FBWAboulafia is speaking from is “a***”
The prices he quotes….. The Super Hornet price of 77m is accurate. The F-35 is roughly 100 million in recent lots. The rest: good luck buying a FY 2017 F-15E for 90 million, a non-existent Gripen NG for 55 million ( even Saab’s preliminary cost estimates put the Gripen E/F at roughly 80 million). The F-16 50 million? ( I’ll have to do some digging) that seems low to me.
FBWI don’t see how people arrive at that 18T figure. The Su-30 is 18.4T empty, yet dimensional differences are stark before we even get into composites’ weight saving over an all metal airframe (irrespective of ballast/avionics, increased wing area etc.):
[/url]
18-20T sounds like a reasonable estimate for the T-50. It’s length/wingspan dimensions may be physically smaller than the Su-27, but what about volume? Taking the F-22/F-15 comparison into account: They are have nearly the same dimensions (62 to 63.9 feet long 44.5 to 42 foot wingspan, etc) The F-22 weighs 7T more despite extensive use of titanium and composites ( 39% and 24% respectively total weight for the F-22). The F-22 has a larger wing area and internal volume obviously.
Considering the dimensions of the F-22 and the T-50, and taking into account the greater use of composites in the newer T-50, a 2-4T reduction in empty weight between the two designs would be impressive.
FBW…and yet everyone else got it.
Actually, now I think Msphere was sarcastically referring to my inability to detect his sarcasm to my sarcastic post. All terribly confusing.- insert emotion ( I won’t use them)
FBWI personally have great confidence in capabilities to assess foreign threats of someone calling the latest Russian aicraft “SU-37 Burkut”.
That was the point dullard, there is no Su-37 in service, it’s called sarcasm. If my tongue in cheek commentary needs to be proper on your account correct it to S-37 (Su-47).
FBWI have been reading them as they are released and frankly most of anti-JSF submissions are rubbish. There is a very clear common thread of misunderstanding within most of the negative answers which can be directly attributed to Air Power Australia. The number of submissions that state the F-22 is the best option for Australia clearly show how misguided they are…
As for your examples,
#7 has little substance. DSTO is not a major contributor to the acquisition of Defence capability within Australia, they form only a small segment and in all cases weapon/system capability is only one component of the acquisition process.
#35 does not indicate that the F-35 was not tested against top line threats. All he is complaining about is that on that one particular day it was not tested against the top line threats. Given he stated there were other nations participating it is entirely plausible the testers were not interested in showing the full known/estimated capabilities for adversary airframes/missiles. Do you honestly think the US would not have run simulations against top line threats?
Fresh off their embarrassing 2012 Parliamentary hearing, the honorable messieurs Goon, Palmer, Bailey, and Mills make a renewed push to acquire a fighter that is not longer (and never will be again) in production, over the F-35A. This is despite the Air force, those in the air force, and those in the Australian Department of Defense reviewing the classified data and declaring the F-35 the best choice for Australia. This time, the Repsim team compiled hours of simulations from “Lock-on flaming cliffs”™ that showed the F-35 in a significant disadvantage to the Su-37 Burkut in a guns only dogfight. The Parliamentary hearing committee was obviously on the payroll of lockheed Martin as they snickered at the grave simulations and home computer generated RCS plots, declaring “stealth is dead!, we need the more stealthier F-22”.- Full article coming soon in WAR IS BORING
Edit- Sorry, decided to have some fun with this latest fumbling by the (fill in the blank) FOR AUSTRALIA crowd. Happy hour after a long week out of town. P.S. I do wonder how the Gripen for Canada crew is feeling now that the F-35 will be included in the new competition despite the Trudeau election pledge.
FBWThe rough figures point to a longer than stated 750nm range for the Typhoon, the two data points are affected by the fuel used in climb out so its not linear, it favours a longer than 750nm range, (in fact it states there is 10mins of combat at 750nm in AtoA role) however the figures for strike and air combat are published same? usually a strike range includes a % for a dogleg approach so the figures are nothing if not a little suspect.
First off, I’m going to be a bit more direct as you seem to be purposely missing the point. Your source on the Typhoon range is B.S. period. The numbers come from Typhoon.starstreak.net, and I will point out several obvious things:
1. Read the fine print-
The following tables detail some basic performance data. It should however be remembered that all of these figures are drawn from anticipated/expected performances as required by contractual obligations. At this time much of this data has been verified or indeed surpassed. The range data in particular though should be considered approximate rather than final.
2. Notice how there is no mention of specific altitudes, configuration (outside of air to air or air to ground, no ordinance, nor mention of how many EFT fitted, notice how there is no mention of mission speeds. This are manufacturers claims, not a demonstrated mission profile. In other words, they are most likely exaggerated (or at least unrealistic) as most manufacturers claims are.
3. There is not air to air combat time listed, your lying. It specifically claims 750 nmi (no mention of altitudes, speed, # of EFT, with a 10 min loiter time on station (not exactly combat time huh).
https://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php
re the JSF ferry ranges – If you look at ferry ranges for Typhoon (2000nm with 2 x 1000 litre tanks) then the Typhoon can be very frugal with fuel.
Ferry range? Are you really trying to compare ferry range for the Typhoon with 3xEFT with the internal fuel range of the F-35? BTW, the ferry range of the F-35A has not been publicly stated except that it is >1200 nmi (I’ve seen 1,379 to whatever). The truth is, the stated ferry range is just the one mission profile combat radius doubled. It is not the accurate ferry range. Again, there is not enough information available to support definitive claims.
The JSF program has range trouble even if you were to include end of life engines 5% margins (BTW that would only be a 30nm reduction) If you reduce a KPP like bring back load, then this could effect range calculations if you were so inclined to do so, I suggest the JSF program have used every trick in the book and a few not yet discovered to make it look like an out and out successful program, the fact it doesn’t look like that is a testament to its real life performance.
Ok, here you really fell off the rails, every trick in the book? By handicapping the range with end of life engine in projections? The difference you seem not to get, and I will state it in clear terms: This is an actual demonstrated combat radius based on a mission profile, not a glossy brochure estimate. It gives actual altitudes and speeds, unlike aircraft x will fly 1,000 miles with 4 AAM and a centerline tank. The simple truth is that the F-35A has very good combat radius (18,400lbs of fuel good? no), the simple fact is that the single F135 puts out more power than two EJ2000’s, there is also the need for internal volume for all that fuel. BUT, spelled out in most simplistic terms, short of turning the Typhoon into a flying gas can with 3 EFT, the F-35 will outrange it, period. It has exceptional range for a singe engined fighter on internal fuel, at a cost….
To show you how comparisons based on marketing are, ahem, slanted. Let us compare the calculations done for the F-35 on a CAP mission from a 2008 briefing:
Discussing maximum mission radius, Mazanowski presented an air-to-air mission profile in which all the aircraft: took off with a weapon load, remained at high altitude and returned after about a minute of combat. All but the F-35 and Su-30MKI were carrying three external fuel tanks. Under this scenario, the Rafale had a maximum mission radius of 896 n miles, the F/A-18 816 n miles, the F-35 751 n miles, the Eurofighter 747 n miles, the Su-30MKI 728 n miles and the Gripen 502 n miles.
According to Mazanowski, the JSF joint programme office required the modelling to assume an F- 35 engine at the end of its life with 5 per cent fuel degradation and a 2 per cent reduction in thrust.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/261728653/lockheed-martin-defends-jsf-s-close-in-capabilities
Do I think these numbers are completely accurate? no. They are about as accurate as the numbers you are using from the Typhoon star streak site. Please, short of a flight manual for the Typhoon, I doubt that it would be possible to accurately compare the aircraft on a typical air to air or air to ground mission. The one thing that is certain, the F-35A does not have a range problem, unless you want to see which fighter can fly at optimal altitude and speed with the most EFT possible, then the F-35 loses because there are not EFT cleared for carriage as of yet. And lastly, this should not be viewed as a p*ssing contest F-35 vs Typhoon range. This B.S. manufacturer range claims vs demonstrated mission range.
FBWWhy should I? It’s not the same aircraft.. I rather wait until RCS diagram o the Su-35S is posted.
While I personally find RCS arguments as useful as debating “which country is bestest”. I would point out that the RCS plots do not take into account materials or RAM (edit- at least the RCS polar plots commonly posted, based on modeling radar scatter, assume scaled metal aircraft shape and are not sophisticated enough to take RAM/RAS into account). The actual RCS polar plots would require RCS anechoic chamber and pole testing of actual airframe. Therefore the Su-27 plot should not look all that different from the Su-35, dig?
Obviously, the Su-35 has a treated canopy, RAM, more composites, and a reduction of gaps and fasteners. To what extent this actually reduces the RCS? Probably enough to be tactically relevant.
FBWStated in Typhoon briefing:-
250nm in 30 mins with 6xAmraam, 2xSraam, 3 1000 tanks, with 120mins on cap.
500nm in 60 mins with 6xAmraam, 2xSraam, 3 1000 tanks, with 60mins on cap.
Yes, that was my point, these are really CAP mission profiles flown at optimum cruise and altitudes. Even a DCA mission would include non-optimal speeds and altitudes.
Therefore:-
750nm in 90 mins 6xAmraam, 2xSraam, 3 1000 tanks, with 0 mins on cap.
This is like quoting a ferry range, not a combat mission profile.
This gives you a rough Typhoon range with external loads comparable to the two JSF profiles which are between 390nm or 728nm.
The F-35A KPP 590 nmi ( 2x 2000 lb bombs, 2 amraam) as I noted, for end of life engines (I believe the assumption is 5% loss of efficiency). The actual range of the F-35A in testing was 584 nmi (with 5% test reserve and the end of life engines) based on the original profile which included lower FL than current mission profile.
With the relaxation of some of the altitude specifications in the mission profile: new profile High-med-(combat at FL200)- high speed/ high FL egress. , the F-35A demonstrated 613nmi on this modified mission profile.
Note it has been written the Lo lo lo range of Typhoon is 325 nm with appropriate weapons, none of the profiles for the JSF are lo lo lo, so you can get a ballpark figure for the Typhoon profiles in relation to the stated JSF mission profiles.
No, but based on the above, it is likely greater than 325 nmi. The question of combat radius is complex. Manufacturers stated combat radius is usually based on optimal flight profiles. With the F-35 KPP, what is quoted as “range” is an actual mission profile and includes combat time (maneuvering, afterburner- increased fuel burn).
Overall, I’d rather not engage in a p*ssing contest over the ranges of Typhoon and F-35 (not that you were), there really isn’t that much usable information about either to definitively compare combat ranges in a variety of profiles. I’m attempting to give a more accurate picture of what the F-35A mission profile entails. And to think, all this started over how many times the EF2000 and the F-35A refueled on a ferry flight over the pond!
FBWI thought the JSF range was ~728nm from that briefing
http://s9.postimg.org/cq3o12cbj/New_Bitmap_Image_4.jpg
But page 11 here is the shorter distance 590nm combat distance.
you are looking at two different mission profiles, the first is a surveillance mission, the second is a strike profile ( 590 nmi is the KPP for a strike mission with end of life engines), the strike profile is as shown below (for a JSM strike, bit different), and includes combat time:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244206[/ATTACH]
or a CAP mission:
The F-35 has the capability required to protect Canada with a mission radius greater than 700 nautical miles in low observable combat configurations and internal fuel capacity of more than 18,500 pound
https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada
http://forskning.tekna.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Norway-and-F-35-7-nov-2013.pdf
Eurofighter can be calculated here on page 53:-
Eurofighter_Capability.pdfBriefing are both from the Norwegian competition so are from the same time frame, note that since then some JSF KPP’s have been reduced.
The KPP was not reduced, initially there was some outcry because the F-35A could not meet the 590 nmi strike profile according to briefings, later commentary showed that the shortfall was due to 5% testing margins and the end of life engine requirement. The mission radius of an F-35 on a strike mission in “out of the box” configuration is not open source. There have been some rumblings as of recent vintage from the Italians who flew the F-35 across the pond that the F-35’s “stated range” is considerably understated.
As for a comparison with the Typhoon, I don’t know what the range for a similar mission profile would be for it. I would just state that the powerpoint for Eurofighter does not give any indication of profile (only ranges with different load outs) which is to say charitably….worthless.
Not saying the Typhoon is not comparable in range, but the source your using for comparison is lacking.
FBWNo, the Israeli military requested more F-35’s. There are certain elements in the Knesset that have proposed: a split between more F-35’s and more F-15’s. These are political maneuverings. There is a difference between the comments of the strategic affairs minister whose made these comments (and who may not have access or knowledge of capabilities) and the Defense ministry which is fully on board with the purchase of 75 F-35.
The purchase of F-15’s gives Israeli aerospace industry more work than the F-35 which has limited Israel modifications. Simply put politicians are politicians, not much different than congressional members pushing for continued F-18 production in the US to protect their congressional district. It’s about cash not capability.
See above for actual debate going on in Israel and why.
Also, this was recent story-
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/02/f-35-fighter-jets-israeli-air-force-mig-syrian-skies.html#
P.s.-obligatory, take some time look up yuval Steiniez and what the minister of intelligence means in this case ( in other words your highlighting that was stupid) he has several political posts, and neither Mossad nor armed forces intelligence answer to him.
FBWTall claims! Care to elaborate on where I’m alledgedly wrong? Probably not! And please be so kind and don’t try to lecture me on mission data. That you confuse IFF codes with NCTR templates is hardly my fault. So please be so kind and stick to your own advice and think before posting instead of blaming your faults on someone else. Thanks!
Simple, because you jumped on before reading the context of the discusion. It was clear we were not talking about IFF codes, frequecies, comms, for a specific mission. I do follow my advice. And it’s not easy typing from a phone- traveling, so I have to be brief. Take offense if u wish, my point was clear if brief.
FBWSorry to upset you, but that is absolutely incorrect! IFF codes have a limited validity only! They are valid only for a few hours. Same is mostly true for crypto variables or network frequencies and time slots f.e. Data that are typically kept in non-volatile memory comprise terrain data bases or threat emitter libraries, though for the later might be updated on a mission to mission basis as well if needed. Default display configurations may reside within the APSW, but can be defined on a mission to mission basis as well.
Read mine and spuds, then think. You are wrong. Not IFF codes, the NCTR methods used by radar and ASQ-239 to identify aircraft. The emitter libraries are part of the threat library developed for the MDF of the operator or region, updated as needed. The rest is just you just repeating what I said. That or you jumped on IFF in attempt to prove me wrong rather than thinking what the MDF are.
FBWI was referring to software resident on the jet, not ALIS.
On the jet there is OFP, the software which runs the various subsystems and functions of the jet. OFP is resident in the jet’s NVM.
Then there are the sensitive files which change on a daily basis and must be uploaded into the jet’s memory as part of the mission plan. These are the route plan, threat libraries, DTED, air defense posture, communications files, and many different types of cryptologic keys. These sensitive files get zeroized when the pilot shuts the jet down.
But those sensitive files still exist within the secure enclave of ALIS, which does mission planning. F-35 customers have to have the ability modify the sensitive, ever-changing, time-critical files so accurate mission planning can be done. Since the classified enclave of ALIS is in a heavily guarded SCIF, the sensitive data doesn’t get wiped.
Thanks for clarification, figured your post was just vague as you generally know what your talking about. Cheers/
FBWThere are data that are loaded for a scenario such as terrain data bases f.e. But there are also mission data which are loaded for every flight. So it’s certainly not “absolutely incorrect”.
For a specific mission sure, read the post I reaponded to. The threat database needed for IFF, identifying emissions, etc. are not “erased” when the aircraft is turned off. Updates and analysis of emissions collected for a selected mission would need to be uploaded/downloaded. That is not the same thing as an entire regions MDF needing to be uploaded before every mission.
FBWThreat libraries and other data files are only temporarily resident in the jet’s memory after being uploaded as part of the mission plan. When the flight is over and engine shuts down, the files are zeroized. IOW you don’t get US supplied files unless the USG wants you to have them as part of a coalition air operation. Even then you only have access as long as the air operation is active.
That is absolutely incorrect, these are huge files (and hardware components). The MDF are not uploaded before each mission. Not sure where u got this idea. Second, due to the concerns of the UK and others, the customization of the MDF is being implemented to a limited degree:
http://news.usni.org/2014/11/04/foreign-f-35-partners-allowed-freedom-customize-fighter-software
And more:
http://securityassistance.org/content/foreign-f-35-partners-allowed-mor…
Going to have to cut and paste- hyperlink not working (from phone).
Sign In
