Jason SimondsJason its hopeless… the SH will always be called a dog or slow because it “only” does mach 1.8. It is in no way a dog and has comparable low speed (below mach 1) acceleration with most modern fighters. The SH is not the dog that all the blog writers make it out to be, they are just upset that Maverick has a different steed thats not quite as sexy as an F-14.
I know. Of course it’s other attributes are irrelevant too. All that matters in a fighter aircraft is that supersonic and high speed turning performance be maximised. No other attribute is in any way, relevant…
:rolleyes:
Jason SimondsYou guys are forgetting South Africa’s Gripens. Now where is that popcorn?
I was going to suggest something similar, but thought I’d stick with the Hornets… 🙂
Do the Supers count Steve, since they ARE in the Northern Hemisphere for another month or so?
Jason SimondsWithout EPE engines, the SH too as a capable plane does not exist in production form and belongs to the same class as others you pointed out.
Er, what? Super Hornet IS in full rate production right now. Or are those Australian Shornets being hand made perhaps?
1) It is not an option but an absolute necessity if SH is to have a respectworthy aerodynamic performance. Without EPE engine, SH is a hopeless case devoid of excess energy required for survivability. Wherever it has “proven” itself the real work was done by cruise missiles which brings to question why would you not spend more money on missiles instead? Not to forget that India does not enjoy same asymmetry vis-a-vis neighbours as the Advert-combats where SH “proved” itself.
Er, I’m not sure what you might be smoking, but does this HONESTLY look “hopeless, devoid of excess energy required for survivability”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnBpF-fWm1E&feature=related
2) Making a necessity an option is a corrupt way to overshoot allocated budget in steps. Mr Antony, if you are reading this, then treat it as an accusation in the waiting.
Neither the RAAF nor USN consider it a “necessity” at the current time, but rather an option. Brazil and India have shortlisted the aircraft with it’s current engines, so apparently, neither do they…
Self-assumed self praise by Boeing.
Big deal about doing high speed in cold air in a non-testing, non-battlefield airspace(Bangalore). Jaisalmer and Leh in summer are the real operational sites to prove at. Talk about agility of that lethargic plane.
Once again, India shortlisted it. Apparently it’s performance at least meets their requirements…. So far it hasn’t been eliminated.
I guess we’ll wait and see what happens as the competition un-folds…
Jason SimondsYour Hornets better than Su-30s? In what respect?
In terms of Southern Hemisphere and near – Southern Hemisphere (including Indonesia) just these few small advantages:
Numbers.
Quality of sensors, avionics and weapons.
Serviceability.
Networking.
OTOH, Su-30’s CAN perform some neat tricks at airshows. I suppose that’s all that matters though isn’t it???
:rolleyes:
Jason SimondsI guess you have your opinion and I have mine.
I suppose so. Here’s to history panning out and show what probably neither of us expect!
I shall now sit back and watch the show, (and grin) and we shall see what occurs in the next month or two. and reserve the right to say ” I told you so”
I’m not worried about a month or 2. Even if alleged disastrous news is revealed, I think the F-35 program is bulletproof…
BTW way what was the make or break cost/time that you have avoided quantifying for the JSF………………………………………………………………… just interested
Cheers
Don’t know what you’re referring to here, mate…
Cheers
JJS.
Jason SimondsSH being a naval plane is underpowered. And when you take such a plane to fly in the thin air of Leh high altitude airstrip that would have been the nail in coffin. I would expect SH to be one of the below-par.
The EPE engines are yet to be developed and would create a time-lag. So it does not fall in line with “everything ready to ship, so no delay” capability that SH keeps tom-toming about.
You didn’t bother to read those articles did you?
Btw, how much of a timelag would choosing a fighter that doesn’t yet exist in production form, create? (Gripen NG, MiG-35 and F-16IN all fall into this class).
Boeing/NG has proposed the EPE variant of the F414 engine to improve Super Hornet performance if so desired. It is an option that India can pursue if they wish. The F414-GE-400 however is powering the current Super Hornets, which according to the above articles, have impressed the Indians…
I guess we will see if and when any fighters are shortlisted.
Jason SimondsQuestioning the boss’s decision is a good idea in which company again?
There is a process within Defence, I suppose you could start submitting RODUM’s (report on unsatisfactory or defective materials) on the F-35 if you were cheeky enough, but where do you expect this to go with Government having made the decision, not ADF?
AS for the assessment that the F-35A will be a better combat aircraft than the other 4th Gen fighters it was compared against, absolutely, it still remains an absolutely valid assessment.
The F-35 has schedule and cost problems, it’s capability is NOT the problem, unless you like to listen to the Carlo Kopps of the world…
The fact does remain though, Jwcook, not one single partner nation has pulled out of the F-35 program. Perhaps there are some things known that are not made publicly available, eh???
Jason SimondsOne can only imagine how does the rest of the iceberg looks like, if the tip looks like this.
I agree with him completely. I especially like the part where he is referring to Dan Crowley, “Crowley doesn’t work for the Secretary of Defence. However he has just lost $600m from his bottom line”…
L-M will produce a good product IMHO, but this doesn’t excuse them from meeting requirements on time and on schedule and at present, irrespective of the reasons, they are not doing that.
They need to understand that they HAVE to do better and this along with the withholding of payments should work wonders.
It has done very well so far with Boeing and Australia’s Wedgetails… That project came back on the rails VERY quickly when Boeing, after the nearly 12 months where they weren’t getting paid, got it’s performance to catch up with it’s promises…
Jason SimondsThey never passed what? that is the question.. have you missed the point.
Look at the timelines, IIRC ~ 8 months between RFI and decision – the decision was by government and took everyone by surprise including some involved in the “assesment”, eight months to evaluate all the RFI and an aircraft that only existed on paper?, do you think it would be prudent to proceed slower in that sort situation? what exactly was the rush?
I have no problem if you call it an arbituary decision, but don’t call it an assessment/competition/evaluation.
cheers
Except, as I tried to point out earlier, AIR-6000 was formed in early 1999 to formalise our fighter replacement project. Studies into same were being conducted in the early to mid-90’s, so in 2002, RAAF/ADF had nearly 10 years of assessment and analysis to back up it’s decision. The Defence Capability Development Group (or whatever it was called back then) actually do develop capability proposals for ADF and Government consideration before a project team is ever formed to manage the acquisition. Surprisingly… 🙁
As to your claim, it is again, not correct. The RESPONSES to Defence’s formal RFI were received in December 2001, the RFI was released earlier. ADF spent 10 months assessing these responses along with F-35 and F-22 data, as well as the information they already had which included unsolicited proposals from ALL the major manufacturers AND responses like those provided by Australian Flight Test Services…
In September 2002, Government decided to go with JSF as it’s most likely solution and in October 2002 formally committed to the SDD program as a Level 3 partner.
Now this may make it seem like a fait accompli, but first pass approval (where defence is actually AUTHORISED to commence assessing capability options to put to Government) didn’t occur until 2006. Between 2002 and 2006, Defence was continuing to assess it’s options, including a Super Hornet based capability for a bridging solution if need be.
Second Pass approval was granted in November 2009. It has hardly been a “rushed” or “arbitrary” acquisition. Do you think Defence has been doing nothing but patting itself on the back ever since 2002, or have they actually been testing their decision, through simulation, war-gaming etc?
I do find it funny that you are criticising Defence about being so apparently arbitrary in it’s “competition”. Actual vendors are CONSTANTLY criticising Defence for being FAR too thorough and including too many requirements…
What I’m saying is all available here:
Jason SimondsI can only go on what I see and also what I hear from informed sources within the Eurofighter Program, Now I understand Eurofighter GmbH may feel slighted by the ‘assesment’, BUT –
So those who responded to the request for proposal but never made it past that are the most credible sources, are they?
That has to be the fastest project team setup and ‘evaluation’ in history, I bet they were still unpacking boxes and choosing chairs. It was a government decision and The NACC IPT were not going to challenge that.
AIR-6000 was the name of the project office before it became NACC, so “re-image” history however you want, but don’t forget the facts…
Jason SimondsI was under the impression Australia is committed to 14 airframes, with the remainder (~72) being purchased in 2012, be under no doubt that the decision is being made unchangable, so that no serious alternative can be considered.
That announcement was second pass approval, which is different to contract signature.
Hmmm lots of analsis just on this aircraft!!, I know the Eurofighter GmbH havn’t given any further information since 2002, and frankly wouldn’t bother with Australia anymore unless they were approached with concrete request to buy.
Do you work in the NACC project office? No? Then you actually have no clue WHAT they do.
And you do realise that the delivery date to partners is a paper promise too!, The first aircraft to be delivered to partners will be delivered in the USA, and will not be allowed to leave the US until they finish the JSF’s OT&E, so imagine a couple of years of JSF protecting their respective embassy’s in the US, because were not allowed to take them home..:o
So? Where were Saudi Arabia’s Typhoons delivered? Where were Singapore’s F-15SG’s delivered? Where were South Africa’s Gripens first delivered? Where are Australia’s Super Hornets at present?
Funnily enough, it is a very common theme for an Air Force who purchases a new fighter to make use of the investment by the Country manufacturing the aircraft, to train it’s initial cadre of pilots, maintainers, ACO’s etc and gradually build up their capability.
Apparently it’s only a problem with the F-35 though…
and you do realise it take about ~4 years to bring a squadron into service. so 2018 means delivery in 2014, I think the Oz newspapers may make something of that.
Longer if you don’t have your training and support streams and infrastructure in place when you take delivery of your fighters…
Don’t forget THAT little gotcha…
Jason SimondsDo you??
Have you flown any of those two planes, per chance?
Have you been present or affiliated with that flight in any way?
I mean you sound really strange since you said this >>
Have you? I’m reporting what L-M says about it’s own product. What insight do you have that they are wrong?
No.
You’re a fanboy, not me
Aha. You’re an Air combat professional no doubt. Hence why you are able to comment with such authority on what the F-35 can and can’t do…
Again, it doesn’t matter what have been tested.
What matters though is that JSF didn’t out run F16 in burner, as it should according to “experts”, which is odd for a plane that can “stay in dry while F16 must burn”, although this doesn’t seem to particularly concern you, does it? 😀
Not overly no. There are documented occasions of this very thing happening, but hey, you “know” who the reporters of these instances work for, so obviously, they never happened. Right?
You’ve seen a six second youtube clip of an afterburner being lit and suddenly you have great insight into an aircraft’s performance, relative to another type…
You ARE professional, relying on youtube to help your argument…
As for the quoted text.
First, I’ve never heard of a pilot disengaging AB after liftoff…Makes one wonder, who wrote the text.
Second, 325 KCAS is below F16 optimal climb speed even more, so it isn’t really surprising it had to AB, especially if encumbered.
You’ve never heard of a pilot disengaging Ab after liftoff? Hmm. I guess given your obvious knowledge and experience, that every aircraft flies around in AB permanently…
It’s below F-35 optimal climb speed too, as you would know if you had bothered to read what was said, but given the author and the interviewee works for L-M obviously he cannot be trusted anyway, right? Surprising you put so much faith in your youtube video though. Afterall, the footage was shot and edited by someone who works for L-M…
To conclude there’s absolutely nothing in this text that would even hint JSF’s superior performance, as you seem to think and that is a common illness of all fanbrigade members.
Apart from the pilot’s word, you mean?
Again, you don’t have the faintest clue, of what’s F135’s thrust, apart from so called “hints” (LOL) from PW.
All numbers that went public so far are rather theoretical and no engine has 40,000 thrust.
No engine is capable of putting out 40,000lbs of thrust?
It’s a thrust class and it’s also unclear whether this is installed or uninstalled thrust.
43k lbs on the bench can easy go down to 40k lbs, when the engine gets installed, particularly in such an airframe like JSF’s.
Installed thrust is ALWAYS lower then maximum thrust demonstrated on a bench. Thank you for stating the obvious.
It is interesting though, that P&W DID release that figure.
Besides the USAF Association 48,000lbs of thrust figure and some anecdotal “56,000lbs of thrust” figure for the F136, it is the highest thrust rating that has been released for an engine powering the F-35 aircraft. I have absolutely no doubt however that you are hoping it IS un-installed thrust…
Jason SimondsIs there any prove for it? Or was it just a photo of a test flight presented to the news release? This statement also led to the “F-35 accelerates as fast on dry thrust as the F-16 with reheat” claims widely spread by the fanboys. While the truth is brief AB inputs.
To the best of my knowledge, there are only 3x F-16 aircraft that have been used as F-35 chase aircraft (a couple of F/A-18B aircraft have also been used).
One is an F-16BM (Block 15 equivalent when delivered) from the Royal Danish Air Force:
The other are L-M’s own F-16B and F-16D test planes:
and
The D model has the big motor, etc…
And while I don’t believe the F-35 to be a world-beater performance wise, anecdotal evidence of excellent climb rates for the aircraft exist from test pilots and those who watch from outside NAS Fort Worth…
It is not the slug, many of you want it to be…
Jason SimondsAny table of KPPs I’ve seen didn’t contain anything about thrust ratings.
I agree.
However, the KPP’s for F-35 are base-lined on the “40,000lbs” thrust class engine.
In fact, P&W let slip some time ago, that it’s F135 engine produces significantly greater thrust than the 40,000lbs wet thrust stated in the program documents.
Jason SimondsJSF doesn’t have airbrake, but brakes with flaps, elevators and rudder and I’m pretty sure those are configured for turn, not braking.
Read what I said. I said “air brake function”. I didn’t say it DID have an airbrake…
Anyway, you can try to downplay this as much as you like, but that won’t change the figures released by LM on JSF performance, which are considerably lower than F16’s.
What figures are those? The only figure I can think of, off hand is top speed and this means absolutely nothing.
No it doesn’t prove your point. Just because you say so, that doesn’t mean it’s true.
First, there’s no such thing as usual loads and those get tailored for missions.
Yes F35 can carry more, but is a different weight class of plane in comparison to F16, which again makes your comparison pointless.
F15 carries more fuel and weapons than F16, too…So what?
The F-15 isn’t replacing the F-16, nor is it acting as the principal chase plane. F-16 is…
You don’t know what plane is that (you think it’s AA-1) and how much it weights in this video.
I know exactly what this aircraft is. It is AA-1.
The number on the side of the tail fins gives it away… Plus the white painted flaps are a small hint too…
On the other hand, I’m not even trying to do that, but purely compare two planes in the video without preconceptions.
You? No preconceptions about F-35? HA!
You don’t know WHAT they were testing in that video, all you’ve seen is a series of short clips spliced together. You don’t know what throttle settings the respective aircraft were set at, you don’t know the respective weights (fuel, internal ordnance etc) of the aircraft, ALL you do know is that they were banking left and both activated their reheat approximately one second a part and both switched off their reheat a couple of seconds later.
It is only your opinion that F-35 is out-performed by the F-16A… L-M test pilots say otherwise and I quote:
I had the opportunity yesterday to fly the F-35 for the first time with the INTERDICTION COMBAT load of 2-GBU 31 (2000# bombs) and 2 AIM -120 missiles. In current fighters there is an expectation of performance degradation when carrying 5000# of ordinance but the internal carriage made any degradation hard to discern.
The acceleration in MAX AB takeoff was very quick and interestingly there is an increase in the acceleration rate above 120 KCAS. The takeoff roll was very near to the 3500’ prediction. Once airborne I came out of AB relatively soon after lift off and continued to climb and accelerate in MIL power in a 10 deg to 15 deg climb attitude. There was plenty of performance. The climb out with full internal weapons carriage was particularly impressive to me.
The climb rate seemed to be only slightly hindered by the stores carriage with climb angles near 15 deg in MIL power while in a 30 deg bank turn back over the field. Very pleasant to see clean fighter climb rates and angles while carrying a combat load. The chase aircraft still required brief inputs into AB to keep up with me. This is especially impressive because the 325 KCAS climb speed is well below the optimum climb speed profile for the aircraft.
We only did a brief handling qualities test point on this mission but the handling qualities with this combat loading were indistinguishable from the aircraft with no stores.
Landing occurred with 4500# of fuel and was easily stopped inside of an 8000 ft. runway length with brake temperatures cool enough to taxi straight back to the hangar.
On this occasion, the F-16 chase plane did NOT have external stores and was a Block 30 with the “big mouth” air inlet and “big” motor…
None of the aircraft including AF-1, is not a production standard and given the fact that F22 f.e, got itself 5t on top of the original figure, we’ll see what becomes of JSF in terms of performance.
We will. Engine thrust is already 3000lbs greater than KPP’s called for. Do you honestly think there is NO room for growth in performance as well as weight, beyond this?
Sign In
