Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 21 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 606

Thread: F35 News only thread for 2013

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    2,908

    F35 News only thread for 2013

    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Ankara, Turkey
    Posts
    522
    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,097
    Quote Originally Posted by orko_8 View Post
    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?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    2,908
    Are they short of money at the moment?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    Are they short of money at the moment?
    No, the opposite.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    2,908
    Well the next response must contain a news piece otherwise we are in the wrong part of the forum....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,009
    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.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 11th January 2013 at 16:48.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,051
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    virginia beach,VA.
    Posts
    770

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    Few highlights:

    Structural cracks in B- lower fuselage
    I bet the USN is pleased the SH line is still open.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    virginia beach,VA.
    Posts
    770

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    virginia beach,VA.
    Posts
    770
    Seems they've lowered the performance again. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ce-bar-381031/

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,073
    Quote Originally Posted by 19kilo10 View Post
    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 ?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,097
    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

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,541
    http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...f101a#Comments

    Anybody for affordability anymore?
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,823
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCK9E0qkx2A


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



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Russia Evil Empire aka Mordor
    Posts
    146
    Whats the turn rate data for Mig 29C under same conditions?
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    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

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,102
    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,792
    Quote Originally Posted by F/A-XX View Post
    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.
    Thanks

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,149
    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.
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by F/A-XX View Post
    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.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,097
    Quote Originally Posted by F/A-XX View Post
    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.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    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.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,882
    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.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,009
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    That is, unless a much superior BVR missile comes into being.
    Aim-120D/D+
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NI, UK
    Posts
    275
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurel View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Cherry Ripe; 16th January 2013 at 17:01. Reason: up down distinction

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    poland
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    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.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Time will tell, specifically 2014/2015 Red = Flag
    You mean 2018/19, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    TAim-120D/D+
    Warn ATK and the Pentagon... :diablo:
    Last edited by Sintra; 16th January 2013 at 18:23.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,009
    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.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 16th January 2013 at 20:08.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES