pfcemDo you think it would be possible to make a cheaper, less capable fighter aircraft than currently offered by the 4.5 generation – but with vastly superior stealth?
Yes. The F-35 is (more accurately will be once it reaches full rate production) a cheaper, MORE capable fighter than most 4.5 generation fighters.
***
Full stealth fighter won’t work, ever
What alternate universe are you living in? The F-117 & F-22 have already proven stealth works.
***
Really, what separates a 4.5 gen from a 5th gen is stealth. Design a 4.5 gen aircraft, while optimizing the airframe shape for stealth from the outset, and you will have a 5th gen aircraft. Even if you don’t use coatings you can still get reasonable stealth purely by shaping AFAIK. In terms of avionics, sensors, engines, there is little to separate the Rafale, Su-30, and Typhoon from an F-35 or F-22 apart from stealthy airframes.
Wrong. In the avionics, sensors, engines, et cetera of the F-22 & F-35 too are at least a half a generation ahead of those of current 4.5 generation fighters. Of course improved/upgraded varients of 4.5 generation fighters are getting newer systems edging them ever closer to (at least in SOME areas) 5th generation systems…
pfcem“DSI Flight Tests
The overall inlet design, called a diverterless supersonic inlet or DSI, moved from concept to reality when it was installed and flown on a Block 30 F-16 in a highly successful demonstration program. The flight test program consisted of twelve flights flown in nine days in December 1996. The first flight on 11 December addressed initial envelope clearance and functional checks. Subsequent flights addressed performance characteristics of the unique inlet design in both level and maneuvering flight. Rapid throttle transients during these flights confirmed the compatibility between the inlet and engine.
The flight tests covered the entire F-16 flight envelope and achieved a maximum speed of Mach 2.0. The modified aircraft demonstrated flying qualities similar to a normal production F-16 at all angles of attack and at all angles of sideslip. Lockheed Martin test pilots performed two inflight engine restarts and 164 successful afterburner lights, with no failures. Fifty-two afterburner lights were performed during hard maneuvers. No engine stalls or anomalies occurred during the test flights.
The new inlet showed slightly better subsonic specific excess power than a production inlet and that verified the overall system benefits of eliminating the diverter. Test pilots remarked that military power settings and thrust characteristics were very similar to standard production F-16 aircraft with the same General Electric F110-GE-129 engine. Considering the overall goal of the flight test program was to demonstrate the viability of this advanced inlet technology, the results were excellent.”
I did underline the claims of intrest. Not the inlet of the F-35 was flown, but the DSI design was tested! That tests took place in December 1996 and the engine of the F-16C was a F110-129.
In 1996 none had the idea, which JSF design will be selected in the end. “The diverterless inlet designs built and tested with this combination of CFD and small-scale wind tunnel models formed a database of inlet configurations that would subsequently prove valuable to the Lockheed Martin JSF design.”
The first flight of the X-35 was in October 2000 and that design was selected in October 2001. Even the Chinese did make use of the DSI design.
The CODE ONE Magazine text is in blue. 😉
Thanks for wasting your time proving my point.
pfcemYes if the A300 or A310 is what is required then that’s what would be offered. If a Brittan Norman islander tanker is what’s required that’s what should be offered same is if they want an AN-225 that’s what the company would offer.
The A310 SHOULD have been offered. It CLEARLY is MUCH closer to the requirements than the A330.
If NG offer an aircraft that is so off it doesn’t stand a chance of winning it wouldn’t win and the company wouldn’t waste there time or money. (this may be what happens this time) Mind you it did get picked last time.
The KC-30 IS NOT A NG TANKER!!! NG is a PARTNER with EADS. The KC-30 IS a Airbus/EADS aircraft no matter how much some try to spin it. It is to be MANUFACTURED by Airbus in Europe & to be ASSEMBLED in AL by EADS NA. NG is ‘just’ the systems integrator.
And NG/EADS relized with the alternate rules of the round two competition it could FORCE the USAF to alter its requirments/criteria to accomodate the noncompetative A330.
I’m not uneducated (Got 7 standard grades and learning support modules:rolleyes: also my mum says i’m very bright like a ray of sun shine:o) it’s just that people seem so knowledgeable on hear i thought they would have the figures for the bases that have supported tankers in the last 5 years and what could support x amount of 767 but only x amount of A330. I think the answer is ZERO but I’m prepared to be proved wrong.
Advanced Tanker Program: Operational Assessment
June 2005 by CAS, Inc. for EADS North America
(I have posted this & others before)
Tanker Staging Bases
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8486/tankerstagingbases.png
I will not comment on the accuracy of the data other than to say differenent sources have somewhat varying numbers. For example, the CAS, Inc./EADS North America document credits Incirlik AB, Turkey with 7 KC-767 vs 5 KC-30 where as Boeing provided sources credit the same AB with 7 KC-767 vs 4 KC-30.
BUT ramp space is not the only factor to consider. Tarmac PCN (not just runway but ALL tarmac tankers would use at the airfield). Many airfileds have runways with higher PCN than much of the tarmac throughout the airfield .
pfcemAh…I was wondering where the third stooge may be…
Are you a prophet pcfem? Your posts seem to be some kind of Gospel interpretation…is your name Mathew or Luke, perhaps?
Well, if the paragraph like the one you’re quoting is too difficult for you to understand, you should really stop posting here.
Stop trolling.
***
That was done and nothing more.
“The first flight of FC-1/JF-17 Thunder took place in August 2003. … has been redesigned with F-35 JSF style Divertless Supersonic Intakes (DSI) being … as DSI also diverts turbulent boundary-layer airflow away from the engine inlet” 😉
http://whitneysmithco.com/archives/2000/articles/july_00/divertless_1.html
***
The original post is very clear.
It contains two simple questions; that you have declined to answer.
The fact that you cannot or will not answer these questions, instead making a poor attempt at “dissing” the post, confirms that you have an agenda that the answers to those questions will not support.
Yes my post was clear. So please stop trolling.
pfcemThat means nothing, it is still just an opinion.
BS. It means that his opinion is based on years of 1st hand knowledge from commanding USAF tanker forces plus many years before that in lower level command plus many years before that of non-command service.
There surely are tanker commanders who would prefer the KC-30 but for obvious reasons you won’t find their statements on a Boeing-paid website.
BS again. Any tanker commander or tanker crew member (flight crew or ground crew) willing to put their reputation on the line is free to post on unitedstatestanker.com (or any OTHER open forum).
pfcemWhich is impossible the different airflow of the F-135 and the single S-duct of the F-16 in mind. 😉
Not impossible. IT WAS DONE!
***
The problem with all the above is that you have failed to qualify your statement.
Like many of your postings it reflects your hopes and desires, or being charitable your beliefs, it does not reflect reality at present. Yet you present it as fact. This in itself undermines your argument.
Which “REAL COMBAT” has the F35 taken part in to date? Or the F22 for that manner? Simulated of any nature doesn’t count.
What are you talking about?
***
From the same source. 😉
“And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35—although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine—could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft’s large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage—meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals.”
Do you not understand what “could start losing advantage” means?
pfcemWhile i do value someones opinion it is just that, His opinion.
The difference is who HE is…
A retired Air Force officer with 26 years of active duty service including a stint as the chief of Tanker Operations at the Tanker Airlift Control Center (TACC).
AND that he is not the only tanker commander to have such opinions.
The best thing for this would be for the USAF to allow new build aircraft to be built to an pretty exact specification of what they want.
Too risky & cost prohibitive.
Now i know people will say that the 767 matches it perfectly but i would be interesting to see what they required if they could request an aircraft from scratch.
Some people MAY say that but the truth is the 767 is bigger & more capable than necessary to ‘exactly match’ the requirements.
I seem to remember for the KC-X competition that NG/Airbus won that NG was offering to have more tankers in service quicker than Boeing did.
Boeing & NG/EADS offer delivery schedules were essentially the same. The KC-X Source Selection Team ALTERED Boeing’s proposed schedule.
They could offer an A330 shorter fuselage with cut down wings (maybe from another aircraft but probably not) but still with large capacity. Again the problem with this is the development and testing time etc.
You mean like an A300 or an A310…
I don’t see the size as such a big issues and would like to see any location tankers have operated from in the past 5 years that could only handle 767 and not A330. Also if they could have operated from these bases that they were so small that the A330 could not have been deployed in the numbers required but the 767 could of.
Sad that you are so uneducated.
I’m not favouring either aircraft to win as the chance of predicting the decision is pointless. Once we see which companies and which aircraft are submitted into the competition we may have a better idea of what will win. NG/Airbus or Boeing could offer any combination of aircraft mixed together. Franken tanker maybe the ultimate solution or maybe NG could say we will deliver 25 standard A330 during the first X amount of years and during that time modify the aircraft to what ever specification the USAF want.
EVERYONE knows what both bidders have to offer. The only ‘question’ is exactly what KC-767 Boeing will offer & if it will include the KC-777 as an ‘option’ or not.
pfcem@Wrightwing, I’d set you to investigate 3rd Arab-Israeli war and the role the MirageIII played in it…that is, if I thought it would make any difference…
What to say against such a powerful message, quadbike?
Yes, Denmark should definitely order Mig31s. LOLOk, I see it’s time for another lesson.
It was during WW2, that the strike fighters began to emerge. So, as the name says these were fighters with attached AG weapons.
Why fighters?
Because they were fast and nimble enough to run away from enemy’s fighter patrols.
It’s the same case with F16. Falcon can attribute its popularity first and foremost to its ability to hold its own in the air combat. It was designed to outfly opposition right across the board by a wide margin and it did.
So, it was easy then to hang a truckload of weapons on it and send it to do AG missions, knowing that the difference between a bomb-truck F16 and dogfighter F16 is just one jettison button push.F35 has problems matching, let alone outfly anything, except maybe F18 and that’s not something to brag about. Late Russian models, European fighters and even latest Chinese models are sadly out of its grasp, at least according to released data.
F16 sold in 4500+ pieces, because customers got primarily an interceptor, with secondary AG capabilities and believe it or not 😀 that’s actually a correct way to build an AF.
LOL.
The F-35 was designed to match or exceed the COMBAT flight performance of the F-16! And it was designed with MUCH better avionics, systems integration, et cetera which are the TRUE measure of fighter capability & of course a RCS nearly 1/1000th that of the F-16.
The ONLY F-16s billed as ‘interceptors’ were the Block 15s of the US ANG & that was because the F-15 was deemed too expensive.
The truth is that in REAL COMBAT the F-35 is 2nd only to the F-22 (although it remains to be seen where the PAK-FA & J-XX will end up – BUT even if we assume they will be better than the F-35, the F-35 will STILL have a MUCH better chance vs them than ANY 4th or 4.5 generation fighters will).
***
Guessing as always. When was that interview? Sofar no production F-35A does fly! Was it the old F-16D chase plane with central ET or the new stronger one without? Do preproduction test-planes operate with a fuel weapons-load? Did that example even carry the full fuel load for a time-limited test flight? Many important details, when just a true believer is not bothered by that. Just informed people or combat pilots are aware that a higher thrust-setting is in need to keep position in general and a chase plane is just forced to do so for obious reasons.
No guessing. The interview was some time after AA-1 (~2300 lbs HEAVIER than production F-35As) flew with weight to simulate a COMBAT LOADED (two ‘2000 lb’ JDAM + two AMRAAMs + ~75% internal fuel) F-35A. AA-1 IS a production representative F-35A airframe. F-16D chase plane has 32,000 lbs class engine. THE MOST INFORMED PERSON IS CHIEF TEST PILOT JOHN BEESLEY – try reading or listening to what he has to say about the flight performance of the F-35!
I never saw an inlet flying alone. Your meaning is, that an inlet was tested in a wind channel up to that speed to verify some computer estimates. Every wing design is a compromise. To get the best values in one area you do suffer in the other two ones the three main ones in mind. The max design speed of Mach 1,6 has to be demonstrated in the tropopause. To get an usefull range and endurance from the F-35 you will hardly push it to that edge of the envelope. We still have to learn what values will be accepted in the end. The F-35 is over-time and over-cost already and none will get a headache, when it does come out at ~Mach 1,5.
A F-16C Block 30 was fitted with a represetative F-35 inlet & flight tested THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE F-16’s FLIGHT REGIME, including speed of Mach 2.0.
MACH 1.6 IS MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE SPEED, NOT A MAXIMUM DESIGN SPEED! And that is a COMBAT LOADED speed, not an ‘airshow configuration’ (no weapons & reduced fuel) speed.
pfcemThat isn’t the point. There have been stories and claims by test pilots (not sure if it was Beesley, again) that described how the chase aircraft on afterburner had problems to cope with the Raptor on full military thrust. How come is that when suddenly all of them are similar?
We will probably never be able to prove which one performs how under given conditions but the real point is that even claims of test pilots are not to be trusted and that even these are clearly contradictory if you put them all together. If you fanboys are still taking them as Holy Bible, then OK, your problem but I most certainly won’t. End of story.
Disengenous as ever.
A F-16C Block 50 requires some use of afterburner to keep pace (accelerate/climb) with a non-loaded (no weapons & reduced fuel load) F-22 or F-35 at military thrust. COMBAT LOADED (~23,000 lbs of INTERNAL weapons & fuel) and the F-22 (~2400 lbs weapons + 20,650 lbs fuel) & F-35 (~4700 lbs weapons + 18,307 lbs fuel) can still keep pace with or out pace a CLEAN F-16C Block 50.
***
The speed of the F-35 is limited by the inlet-system and the wing-design, whatever thrust is installed. But some people do never learn the basics.
The gearbox does limit the speed of your car or the allowed speed of the installed tyres, whatever does set the limit f.e.
The F-35’s inlet has been flown at Mach 2.0…
The F-35’s wing (& airframe) design is for max performance at high subsonic to transonic speeds.
A remember, it is a program goal for a COMBAT LOADED F-35 (~4700 lbs weapons + 18,307 lbs fuel) to demonstrate a speed of AT LEAST Mach 1.6.
Mach 1.6 is a MINIMUM limit for acceptability, not a MAXIMUM design limit.
***
Don’t bother trying to look persuasive. You don’t have a clue…
I am not ‘trying to look persuasive’. I am presenting the facts.
pfcemBoeing: Tanker Boom Can Meet USAF Demand
Boeing: Tanker Boom Can Meet USAF Demand
Dec 8, 2009
By Amy Butler
NEW YORK — Boeing has a plan in place to meet the Pentagon’s refueling boom requirements for the KC-X aerial tanker competition, according to the company’s defense sector chief.
The Pentagon’s draft request for proposals (RFP) “drives us toward a 767-based platform” for the company’s KC-X proposal, said Dennis Muilenburg, chief executive officer of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, during an interview last week at the Credit Suisse/Aviation Week Aerospace and Defense Finance conference here.
The company has been widely expected to propose a 767-based tanker, but has not formally announced its selection. Muilenburg’s comments are the closest the company has come in public to committing to a platform.
A challenge for Boeing is addressing the Pentagon’s 1,200 gallon-per-minute (GMP) offload rate from the refueling boom. This need is based on the demands of the C-5, which is the Air Force’s largest cargo hauler. EADS says the Multirole Tanker Transport designed for Australia and its baseline model for the KC-X competition can meet the requirement. However, the Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team has threatened to walk away from the competition without some changes to the Air Force draft RFP that take into account the attributes of a larger, A330-based design.
Boeing’s fifth-generation refueling boom developed for Japan can offload 900 gallons per minute, according to company officials. So, development work would be required to improve its performance for the USAF competition.
“We have been doing some independent work on the boom,” Muilenburg says. “The flow rate on this boom is a higher flow rate than what we have on the current 767 tankers that we have delivered to Japan. But we have come up with a way to meet the requirement.”
The draft RFP for KC-X released in September says the development work will take place under a fixed-price development contract, a point of contention for both Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS North America. Both manufacturers worry about taking on too much risk if they win the duel, and Boeing’s boom development is one of the areas in question.
Muilenburg says Boeing has “resolved” the issue of the boom development, but he declined to offer comments on how. He also did not say whether it would require significant USAF funding to mature for the Air Force program.
A final request for proposals is expected in January.
pfcemCOMBAT LOADED F-22/F-35 vs CLEAN F-16 Block 50.
The way to think of the F-22 & F-35 is that COMBAT LOADED, they have the AOA & nose pointing authority as good or better than a F/A-18C AND as speed increases the acceleration & agility of a CLEAN F-16 Block 50.
The comments are not specific enough to say exactly how far into the supersonic regime a COMBAT LOADED F-35 & CLEAN F-16 are ‘near equals’ but as speed (& altitude) increases, the F-22 ‘comes into its own’ (it was designed for max performance at ~Mach 1.5) & is a different league. Plus the F-22 has the added benifit of TVC which adds a further dimension to its flight performance.
Of course pure flight performance is NOT the be-all-that-is-all of fighter capability. Don’t get me wrong, it is still useful & nice to have but these days you do not have to point & hold the nose of your aircraft an the enemy in order to target/fire on it.
pfcemDo you know that the D-30F6 engines are optimized for afterburning and it’s based on the turbofan used by the Tu-154M? I think turbojet is more a suitable term for the D-30F6, difference is the engine is more optimal in low attitude flight, and it can afterburn longer without running into reliability problems.
The D-30F6 has a bypass ratio of 0.57. Essentially the same as the F135 which SOME want you to believe to be ‘too high to be fast’.
pfcemYes, If he state that F-35 is close to F-22,
and also says F-35 is close to F-16,
then the logic in that is F-22 is in fairly same league as F-16.Alltho i’m pretty sure he didn’t want to make that point either 😉
He is a sales-person that on the one hand separate F-22 from anything else,
(only F-22 can [insert attribute] etc..), to negligate capabilities where possible competitors to F-35 out-perform his merchandise.while at the same time talk up the capabilities on F-35 to the point where he wishes to give the impression is roughly the equal to F-22 in spite of contradictorily evidence.
Jon Beesley is a TEST PILOT, not a sales-person.
He has SPECIFICALLY stated that (subsonically) the F-35 & F-22 are quite similar (except for the F-22’s TVC maneuvers).
pfcemi think it’s clear to everyone (including you, even though you won’t admit it) that 1200gpm was always the goal
if you couldn’t meet it, they gave partial credit down to a 900gpm minimum
now there is no partial credit
No, what SHOULD be clear to everyone (including you but I know better than to expect you to recognize such basic facts even after the relevant items from the RFP itself have been posted) that 1200 gal/min was not part of the previous solicitation whatsoever. IF 1200 gal/min were the goal then there would have been a KPP OBJECTIVE specifically requiring 1200 gal/min max fuel offload rate. The ONLY place where a fuel offload rate is expressed/required is 3.2.1.1.1.1. & there it states 900 gal/min.
Not even the 3.2.10.1.1.7 TRADE SPACE item requires 1200 gal/min. As it was, depending on which sources you rely on, one could either receive full TRADE SPACE ‘credit’ with LESS than 1200 gal/min OR one would need MORE than 1200 gal/min receive full TRADE SPACE ‘credit’.
What should ALSO be clear to eveyone is that Boeing HAS NOT ASKED THAT THE 1200 gal/min REQUIREMENT BE CHANGED.
pfcemwhich is what i said
you got partial credit for less, but the goal/objective/whatever you want to call it was always 1200gpm
so there’s nothing new about 1200, it’s just that it’s mandatory this time instead of optional
ONE MORE TIME SINCE YOU STILL DO NOT GET IT.
3.2.10.1.1.8
The aircraft shall be able to effectively provide (non-simultaneously) both boom and drogue aerial refueling on the same mission
(THRESHOLD, KPP #1).
3.2.10.1.1.9
The aircraft should be capable of aerial refueling all current USAF tanker compatible fixed wing receiver aircraft using current USAF procedures with no modification to existing receiver aerial refueling equipment and no degradation to the receiver aircraft refueling capability, including after-body effects for wide-body aircraft and fuel temperature, and in accordance with international standards (e.g., STANAG 3971 and STANAG 7191), and taking into account established technical guidance (e,g., MIL-A-87166, MIL-F-38363B, NATOPS) at its maximum inflight gross weight
(OBJECTIVE, KPP #1).
Feel free to comb through the entire RFP again. You will find no THRESHOLD/OBJECTIVE stating or even implying a requirement for 1200 gal/min. The only place you will a THRESHOLD/OBJECTIVE with a required fuel offload rate is 3.2.1.1.1.1.
Here is another ‘test’ to prove that 1200 gal/min WAS NOT a requirement in the last solicitation. You will find NOWHERE from anybody (not the USAF, not the DOD, not the KC-X Source Selection Team, not Congress, not even NG/EADS will you find ANY mention of such or that Boeing’s offer “only partially meet the fuel offload rate requirements”.
so if i said 1176 would you agree that was the number 3.2.10.1.1.7 meant?
No.
3.2.10.1.1.7 IS NOT a requirement to ‘meet’. It is TRADE SPACE, NOT REQUIRED but is something for extra/additional consideration.
AND if it had ‘meant’ 1176 or 1200 or what ever number you want to believe then THAT number would have been expressed.
Sign In
