Ozairwhich Mainstream media has covered this?
Evidence of how it has been covered previously.
From 2017, https://gizmodo.com/the-f-35-amazingly-has-even-more-problems-than-we-thoug-1791285476
The current cycle is just everyone republishing the DefenseNews story which is almost certainly just documents that are from GAO/ DOT&E / JPO soon that will be formally published soon as they concern the full rate production decision. DefenseNews thought they got a scoop but given the response from LM hardly any new info is present, just some sensationalism.
OzairThat may be. But i did not know about this and i’m above average in terms of Aviation Interest. Pretty sure a whole lot did not know about all these deficiencies.
So what gives, does this make people stupid or haters?
The F-35 program has no one else but itself to blame from coming under scrutiny.
If you must call different media outlets for F-35 Griefers/dwellers.
Well that is on you guys.
Personally i use DefenseNews a lot when looking for news.
I think they have their nest clean. Good luck trying to discredit them..As for a few post back, it deserved a Flag/Repport.
Some people does not add credibility to this Thread.
Haavarla, the info on deficiencies from each GAO and DOT&E report has been posted and debated in this and previous F-35 threads and in the main stream media.
That you don’t remember it is the issue, not that it isn’t available and discussed. As for DefenseNews, they have good articles and not good articles but are just as prone to click bait as Jane’s and FlightGlobal etc.
OzairThe general trend I referred is that the more complex the weapon, the more expensive it is and the smaller its warhead. SDB I and II are perfect examples of this (please correct the data where needed, I took them without much research from Wiki):
Warhead weight (explosive)
SDB I 93 kg (16 kg)
SDB II 48 kg
Mk 82 ca. 220 kg (87 kg)Cost
SDB I $40,000
SDB II $250,000
Mk 82 $2,000
The last contract for SDB II was US$77 million for 570 weapons, that is approx $135k per weapon including the admin and contract costs.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/small-diameter-bomb-ii-sdb-ii/
That only gets cheaper as more are acquired including by allied partners.
The smaller warhead is a good thing, especially as the CEP of SDB II is so small. That reduces collateral damage allowing the weapon to be used in more circumstances.
OzairTime to chill a bit and realize this is all part of the process.
From one of the DefenceNews articles…
An active-duty naval aviator who reviewed the documents for Defense News said the issues are reflective of an aircraft that packed in a lot of new technology, adding that, historically, all new jets have had problems.
“That document looks like growing pains for an aircraft that we tried to do a whole lot to all at once,” the aviator said. “You’re going to see that if you dig back at what Super Hornets looked like for the first few years. Go back in the archives and look at Tomcat — think about that with the variable sweep-wing geometry, the AWG-9 Radar.
“There was a lot of new technology incorporated into the aircraft, and there are always going to be growing pains.”
OzairAlways? At its entry in service, MICA had a range similar to the AIM-120B and larger than the AIM-7M. Yes, the AIM-120C5 has a longer range but that’s more a “we miniaturized stuff so we get extra room for more powder” than the result of a hard requirement for more range.
Sorry yes correction, MICA was comparable to but almost certainly never longer ranged than AIM-7M (although active seeker provided significant tactical improvement but MICA IOC’ed 16 years later…) and comparable to AIM-120B under similar launch conditions. Still significantly shorter ranged than AA-10C. Incidentally the AIM-120C range increase was also a result of lofting profile changes and most certainly arrived as a result of a requirement for an increase in range.
?
In what particular way the likes of the Magic, Magic 2 and Super 530F/D were awful by comparison with their contemporary equivalents?
Their combat record seems to be pretty decent, there are quite a number of Mig´s, Sukhoi, Phantom´s, Tigers, Tomcats and even a Viper and TU-22 that ended in the receiving end of a French pre Matra Mica AAM andCheers
530 series was heavier with smaller warheads and less range than contemporaries. Magic went all aspect almost ten years after AIM-9L. Both were difficult to integrate onto non French platforms.
decent PK´s for AAM´s are a recent thing.
Agree, hence why the claim by Halloween was meaningless.
OzairNG will be introduced way before F4 standard, not to talk about NGF. Intently confusing transport box and “mounted before da da da”? FACT is Mica has longer range, better pk + interdhnageable sensors. Many things sidewinder do not have.
Please take infos first, talk later. Thanks (hint i gave you a new info two posts above)
Longer range than sidewinder sure. Not sure how you can claim MICA has a better Pk given it has never been used operationally. The interchangeable sensors really isn’t a selling point unless you bought a French aircraft pre Meteor and had the awful selection of previous generation french missiles available to you. Even then, MICA RF was always shorter ranged than AIM-7, AIM-120, AA-10.
OzairPredictions aren’t realities are they?
The cost projections for the development program have been on target since 2011 and the air vehicle cost reduction has been right on for the last three lots.
The confidence in the numbers provided is strong…
OzairDon’t mix up what you understood with what I was saying. I suggested an error margin to apply to any data gathered from any raisonnable source, then I took the weight figure as an example. I already know what’s the expected error margin when it comes to weight, thank you, but published values remain questionable due to unknown context or lack of details so the good approach is to expand the error margin.
Now if you want to say the weight of any F-35A from Lot 7 was 29000 lbs +/- 250 lbs, I’m okay with this.
What would be the value of a global error margin on the figures LMFS is providing? Each value should have its own margin of error if we want to take the data seriously.
OzairTrue. But that’s not the point.
It is when you’re talking about error. To arbitrarily assign an error margin to a figure without any factual or measured basis is useless. The data clearly shows that the error band is around or less than 1% when it comes to weight, not the five times greater range you are suggesting.
OzairWell… The values published in Wiki tend to be the most “rosy” one can find on a particular topic. For example, the empty weight is quoted to be 28999 lbs but if you look at the source that was the empty weight (measured) of a specific aircraft (AF-72) in 2015. But due to manufacturing processes, other F35-A may be a bit heavier or lighter. I think the official value (29300 lbs) would be the upper limit, at some point in the program, and I the actual mean value (average weight) is yet publicly unknown (and likely to change, anyhow).
Another kind of discrepancies are caused by multiple conversions/rounding of an initial value.
The best you can do is to take all these datas as rough values with an error margin close to 5% or so.
Do you mean 0.5%? Using a 5% error takes the weight to 30500 lbs…
OzairConfusing F-15E and SA? Nevermind.
Did you actually read the article? If you had you would see there is no confusion, it is very clearly talking about upgrading the USAF F-15E with a new radar.
The real thing is that PENTAGON said F-35 doese not it for all and need more F-15. Coma.
The reason for the F-15EX buy is very clear and it has nothing to do with the F-35 not being able to do everything.
Can’t even tell you the average survival time of F-18 E/F vs RAfale in manoeuvers, you would not believe me…
Indeed, as the Rafale still lacks HOBS missiles and a HMS the Hornet kills across the circle before the Rafale essentially knows it has began… But to make it fair to the Rafale community they work to a reduced capability. It makes it more fun, keeps the inspection time on the SH low and ensures that the French are happy to play again next time.
OzairOriginall my point was to say that PENTAGON said F-35 was not fit to lead heavy ordnances for long distances. Not ME. However.
Only in the context of having other available aircraft that could undertake that mission set and therefore leave the F-35 for the A2AD missions.
JSM explosive ordnace is very small.
A more accurate but smaller warhead is often more effective than a larger warhead poorly targeted. The preference for smaller munitions isn’t confined to the JSM.
LRSAM is NOT operational. etc.
Not but JASSM is and the LRSAM is a modification of JASSM. JASSM integration on the F-35 is already funded.
The issue here is that F-35 is not fit for EVERY mission. There is no free meal.
It is a multi-role aircraft and for most nations operating it it will be their only fighter jet. In that context it will do all the missions that respective Air Forces require it to do even if it isn’t ideally suited to that. The question would be can you name a single mission that aircraft the F-35 is replacing are better at?
usual blah blah.
Perhaps you’d like to actually do some research to find out how significant the F-15E radar upgrade is?
Boeing F-15E site lead Jonathan Pierce said: “Once we get the aircraft up on jacks, we get the nose landing gear removed; [my team] starts removing those components and making room for the fabric guys and gals to come in and begin modification by cutting holes, installing or removing brackets, and setting up lines for re-install.
“At the same time our avionics, electric and environmental folks are running all kinds of wiring and pulling out a lot of the old parts that will get replaced.
This isn’t simply an antenna replacement, it comes with the upgraded processing and especially power and cooling required to utilize the full capability of the jet. Combined with an aperture size that is close to twice the area of the Eurocanards it shouldn’t surprise the radar is impressive in service.
Ozairwhile LMFS and FBW are debating.. it does seem like the only consensus here? is Naval operations has some advantages for STOVL
not so much for land based operations
STOVL clearly has application for land based operations but it really depends on the respective Air Force. Were more Air Forces inclined to change their doctrine and embrace distributed operations to a greater extent then STOVL would be more common, noting that STOVL is more expensive than conventional operations which probably limits the take up especially in the post cold war budget world.
The future takeup of STOVL is probably dependent on how hypersonics and DEW emerge. Hypersonics may make airbase defence significantly more difficult while lasers may also make airbase defence easier. DEW will allow airbases to operate reasonably freely from threat but hypersonics will likely allow rapid targeting and engagement of pop up targets.
Finally I expect that STOVL will become more common in fighter aviation although likely as loyal wingman than manned aircraft, for example what will come out of the Tempest program.
Answering questions in the House of Commons, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (MoD), Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, Earl Howe, said that the Tempest needs to be compatible with the Royal Navy’s two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, and that the concept currently being considered is that the UAV ‘loyal wingmen’ will be ship-based rather than the fighter itself.
https://www.janes.com/article/86417/tempest-s-unmanned-loyal-wingmen-to-be-carrier-capable
No reason that a STOVL UCAV couldn’t operate from land based FOBs as well as naval platforms.
OzairSo Su-35 landing distance is 750 m and it has been cut in half for the Su-57?
I’ll believe it when I see it.
600 m take off run is certainly possible but it is already 2 times 300 m.Until then, there’s only the Swedish fighters that have been optimised for STOL and they need 600 – 800 meters.
For reference, here’s the F-16C Block 52 landing distance, on a dry runway, with brake chute and full brakes. Worse conditions increase landing distance obviously.
F-16 isn’t a good example though as it really doesn’t like to land…
OzairFor Naval operations STOVL has three big advantages (which is not trivialise the cost, range and payload penalties which ARE significant).
The flat top does not have to turn into the wind for launch. That’s not just a convenience issue it can make the path and location of said carrier and its escorts far less predictable.
Sailing into the wind is standard for F-35B operations. It lowers take off distance and increases payload.
‘Stopping and then landing’ rather than ‘landing and then stopping’ imposes less (and fewer) stresses on the airframe and is supposedly an easier skill to master (I’ve never tried either method outside of a consumer simulator so I cannot claim great personal insight).
Operations can continue in far less benign weather conditions (not an issue on the pacific which is pacific but it was certainly a factor down south in the winter).
A good reference I have seen for landing the F-35B is here, https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-f-35b-on-final-approach-to-qec/
So, what is the F-35B like to fly? Thanks to the pioneering work of UK’s DERA (now DSTL/QinetiQ) VAAC Harrier testbeds and test pilots like Justin Paines and John Farley in developing advanced FBW software for VTOL aircraft – it is extremely simple. Whereas the Jedi-like skills are needed to control the Harrier in the hover requires movement of throttle, nozzle control and stick and has been likened to ‘balancing on the top of a pencil while needing three hands’, the F-35B’s fly-by-wire controls are just a sidestick and throttle HOTAS – with the flight computers doing all the hard work. (It is noteworthy that the UK is the only country after the US to have its own lines of code in in the F-35 software).
To assist pilots coming into land, there are two velocity vectors – a traditional one, and a ship-shaped one – showing where the ship will be. The ship’s speed is also entered into the flight management computer via the touchscreen display.
Approaching the ship from behind at around 170kt and 500ft, once at 200ft the pilot hits the ‘brake’ deceleration button and the aircraft begins slowing and transitioning to a hover, with the LiftFan engaging and the rear nozzle swivelling down for vertical flight. Once slowed down, the pilot can swing to the left side of the ship. The aircraft’s flight computers now cleverly match the ship’s speed, with the pilot pushing forward on the control sidestick (or inceptor) to go down. At 100ft and about a wingspan across from the deck, the pilot is thus ready to transition sideways over the deck, with fine hovering control being provided by the moving rear nozzle, LiftFan and the STOVL roll jets at the tips of the wings. At this point, with the flight controls engaged and the aircraft happily matching speed with the ship, the pilot can even take his (or her) hands off the controls – a move that would most likely be suicidal in the Harrier for the average squadron pilot.
Hitting another thumb switch on the HOTAS throttle engages a translational controller mode, enabling the pilot to slide across in the hover and line up with the centreline. Once in position – it is a case of pushing forward on the sidestick to a software-controlled stop to descend and put the aircraft firmly on the deck. At this point, control of the engine thrust and vertical motion has passed to the right hand, rather than the left hand – which on the first occasion is slightly disconcerting to push full forward on what is normally a pitch control, some 50ft above a deck.
Those raised on Call of Duty Xbox controllers will have no problems. Feet on the brakes and the aircraft lands itself. Effectively with these flight controls you are flying an aeroplane that cannot stall and where intuitive pull back/go up and push forward/go down still work – even when hovering. Says BAE: “The control philosophy is such that the left-hand commands go-faster / go-slower whilst the right-hand commands the aircraft to go-up / go-down and go-left / go-right. Each hand commands a response in the same axis in both wing-borne and jet-borne flight.” It is not quite the ‘take me home and land the aircraft automatically coffee bar button’ that legendary Harrier test pilot John Farley often joked about as something that a future VTOL fighter would need, but it is close.
SVRL factors in a wind over deck of approx 25kts.
When executing an SRVL recovery, a pilot descends the aircraft to a 200ft plateau to line up and decelerate, before flying short finals along a 7˚ glideslope at a speed of approximately 60kt (110km/h). Assuming 25kt wind over the deck, this equates to a 35kt overtake speed. The pilot can fly a manual approach or engage “Delta Flight Path” mode to automatically fly the glideslope with minimum intervention.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-uk-on-a-roll-after-f-35b-carrier-trials-454087/
Sign In
