pfcemGreat so Boeing moved from a paper concept to a wooden model concept.;)
You know full well thay have done much more in two years…
No you misunderstud me, i was talking about the rest of the world
“Ballpark, inventory & Capabilities”
Do USN know what this will look like at present time?
What will they be facing around 2025+?
T-50/PAK FA, J-XX, S-500/1000…although advanced Flankers/Fulcrums, J-10, S-300/400 are most certianly to remain much more common for quite some time.
pfcemYes, they have..
Evidence?
It has very much to do with debunking your claims about how LM has discovered even more potential in weight reduction but not deemed it necessary.
Quite the opposite. I have given the time line of the weight increases & the weight POST WEIGHT REDUCTION. And links to statements from SWAT that further weight reduction have been identified but not implemented.
My suggestion – if you remove the engine, you can save another 1200+ kg weight.
Thanks for so clearly demonstrating how disingenuous/intellectually honest you are.
Self-sealing tank valves..
Evidence?
Figures not supported by anything, not even LM. One would expect that manufacturer would know about it.
ONE MORE TIME
Prior to weight reduction the weight estimates of the F-35 were…
2002
F-35A: 26,500 lbs
F-35B: 29,735 lbs
F-35C: 30,049 lbs
2003
F-35A: 27,100 lbs
F-35B: 30,500 lbs
F-35C: 30,700 lbs
2004-2006 (at which point they were nearly 3000 lbs overweight)
F-35A: 29,036 lbs
F-35B: 32,161 lbs
F-35C: 32,072 lbs
After weight reduction the weight of the F-35 IS…
2007
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbs
Pretty strange statement for someone who believes they have removed 2300+ lbs of weight…
You got no idea what they really did and how is AA-1 different from AF-1 cut the crap. 😎
Not strange at all. We ALL know they removed weight & the numbers of not only the weight growth but the weight reduction have been given.
I know AA-1 is not as different from AF-1 as Cola1973 wants everyone to believe. I also now that weight can be reduced without significant change in structural strength.
pfcemOk lets call it a “Program” then..
A two year old (publicly unveiled June 2008) program. 🙂
Eighter way, as of now it is only a paper consept if anything.
Wrong. Boeing has presented 1/16th scale models of its concepts at the Navy League Sea Air And Space Expo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DOrx5hYIMw&feature=youtube_gdata
A question:
Do the USN really know what kind of requirments they want for their future F/A-XX:confused:
Yes it does.
I mean how can they, if we are talking about no sooner than year 2035/40?
IOC 2025.
The ball park and all its inventory and capabilities will look quite differerent over current status(2010-12) etc etc..
And NGAD (formerly F//A-XX) will be one of the platforms which make up said ‘inventory and capabilities’. Others are the F-35C & UCAS.
I’m glad i’m not doing this evaluation & planning requirments for the USN;)
So am I. 🙂
pfcemWing tank’s self-sealing valves, that has been admitted by LM, so far. 😀
A) Have they?
B) Even if they have what does that have to do with the weight &/or structual streagth of the airframe?
Why then the LM’s engineers throw important stuff out of the plane?
What are they throwing out?
You HAVE to?! 😀
Yes.
Well pfcem, LM’s numbers from 2008 say 29036 and I’ve never seen a 26664 figure apart from that brochure you posted from 2007.
2007 was before 2008.
Not a brochure! A Program Overview breifing by Maj “Digger” Davis given 30 Oct 2007.
ONE MORE TIME
Prior to weight reduction the weight estimates of the F-35 were…
2002
F-35A: 26,500 lbs
F-35B: 29,735 lbs
F-35C: 30,049 lbs
2003
F-35A: 27,100 lbs
F-35B: 30,500 lbs
F-35C: 30,700 lbs
2004-2006
F-35A: 29,036 lbs
F-35B: 32,161 lbs
F-35C: 32,072 lbs
After weight reduction the weight of the F-35 IS…
2007
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbs
Battle damage isn’t structural load, as you incorrectly assume and can’t be equalized, as you do.
So again, how do you know that allegedly 2.5k heavier AA-1 will have the same damage characteristic like “lighter” AF-1.
It’s the other way around, but I think the AF-1 is very close in weight (structure) to AA-1, hence no need for separate test.
I didn’t say EXACTLY the same, just not as different as you want to make out. They did not completely redesign the entire airframe using completely different materials, manufacturing techniques et cetera.
pfcemer, just to make sure I understand you correctly:
those who pay the bills don’t know how much they pay? is that what you’re saying?
No, I am saying those who pay the bills know full well that the ACTUAL costs have been & continue to track MUCH closer to 2007/2008 projections then the latest BS projections. Why do you think government budget negotiators are asking for a FY2011 price BELOW budget projections. 😉
***
And how do you know that?
Becasue unlike you I have read & understood what the designers/manufacturers has stated about it.
You’re permanently spamming this forum with some 2-3k lbs lighter AF-1 version (according to you, but not LM), which is quite a lot in structural terms in comparison to AA-1, so if you’re right, AF-1 and AA-1 are different planes, indeed.
No, I repeatedly have to correct peple who post the incorrect weight numbers. According to LM (I am simply posting ITS numbers) AA-1 came in VERY close to its projected weight (which was the pre weight reduction 29,036 lbs) & POST WEIGHT REDUCTION F-35A weight is 26,664 lbs. Despite the weight difference the designed structural load limits are much the same.
Not to mention, AF-1 even have certain self-protection systems removed (why would they do that if SWAT was so successful??), so I’m really interested how will AA-1’s results bear consequence on AF-1 damage model?
Being “similar”, doesn’t cut it.
What has been removed?
SWAT was so successful that the team has stated that it has identified FURTHER weight reduction which have not been implemented but were not deem necessary. :p
pfcemActually is Typhoon whereas F-16 is almost same as Rafale.;)
According to & using scale from image…
F-16: 23.1666 -> 34.333 = 11.1666
Rafale: 17.1666 -> 25.0 = 7.8333
Typhoon: 9.333 -> 19.666 = 10.333
11.1666 is GREATER than 10.333
pfcemShouldn’t you be looking at overall center of lift for both the wings and control surfaces?
No.
I was only commenting on the length of center of gravity & tail/canard center of lift.
Do you really think the F-16 can outmaneuver any of the Eurocanards? Are you that silly?
NO.
Are you so “silly” as to have to put words ito people’s mouths just to have something to argue about?
pfcemGovernment negotiators are asking for a price LOWER than the USAF/DOD request.
pfcemSome one said was exactly right, just like a donkey running around a mill…..
Notice how the distance between center of gravity & tail/canard center of lift is greatest on the F-16. 🙂
***
360deg/16s 1.35-1.51sec= 22.5 STR= better than falcon
Thanks for so clear demonstrating your ignorance. Here is a hint, a turn constists of both ITR & STR…
pfcemDon’t look pfcem!!
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/05/labour_drops_support_for_joint.php
Don’t bother to do anything beyond reading a headline. :p
***
To cut the number to 1/3 is the known part of that. To claim the possible reach as success without notifying the reader about the former goals shows the worth of a good public-relation deparment at least. :diablo:
An informed reader already knows of the 13 month extention to the flight test program.
Or in short higher at all. What real price does LM give and what is covered by that?! 😉
A projected price actually based on the ACTUAL status of the program & the costs thus far.
***
To stay serious LM simply missed to inform the public that the test shedule was revised and delayed to keep it more in line with the present situation. It is a lot of chuzpe to claim to keep the time-line without noting that details.
The public has been infromed for quite some time already about the 13 month extention to the flight test program.
We even got prices for fighter without engine. 😉
Because there is a significant cost difference bwtween the two alternative engines. 🙂
***
Same for LM’s claim the numbers are too high. strangely, those who pay and see what they get in return have no clue how much they pay? It’s like guys overhere selling cars. they tell you you’ll spare 5000€ buying their new model (talking about various bonuses for retaking your old but perfectly functional car)… they somewhat forget to tell you you’ll actuallyl have to pay some 20000€ to have it… LM sells (or better, tries to sell) the F-35. The way things go (buyers starting to understand that it will cost them truckload of cash beyond what they expected) the last thing they need is to aknowledge they’ll charge 2 or 3 times the initially claimed price
You mean those who pay and see what they get in return ignore what they have been paying & what they have been getting in return…
***
Apparently, AA-1 was/is scheduled to be “executed”.
Now, since this is a different plane than AF-1 which is supposed to be delivered (in structural terms primarily), how will AA-1’s test results have any merit regarding AF-1?
It isn’t THAT different. :rolleyes:
***
Nothing wrong about that when it about the price only, but even here a lot of blind faith is in need for the claims of LM, which has proven wrong many of its former promises about the F-35 program already.
Just for the benefit of all the taxpayers I will hope that you will not be disappointed in your believe. My intention is to keep a constant pressure on LM to get an affordable number of F-35 at all.
No blind faith just a little bit of research to see that the ACTUAL COSTS have been & are tracking MUCH closer to 2007/2008 projections then the latest BS by the Pentegon & that the issues which have been the main cause of delays & cost increases have been & continue to be addressed.
pfcemWhat are you talking about..?
There is no official program started by US DoD..
Yes there is, F/A-XX (now NGAD) is an official DON program which began in 2008.
What you see above is a consept which is done by Boeing.
Which means Boeing is so far paying for all they have developed so far, which a suppose is squat.
Drawing a few illustrated drawings on a computer isnt a program mrmalaya.
Assuming Boeing is chosen for one of the 2-3 development contracts it will be payed for the work is does.
pfcemSo its been building for a while, and i think its about time somebody tries to get the timelines, designs and requirements ironed out for these projects.
As i understand it the FA-XX is a USN requirement to replace the Super Hornet around 2025 (15 years from now) and is essentially “5th generation”.
The USAF say they will start funding the F22 replacement (FX?) around the same time but don’t expect their “6th generation” to be in service till 2040 (30 years from now).
Firstly is this right?
What else is there about these projects that we know about ?
And how will they compare to other designs around at the time?
The USN F/A-XX program began in 2008 as a 6th generation F/A-18E/F replacement with an intended IOC of 2025. In 2010 it was reorganized/renamed NGAD (Next Generation Aid Dominance) due to the addition of significant AtA capability. Boeing 1st revealed a concept for a possible F/A-XX in 2009 & in 2010 revealed a 2nd similar concept (2009 concept having intext on lower side while the 2010 concept has them on the upper side). Specs/requirements are likely to be similar to the A-12 (~40,000 lb OEW & 80,000 lb MTOW in particular) but a generation (6th vs 5th) more advanced.
The USAF F-X (F-22 replacement) program as far as I can tell has yet to officially begin (at best some in the USAF/DOD have begun to study/theorize what it might be) but is projected for an IOC of 2030.
***
politicians want the F-35 to be that aircraft… remains to be seen if the US Navy will be convinced…
’till now, they seem to be rather hesitating about it, to say the least.
If they want a replacement for the SH, and to have it in service in 15 yers from now, it either is the F-35 or they don’t get the JSF at all
How many time does this need to be explained?
The F-35C is a F/A-18C/D replacement & will operate along side the F/A-18E/F & then continue of the operate along side the F/A-18E/F replacement.
USN 2025 CAW (official)
1 squadron of twelve F/A-18E [12]
1 squadron of twelve F/A-18F [12]
2 squadrons of ten F-35C [20]
1 squadron of twelve UCAS [12] (note that only ONE of five combat squadrons are UCAV)
1 squadron of 5 E/A-18G [5]
12-15 other support aircraft & helicopters
‘likely/probable’ USN 2035 CAW (my estimate – USN has long wanted to get back to the 20-20-20 combat squadrons)
2 squadrons of ten NGAD [20]
2 squadrons of ten F-35C [20]
2 squadrons of ten UCAS [20]
~20 other support aircraft & helicopters
pfcemThe F/A-18E/F is a formidable weapons system and will be for some time to come. The F-35C will not add much to the fleet that the Rhino cannot perform today, not withstanding the obvious. It simply is not worth the money that Navair has in short supply. The C should be terminated now, and he Navy should prioritize the F/A-XX / NGAD program . If we lose a CAG or two permanently (to the budget ax,) – not an unlikely scenario – multirole naval aircraft will need a significant long range capability.
The F-35B is a niche aircraft. I expect it to survive relatively unscathed, but it will be expensive to operate and the Marines don’t have much money either.
The F-35A will be a decent airplane, but it will not be either super fast or particularly agile. But it doesn’t need to be – it is primarily a strike aircraft. It’s avionics and weapons systems will be more than adequate to take care of airborne threats. A-A missiles will be shot at supersonic speeds and medium ranges. The days of knife-fights are gone. The AF will buy a good number of these.
The ANG is question mark. Clearly we cannot afford to equip the Guard with F-35’s. But they have a huge need for new (or rebuilt) aircraft. Some have suggested that F/A-18E/F’s should be procured for the Guard – that might make sense – probably too much sense for the AF to swallow. So they will get rebuilds.
What planet are you on?
***
For the USN a mix of Superhornets and UCAV would be perfect. The SH for reasonable peacetime costs to be able to sustain both the carriers and the aircraft to fly from it and the UCAV’s to get the range necessary for the carriers to stay out of harms way in wartime.
Hardly. The Super Hornet is adequite today but is already seriously challenged by current threats much less those known to be under developement & strike capable UCAVs are still 15 years away.
The USMC could get a token number of F-35B to be able to have its own fast jets, but the large number would be UCAV which could give staying power over the battlefield.
Dream on. You are unlikey to see UCAV taking over anywhere near to the degree you are dreaming up in your lifetime.
There is no longer any need for a large number of short ranged tactical aircraft for the USAF as a WW3 scenario in the european theater is no longer valid. Instead the USAF will desperately need a modern long range bomber to get a global reach without having to negotiate for local airfields and passage through airspace in every future action.
Korea, Vietnam, ODS, OAF, OIF, OEF…
I don’t believe JSF will be canceled, but the numbers will be far lower than the rosey predictions.
History indicates that number will in fact be greater. Don’t be fooled into thinking that today’s economic problems &/or anti-military adminstration will last forever.
pfcemThis appears to be the most relavent thread for this…
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=UAAJAAAAEBAJ
Note this is the design of the F-35 exhaust nozzle.
pfcemQuoted for a test-example only, the ordinary performance envelope is lower. 😉
No, Mach 1.78 is the F-22’s OPERATIONAL supercruise speed. That is with a full load of weapons, although most likely with less than a full load of fuel as the F-22’s PRIMARY MISSION PROFILE is to subsonic cruise to enemy airspace.
***
I wonder if the RAF’s next gen. striker will get any ideas from the T-50’s “conservative” air intake design :rolleyes:
The T50 has an interesting (unique) intake, which the forum is waking up to since the release of this youtube video.
Just what is so “unconservative”/unique about them?
Every image we have seen here shows them to not be much different from that of the Flanker (other than bieng somewhat stealthier trapazoidal).
***
A Concept is nothing but a Concept.
It takes an Official Tender that has to be placed by MOD in the first place.
Are you serious about this?
It is an official USN program begun in 2008 with an intended IOC of 2025 as F/A-XX & reorganized/remained NGAD (due to the addition of significant AtA capability) in 2010.
***
If USAF claim that this T-50 bird is nothing to take seriously.
Not what the USAF has said.
And US MOD still wont start up any F-22A prod lines cause of the insane price per aircraft, and the fact they don’t really need more Units.
The US has a DOD, not a MOD.
F-22 production is being shut down for purely political reasons (the official USAF position is STILL that it need at least 381). Its price is/was not insane & was if fact still dropping, projected to reach <$120 flyaway (FY 2008 dollars).
Just look where the “Cheaper” F-35 is now.. hurtling down the overbudged spiral..
ACTUAL costs of the F-35 are tracking MUCH closer to 2007/2008 projections that the latest BS projections…
Sign In
