Scorpion82Something new wrt India
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/122140/india-says-%E2%80%98thanks%2C-but-no-thanks%E2%80%99-to-f_35.html
It’s stated that production for the Indian FGFA will be launched in 2019.
The Indian FGFA will primarily be based on the single-seater Sukhoi T-50, the prototype of which is already flying in Russia, but will include a twin-seater version and a more powerful engine with greater thrust.
“Its complete design will be frozen by the end of the 18-month PDC. Six to seven of its prototypes should be flying by 2017. After that, there will be 2,500 hours of flight-testing over 25 months before the series production begins in 2019,” he said.
Scorpion82Yes you did change the subject. Your initial question was if they were fused or not, now you are questioning the functionality of the sensors providing the data to be fused.
Not correct my initial question was:
quoting myself
Is it really full right now?
The full is related to the sensor fusion, there are different levels of sensor fusion and my question was aimed at whether there is only a basic fusion or really full sensor fusion. I may have been more clear on that, but I didn’t change the subjected as you accuse me for.
The IOC F-35s will be fully functional combat unit jets. This cannot be said of jets like the IOC EF. It’s IOC jets were training jets and they did not get to combat units till years later. The EF did not even get an IRST till T1 Blk5.
Incorrect the IOC examples were block 2, the training jets were block 1. Block 2 offered AA capabilities as required to perform the intended mission (mainly QRA). Anyway this isn’t about the Typhoon here at all.
There will always be some level of spiral development in any program, but what makes the F-35 unique is that it’s IOC jets will be fully combat capable for any of the multirole missions it performs. The same cannot be said of the IOC versions of the Rafale, EF or even the F-22.
Well we’ll see whether all the necessary weapons will be integrated or not by that time! Another fact is that the F-35 is or at least was supposed to achieve IOC in block 2 configuration, not block 3! You appear to try to turn the delays in some kind of pro argument…
Scorpion82They may have ordered 150+ EF T1s at one time, but at what rate did they deliver them (how many per year for the first few years)?
–edit–
I just saw that in 2009 they delivered the 200th EF. That is a rate of 30 per year. Btw, that is what the F-35 is doing now in LRIP.
The production quantities in Europe are much smaller, you can’t compare production run of US fighters with those of European fighters for that reason.
Changing your subject much? There is always room for improvement as technology and operational needs improve. But, the meaning of fusion is clear.. whatever data is being sent by the sensors (production level for EOTS btw) is fused completely. The individual sensors have been testing and flying for years and they would not dumb them down in order to do Blk1.
I haven’t changed anything! I asked whether the sensor data are fully fused, may have added the question what are the exact requirements wrt the level of sensor fusion?
Not quite. Later blocks (which will come every 2-3 years) will be icing on the cake. Blk 3 F-35s will be able to do the entire range of missions required of a multirole fighter. That cannot be said of IOC Rafales or Eurofighters.
Maybe but they don’t offer ALL of the capabilities and stuff guys like you talk about all the time when it comes to the F-35. The truth is that the F-35 follows a spiral development path like other recent fighter designs did and that capabilities are continuously added.
Scorpion82Quatar = many?
Scorpion82Yes it is.
The article talks about fusing, that doesn’t mean that full functionality is provided or that there is no room for further improvements wrt the fusion of the sensor data. The point is no one knows for real and I in fact don’t buy the “fully developed” software claim.
So the EF & Rafale went straight to FRP?
The Typhoon did, the Rafale more or less, there was nothing like an LRIP for either albeit the first Rafale production batch comes closer to LRIP given the small quantities.
Really, then why did they leave space in for the AIRST and cheek arrays (I forgot about those ;))?
Because at the time those things were cancelled the design was already frozen and built in provisions aren’t bad. The F-35 doesn’t feature a DIRCM either, but the aircraft is built with the necessary provisions in mind to integrate them latter for example.;)
That is not what Spiral Development (SD) is. What is currently happening with the EF and Rafale is what SD is. They were produced with rudimentary functionality and declared IOC. Then they started developing the technology to bring them up to full multirole functionality.
Correct and the same is happening with the F-35. Much of the functionality won’t be achieved before the latter blocks and that is in fact a spiral development. You are full aware of all the charts for the F-35s block improvements which is a planned spiral development (full EOTS functionality, DIRCM, 6 internal AAMs etc.).
Scorpion82Full sensor fusion for the F-35 (including but not limited to EOTS, EODAS, APG-81, MADL, and EWS) is working and flying today in both the CATB and the F-35.
Is it really full right now?
On the budget, my point was that it’s developmental & LRIP schedule was cut to pay for Dev funding needs. If they had left the schedule alone and still paid for the increased Dev needs, then that would constitute “throwing money at the program”. They would also have had more test jets flying today and decreased the cost of production at a faster rate than they
Well other aircraft didn’t have LRIPs to cut from in order to increase development funding.
One of the main drivers in the length (and cost) of the F-35’s development is that they are trying to do most of the planned development for IOC. They learned from the F-22 in that later budgets may not allow upgrades that are planned today (ie where is the AIRST, HMD, jammers, and WVR tracking for the F-22). They are going for full sensor fusion, installed IRST, fully functional EODAS, AESA radar, RAM coatings now instead of gambling that the budget will allow it for later.
Much of what you state for the F-22 was either not planned for the basic configuration or cancelled on cost grounds in the first place.
The DoD and it’s partners know this and that is why they are willing to pay and wait for the F-35 rather than use a more conventional spiral-development process.
Conventional spiral development? It was in fact common practice to complete development and start production in the past. I would be srprised if the F-35 resorts to that old scheme and given the different block standards and capability insertion the F-35 is in fact following the same line. Wrt the growth potential we’ll see. Other newer designs were said to be upgradable as being built with a lot of growth potential in mind. The reality is that technology moves forward and a rapid pace and what is modern today is basically already obsolete. Design changes will most likely be included into future F-35s and the aircraft will suffer from the same problem as others, some of the changes won’t be retrofit able to older variants.
btw, what 2nd Rafale? If your speaking of the M, how is it different? The F-35C sports a larger folding wing, larger tail (both vertical and horizontal), new nose gear, tailhook, and a beefier structure throughout.
Is it Dassault’s fault that LM is incapable to design a land based and carrier based variant of the F-35 with greater commonality? Certainly NOT! Dassault managed to design a land based and carrier compatible variant with only minor differences. That’s actually an achievement not a draw back!
Yes, the F-35 can be upgraded from earlier blocks to later ones. Money has already been budgeted in FY2011 to upgrade all Blk1&2 LRIP F-35s to Blk3. The Norway docs also said that all purchased Blk4 jets (early purchases) would be upgraded to Blk5 (later purchases).
May work for some blocks, whether it will be true for future ones is the question to ask.
Scorpion82The MMRCA is a Multi-Role Fighter. With it’s main focus on strikes against Surface Targets. Air Superiority is clearly a Secondary Role.
Says whom? You? :rolleyes:
Scorpion82One has to bear in mind that the initial block I Super Hornets were using the avionics system of the late model F/A-18C/D. This is one of the reasons, if not the main reason why the development of the F/A-18E/F progressed comparably fast. Only block II models introduced new and more advanced avionics. It was a stepped approach reducing the developmental risks and accelerating the development of the overall platform.
Scorpion82@J-20,
as the name suggests Su-30M2, missing out the K for commercial or export indicates that this is the domestic variant of the Su-30MK2. It has in fact been stated that these airframes were originally destined for an export customer, supposedly China. I don’t know whether the latter is true or not, but these aircraft are definitely based on the MK2, with possibly minor adjustments to the RuAFs requirements.
Scorpion82Well all the official sources don’t indicate a rearwards facing radar, but who knows. Maybe EW equipment…?
Scorpion8280kN dry = 18000 lbs. thrust, 120kN wet = 27000 lbs. thrust (F414)
100kN dry = 22500 lbs. thrust, 150kN wet = 33750 lbs. thrust (F100/F110)
What kind of future growth variants of these engines are this?
Scorpion82Whether there will be any savings vs a Rafale or Typhoon remains yet to be seen. There is at least the chance that the F-35 will end up cheaper in terms of procurement costs once full rate production is established, who knows whether the ECDs are still in production at that time.
It certainly remains yet to be seen whether the F-35 will live up to its promises. Maybe it will, maybe not. We’ll see, atm its in some areas premature to say it will or will not.
Scorpion82Does this order figure of 107 include the offset for the 24 Saudi airframes?
It does yes. To make it clear
T1 original = 55
T2 original = 89
T3 original = 88
Total = 232
After 2005 (Cancellation of 2 aircraft for Austria)
T1 = 53
T2 = 91
T3 = 88
2007 – 2009 (Saudi deal & T3 splitting)
T1 = 53
T2 = 67
T3A = 40
Total 160
I don’t think that all of the 53 T1s will be scrapped as one is a static PMAFT airframe and 3 are IPAs. The FGR.4 which crash landed at Chinalake in 2008 has been written off. That leaves “only” 48 aircraft to be scrapped at all.
It may be a coincidence that the T2/3A orders equal the number of aircraft to equip the squadrons as planned (5 frontline sqns, Falklands flight, OCU and OEU). That leaves no spares however.
Scorpion82Afaik there are only 3 flying prototypes for the T-50 the -1/2/4. The T-50-0/3 are static airframes for fatigue testing and structural load testing, while the T-50KNS is a non flying prototype for ground testing.
It has been reported that there might be a batch of 6-10 pre-production aircraft. These will be built with the lessons learned from the prototypes and their manufacturing won’t start before 2013. These aircraft will be used for further flight testing and development efforts as well as operational evaluation by the RuAF to pass the state acceptance trials. If that’s done the first aircraft will be delivered to Lipetsk for further evaluation (creating manuals, procedures and operational doctrines) and train the first pilots. It’s indeed possible that some pre-production airframes will be used for such purposes, but it remains yet to be seen how the programme progresses. If there are any issues we’ll most likely not learn about them on time, but much later. We’ll only see the result in form of delays. It has been stated that full rate production won’t be launched before certain critical milestones are met. 2000 fh has been mentioned as the required minimum. I don’t expect Russia to place any orders for full rate production examples before 2015 and that means deliveries in 2017 or 2018. Achieving IOC could be achieved around 2020 if everything goes well.
my 2ct
Scorpion82I wonder if this can truly be considered “supercruising” though because as I understand such things the apparent main benefit is the decreased fuel burn when using dry thrust only compared to reheat, but if you HAVE to use reheat to GET supersonic in the first place (even if you can remain there on dry thrust only) then I’d suggest many of the benefits would be eaten up through the use of that reheat.
It’s in fact the opposite! A brief use of the afterburners gets you faster there and may in fact save fuel at the end. Even the might F-22 uses the AB to accelerate, albeit it can do it without AB.
Sign In
