15C reference is due to the pilot's experience with that plane.

33rd FW commander Col Andrew Toth, an F-15C Weapons School grad and former commander of the elite 57th Adversary Tactics Group at Nellis AFB, Nevada

http://www.eglin.af.mil/library/biog...o.asp?id=14399

FLIGHT INFORMATION:
Rating: Command Pilot
Flight Hours: More than 2,850 (339 in combat)
Aircraft Flown: F-15A/B/C/D, T-37, T-38A/B/C

[MSphere]

Any claims regarding acceleration need to be taken with great care as it is not linear. F-35 is credited with superior acceleration to the F-16 at low speeds (engine thrust). At the same time, the faster the aircraft flies, the poorer the acceleration gets compared to its counterparts (weight and drag). A claim in style "F-35 accelerates almost like the F-22" is true, but covers only a marginal part of its flight envelope (a part quite seldom used today)

[Rii]

I hear that the F-35 accelerates like a Saturn V.

[obligatory]

Depends at what speed, it should accelerate fine up to M0.8,
but lose ground to all but F18 from transonic on