jessmo24I can’t help but wonder what they assume the future threa
Will be. If I had to face T-50/Su-50 I’d rather have F-35.
jessmo24But we are talking about an increase in weight because of fuel :confused:
jessmo24Why is more weight for fuel a bad thing? isn’t that what wing tanks and fuel dumping is for?
jessmo24jessmo24ZOMG BOSLY SPEAKS!!
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12505-sid-65106f1f791ff5a0138157074dde9eb7.html
Despite recent turmoils in the news media, the Norwegian Defence Committee yesterday handed over its recommendations to the Parliament to proceed with negotiations for up to 56 JSF fighters. The Parliament is scheduled to process this on June 8 and a final decision is expected then or shortly after.
Yesterday also saw a meeting between the Norwegian Defence Minister Anne-Grethe Strøm-Erichsen and US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates. Amongst the talks were also reassurances that the US intends to uphold its JSF production profile and that the Norwegian aircraft will not be more expensive than currently estimated.
Norway votes in favor of JSF
I watched live as the Parliament discussed the fighter issue and voted in favor of the JSF just before midnight, yesterday. Of the seven political parties only the Progress Party voted against the Defence Committees recommendations, asking for more openness about the classified nature of the evaluation, particularly the life cycle cost calculations. A move perhaps to be naturally expected from the notorious opposition party.
For those who have not followed the Norwegian fighter debate ad nauseam, the Swedish manufacturer SAAB have questioned the cost calculations done by the Norwegian government, claiming they are inflated. This is denied by the Norwegian Defence Department who points to the fact that the scope of the Norwegian life cycle cost estimates goes far beyond simply buying and flying the aircraft. They also include complex national cost elements such as basing and infrastructure, weapons and modernizations, personnel resources, education, training etc. and is based on decades of unique experiences of running an air force. It is noteworthy that the Netherlands reached similar conclusions in their operational and cost analysis.
Politics aside, the parties agreed that the JSF was the best fighter for the Norwegian air force, a point which was neither denied by the Progess Party.
This resolution clears the last political hurdle for starting the negotiation process with Lockheed Martin. Prior to initiating the second phase of the process, tentatively 2011, the government will then present a preposition to the Parliament to engage in contract negotiations.
All in all a good day for the JSF here in Norway.
Parliament resolution no. 299 (2008-2009)
(note: Google translation):
http://translate.google.com/translate?p … ry_state0=
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Let us immortalize the great BOSmiesters words!!
jessmo24July 28, 2010 (by Chris McGee) – Officials at the Lockheed Martin facility formally announced the start of F-35 Lightning II center wing production operations at the plant during a ribbon cutting ceremony Tuesday.
AddThis Feed Button
F-35 AA-1 wing structure.
Actual center wing assembly work for the multi-role 5th generation aircraft will begin July 30 in the Marietta site’s massive B-1 aircraft production building. The F-35 work area will occupy more than 320,000 square feet, and the assembly activity is projected to employ more than 600 workers by 2016 as the program ramps up to full-rate production of one aircraft per workday.
The F-35 is a true international program with eight countries partnering with the U.S. to develop and produce the aircraft. Final assembly of the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter takes place at the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth, Texas. Establishing the program’s center wing assembly operation in Marietta helps alleviate capacity constraints at the Fort Worth location while taking advantage of available manufacturing capacity and 5th generation aircraft production expertise the Marietta site offers.
“This is a very proud day for us in Marietta as we begin to support production of the largest military aircraft acquisition program in history,” said Lee Rhyant, executive vice president and general manager of the Lockheed Martin Marietta site. “We have state-of-the-art facilities, and our workers have the skill, the dedication and even the 5th generation fighter expertise to build this critical component. We’re ready to support the F-35 now and in the future; it’s time to get to work.”
jessmo24F-35B STOVL Flight Tests Behind Schedule Due to Failing Parts
Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz0v1oMt4QV
Defense.org
As frenetic stock-picking, carnival barker Jim Cramer, host of CNBC’s Mad Money, says: listen to company quarterly earnings reports, you can learn a lot. On Lockheed Martin’s 2nd quarter conference call yesterday, CEO Bob Stevens told Wall Street analysts (transcript here) the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program was at a “critical juncture” as it transitions from development into production.
The systems development and demonstration phase is about 80 percent complete, he said. Of the 19 planned test aircraft, 15 have been delivered; only 13 will actually fly, the others are for structural tests. Nine of the “flyers” have so far completed a total of 136 test flights: the F-35A has flown 56 times; the F-35B short-takeoff and landing version has flown 74 times: and the carrier variant F-35C has flown six times.
While the 74 test flights of the F-35B might look impressive, its actually behind schedule; it was supposed to have flown 95 times by now, Stevens said. “Higher than predicted” failure rates of component parts have grounded some F-35B test aircraft. Stevens described the failing parts as sub-components, not major parts such as the engine, which has been performing well.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz0v1oaRnHc
Defense.org
jessmo24The only reason for a fighter to be bigger is to have more power and more space for bigger radars. also with more power you can throw a missile farther.
There is a reason for F-15s big nose and the raptors insane, Tw ratio The F-14 was basically a fighter built around a missile and a radar.
so you have
1. The ability to have a bigger radar than the next guy so you have look down and fire from farther out. If your Radar cant see me but I can see you then we are still back at square one.
2. The energy advantage to throw the missile farther and recover from turns faster.
3. The ability to hang more stuff.
So not only is it about being hard to see its also about having enough big guns so that even if you see me I can fire out of your detection range.
jessmo24So the F-16 is not agile? The F-18 and F-16 are dogs? 50 degrees of AOA isn’t agile? Do you have classified data on the J-10 and the F-35? we don’t know either ones RCS, but we do know external weapons increase RCS a lot.
jessmo24Scenario 2:
10 F-35s with 4 meteor on the wing stations and 4 AMraams in the bay, versus 30 J-10.
Again its similar to the above mentioned scenario except now all of the F-35s are track-able. All of the J-10s and F-35s track each other. The F-35s all fire meteors at max range 100km/60+ NM all of the J-10s now evade of die because of the long range of the meteor. some J-10 press forward but are now hard pressed to track the F-35s now clean. The J-10s die.
jessmo24Also Im am amazed how how crowded U.S. carrier decks are.
jessmo24Well that’s really rough. I’ve heard that for every -12 db, you half the detection range- -12 db is the same as 6.3% of the original RCS. If you really want to get more technical, you can look up the radar range equation, rearrange and combine all constants such that you have:
R^4 = k*RCS
Solving for K we get K = (457^4)/2, which we can then substitute back into the equation above, and solve for R:
R = ((457^4)/2*RCS)^0.25
Now, the RCS of an aircraft in VHF is not going to be the same as the RCS in X-band. I think that Let’s say it is 0.07 m^2 for the F-22. We find that detection range is 197.67 km. If we bring it down to 0.01 m^2 we find it is 121.52 km. Let’s go to the extreme and bring it down to 0.00001 m^2- we find it is 21 km.
However, remember that the RCS varies greatly with frequency. The F-22 was optimized for X-band stealth. Also, for a flat plate, RCS will increase quadratically with a decrease in frequency. For a cylinder it will increase linearly with a decrease in frequency. For a sphere, there is no frequency dependence. The RCS in VHF of the F-22 in my opinion, as it is a complex object not a sphere, could very likely experiences a very significant increase in RCS with a decrease in frequency. VHF is less than 1 Ghz. X-band is 10 Ghz. RAM coatings are generally frequency dependent as well and have to be optimized for a certain frequency in the design process. So it would not be unreasonable to expect a significantly higher RCS in VHF for the F-22 than in X-band. I find it quite believable that the RCS of the F-22 in VHF could be above 0.01 m^2.
All of this together suggests to me that the S-300/400/500 are capable of at least detecting (not necessarily firing upon though as the main fire control radar is still X-band I think- whether or not this can be worked around I do not know) the F-22 at relatively long range- neglecting jamming that is. However, the F-22’s only jamming provisions (that are unclassified) are its radar, which lacks the frequency agility to get anywhere near to VHF. So in the presence of these advanced SAM’s it would need to be using either standoff weapons or be operating inside the safety of an EW network.
You do realize the F-22 radar is classified as a weapon in and of it self right?
I would seriously not doubt the agility or the power of the F-22s AESA radar.
More Than Just A New Radar
February 3, 2010: AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radars are becoming standard equipment in modern warplanes, for those that can afford them, and appreciate their power and versatility. This is largely because AESA is more reliable and, increasingly, no more expensive than the older mechanical (a small dish that moves around inside a dome) radar. AESA is also easier and cheaper to maintain, which makes a more expensive AESA cheaper, over its lifetime, than a cheaper (to buy) mechanically scanned radar.
AESA type radars have been around a long time, popular mainly for their ability deal with lots of targets simultaneously, and produce a more accurate picture of what is out there. But AESA was also a lot more expensive, and less reliable, than older radar technologies. That has gradually changed. And now more uses are being found for AESA, which has developed into more than just an improved radar.
AESA radar consists of thousands of tiny radars that can be independently aimed in different directions. An AESA radar made the JSTARS aircraft possible, as it enabled it to locate vehicles moving on the ground. A new, smaller MP-RTIP AESA radar for the RQ-4 UAV can also spot smaller objects on the ground. As a result, with the RQ-4 UAV equipped with AESA, the U.S. Air Force has a choice between extending the life of the E-8 aircraft, or replacing them with the UAVs.
While AESA makes fighters much more effective, it’s the many other uses of AESA that make this technology so attractive to warplane designers. For example, the U.S. Air Force has been equipping some of its fighters with electronic ray type weapons. Not quite the “death ray” of science fiction fame, but an electronic ray type weapon none the less. In this case, the weapon uses the high-powered microwave (HPM) effects found in AESA radar technology. AESA is able to focus a concentrated beam of radio energy that could scramble electronic components of a distant target. Sort of like the EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) put out by nuclear weapons. The air force won’t, for obvious reasons, discuss the exact “kill range” of the of the various models of AESA radars on American warplanes (the F-35 and F-22 have them). However, it is known that “range” in this case is an elastic thing. Depending on how well the target electronics are hardened against EMP, more electrical power will be required to do damage. Moreover, the electrical power of the various AESA radars in service varies as well. The air force has said that the larger AESA radars it is developing would be able to zap cruise missile guidance systems up to 180 kilometers away.
jessmo24
Is all I can say.
jessmo24As far as nuclear capability no they are not.
As far as making asinine assumptions and underestimating U.S. resolve and capability? YES.
Will they go with there assumptions, attack Taiwan and try to hid behind the assumed capability of there pathetic nuclear Umbrella? only time will tell.
jessmo24The THAAD system intercepts targets at higher altitudes, allowing it to defend larger area than the Patriots….
Why would you ignore SM-3 and only mention Thaad? Again cherry picking information. if your goign to refute somthing stop being lazy and post Numbers.
The SM-3 evolved from the proven SM-2 Block IV design. The SM-3 uses the same booster and dual thrust rocket motor as the Block IV missile for the first and second stages and the same steering control section and midcourse missile guidance for maneuvering in the atmosphere. To support the extended range of an exo-atmospheric intercept, additional missile thrust is provided in a new third stage for the SM-3 missile, containing a dual pulse rocket motor for the early exo-atmospheric phase of flight.[3]
On 18 May 2010 the Missile Defense Agency responded to a report of problems with the SM-3 in the New York Times, calling the report flawed and that the missile tests had been successful.[4]
[edit] Operation and performance
The ship’s AN/SPY-1 radar finds the ballistic missile target and the Aegis weapon system calculates a solution on the target. When the missile is ordered to launch, the Aerojet MK 72 solid-fuel rocket booster launches the SM-3 out of the ship’s Mark 41 vertical launching system (VLS). The missile then establishes communication with the launching ship. Once the booster burns out, it detaches, and the Aerojet MK 104 solid-fuel dual thrust rocket motor (DTRM) takes over propulsion through the atmosphere. The missile continues to receive mid-course guidance information from the launching ship and is aided by GPS data. The ATK MK 136 solid-fueled third stage rocket motor (TSRM) fires after the second stage burns out, and it takes the missile above the atmosphere (if needed). The TSRM is pulse fired and provides propulsion for the SM-3 until 30 seconds to intercept.
At that point the third stage separates, and the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) kinetic warhead (KW) begins to search for the target using pointing data from the launching ship. The ATK solid divert and attitude control system (SDACS) allows the kinetic warhead to maneuver in the final phase of the engagement. The KW’s sensors identify the target, attempt to identify the most lethal part of the target and steers the KW to that point. If the KW intercepts the target, it provides 130 megajoules (96,000,000 ft·lbf, 31 kg TNT equivalent) of kinetic energy at the point of impact.[5]
Independent studies by some physics experts have raised some significant questions about the missile’s success rate in hitting targets.[6][7][8] In a published response, the Defense Department claimed that these findings were invalid, as the analysts used some early launches as their data, when those launches were not significant to the overall program.[9] The DoD stated:
…the first tests [used] prototype interceptors; expensive mock warheads weren’t used in the tests since specific lethality capability wasn’t a test objective—the objective was to hit the target missile. Contrary to the assertions of Postol and Lewis, all three tests resulted in successful target hits with the unitary ballistic missile target destroyed. This provided empirical evidence that ballistic missile intercepts could in fact be accomplished at sea using interceptors launched from Aegis ships.
After successful completion of these early developmental tests, the test program progressed from just “hitting the target” to one of determining lethality and proving the operationally configured Aegis SM-3 Block I and SM-3 Block 1A system. These tests were the MDA’s most comprehensive and realistic test series, resulting in the Operational Test and Evaluation Force’s October 2008 Evaluation Report stating that Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Block 04 3.6 System was operationally effective and suitable for transition to the Navy.
Since 2002, a total of 19 SM-3 missiles have been fired in 16 different test events resulting in 16 intercepts against threat-representative full-size and more challenging subscale unitary and full-size targets with separating warheads. In addition, a modified Aegis BMD/SM-3 system successfully destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. satellite by hitting the satellite in the right spot to negate the hazardous fuel tank at the highest closure rate of any ballistic missile defense technology ever attempted.
The authors of the SM-3 study cited only tests involving unitary targets, and chose not to cite the five successful intercepts in six attempts against separating targets, which, because of their increased speed and small size, pose a much more challenging target for the SM-3 than a much larger unitary target missile. They also did not mention the fact the system is successfully intercepting targets much smaller than probable threat missiles on a routine basis, and have attained test scores that many other Defense Department programs aspire to attain.
[edit] Use by various nations
[edit] United States
[edit] Missile defense
In September 2009, President Obama announced plans to scrap plans for missile defense sites in East Europe, in favor of missile defense systems located on US Navy warships.[10] On 18 September 2009, Russian Prime Minister Putin welcomed Obama’s plans for missile defense which may include stationing American Aegis armed warships in the Black Sea.[11][12] This deployment began to occur that same month, with the deployment of Aegis-equipped warships with the RIM-161 SM-3 missile system, which complements the Patriot systems already deployed by American units.[13][14]
The SM-3 has shown some of the best results of any anti-missile system used by the US.[15]
[edit] Anti-satellite
On February 14, 2008, U.S. officials announced plans to use a modified SM-3 missile launched from a group of three ships in the North Pacific to destroy the failed American satellite USA 193 at an altitude of 130 nautical miles (240 kilometers) shortly before atmospheric reentry, stating that the intention was to “reduce the danger to human beings” due to the release of toxic hydrazine fuel carried onboard.[16][17] A spokesperson stated that software associated with the SM-3 had been modified to enhance the chances of the missile’s sensors recognizing that the satellite was its target, since the missile was not designed for ASAT operations.
On February 21, 2008 at 3:26 am (UTC) the USS Lake Erie, a Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser, fired a single SM-3 missile, hit and successfully destroyed the satellite, with a closing velocity of about 22,783 mph (36,667 km/h) while the satellite was 247 kilometers (133 nautical miles) above the Pacific Ocean.[18][19] USS Decatur, USS Russell as well as other land, air, sea and space-based sensors were involved in the operation.[20][21]
Sign In
