SpudmanWPWrong choice of words. It is completely “able” to fly it’s max speed (publicly stated as mach 1.6+), but it has not reached the point in it’s flight test program to validate that speed. The same goes for the weapons which are due to start separation tests in 2011.
SpudmanWPDid they say how much had to be cropped?
SpudmanWPWhat is that cone in front of the IRST in the last shot?
SpudmanWP@ Spudman :
From Jane ‘s (also reported on Wiki) :
Quote:
Fit checks of Meteor have already been conducted in the internal weapons bays of the JSF. Meteor is compatible with the aircraft’s internal air-to-ground stations, but not the internal air-to-air stations. MBDA is looking at the feasibility of reducing the fin span by a few millimetres and modifying the air intakes for compatibility with the air-to-air stations.
So maybe that is what they did. The METEOR has not even gone IOC so now is the perfect time to make the changes.
Besides, that section on Wiki (do I really have to explain Wiki) is unsourced and who knows how old.
SpudmanWPThe DEW Line posted a video in Feb 2010 in which Stephen Trimble talked with MBDA about ASRAAM and METEOR F-35 integration. Starting at the 3:30 mark, he is very clear that even in the STOVL version, 4 METEORs (2 per bay) can fit (per previous LM study).
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/02/video-mbda-talks-asraam-meteor.html
If you have a newer source, I look forward to seeing it.
SpudmanWPThe AIM-120C5/C7/D all use the same PEP motor (+5 inch version). Any range improvement the D gets will be from improvements to the lofting algorithm, a 2-way datalink, and a GPS enhanced INS.
PEP Details here
Currently, ATK produces two versions of the boost-sustain, solid-propellant rocket motor. The Propulsion Enhancement Program motor, which lengthened the case by 5 inches over the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) baseline motor, allows for increased propellant loading and significantly increases AMRAAM’s range. This +5-inch motor is being delivered to the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. The baseline rocket motor, which is still in production, is being produced primarily for U.S. allied nations. Both motors utilize a boost/sustain propellant configuration and case bonded grain design to maximize propellant loading.
http://www.atk.com/capabilities_defense/cs_ms_w_trm_aam.asp
There is currently development on a new motor that has listed “multi-pulse” as one of the areas for improvement that it is studying, but that development contract was just signed in Oct of 2009.
Here is the new motor contract press release:
Oct 29, 2009
MINNEAPOLIS, Oct. 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Alliant Techsystems (NYSE: ATK) has been awarded a research and development contract for the Counter Air / Future Naval Capabilities (CA/FNC) program to develop technologies that can be incorporated into next generation air-to-air missile systems. The nearly $10-million contract was issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, California. ATK will work in concert with NAWCWD to identify specific propulsion technologies to develop for integration into future missile systems. The work is expected to be completed by June 2013.
The scope of the CA/FNC program is to develop technologies that will extend missile range, decrease time-to-target, improve end-game maneuverability, and improve the rocket motor’s response to insensitive munitions (IM) stimuli. These improvements are oriented towards the 7-inch diameter Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) that is currently in use by the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and many allied nations, but will be applicable to other air-to-air missile systems.
There are four main areas that ATK will be concentrating their development efforts on which include: high burn rate propellants for improved kinematics; improving case stiffness for reduced weight and agility; low erosion nozzles for improved performance; and multi-pulse propulsion for end-game maneuverability. Additionally, ATK will address the IM requirement by incorporating affordable solutions including an advanced propellant formulation, a low cost composite case, and mitigation safety devices proven on other tactical rocket motor programs.
…..
SpudmanWPTo put it the simplest of terms… A modern flight test program is not there to determine what the capabilities of the aircraft are, but to validate the design and simulation results.
To that end, they take very meticulous steps (test points) to achieve specific goals. As each goal is met, the aircraft and all the collected data are analyzed. If everything conforms to the design goals then they move on to the next step thereby expanding the flight envelope. If they discover a deviation from what is expected, they determine if a hardware (F-35B hinge), software (fuel pump settings), or combination fix is required.
The pace of flight testing has nothing to do with the software development and especially has nothing to do with a max speed test. They could have taken AA-1 up to M1.6+ if they wanted to, but that would have been an unnecessary risk (and pointless since it was not a production representative F-35).
SpudmanWPI’d be extremely surprised if the F-35 testing team devoted any thoughts to such tiny and unimportant details when they obviously did not bother to even check the plane’s maximum speed in four years 🙂
That makes me think that you know very little how & why a modern fight test program is conducted.
SpudmanWPWhat’s with the photoshop job (all grey on top & grey/white on bottom)?
SpudmanWPPlease provide a source stating that PIRATE can act as a MAWS.
SpudmanWPYes, agree. That is why RAF is procuring F-35s for the A-G work and let the A-A job for the Typhoons. What’s wrong with that?
Nothing, I was answering EELighting’s assertion that in the A2G roles the Typhoon and F-35 did the same job, just using different methods.
SpudmanWPHow is the F35 able to simultaneously fight at least 8 enemy planes?
To clarify the numbers, the F-35 can simultaneously have over 100 SA “Situational Awareness” target tracks, 8 A2A weapon quality tracks, and 16 A2G weapon quality tracks.
As far as when it would use them… I could think of several. But most likely is a forward F-35 acting as designator for weapons launched from other AC.
SpudmanWP@netta,
If I was going to compare F-35 and Typhoon on the A/G role, I’d simply say; If you want to operate undetected in enemy airspace and destroy targets on the ground, use the F-35, thats what it was designed to do. If you want to destroy the same targets on the ground but at a safe, distance, i.e. a long way away, use a Typhoon, that was what that was designed for. Meaning of which, both designed to do the same role, only in different ways.
The problem with that logic is your assuming that the EF has the same chance of success and that the same numbers of EFs are needed to do the F-35’s job.
The EF carries only 2 high price & high RCS cruise missiles (relative to SDB) while the F-35 can carry 8 low cost, low RCS SDBs.
Assuming that the Storm Shadow has the same chance of success as the SDB, you still need four times the number of EFs to get the job done.
SpudmanWPEFV: nobody in their right mind is going to do Omaha Beach or even Inchon in the face of modern defenses.
The planned beach landing bluff that the Marines pulled during GW1 was one of the reasons that the land war was accomplished with such a low Allied loss rate.
If we did not have the ability to do a beach assault then all the Iraqi forces would have been on the border and the the Allied losses would have been much greater.
F-35B: Fletcher and Guadalcanal was a long time ago, and the idea of operating fast jets from unprepared sites is a fantasy. Buy F-model Super Hornets.
Forgetting history again I see. The Marines in GW1 used forward deployed Harriers with great success. They were the only fast jet CAS that did not need refueling to get the job done.
SpudmanWPJust a question on the LRIP IV costs, does the lower price if the F-35B reflect that the production has been better established for the F-35B due to its original earlier expected in service dates than the other two variants ?
Nope. It has to do with raw numbers. In the LRIP IV there are 16 STOVL and 11 CTOL airframes. In the above pricing, neither the engines nor the lift-fan of the STOVL are included in the $111(A)/$109(B) pricing structure. When your building 145% the number of Bs compared to As, you can build them a bit cheaper.
When you add the cost of the engine & lift-fan to it’s appropriate airframe, the cost of the B is higher than the A.
Thus do theses LRIP costs have any real value in judging FRP costs as they also partially fund the development of the production facilities.
What it tells us is that the model that the DoD has been using is off and we will not know how the new pricing model affects future buys until Feb 2011.
http://www.livecountdown.com/countdownclock/countdown.aspx?id=25333
Sign In
