Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Vnomad
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • May 2011
    • 2859

    Hmm, the development costs of the Eurofighter were around 23 Billion US$, my source is the UK National Audit Office, and that number is consistent with quite a lot of articles that ived read.

    https://www.nao.org.uk/report/manage...phoon-project/
    UK Parliament report -

    http://www.publications.parliament.u...cc/860/860.pdf

    Development cost: 6.7 billion ($11.3 bn @ 1 GBP=1.7 USD*) to the UK MoD. Assuming the UK contributed 1/3rd of the development cost that puts the total R&D cost at ~$34 bn.


    *The GBP has fallen steeply recently coupled with a rise in USD but historically the ratio has averaged roughly around 1.5 to 1.9.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 7th June 2017, 17:52.

    Comment

    • Sintra
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2007
      • 3851

      UK Parliament report -

      http://www.publications.parliament.u...cc/860/860.pdf

      Development cost: 6.7 billion ($11.3 bn @ 1 GBP=1.7 USD*) to the UK MoD. Assuming the UK contributed 1/3rd of the development cost that puts the total R&D cost at ~$34 bn.


      *The GBP has fallen steeply recently coupled with a rise in USD but historically the ratio has averaged roughly around 1.5 to 1.9.
      We are using the same 6.7 Billion pounds, the diference is that i was using a smaller conversion Pound*US Dollar (1.4) and used 37.42% of the total program instead of 1/3.

      Just picked the exact conversion numbers from 1998 to 2010, divided by thirteen, it gave a 1,68 USD, thrown the 37.42% and got a 30.01$ Billion development cost, its closer to your number than my own.

      Cheers
      Last edited by Sintra; 7th June 2017, 18:11.
      sigpic

      Comment

      • SpudmanWP
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2009
        • 5292

        Where did the huge IR footprint bit come from?
        Some people believe a single large engine produces a large IR footprint by default but are ignoring things like?:
        -- It's a buried engine
        -- It has a high bypass ratio
        -- It does not have to use afterburner as often
        -- It uses actively cooled leading edges, etc
        -- It has an IR treated nozzle, etc.
        Last edited by SpudmanWP; 7th June 2017, 19:29.
        "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

        Comment

        • Sintra
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Aug 2007
          • 3851

          I also thought the UK funded 10% not 33%.
          UK Plc funded 37.42% of the Eurofighter program and a lot less than 10% of the JSF program, the UK MOD funded 1744 million Pounds from its pocket for Dave development.

          Cheers
          sigpic

          Comment

          • Sintra
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Aug 2007
            • 3851

            does not have to use afterburner as often
            Why?
            And thats the biggest fighter jet engine around.
            sigpic

            Comment

            • Flexible
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Nov 2013
              • 102

              The huge IR footprint comes from having TWO big engines out in the open without ANY IR reduction whatsoever.
              It appears that is the better choice.
              Lets buy a Flanker.

              Comment

              • Flexible
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Nov 2013
                • 102

                "It has limited internal weapons."
                Let's buy aircraft with no internal weapon capability at all.
                That is a lot better.
                Put stuff outside your aircraft and lets discuss wingloading, T/W ratio etc.
                You are not going to get supersonic any more, but hey, that is a lot better
                The more you put outside your aircraft the better it is.
                It has limited stealth (not true, a LIE), let's buy aircraft with NO stealth at all.
                Lot better.

                Comment

                • SpudmanWP
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jan 2009
                  • 5292

                  does not have to use afterburner as often
                  Why?
                  It has a large percentage of dry thrust and the program has already stated that the F-35 will not need to use the AB on takeoff as often. The engine is one reason and another is that it's basic combat mission is flying clean (no tanks or EFTs that induce a lot of drag. Other anecdotal evidence of chase planes having to use AB to keep up with F-35s that are not using AB is an item that supports this.
                  "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                  Comment

                  • halloweene
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jan 2012
                    • 4351

                    You are not going to get supersonic any more,
                    Untrue for both eurocanards.... They will pass transsonic zone with A2A combat loads without reheat. Which F-35 cannot afaik.

                    Comment

                    • haavarla
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Dec 2008
                      • 6715

                      Originally posted by Flexible View Post
                      The huge IR footprint comes from having TWO big engines out in the open without ANY IR reduction whatsoever.
                      It appears that is the better choice.
                      Lets buy a Flanker.
                      For all intent and purpose, a Flanker who first flew in 2008, do supersonic speed without Reheat.
                      So yes lets buy Flankers..
                      Thanks

                      Comment

                      • mig-31bm
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Oct 2013
                        • 2110

                        Originally posted by Pterosaur
                        has poor wing loading,limited G handling
                        Wing loading comparisons are irrelevance without knowing lift coefficient. F-35 has also been tested to 9.9G
                        Originally posted by Pterosaur
                        poor daytime visibility,limited internal weapons
                        F-35 uses similar canopy design as PAK-FA and it has DAS that provide 360 degrees visibility
                        extended internal carry is coming too
                        The F-35 program office is looking at adding capacity for another AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missile in each of the jet’s two weapons bays, increasing internal—and thus stealthy—missile loadout by 50 percent, program director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said March 22. Speaking with reporters after his speech at a McAleese/Credit Suisse conference in Washington, D.C., Bogdan said, “There is potential … to add a third missile on each side.” The upgrade would likely be part of the Block IV program of F-35 enhancements, but “that’s something I know the services and all the partners” are interested in. Bogdan said this would not require some special version of AMRAAM, but “the same AMRAAM missiles that we carry today, just an extra one; probably on the weapons bay door.” The F-35 can carry two AMRAAMs in each bay now, or a mix of AMRAAMs and Joint Direct Attack Munitions internally.
                        http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive...ore-Shots.aspx

                        Originally posted by Pterosaur
                        huge IR footprint
                        F-35 has high bypass engine, nozzle with vanes for cooling air ,the nacelle bay has 2 cooling scopes





                        The serrated nozzle help cut down the exhaust's plume length
                        Last edited by mig-31bm; 7th June 2017, 22:15.

                        Comment

                        • halloweene
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2012
                          • 4351

                          Wing loading comparisons are irrelevance without knowing lift coefficient. F-35 has also been tested to 9.9G
                          Generally speaking, wing is-by far- the part of the plane that will have the best Cz. Hence larger wings = Better Cz of an airframe. (cf F-35 C that NEED larger wing to land on carriers)
                          9.9g? Done duri ng each airshow by some eurocanard. Pityful test value... eg. A mirage 3C one went over 14g and still landed later. (ok, the airframe ,was out after).

                          Comment

                          • FBW
                            FBW
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Dec 2011
                            • 3294

                            Hallow, what is the point of this post? This is JSR quality, not a good reflection of you.

                            Do you really need an explanation in why the F-35C has larger wings?

                            Yes, the Rafale can pull over 9g in airshows due to its control laws allowing it. What is your point? The US aircraft are largely restricted to 9g by their control laws because there is no point in allowing more G. One, because of pilot safety, two because loaded for combat, most aircraft can't even pull 9G (stores limited, G demand system limits). If airshow performance were a measure of combat effectiveness than the Rafale would be hands down in the top echelon. Happy?

                            So, a mirage III pulled 14g once? So did an F-15. Every aircraft can be a glider once too. That is why there are G limits. If you are breaking the aircraft by exceeding the structural limit that isn't very impressive, that is exactly why they have control law limits.

                            Comment

                            • halloweene
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2012
                              • 4351

                              kk. No pun intended. Btw, going over 9g for Rafale need to pass a "crank" (normal FBW limit to 9, you have to push further to obtain max domain).
                              Last edited by halloweene; 8th June 2017, 11:16.

                              Comment

                              • Ryan
                                Senior Member
                                • Mar 2017
                                • 609

                                So, a mirage III pulled 14g once? So did an F-15. Every aircraft can be a glider once too. That is why there are G limits. If you are breaking the aircraft by exceeding the structural limit that isn't very impressive, that is exactly why they have control law limits.
                                I believe 12g was referenced in an F-15 vs MiG-25 fight over Iraq.

                                Comment

                                • FBW
                                  FBW
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Dec 2011
                                  • 3294

                                  I was referring to a famous case of spatial disorientation. I'll see if I can find the video.

                                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-adcRA3u8Q

                                  Take the narrator's comments with a grain of salt. I believe it was determined his aircraft pulled over 12g with momentary g reaching 14-15.
                                  Last edited by FBW; 8th June 2017, 12:06.

                                  Comment

                                  • halloweene
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jan 2012
                                    • 4351

                                    Testimony to F-15 toughness (aswell as mirage 3)

                                    Comment

                                    • hopsalot
                                      Senior Member
                                      • Aug 2012
                                      • 3166

                                      Originally posted by halloweene
                                      Testimony to F-15 toughness (aswell as mirage 3)
                                      Aircraft that are rated to withstand 9Gs are intended to do so even at the end of their fatigue life, with some load (certainly not a maximum load), and with a significant margin of error. That a lightly loaded aircraft can pull more than 9Gs without catastrophic failure under some circumstances really shouldn't be surprising.

                                      Comment

                                      • halloweene
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jan 2012
                                        • 4351

                                        Ok then. Testimony to the fiability of tests. Still... These weren't brand new airframes, and as pilot i would like to know sturdiness of my mount was proven "irl". (and no i'm not saying i've veen fighter pilot).

                                        Comment

                                        • bring_it_on
                                          2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                                          • Jun 2004
                                          • 12480

                                          .A 9G rated fighter gets tested across the envelope and is required to maintain that capability throughout its structural life. There isn't a magical catastrophic failure at 9.1 g, or 10 g in case of the F-35A. It is quite likely that it can exceed that much like any other 9G capable aircraft that has been tested in a similar fashion. But let's keep talking about it for a couple of pages.

                                          Hallow, what is the point of this post?
                                          Last edited by bring_it_on; 8th June 2017, 12:54.
                                          Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X