Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 74 of 75 FirstFirst ... 2464707172737475 LastLast
Results 2,191 to 2,220 of 2230

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #2191
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    190
    This should shut up the two folks in here who are having issues with "range calculations."



    Something tells me after they watch the video, DUH, will still come out of their mouths.

  2. #2192
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo
    .
    As often seem to happen, you were making petty technical remark
    Why is it petty if it true?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo
    See, in my country we use to call such kind of sponsored documents "marchette" i.e. the way that was used to pay for the girls' services in old times' brothels.

    So the remarks I have made about the figure you reported were intended just as practical examples of how some data can easily be twisted and sugarcoated in order to fit the sponsor's agenda. Rest assured that if instead of the Northrop-Grumman there have been some IRST producer to pay the bill there would have been completely diferen considerations.
    The fact you replied in the way you have done just confirm me that, sadly, you have eat not just the bait but also the hook, the angle and the whole fishing pole.
    You do know system like DAS MS-177 were designed and produced by Northrop Grumman right?
    LM themselves also produce Tiger eyes, Legion pod, EOTS, Sniper-XR.

  3. #2193
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,125
    Not all present know English. If translate the text of the video, i also does not understand anything
    Last edited by paralay; 6th August 2017 at 06:11.

  4. #2194
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    240
    An interesting article on the Royal Navy/Royal Air Force F-35B using the Rolling Vertical Landings on the new aircraft carriers.

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...-navy-carriers

  5. #2195
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    Minus 5 deg AoA upon impact ?! How would you identify a RN F35 pilot? The one with the rubber pants...

  6. #2196
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  7. #2197
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,125
    1278 km - horizontal takeoff and landing CTOL
    1019 km - short takeoff and vertical landing STOVL
    1352 km - CV

    F-35A
    1239 km (669 nm) CTOL, Conventional Takeoff and Landing, normal takeoff and landing
    13290 kg (empty) + 8278 kg (fuel) + 100 kg (pilot) + 323 kg (2 AiM-120C 161.5 kg) + 918 kg (2 GBU-32) = 22909 kg
    Since all the load on the internal suspension, the flight range is affected only by weight changes.

    Average weight without bombs
    13290 kg (empty) + 4139 kg (fuel) + 100 kg (pilot) + 323 kg (2 AiM-120C 161.5 kg) + 918 kg (2 GBU-32) = 18770 kg

    Average weight with dropping bombs
    13290 kg (empty) + 4139 kg (fuel) + 100 kg (pilot) + 323 kg (2 AiM-120C 161.5 kg) + 459 kg (1 GBU-32) = 18311 kg
    The range of the flight is 1239 km * 2 + 5% ANZ = 2478 km + 124 km = 2602 km

    F-35A, the maximum flight range
    13290 kg (empty) + 8278 kg (fuel) + 100 kg (pilot) = 21668 kg
    The average weight of 17529 kg
    (18311 kg: 17529 kg) * 2602 km = 2718 km
    (18770 kg: 17529 kg) * 2602 km = 2786 km


    F-35B
    935.36 km (505 nm) STOVL, Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing, short takeoff and vertical landing
    14515 kg (empty) + 100 kg (pilot) + 6124 kg (fuel) + 323 kg (2 AiM-120C 161.5 kg) + 918 kg (2 GBU-32) = 21980 kg

    Average weight without bombs
    14515 kg (empty) + 100 kg (pilot) + 3062 kg (fuel) + 323 kg (2 AiM-120C 161.5 kg) + 918 kg (2 GBU-32) = 18918 kg

    Average weight with dropping bombs
    14515 kg (empty) + 100 kg (pilot) + 3062 kg (fuel) + 323 kg (2 AiM-120C 161.5 kg) + 459 kg (1 GBU-32) = 18459 kg

    The flight range is 935.36 km * 2 + 5% ANZ = 1870.72 km + 93.536 km = 1964.3 km

    F-35B, flight range without load
    14515 kg (empty) + 100 kg (pilot) + 6124 kg (fuel) = 20739 kg
    The average weight of 17677 kg

    (18918 kg: 17677 kg) * 935.36 km = 1001 km
    (18459 kg: 17677 kg) * 935.36 km = 977 km


    F-35C
    1185 km (640 nm) CV
    15785 kg (empty) + 100 kg (pilot) + 8959 kg (fuel) + 323 kg (2 AiM-120C 161.5 kg) + 918 kg (2 GBU-32) = 26085 kg

    Average weight without bombs
    15785 kg (empty) + 100 kg (pilot) + 4479.5 kg (fuel) + 323 kg (2 AiM-120C 161.5 kg) + 918 kg (2 GBU-32) = 21605.5 kg

    Average weight with dropping bombs
    15785 kg (empty) + 100 kg (pilot) + 4479.5 kg (fuel) + 323 kg (2 AiM-120C 161.5 kg) + 459 kg (1 GBU-32) = 21146.5 kg

    The range is 1185 km * 2 + 5% ANZ = 2370 km + 118.5 km = 2488.5 km

    F-35C, flight range without load
    15785 kg (empty) + 100 kg (pilot) + 8959 kg (fuel) = 24,844 kg
    The average weight of 20364.5 kg

    (21605.5 kg: 20364.5 kg) * 2488.5 km = 2640 km
    (21146.5 kg: 20364.5 kg) * 2488.5 km = 2584 km

  8. #2198
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay
    Since all the load on the internal suspension, the flight range is affected only by weight changes.
    This is wrong, flight range affected by cruising altitude and combat time more than weight change.

  9. #2199
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,603
    Hi All,
    I thought I was hearing things the other day when they said in a video about the rolling landing. Doesn't that defeat the object of having
    a vertical landing capable aircraft especially this supposedly superior 'Harriers' replacement ? If they are now considering using this tactic in
    recovering the aircraft shouldn't they have just stuck with a navalised version of whatever aircraft instead of the expense of these supposedly
    all singing and dancing wonder weapons ?

    Geoff.

  10. #2200
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    Extremism doesn't fit well with engineering. At all level of dev you can adapt your solution to get the proper amount of benefits by maximizing it with the right amount of mixture chosen b/w several conditions.
    Instead of sticking to the idea that they have to land vertically, they simply arrive faster (what means being able to land with an heavier load) and stop by allowing the plane to roll slightly. This was done already with the old harrier (land based) and seems now to be on use with the 35. Given that the landing distance are short and that the carrier is moving forward at great speed, the resulting rolling motion will be short.
    In the end, the 35B will be able to land at an heavier mass, with less reserve fuel, increasing de-facto bring back load what will better its usefulness and reduce cost by opening its operating procedures.

    The only detrimental effect is with the back of their pilots !
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 9th August 2017 at 09:44.

  11. #2201
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    Quote Originally Posted by 1batfastard
    Hi All,
    I thought I was hearing things the other day when they said in a video about the rolling landing. Doesn't that defeat the object of having
    a vertical landing capable aircraft especially this supposedly superior 'Harriers' replacement ? If they are now considering using this tactic in
    recovering the aircraft shouldn't they have just stuck with a navalised version of whatever aircraft instead of the expense of these supposedly
    all singing and dancing wonder weapons ?
    What a rolling vertical landing is is essentially a vertical landing where the aircraft maintains enough forward speed to generate some lift with its wings. (rather than a true vertical landing where the wings generate no lift)

    As already noted, the advantage to this approach is that the aircraft can recover at higher weights, allowing it to bring back more fuel/weapons for a given set of conditions.

    This is not the same thing as a traditional carrier landing as the aircraft is going far slower and most of the lift is generated by the engine/lift fan, the impact on landing is far less, and there is no arresting gear used.

  12. #2202
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,199
    USMC Harriers use short rolling landing to keep the plume-generated debris field away from the inlets and blow-in doors. Doing so significantly reduces the incidents of engine FOD.

    I believe the rolling landing technique for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers is due to the lack of visual cues to the pilot of his position over the landing area of the flight deck. F-35B pilots use their relative position to the Gator's island for a visual cue of position. The QE's aft island is further away.
    Last edited by djcross; 9th August 2017 at 12:22.

  13. #2203
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  14. #2204
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    And now the US army!

    U.S. Army Eyes F-35 As Missile Defense Sensor

    Richard De Fatta, director of the USASMDC/ARSTRAT’s future warfare center, says discussions are ongoing about how to integrate the Joint Strike Fighter for taking out ballistic and cruise missiles.
    “It’s a great capability, so let’s see where it can contribute as an overhead asset,” he said at a Raytheon-sponsored forum here on Aug. 7, ahead of the annual Space and Missile Defense Symposium. “We’re seeing where we could go with it and what’s the art of the possible.”
    Also

    The Army has long been pursuing tethered aerostats, such as JLens, for detection and tracking of airborne threats. But aerostats, airships and balloons are far less responsive than a fighter jet, despite being far cheaper to operate long-term.
    That where the program is ballooning I suppose. At last all the naysayers were right...


    Source:
    AviationWeek.com
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 9th August 2017 at 18:15.

  15. #2205
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    And now the US army!
    USAF's current land based Long Range Surveillance radar program ( new start ACAT 1) has a requirement to support the US Army's Integrated Fire Control Network and provide fire-control level remote connectivity with the Army's IAMD effort so it only makes sense to bring in other USAF Fire Control sensors as well. The AN/APG-81 is a pretty good place to start given how prevalent the aircraft will be in the early 2020s when the Army expects to field its new C2 system.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  16. #2206
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,466
    There has always been a plane to integrate the entire military into a big sensor net. This is not a new plan and the US Army is not saying that they want to buy F-35s or use them as a "primary" sensor. They are only saying that while they are up there, it would be nice to have the data.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 10th August 2017 at 15:00.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  17. #2207
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    Yeah it has long been in the cards but delayed due to technical and budgetary reasons (on the Army project side). The Navy and the USMC are ahead of the game with NIFC-CA, CEC - CTN.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  18. #2208
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,603
    Hi All,
    hopsalot djcross bring_it_on
    Many thanks for answering my puzzle and the video much clearer.

    Geoff.

  19. #2209
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    Italy's audit court gives F-35 cautious approval

    Looking at the bottom line, the court said that Italy had invested 3.5 billion in the program to the end of 2016 and another 600 million euros this year — so much money it cannot afford to pull out now.
    The report stated that Rome’s “exposure up to now in terms of financial, instrumental and human resources is fundamentally linked to the continuation of the project.”
    The court, which monitors Italy’s government spending, warned that the 2012 decision to cut Italy’s F-35 order from 131 to 90 aircraft may have saved 5.4 billion euros but cost 3.1 billion euros in lost contracts, particularly the construction of wingboxes by Italian defense giant Leonardo, which fell from 1,215 sets to 835 sets.
    [...]
    Around 1,600 staff are working on the program now, compared to range of between 3,586 to 6,395 previously forecast by authorities, the report stated.
    Italy’s assembly line at Cameri Air Base is being underemployed given Italy’s reduction in purchases as well as a diminished order of aircraft by Holland, which plans to assemble its F-35s there.
    [...]
    33 Italian firms were now working on F-35-related contracts. The value of those contracts was seen as reaching $14.2 billion by 2038, including $6.8 billion worth of contracts for Leonardo on its wing box work, $1.1 billion to assemble 90 Italian aircraft and 300 million to assemble 29 Dutch aircraft.
    Source:
    DefenseNews.com

  20. #2210
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,603
    Hi All,
    TomcatViP
    With the your post (2209) indicating Italy's financial input "so much money it cannot afford to pull out now" Could it be said this is what the
    manufacturers were hoping for with each partner saying the same so as to keep the programme going to produce more aircraft way back when ?

    Geoff.

  21. #2211
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    19
    With the your post (2209) indicating Italy's financial input "so much money it cannot afford to pull out now" Could it be said this is what the
    manufacturers were hoping for with each partner saying the same so as to keep the programme going to produce more aircraft way back when ?
    The F-35 is an international partnership with likely complicated procedures for work sharing. Any such program entails a long term commitment and I do not think the F-35 is any different (although Canada has not been expelled for failure to purchase yet). Italian bureaucrats and politicians are quite concerned about the industrial aspects of the program in order to protect domestic jobs, whether or not this should be their priority or not.

    Italy has a tiny defense budget relative to its GDP and probably is trying to hop into all sorts of multinational projects to keep jobs and export options alive on the cheap. It does seem like domestic champions Leonardo and Fincantieri are staying alive in the export market.

    https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon...ing-look-flat/
    http://en.cdp.it/Projects/All-Projec...s-For-Qatar.kl
    http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/...ighter-typhoon

  22. #2212
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,160
    Richard De Fatta, director of the USASMDC/ARSTRAT’s future warfare center, says discussions are ongoing about how to integrate the Joint Strike Fighter for taking out ballistic and cruise missiles.
    “It’s a great capability, so let’s see where it can contribute as an overhead asset,” he said at a Raytheon-sponsored forum here on Aug. 7, ahead of the annual Space and Missile Defense Symposium. “We’re seeing where we could go with it and what’s the art of the possible.”
    Also

    The Army has long been pursuing tethered aerostats, such as JLens, for detection and tracking of airborne threats. But aerostats, airships and balloons are far less responsive than a fighter jet, despite being far cheaper to operate long-term.
    That where the program is ballooning I suppose. At last all the naysayers were right...
    translation : JPO is trying to get money from army....

    Just back, was the new GAO report about block 4 and milestone C already posted?

    https://news.usni.org/2017/08/09/rep...rts#more-27370
    Last edited by halloweene; 13th August 2017 at 16:17.

  23. #2213
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,466
    LOL, for once the GAO has no recommendations:

    We are not making any recommendations at this time because program officials told us that the concurrency issue is being considered as part of their reassessment of Block 4. We will therefore reassess this issue when DOD’s F-35 Block 4 baseline report is issued and brief the congressional defense committees on our findings.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  24. #2214
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    translation : JPO is trying to get money from army....
    Pathetic observation! The Army has been investing in an integrated multi-dommain fire control connectivity to network sensors and shooters within its structure and with its sister services (and even allies) much the same way the USN and USMC have done so with NIFC-CA, CES and CTN. There are two tracks they are following - One is to incorporate fire-control level connective requirements in applicable and appropriate Navy and Air Force new starts and the second is to take systems that are already fielded and design changes to allow for this connectivity much like the Navy did with its network when the Marines used an F-35B as the eyes for an SM6 shot from the desert ship.

    It is only logical that following similar requirements in future AF ground based sensors, the Army is exploring opening up the F-35 to allow the same and advance the "any sensor - any shooter" concept which it has in its future doctrine and is investing a lot of money in developing and fielding. It is quite logical to allow an AN/APG-81 to provide all necessary fire control information to IBCS in order to shoot down a low observable cruise missile OTH if the native radar cannot see it. The Army is doing the same with the AN/MPQ-64 (and later TPS-53) which is getting a 75% range increase with the A4 variant to further enhance this capability. Expect this to also trickle down to other AF and Navy platforms as the systems are developed and fielded. Technology has matured to a point where you can bring in outside sensors beyond the current level where they essentially help in creating a better operating picture but aren't really linked at the fire control level.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 14th August 2017 at 00:02.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  25. #2215
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,603
    Hi All,
    mil - Many thanks for the explanation and the links very interesting...

    Another question:- With the 'US-Army' looking into basically killing missiles with the F-35, is there now a danger of mission creep ? and would this again increase the price or will it be a 'US' only mod ?

    Geoff.

  26. #2216
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    This is a future capability being looked at. The ultimate end goal is to network all multi-domain fire control sensors with all shooters whether on the ground or in the air but naturally this will depend upon system maturity and funding. The Navy/USMC has already demonstrated how through some fairly simple modifications and hardware terminal instals, the F-35's RF sensor can contribute to its composite tracking and fire control network.

    They have already successfully engaged a low flying cruise missile through the F-35 feeding targeting information to AEGIS. The US Army is looking at a similar thing but through their own integrated fire control network and battle management system. The F-35 CNI system allows addition of networking capability and the F-35's radar can be brought into the Integrated Fire Control Network much the same way other currently operational and under development sensors are being done.

    https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/vid...-naval-warfare

    and would this again increase the price or will it be a 'US' only mod ?
    There will be integration cost but the modifications would not be very costly. International users won't really need to procure any modifications or this capability unless they also intend to operate the US Army's command and control system and the associated fire control network, or otherwise wish to integrate their F-35's with them. In fact depending upon the complexity of the data you want to pipe through to IFCN/IBCS you may actually need not make significant if any mod to the aircraft. You could use the existing Link-16 or MADL waveforms much the same way the Navy demonstrated.

    Both these fire control networks require precise, low latency and high quality data to feed a composite track to the baseline command and control system (AEGIS for Navy, and IBCS for Army) so as long as you are able to do that using existing aircraft hardware you'll basically just need some software enhancements on the aircraft side and additional terminals on the ground control side. The Army is about 5-6 years behind on its systems compared to the Navy and its Aegis Baseline 9 so it will benefit from the Navy hammering out a lot of these issues and sort of showing them the best ways to do this.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 14th August 2017 at 06:02.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  27. #2217
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by Levsha View Post
    mig-31bm: 2800 km is range with a normal payload (2 GBU + 2 AIM-120). 3700 km is possibly range without a payload.
    I'd say 3,700 km on internal fuel is fantasy. More in the 2,800 km neighborhood, as stated by LM themselves.

  28. #2218
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,769
    Cannot see how the payload would affect the range that much if carried internally.. The effect of additional drag due to weight must be much smaller than adding/taking one third of the overall range. One of the numbers is apparenty BS, can't say which one..

  29. #2219
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  30. #2220
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Cannot see how the payload would affect the range that much if carried internally.. The effect of additional drag due to weight must be much smaller than adding/taking one third of the overall range. One of the numbers is apparenty BS, can't say which one..
    There's no way it's 3,700 km. Consider that the A2A combat radius is some 750 nmi, or 1,390 km, which unlike a strike mission uses a fairly efficient flight profile. The range wouldn't be much more than double that, and LM themselves state just north of 2,800 km.
    Last edited by RadDisconnect; 14th August 2017 at 15:55.

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