Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 32 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 936

Thread: USAF not F-35 thread

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post

    No they can't. The aircraft needs to be relatively affordable as well. Case in point: F-22.
    Yes the can. The USAF is either shooting too high, or the execution of the program is poor.


    When you choose to run three parallel programs instead of compromising on specifications & work-shares, it doesn't come as a surprise that the end product isn't cost effective. The US could have developed two or three separate types for each of its services, but it would never have achieved the economies of scale necessary to squeeze the unit costs down to 4th gen levels.
    No. The USAF intends to buy 1760 F-35s, which is huge compared to european acquisitions. The USN/USMC inventory is about 1200 planes or something like that. They have well enough money to develop and build planes in a cost effective way. Much more than the Europeans for sure. The real problem is with the acquisition of military weapon systems. And this is not only a USAF problem, the other services are doing a terrible job at it, especially the Army.
    Last edited by Hotshot; 31st March 2015 at 05:42.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,743
    1760 F-35? Thats remains to be seen..
    Thanks

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    1760 F-35? Thats remains to be seen..
    Indeed.

    Take your bets. Mine is that the production of the F-35 will stop sooner because it is not sufficient for air to air. I'd say 1400 max, then they ramp up the F-X.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    The Tornado F3 received only minor upgrades over the last decade of its service and was retired on schedule AFAIK. The Jaguar and Harrier on the other hand were both retired ahead of schedule so upgrading them (or retiring them depending on your perspective) was not as per plan, The equivalent here would be to upgrade the Eurofighter fleet in 2025 and retire it in 2030. A major upgrade in 2035 on the other hand is highly unlikely.
    The exact oposite...
    The major upgrades on the Tornado fmk3 we're made in its last decade of life, and they were quite massive; by comparison with it's 1986 deployement plan the mk3 was retired a full decade before it was suposed to, on the other hand the Jag's, harriers, sea harriers (and Bucaners) all outlived their original planned retirement by a very handsome margin.
    The RAF has a past record of upgrading the platforms that it uses right to their retirement, it's entirely conceivable that the Phoon will get this same treatment.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    The exact oposite...
    The major upgrades on the Tornado fmk3 we're made in its last decade of life, and they were quite massive; by comparison with it's 1986 deployement plan the mk3 was retired a full decade before it was suposed to, on the other hand the Jag's, harriers, sea harriers (and Bucaners) all outlived their original planned retirement by a very handsome margin.
    The RAF has a past record of upgrading the platforms that it uses right to their retirement, it's entirely conceivable that the Phoon will get this same treatment.
    First the upgrades were not massive. and second you cant extrapolate future from past performance considering all other limitations going on industrial and financial sector. Scale of Al Yamamah exports declining relative to past and north sea is running ouf of oil.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Yes the can. The USAF is either shooting too high, or the execution of the program is poor.

    No. The USAF intends to buy 1760 F-35s, which is huge compared to european acquisitions. The USN/USMC inventory is about 1200 planes or something like that. They have well enough money to develop and build planes in a cost effective way. Much more than the Europeans for sure. The real problem is with the acquisition of military weapon systems. And this is not only a USAF problem, the other services are doing a terrible job at it, especially the Army.
    Between the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen, the Europeans could have saved a hefty packet by eliminating overlapping development efforts and economies of scale. And they'd have done far better on the export market. The result would have been 1000 odd orders which while less than the 2443 F-35s scheduled, would still have provided decent scale. As things stand, the F-35 is not only demolishing their export markets, its also taken a huge chunk out of their home market. Pity really.

    Take your bets. Mine is that the production of the F-35 will stop sooner because it is not sufficient for air to air. I'd say 1400 max, then they ramp up the F-X.
    You'd lose that bet. The F-X isn't going to be available before 2035 by which time the F-35 production will be coming to an end. (I suggest you find out when the last F-16 was delivered to the USAF and when it received its first F-22.) And I'm sure in 2035 folks will be moaning about how the steady and reliable F-35 (in today's SH's role) shouldn't be junked in favour of the flawed-in-a-thousand-ways F-X (assuming the development of a new clean-sheet F-X design is even sanctioned).

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    The exact oposite...
    The major upgrades on the Tornado fmk3 we're made in its last decade of life, and they were quite massive;
    What major upgrades were made to the aircraft in the last decade (aside from new weaponry)?

    by comparison with it's 1986 deployement plan the mk3 was retired a full decade before it was suposed to, on the other hand the Jag's, harriers, sea harriers (and Bucaners) all outlived their original planned retirement by a very handsome margin.
    The RAF has a past record of upgrading the platforms that it uses right to their retirement, it's entirely conceivable that the Phoon will get this same treatment.
    The Sea Harriers and Harrier IIs were axed with plenty of life left in the airframe and resulted in significant value simply being written-off by the MoD (applies to the Jaguar too, albeit a little less so). To assert that the EF would receive a huge new MLU post 2040, requires faith in the continuation of the tradition of mismanagement that produced the Nimrod MRA4. Alternatively, if we take the EF T1s as an example of things to come, the RAF's EF fleet may well have been retired by 2040.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Between the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen, the Europeans could have saved a hefty packet by eliminating overlapping development efforts and economies of scale. And they'd have done far better on the export market. The result would have been 1000 odd orders which while less than the 2443 F-35s scheduled, would still have provided decent scale. As things stand, the F-35 is not only demolishing their export markets, its also taken a huge chunk out of their home market. Pity really.
    the problem is that you consider Europe as a country, while it is not.

    Look at the Typhoon: had they used a single production chain, there would've been economies of scale. But instead, every country's politician wanted to have its own assembly chain (jobs in HIS country and so on), as a result, you get and aircraft that costs more than a "single country" Rafale, while doing less

    To get what you talk about, they'd have to be wise enough to sit around the table, agree on everything that's needed (regardless whether "my" country needs it all or not) and then set up a single production project, eventually make manufacturers compete with different projects and choose one, built where it was designed.

    A scenario you most certainly won't see in Europe before the end of this century
    Last edited by TooCool_12f; 2nd April 2015 at 13:19.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Between the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen, the Europeans could have saved a hefty packet by eliminating overlapping development efforts and economies of scale. And they'd have done far better on the export market. The result would have been 1000 odd orders which while less than the 2443 F-35s scheduled, would still have provided decent scale. As things stand, the F-35 is not only demolishing their export markets, its also taken a huge chunk out of their home market. Pity really.
    The French and the Sweedes were not satisfied with the EF-2000 specs. France has a manufacturing base that can build an entire fighter, unlike other european countries except the UK, so it was considered a strategic decision to maintain it. The Sweedes wanted a much lighter plane than the EF.




    You'd lose that bet. The F-X isn't going to be available before 2035 by which time the F-35 production will be coming to an end. (I suggest you find out when the last F-16 was delivered to the USAF and when it received its first F-22.) And I'm sure in 2035 folks will be moaning about how the steady and reliable F-35 (in today's SH's role) shouldn't be junked in favour of the flawed-in-a-thousand-ways F-X (assuming the development of a new clean-sheet F-X design is even sanctioned).
    The F-35 is too slow to intercept fast supercruising fighters. The standard in terms of speed will be much higher in the next 10 years. Even a adaptive engine will not be enough for the high drag F-35. A fighter needs enough speed to catch up with his opponent or escape.

    The F-16 was still quite a fine plane in 2001 when the last were build for the USAF, it was not a turkey with like 30% less effective speed than its opponents.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,836
    Hyperbole. There are no planes in the F-35's class that can carry their war load the distance at the speed of the F-35A. Stop comparing clean airframes to a loaded F-35.

    And this is the NOT F-35 thread. Take the discussions about F-35 against the rest of the world to another thread.
    Go Huskers!

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    he was obviously referring to A2A loadout

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Laughable. The typhoon and rafale are already faster than the F-35A in a2a configuration, and the range difference is marginal if they carry a centerline tank. And they can drop their centerline tank if they want. In 10 years the PAK-FA will be coming in numbers with its supercruising engines. Good luck to the fat F-35 to catch up with it.

    Ok, this is not an F-35 thread, I just answered your point ( you already knew what I was gonna say but apparently you have a hard time accepting what you don't like ), so let's get back on topic.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    EGTK
    Posts
    8,794
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    Look at the Typhoon: had they used a single production chain, there would've been economies of scale. But instead, every country's politician wanted to have its own assembly chain (jobs in HIS country and so on), as a result, you get and aircraft that costs more than a "single country" Rafale, while doing less

    To get what you talk about, they'd have to be wise enough to sit around the table, agree on everything that's needed (regardless whether "my" country needs it all or not) and then set up a single production project, eventually make manufacturers compete with different projects and choose one, built where it was designed.
    Well for the prime example of where this lack of co-operation takes you just look at the Jaguar. Started out as a joint effort to produce an advanced trainer common to UK/France. Both sides kept sticking their two pence worth in and the size and weight kept increasing until the decision was made to delete the second cockpit and make a dedicated combat aircraft of it.

    Hotshot, that is one of my thoughts on the F-35 too. It just isn't going to be as good at any of its roles as any of the types it is intended to replace. Assuming it ever makes it into service of course.
    Last edited by mike currill; 2nd April 2015 at 16:07.
    The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its original size.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    The French and the Sweedes were not satisfied with the EF-2000 specs. France has a manufacturing base that can build an entire fighter, unlike other european countries except the UK, so it was considered a strategic decision to maintain it. The Sweedes wanted a much lighter plane than the EF.
    Well they're fortunate that Egyptian military junta decided to splurge on arms during an economic crunch, else that 'strategic decision' might have landed Dassault Aviation with the first clean-sheet design to fail to get a single export order. As it is, production has been squeezed down to a trickle to make the annual intake affordable to the French state. With the basic French fighter industry wrapping up by 2020 or so (though allied segments will persevere, similar to Israel), closely followed by the remainder of the European industry by 2023 (when the Gripen E transits out of production), the question of how justified that decision to preserve 'national capabilities' was, may have a disheartening answer.

    The F-35 is too slow to intercept fast supercruising fighters. The standard in terms of speed will be much higher in the next 10 years. Even a adaptive engine will not be enough for the high drag F-35. A fighter needs enough speed to catch up with his opponent or escape.

    The F-16 was still quite a fine plane in 2001 when the last were build for the USAF, it was not a turkey with like 30% less effective speed than its opponents.
    That's just silly. The F-35 does Mach 1.6 and thanks to huge internal fuel load, it can afford to fly clean. Unless its involved in a tail-chase with a PAK FA, speed is hardly an issue.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    sustained speed is always an issue in any intercept,
    and thanks to huge drag, it will need all that fuel to just briefly reach M1.6 before bingo fuel

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    sustained speed is always an issue in any intercept,
    and thanks to huge drag, it will need all that fuel to just briefly reach M1.6 before bingo fuel
    Seems many of the above posters learned nothing from the extensive discussions about external weapon drag( or don't want to learn because it upsets their views).

    We've taken actual drag indexes from actual flight manuals, to compare and if still it is impossible for some to grasp the obvious then.....

    Any fighter hanging 2 x 2000lb bombs a centerline tank, 2 x aam and a targeting pod is going to have a very large DI, not to mention the speed limits placed on the aircraft from the targeting pod.

    And please, several of the above posts should be in the f-35 thread. Does every thread have to turn into "rant about the F-35" thread?

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW
    Any fighter hanging 2 x 2000lb bombs
    seems you didnt even check what the discussion was about, (hint: intercept)
    but that didnt stop a knee-jerk response referring to 2x2000 lbs bombs,
    tell me: since when was bomb-lugging mandatory or even desirable on intercept missions
    Last edited by obligatory; 2nd April 2015 at 17:25.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    seems you didnt even check what the discussion was about, (hint: intercept)
    but that didnt stop a knee-jerk response
    Point stands, look back at DI discussions, all sorts of load outs were compared. Anyway, instead of looking at the most common load outs for actual combat aircraft usage, most want to compare intercept configurations. Not very realistic.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    no, there's no point in including bombs on intercept missions,
    and no point in discussing intercepts with someone harping on about bomb loadout on intercept missions

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    lol ok guys let's get back on topic.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,666
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Point stands, look back at DI discussions, all sorts of load outs were compared. Anyway, instead of looking at the most common load outs for actual combat aircraft usage, most want to compare intercept configurations. Not very realistic.
    Many countries don't do much beyond intercept missions. I briefly remember that some Gripen users don't even have A-G modes installed, for example.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Many countries don't do much beyond intercept missions. I briefly remember that some Gripen users don't even have A-G modes installed, for example.
    True, they are those nations unlikely to see combat as well. The last 30 years has shown that most aircraft flying in harms way are not loaded with 4 aams. Look at the typhoons that have been scrambled to intercept Russian bears, they are not flying clean in any sense of the word.

    Yet I agree with the premise of your post, for a nation like Switzerland, which is extremely unlikely to ever fly combat fighters in anything other than a short, fast air policing mission, the Gripen on a cost basis makes perfect sense. Sadly, the voters disagreed.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,998
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    True, they are those nations unlikely to see combat as well. The last 30 years has shown that most aircraft flying in harms way are not loaded with 4 aams. Look at the typhoons that have been scrambled to intercept Russian bears, they are not flying clean in any sense of the word.
    Actually, NATO's QRA jets fly with 4 AAMs quite often, 6-8 in some cases. The RAF likes to fly with 8 AAMs it seems.
    If you're thinking about tanks, those can be dropped should the need arise. So yes, in an air to air scenario, and that's not just interceptions, you need to compare flight performance with 6-8 missiles.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,666
    Here a Hellenic Mirage 2000-5EG Mk2 and French Rafale C armed on QRA duty - 2x ARH MICA, 2x IR guided MICA, one drop tank (to be jettisoned).
    I have serious doubts the max speed or acceleration after climb is imparted by this loadout in any significant way.


    Last edited by MSphere; 3rd April 2015 at 23:31.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,666
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle View Post
    Actually, NATO's QRA jets fly with 4 AAMs quite often, 6-8 in some cases. The RAF likes to fly with 8 AAMs it seems.
    Sounds about right

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Here a Hellenic Mirage 2000-5EG Mk2 and French Rafale C armed on QRA duty - 2x ARH MICA, 2x IR guided MICA, one drop tank (to be jettisoned).
    I have serious doubts the max speed or acceleration after climb is imparted by this loadout in any significant way.



    In terms of acceleration, the impact is not negligible:
    For an F-15E with the -229 engines, with a massive static T/W ratio at 45,000lbs of 1.296 here are the numbers clean and with 4 aam:

    10,000 feet clean mach .8 to mach 1.2: under 16 seconds
    10,000 feet with four aam: 17 seconds- not much difference

    40,000 feet clean: 40 seconds
    40,000 feet with 4 aam 45 seconds
    a 12.5% decrease in acceleration

    max speed difference is negligible for the F-15 because it is time limited but roughly .1 mach.

    For the F-16C which is much lighter fighter, at a gross weight of 24,000lbs ( which means it is low on fuel because the aircraft actually weighs 20,000lbs+ (not 19,000lbs as often quoted) with pilot and all lubricants and unusable fuel etc, it will touch mach 1.95 clean.
    With a DI of 50, reasonable if not low for 4 aam and pylons it's under mach 1.8

    The acceleration also takes a hit:
    at 10,000 feet 24,000lbs clean mach .8 to mach 1.23 takes 24 seconds
    at 10,000 feet 24,DI of 50 mach .8 to mach 1.23 takes 39 seconds

    clean at 40,000 feet mach .82 to mach 1.24 takes 61 seconds
    with a DI of 50 mach .82 to mach 1.24 takes 77 seconds

    Saying that 4 missiles and the associated pylons does not have an impact on acceleration is obviously wrong. Top speed is a little deceptive since both of the fighters are time limited on fuel so top speed is hypothetical anyway, the F-15E will not go above much above mach 2.3 clean or with missiles as it runs out of fuel (and the four aams are semi recessed so very little drag there). The F-16 looses about .15 mach with a DI of 50 ( the F-16 is also listed as a mach 2 fighter but the flight manual tops it out below mach 2, so I don't know)

    The point is: a smaller fighter is impacted by even the addition of pylons and missiles. The F-15E comes off better because the drag impacts it less, and frankly 4 semi-recessed missiles are not going to add a ton of drag (good news for the Typhoon).

    Edit- The DI 50 is the lowest listed, for a reason. Yes, the F-16 with two pylons+ missiles and two wingtip missiles can have a DI around 20, but how often does any air force remove all the other weapon pylons to clean the aircraft off? The DI of 50 about as low as they are going to fly with weapons.
    Last edited by FBW; 4th April 2015 at 04:29.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW
    Yes, the F-16 with two pylons+ missiles and two wingtip missiles can have a DI around 20, but how often does any air force remove all the other weapon pylons to clean the aircraft off?
    looks like 2+2 AAM is the most common loadout after all
    Last edited by obligatory; 4th April 2015 at 11:07.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    looks like 2+2 AAM is the most common loadout after all
    Seriously ignorant comment, do better. The point was it's the LOWEST DI from the flight manual on the F-16C. They go: DI 0, 50, 150, 200 as a point of comparison.

    So no, it is not, its just the lowest listed. If that's the only comment you could make about my post, you completey missed the point.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,998
    That would make the lowest drag index listed zero, wouldn't it.
    Steps of 50 doesn't mean less than 50 is impossible. Data for some drag indexes is provided, you have to interpolate for the exact drag index of your configuration.

    btw, drag index with 4 AAMs and centerline pylon is 36. That is a realistic loadout.
    6 AAMs or 4 AAMs with centerline tank is 51, so yes, 50 happens to be a good reference point too.
    Last edited by eagle; 4th April 2015 at 16:48.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Well they're fortunate that Egyptian military junta decided to splurge on arms during an economic crunch, else that 'strategic decision' might have landed Dassault Aviation with the first clean-sheet design to fail to get a single export order. As it is, production has been squeezed down to a trickle to make the annual intake affordable to the French state. With the basic French fighter industry wrapping up by 2020 or so (though allied segments will persevere, similar to Israel), closely followed by the remainder of the European industry by 2023 (when the Gripen E transits out of production), the question of how justified that decision to preserve 'national capabilities' was, may have a disheartening answer.
    Actually Egypt is not in economic crunch as far as Rafale purchase is concerned. why they only order 24 that's more relevant. if it so advanced and without restriction they should build airforce around Rafale. You wont find biggest supporter of arabs than france.
    EF is also not doing better only 44 delivered to RSAF in 8 years.

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