jessmo24So the C version will take after the F-18 with good low speed turning sustained turn rate + gs and nose pointing. we can also throw some 55 degree High alpha in there. ( remember I’m talking about 1/2 fuel load). But with a potential greater range than the F-18E
The A version will take after the F-16 with High subsonic acceleration + some Higher gs and the 55 degrees aoa
I wonder where this leaves the B version? will it still get the high alpha?
jessmo24And it’s not just that which is a very true statement, but low RCS is superfluous in a networked detection environment on multiple facings. The US DoD themselves cited back in the 90s when the F117 and B2 were being hailed as the ultimate superweapons and the final nail in the Cold War coffin by the media, that “so-called stealth technologies aren’t particularly effective within a comprehensive EWR region such as within a modern developed nation like those of the CIS.” And this is because low RCS technologies don’t absorb the bulk of signals (particularly considering the best Russian radar sets piggyback multiple wavelengths for heightened ECM resistance), they scatter them from receivers that are restricted to one facing. Scatter networked receivers on multiple facings and you’ll pick up all the scattered signals (that’d be why SEAD and DEAD missions are such a contemporary tactical priority even ahead of air superiority).
This is precisely what the aerial datalinking system of the PVO-VVS is designed to do, as best it can be achieved by a wide pincer formation of aircraft. Flankers and Fulcrums under Su-30 or Foxhound controllers will reduce the effectiveness of low RCS for detection, tracking and weapon acquisition purposes under certain conditions, however against active missile seeker heads the VLO and low RCS technologies dramatically increase aircraft survivability regardless.
Mostly the “stealth” technologies should work as intended, but within the mobile EWR which is only associated with CIS forces (not small nation militaries), or against dedicated PVO-VVS mobilisation against them, the dramatic effects low RCS technologies might have versus small nation militaries will be greatly reduced against contemporary major powers, under certain conditions rendered largely superfluous.
Dumb kids get taken in by defence industry sales pitches. There is no genuine technological superiority, ask an experienced combatant. They’ll tell you something like military planning is an exercise in attrition where success is judged by your ability to outmatch the enemy’s production capabilities.
But to reiterate, most of the time the VLO/RCS technologies should work as intended. Certainly in the kind of limited conflicts against small nation militaries the US is involved in.
Start painting VLO/loRCS warbirds in blue and red with a big “S” on them however and it’d just be much cheaper for you to surrender at the opening of any hostilities, since you don’t understand much about either technology or warfare. Put morons in very expensive technologies and all you get is very expensive casualties shot down by hicks with muskets. 5th gen tech is great, it’s awesome, but you must use it smartly or it’s useless.
1. you dont see any fratricide with all of those sensors and passive devices pinging around?
2. while that was the case with the B-2 and F-117 the F-22 is another fish entirely. I could still see the F-22 stomping through a IADS with out stealth.
A F-22+ stand off weapons + jamming for the ground targets and the fighters. You underestimate the advantage kinematics brings to a fight.
The stealth is a force multiplier that allows you to use the forces you have to the MAx. with out stealth wed just go back to jamming and cruise missile saturation.
3. Please explain what you mean by technological superiority?
jessmo24and what about the AWACS question?
jessmo24This is a good question.
1. Cant Buddy tanks+ski Jump be used on the F-35B?
2. Couldn’t you use the F-35 itself as a kinda of mini AWACS since it can get closer to the action and has a nice sized AESA radar and data sharing?
3. Why isn’t there a AWACS Osprey or refueling tanker variant ready? This would change VTOL carrier ops drastically.
4. getting rid of the F-35 and altering the carrier is just throwing away money IMO. you will spend far more on the alterations and logistics than you would any cost savings.
jessmo24You don’t think High powered energy weapons would be game changing?
Imagine a fighter with both offensive and defensive DEWs. you cant fire conventional missiles at it, you’d need another laser to kill it.
jessmo24When the quarterback calls a play in the huddle, he doesn’t have to provide personal directions to the other 10 players on the field as the play unfolds.
* Ir suppression*
* bandwidth management*
*Embedded antennas*
* signals management*
I feel like these are all lessons that SHOULD have been learned with 5th generation manned fighters. The Idea that the Europeans will skip a generation without mastering these things is funny to me.
You cant just send in a unstealthy predator and expect to get through triple diget sams. There for an entire generation of european UAVs will need stealth. If you replace most manned fighters with all stealthy UAVs, how will you get the bandwidth for them all? will you use the U.S. GPS? You need a man in the loop, are you ready to trust a computer to do CAS danger close?
jessmo24Wut bias!?
jessmo24Some thoughts
1. giving the carrier cats is never a bad decision, as it also means they can operate E-2s.
2. F-35B has a very limited payload and range when not using external stores
3. if the F136 is dropped by the US one reason for the F-35 dies for the UK
4. for a Navy which has used Harriers until today, the SH will be a huge step up.
5. Is the UK able to field the escorts and support ships (again with escorts) to really take on a first rate enemy who could field aircraft superior to the SH in numbers.
lets put this to rest once and for all
F-35A
CTOL F-35B
VSTOL F-35C
Carrier version
Length 51.4 ft (15.7 m) 51.3 ft (15.6 m) 51.5 ft (15.7 m)
Wingspan 35 ft (10.7 m) 35 ft (10.7 m) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Wing Area 460 ft² (42.7 m²) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) 668 ft² (62.1 m²)
Empty weight 29,300 lb (13,300 kg) 32,000 lb (14,500 kg) 34,800 lb (15,800 kg)
Max takeoff weight 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) 60,000 lb (27,000 kg) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg)
Range 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) 900 nmi (1,670 km) 1,400 nmi (2,520 km)
Combat radius 610 nmi (1,100 km) 500 nmi (910 km); 640 nmi (1,150 km)
Thrust/weight
full fuel
50% fuel 0.80
0.97 0.88
1.02 0.75
0.91
The legacy hornet
Performance
* Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,190 mph, 1,915 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
* Range: 1,089 nmi (1,250 miles, 2,000 km) with only two AIM-9s
* Combat radius: 400 nmi (460 mi, 740 km) on air-air mission
* Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,070 mi, 3,330 km)
* Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
* Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
* Wing loading: 93 lb/ft² (450 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.96
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet
Performance
* Maximum speed: Mach 0.89 (662 mph, 1,070 km/h) at sea level
* Range: 1,200 nm (1,400 mi, 2,200 km) * Not I think we are assuming wing tanks are on legacy fighters
* Combat radius: 300 nmi (556 km)
* Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (3,300 km)
* Rate of climb: 14,700 ft/min (4,485 m/min)
* Wing loading: 94.29 lb/ft² (460.4 kg/m²)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-8B_Harrier_II
F-16C Block 30
Performance
* Maximum speed:
o At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)
o At altitude: Mach 2+ (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h)
* Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nm, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
* Ferry range: 2,280 NM (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks
* Service ceiling: 60,000+ ft (18,000+ m)
* Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
* Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 1.095
Compared the to F-18s and the AV8 the F-35B is comparable or superior.
You cant really discuss totally doing away the STOVl types unless your discussing upending the tea table. That would mean getting rid of small carrier types entirely. and that’s a totally different discussion.
jessmo24http://www.afa.org/ProfessionalDevelopment/IssueBriefs/F-22_v_F-35_Comparison.pdf here is a nice PDF with a ton of info, check page 3.
jessmo24For gods sake you people, are getting an aircraft that can do the harrier,F-16,F-117s Mission in 1 sortie. its only 2nd to the F-22 in avionics and might be the last manned fighter. what more could you ask for?The real threat isn’t from SU-series aircraft, but from triple digit sams. I wonder if things would change if Argentina suddenly had the money to purchase su series fighters+ tor M-1 + s-300 batteries.
jessmo241. The F-35B has short legs compared to what?
2. The marines arnt crying about range.
3. The F-35 will carry up to 8 sdb internally and 20+with
A full load what are the payload issues
jessmo24I am very curious now as to how the F-35 will match up against the F-15SE.
If we are to believe that LM has stayed with the requirement for the F-35 to be close to the F-16 in performance. then a F-15 would have quite a fight on its hands.
It also got me thinking that the F-35C will take after the hornet with its low speed nose pointing ability.
jessmo24Affordability Curtails Initial Israel JSF Buy
Jul 31, 2010
By Alon Ben-David, Amy Butler, Guy Norris, Douglas Barrie
Farnborough, Farnborough, Farnborough, Farnborough
Protracted negotiations between manufacturer Lockheed Martin and the U.S. on the next lot of stealthy, single-engine F-35s are nearing a conclusion as program officials close in on a new baseline for the embattled program.
But the shock waves of recent cost increases to the multinational Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) continue to ripple; Israel, for one, is sharply curtailing its buy. Lockheed Martin, however, continues to insist the price is lower than estimated by the Pentagon (see p. 41).
U.S. program officials must resubmit in November a new master schedule, including testing plans and detailed technical reports, to the Defense Department as part of the ongoing process of recertification following a massive restructuring announced early this year, says Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president for F-35 program integration. Pentagon officials certified the project to move forward last month, but final details need to be reviewed.
Pentagon cost estimates that brought the projected average unit expenditure up to as high as $108.7 million only a few months ago are being revised, according to an industry official. “Since then, the government is modifying its cost models to be more in line with Lockheed Martin’s models.” However, the Defense Department is sticking by its numbers. In accordance with the Nunn-McCurdy cost-control statute, the Pentagon’s Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation office developed the estimates earlier this year and “at this time CAPE does not have any data which support a change from that Nunn-McCurdy estimate,” says a Pentagon spokeswoman.
As part of the new baseline that will go before the Defense Acquisition Board in November, officials are revising the estimate to include operations and life-cycle maintenance costs. “It is premature to suggest that changes to the Nunn-McCurdy acquisition cost estimate will occur as a result of that process.”
CEO Robert Stevens says the unit recurring flyaway price at peak production for the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant is about $60 million, though today’s challenge is the high price of early aircraft rolling off the production line.
Meanwhile, Boeing is also making available to some JSF partner nations an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet upgrade to improve survivability, a move that could replicate the pressure on the program brought about by its F-15 Silent Eagle stealthy retrofit kit (see p. 37). “F-35 is not ready for international sales, in my view, but even when it is, it will always cost more than the Super Hornet,” says Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Aircraft.
Despite the cost, pressure from growing threats appears to be driving Israel to a truncated JSF buy.
“The F-35 is the only available aircraft that could maintain the [air force’s] superiority in the region,” says a senior service source. Israel is concerned that as it procures the F-35, the U.S. will supply the F-15 Silent Eagle—which last week conducted its first weapons release—to Saudi Arabia and that advanced Russian air defenses will be deployed in the region.
Eager to conclude negotiations, the air force opted to postpone some of its initial requirements, such as integrating Rafael’s Spice guided-bomb unit and Python-5 air-to-air missile. These would have required structural modifications to both the aircraft and the munitions, driving the cost even higher. The requirement to install an external 600-gal. fuel tank was also deferred.
jessmo24On another note I didn’t realize that brimstone will be carried internally on a F-35. does any one know what station?
jessmo24well Im asking because it doesn’t look like the GBU-10 fins can fit in the bays.
and further more its not of the weapons integration chart. I suppose a 2k Jdam is 1 thing but it seems like a GBU-10 takes up a lot of space.
Sign In
