F35 News only thread for 2013

[mrmalaya]

No news is good news it seems, so here is a short blog post from the DEWline about a colourful F35C:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...ed-martin.html

[orko_8]

BOOM!

Turkey cancels order for two F-35 JSF's, stating that the project fell behind the schedule, increasing costs and the operational capabilities of the aircraft fell behind the required level. The procurement agency announced that the decision will be re-considered in 2014.

Source: Anatolian News Agency: http://www.aa.com.tr/tr/haberler/120...e-kritik-karar

[MSphere]

BOOM!

Turkey cancels order for two F-35 JSF's, stating that the project fell behind the schedule, increasing costs and the operational capabilities of the aircraft fell behind the required level. The procurement agency announced that the decision will be re-considered in 2014.

Any details?

[mrmalaya]

Are they short of money at the moment?

[Sens]

Are they short of money at the moment?

No, the opposite.

[mrmalaya]

Well the next response must contain a news piece otherwise we are in the wrong part of the forum....

[SpudmanWP]

Postpone =/= Cancel

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

ANKARA — Turkey said Jan. 11 it has postponed an order to purchase its first two U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets due to technical problems and rising costs, but said it still intends to buy 100 more in the long run.

“Due to the current state of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) ... and the rising cost ... it was decided to postpone the order placed on Jan 5, 2012, for the two aircraft,” the Undersecretariat for Defence Industry (SSM) said in a statement.

The SSM, the public body responsible for Turkey’s arms purchases, said the decision was taken because the technical capabilities of the aircraft were ”not at the desired level yet.”

After the initial purchase of the two jets, Turkey plans to order 100 units of the stealth fighter to replace its current fleet consisting mainly of F-4 Phantoms and F-16 Falcons, according to the statement.

Looks like they want their initial planes at Blk3F (IOC), not Blk2 as they would be if ordered now.

IIRC Turkey is not part of the IOT&E program so they would not need Blk2B jets.

[mack8]

The F-35 soap-opera continues. OTE report for 2012 shows a host of problems , unmet testing schedule, unmet performance criteria etc etc.

Few highlights:
Jittering with the HMD- still going
Structural cracks in B- lower fuselage
Unmet flight performance-all
High speed flight limitation- RAM peels off at rear.
IFR problems with A
Radar problems

...and so on, and so on.

OTE report:
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress....ual-report.pdf

Some news on the matter.
http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/2...kheed-f-35-jet

[19kilo10]

More cracks found on "B" model. http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01...s-testing.html

[Spitfire9]

Few highlights:

Structural cracks in B- lower fuselage

I bet the USN is pleased the SH line is still open.

[19kilo10]

More news. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...htning-011413/

[19kilo10]

Seems they've lowered the performance again. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ce-bar-381031/

[Loke]

Seems they've lowered the performance again. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ce-bar-381031/

What are the similar performance figures for F16 and F18 ?

[MSphere]

Sustained turn rate of clean aircraft @15.000ft , 50% fuel

- Mirage 2000-5 : 17 deg/s @ M 0.7, 6 Gs
- F-16C Block 50 : 18 deg/s @ M 0.75, 7 Gs
- Rafale : 19 deg/s @ M 0.7, 7 Gs

Su-27 is said to have 22.5deg/s @ M 0.7

[snafu352]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...f101a#Comments

Anybody for affordability anymore?

[TooCool_12f]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCK9E0qkx2A


"any ressemblance with an existing aircraft (or that may exist in the future) is totally fortuitous..."

[F/A-XX]

Sustained turn rate of clean aircraft @15.000ft , 50% fuel

- Mirage 2000-5 : 17 deg/s @ M 0.7, 6 Gs
- F-16C Block 50 : 18 deg/s @ M 0.75, 7 Gs
- Rafale : 19 deg/s @ M 0.7, 7 Gs

Su-27 is said to have 22.5deg/s @ M 0.7

I don't know where you got that Su-27 figure, but I'm doubtful of it. In terms of sustained turn rate the F-16 is still considered to be among the best. AFAIK among the USAF only the F-22 is seen as comparable in that regard. Instantaneous turn rate and high AoA maneuverability are another matter. There the F/A-18 and presumably the F-35 have an edge

The F/A-18 family as a whole isn't known for having outstanding acceleration, their merits lie in other areas. The F-35C is likely to be an improvement in that category, even if it doesn't stack up to a clean Block 50/52 F-16C which was the target. Considering the larger wing and tail surfaces compared to the A/B variants, I'm not certain what people expected. There is a reason the USAF wants pure-bred air-superiority aircraft like the F-15 and F-22 in addition to their other airframes. I'm sure the Navy wouldn't mind something with the high-altitude, high-speed performance they lost when the F-14 was retired too.

Spitfire unless somebody has found a way to land a Super Hornet on a LHD/LHA. Having that production line around does nothing about meeting the STOVL requirement.

[Tu 160]

Whats the turn rate data for Mig 29C under same conditions?

Sustained turn rate of clean aircraft @15.000ft , 50% fuel

- Mirage 2000-5 : 17 deg/s @ M 0.7, 6 Gs
- F-16C Block 50 : 18 deg/s @ M 0.75, 7 Gs
- Rafale : 19 deg/s @ M 0.7, 7 Gs

Su-27 is said to have 22.5deg/s @ M 0.7

[Aurel]

Somehow I've got the sneaking suspicion that after all this mess the marines will lose a bit political influence in Washington.
The driving force behind the B-model and finally many of the compromises made in the -35 design were the Marines.
Tbh I never understood why the navy's army needs an own airforce. "Joint" has been the buzzword since the 90ies.
Yet it seems to be unthinkable in the US that the aircraft providing cas for the marines has written "airforce" or "navy" on it.

If we forget for one moment that the F-35 is ultimately the replacement for the F-14 (and the SHornet just an interim solution) the -C model is a quite good replacement for the A6.
With a typical a2g load the C has actually a bit higher combat radius than the intruder.
It needs less support aircraft and most of the maintenance issues can be avoided by sticking to subsonic flight.
It has the option for supersonic dash speed, which is more than the A6 provided.

Maybe Korea is a rolemodel for the future of the F-35. Korea wants 60 aircraft, LockMart offers 36 under the assumption these 36 aircraft do the job of 60 legacy aircraft.

[haavarla]

I don't know where you got that Su-27 figure, but I'm doubtful of it. In terms of sustained turn rate the F-16 is still considered to be among the best. AFAIK among the USAF only the F-22 is seen as comparable in that regard. Instantaneous turn rate and high AoA maneuverability are another matter. There the F/A-18 and presumably the F-35 have an edge.

Why is it unlikely?
It is well known that the Flanker turn n burn exellent. There are several sources of this. Do some research if u want.
The Flanker has several compromises in its design, but Inst/sustained turn rate is certainly not one of them.

Keep in mind that this was clean with 50% fuel.
The performance decrease when you put aordinance on or top up the fuel tanks, but that goes for most jets.

[obligatory]

A2A Missile load makes in the order of 5% difference vs unarmed, weight & drag included.
F-35 will still be the best manned BaI a/c for the foreseeable future,
when cost effectiveness is not accounted for,
but whomever thought F-35 will best 4.5 gen a/c in A2A will have to revise
their calculation even regardless of cost effectiveness.
That is, unless a much superior BVR missile comes into being.

[Spitfire9]

Spitfire unless somebody has found a way to land a Super Hornet on a LHD/LHA. Having that production line around does nothing about meeting the STOVL requirement.

Only the F-35C is reported to have the cracking problem. SH is an alternative carrier aircraft, so if F-35C experiences delays due to the cracking problem (and any other problems yet to surface), the USN can order more SH's if that is deemed wise.

[MSphere]

I don't know where you got that Su-27 figure, but I'm doubtful of it. In terms of sustained turn rate the F-16 is still considered to be among the best. AFAIK among the USAF only the F-22 is seen as comparable in that regard. Instantaneous turn rate and high AoA maneuverability are another matter. There the F/A-18 and presumably the F-35 have an edge.

Viper might be among the best to you but I am quite sure that Fulcrums have gained up to 2 deg/s advantage over the F-16MLU Viper (I remember figures 28 deg/s Fulcrum vs 26 deg/s Viper sustained @ low level, unknown speed). AFAIK, Su-27 is even slightly better than MiG-29 in that regard.

Sorry, cannot help you more.

[Sens]

Viper might be among the best to you but I am quite sure that Fulcrums have gained up to 2 deg/s advantage over the F-16MLU Viper (I remember figures 28 deg/s Fulcrum vs 26 deg/s Viper sustained @ low level, unknown speed). AFAIK, Su-27 is even slightly better than MiG-29 in that regard.

Sorry, cannot help you more.

The claimed 22,5° sust. for the Su-27 is at sea-level and drops with height and will not differ much from the MiG-29 at 4500 m or 15.000 feet to make the values comparable.

[Fedaykin]

I believe the general conclusion by the USAF after they had a look at and trained against Luftwaffe Mig-29 was "Don't wrestle in the mud with the pigs, you both get dirty and the pig likes it!". In other words avoid getting into a turning dog fight as the Mig-29 doesn't bleed energy in a turn like Western types and has a helmet mounted sight.

Then again West German airforce opinions about the quality of ex East German pilots that they didn't have the training or doctrinal conditioning to make use of the types low speed turning capabilities.

[SpudmanWP]

but whomever thought F-35 will best 4.5 gen a/c in A2A will have to revise their calculation even regardless of cost effectiveness.

Time will tell, specifically 2014/2015 Red = Flag

That is, unless a much superior BVR missile comes into being.

Aim-120D/D+

[Cherry Ripe]

Tbh I never understood why the navy's army needs an own airforce. "Joint" has been the buzzword since the 90ies.
Yet it seems to be unthinkable in the US that the aircraft providing cas for the marines has written "airforce" or "navy" on it.

It's not that it's unthinkable, it's just a result of the way that orders are generated.

Navy strike orders are strategically and tactically tasked DOWN, perhaps all the way from the JCS. USMC strike orders are tasked UP from as low as platoon level.

There isn't a "jointness" that currently bridges that gap.

[ff1987]

Aim-120D/D+

Spud is there any plan of Aim-120D+ today?
When will Aim-120D enter operational service? I hear sth about 2013-2014, but don't know any detail. Probably F/A-18E/F and F-15C/D will be the first fighters equiped with new weapons.

More important then the max range will be for sure NEZ against fast maneuvering targets. Will Aim-120D have such a big improvements in this area? Raytheon states that it will have 50 % more range than C-7, does it mean also 50 % more NEZ ? For example MBDA Meteor range is roughly double that of the AIM-120C AMRAAM an it should have around 300% NEZ of the current medium range missile. Additional advantage is that ramjet missile will have much more average speed than its predecessors, so even when launch at the same time, probably will hit target earlier. But even with ramjet weapons, missile NEZ rather not exceed 80 km ? in perfect condition ( high speed & high alt ) against agile targets I think. Current AMRAAM NEZ in such situation is probably 20 miles only, so Meteor (in internal weapon bays) should be the primary JSF weapon against IRST equiped adversaries, to avoid any counter fire.

[Sintra]

Time will tell, specifically 2014/2015 Red = Flag

You mean 2018/19, right?

TAim-120D/D+

Warn ATK and the Pentagon... :diablo:

[SpudmanWP]

On the RedFlag issue, I was speaking of the F-35B, not the A. Here ar a few reasons why I think it will happen by 2015.

--The USMC's first Operational Sqdn just stood up next door at Yuma. They will have all their F-35Bs by the end of the year.
--The USMC is eager to get the F-35B to IOC and demonstrate it's capabilities (makes it a smaller target for budget cutters).
--The USMC's center for developing F-35B combat tactics is also in Yuma.
--The JPO has used surrogate aircraft (BAC1-11, CATB, Falcon, etc) at several joint exercises (Red Flag, Bold Alligator, etc) and would jump at the chance to fully utilize the networked capabilities of multiple F-35Bs.

On the question of the Aim-120D
--In the Red Flag plan above, they will likely be Aim-120C7
--The Aim-120D will be IOC within the year. Not known if the Aim-120D will make it into Blk3 or Blk4.
--ATK is on contract (Sep 2009) to deliver technologies related to a new AMRAAM motor in 2013. Range improvements, lighter weight, more energetic propellents, multi-pulse motor, etc were part of the plan.
--IMHO the above motor will form the basis of the Aim-120D+ (next block of D)
--The key benefits of the 120D that allow for a greater range and NEZ are it's high, arching flight profile. The 120D has a GPS assisted INS. This allows the 120D to know precisely where the target is as long as the datalink is active and to know precisely where it is. This allows for better target & interception prediction leading to a more efficient arching flight profile. Also, because of the better target prediction & interception it can go active much later than previous AMRAAMs. This would allow the 120D to use more power for it's seeker (if it has this capability to vary the power) while using the same battery size. Going active later in the intercept (vs previous AMRAAM versions) gives the target less time to deploy countermeasures. The two-way datalink will allow the AMRAAM to communicate it's status ensuring a better intercept. Lastly, an arching profile is better because it can use gravity to recover maneuver energy and because the target will present a larger RCS when viewed from above rather than head-on.