F35 News only thread for 2013

[vulcan558]

Yeah sure, the proud aeronautical industry that once produced legends like Spitfire, Lancaster, Hunter, Lighting, Harrier and countless more , reduced to a pithiful subcontractor for the americans, rear fuselages and some damn seats, sure, there's some "meat " there.

I'm sure the americans are congratulating themselves for eliminating the british (and most of Europe' as well) aeronautical prowess, with the help of some spineless and traitorous politicians, starting with that Sandy guy...

Just how much work for ther UK does this give, BAE have plants in the USA dont they? also Martin Baker. guess if you break it all down its not much for the UK.

[ff1987]

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=P...topic&p=168581

The article has much wrong information:

"If F-16Cs and MiG-29s face off in aerial combat, both would detect each other on the radar at comparable range. Armed with the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the F-16s would have the first shot opportunity at more than twice the range as the Fulcrums. A single F-16 would be able to discriminately target individual and multiple Fulcrums. The MiG-29’s radar will not allow this. If there is more than one F-16 in a formation, a Fulcrum pilot would not know exactly which F-16 the radar had locked and he can engage only one F-16 at a time. A Viper pilot can launch AMRAAMS against multiple MiG-29s on the first pass and support his missiles via data link until the missiles go active. He can break the radar lock and leave or continue to the visual arena and employ short range infrared guided missiles or the gun. The Fulcrum pilot must wait until about 13 nautical miles (24 kilometers) before he can shoot his BVR missile. The Alamo is a semi-active missile that must be supported by the launching aircraft until impact. This brings the Fulcrum pilot closer to the AMRAAM. In fact, just as the the Fulcrum pilot gets in range to fire an Alamo, the AMRAAM is seconds away from impacting his aircraft. The advantage goes to the F-16. "


Polish Air Force pilots, who flow both types, many times, again each others has got different point of view:
1.MiG-29 isn't limited to 24km R-27R1 shoot.
2.AMRAAM hasn't got twice the range of R-27R1
3. Why they compare 9.12 MiG-29 from 80' to the modernised F-16C from 90' (fox 3 capable) ?
A fair comparsion will be MiG-29N (Malaysian, R-77 capable) with blk 30/40 Viper.
4.WVR- comparable oponent. MiG-29 is more maneuverable, but JHMCS+AIM-9X is better than HMS+R-73 combo on 9.12.
5.In BVR F-16 has the edge because of fox-3.

This is based on many article from polish magazine I've read in last 10 year ("Lotnictwo", "Armia", "Aero", "Nowa Technika Wojskowa")
There were for example interviews with our pilots, descriptions of battles between this two types, and several MiG-29 vs F-16 article.

[Belethor]

What's the name of this "expert". Obviously he has a rather obvious agenda; strangely, other compatriots of his have a more balanced view on the MiG-29, not to mention those who fly and trained in it against US types ( poles etc.). Chauvinism at it's best.

The tone of the article is clearly not to your liking but how do you feel about the last paragraph? Is Lt. Col. Johann Köck, the former commander of a German MiG-29 squadron not qualified to speak on such matters in much the same way that you feel a USAF pilot with 2000hrs in the F-16 and 500 in the Mig-29 is not qualified to speak on the matter? How many hours do you have on either type and what makes you feel you're in a better position to compare the two fighters?

I would also be very interested in reading his compatriots 'more balanced' comparisons assuming of course they are written by pilots or former pilots with flying hours on both types of aircraft. I have searched Google but to no avail, can you provide me with some sources?

[Belethor]

The UK is a vital partner in the program providing a significant amount of technology to the program.

I don't always agree with you but on this topic you are 100% bang on. I think few people realise just how big a contribution the UK industry an engineering personel have made to the F-35 program. We have had a massive influence on the F-35B design and without that involvement the B would probably have been dead in the water.

[MSphere]

Yeah agree. But there is a lot of improvments in the Mig-29S, M or even the latest K/Mig-35 version. Its certainly a far cry from Mig-29A as Tu-160 points out.

So while compairing F-16 to Mig-29, it depends on both jets model/Version.

Direct competitors:

F-16A Block 5-15 = MiG-29 9.12/9.13
F-16C Block 25-40 = MiG-29M
F-16C Block 50 = MiG-29M1/M2
F-16E Block 60 = MiG-35

[ff1987]

would also be very interested in reading his compatriots 'more balanced' comparisons assuming of course they are written by pilots or former pilots with flying hours on both types of aircraft. I have searched Google but to no avail, can you provide me with some sources?

I recomend You an article from polish magazine:
Polish magazine "Armia" 3-4/2009 , 5/2009
article : F-16 vs MiG-29

http://www.sklep.kagero.pl/16-armia-5-2009.html
http://www.sklep.kagero.pl/15-armia-3-4-2009.html

Polish Air Force pilots (both F-16 & MiG-29) describe some F-16 vs MiG-29 fights.
I have both magazine, but hasn't got enough time to translate it - the article has two part and around 10 pages.

[moon_light]

Thanks. I only have to wonder about sustained turn rate at supersonic speeds. Who needs that? I cannot really imagine why would anyone fly at say M1.5 and have to turn tightly at the same time. That leads to quick energy bleed which kinda defeats the whole purpose of high speed dashing, doesn't it?

F-16 has been known for excellent acceleration and climbing characteristics but from my memory the Fulcrum was quite comparable in both aspects.

no not at mach 1.5 but dogfight often be at speed like mach 0.8->1.2 , mig-29 perform quite like f-18 , good at low speed , good nose pointing but high energy bleed make it not a good energy fighter ( turn burn vs boom-zoom )

[moon_light]

I have to disagree with following statement:
The MiG-29’s seven G limit is due to loads on the vertical stabilizers. MAPO has advertised that the Fulcrum could be stressed to 12 Gs and still not hurt the airframe. This statement is probably wishful and boastful. The German Luftwaffe, which flew its MiG-29s probably more aggressively than any other operator, experienced cracks in the structure at the base of the vertical tails. The F-16 can actually exceed nine Gs without overstressing the airframe. Depending on configuration, momentary overshoots to as much as 10.3 Gs will not cause any concern with aircraft maintainers.

Both MiG-29 and F-16 experienced similar cracks at the base of the vertical fin(s). They are easily recognizeable by applied strenghtening patchwork.




Both MiG and F-16 airframes are considered a whole league behind Mirages in terms of durability - I think our Greek friends could lose a word or two on this issue..

that what pilot that fly both aircraft said , i have no idea about durability of both airframe

[moon_light]

This article is a load of rubbish not only is it comparing to the Mig 29A which is not fair but the Mig 29M SEVERELLY DOWNGRADED EXPORT VERSION OF Mig 29A the MONKEY EXPORT VERSION.
The export version of the Mig 29A has a completelly different severelly downgraded radar,fire control system,downgraded engines,downgraded ECM and IFF and navigation systems and the real Soviet VVS version especially the C is far superior.
The Soviet VVS started to use the Mig 29C in about 1987 which was vastly improved "The MiG-29S is similar in external appearance to older MiG-29B airframes, except for the dorsal hump behind the cockpit canopy. Differences start with the improvements in the flight control system. Four new computers provide better stability augmentation and controllability with an increase of 2° in angle of attack (AoA). Its improved mechanical-hydraulic flight control system allows for greater control surface deflections. The MiG-29S's dorsal hump, earning it the nickname "Fatback" in service, was originally believed to be for additional fuel, but in fact, most of its volume is used for the new L-203BE Gardenyia-1 ECM system. The MiG-29S can carry 1,150 liter (304 US gallon, 2,000 lb) drop tanks under each wing and a centerline tank. Inboard underwing hardpoints are upgraded to allow for a tandem pylon arrangement for a larger payload of 4,000 kg (8,820 lb). Overall maximum gross weight has been raised to 20,000 kg (44,000 lb). The GSh-30-1 cannon had its expended round ejector port modified to allow for firing while the centerline tank is still attached. Improvements also allow for new longer-range air-to-air missiles like the R-27E (AA-10 "Alamo") and R-77 (AA-12 "Adder"). Initially, the avionics of the MiG-29S only added a new IRST sighting system combined with a better imbedded training system that allowed for IR and radar target simulation. However, the final MiG-29S improvement kit also provides for the Phazotron N019M radar and more built-in test equipment (BITE) (especially for the radar) to reduce dependence on ground support equipment; MiG MAPO calls this model the MiG-29SD. Revised weapon system algorithms in the MiG-29S's software, combined with an increase in processing capacity, allows for the tracking of up to 10 targets and the simultaneous engagement of two with the R-77 missile."

newer mig-29 version mostly improve in electronic or RCS aspect and they become heavier as well so newer version not necessary more agile ( the same for F-16 , block 60 while have the best engine still not as agile as early version of F-16 like block 30) , i mostly talk about how agile these aircraft are

[moon_light]

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=P...topic&p=168581

The article has much wrong information:

"If F-16Cs and MiG-29s face off in aerial combat, both would detect each other on the radar at comparable range. Armed with the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the F-16s would have the first shot opportunity at more than twice the range as the Fulcrums. A single F-16 would be able to discriminately target individual and multiple Fulcrums. The MiG-29’s radar will not allow this. If there is more than one F-16 in a formation, a Fulcrum pilot would not know exactly which F-16 the radar had locked and he can engage only one F-16 at a time. A Viper pilot can launch AMRAAMS against multiple MiG-29s on the first pass and support his missiles via data link until the missiles go active. He can break the radar lock and leave or continue to the visual arena and employ short range infrared guided missiles or the gun. The Fulcrum pilot must wait until about 13 nautical miles (24 kilometers) before he can shoot his BVR missile. The Alamo is a semi-active missile that must be supported by the launching aircraft until impact. This brings the Fulcrum pilot closer to the AMRAAM. In fact, just as the the Fulcrum pilot gets in range to fire an Alamo, the AMRAAM is seconds away from impacting his aircraft. The advantage goes to the F-16. "


Polish Air Force pilots, who flow both types, many times, again each others has got different point of view:
1.MiG-29 isn't limited to 24km R-27R1 shoot.
2.AMRAAM hasn't got twice the range of R-27R1
3. Why they compare 9.12 MiG-29 from 80' to the modernised F-16C from 90' (fox 3 capable) ?
A fair comparsion will be MiG-29N (Malaysian, R-77 capable) with blk 30/40 Viper.
4.WVR- comparable oponent. MiG-29 is more maneuverable, but JHMCS+AIM-9X is better than HMS+R-73 combo on 9.12.
5.In BVR F-16 has the edge because of fox-3.

This is based on many article from polish magazine I've read in last 10 year ("Lotnictwo", "Armia", "Aero", "Nowa Technika Wojskowa")
There were for example interviews with our pilots, descriptions of battles between this two types, and several MiG-29 vs F-16 article.

2 airticle written at different time
at that time there was no aim-9x so i think mig-29 stll have an edge due to hmd and r-73 combo , mig-29 can also make tighter turn however due to drag airframe it bleed energy quite quick and have much inferior sustain turn rate

[Tu22m]

Yo duderinos, there is a debate thread and a news thread for a reason.

This thread is for the regular stream of sunshine in the news surrounding the F35. The debates on how cracks emerge, how impressive the sustained 4,6 G are and so on is stuff that should be discussed here: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...120578&page=34

Many kisses from the biggest F35 fan on the forum.

[Belethor]

Thanks. I only have to wonder about sustained turn rate at supersonic speeds. Who needs that? I cannot really imagine why would anyone fly at say M1.5 and have to turn tightly at the same time.

A fighter that has excellent supersonic maneuvering capability (eg Typhoon or F-22) has a tremendous advantage when it comes to out maneuvering inbound BVR missile shots.

Edit - Have seen Tu22m's reminder post and he's right so last post on this from me.

[moon_light]

A fighter that has excellent supersonic maneuvering capability (eg Typhoon or F-22) has a tremendous advantage when it comes to out maneuvering inbound BVR missile shots.

Edit - Have seen Tu22m's reminder post and he's right so last post on this from me.

may be in the past , now with stealth and missiles like meteor this doesnot really matter much ( caused both aircraft are well inside NEZ )

[ff1987]

2 airticle written at different time
at that time there was no aim-9x so i think mig-29 stll have an edge due to hmd and r-73 combo , mig-29 can also make tighter turn however due to drag airframe it bleed energy quite quick and have much inferior sustain turn rate

Moon - article I was talking about was from 2009. At that time polish F-16 pilots use AIM-9X + JHMCS.
As pilots says both sides had some kills against each others, and of course pilot skills is very important in WVR.

[MSphere]

A fighter that has excellent supersonic maneuvering capability (eg Typhoon or F-22) has a tremendous advantage when it comes to out maneuvering inbound BVR missile shots.

Edit - Have seen Tu22m's reminder post and he's right so last post on this from me.

Would you have the balls to risk outmaneuvring an incoming AMRAAM? Me not.

Anyway, fair enough, let's stick to the F-35 news.

[19kilo10]

They ground the "B" models and now this? Vulnerable to lightning? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...htning-II.html

[SpudmanWP]

The issues with lightning have been well known for over a year and a fix is already in the works.

old news

[19kilo10]

What will that fix be? If this has been "known for some time" why is it just coming to light now? will the fix add more weight?

[SpudmanWP]

It's not coming to light now. The showed up publicly at least two years ago.

From the FY2011 DOT&E report (Jan 2012)

Analyses of OBIGGS fuel system simulator tests showed that the system is incapable of providing protection from threat-induced fuel tank explosions during some critical segments of combat missions when the aircraft is most vulnerable. Program focus is currently on the immediate need to meet requirements to protect the aircraft from lightning-generated fuel tank explosions and on redesigning OBIGGS to provide protection throughout all combat mission segments.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...2011f35jsf.pdf

From the FY2010 DOT&E report (Jan 2011)

Live Fire Test and Evaluation
• The OBIGGS system fails to inert the fuel tank ullage spaces
throughout the combat flight envelopes evaluated.

...

Recommendations
7. Re-design the OBIGGS system to ensure that the fuel tank
ullage volume oxygen concentrations are maintained below
levels that sustain fire and/or explosion throughout the
combat flight envelopes.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...2010f35jsf.pdf

[Belethor]

The issues with lightning have been well known for over a year and a fix is already in the works.

old news

Two years and still no fix? In that case it's doubtful it'll ever be fixed.
I just can't comprehend how a company manages to screw up so badly on quite literally everything! I mean is there anything that actually works as its meant to? Anything at all???

[PhilipG]

Two years and still no fix? In that case it's doubtful it'll ever be fixed.
I just can't comprehend how a company manages to screw up so badly on quite literally everything! I mean is there anything that actually works as its meant to? Anything at all???

What really frightens me is that if one believes in the Pareto Principle or the 80/20 rule, is the thought that these discussions will be ongoing for many more years before the F35 is eventually accepted into service.

[SpudmanWP]

Hardware level systems never get fixed quickly if there is no operational requirement.

First, they need to understand why the current system is not meeting the need. Then they need to design new hardware to meet the requirement. Then comes testing on static systems. Then they can test it in an F-35.

You also have to test how a new OBIGGS will interact with the rest of the fuel systems.

There is a lot involved which is one of the reasons why SDD takes so long, there are a huge number of interlinked systems involved.

btw, here is the relevant section from this year's DOT&E report.

OBIGGS Redesign
• The program is redesigning OBIGGS to address deficiencies identified in earlier fuel system simulator test series (LF-09B) to meet the vulnerability requirements during all critical segments of a combat mission and to provide an inert tank atmosphere for internal lightning protection.
• The program reported several design changes during the Phase II Critical Design Review to:
-- Fix the vent-in-during-dive problem, wherein fresh oxygen-laden air is drawn into the fuel tanks in a dive
-- More uniformly distribute the nitrogen enriched air (NEA) throughout the fuel tanks
-- Ensure NEA quality
-- Inform the pilot when the system is not inerting the ullage
• The program will conduct verification and certification testing and analyses to confirm the performance of the new OBIGGS design on all three aircraft variants. These tests are expected to begin in FY13.
• Additionally, the current fuel tank venting design is inadequate to vent the tanks during a rapid descent. As a result of the related OBIGGS and tank venting deficiencies, flight operations are currently not permitted within 25 miles of known lightning conditions. Moreover, below 20,000 feet altitude, descent rate is restricted to 6,000 feet/minute. Dive rates can be increased to up to 50,000 feet/minute but only if the maneuver includes 4 minutes of level flight for fuel tank pressurization purposes. Neither restriction is acceptable for combat or combat training.

[Bluewings]

Back in 2004 , many stupid Americans and British posters on various forums were telling me than the F-35 would be operational before the Rafale ...

Am I allowed to laugh out loud ? :diablo:

Cheers .

[SpudmanWP]

Who said that????

[haavarla]

And lets not forget that the F-35 was to exceed 3000 units in the US alone.

I'll get my coat on the way out..

[Belethor]

And lets not forget that the F-35 was to exceed 3000 units in the US alone.

I'll get my coat on the way out..

Shouln't you and your buddy be here whining about people picking on poor defenceless aircraft as you've done in the PAK-FA thread?

[Bluewings]

I 'm not gonna give names , it 's not important . It was at the time when Rafale bashing was a daily game for many ...

Funny how things turns out , 3 wars already for the "pedestrian bomb truck" and ... nothing coming for the "outstanding" F-35 for the years to come .

Cheers .

[Belethor]

I 'm not gonna give names , it 's not important .
Cheers .

To be fair it is somewhat important when you've made an allegation like you have. Besides, what on earth's wrong with naming names?? It wouln't be a crime or even an insult.

[Bluewings]

Relax Belethor , it wasn 't here on Key

Cheers .

[Belethor]

Relax Belethor , it wasn 't here on Key

Cheers .

Dammit, it would have been very amusing