hopsalotOn top of that, Typhoon’s design has been set and frozen three decades ago. The designers are most likely not even working in the industry anymore. That only undermines my position that British have not proposed a serious design for almost half century and concentrated instead on supplying parts for other projects. Which is a pity. :apologetic:
To varying extents this applies to Western Europe as a whole. Saab is working on the Gripen NG, a derivative of the original Gripen, but besides that and a few semi-funded drone efforts there is precious little in the way of new projects.
hopsalotFYI Rover is a later-block upgrade. It is needed but the customers can’t afford to add things to an already late and over budget program. Until it is there its absence is a serious crimp on the ability of the jet to perform the main Marine mission.
Again, the fact that everything doing CAS has been Rover-equipped tells a story.
I actually think these types of complaints say a lot about just how far the F-35 has come. It was after all only in Jan 2011, not quite three years ago, that program critics were saying things like:
So whatever the F-35B propulsion and structural problems are, they have to be solved without adding weight. At the same time, changing materials and redesigning components will further reduce commonality between the B and the other two versions, putting upward pressure on costs for what is already the most expensive version.
I suggest the sharp brake that Gates has put on production does not speak to a high level of faith that it can be done. It suggests that the decision to put the STOVL jet on probation, rather than sending it directly to meet Old Sparky, may have been driven by concern that killing both the F-35B and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was a political impossibility, and by a desire to minimize political impact on the entire JSF program.
The next developments to look for: the outcome of the review of Marine Corps force structure, and the scale and type of resources that will be made available to fix the F-35B.
(This was of course merely a “suggestion” and not a real prediction.)
Here we are less than three years later having discussions about the F-35B’s approaching IOC and its lack of a video streaming capability that was developed after the F-35s requirements were defined. :eagerness:
hopsalotExactly! Using a Rover-equipped TDP is the preferred method for integration in most cases. Doesn’t make your earlier blanket statement that “no non-US systems employ it” any less wrong.
Indeed, if the Marines were serious about getting F-35 into the CAS role they could push to bolt on a pod, but that makes the wonderjet look bad.
A few thoughts in no particular order:
Of course the Marines are serious about CAS.
Marines have been doing CAS for a long time before Rover. Clearly it would be nice to have, but equally clearly it is not an absolute requirement for CAS.
Marine air does other missions besides CAS. (Libya for example)
Afghanistan will be wound down by the time the first F-35B squadron is scheduled to deploy in 2017.
The first F-35B squadron is deploying to East Asia anyway.
hopsalotIf i’ve ordered a Lamborghini, paid for a Lamborghini and then quite some time before delivery get told i’ll recieve a standard VW initally but my Lamborghini will be ready at some unspecified point in the future, as long as i pay extra for the upgrade, i”m not going to be pleased.
Yes, because fighter development programs are just like buying a car. :stupid:
In other breaking news a F35 supporter again tries very hard to diminish the extent of the programs failure and again fails.
Breaking news, reason and common since elude critic. Going IOC with limited capabilities is standard. It was true of the Rafale, Eurofighter, F-22, and it will be true of the PAK FA and J-20 when they first enter service as well.
Do some reading.
hopsalotVN – If the Marine goal is to replace Hornets soon, one early-IOC squadron is an expensive way to not get very far.
Sure, and the same could have been said of the first squadron of Rafales or Eurofighters. :rolleyes:
Breaking news, the _____ will go operational with a limited set of capabilities with more to follow a few years after IOC. (Insert jet)
hopsalotone thing you seem to forget is that Europe is not a single country. it’s multiple sovereign nations that have own political interests and cultural and historical backgrounds… leading to different requirements from the operational and economical (production) point of view; not to speak about rivalries that existed among them for centuries (and still do)
therefore, there’s nothing like “better planning” that could have existed, by the end of the last century… neither then, nor even now as there’s no real common government, military or budget to speak of
I “forgot” nothing of the sort.
Just because Europe is multiple states does not mean that planning is somehow impossible. Plenty of multi-national defense projects have been undertaken successfully. Unfortunately Europe’s decisions makers weren’t able to come together to create a rational plan when they were launching the three Eurocanards.
hopsalotThe Europeans never had the advantage or money to run three overlapping programs at the same time.
Well we certainly agree here, not that it stopped them from trying anyway. With better planning Europe might have built two designs, one twin engined and similar to the Eurofighter and one single engined and similar to the Gripen. An opportunity lost.
hopsalotCompare the F-35 with the SH and you get an idea what was available and working under front-line conditions for over a decade. Sofar we have no F-35 with that capabilities right now and from 2017 maybe.
No doubt the Super Hornet received capabilities very quickly, but it also had the advantage of carrying most of its initial avionics fit forward from the original Hornet.
hopsalotPer the below linked PDF slides, Block 2B/3I has
1. All-weather A2A capability
2. All-weather A2G fixed target attack via SAR & JDAM (or datalinked GPS coordinates)
3. Limited clear-weather moving target attack via EOTS & Paveway
4. Full datalinks (MADL & Link-16)
5. Multi-ship data fusion
6. EODAS tracking
7. BDA
8. Much moreRemember that radar cannot be used to attack ground movers (even on today’s fighters) due to JDAM not having a datalink, only LGBs can be used currently. Radar can still be used to detect ground mover, just not attack them. Since an LGB is needed, relatively clear weather is also required due to the need to designate the target with a laser. SDB2 will give the F-35 all-weather moving target attack capability.
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/F-35Blk2.jpg
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/blocks1_zpsccc5bbbf.jpg
My point is that the Blk2B and even more so Blk3i are a simple upgrade away from the final Block 3F. They are also multi-role from Day 1 where Rafale & EF were A2A at IOC only and took a long, painful time to get A2G.
Why is this good argument for the Rafale & EF, but not for the USMC and USAF? Remember that they both originally were to go IOC with Block 2, yes even the USAF.
Notice on the linked PDF from 2001 that both the USMC and USAF were to go IOC before Blk3 was even out of SDD, let alone IOT&E.
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/1bde3584.jpg
Amazing what a difference adding some facts into a discussion can make! 😎
Lets do a quick compare and contrast with the “Omnirole” Rafale which went operational in 2001 in its F1 configuration.
Those aircraft were armed only with Mica EM and Magic-2 missiles…. and that is it.
No air to ground capability at all. No Link-16. No OST (IRST). No targeting pod. No helmet mounted sight.
Many of these missing capabilities would be added in a few years later with the F2 standard, but the Rafale was not operational with a targeting pod until 2009, eight years later. An F-35 just guided a laser guided bomb using its own internal optical targeting system and laser designator (admittedly in a test environment) only 4 years after operational Rafales were able to do the same (a capability most Eurofighters are still waiting for), despite the fact that the “Omnirole” Rafale first flew 20 years earlier. If the F-35 does indeed go operational in 2015 it will have a LGB/targeting pod capability only 6 years after the Rafale despite the Rafale’s two decade head start.
What is the bottom line? Not that the Rafale or Typhoon aren’t a good planes… but rather that anyone but a total hypocrite would concede that the F-35 will go operational with a fairly robust set of capabilities compared to its most immediate 4th generation predecessors. Its capabilities will be more strike focused than was the case with the Eurofighter and Rafale, but that stands to reason given what its initial customers require.
hopsalotFair game, I see where you’re coming from. But thinking about it, which aircraft have fully met their full potential, really? As long as they’re going to be in service they’re always (usually) going to be updated on a regular basis right up until a couple of years before the type is to be retired, the Tornado GR4 is a good example. I think ‘full capabilities’ is over (or under) looked somewhat, ironically I think the majority of aircraft never fully meet their full capabilities – there’s always ways to improve.
Exactly my point.
This is all in response to snafu’s claim that when the first USMC F-35Bs go IOC that it won’t be a “real” IOC. My point is that those F-35s will offer some useful capabilities the day they announce IOC and that those capabilities will grow in time, just like every other jet.
hopsalotA couple of minor corrections needed there, they’re very easy to research, it took me 2 minutes to re-remind myself… Rafale’s first “deployment” didn’t involve relying on buddy aircraft to lase targets, simply because the aircraft couldn’t drop it’s bollox let alone any munitions, there for they didn’t see any action. Obviously, it would soon accelerate it’s capabilities quite significantly.
Perhaps it wasn’t the Rafale’s first deployment to Afghanistan, but certainly in their 2006 deployment they still lacked a targeting pod and relied on buddy lasing. (and target identification, etc)
To cut development time, it had
been decided not to equip the Rafale with a laser designation
pod. Instead, the aircrews rely on buddy-lasing,
the cooperative technique where another fighter holds a laser
spot on a target so that it can be struck by weapons dropped
from the Rafale. Alternatively, a forward air controller
on the ground – or a suitably trained special forces commando
– could designate targets for the Rafales. It should be noted,
however, that, from early 2009, the Standard F3 Rafales
will be fitted with a Damoclès laser designation pod under
the right forward fuselage hardpoint. The introduction of
the Damoclès targeting pod will allow Rafale aircrews to
self-designate targets at extended ranges, both in daytime
and at night.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/08/foxThree_n11.pdf
It is correct that Typhoon relied on Tornado GR4s to lase it’s weapons but that was short lived once they got their own LDPs, which it proved to have a very impressive record at the end despite it’s lack of A/G capabilities.
Sure, but that was how many years after the first Typhoons went IOC? I am not attacking the Typhoon, just explaining to our confused friend that it is normal for new aircraft to enter service without their full capabilities.
The F-35B will be limited when it first achieves IOC, but no more so than was the case with other recent aircraft. If anything the simple fact that it will have a working targeting pod/laser designation capability from day one puts it ahead of the “omnirole” Rafale for example.
hopsalotThe timeframe was the important element. But you knew that.
The point of my post was simply to illustrate your inconsistency.
Timeframe is apparently relevant when it suits you but to be ignored when it does not.It is 13 years since first flight of the X-35. Real IOC, not Marines desperately ensuring politicans don’t cancel it IOC (which is ten years anyway), will be 12 years after first flight of the F35, around 18 after first flight of the X-35.
Has everybody else just been sitting around in that time? Or is the US so far in advance that even if they haven’t nobody else could get close in 18 years of trying?
Careful with any serious answer you attempt to give, you are going to look complacent either way.
Must try harder hoppy.
I can see you have gotten a few different things confused here so I will try and help sort it out for you.
The issues with the Korean proposal is not simply one of the time required to develop the new aircraft, but also one of the capabilities delivered by the program.
If the Koreans started to work on this new concept immediately they might expect to see it enter service sometime in the late 2020s. Given that it would be a 4.5 generation fighter, arriving in that timeframe would leave it well behind a long list of competitors.
The F-35 meanwhile, despite the inevitable delays in development, will be the world’s second operational 5th generation fighter, the first truly multi-role 5th generation fighter, and of course the first naval and vertical landing capable 5th generation fighter. That is why the F-35 is drawing interest and orders from a long list of the world’s premier air forces while the Korean jet could not hope to do the same.
Are you starting to understand?
Besides, As others have already explained to you, the F-35’s development is not unusually long when compared to the Eurofighter, Rafale, and F-22, especially if you posses a sufficient understanding to recognize that the X-35, as its designator implies, was not a true prototype for the F-35 in the same way the YF-22 was for the F-22. The first true prototype for the F-35 was AA-1, which flew in 2006.
Finally, when the USMC declares IOC with the F-35 it will most certainly be a “real” IOC. The F-35 may not have reached its full potential, but then neither had the Rafale when the first handful of early production fighters were declared operational with the French Navy, etc. Nobody arrives with all the planned features working from day one. The Marines will however have a stealthy aircraft capable of both air to air and air to ground missions right from day one. Don’t expect to see F-35Bs relying on a buddy aircraft to lase targets for them as French Rafale required on their first deployment to Afghanistan or British Typhoons required recently in Libya.
hopsalotsooo, if its not in an engineering text book we can categorically say that no-one has built tested and flown it? really? Think how much has changed in terms of technology since the last acknowledged manned Mach 6 flight in the early 60s….
Look at the scope of what was being designed at the same time as the SR-71 family.
The anti crowd are being very aggressive bout knocking this news. A little too aggressive perhaps…..
Yes… as usual when it comes to US projects.
This would certainly be an extremely challenging endeavor but it wouldn’t be the first such project to be seen through to completion. Much of what we take for granted today was once at the very edge of what was conceivable when the breakthrough project started.
hopsalotF-35B launches air-to-air missile in test
Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter has conducted its first live-fire test of an air-to-air missile, the company reports.
An aircraft piloted by Air Force Capt. Logan Lamping launched an AIM-120 advance medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) against an aerial drone while flying in a military test range off the California coast, says Lockheed in a media release.
The drone was identified and targeted using mission systems sensors and the target’s “track” information was passed to the radar-seeking missile, say Lockheed.
The weapon launched from the aircraft’s internal weapons bay, acquired the target and flew an “intercept flight profile,” says Lockheed.
Moments before impact the missile received a self-destruct signal, preserving the drone, says Lockheed.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35b-launches-air-to-air-missile-in-test-392434/
hopsalotI noted this comment on another subject made by an ardent F35 supporter.
“…it will inevitably take 15+ years to get it operational. Will it still be relevant by then? I think not.”
Somewhat difficult to reconcile this sentiment with the F35 development progress and a fanatical level of support for the end product.
Takes all sorts i suppose.
I suppose it just depends on your reasoning ability. :rolleyes:
The aircraft described in the report I was discussing was a 4.5 generation F-16… same engine, same general performance class, RCS reductions but no internal weapons storage meaning that its RCS level would be broadly similar to those already achieved in aircraft like the Super Hornet and Rafale… given the length of time required to bring a new design from concept to operational it is doubtful that this aircraft would still be relevant by the time it reached squadron service, sometime in the late 2020s. (around 20 years after most other 4.5 generation fighters)
Sign In
