SpudmanWPI was speaking of clarity in the context of an NVG replacement.
Try that handheld unit from 10,000ft up and get back to me đ
Besides, it’s easy to say things like “it isn’t”, but when you consider that the F-35 is the only thing that can.. it is.
SpudmanWPIt’s not a serious problem with the engine, just a precautionary grounding (just like the hose issue from last month).
SpudmanWPPremature.. not a bit.
In the RL (ie after SDD) they would have swapped the engine or just the Blisk in the field and would have soldiered on. The only reason for the grounding is because it’s still in SDD.
SpudmanWPIf you read the link, you’d know đ
Short version, single crack found in a low-pressure blade so they grounded the fleet as a precaution (it is in SDD after all). Blisk was pulled and sent back to P&W for review. News expected next week.
SpudmanWPI think you misunderstood, I did not mean to imply that each T&R would use a separate freq, only that each pulse from the array (as a whole) would be a single (random) freq.
Since there are 1000+ pulses from an AESA per second and each could be completely random in its settings, the targetâs ESM would have a very difficult time with spoofing since the pulse would be returned and analyzed by the AESA before the spoof signal arrives from the jammer.
SpudmanWPWill AESA radars become Spoof-Proof and are we there yet?
Here is the premise: If there is enough computing power on the radarâs backend to change the pulse pattern for each and every pulse, then:
1. Will an ESM ever be able to produce a return âspoofâ signal fast enough to cause confusion?
2. Since each pulse is different, what pattern can the ESM lock onto in order to spoof?
3. Computing power will always be on the side of the radar since it can dedicate itâs power to known pulse patters and expected returns. Target ESM systems have to deal with every EM signal it receives.
Here are some speed calculations:
1. If an AESA can produce 1000 pulses per second
2. The distance a EM wave travels in 1/1000th of a second is 186 miles.
3. So, assuming that jammer can respond to a signal is another 1/1000th of a second then the spoof location will be an additional 93 miles away from the target than it actually is.
Simplistic, I knowâŚ
SpudmanWP@Bluewings:
BS . Anyway , what “internal load”
Well, letâs think logically for a change instead of screaming BS when the facts donât meet our preconceptions.
1. The F-35âs standard load is 2x2k JDAMS and 2xAMRAAMs
2. The quote was âfully ladenâ
3. The F-35 is designed and has the KPP of M1.6 carrying 2k JDAMS
4. The F-35 has been up to m1..6 with the doors (plural) open. The only need to test that would be that it is a required and expected capability.
5. The article in question was talking about the âcompletionâ of flutter testing. If it has completed it, then it would have had to go to m1.6 with 2k JDAMS since that is the spec.
While you may not like that, itâs pretty clear what they meant.
What will you say when they drop weapons at m1.6 as part of testing?
SpudmanWPFalse . With a significant internal load , the F-35 will NEVER reach its max speed , never .
Impossible . Why are you making things up ?
um…. You might want to practice your Google Fu a bit more đ
Much of the activity has focused on high speed tests which have seen the F-35 being repeatedly pushed out to its maximum speed of Mach 1.6 and 700 knots calibrated airspeed-often fully laden with internal weapons.
SpudmanWPThanks a lot BOB for walking away from the Concurrency plan đ
SpudmanWPPassive ranging using EODAS is listed as a feature of the F-35, but details of how it’s done or whether it requires 2 or more F-35s is not known.
SpudmanWPYou might want to readjust that tinfoil hat a bit, it’s starting to slip to the left. đ
SpudmanWPRE: an F-35 Export Version.
Here are recent quotes that are less than 4 years old.
2009
“I state categorically that I am not doing a different variant of aircraft for my international partners today,” Reuters quoted Heinz as saying in an interview. He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but [that] the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.
…(Update: Asked to clarify the issue of the Delta SDD, Gen. David Heinz provided the following response on June 30:
âDelta SDD deals with the unique national requirements such as Crypto. Additionally, it does the design and testing necessary to assure critical technologies are protected and therefore exportable.â
The implication is that, although export aircraft will in fact differ from those built for the US armed forces, they will not be âdumbed-down,â but adapted to buyersâ national requirements. (end of update).
———————————————————–
2010
Lockheed and F-35 programme officials, however, have criticised Boeing’s assertions that the F-15SE offers equivalent front-aspect stealth as the JSF, and denied that an international release standard exists for F-35 stealth characteristics.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-applies-to-export-f-15se-to-south-korea-343636/
———————————————————-
2011
âInternational partners on the F-35 will enjoy a stealth capability on the fighter equal to that of the US versions, according to F-35 pro-gram office officials. Maj. Gen. C.D. Moore, deputy director of the F-35 pro-gram office, gave a non-committal answer during a press conference here this week at the Paris Air Show when a reporter asked about the level of stealth available to foreign users.
International reporters have long hinted that the United States would hold back some capability. However in a subsequent statement issued by the F-35 program office, officials said “the quick answer to the statement regarding partners being less stealthy than the US is ‘no.’ (Partners will have same capability).” The program officials noted that the stealth aspects of some partner versions will vary slightly due to their inclusion of some unique gear, such as drag chutes, but it is “a program objective to not impact [low-observable] characteristics. It is our intent to produce a common solution to ensure interoperability for coalition operations as well as production affordability.â
———————————————————-
2012
The F35 configuration that Australia will take delivery of in 2014 is identical to the configuration of the US Air Force.
————————————————————-
SpudmanWP—-Thanks , that ‘s a lot of useless machines so far .
They are being used for SDD, IOT&E, and training squadrons. Not a bit useless. Unlike the Rafale & Eurofighter, money and time has already been set aside to bring them up to full IOC capabilities after SDD. How many T1 EFâs and early Rafales are sitting around or being sold off?
—-No . With full internal load . And they never done it again .
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-high-aoa-flights-and-weapons-separation-tests-imminent-at-edwards-afb-375964/
So far this year, pilots at the isolated desert base have flown about 350 sorties, says Lt Col George Schwartz, director of the F-35 integrated test force and commander of the 461st Flight Test Squadron. Much of the activity has focused on high speed tests which have seen the F-35 being repeatedly pushed out to its maximum speed of Mach 1.6 and 700 knots calibrated airspeed-often fully laden with internal weapons.
—-Nothing can be dropped at more than Mach 1.4 , including AtoA missiles
Then why test the doors open at M1.6?
http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/uk/news/press-releases/2013-press-releases/f-35a-completes-3-year-clean-wing-flutter-testing-programme.html
The testing demonstrated the F-35 is clear of flutter, at speeds up to 1.6 Mach and 700 knots with weapon bay doors open or closed, critical to performing its combat mission.
—hasn ‘t been completely solved yet
Well Duh, itâs still in testing
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-addresses-pentagon-f-35-dote-report-381218/
âOn the Cracks â
O’Bryan addresses some of the major problems highlighted in the DOT&E report. One problem, where F-35B short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) model’s durability testing was suspended due to cracking found on a bulkhead flange on the underside of the fuselage during a 7,000-hour inspection, is well on its way to being fixed. Lockheed has found and implemented a solution with a minor “single digit weight impact” and expects to resume tests shortly. “Despite what was reported in some publications, this did not affect STOVL flight testing,” O’Bryan says. “STOVL flight testing continued for the whole year.”âOn the coatings â
One such problem was aerodynamic heating on the horizontal tail surfaces of the aircraft at high altitudes and high speeds. The tail coatings were being damaged by friction with the air and heat from the jet’s afterburner, O’Bryan says. Flight testing and analysis are complete on the F-35A and new coatings are already being implemented on that model, which should solve the problem. The same testing is underway on the B and C models, O’Bryan says. But those modifications will not be retrofitted to the existing training aircraft until they go into their regular maintenance cycles. “It’s not a structural problem, it’s a coatings problem,” he says.
SpudmanWP—-How many F-35s have been already built ?
As of Feb 12th, 58 have been delivered. More than 80 by the end of the year. The 100th is on the factory floor getting it’s wings built.
—-For how long it has been flying ?
2006 for AA-1
—–How many pictures do we have with a full external load ? Any ?
Full pylons, many. Since external weapons testing has just begun, only external 9x has been on the pylons along with the external gun pod.
—-This Aircraft is merely capable of flying over Mach 1 ,
Itâs been to M1.66 (fully loaded btw)
—-can ‘t drop anything (internal) yet at more than supersonic speed ,
Says who? Btw, an expanded weapons testing program will begin this spring and involve dozens of live weapons to be completed by the summer. It’s been up to M1.6 with the weapons bay doors open.
—-its RAM is peeling off in supersonic ,
Itâs a coatings problem that only affects the inboard corners of the horizontal stabilizers in High-altitude/High-AB scenarios. Fix is already in the works and being tested.
—-it has cracks all over the airframe
No it does not. There are a couple of cracks that have shown up the in >1Lifetime F-35 testing. This is normal and will be addressed.
—- etc … (I leave aside hundreds of other problems)
Name one program that has not had problems? While you are at it show me one other international program that is as open to the public as the F-35. Where is the Rafale/Eurofighter/Pak-Fa equivalent of a public DOT&E report, Budget, SAR, etc?
—-Is it going to be enough ?
Yes, by a wide margin
SpudmanWPNotice they said âwhen it comes to RCSâ.
The program has always said that a nationâs individual requirements in equipment (drag chute, comm equipment, Codes & modes, etc) can change from customer to customer. However, the RCS will remain the same (as long as the OML doesnât change significantly).
Items like a drag chute can alter the RCS slightly, but only from certain angles and it will not be tactically significant.
Sign In
