LmRaptorSo you don’t believe it has anything at all to do with security from an Indian perspective? Not even a little bit?;)
Oh I do believe the Indians have their secrets with regard to the BARS – and that does play a part. But last year I had the opportunity to ask a few of the MKI pilots whether there was any truth to the radar effecting VOR and TACAN – and it seemed that was the reason it wasn’t used in any form during their exercise at RAF Waddington.
________
**** my wife
LmRaptor…maybe we have a reason here why the radars will be disabled :diablo::diablo::p
No mate – the answer isn’t some conspiracy like a few people would want it to be – the Su-30 MKI BARS interferes with civilian VOR and TACAN transponder signal frequencies. Thats pretty dangerous for navigation purposes.
________
Pissing Movie
LmRaptorDoes anyone know what altitude the jet tracked at M3.2 was flying at?
Probably 20 km up.
________
MERCURY MOUNTAINEER SPECIFICATIONS
LmRaptorI’d agree that it would be foolish to assume a 1:1 replacement, but the problem with only 183 airframes is A- hours on the airframe B- attrition C- the number of locations that can be supported simultaneously with F-22s, should the need arise. The 381 number that the Air Force wants, makes more sense, in sustainability over a 30-40yr lifespan.
I completely agree – the guys who actually use the airframe want more.
________
WEED BUBBLERS
LmRaptorThis is starting to go in circles, I’ll just sum it up in my view.
No doubt matey.
USAF has had the opportunity to reduce the number of “legacy” aircraft by scrapping them and stop buying new before 2005 to reduce operational and uppgrading costs and free up money for more stealth aircraft.
This is where I disagree completely :). You are proposing that the USAF should have scrapped legacy jets and stopped aquiring legacy platforms prior to 2005 in order to fund more F-22s. By 2005 the F-22 was still a development, which essentially, it still is today. That being the case it would have been stupid to scrap other aircraft that had the capabilities needed now to fund in-development capabilities needed for the future(aka F-22). It also underwent an admin that wasn’t pro-tactical or strategic aviation – period. It had nothing to do with VLO/LO capabilities – they just weren’t big on bombers or AD platforms. Money was better spent elsewhere in the IRAQ style war on mine protected vechiles and body armor – etc etc.
They have not done so and therefore it is abvious that even if they like stealth numbers are much more important.
No because it would have been suicidal scrapping an airforce for an aircraft needed for the future. An aircraft at the time that still had large risk involved. Now that it is maturing – legacy jets are a no no and VLO/LO platforms are the USAFs only future. If the F-22 had completed IOC/FOC earlier – no doubt we would have had more airframes.
They might be believers, but in the way that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. 😀
It will also be interesting to see how enthusiastic for example the norwegian airforce would be if they were told that F-35 means a drastic cut in numbers.The USAF are not the Norwegian AF – they have different bugets and differents requirements. 🙂
The first jet engines were very crude, innefficient and unreliable and after WWII there was big numbers of battle proven propeller driven aircraft and massive capability to build more of them. Still, even though the world needed to recover from the costs of war in just a few years most of them were scrapped and replaced by jets. When you compare to that the less than 200 airframes in the world after over 25 years LO/VLO just looks pathetic. If you include aircraft designed with more moderate RCS reduction like Gripen it looks more acceptable, but still no slam dunk.
Mate the cost of tactical aviation didn’t even compare at the time to present day prices – thats irrespective of VLO/LO – numbers of aircraft just don’t match up – and nor is it practical today for 1-1 replacements each time their is an evolution in AD – so stop making pointless comparisons on the numbers of jets. It’s not like we need 100 bombers/fighters to hit the target anymore :). So by the time the USAF get their “stealth” fleet – if current numbers are met – it will be a bloody big force by anyones standards today.
The Americans talk about stealth, but they don’t do the walk. There is a reason for that, think about it.
🙂
________
Bravo
LmRaptorDozer said the F-22 can hit 240 degrees per sec – and for a jet of the F-22s size that is very impressive.
________
Lovely Wendie99
LmRaptorM2000 can hit 270 degrees per sec – I would think therefore the Rafale could – Perhaps the Typhoon although published figures indicate 200 degrees max so I’m not sure.
________
SEXY GIRLS
LmRaptorThe Netherlands has mentioned a late version of F-16 as one of a number of alternatives to F-35, but neither Norway nor Denmark are contemplating new F-15 or F-16.
Yes as Norway’s Airforce have stated they prefer the F-35(LO) to the other options(non LO). While from a capability perspective Holland and Denmark would prefer an F-35 if the costs are kept respectable – which is its key point: “affordable LO”.
USAF on the other hand had the last delivery of a newbuilt F-16 as late as 2005 and it seems strange if they are dedicated to stealth that they not bought more F-22 or kept the F-117 in service instead.
Mate F-22 IOC only was achieved at Langley on 15 December 2005 :). While FOC was only achieved in December 2007 – that spells out: an in-development aircraft- which the F-22 still most certainly is. Its full flight envelope – in certain flight regimes – has not even being fully programmed into its FCS yet. So by those dates – when the F-22 came on and achieved IOC – F-16 deliveries ended :). Thats my point. As I have said the F-117 was a very limited aircraft – the Me 262 of stealth. It had one mission – which it did brilliantly. The B-2/F-22 combo combined with future F-35s will be able to do that limited mission aswell – so why not replace it with cheaper(through-life costs) and more effective alternatives now – when they are alreadly here?
They are still recieving F-22s(VLO) are they not :)? LM have only delivered 122 of the 183 airframes to date. With prospects of futher orders during the next admin. While the F-35(LO), which is supposed to be cheaper will attempt to replace the rest of the fighter gap – I don’t see non-VLO/LO aircraft on the future books?
The old B-52 has been kept in service instead of building more B-2’s and 183 F-22 is not enough to replace the F-15’s. Wether F-35 will replace the F-16 is yet to see, I wouldn’t be surprised if it also will be cut short. Instead the B-3 could bee seen as a cheaper and moresefull way to put bombs on the target over the world at short notice. And so the chase for the next rainbow will continue.
Futher B-2s were deemed to expensive to continue production – but no new B-52s were produced – which leads one to conclude that stealth is the priority as I have said – but Tactical/Strategic aviation has become to expensive to replace on a 1 for 1 basis regardless of VLO/LO or at least its a compromise the USAF are willing to make due to the world-beating results achieved by VLO/LO in operation(F-117) and in testing(F-22).
To replace a dedicated attack aircraft with the F-22 would mean that an air superiority fighter that is already spread very thin have to be taken from its main role. I can’t see that happen very often and gives the impression that the F-117 was not very useful for anything than very isolated tasks.
Agreed. Whereas the F-22/B-2/F-35 will take up most of the tasks expected by the USAF – while sharing the F-117 mission.
I am also not very impressed with the F-18, the numbers I’ve seen for acceleration for example is not stellar, but it’s able to fill the decks of the carriers. Therefore they can give USA the global presence it sees as essential and still the yacht club have money left for their boats.
A low RCS is useful, but it has to be balanced against cost and performance and so far the extreme LO/VLO do not seem to be worth it.
Correct – it is very useful – and for the USAF it’s essential as they have said over and over. The USAF have the buget to purchase a sizeable force of VLO/LOs – and as a result are purchasing VLO/LOs only, so for them it is WORTH IT —– for the rest of the world it may not be, and therefore they may balance the extra capability of VLO/LO against their requirements and buget – and opt for a jet like GNG which for countries expecting to operate in concert with the USA’s day one force may be a prudent decision.
🙂
________
Medical Marijuana Doctor
LmRaptor12 Russian troops dead – 150 injured + 2 FJs.
LmRaptorRussian kit shot down by Russian kit?
LmRaptorApparently Russia has confirmed the loss of 2 jets according to that stream.
LmRaptorI was under the impression from what Jon Lake and Jwcook said over at the Eurofighter forum – that the Typhoon could SC with no externals at Mach 1.5 – but not at the EF GmbH definition of “clean”? Id be happy to be proved wrong however :).
LmRaptorIt’s correct that the USAF has no other options when buying new aircraft than the stealth one, unlike most other airforces that can also choose modern aircraft with just RCS measures.
They do – its called buying advanced versions of the F-15/16 – something they have refused to do based on their philosophy.
Interestingly USA so far has chosen to keep old aircraft rather than replacing them with these new ones.
I don’t blame the pentagon for not funding more F-22s – buying new ones for current ops doesn’t seem prudent. But for future ops against peer systems? They might be underestimating the threat as the USAF seem to believe. But as to keeping old F-16s, aren’t they being replaced by F-35s :)?
For example, obviously the B-52 with long range missiles is considered to be a more cost effective solution for most operations than the B-2. If the necessary number of combat aircraft has been reduced, it would be logical to scrap the old ones first.
I don’t see B-2s being scrapped but I do see B-52s in the graveyard. As to the F-117 being replaced – for all its VLO it was very limited in what it was used for. The F-22 in many ways is better – and that is its replacement.
Look att the USN, the A-12 Avenger was canceled late in the project and the F-18 E/F was developed instead. Unlike the stealth aircrafts it has been inducted according to plan and its advanced avionics doesnt seem to be very costly.
Yes thats the USN – and in DACT the SHs have been hammered by F-22s. Because they are designed for higher threat scenarios. The USN are getting the F-35C as you know.
I wouldn’t buy the F-35 until the american branches had inducted a major number of them and could show that maintenance is reasonable. Right now the risks are to great, in my view.
I might agree with that.
That is why its called “flight test”. :rolleyes:
I know.. just pointing out a development :).
________
Ferrari Berlinetta Boxer History
LmRaptorComponent Failures Impact F-35 Flight Testing
Aug 8, 2008
By Graham Warwick
Lockheed Martin continues to struggle to gain momentum in flight testing of the Joint Strike Fighter, with the first F-35 again grounded by component failure and while the second aircraft heads toward a hiatus in flying that will last into early next year.
The issues will not affect the overall schedule, says Lockheed, but they are preventing key risks being retired early. These include additional noise tests funded by the Australians at a time when the F-35’s environmental impact has become an issue for some international partners.
The first F-35, aircraft AA-1, is grounded awaiting the repair of nacelle vent fans designed to keep the engine bay cool on the ground. The situation has echoes of the overheating problems that dogged the F-22, but Lockheed says it is unique to AA-1.
“The issues we are dealing with are independent of the thermal management system,” says deputy program manager Bobby Williams. “Nothing is on the critical path, but the earlier we get the data the better.”
The problem involves repeated failures of the nacelle vent fans that force air through the space between engine and airframe to prevent heat from damaging the structure.
While the fan failures may be unrelated, thermal management is the “biggest challenge” in the F-35, says Daniel Kunec, JSF program office director, air system integration. “It is the most limiting feature, and there are still some challenges to be overcome,” he told an AIAA propulsion conference in July.
Originally designed for the canceled Boeing Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche, the vent fans are unique to AA-1. “They are one-off fans that were never fully qualified because AA-1 is a one-off,” says Williams. AA-1 was built before a redesign to reduce the F-35’s weight and is not production standard.
The fans are surrounded by fuel, which is colder than the ambient air, and in the heat and humidity of Fort Worth, Tex., condensation is coating circuit cards inside the units and causing corrosion. The fans are being repaired by supplier Hamilton Sundstrand, but the “long pole” delaying a return to flight is applying a new conformal coating to the cards.
Williams says the problem does not affect the second F-35, production-standard aircraft BF-1, as the vent fans were relocated during the redesign to make them more accessible, avoiding the condensation issue. He expects the fans to be back in AA-1 by the end of August, after which “a couple more flights” are needed at Fort Worth before the aircraft can make its delayed ferry flight to Edwards AFB, Calif., for testing.
Williams plays down concerns about overheating in the high desert of Edwards, although AA-1 does not incorporate design changes made to improve the F-35’s thermal management. These include larger engine fuel pumps, which will be introduced during early low-rate initial production to provide the full thermal management capability.
Thermal management is a particular issue for the stealthy F-35. “There are very few areas to reject heat. We can dump it or burn it,” says Kunec. “Every component has a heat budget and everything is cooled by fuel.” The heated fuel is either burned in the engine or cooled by heat exchangers in the engine fan duct. “The massive fuel/air heat exchanger is our saving grace for coming close to specification.”
Based on lessons learned with the F-22, Williams says, the F-35 has a requirement to operate on the ground for 60 min. on a 120F day, with fully heat-soaked fuel and a full solar load. At the end of 2005, the short takeoff and vertical landing (Stovl) F-35B could not meet the requirement, but after redesign now meets the specification, says Kunec.
Meeting specification at the end of a mission remains a challenge for the Stovl variant. “The lift fan is a huge heat source and at the end of the mission there is little fuel left to use as a heat sink, so there is a strong peak in temperature,” says Kunec. The requirement is to operate for 30 min. after landing. “We meet that with no margin,” says Williams.
Already delayed more than a month, AA-1’s deployment to Edwards is to perform inflight engine shutdown testing over the dry lakebed. The deployment will also be used to collect additional noise data requested by Australia. Several countries face public concerns over the noise produced by the F-35, which with 40,000 lb. of thrust is considerably more powerful than the F-16 it will replace. In Norway, there are concerns noise issues could force construction of a new base to avoid local opposition at existing facilities.
“We are working the environmental issue, but we are not doing anything from a design standpoint,” says Kunec, adding, “There is a lot of misinformation on F-35 noise.” Near-field noise level is comparable to legacy fighters, he says. Lockheed has said the noise footprint that reaches the base perimeter is less severe, but Kunec says far-field or community noise “is at or close to the highest level.” Flyover noise data collected with AA-1 at 1,000 ft. “is right at the top, but then everything over 90-100 dB. is a problem,” he says.
On the emissions front, “NOx [nitrogen oxides] levels are way beyond any previous aircraft because of the higher combustor temperatures,” says Kunec. But while NOx will be significantly higher, carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbon levels will be significantly lower.
While AA-1 remains grounded since completing its 45th flight on July 23, aircraft BF-1, the first Stovl F-35B, has logged nine flights since its June 11 debut and has about 15 more flights in conventional takeoff and landing mode before it too ceases flying, for scheduled upgrades. A decision to delay hover pit testing to January means the aircraft will not fly again until the second quarter of next year. A second F-35B, BF-2, will roll out on Aug. 17, but not fly until early next year.
The plan was to conduct pit testing of the Stovl propulsion system in late October and return to flight in November, but program officials have decided to delay the tests until after a redesigned Pratt & Whitney F135 engine is installed. This has pushed full-power hover pit work back to January, but will avoid the need to repeat tests, says Williams.
To minimize the impact, initial tests opening the Stovl propulsion system doors in flight will now be conducted before BF-1 is grounded, instead of after. These will involve opening the doors one at a time and checking handling qualities, says Williams. Electromagnetic-effects tests planned for later in the program have also been brought forward and will be performed while BF-1 is on the ground for upgrades.
Lockheed now plans to begin “build-down” flight tests in Stovl mode in the second quarter of 2009, but a date for the first full vertical landing has yet to be agreed. The original plan was to ferry BF-1 to the U.S. Navy’s Patuxent River, Md., test center to perform the first vertical landing. “We are having ongoing discussions with the JPO on how we do the first vertical landing and we have not finalized a plan,” says Williams.
________
Toyota publica specifications
LmRaptorThings are either a necessity or not, and if the world changes so that something is no longer needed the necesssity is not there.
Of course USAF could have afforded to buy stealth aircraft in significant numbers if it had been necessary, but the money was seen as better spent elsewhere.
F-35 might be able to make stealth more affordable, even if we don’t know that yet, but any potential buyer will have to decide wether it’s worth it. And they might get to the same conclusion as USA has done so far, that it isn’t.
I think you are missing the point a bit. The USAF see VLO/LO as a necessity, hence why they have not designed a tactical fighter/bomber since the F-117 without “stealth”. The fact that they won’t purchase more tactical fighters – without VLO/LO – vindicates their belief/need in/for “stealth”.
As for the world changing – ie High vs Low intensity conflicts – argument; that doesn’t translate into “stealth” no longer being a necessity. All it means is fewer airframes have been purchased – but that’s been the case with many non-VLO projects within the US or elsewhere; and it may also reflect on how effective VLO platforms are if they can perform their mission with fewer airframes.
For the USAF VLO is essential in performing its primary missions. For the USA, currently there are other needs – but are they neglecting the prepare for the future? This is less a VLO vs non-VLO argument and more an advanced tactical avaition argument vs CAS type mission argument – as I think you will find the avionics/systems are much more expensive than the probable game-changing “stealth”.
The F-35 is a focused aircraft – including the essential LO tech while hopefully being affordable. Whether it is affordable is unknown at this time. But it still follows the “stealth” is essential argument the USAF have maintained.
But I agree that the F-35s advantage of LO tech may not be essential to partner nations – especially as they will be operating under the umbrella of US air-superiority.
________
Hardsquirtx
Sign In
