LokeThe F100 class is 146.7 m long according to Naval-Technology.
The Fremm class is 140 m long according to Naval-Technology
What engines will the 26 get?
Loke– “other countries have bought it… so it must be great…”
considering that the buy is decided by politicians (and in the case of the F-35, obviously without any solid data since it wasn’t even developed), and considering that politicians never admit being wrong, and considering also that in many air forces if not all, it is not very good for your career to speak against your superiors when you’re in the military, that argument is somwhat weak, to say the least…
I agree that using number of sales by itself is not a strong argument due to the political arguments.
However:
Had the F-35 been so unpopular with the air forces around the world that some seem to think, I am sure we would have heard about it by now. But so far I am not aware of any air force that has expressed doubts about the performance of the F-35.
People have been sceptical about timelines, and about costs, and also about sharing of technology. But not technical capabilities. If you are aware of any “leaks” that indicate otherwise I would be very interested in hearing about it.
All the evals I have heard about so far have in general put F-35 on top when it comes to the technical part of the eval.
LokeMBDA intends SPEAR to keep the aircraft out of the coverage of Russian ‘double-digit’ SAMs.
Any idea of the range of SPEAR?
There is also the JSF, which is is claimed will have a range exceeding 150 nm.
No stealth aircraft ever was “invisible nor invincible” or was claimed to be.
I sometimes get the impression that some people (not you of course) are claiming otherwise…
LokeI don’t think that the poster (MSphere) was thinking of rude long range AG weapons developed in the ’60 as a substitute for F 35. In this respect I said that precision guided stand-off AG weapons is something the US know very well, and still consider stealth better. I did not intend to change any definition.
If they consider “stealth better” then why are they integrating stand-off weapons on the F-35 at all?
I don’t think it’s as black&white as you portray it.
The F-35 is a huge step in capabilites over the currently available fighters, but it’s neither invisible nor invincible.
LokeSaab has unveiled its concept of “wide spectrum combat” (Wiscom) to exploit the potential of the next-generation JAS 39E/F and C/D Plus, the latter being a C/D retrofitted with E/F avionics and sensors.
One part of the Wiscom concept is the idea of a “flexible antenna pool” in which all aircraft in a flight share sensor and target data automatically. Another is “silent swarm ingress” where a flight enters combat in a widely dispersed pattern, with primary sensors being infrared search and track (IRST), active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars operating in passive mode, and electronic surveillance measures (ESM).
Under Wiscom, AESA transmissions are restricted and “random”—that is, the aircraft in a flight will transmit at different times, making it difficult to track them by emissions. Swedish engineers have noted that data-linked radars can share plots—not just tracks—and take simultaneous range-rate measurements, allowing two radars to determine a target’s velocity almost instantly. Finally, Saab envisages the use of the high-energy MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile to engage from side and rear aspects where targets are less likely to detect the threat.
For air-to-surface missions, Saab is studying an improved RBS 15ER (extended range) version of its own cruise missile with improved land-attack capability. In maritime attack, Wiscom tactics would allow a flight of Gripens to assess the target formation and launch up to two missiles each from different directions with simultaneous arrival times, saturating the target’s ability to defend itself.
While other fighter programs claim the ability to use real-time networked tactics, Wiscom is not entirely new, but an extension of Swedish technology developed since the 1960s, when data links were introduced secretly to bypass Soviet communications jamming. The first two-way aircraft-to-aircraft fighter link was deployed on the JA 37 Viggen in the 1980s. It was disclosed after the Viggen was retired in 2005 that it was capable of a “silent” AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile attack, performed by two aircraft using their PS 46/A radars in passive mode.
The original Tactical Information Data Link System (Tidls) fitted to the JAS 39A/B was designed to display the position, bearing and speed of all four aircraft in a formation, including basic status information such as fuel and weapons status. Tidls information, along with radar, EW and mapping data, appears on the central multi-function display. Detailed symbols distinguish between friendlies, hostiles and unidentified targets and show which member of the flight has targeted each hostile. Wiscom blends this capability with AESA, IRST and improved electronic support measures.
Full story: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_08_13_2012_p38-484470.xml&p=2
LokeYou seem to be forgetting about JSOW and SDB, both of which allow for significant standoff range and are internal IOC weapons.
Although not for IOC (I think?) there will also be the JSM integrated internally in the not too distant future. Range is classified of course however it will be significantly more than the NSM.
And JSM will be both for naval and land targets.
No doubt the F-35 will be the most potent fighter once it gets ready.
OTOH I do feel that some people here tend to underestimate what I refer to as “4.5 gen fighters”; these include:
Rafale F3+
Typhoon (post 2018)
SH block III
Gripen NG
A future Rafale with AESA and upgraded SPECTRA, DDM-NG, HMD, etc. seems much more survivable for almost any scenario than the F-16 whether it’s block 50/52 or block 60.. But then again, compared to the F-35…. my guess is that there is a pretty big jump from Rafale up to F-35 in survivability.
Just like I find it hard to understand why the F-35 fanboys here keep underestimating the above-mentioned fighters I also find it hard to understand why so many here seem to underestimate the survivability of the F-35, whether it’s a2a or a2g. :confused:
The F-35’s combination of low RCS, excellent sensors, sensor fusion, networking, and EW capabilities will make it a true 5. gen fighter. Of course there is a reason why weapons like JSM are being integrated, and with such weapons the F-35 should be highly survivable even when attacking very challenging targets.
On verra.
LokeGood report.
It helps understanding the value of a true mature multirole jet with advanced multi sensor fusion/MMI.
I dont see how the typhoon could have matched this at its current state of development as far as the indian competition is concerned.
This again!?
To refresh your memory: Both Typhoon and Rafale passed the technical eval and were shortlisted; so as far as the “indian competition is concerned” the Typhoon was found to meet the techniqal requirements.
The final selection process was on other criteria than technical (costs, offsets) and Rafale won on these points and was therefore declared the winner.
LokeF-35 JSF’s surprising sonic boom
I noticed the F-35A high up (as this zoomed in spot on my photo above indicates), but refocused my attention on trying to film the UAV as it performed its automatic collision avoidance maneuver. Note how the shock of the boom, which was unexpectedly severe at our location, causes the video to jump slightly at 7 sec. For comparison on the relatively lower boom intensity listen for the double-boom of the decelerating F-16 chase at 18 sec. I am sure someone must know, but does the intense boom represent an acoustic facet of the F-35’s low-observable design and parallel leading and trailing edge alignment?
LokeYeah, no Eurofighters or Rafales, and certainly no A400M ….:D
I am not so sure about the Eurofighter an the A400M, but the Rafale may well be the “most effective product” (whatever that really means) for France, given their special situation and requirements.
LokeYou best let all the companies developing 5th gen fightes, plus the new Gripen varient, with internal bays in on this! Unless of course it is something that can be worked around without any problems. And i’m quite sure you’d change you tune if a varient of the Typhoon was developed that had internal bays.
Highlighted text.
This is OT but: do you have any sources for that?
LokeAs opposed to sending him off to fight a shooting war based on potentially bad ideas that have never been thoroughly validated?
What I don’t understand is why you want to have the pilot in the a/c?
Use a target drone instead. I hate to link to Wiki, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_drone
Didn’t somebody experiment with remotely controlled F-16s? Pull some old A/Bs out of the desert, insert some radio-controllers and computers, and off you go 🙂
Loke6 AMRAAMs would mean no internal IIR, which is a good thing since BVR does not involve IIR yet. NGM includes a multi-mode seeker so every NGM is IIR, radar, and HARM.
I don’t see how no internal IR missiles is an advantage; in the future F-35 will face stealthy opponents which should make IR missiles more not less important than today.
OTOH 4 AMRAAMS and 2 AIM-9X++ is not too shabby either, and I guess that will be possible in the future?
LokeHow can they evolve? They are not even in production yet.
By 2025 the F-35 will have 18 years of production and post-SDD development under it’s belt. How much will Russia or China have? Let’s see what they R&C can do before we start claiming that the F-35 in 2025 will not be able to handle them.
By 2025 the F-35 will likely have 6 internal AMRAAMs or 6+ NGMs.
The missiles and parts of the avionics may already be in production.
All fighters have a certain lifespan, typically 40 years. If the F-35 is 18 years old in 2025 it may therefore be half-way. When you’re half-way through your life span it often starts to go down-hill… 😉
Anyway I am not claiming that the F-35 will not able to handle them; I am just saying that it’s a big unknown.
LokeYou are assuming that the F-35 flying in 2025 is the same as an IOC F-35. It will be at least Blk5 and be flying with much better weapons than are flying today (AIM-9x Blk4+, AIM-120D+++, NGM, Meteor++, etc).
True, but PAK FA, J-20 and the others will also evolve, as will their missiles.
LokeI’ll take the opinions of the Japanese defence professionals, and for that matter all the other nations defence procurement professionals who selected the F-35 over those of aviation enthusiasts any day.
The F-35 is no doubt more capable than today’s 4 – 4.5 gen fighters.
The problem with your statement is that the only 5. gen plane available to all these defence professionals is the F-35. There is nothing else to compare it to.
Had Boeing developed a 5. gen, or had Europe done it, only then could we have had a “real” comparison and a real option. As it is today, there are no other options.
It doesn’t take a “defence professional” to conclude that the F-35 will be more survivable than e.g. the SH or the Typhoon. However, we don’t know how it will fare against other 5. gens like the PAK-FA for instance, and we don’t know if other Western 5. gen designs would have been more popular had they been available. Perhaps a 5.gen without some of the design restrictions imposed on the F-35 (e.g. due to the B version) could have sold even better than the F-35.
Anyway I pity Dassault, Eurofighter and the other companies, in 10 years their manned fighter future look rather bleak I think. Boeing may still have a possibility of a bright future though if they are chosen by the USN for their next fighter project?
Sign In
