ErkokiteUsing Gmbh redefinition of “supercruise” being ‘just’ >Mach 1.0 instead of the USAF/DOD/LM definition of >Mach 1.5, the F-35 very likely DOES ‘have supercruise’.
LM has said f-35 doesnt super cruise and i accept that for now, but time will tell
Supercruise = supersonic cruise. Cruise at M>=1.0 is supercruise. EF GMBH did not redefine this. This is the widely accepted definition, and always has been AFAIK.
ErkokiteHere’s a bit of something so that you people can argue about until Xmas. 😀
Disclaimer: IMHO the defense magazine in question has shown in time positive signs of being “enthusiastic” of german weapons. Personally i am pretty sure that at least they did hear most of it, maybe there is a bit of journalistic sauce thrown in it, but some parts mentioned are too specific to by imagination.
It is is a free translation within my limits and i only left out some few irrelevant parts.
Merry Xmas!
Hypersonic->Supersonic 😀
Anyways, I tend to take marketing things like this with a grain of salt. I like the Typhoon, and I dislike the F-35, but marketing is marketing. Also, I don’t know about this, but did LM originally count supercruise and thrust vectoring as necessary requirements for a 5th gen aircraft? It would be interesting if someone could dig up info on this.
ErkokiteRussia can build a 5th generation aircraft, but it’s probably not going to be on par with the F-22.
The US has been developing their stealth aircraft technology for the better part of 30 years now. Russia just got into the game, so to make a technological leap of 20 years (with one aircraft, limited time, and a limited budget) is a stretch.
I say 20 years, because we must all remember that the stealth technology in the F-22 was developed back in the late 1980’s. It’s old. Russia could never catch up to where the US is *right now* with stealth technology (advanced UCAV’s like the X-47B and such).
I disagree, but only to a certain extent. You are correct that the US has access to 30 years of research, and has far more experience, and thus would have a much easier time developing a VLO fighter aircraft. However, a large part of stealth design is computerized RCS prediction and optimization. Computers now are vastly more powerful than those available in the 1980’s, and a much greater level of detail optimization and prediction can be done. I think the PAK-FA will be quite stealthy, but you are probably right that it won’t be as stealthy as the F-22. Also I’m sure Russia has done stealth work of some sort in the last 30 years.
They could probably make up, to some extent, for inferior stealthiness with more powerful engines, IRST, and good datalinking.
ErkokiteWell how’s the ESM system on ________ compared to the ALR-94? How’s the radar on _______compared to the APG-77(v)1? How’s the agility/supercruise on _________ compared to the F-22? Throw in the fact that the AN/AAR-56 provides multi spectral defensive IR/UV 360 deg coverage, for additional situational awareness. At this point, it was felt that it was a higher priority to give legacy aircraft the helmet sights, as the F-22 was sufficiently superior in both kinematics, agility, and situational awareness.
Well, at the risk of going way off topic:
Both Typhoon and Rafale have very sophisticated DAS/ESM systems (Praetorian and Spectra). These seem to be comparable to some degree to the ALR-94 (i.e. they accomplish the same purpose, and do it pretty well). The AN/AAR-56 is a UV/IR missile launch detector. Spectra also has an optical missile launch warning system. Typhoon DAS also has MAWS in addition to its IRST, and will likely get PIMAWS passive optical MAWS in the future (nobody has chosen to integrate it yet, though it exists and is complete). On all 3 aircraft (F-22, tiffy, rafale), there is substantial sensor fusion.
Anyways, back on topic, I have heard good things about the Bison+ECM combo. However, the Bison still of course has a radar and afterburners. Another thing you might find interesting is the PZL-230 Skorpion (which was a cancelled Polish ground attack aircraft). Stealthy, don’t think it was going to include afterburners, and was optimized for low level flight.
ErkokiteWrong. 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…
How’s the IRST on the F-22? You mean to tell me it doesn’t have one? Well surely it has an HMD… Wait it doesn’t have that either? 😀
In any case, the sort of fighter that the OP was referring to sounds nothing like the F-35 and seems more like an expendable UCAV to me. Think cheaper than the F-35, and less capable.
ErkokiteI see no reason to exclude radar, especially if an ECM suite is needed (often the two will work in concert). A good radar will add an extra few million to a cost presumably already in excess of 20 million. A cheap pulse doppler radar can probably be fitted for 1 million or less (probably actually significantly less).
Lack of afterburner and tossing the bomb bay cover instead of reusability only make sense if the aircraft is a UCAV. Stealth does not make an a/c invisible. Good kinematics is still very much necessary for launching missiles and bugging out, and if you want pilot survival, then bugging out needs to be on the table.
If you launch a missile out of your internal bay, and jettison your bay cover, and there are multiple bogies or your missile misses, your only real option at that point is to, as Pink Floyd said, Run Like Hell. Lack of afterburner and a draggy, non stealthy hole in your underbelly are things not conducive to the Run Like Hell technique.
I think the idea would work for a UCAV, but not a manned fighter aircraft, unless you either used a permanent weapons cover, or only used recessed/conformal weapons, and included an afterburner.
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.
ErkokiteI really have to laugh at the thought of the US defense budget being too small. If more money on defense than the rest of the world combined is not enough, then you’re doing something wrong. 10 CVN’s seriously? There are only a handful of countries that will even have 2 CVN’s in the near future, let alone 10! With expendable UAVs taking over COIN, SEAD, and other roles, we will need fewer fighters anyway.
Erkokitenever seen such draggy performances on a modern aircraft , ages ago!
it has agility of a hammer, big draggy barely controlled curves.. it needs afterburm at 3.6mns to assure a shorter turn before landing with this ridiculous parachute!
what a killer..
That is a strange way of looking at things. Typhoon is actually very low drag AFAIK. As for the parachute, perhaps they were operating from a shorter runway. Really the EF was primarily optimized for supersonic maneuverability, less so low speed maneuverability, and with a quite high thrust/weight and low wing loading, as well as with a highly unstable delta-canard design, it should be very agile, and by all unbiased accounts it is.
You can’t judge an aircraft purely by what you see on a youtube clip of an airshow- for all we know, maybe the pilot was new to doing airshows in the typhoon. It sounds to me like you just don’t like the aircraft.
ErkokiteThe LCF is equivalent to the US Aegis class AFAIK, and possesses very powerful radar systems. SMART-L operates in L band (F-22 is primarily optimized for X-band stealth AFAIK, as it is an AtoA aircraft). SMART-L was likely used to detect the F-22 at long range, and cue to X-band APAR radar which would be used for fire control. This is mainly just conjecture based on what I know about radar usage in combat and what Wikipedia says. Stealth is not a silver bullet- it is very useful, and the American use of stealth aircraft is revolutionary, but there are ways to defeat it using good sensor fusion and data linking as well as long wavelength radars and multistatic radar systems.
Erkokitethis whole thread is grasping at straws… do you really think any of them thought that LM was just gonna hand over the code on their own damn system? All this is is grasping at something and hoping that failure of the F-35 will commence.
Hardly. There was a big debacle over source code transfer a year or so ago. It was assumed that the UK gained access to the codes, as they were a top-level partner on the program, and required unbroken British sovereignty over maintenance and upgrade matters. Now, it comes out they will get no such thing, which is big news. This was a big sticking point and it was thought to be worked out. Unfortunately for the British, they don’t get the source codes.
Countries should remember this when asking for ToT from the USA, as well as the time the US supplied essentially non-functional radar for the RAAF, and refused to fix it (that too was a software ToT issue). Will the Brits still buy the F-35? Of course. But I imagine it casts the US in a negative light in ToT issues, which could affect future exports (such as the MMRCA and FX-2 contracts).
ErkokiteHere you go. It’s just as I was saying.
Originally posted by Tango III on Aviation news thread
Chinese Air Force official: China’s fourth-generation fighters refer to modified J-10 fighters
China’s fourth-generation fighters reported by media recently refer to a series of modified J-10 fighters, a Chinese Air Force official said November 23, 2009.
As to the classification of fighter generations, the world’s military powers are varied. The U.S. defines F-15, F-16 fighters with the characteristics of transonic speed in medium-low altitude as third generation fighters and F-22, F-35 fighters with good performance in stealth, super sonic cruise and super maneuverability as fourth generation fighters.
Russia defines MiG-29, Su-27/30 fighters as third generation fighters and defines Su-35, the modified third generation fighters as fourth generation. The new generation of fighters with good performance in stealth, super sonic cruise and super maneuverability are defined as fifth generation.
The official said that China’s fighters were independently created on the basis of introduction and imitation of Russian-made equipment and the fourth-generation fighters referred to the modified J-10 fighters.
Link doesn’t work. Try this one:
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90786/6822507.html
ErkokiteReplica + Typhoon Avoinics + Transferring funds and People from one or more UCAV programs = Win!
If only it were that simple. There’s no doubt in my mind that such an aircraft, especially if equipped with the thrust vectored ej230 engines would absolutely beat up the F-35 and take its lunch money. But, reality is different. Replica was primarily meant as a stealth tech demonstrator to use as leverage against the Americans in the JSF program. I don’t what provisions if any the Replica had beyond that in the way of weapons bays, radar, etc…
To build such an aircraft would require a defense budget and political will/unity that Europe does not have at the moment. And it wouldn’t be as simple as just slapping engines and avionics into the replica airframe either. In short, I’m sure there is enough European expertise to build an aircraft competitive even with the raptor, but building fancy fighter aircraft is less of a priority in EU political circles than it is on keypub, especially when it will cost serious money.
I can’t really fault countries for taking the F-35. Volume production and common hardware, along with good avionics and stealth will give it plenty of bang for the buck, even if it isn’t the most spectacular kinematic performer.
ErkokiteSome news from Reuters on the Israeli F-35 offer:
U.S. pitches unique F-35 fighter jet to Israel
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States has offered to add Israeli systems and munitions to a new U.S.-built fighter jet and deliver it to Israel by 2015, provided a deal is sealed in coming months.
Lockheed Martin Corp, maker of the radar-evading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, would tie in Israeli-built command, control, communications, computer and intelligence systems for a unique version of the jet for sale to Israel, Jon Schreiber, a senior Pentagon program official, told Reuters Monday.
The United States also would integrate bombs that use an Israeli precision guidance kit called Spice along with Python 5 air-to-air missiles made by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., Schreiber said in an interview.
In addition, he said, Israel would get a relatively inexpensive path for hardware and software upgrades to add future weapons.
On the other hand, the United States does not plan for now to put an Israeli electronic warfare system aboard the F-35, which is in early stages of production.
“Some time in the future, if policy changes, or things change, that could change as well,” said Schreiber, who heads the F-35 program’s international program for the Pentagon.
Dropping plans for incorporating electronic warfare systems would be a significant switch for Israel, which bought modified U.S.-built F-15s and F-16s to incorporate such know-how.
The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin are eager to wrap up an F-35 deal with Israel, which is tentatively planning to buy an initial 25 F-35s in fiscal 2012 with an option for 50 more.
The single-engine aircraft, designed to avoid detection by radar, could play a role in any Israeli effort to knock out what it regards as the threat to its existence posed by Iran’s nuclear program.
Schreiber said he met Israeli procurement officials in New York last week to discuss a “roadmap” for the proposed government-to-government F-35 sale.
The United States planned to submit its offer and prices formally in January, he said. Israel must approve this no later than March and reach a deal with Lockheed on integrating the Israeli weapons and other systems by June or July, he added, to buy in fiscal 2012 for delivery in 2015.
The Israeli defense ministry did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. Lockheed had no comment.
Schreiber declined to discuss prices other than to say that Israel would buy the basic aircraft at the same price as the United States and its co-development partners, plus a standard government-to-government sales commission and whatever the integration of its systems might cost. Israel uses U.S. security assistance to buy much of its arsenal.
The United States co-developed the F-35 with eight foreign partners — Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway. Together, the core group is projected to buy about 730 aircraft.
Schreiber said the United States had not yet begun to market the F-35 to any other potential buyers in the Middle East. The United States is committed to maintaining Israel’s “qualitative” military edge over any regional rival.
(Reporting by Jim Wolf; editing by Todd Eastham)
Source:http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5AN0ER20091124
Looks like they made some serious concessions not in line with what they offer to the rest of their partners (AFAIK) to Israel.
ErkokiteWith the US refusing to sell Taiwan more F-16’s, maybe Germany could offload them there.
ErkokiteIf the WS-10 is a copy of the Al-31, how do you explain the different exhaust hues of the 2 types of engine? (This was actually seen during the testing of the engines on the J-11 testbed.) Don’t kid yourself with the junks coming out of dubious internet sources.
I always thought the WS10 also derived significant features from the CFM56/F110 core (or at least one of the early core demonstrators was based on it). I know that the Al-31 was also a significant contributor. But copy of the Al-31, I think not.
Sign In
