Marcellogohttp://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA…vs-F-35A-.aspx
Probably the most sustainable reason for the quixotic F-15EX purchase mentioned in this article.
Even with the added F-35A in FY2020 defense appropriations bill (and likely in subsequent years), the number of fighter squadrons is going to dip with the retirement of F-15C. Transitioning from F-15C to F-15EX would at lease alleviate a near term shortage of air superiority assets. I think it generous to state that transitioning squadrons to F-35’s takes “many months”, probably more like several years for training, infrastructure, and proficiency.
Still, in light of impending budget squeeze, maintaining the planned F-35 procurement rate should take precedence in USAF requests. If Congress wants to add money on top of that for F-15EX. let them do it. The USN plays Congress beautifully, recommend retiring (CVN, CG-47, etc.) early to fund procurement and outcry leads to Congress (mostly) funding both requested procurement and RCOH/operations costs for CVN-75 just like previous CG-47 retirement threat.
Fact is that F-35 was never considered as a substitute for F-15C, it should have been the F-22 to take up such a role.
Now, it seems that they still prefers a revamped version of Eagle to acquiring more F-35 or restart F-22 production.
Marcellogo5 on 5:
Seems me the real news here is that F-35 can carry 5 Paveway bombs (why not 6, I wonder?).
Are them launched from inner bombs bay or from wings?
MarcellogoWith all possible equanimity and lack of bias possible I would say that citing the F-22 as a mature product is one of the greatest idiocy one can imagine.
Its production ended in 2012 but it is still the plane with the worst disponibility ratio of whole USAF and it was necessary to wait for 2015 update to allow it to use AIM-9X and AIM-120D, it was needed to apply a post-production back-up oxygen and life support system to avoid fatal incidents and so on…
One can say that it is like a fruit that passed from being raw to rotten without ever becoming mature.
All the complicated, time consuming, baroque procedure used by russian for develop and field their own hardwares has still mantained its primary function i.e. to avoid to produce such type of over-engineered, platinum plated Hangar Queens like the F-22 or other technological marvels still searching for an operative role like LCS and Zumwalt (and MV-22, the only one that have effectively found it, or better said, them)
MarcellogoCost decrement is nothing exceptional, KnAAPO is just the final assembly point, they have to makea deal with a long lipst of sub-contractor for the various components (engine, avionics,landing gear, ejection seat…) Once they have a larger order assured they would ask for a great discount from thhem also,
Marcellogo[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER] – I don’t think we are that far from agreement. I pretty much see them about doubling production volumes every year until they hit whatever they have targeted for normal production. So, this year they get one and they have one planned for 2020 (but they may advance that to two) and then up the volume each year. So, 3-4 years.
You are making confusion between first serials, that are planes built to test and optimize the functioning of the assembly line that they are actually setting up before starting normal serial production.
A single plane pass through all the station of assembly line, they register all single operations needed to built the item and the time it takes for each of them.
After it, they analyze them and modify both the single workstations than the task given to every single workers in order to optimize the production, once done they repeat the process with the second plane to check iF everything is working according their own previsions.
They need a specific, separate contract for the First Serial phase because in it is involved also the Design Bureau that has developed the machine, while normal serial production one will just be a thing between MOD and KnAAPO.
Only the assembly line is finally settled, serial production will begin, every single workstation will work at the same time so that it will be possible to produce up to twenty planes at year , like in the case of Su-35, built in the same KnAAPO.
MarcellogoIt’s a little more complicated, really…
Russians place their orders “in the framework of the SAP (state acquisition programme) of 20xx-20xx+10 years programme. Actual is 2018-2027 but in reality every five years there is a complete review, so next should be the 2023-2032 one .
And there is not any relation between the number of planes of an order, the duration of the SAP and the number of planes produced in each year: each contract that’s is awarded constitute a single act between the MOD and the chosen production concern.
In ever case a single order of 76 planes is something absolutely enormous for Russian standard: Su-35 ones were of 48 and 50 respectively.
Now, we have a contract for the two first serial planes and one for 76 that they would be signed in a short time, we cannot know, until further notice if the former one for 12/15 is still standing (I think not) but I’m sure that once started, serial production would be conducted at full capability of the assembly line as this is both their usual MO than a precondition for achieving the mentioned cut in plane’s individual price.
Marcellogowell people still surprised when i told them that reliability is the only principal advantage of AESA compared to PESA.
Problem,what is the overall reliability of a modern radar.
Let’s say: in case there are 100 PESA equipped planes in operation at the same time how much of them would have to abort mission or have their performance hampered on average?
Marcellogo[USER=”7524″]paralay[/USER]
See below a clumsy and gross violation of your drawing with my proposal 😀
> Two top R-77 sized missiles (with folding wings) hanging from a modified pylon that occupies the same position than the current one but has double ejecting mechanism.
> Eventually two additional missiles could be hung from door-mounted mechanisms like in the F-35, see also below.It does not look the ultimate madness to me…
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”weapons_bay_1_mod006.png”,”data-attachmentid”:3862184}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”f-35-inside-4.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3862185}[/ATTACH]
AMRAAM missiles on F-35 are not attached to the doors, they have a rotating pylon on the flank of the bomb bay, once the doors are open they flip and expose the missiles that are ejected on a diagonal not vertical path.
Su-57 have almost perfectly rectangular bays not an irregular, weapon tailored ones like on F-35.
Main problems is that being on a tunnel its own doors cannot be opened very wide.
Given that however seems to be enough space to host two rows of smaller ordnances (R-77, KAB-250 and Kh-38) why not to try a two floors,triangle installation: 2 forward and 1 back in the space between the other two like in post #1505 in the upper floor and a specular 1 forward and 2 back in the lower one (or also vice versa if more expedient…) ?
MarcellogoYou anticipated me Paralay, I also have saved the article but just in case a discussion on defence spending would resurface again.
So, i’ll keep it the same, foor future uses.
I would just add a thing, same I have posted in comment section.
Money for military spending in Russian case doesn’t come, like in the west from citizen’s and private enterprises revenues but in great part from the export of oil, gas, minerals and timber i.e. from big, centralized and state owned firms.
They pass this money to other big, centralized and state owned firms, for acquiring high technology items at a reduced prize, while creating or maintaining workplaces in the process.
Opposition to military spending is so almost non-existent in Russia and what is generally considered a weakness in macroeconomic terms is instead an excellent thing when it come to keeping an high level of defence spending.
MarcellogoThanks, Spudman WP.
So as for now the number is still 44000 dollars for an hour and the 25000 one is only a quite distant objective?
Or, in other terms, that for the Nth time they (‘muricans, F-16net teenage trolls but also propaganda outlets of MIC) keep on selling us (or better to their own internal audience) future projections as actual things?
You have pointed how it seems that are the TR1 planes to keep such cost high, so can we conclude that the whole concurrency thing keep on proving itself as a very, very costly error without being labelled as trolls, haters or accused to be on Putin’s Payroll?
A serious question would however be if at a certain point the modernization process of such planes (and the ones in production just now) would be freezed or if they would still get “heavy” upgradings i.e. those that would require intervention on the frames and not just software upgrades and if yes, what it would be?
Passing from 3I to 3F and in the near future to 4 would have a cost but I guess that the one intervention you said and the one that would eventually would be required to pass to 4.25 would be way higher (and would require to keep the planes aground for a way longer time).
Marcellogo22 days between the last two posts…
MarcellogoAll the critics do is to take things out of context and/or twist and turn the facts to their benefit. In order to put the F-35 is the poorest light possible. While, ignoring anything positive. Which, they have been doing since the beginning…
Yet, most have an ulterior motive!:eek:
And your response consist in posting anything LoMart said or make anything say about its own products without even analyzing it.
So not just pot calling the kettle black but something absolutely worthless in any serious discussion.
I have to laud instead last TomcatVIP posts in that regard.
Marcellogohttps://es.rbth.com/technologias/82
989-mexico-interesado-sustituir-f-5
-eeuu-cazas-rusos-mig-29
Mexico is interested in replacing their F-5s with mig-29s.
In this case it would need to buy them second-hand as all the new airframes produced by russians would be called MiG-35 anyway…
Marcellogohttp://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems…003696001.aspx
“The Next Generation DAS is the successor to the F-35’s EO DAS to be integrated onto production aircraft starting in 2023 along with Lot 15 aircraft. The state-of-the-art Distributed Aperture System will be developed by Raytheon chosen by Lockheed Martin in June 2018. The Next Generation DAS will consist of six infrared cameras mounted around the aircraft to provide the pilot with outstanding situational awareness allowing detection of incoming threats from any angle day or night. Compared with its predecessor the new high resolution cameras will feature a 45-percent reduction in unit cost, 50-percent reduction in sustainment and operating costs, five times more reliable and 2 times performance improvement.”
This is more of an avionics question. But what is everyone’s preference, 360 degree radar coverage or 360 degree infrared coverage? I am assuming that infrared coverage is more superior(which is why Lockheed still is pursuing advancement on this instead of changing to radar coverage) because the infrared energy of a mach 4 missile is more visible to the pilot than an aircrafts radar coverage being able to pick up a small target like an air to air missile.
The ideal would be to have both + UV, so that the respective advantages overlap one with another.
To summarize, many modern planes has a MAW system that alert them of incoming missiles, such systems can be either pulse doppler, IR or UV based or can result of a combination between them (in case of IR+UV is quite common).
And all of such systems will however allow a complete coverage
The AN/AAQ-37 use an IIR camera so to obtain a video-like image of an heated object instead of just a track indication of an incoming threat.
It allows a whole lot of interesting application, above all it convert what is a self-protection device i.e. something eminently passive in an active reconnaissance one.
Said so, it’s still made of a series of SMALL thermographic cameras in FIXED installation with a WIDE angle of vision and a very limited magnification capacity, so great for boasting about situational awareness (that it fully deliver) but very far from even thinking of it a a substitute for an IRST or a full-size FLIR.
Same if you were thinking not about a comparison between radar and optical MAWs but precisely between the AN/AAQ-37 of the F-35 and the Bielka radar of Su-57 with its side arrays +L band radars in the wings, they are two completely different things by several orders of magnitude.
In this case however, differently from a radar-based MAW a 360° radar field of view is not even sought, being not just impossible to obtain but absolutely counter-productive, almost for a fighter sized plane.
That’s because of doppler effect: it dramatically increase range against incoming planes but actually reduces it against departing ones, so thinking about a rear facing ACTIVE search radar is a very bad choice (infact Su-57 has instead L402 electronic countermeasure system in the tailcone) as the same forward movement of the carrier would automatically hamper performance.
MarcellogoIf you believe the words of a test pilot talking about his own aircraft and the comany who gives him a living, then every aircraft is the best of the world listening at tests pilots…Anyone with a bit of exeprience an maturity knows that and only the most die hard fanboy will take it for granted. I can tell you that in the French aeronautic press, some pilots just as qualified were much more “balanced” commenting the actual performance of the F35 during its display. “In the realm of F18 performance” as far as I remember. Nothing to be ashamed of, but nothing groundbreaking either.
Personnaly I was pleased to see the F35 manoeuvres hard for the first time, and I found it better than expected (my initial expectation were low I must say). I liked the trust to weight ratio although the demo is performed with 50% internal fuel. It jhas indeed good high AoA authority with marginal post stall maneuvrability.
Yes it can perform some agressive manoeuvres but the downside is that it immediately reach high AoA losing energy quickly due to its high wing loading. When a 4th gen perform a hard pull it has enough “lift” to avoid reaching these high AoA when the F35 has no other choice, that’s just physics and even an exellent FCS will not go against that. The result is a completely different tempo & style during the aerobatic display. In the approx 10 minutes that last a display the typicl 4th gen fighter will perform much more aerobatics than the F35, the display is more “dense” as the the F35 needs times to recover energy between each agressive manoeuvres.
So it boils down to energy management vs high AoA.
What would be interserting is to know how quickly the F35 reach high AoA during a hard pull or/and slow speed…When a 4th gen jet in the exact same condition will still fly normally. The 4th gen jet which has a lower fuel fraction and no internal bays flys more “effortlessly” than the F35 which needs all the power of its engine and its FCS to keep it manoeuvrable.
Let’s add that in the 4gen denomination are combed together planes ranging from F-14 and Mig-31 that has almost nothing more than a third generation one for what it come to aerial manoeuvrability to the latest Su-35.
Stating that it is in the F/A-18 ballpark in this case means that it had ability not just to perform high G turns in the horizontal plane like F-16, Mirage 2000 and F-15C/D (A/B was limited at 7,33) but it got also the capacity to perform high AoA maneuvers i.e being able to go vertical or, in alternative, close to stall speed.
Obviously, F-35, almost in A version is also able to get 9G, so it will combine the plus of both F-16 and Hornet.
It means that they will have an advantage over US legacy fighters as it could perform both horizontal than vertical maneuvers (and anything in between, so to maximize tactical options).
Fact is that the same could be the more or less (but usually the more) said referring to any version of Mig-29, Su-27, Su-30, Gripen, J-10, Rafale, Eurofighter, F-22 i.e. all of high performance planes entered in service after the above mentioned planesi.e. from the eighties and the first flight of an F-35.
Sign In
