Scorpion82He also said this with regards to the AoA, which you didn’t highlight-
True but he leaves out that the inferior TWR, higher wingloading, lack of TVC, larger frontal area in comparison to its size and smaller control surfaces in relation to its size in comparison to the F-22 will have an impact and not a small one. Same FCS laws doesn’t change that.
The other numbers are very much rounded figures
As I said.
given that we know the F-35 has more than 40k lbs of thrust(between 43k and 48k).
More likely 43k ft as that’s the number stated by PW.
Assuming for arguments sake, the A model’s empty weight is ~29,000lbs, plus 9,000lbs of fuel, and 1,200lbs of AAMs, that works out to 39,200lbs. If we go with the 43,000lb thrust figure, then the T/W is ~1.1:1. If the thrust is 48,000lbs, then the T/W is 1.22:1. Neither of those figures is too shabby.
Indeed not to shabby, but neither impressive either.
Scorpion82Very interesting video…
At 0’21 it is sais that the missile seekers are part of the sensor fusion and the part where the IR seekers of the mica scaning the airspace is interesting as well…
In fact remember the Swiss and the Brazilian rafale pdf…There was a graphic chart stating that mica IR seekers were part of rafale sensors and data fusion….
Wanted to say the same after watching it more closley with pausing the different passages. Seems like the MICA IR is indeed used for wide angle target detection as well. As I can see there is no seperate TACAN either. Also like the view sequences of the HuD and cockpit displays.
Scorpion82I can’t read the rest.
Watch the video on HD (link in my previous post) and use full screen.
Scorpion82Beesley defends F-35s AA capabilities
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/lm-defends-f-35-jsf-agility-against-critics/
LM defends F-35 JSF agility against critics
By: Chris Pocock
June 15, 2009
AircraftIs Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter a “bomb truck,” optimized for the stealthy attack of ground targets but of limited value as a defender of airspace? Critics and rivals of the multibillion-dollar international program have been sniping at the F-35’s air-to-air maneuvering performance for years. But the issue came to a head last August, when a presentation from The Rand Corporation stated that the F-35A “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.”
Coming from a respected think tank that is funded by the U.S. government, the claim provoked a heated response from the Pentagon. “The F-35 enjoys a significant combat loss exchange ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats,” said U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, the F-35 program executive officer. Rand subsequently backtracked on the presentation, but the issue was still reverberating ahead of the Paris Air Show when AIN sought comment from Lockheed Martin F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley.
“I’m not sure I believe some of the Rand figures. They are influenced by the lightweight fighter mafia,” he commented. That’s a reference to a school of opinion that championed the original F-16 concept, and chafed at its subsequent development into a much heavier, multirole combat aircraft. Twenty-five years later, the “mafia” still apparently haunts the halls at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas facility.
But Rand authors John Stillion and Scott Purdue contended that the high wing loading of the F-35 makes it inherently less agile than current fighter aircraft, including Russia’s MiGs and Sukhois, and Europe’s Rafale and Typhoon. Moreover, the F-35’s thrust loading is significantly inferior to that of the F-15, F-16 and F-22, they said. As a result, Rand alleged, the F-35 is inferior in visual-range combat in terms of acceleration, climb and sustained-turn capability. It also has a lower top speed, they added.
Beesley called these comparisons naïve and simplistic. An empty F-35A will weigh 30,000 pounds and have a maximum thrust of 40,000 pounds, he noted. “Even when you add the 1,200 pounds of our air-to-air combat load and the 9,000 pounds half-fuel load with which you would typically begin an air-to-air engagement, then our power-to-weight ratio is still almost 1:1.” Moreover, he noted, the F-35’s half-fuel load is greater than today’s fighters. An F-16 would have only 3,600 pounds.
Beesley also insisted that the sustained turn rate of the F-35 is conquerable, despite its higher wing loading. He insisted that there is “a huge amount of thrust available” from the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which is the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft.
The F-35 chief test pilot further noted that the F-35 can fly at angles of attack that are just as steep as those of the F-18 or the F-22. “It’s a fully maneuverable 50-degree airplane,” he said. He invited those who had witnessed the F-22’s startling agility at airshows recently to ponder the fact that “the same people also designed the flight control system for the F-35.”
Moreover, Beesley told AIN, the debate should not be limited to a discussion of visual-range dogfighting. “In a real combat mission, the ability to sneak up on your opponent and be the first to shoot is paramount,” he said.
This is a reference to stealth, of course, and the F-35’s low observability cannot be matched by any of the fighters that were mentioned in the Rand analysis. Opposing fighter pilots will find that the range at which they can detect the F-35, either by radar or electro-optics/infrared means, will be much shorter than they are used to.
But Beesley also had another “non-kinetic” characteristic in mind–the F-35’s mission avionics, claimed to be the most advanced in the world. “The F-35 pilot will have superior situational awareness, by day and by night, and a helmet-mounted display. This will be a great advantage and will allow him to take full advantage of the performance of today’s off-boresight air-to-air missiles,” he said.Beesley can speak from some experience in the debate. He has more than 5,500 hours of flight time in over 50 different aircraft, including the F-16, F-117 and the F-22. He also flew Soviet-era fighters during a tour with the USAF “Red Hats” squadron in 1979-80.
I boldened some interesting parts.
– Once again a 30k lb empty weight figure for the F-35, where are thos weight reductions?
– 40k lb of thrust
– TWR almost 1:1
– 50° AoA
What can we conclude by that? I assume Beesley used rounded figures for the weight of aircraft and the engine thrust. Yet a half fueled F-35 just achieving a ~1:1 TWR is hardley impressive. While he correctly refers to the Lightning II’s significantly larger fuel load, even aircraft with full fuel load still achieve better TWRs. Sustained turning performance is a combination of various things either and while he criticises the “oversimplification” of the RAND study his own remarks are quite simplified as well.
50 degrees a hard number, but claimed out of context. It much looks like max. AoA not the typical soft limit and the question is will the operational pilot be able to make any use of this?
Scorpion82Just found this nice video form Thales:
http://www.strimoo.com/video/16592902/Thales-Application-3D-RAFALE-le-bourget-2009-Vimeo.html
Scorpion82Indeed it is, as such a significant change of the engine in terms of weight and size might result in a major redesign. So far it was stated, that the stock M88-2 and M88-2ECO would be interchangeable or even upgradeable without any modifications to the airframe. Let alone that 2×10 cm in diameter and and about 200 kg additional weight might be difficult to deal with from a CG point of view and the airframe itself. Did they just put up M88-3 data (the old ones) as a place holder?
Scorpion82but in Germany it would be “eight thirty” – e.g. thirty minutes TO eight.
No in german it’s also seven thirty or half eight 😉
Scorpion82So it´s official, the CAPTOR-E is the backend of the Captor-M with a fixed AESA antenna pluged-in. The “cheap” route…
The “Swash plate” design is thrown into the “future” (or more probably “never”).
A bit of a disapointment.
Well the details have yet to be discussed according Stefan Zoller (see Toans post). The swash plate might or might not be a feature but I agree it looks more like a possible upgrade. Most AESAs use the backend of the existing radars, the advantages are cheaper, easier and retrofitable to existing platforms. Keep in mind that the T2 aircraft’s Captor-D was designed with an AESA upgrade in mind and CAESAR was in fact based on Captor-D with some LRIs being replaced with newer ones. Given the timeframe for the ES/05 Raven with a swash plate provided by Selex I see no reason, why this couldn’t be adopted for Captor-E on time. Of course there could be problems we’re not aware of, but you can’t rule it out yet.
Scorpion82One good question is whether this new engine is going to improve supercruise performance.
If the dry thrust is uprated it should and even if it just boosts the performance in operational config (which is the most important btw) it will be an advantage. Earlier indications were for a 60 kN dry/90 kN reheat version (M88-3) and increased reheat thrust is often achieved by increased dry thrust.
Scorpion82PDF about the Captor-E from Selex:
http://www.selex-sas.com/EN/Common/files/SELEX_Galileo/Products/CAPTOR.pdf
Scorpion82One day at the Paris Air show (professional days)
Hello everyone,
I’ve spent the whole day at the Le Bourget and I had the opportunity to meet two rafale pilots and a DGA engineer responsible for the AtG rafale weaponry integration. This was on the French armed forces static display, not Dassault’s.
I couldn’t have access to the Dassault static display today because of the number of official/TV delegations but I have an invitation for Thursday. The nice thing is that the French defense static was very comprehensive with a rafale B, a rafale M, an EC725 caracal with AdA para commandos (C-SAR), a mirage 2000D and a tiger helicopter. All the militaries were here to answer questions and as it was a professional day there weren’t too much people and I had really the time to talk with the pilots, the commandos or DGA staff.
I also crossed the French minister of defense which was visiting the French armed forced satic display but of course he was very busy with a big delegation of officers, industrials and cameras…So no chance to talk to him!
So the first rafale pilot that I met in the early afternoon (before the demos) was from the Marine Nationale. He is a former SuE pilot and has his night qual. Carrier landing with the rafale. He gave me quite a few “scoop” nothing extraordinary but still interesting when you are gleaning every piece of information.
Just to pick some of the stuff which didn’t appear in the press (many thing he said is already known), he told that when encountering F18 and F18 SH from the Roosevelt (dogfighting), the rafale didn’t suffer a single loss despite the fact that some of the hornets were equipped with JHMS+ Aim 9X. So he really balanced the quality of this feature. He recognized that they were a bit anxious before encountering such a type of threat but in the end it wasn’t really an issue. Second point he said that the SH looses a lot of energy when brutally changing of trajectory and then started to sink…In fact when their US navy counter parts couldn’t point their nose in the direction of the rafale to be within the aim9X firing envelope they strated to do this kind of brutal maneuver which made them loose their energy.
Other “scoop” concerning the rafale vs typhoon…This MN pilot already downed a typhoon with a two supersonic drop tank config (for the rafale) in a simulated gun dogfight. It took him three turns to take the advantage. So he didn’ felt that there was a big gap of performance between the two aircrafts in this area. He admitted that the outcome could have bee different as there is always a part of luck in this type of engagement but he insisted that both aircraft are quite similar for dog fighting skills. He also point out that it is impossible to know the real outcome of a BVR fight since many parameters are unknown. For instance rafale jamming war modes are never used in exercises just like other modern aircrafts.
That is it for the MN rafale pilot.
After the demos, later in the afternoon I went back and talked with an AdA rafale pilote from St Dizier. Just to pick the few interesting things he said (that are not really in the press)…He said that the rafale is in his opinion an excellent aircraft even if in some areas it is not the best. He said that the SH is better to carry heavy loads (it is bigger) that the Typhoon is better at high speeds and that Russian aircrafts are very impressive even if they are less sophisticated than their western counterparts. He said that there are two items were the rafale is above the competition according to pilots feedbacks in international exercises (he mentioned the typhoon the SH and the gripen). It was the Man Machine Interface which is top notch in the rafale according to him as well as the sensor fusion. He even talked about American generals visting St Dizier impressed by the MMI and the level of the situation awareness…(ok here he couldn’t dissimulate his pride at this point!)
The very interesting thing about this pilot is that he already flew with the RBE2 AESA and while he wasn’t specific he said like a children trying a new toy that the gain of performance is huge in every areas. He didn’t try to dissimulate the “wow” factor that he had when trying it.
Perhaps the most interesting meeting I had was with a DGA engineer which was responsible for the AtG weapons integration for the rafale….
So we should soon see the rafale operationally carrying GBU24…Firstly in the centerline pylone (*1) and after on the middle wing stations (*2). On this matter I also saw a reduced scale rafale moke up with three GBU24 on Dassault’s inside stand.For the OSF-it and the absence of IR channel he said that it was because the pilots didn’t really know how to use it…Just to say that it was not that useful in real life considering the mica IR can already provide IR imaging with a greta field of view. They are integrated in the weapon system. So they preferred to dedicate all the resources to get a very good updated TV channel.
The new TDA rafale rocket pod was also displayed and he told that work in under way to integrate it. He also explained why it is so long to integrate weapons to an aircraft and the difference with crash programs. For instance only the rafale F3 will be able to fully exploit the GBU12. For the moment the firing envelope is very restrictive and it is difficult/energy consuming to use it in A-stan.
Damocles pods arrival is the AdA is imminent with the M2000 and the rafale. The first pods won’t have the rover system though because they aren’t from the newest XF version.Other noteworthy things the rafale M displayed on Dassault static display has 4 meteors and 4 micas including two on the new outer wing pylons. Most of the reduced scale moke up in Dassault’s inside stand was fitted with micas on these new hard points.
That is it for today…I also talked to AdA commandos (I could handle FAMAS, minimi or sniper rifles), USAF personnel but that was about other military topics. I hope I forgot anything but I am going back to le Bourget Thursday with an access to dassault’s static display this time so I’ll be able to ask other questions…
Thanks Arthuro.
I’m a little bit confused about the MICA IR acting as IRST. You quoted the engineer with “the mica IR can already provide IR imaging with a greta field of view.”.
Two thoughts here:
1.) The Rafale’s IRST azimuth coverage is given with +/-90°, that of the MICA IR is +/-60°. So how could it be greater, except for elevation where the IRST is limited in look down?
2.) Imaging? Can the MICA IR seeker deliver a target image which is presented on the MFDs?
I have my doubts that the MICA IR seeker is capable of detecting and tracking multiple targets at longer ranges than ~30 km in best conditions. So either the IRST in the OSF was complete crap, albeit the reports of superb performance or there were other serious issues. A dedicated IRST should be more flexible and better performing, providing sensor outputs on the displays. There might be things we don’t know about the MICA IR, but in the end it’s an AAM, not a Sensor in the first place.
Scorpion82When BAE acquired Sanders (a company that manufactured some of the most classified EW stuff for US armed forces) the UK company agreed to the firewalls imposed by US Government. There is no (legal) way for the parent company to use the Sanders know-how in its own product. They only pick the profits (pretty large, since BAE North America manufactures the EW systems for F 22 and F 35, F 15 SK, etc.). Probably the only thing that DASS and DEWS have in common is that they use PowerPC processors. I’m not saying that DASS is bad; OTOH is hard for any company (including from US) to compete with the BAE-NA because they benefit from the huge US Govt. investment in the F22 development.
The fact is that we don’t know about the exact capabilities and performance, hence no one can tell you if the DEWS will be “better” or more capable at that time than DASS. We can’t claim it the other way round either.
OK let’s take it step-by-step: the hypotethical SE will have the APG 63 (V)3 or even better APG 63(V)4, DEWS, Link 16-MIDS, IRST+Sniper. What do you consider inferior to the EF stuff?
Name those things and I’ll try to answer.
– Well I consider the DEWS components (jammer, RWR) being at least equal due the lack of more details I’m selecting the fairest way, rather than stating this or that is superior without being able to prove anything of it. You said TRD is also available for the F-15, the question is which version and is it offered for export as well, as the SE is unlikely to be procured by the US. AFAIK the F-15 might equipped with the AN/ALE-50, which btw isn’t FO. While you consider LWRs just useful against MANPADs it is in fact useful in AA as well. All current russian fighters use LRFs and the latest systems have ranges up to 30 km. You state there are a couple of MAWS available, the question is are or will they be integrated or not.
– The F-15s IRST is based on the F-14Ds AN/AAS42 which is a long wave system only, PIRATE for example covers medium and long wave bands (dual band) which is more effective under different conditions. PIRATE is also an IRST/FLIR, not only an IRST. It features vis ID and kinetic ranging capabilities and can prioritise threats as well and its range is quite long.
– MIDS is the same for both.
– Typhoon’s MMI includes VTAS (HOTAS with 24 buttons/switches and DVI for non safety critical functions), a paperless cockpit design with all checklists being available in an electronic format. Display formats switch automatically depending on the situation and phase of flight, blanking out unnecessary details and presenting only those information essential for the pilot in a given situation. The HMD presents target boxes, generated by the AIS, depending on the pilots direct of view (haven’t heard anything like this for any JHMCS equipped fighter) and can present FLIR and NVE images as well.
– The FCS support autopilot and autothrottle functions as well as flight direct modes. It can perform terrain following flights, catch and hold speed, alt and heading in a waypoint tracking or free heading mode. There is an automatic climb mode. The autopilot can fly CAP patterns or fly attack profiles automatically and even intercept selected targets freeing the pilot from flying the aircraft in certain situations.
– Navigation equipment includes LINS/GPS, TACAN, ILS/MLS, DME-P, DMG, radar altimeter, TERPROM TRN and even the FCS can provide navigation solutions with IMUs.
– Fully integrated health monitoring system which monitors the airframe’s and engines well being as well as that of all systems, down to sub system level. Just critical errors are presented to the pilot, smaller errors are recorded to be dealt with by the ground personal.
– All the aircraft’s onboard and offboard sensor, navigation and communication systems data are fused by the AIS. EMCON is included, though certainly not to the same extend as in the F-22. But there is full fusion of the sensor data including fused tactical, attack and defensive display formats.
—————————–
So how does it compare? Well it’s difficult to say as the F-15SE isn’t fully developed right now, but we can compare what is known about the F-15K/SG and add the additional features we know about the SE.
Comms:
The communication equipment including radios and datalink appears to be equal with both aircraft using jamming resistent VHF/UHF radios and MIDS/LINK 16.
Navigation:
Both aircraft feature LINS/GPS, radar altimeter, TACAN, ILS and DMG. There is no indication of the F-15 featuring MLS, DME-P or TRN, with the later one maybe interesting for low level strike missions. F-15s seem to rely on the TFR (AN/AAQ-13) which requires an external pod and isn’t stealthy.
Autopilot/Autothrottle:
So far I haven’t seen any reference about an auto throttle function in the F-15 and it seems to lack advanced modes like auto approach (landing), attack, auto climb modes as well. In steering mode (waypoint tracking) the aircraft seems to be limited to hold the current alt and catch and hold heading.
BITE/health monitoring:
Feel free to correct me on that but I’ve never seen any references about health monitoring equipment for airframe and engines, full electronic checklists etc.
IR-sensors:
The F-15s IRST seems to be an IRST system only, without imaging capabilities and working with long waves only. A dual-band system like the PIRATE will offer better probability of detecion, also in different weather conditions. There are no information about ranging or target priorisation capabilities available for the F-15s IRST.
Radar:
The APG-63(V3) is certainly a longer ranging system with a more advanced AESA array. While superiority is likely in several areas, the lack of detailed information makes it difficult to access by what margin. The APG-63(v3) should at least enjoy an edge in terms of range, beam agility (target data update rate and performance against lower RCS targets), resolution. LPI in theory, but without any details no one can say for sure there are any more comprehensive LPI techniques used in THIS particular radar.
It’s a question of logic: in this moment, an F 15E isn’t considered able to supercruise, since it can do 1.2, but without any load. The new CFT will hold 4 AAMs internally, so probably the new F 15 SE will qualify for SC (note that I’m referring only to P&W229/GE129 powered F 15). Also, from what members of forum posted, the EF can SC for 250 miles. I’ve said that with the huge combat radius of the present F 15 E/I/SK/SG (1000 Nmiles without EFTs-you saw the Boeing presentation page 11), even if the new SE won’t be able to supercruise, it will still be able to match the distance the EF would supercruise, using the AB.
Just for the record the Typhoon’s 250 nm supercruise combat radius is with 8 AAMs and INTERNAL fuel, plus a 30 min loitering time, before returning to base at subsonic speed. And the Typhoon is capable of M 1.2+ with at least one EFT and 6 AAMs.
Scorpion82Nice pics Kovy. It’s the first time I see the GBU-24 being attached to the Rafale. Is it known when this weapon will be fielded?
Scorpion82If this turns out to be true it is would be a disappointment. It’s not new that Italy insisted to keep the MSA version for commonality reasons. T3A won’t be delivered before 2013 at all and the work didn’t began just recently, but years ago, albeit as a tech demonstration programme concerning the Typhoon (CAESAR). Back in 2006 it was said CAESAR would be almost production ready, though the aim was for a newer and more capable Captor-E. With Selex also working on Vixen series, including the involvment into the ES/05A Raven there might be some leverage.
But for the moment we just can wait and I’m certain we’ll know more in the near future when the T3A contract is finally signed.
Scorpion82If you are refering to BAE Systems, I have to point (for the N-th time) that the F 35 (as well as the f 22) EW suite is made by BAE Systems North America, the former Sanders Corp. in Nashua, New Hampshire. There is nothing in common between the DASS and the EW suite of the F 35 (and F 15 SE). And while there are no details about the DEWS, you can bet that at least FOTD (all the USAF F 15 have them) and MAWS (at least 3 US companies offer them) are included. LWR is futile against any other threat that MANPADS.
So BAE UK is not involed in the F-35s EWs at all? Knew that about the INEWS, but wonder about the F-35. Nontheless DASS will be upgraded by that time as well and so far we don’t know any real specific details to compare. So it might be, or might not be.
The Tiger Eye used a new version of the LANTIRN for SK and Sniper for Singapore (the Sniper is more aerodynamic).
Thanks for the explaination, thought that the TGP within the Tiger Eye concept was a seperate system not LANTIRN or Sniper.
And you are sure that the F15 SE won’t have them because…?
I don’t know if it will have them or not. The reason for me outlining several systems was this claim from nhampton:
What about Typhoons avionics make it better than an AESA equipped F-15?
As many errornously assume the radar doesn’t represent the entire avionics suite, just a part of it. And note he did not even refer to the F-15SE, but the F-15 in general.
Also you just picked up some of the things I mentioned, but left out others I wonder why…?
An F 15 E (with 229/129) with CFT but without nothing else can supercruise. It wasn’t considered a “real” supercruise because many A/C can do this when clean: any F 16 blk. 50/52 or F 18 C/D with the F404-GE-402 engines can make 1.2 M. But being unarmed this is considered useless. OTOH the new F 15 SE will have 4 AAMs inside the modified CFTs, so probably, it can “supercruise”. And even equiped with the “normal” CFTs (that allows F 15 E to fly a combat radius of ~ 1000 Nmiles) one can burn more fuel and fly in supersonic for at least the 250 Nmiles (the EF combat radius in SC), if needed.
Show us some confirmed figures if you care about that.
Sign In
