LastOfGunfightersi do think that unless GB pushes hard, Meteor won’t be modified to fit into internal bays,
its the only customer that would contemplate paying i think,
hope some brit can suggest the odds in favor
MBDA certainly hasn’t shied away from advertising it on the F-35. They’ve probably done some degree of design work already.
LastOfGunfightersAndraxxus, someone in another forum doing some estimation of F-35 performance, can you check the validity of it
( like where it wrong, right.. etc)
Some very interesting analysis there, but I’ve never once heard that statement about the F-15E being limited to M1.4 with any load. That sounds a bit off to me. Anybody know if it is accurate? For some reason the turn rates for the F-16C at 20k feet are missing.
LastOfGunfightersThe F-35B and C barely get there, at all.. You need a set of specialized maneuvers which you won’t apply in real life, anyway..
The A could have it a bit easier..
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/08/f-35b-sea-trials-aboard-the-uss-wasp/
That specialized maneuver was necessary because they had to fly within a limited area.
LastOfGunfightersSame as for the F35. Optimal cruise and short combat/loiter in target area with 6 missiles.
..oh, the F35 would need external stores to match that weapon load and mid air refueling to match the range.
Most of the figures given for the F-35’s range seem to refer to the “usual” configuration with two JDAMs versus a pure air-to-air loadout. Eventually (Block 4/5) it will be able to carry six air-to-air missiles internally
LastOfGunfightersGripen NG with 2 drop tanks (similar to the excercise load for the F16 in this scenario) still has a combat radius of 655nm or 9% longer range than the F35.
And what altitudes are this mission occurring and what munitions are being carried. What about the specifics for that Rafale range?
*Not sure if that is the actual or estimated difference by LM but thats their official numbers. In reality they fell short of their benchmark. 600nm is a reasonable number with l
[/quote]
Last I saw the current figure was 613nm for the usual “strike” payload of 2x AIM-120 and 2x 2000lb JDAM. Isn’t there still a 5% buffer of extra fuel reserved from these calculations until SDD is complete?
Not at all.. just bored by the same tired reasoning.. you guys would hang even two elephants under the F-16 just to somehow make it lose.. quite pathetic that you have to do that…
The two external fuel tanks were there so the F-16D could stay airborne long enough for the F-35’s flight testing. There is nothing to suggest they were added in order to compare the F-35 and F-16.
Jettison…
So how many external fuel tanks and jettisonable pylons would a F-35 squadron go through in a week of real operations against an opponent with credible air defenses?
LastOfGunfighters:highly_amused: check JSF presentation to norwegian AF for ex? Pitiful range
More range than the F/A-18E is pitiful now?
LastOfGunfightersThat quote seems to contract a lot of what we’ve previously heard. The F-35 was said to have easily out-accelerated a F-16 chase plane (which admittedly had two external tanks). I’ve always figured the F-35 would bleed speed faster in a turn, but so does the F/A-18 and yet somehow pilots don’t think that’s a dog.
LastOfGunfightersWhat I don’t get about the report is the following.
“The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs. The evaluation focused on the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment.”
and later
“High Angle of Attack
Due to the energy and pitch rate limitations described above, there were not compelling reasons to fight in this region”
Doesn’t this contradict what the intent of the test was? The F/A-18 doesn’t have particularity outstanding acceleration or T/W ratio and it also bleeds speed very quickly when performing high AoA maneuvers. Yet despite this the aircraft’s high AoA controllability is still considered very useful by pilots.
LastOfGunfightersBla, bla, bla! F-16, Mig-29, F-15, Su-27 All of them had prototypes and preproduction planes that was really exellent in dogfighting manuvers without latest software. Testpilots properly knows the limits of their test planes, and because of that have an pretty good idea about the potensial of what the production plane will be like. Better software can proberly tweak manouvring a little bit, but it cant do miracles to the aerodynamic of the plane. Does this test pilot sounds confident in hes belives of his plane?
Yeah the T-10 was so “excellent” in maneuvers that the Russians had to redesign the entire thing.
LastOfGunfightersSurprise surprise, LO once again trying to fall back on his cozy relationship with the mods…
LastOfGunfightersAh-64E went into competition with Mi28Ne and LOST.
AT-6C went into competition with SU-25 and LOST.
AVENGER went into competition with PANTSIR-S1 and LOST
BLACKHAWK went into competition with Mi-171Sh and LOST
HAWK-XXI went into competition with “something russian” and LOST
Unarmed export Predator Drone went into competition with CH-4B and LOST
An-TPS-117 Radar lost against Russian radar after the first 2 units supplied.
M1A1 Abrams tanks… 146 sold “during occupation” – subsequently the following 2 offers:
175x During 2012 – LOST
175x During 2014 – LOSTM2A2 Bradley IFV LOST COMPETITION against “we don’t know what” .
C130J-30… was supposed to be for 9 aircraft.
6x Bought during occupation
3x Further units “not exercised”… Iraqis did show interest in Il76 upgrade which they deemed superior in every way… but so far no orders.
The Russian or Chinese are undercutting on pricing and tend to disregard any concern over just who exactly could get their hands on their latest and greatest equipment. On an individual basis you cannot conclude that the Mi-28N is superior to the AH-64E or anything like that. Also whatever “won” against the M1A1 and M2A2 has yet to actually be delivered. When it comes to tanks it seems like the Iraqis just need more regardless of quality. Makes me think we should have had the foresight not to throw so many M60s in the ocean to serve as 58 ton steel reefs.
Washington has been rather cautious about what is sold to the Iraqis for various reasons. You seemed concern about some Saudi threat but in the immediate context some of these items (like Pantsir-S1) have no utility for defeating ISIS. I get the sense that Washington wants to see more done with what has already been sold and what is being offered before more advanced items are put on the table. So the Russians predictably jump in seeing an opportunity.
Now surely the Iraqis are happy to accept any EDA stuff from the US… But simply the offers of weapons from the US are just unpalatable mostly. The Iraqis seem very happy with the King Air recon planes and they did buy more of those even after US withdrawal… also they liked the Hellfire armed Cessna Caravans and they kept paying the huge “service” fees as well as the inflated prices of thousands of hellfires because they do desperately need those. They of course agreed to take some EDA MRAPs… but when they spend their own money they bought Russian MRAPs (which are locally assembled now in Taji).
Our industry is more constrained by politics than the Russians or Chinese are, so the deals on the table aren’t as good. Overall it’s just a chain of events that’s likely to result in worsened relations between Washington and Baghdad. I can’t speak as to the pricing but some of the items being offered are still excellent pieces of machinery.
LastOfGunfightersWill they even be able to afford MiG-29M2s given the need to replace all of the MBTs and ground vehicles lost?
As much as some want to blame the US for dragging its feet on F-16 delivery the Iraqis haven’t exactly taken advantage of everything offered to them, such as the AH-64E deal when it finally got through all of Washington’s bureaucracy.
LastOfGunfightersDo the control surfaces on the Paveway IV function like those of the Paveway III or the cheaper method used by the Paveway II? Also do they make the Paveway IV kit for 1000 and 2000 pound bombs?
LastOfGunfightersBut to put this in perspective. A fighter jet today has a similar RCS head on as a few missiles. For the F35 to actually have an edge here it has to be limited to internally carried missiles (currently 4). Otherwise one could just as well use an old fighter like the FA18C. With the high survivability expected of modern jets the Pk of the missiles at range will be low.
I think its time for the US to start fielding a replacement for the AIM-120, this is an issue that extends beyond the F-35. That said, even with modern ECM the odds aren’t very appealing to whomever has to evade the incoming missiles.
Considering this, one has to take kinematic performance in the endgame into account. And in comparison to the Eurobirds the F35 is vastly inferior. One also has to consider attrition, or quantity.
Vastly inferior? I’d say its performance is inferior to the Typhoon and Rafale in some respects but I think you’re overestimating what a single F404/F414 can do for a Gripen. Attrition and quantity? None of the Eurocanards are particularly cheap as the numbers do show.
But now over to the fun stuff. What is the status of the avionics? At the planned IOC the F35 would be half a decade ahead of most competitors. At IOC (in 2017-2018) the competition wont just have caught up, the ones at the forefront will have superseded the F35 in many key areas.
There is always a big difference between what is being tested and what is actually in the field. By the time Block 3F is fielded Typhoon operators will be lucky if they have just have gotten the CAPTOR-E. Likewise the bulk of the Chinese and Russian fighter fleets are still using old mechanically scanned radars. This isn’t going to change that quickly. It’s also very unlikely that nobody in the F-35 program is thinking ahead about incorporating GAN-related radar and EW/ECM upgrades into the aircraft.
The economy also makes other jets more likely to get upgrades on a more regular basis than the F35 meaning that technologically it will be just below par compared to its peers. In 5-10 years the F35 fleets are likely to lag substantially behind the latest toys on the market.
What is this based on? Historically this hasn’t been true for the Eurocanards. Meanwhile to the east economic conditions aren’t going to help the Russian’s upgrade programs. As long as the customers and funding is there I don’t see any reason why the F-35 should lag behind in regards to upgrades.
And this is why the endgame (kinematics) is so important. Because you missiles that where designed 10 years ago and just stockpiled for 5 years in your airbase are 8-9 years older than my countermeasures (the threat library upgrade). The likelyhood of an actual hit is abysmally low.
Abysmally low? What numbers are you thinking of here? I’ll agree that against the latest ECM probability of a kill isn’t as high as it was say, a decade ago, but I wouldn’t bet on evading AMRAAMs with ease.
Yet once you’re WVR you’re up against extremely maneuverable all-aspect HOBS missiles with IIR/UV seekers that are nearly impossible to fool (without DIRCM). Couple these with helmet mounted cuing systems and the sustained turn rate of your fighter is irrelevant. It’s going to be a very costly fight for both sides once this happens.
The F35 is probably a fantastic machine i many aspects, but it relies on a chain (economy, weaponry, logistics etc) and that chain has weaknesses.
This is true of every fighter to some extent or another. Even a fighter with unmatched stealth, performance, and avionics isn’t going to be very effective if it’s lobbing AIM-7Es at the enemy.
LastOfGunfightersSerious Rafale money started 10-12 years before JSF (that is, demonstrator funding). F3 was being delivered to squadrons in 2008, about 10 years ahead of Block 3F F-35, despite hitting budget problems that the F-35 did not experience. F3 supports Damocles, Areos, ASMP-A, Exocet, Scalp and most if not all AASM versions (IIRC F3R expands the laser-AASM launch envelope). Obviously not all these weapons/systems were declared operational at the same time – that would hardly be practical – but the fact remains that F3 provides them and that all were operational by 2012. So when the F-35 Block 4A (2012 + 10 years) carries nuclear and conventional cruise missiles, antiship missiles, six PGMs or a LOROP pod, and can carry 4-6 x AAMs at the same time, and enough fuel to get anywhere useful, parity will have been achieved.
That is an interesting view of parity. So I guess it only took until 2009 for the Rafale to achieve parity with a 1989 Block 40 F-16C/D or F-15E?
The F-35 will be able to carry six PGMs and 4-6 AAMs with enough fuel to get somewhere and back easily enough. Or does only the Rafale get to use external stores?
Sign In
