Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 22 of 53 FirstFirst ... 1218192021222324252632 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 660 of 1580

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #631
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,306
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Nice catch.. looks like the ATK AARGM-ER has a larger diameter motor.
    Orbital's proposal uses an 11.5 inch motor, so 15% greater diameter compared to the HARM/AARGM. The Navy trade space is 11.5-13 inch probably dictated by the F-35C internal carriage. Essentially a JSOW class as the upper limit..Motor APUC target is $150-175K. That's rather tight so I'll be interested to see what other motor suppliers propose and if some existing program could be leveraged.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2017 at 19:06.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  2. #632
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    158
    I believe the main reason HARM has such large control surfaces is so it can perform a sudden hard maneuver after launch to get onto the right bearing. I wonder how AARGM-ER will manage that with much smaller control surfaces. Thrust vectoring rocket motor perhaps?

  3. #633
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,306
    Lockheed exec: Navy will test F-35C nose gear, helmet-mounted display fixes at sea this summer, fall


    The Navy will most likely begin testing fixes for the F-35C nose gear and the helmet-mounted display on a ship this summer or fall, according to a Lockheed Martin executive.

    Jeff Babione, F-35 program general manager for Lockheed Martin, said March 21 during the company's annual media day in Arlington, VA, the F-35C carrier variant just recently wrapped up nose gear testing at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, NJ.

    One of the fixes was changing the way the pilot straps in. During testing the team had to make sure the pilot's head and arms were in the proper position, he said.

    “In addition, we changed the pullback fixture. Think about having just a little bit less load holding the airplane when it launches off the catapult,” Babione said.

    This reduces the amount of energy that comes out during the airplane's oscillations, he added.

    Babione anticipates the Navy will test these fixes aboard an aircraft carrier in the fall.

    Further, the program is making progress with the helmet-mounted display and a software fix for the display's symbology should be released in one of the next software drops.

    The fix “enables the pilot to control what symbols are there, their density and brightness of those,” he said.

    The Navy has not set a date on testing the helmet at sea but Babione estimates late summer or early fall.

    Inside the Navy first reported the Pentagon established a "red team" last September to investigate issues with the F-35C's nose gear and the team recommended that if initial steps to fix the problem fail, the nose gear should be redesigned.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  4. #634
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,095
    The Air Force’s first F-35 was delivered in 2011, production is set to last through 2038, and the plane is projected to operate through 2070. This is akin to operating and maintaining a fleet of P-51 Mustangs from 1940 through the opening operations in Afghanistan in 2001. This is the plan, not a byproduct of unforeseen circumstances. Forty years from now, one can imagine a senior Air Force leader pandering a vignette comparable to the one with the B-17 *in Desert Storm, as if we hadn’t planned to use current aircraft through 2060 or beyond.
    Previously, we discussed one of Norman Augustine’s laws, which succinctly describes the complexity acquisition death spiral with which large segments of the U.S. military now grapple. Unaffordability predicted by Augustine is driving the U.S. Air Force to make “once in a generation” purchasing decisions that tilt toward overly ambitious and overly complex systems. Two important outcomes from Augustine’s law fuel this self-reinforcing cycle.

    First, new acquisition programs are so expensive, time-consuming, and fraught with risk that the Air Force would rather modify existing aircraft to increase performance in certain areas or to enable new missions. If we could channel the thoughts of both Norm Augustine and Yogi Berra, we might say, “New aircraft programs are so rare, customers can’t afford to do one anymore.” The irony is that the customer should have the power to dictate precisely when new programs start, but the prevailing conditions have instead created a broken environment wherein market forces are no longer at work.

    Second, modifying existing aircraft for new missions and capabilities inevitably pushes them toward the high end of the mix. They become more complex and expensive, but may lose their performance edge in the narrow slices for which they were originally designed. Further, this complexity may make them less reliable, and legacy platforms no longer in production are much harder to replace in the event of attrition.
    https://warontherocks.com/2017/03/re...-death-spiral/

    Interesting thoughts -- perhaps one counter-argument can be that development of systems like the F-35 is forcing any opponents to go through the same expensive process to catch up (or try to catch up, witness PAK FA and J-20). OTOH 2070 is into the deep future and who knows what will be flying by then! Perhaps some small drones that work together in swarms and cannot be handled easily at all by the traditional fighter jet?

    For the foreseable future the F-35 no doubt will be very effective, but after that, who knows?

  5. #635
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,306
    When was the F-16/F15 designed/developed, when did it's production seize and when will the last one be retired from operational US service?
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  6. #636
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    When was the F-16/F15 designed/developed, when did it's production seize and when will the last one be retired from operational US service?
    Not to forget B-52, KC-135 and even the B-2 which will likely push 70+ years of service.

    Comparing a WW2 airframe to technological development today is a deeply flawed argument for so many obvious reasons...

  7. #637
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,880
    obviously.. in the decades following the WWII, many designs that appeared revolutionary at the beginning of their development were more or less outdated pretty much the day they finally reached service... and their development was fabulously short when compared to what we witness today.

    Today, we reach pretty much the limits of what the little guy inside the airframe can stand, and the aircrafts aren't "the weapons" anymore, but rather limited to the role of "vehicle delivering weapons". As a result, the major part of research is directed at developing the "smart" part of the aircraft.. electronics and "smart weapons".. and these can be, very often, improved and integrated to existing platforms, reducing the need to develop new ones

  8. #638
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,095
    I predict the next big breakthrough will be unnmanned -- already today there are driverless cars doing quite well (although they have not been approved for regular use quite yet). I believe the main roadblocks are ROE and a conservative "pilot culture" in the USAF and most other air forces around the world.

    If you can have a care driving you from home to work through heavy traffic and probably with less probability of having an accident then when you do the driving yourself I don't see why one cannot have UCAVs performing all kinds of missions, autonomously. Whereas a lot of effort is made today to keep the pilot safe and able to return home safely, such restrictions need not apply to UCAVs, opening up for new and innovative solutions.

  9. #639
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    60
    I think the next big breakthrough will be bread.....already sliced

  10. #640
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,742
    Name:  Sustained%20G%20and%20T%20to%20W.jpg
Views: 287
Size:  82.5 KB
    Performance standard: 60% internal fuel (5000 kg), 2 aim-120 missiles, 15000 ft, M0.8.
    viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510
    Threshold: 4.6G at M0.8
    Demonstrated performance: 4.95G at M0.8 (F-35 240-3 configuration)
    http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... NPjFNUrKUk

    4.95G at M0.8 corresponds to 11 deg/sec. Not a good looking figure?
    This is because F-35 is carrying too much fuel. That is not fair.

    Note that Mig-29 uses only 1700 kg as performance standard (1700=3400*50%). For the same afterburner time, a F-35 needs about 2000 kg fuel (fuel consumption = SFC*thrust*time. Since all turbofan engines have similar SFC of about 1.9, fuel consumption is proportional to total thrust.)

    With 3000 kg weight reduction, the total flying weight gives a factor of 16000/19000=0.84. Since the normal load factor is inverse-proportional to weight, the turn rate will be increased by 19%. Which is 13.1 deg/sec at M0.8, 15000 ft.
    F-35 is already among the top performer even we don’t consider the turn rate increase from M0.9 to M0.8. We haven’t considered the fact that 2 aim-120s are definitely heavier than 2 infrared missiles neither.

    It is safe to assume that F-35 could out-turn its major adversary, Su-27/30 families, for the fuel of same afterburner duration
    This guy.....*

    So at the end, he talks about AIM-120 being heavier that of AIM-9'ish..(probably due to F-35 can't carry any int).
    Yeah well how about you put on eight or even six AIM-120, and then give it a go

    Guess that wouldn't be fair eighter.
    Last edited by haavarla; 23rd March 2017 at 16:29.
    Thanks

  11. #641
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    This guy.....*

    So at the end, he talks about AIM-120 being heavier that of AIM-9'ish..
    Yeah well how about you put on eight or even six AIM-120, and then give it a go

    Guess that wouldn't be fair eighter..
    The turn rate is roughly 11 degrees per second at 15K (based on the 4.6g threshold and 4.95g observed 240-4 configuration test aircraft).

    The rest? Who cares. That is an argument over at F-16.net between some Chinese poster using youtube to extrapolate J-20's turn rate and a F-16.net member. I think there are enough arguments on here without importing them, you?

  12. #642
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,742
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    The turn rate is roughly 11 degrees per second at 15K (based on the 4.6g threshold and 4.95g observed 240-4 configuration test aircraft).

    The rest? Who cares. That is an argument over at F-16.net between some Chinese poster using youtube to extrapolate J-20's turn rate and a F-16.net member. I think there are enough arguments on here without importing them, you?
    If its imported or from some China-US di*ck wavering contest, i do not see any reason why it should not be posted here.
    I think you will agree, that 90% of the material posted/debated here is from somewhere else(different sources).

    We could always discuss sliced bread i you want..
    Thanks

  13. #643
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    "observed" without clue of fuel state or even accurate angle is worth squat

  14. #644
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    "observed" without clue of fuel state or even accurate angle is worth squat
    The only thing without a clue is your post. The "observed" was the sustained G based on the specification: 60% fuel with 2 AMRAAM, that was demonstrated in testing. This information and the link about the F-35's observed air vehicle 240-3 configuration (vs threshold 4.6 g which you erroneously quote constantly as the sustained turn performance) has been posted here a dozen times at least.

    No idea what you mean by accurate angle,

  15. #645
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,314
    http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/l...-assad-bogdan/

    Below 80 million in 2020 dollars? Given that they are talking about URF, but that will make it very hard to compete against the F-35 on price alone (O&S costs will become the next point of contention).

  16. #646
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,247
    I like this part.

    Bogdan [...] submitted data on the F-35’s current and projected performance, cost to procure, and cost to operate, he said, which is now being reviewed against Super Hornet data provided by the Navy.

    “I don’t think the answer is an either/or,” Bogdan said. “You can’t substitute a Super Hornet for an F-35C in the high-end fight (i.e. against Russian or Chinese radars and anti-aircraft missiles). You might be able to afford more Super Hornets, but they’re going to die in the high-end fight, and I don’t know how economical that is.” But, Bogdan continued, “we’re not only go to fight a high-end fight.” There are plenty of operations in lower-threat environments where the Super Hornet is perfectly suitable, he said, and with its current fighter shortfall, the Navy needs as many planes as it can get.
    I wonder who is that Bogdan* to say this. Seems to be unknown on this forum...

    Ok, let's capitalize it a bit (I think I earned a free drama voucher the other day)

    "You might be able to afford more Super Hornets, but they’re going to die in the high-end fight, and I don’t know how economical that is."
    *

    Source:
    Link posted above

    *http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographie...-c-bogdan.aspx
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 23rd March 2017 at 18:28.

  17. #647
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    I like this part.



    I wonder who is that Bogdan* to say this. Seems to be unknown on this forum...

    Ok, let's capitalize it a bit (I think I earned a free drama voucher the other day)

    "You might be able to afford more Super Hornets, but they’re going to die in the high-end fight, and I don’t know how economical that is."
    *

    Source:
    Link posted above

    *http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographie...-c-bogdan.aspx
    Why the yelling? and why not also quote this part:

    But that's not to say that there's not a right mix out there. Because we're not only going to fight the high-end fight, we're going to fight mid-fights and low-end fights too."
    and this:
    They need fifth-generation airplanes and they need some fourth-generation airplanes, and they need them soon. So what I think you're going to see the Navy do is buy as many F-35Cs as they can afford, and maybe supplement that with as many other things as they can afford. But they just need airplanes,” he said.
    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...dability-study

    So even Bogdan realize that the USN will acquire both F-35C and the SH, the question is how the mix is going to be.

  18. #648
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    This guy.....*

    So at the end, he talks about AIM-120 being heavier that of AIM-9'ish..(probably due to F-35 can't carry any int).
    Yeah well how about you put on eight or even six AIM-120, and then give it a go

    Guess that wouldn't be fair eighter.
    Pretty sure fuel weight plays more important role than small different between those missiles

  19. #649
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,742
    Quote Originally Posted by mig-31bm View Post
    Pretty sure fuel weight plays more important role than small different between those missiles
    My point was both weight and drag.
    The jet with better lift/drag would surly benefit here.

    Actually its a combination of these four forces:

    - Weight is the force of gravity. It acts in a downward direction—toward the center of the Earth.

    - Lift is the force that acts at a right angle to the direction of motion through the air. Lift is created by differences in air pressure.

    - Thrust is the force that propels a flying machine in the direction of motion. Engines produce thrust.

    - Drag is the force that acts opposite to the direction of motion. Drag is caused by friction and differences in air pressure.
    Last edited by haavarla; 24th March 2017 at 17:12.
    Thanks

  20. #650
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    My point was both weight and drag.
    The jet with better lift/drag would surly benefit here.

    Actually its a combination of these four forces:

    - Weight is the force of gravity. It acts in a downward direction—toward the center of the Earth.

    - Lift is the force that acts at a right angle to the direction of motion through the air. Lift is created by differences in air pressure.

    - Thrust is the force that propels a flying machine in the direction of motion. Engines produce thrust.

    - Drag is the force that acts opposite to the direction of motion. Drag is caused by friction and differences in air pressure.
    I know those things affect sustained turn rate but can you be more clear ? what are you trying to say ?

  21. #651
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,742
    Quote Originally Posted by mig-31bm View Post
    I know those things affect sustained turn rate but can you be more clear ? what are you trying to say ?
    That guy claim that a smaller jet like F-35 is equal or even better in STR that of its larger Flankers.
    with that he puts out some strange pre-set fuel state and weapons(two AIM-120), cause the F-35 can't carry 9x internally i guess.

    Then he says something even weirder.. the AIM-120 being heavier than -9x.. point being?
    Well how many fighter jets are only armed with two AIM-120'ish on any given mission profile..? Oh wait! the F-35

    Then i proceeded; why not load up with more missiles, and do that calculation of his again.
    Put on eight or just six AIM-120'ish with fuel and see how great the F-35 does against larger Flanker.

    The more weight and drag you equal mount on F-35 and Flanker, the more penalty F-35 faces with its smaller lift and mass.

    Further more, where does he get turn rate of Flanker with just two Amramski.. Su-27SK flight manual?
    Flanker would have at a bare minimum two Amramski and two Shraam.
    Last edited by haavarla; 24th March 2017 at 18:44.
    Thanks

  22. #652
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,318
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Ok, let's capitalize it a bit (I think I earned a free drama voucher the other day)

    "You might be able to afford more Super Hornets, but they’re going to die in the high-end fight, and I don’t know how economical that is."
    *
    Not at all because they can do 50° AoA

  23. #653
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    Not at all because they can do 50° AoA
    Way to interject again with irrelevance. The AoA discussion wasn't a criticism of the Rafale, or even about the relative merits of such a capability.

    Every design has strengths and weaknesses. Adults can converse without getting b*tthurt. I should say most can without breaking out jingoistic, national insults because they didn't follow the topic.

  24. #654
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,318
    It was just a joke but okay get your panties into a knot if you really want to.

  25. #655
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,095
    FBW, ligthen up, it's Friday evening in Europe!

    N10, joke appreciated

  26. #656
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    FBW, ligthen up, it's Friday evening in Europe!

    N10, joke appreciated
    Very light. It's happy hour here. In any case, T-VIP isn't American (I don't think) so the whole America-stronk thing doesn't make sense.

  27. #657
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,318
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Very light. It's happy hour here. In any case, T-VIP isn't American (I don't think) so the whole America-stronk thing doesn't make sense.
    You can take him if you want.

    Scratch that... please take him.

  28. #658
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,095
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Very light. It's happy hour here. In any case, T-VIP isn't American (I don't think) so the whole America-stronk thing doesn't make sense.
    I am not so sure -- I suspect he is French-Canadian. He speaks French, and I strongly doubt he is from France.

    Last time I checked Canada was part of America.

  29. #659
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    That guy claim that a smaller jet like F-35 is equal or even better in STR that of its larger Flankers.
    with that he puts out some strange pre-set fuel state and weapons(two AIM-120), cause the F-35 can't carry 9x internally i guess.

    Then he says something even weirder.. the AIM-120 being heavier than -9x.. point being?
    Well how many fighter jets are only armed with two AIM-120'ish on any given mission profile..? Oh wait! the F-35

    Then i proceeded; why not load up with more missiles, and do that calculation of his again.
    Put on eight or just six AIM-120'ish with fuel and see how great the F-35 does against larger Flanker.

    The more weight and drag you equal mount on F-35 and Flanker, the more penalty F-35 faces with its smaller lift and mass.

    Further more, where does he get turn rate of Flanker with just two Amramski.. Su-27SK flight manual?
    Flanker would have at a bare minimum two Amramski and two Shraam.
    The Flanker is indeed heavier than the F-35A, but so is the R-27 and R-77 compared to the AIM-120, so the effect of added mass from more missiles ends up being a wash IMO.

    He doesn't have the turn rate of a Flanker with 2x AMRAAMski, but he does have an image from an old USAF document. The text to the left of the chart says:

    COMBAT WEIGHT SUSTAINED TURN RATE AT 15,000 ft / 0.9M
    WITH FULL GUN AMMO + (2) IR MISSILES

    I have no idea how accurate the USAF's data on the Flanker was when that document was created, or even if the data would still be relevant today after any upgrades the Flankers might have received.

  30. #660
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    Why the yelling? and why not also quote this part:



    and this:


    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...dability-study

    So even Bogdan realize that the USN will acquire both F-35C and the SH, the question is how the mix is going to be.
    Did I say the contrary? No. And the source was linked for everyone to read.
    Source:
    Link posted above

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