KapedaniWhat is the normal ingress cruise speed and altitude into the target zone of the F-35? I suspect it’s about M0.9-0.92?
How does it compare with the similar performance parameters for the Typhoon/Super Hornet/Rafale – which, of course, are carrying an all external bomb load and external tanks?
Exactly. Which is why I’m wondering, where’s the complaint here?
Me.
They will be practically non-existent. Like the F-22.
When wavelength ~= feature size, shaping and to a large extent RAM* are irrelevant.
So again please relate this for me with actual combat experience of F-117 in environments where such radars were common. Why were they not detected?
KapedaniNo, there’s no way its 3.6m, but as I said knowing that it is a 3344 (and it may not be, actually), doesn’t tell us the wheelbase because there are sub-models with different wheelbases. But, there’s no 6-wheel chassis with that will give you 15m, or close to it.
KapedaniI can’t see your dimensions (internet filter at my location blocks it for some reason), but keep in mind that the 3344 chases has several wheelbase lengths, ranging from 3.6m to 4.2m+. We don’t know which sub model it is, exactly, but it’s certainly not ~5.7m.
You can’t just simply use how many A6 wheelbases long to judge the aircraft length, because the Audi is closer to the viewer and the aircraft is not parallel to the Audi, and actual in a angle ” away” from the Audi, which make it appears even shorter. Without normalizing those affecting factors, it’s hard to tell.
a) That’s why I used the truck
b) The distance isn’t so great as to complicate things that much.
KapedaniAmiga500, the way I understand it (admittedly I have no practical knowledge of the subject), while a high-frequency radar may be able to detect certain stealth planes like the F-35 at greater ranges, this is limited in many ways.
1) Your long-range radars, when emitting, are going to be fixed targets that passive sensors will pick up before the long-range radar picks up the F-35. If the F-35 (and other assets) can see the radar before it can see the F-35, then its usefulness is in question.
2) F-35s aren’t going to be operating in a vacuum. Are these types of radars more susceptible to electronic warfare? They are certainly more susceptible to being destroyed, being that they are large, fixed, and not mobile while emitting (and if they’re not emitting, they’re useless)
3) Again, I’ll ask the question, how is it that the Iraqis and Serbs had no idea of the F-117s bombing them, if they had such radars? Besides the technical reasons which I can’t know about…I also doubt that operating such radars in a high threat environment is simple, since you become a much bigger target than the plane you’re trying to detect.
4) As for guiding anything with it, easier said than done.
5) Where are we getting this idea that the F-35 isn’t designed to address such threats?
What can I say, your a hypocrite. You believe LockMart powerpoint without question (despite their woeful track record), yet consider everything else to be propaganda lies?
It’s not being a hypocrite at all. Info from one source is not equivalent to info from any other source. I have no reason to believe Russian advertisements, especially given their track records.
To be a force multiplier, you have to be able to influence a large area within a finite time. Speed is of the essence.
Speed is a factor, but again I’m going to ask, how much speed, is enough speed? Ground attack aircraft have been designed with Mach 2 speeds etc for a long time, but has any combat mission, in history, been carried out at such speeds, during any part of the flight? For imparting energy on a munition, the F-35 can do that better than anyone out there, bar the F-22, and before the advent of such weapons as SDB etc, that concept only existed on paper. So what are you arguing? What is better?
As for the rest of the argument on force multipliers, and usefulness of the VSTOL fighter on small carriers, others have already said everything I want to say.
KapedaniEven at 3m, the airplane is ~12m. I used 3m for my measurements, in fact, because of the different Audi A6 wheelbases. To be 15m long, it would have to be 5 wheelbases long, and it is only 4.
But, the truck gives it away. The plane is about 2.6 wheelbases long, which would require a wheelbase of 5.7m for the truck…which is not available on the 6-wheel version.
We can’t tell exactly which sub-model of the truck it is, but to be 12m long the wheelbase of the truck would have to be 4.6m long, which fits in perfectly with several 6-wheel chases of that MB model.
But then i also used the truck’s wheelbase as a reference on the top down image, where the truck is in that city’s intersection. There i got 15 meters of length and as much as 12 meters of wingspan. Weird…
The top-down image is much harder to compare, wheres this one is pretty straight forward.
KapedaniYes, I was looking at the truck right now, and the only way this plane could be 15m long, is if the truck had a wheelbase of 5.7m, which the 6-wheel version does not have, only the 8-wheel version. We’re def. looking at 12-12.5m here, which may make this a 1-seat L-15.
Kapedani
Hmm, this does not seem right. The Audi A6 has a wheelbase ~2.8m, not 3. My measurement says ~12m, not 15m.
KapedaniVietnam war. Throughout the war the north vietnamese side didnt seem to use more modern variants of sa-2 and sa-3. So basically since 1965 until 1973 they used same sort of technology.
The N. Vietnamese did get constant upgrades to their Sa-2s throughout the conflict, even if they may not have been “new variants”.
KapedaniWhat Spudman said!
1) 8 SDBs do nothing but hit point targets. To carry those 8 SDBs its only self-protection is a couple of sidewinders.
2) The Su-35, the Rafale, the Typhoon, the MiG-35, the Gripen. All easily capable of intercepting an F-35 and destroying it.
3) Don’t forget, the primary seeing will have been done using a long wavelength radar which the F-35 cannot hide from.
4) I didn’t say range. I said speed only.
5) No, its not even close to enough given the sacrifices made to achieve even that.
6) Who says they did?
7) You don’t have to guide your missiles with radar. You don’t have to use radar guided missiles for that matter either.
8) They have been asking for a sustainable force of 12 IIRC.
This is fun!
1) SDBs can hit moving targets. Also, even if you couldn’t, unless you’re carrying out CAS, your air-defense assets and other high-priority targets that need to be eliminated first, aren’t going to be so mobile.
2) Seriously? According to their brochures, I’m certain. How is an Su-35 going to get a lock on an F-35 (that is well aware of the Su-35s presence and intentions)?
3) Really? F-35 cannot hide from search radars? Says who?
4) How fast do you have to go? When was the last time ANY strike mission, in the last 70 years, has been carried out at supersonic speed? 5 times maybe?
5) What sacrifices? This plane flies further, faster (in typical combat conditions), stealthier and with better sensors than anything out there (bar F-22, maybe). What was sacrificed?
6) You’re saying the Iraqis knew that there were F-117s flying overhead bombing them? So did the Serbs?
7) You do have to guide your missiles with radar, if you intend to have them engage a target beyond 15km, maybe.
8) I know that. I just don’ think it’s going to happen. but even if it does, it doesn’t reduce the advantages of having an additional dozen platforms for deploying F-35s.
KapedaniI wouldn’t count on that.
Hmm. I could be wrong, as there appear to be 2 different wings, at different points in the F-35’s existence. It seems the first prototype did indeed have a 1 piece upper wing skin, but it doesn’t seem to be so for the later aircraft.
http://customcarbidetools.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/final-assembly-f35-figure7.jpg
http://customcarbidetools.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/wingskin.jpg
http://customcarbidetools.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/wing-skinon-table-figure2.jpg
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/manuf_photo4.jpg
Not sure if those are “tops” or “bottoms”. I know this is a bottom: http://aerospace.engin.umich.edu/departments/aerospace/research/researchdisciplines/structuralmechanics/F35lowerwingskin.gif The other ones above seem to be a bit different, so maybe they are the tops.
I could be wrong. But given that large sections of the upper mid-wing surface are “cut outs” to accommodate various openings, that is a lot of wasted material if it is 1 piece. Plus those “cut outs” on the mid-wing have a different color primer (or is it finish they have on), indicating a different material and/or completion at another location. http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=29428
But the only indication that it is “one piece” is from a grainy video capture of the first prototype, not from subsequent aircraft.
As pointed out above, it’s not hard to think of reasons to do it that way, if shipping it in parts is not practical for whatever reason.
There can be reasons to ship it at an angle, but I still don’t think you can do it on that surface. The problem is that the aircraft is actually resting on the horizontal beam.
PS: Actually, I’m certain those are tops, if you compare the first picture with the second. Def. the upper wing surface. Now this means that you def. cannot remove the wings, because the central bulkheads do extend beyond the point of where the upper skin surface ends.
PPS: Yep, issue resolved. 100% upper skins are not “1 piece”. Look at the description on this transportation equipment: http://i47.tinypic.com/bhda28.jpg
Kapedani1) When your confined to as little as 2 surface munitions, you are not a force multiplier.
2) When you are barely capable of self-defence in the face of sophisticated opposition, you are not a force multiplier.
3) When you lack the speed to cover significant ranges quickly, you are not a force multiplier.
4) When your all-aspect-stealth©™® is actually frontal quadrant VLO only, you are not a force multiplier.
5) The F-35 is utterly incapable of deep strike as it will be incapable of dealing with the opfor fighter intercepts sent its way.
6) It is not large enough to evade long wavelength radar to guide them, it is not quick enough to out-run them, it doesn’t carry enough munitions to suppress them and it is not maneuverable enough to fight them.
7) In a major conflict, the USMC wouldn’t be able to take a p**s without the help of the USN. Don’t delude yourself otherwise.
8) You missed the memo? The USN is not downsizing its carrier fleet! There are already 10 CVN21s on the order books… and Nimitz is going nowhere till post 2022.
1) How many surface munitions do you need? It can carry 4 SDBs in each bay, if I recall correctly. That’s 8. But how many do you need? Any other aircraft out there that has a strike capability remotely comparable to the F-35?
2) What sophisticated opponents? Any non-US aircraft out there that are even capable of “seeing” the F-35? Sure, in the Pak-Fa thread, there are.
3) How much speed and range do you need, and is there any aircraft that is comparable to the F-35B? It has a 900km combat radius. Who else can do that?
4) Is frontal VLO not enough? Anyone else, besides F-22, has anything close to it?
5) Which opfor fighters would pose a threat to the F-35? In their sales brochures, I’m sure they all do.
6) If detecting a “stealth” aircraft on long wavelength radars was so easy, how did F-117s fly in and out undetected? How do you target your missiles with a long wavelength radar, even if you could see it?
7) In a major conflict, yes. For everything else, there’s F-35B 🙂
8) Orders today, aren’t necessarily ships tomorrow. We’ll have to wait and see, but I highly doubt that the USN is going to end up with 10 carriers in the future. Nor does it need 10.
KapedaniHow did you come to conclusion that all weight is supported on ONE point. I see fuselage placed on a rig specifically designed for transport What is that orange thingy, you think?
The orange lift does not seem designed to do that, to me. I can only see 2 beams running underneath the aircraft, one by the center of the aircraft, and one by the rear engine compartment. These are horizontal beams, supporting an load that is not. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for this, or any way of doing this without some other form of support…which can’t be seen here.
But also, no reason to load it at an angle.
Basically true, but not a problem if handled correctly. Aircraft are transported in a comparable position all the time (a partially dismantled Su-27 in a An-22 and several complete PC-21s in An-124s come to mind immediately), and major sub-assemblies are shipped by road and rail regularly (the A380 and 737 programmes provide good examples). How do you think the F-35 airframe in the photo posted earlier got to its port of departure in the US?
Absolutely, IF supported correctly. Trust me, I see 737 and other airplane parts being transported on a regular bases. And there’s a reason they are transported at an angle (such as when it is loaded into another aircraft). In this case, there’s no reason, other than perhaps the lift it is sitting on, wasn’t big enough.
Which leads me to believe that since the method of transport is pretty “poor” and “ad-hoc”…this may not be a real airframe.
We have no idea where and how the aircraft is supported, but the examples provided above show that it can be done – I’ll give the Chinese engineers the benefit of the doubt on that one
It can be done, but that doesn’t seem the way to do it to me, or any reason to do it that way. And we can see, somewhat, how it is supported. I can only see horizontal supports, resting directly on the aircraft’s surface, and at points which are certainly not load-bearing.
Two caveats:
– What iteration of the assembly process does that image depict: pre- or post-SWAT? There were major changes to the assembly procedure IIRC.
– There is no indication of HOW the wing skins are joined – it may be a method which is not easily disassembled such as bonding, so it would effectively become a single piece.
I never claimed it was “easy” or even possible to disassemble the wing. I was just pointing out that it is not a “one piece” solution (Pinko originally said it was “forged” together, by which I think he meant that the bulkheads and wing spars were 1 piece…obviously not possible. Then he said the skin was 1 piece, but that is also not true)
It almost certainly is, I remember seeing the photo (or one almost exactly like it) before in connection with the F-35 and was trying to find it myself.
Looks like X-32 wing to me.
KapedaniThat scenario justifying Harriers doesn’t work for F-35B. Not only do Harriers work differently, the logistics in that scenario would not be the same. Plus you don’t need stealth.
You’re right, but I think the F-35B departs from the role of the Harrier. The Harrier was indeed a CAS aircraft of limited capabilities, and incapable of operating independently in a high or medium threat environment. The F-35B is not designed for that role in mind. I don’t think the USMC or USN realized the true role or capabilities of the F-35B until much later…this thing is a true force multiplier which means that you don’t need 12 or 11 carriers anymore, but can do the job with a lot fewer.
What the F-35B does is station an air wing of survivable 5-gen aircraft with the same capabilities as the conventional USN wings, in a dozen more ships, offering deep strike capabilities to ships that couldn’t before. It is a completely different animal from the Harrier, and it is the aircraft the Brits dreamed they had in the Falklands on their ships.
I thought we were in the era of joint everything…
That’s precisely the point. The USN doesn’t need to have 12 aircraft carriers, and deploy them anywhere the USMC is deployed, when the USMC can carry their own strike capability with them, allowing the Navy to downsize. While you’re right that TODAY the USN has the capability to be anywhere, and to fulfill any conceivable mission. But as capabilities of carriers and aircraft go up, the availability of numbers goes down. The USN is not going to have 10 carriers in the future, and this needs to be made up somehow.
Of course it matters. Suddenly any ships carrying 3b worth of aircraft becomes far more vulnerable because representing a juicy target. Whether in a asymmetric or high intensity scenario targeting such a ship becomes something worth the risk.
The marginal increase in “juiciness” of an amphibious ship carrying F-35Bs in a task force, is greatly offset by the marginal increase in capabilities those F-35Bs provide to the task force.
In the end while the theory of a VTOL aircraft is a good one, the fact remain that all the aircraft that became operational with such a capability was plagued with troubles, high maintenance and poor capabilities.
That’s assuming the F-35B suffers from the same problems. Troubles, sure. Poor capabilities? No.
KapedaniI think the logical conclusion is that the video is not of the shootdown and the actual shootdown was over international waters
How is that conclusion reached? All the evidence so far points to something else.
What missiles do Syrians have that can shoot out to (13nm) 22.2 km?
None of those missiles would be able to engage the F-4 at the altitude it was flying (if we are to believe it was that low over the sea), certainly not at 13nm
The sounds from the video angree well with the sounds of ZU-23-2/23mm and AZP S-60/57mm.
I thought I heard S-60 as well, but I don’t think so now. It is probably single shots of ZU-23, or sound ricocheting off rocks. S-60 would have created a much louder sound. Maybe 37mm shots. But the other shots sound 100% ZU-23.
KapedaniEven it was at full weight it can be carried at an angle. They can take 9g but not a road trip?
They are not comparable. The 9g loads aren’t concentrated at a certain point on the underside of the engine nacelle, for example, which is where the load is being borne here by placing it at an angle, and supported at one point. That’s not a load bearing point, or axis.
That’s like saying that if a plane sits on it’s belly, and not it’s undercarriage on the ground, it should suffer no damage because it can handle 9g in the air.
Sign In
