https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sharing-secret-f-35-data-gives-usaf-new-problem-426884/

There are concerns about the data consistency among the various F-35 program partners for the aircraft’s MDFs.

Somewhat amusing that apparently no one appears to have thought about it. The question is whether the US itself would compromise its own data for platforms such as the F-22 or future designs like the LRS-B.

Not sure why it is amusing and the problem is not new, it has been known about for a long time. The issue is one of policy not technical capability and that some partner nations want sourcing, not straight loads.

I would expect that should a near peer conflict occur these concerns would quickly become non issues…

Could the west really do with a su-34 size strike fighter/bomber or a su-35 multi role fighter.

Compare the F-15E to the SU-34. The range/payload differences are minimal at best. The major difference is the US had the F-15E in service more than 18 years previous and still maintains twice the number in operational service.

Since F-15E IOC the USAF has introduced three stealth aircraft into service so I think their focus/priorities have changed.

The question is whether the F-35 can actually do this in the first place. A while ago it was stated it could sustain mach 1.2 with very little afterburner. So to speak min AB setting. Suddenly its “once there it does it on mil power”.

The issue comes from LM defining Supercruise as > M1.5 but if we stick with the conventional definition then the quote is pretty clear.

The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

Some have argued that the above is not possible, or that small/limited AB is required, but supporting evidence for the above comes from an interview with RAAF SQNLDR Andrew Jackson who stated specifically flying at M1.2 @ 40k. He wasn’t asked about SC, he stated those numbers at the end of the interview in the context of how much he enjoys his day and being able to fly the aircraft. For me Jackson’s comments are the evidence that supports the original claim.

The rationale to be faster is to be faster. When you’re faster, you dictate the terms of the engagement: you can force an engagement on your terms, and disengage again on your terms. It is a very basic parameter of warplane performance.

Actually the history of fighter combat aviation shows that situation awareness plays a far more significant role in determining an engagement than velocity.

Now 1,2 mach is instead just above transonic velocity, with all related turbulences: to get there F-35 would in every case need to use AB and also when it reach such a velocity it would still operate in a not optimal regime.

Just to be clear the F-35 nor most other fighter jets always require AB to pass the transonic region. Far more common is a bunt, where the aircraft trades altitude for speed and passes through the transonic region mostly effortlessly. This is one of the reasons that straight and level acceleration times are somewhat useless, as no pilot in their right mind would try to accelerate straight and level to pass through M1 compared to a simple bunt maneuver. It is faster and uses less fuel to reach altitude at a lower speed, bunt over through the transonic region and then continue to climb, or accelerate level, while above M1.

no, that is not about it, it lets you run down or out run everyone else, engage or disengage at will,
intercept what none other can intercept

Those are essentially a subset of transiting your airframe to a different location in a shorter time.

the speed means you dont need quite the quantity you would otherwise need

Quantity of what?

Requirement doesn’t mean the overall design was dictated by the need to cover the nozzle as the usual suspects on this forums would like to put in.

From page 33 here, http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Joint-strike-fighter-Presentation.pdf we can see that signature played a role in the assessment of the design. That slide discusses horizontal stabilizer assessment and we can assume, given they did it for the horizontal stabilizer, that it was done for vertical stabilizers as well as a host of other considerations.

If there was really any emphasis put into the IR suppression techniques, then the F-35 would be a supercruiser. Or a subsonic striker w/o reheat, just like the F-117.. Burner or no burner plays a much more important role for IR detection that all those heat exchangers, thermal coatings and cooled leading edges combined..

Not sure where you are going with this. Why does the jet have to be subsonic and not have reheat to have true IR suppression? The F-117 had RCS compromises that didn’t allow the airframe to be designed with ducted air nor was there any requirement for use of an afterburner. It also didn’t have a radar, MWS or RWR, more compromises to preserve the RCS. The F-35 uses ducted air to cool the exhaust plume and also includes the LOAN nozzle and an engine buried further into the superstructure with a longer pipe that most other jets. That gives the F-35 the ability to have afterburner but used only when necessary. I fully expect that an F-35 on a strike mission will use little to no burner, instead relying on its signature reduction, including IR, for threat avoidance.

As for supercruise, it is somewhat irrelevant. It’s primary purpose is not IR suppression but the ability to fly faster using less fuel. A reduced IR signature compared to using afterburner is a by product of supercruise, not the intent of. The tactical considerations of supercruise, such as being able to move to a location faster while preserving fuel load, or imparting more energy to weapons, outweighs the increased IR signature that occurs over subsonic flight. What we also know is that airframes don’t supercruise all day long, it is used for specific times for specific purposes.

Concerning the question about the GBU-24/TAURUS, the GAF wasn’t farsighted enough to provision its T3s for CFTs and that limits their effective combat radius when carrying such stores. I suppose that’s the primary reason why they don’t bother to integrate heavy weapons at this point. Other operators haven’t constrained themselves here and will opt for appropriate heaby weapons as well.

Thanks, this is apparently something else the Germans didn’t fund for their Eurofighter fleet. To continue this, I thought the CFTs were not funded yet and if so is it a case of when and not if?