FBWDidn’t see this in the news thread either. The legion pod IRST for F-15, 16. The podded AN/AAS-42 has already flown with aggressor F-16 units.
IRST 21 is based on the AN/AAS-42 IRST that flew on the F-14D.
The new IRST is the next generation of the F-14D AN/AAS-42 IRST that was
operational aboard U.S. aircraft carriers and accumulated over 200,000 flight hours
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/InfraredSearchTrack.html
FBW[/COLOR]
I strongly disagree with you here.
There have been several poster claiming the same issue with VVS Flanker fleet.
But think about this for a minute. There exist not a singel other airforce in the world that have such a across the board compability supply line that all the Flankers including the Su-34.
How on earth can this be an increase in servicebility cost??
In my world this actually save funding, cause the all do share very much of the same baseline parts, wheels control surface, engine parts etc etc..Just try and compair with RAF and USAF or hell even IAF.. There have a much broader and different types of fleet.
Hell even the RuNavy has flown the Su-33 for years now. This is a smart way of keeping supply parts and service cost down.
That would depend on the degree of commonality between the variants no?
I admit to not being all that well versed on the differences between Su-27SM, SM2, Su-30MK2 but I count: 2 different variants of the N001 radar, Irbis, 3 variants of the same engine, and different electronics, that’s not counting the Su-35S and Su-34.
I’m curious how much of a logistics chain they can share, perhaps someone well versed in Flanker-ology could answer.
FBW@ hopsalot
Check the sixth generation fighter thread. The AETD and previous ADVENT engine programs are to develop next gen engines. To what degree this will be incorporated into the F-35 is up in the air.
I believe it was a Conn senator made put it on the record that congress would not fund AETD if it was to be a “second engine” for the F-35.
That does not rule out the variable cycle technology being implemented into the F-135, nor the future engine to be developed from the AETD program to be fitted to a development of the F-35.
FBWcan you link ?
I believe this it the right one, I had to grab it off one of my old posts, I’ve posted this before:
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2002/PAPERS/164.PDF
Took some time to dig through my posts, enjoy.
FBWWork on the Next Generation Gripen began in 2002, SAAB published an internal study of what became the Gripen (NG)E/F. The demonstrator first flew in 2008. What exactly are you referring to in 2016-2019? The start of the first pre-production to the start of serial production?
Considering the time and research SAAB has already invested, why would it take longer than three years?
FBWLM define SC like everyone else, -sustained supersonic speed in level flight on dry thrust,
some enthusiasts mistook ATF (F-22) KPP of M1.5 dry thrust as the definition of SC.Later on the PR team of LM began massaging the definition,
by suggesting a teeny weeny bit of A/B could pass for SC, albeit not in a purely technical sense.
The massage then went on to redefine how performance really should be measured,
half tank + 2 AAM as A2A base should be discontinued,
instead 2x2000lbs bombs is the golden standard for A2A performance,
USW….
First, show me where the “PR Team” of LM defined supercruise as a “little bit of AB”. I know what you are going to refer to because you choose to interpret a particular quote as suits you. LM has stated that the F-35 cannot supercruise, the airforce has stated the same.
I, for one, don’t care if the F-35 can stay marginally above mach 1 with dry thrust or ” a little bit of AB” because it’s not supercruise, nor is the Gripen NG prototype’s marginally supersonic performance on dry thrust. (P.S. how well do you think the production version Gripen E/F is going to do with several thousand pounds of weight, equipment fitted?)
The definition of supercruise is “sustained supersonic flight on dry thrust”, which means the airflow has to be supersonic over the entire vehicle (which generally means greater than mach 1.1-1.2) and to sustain it, the aircraft has to be clear the massive rise in wave drag at transonic speeds.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236203[/ATTACH]
FBWLM can define supercruise however they want for PR and marketing purposes*, but the only technically valid definition is the ability to sustain supersonic speed without afterburning. Alles andere ist Unsinn!
*Rather obviously, LockMart uses this pulled-out-of-their-ear Mach 1.6 standard to dismiss the supercruise capability of the Typhoon and Gripen NG, among others, and thereby to blunt criticism of the Super Guppy’s sloth.
There is a very valid reason to define supercruise as roughly mach 1.5+, as you well know. At marginally supersonic speeds, below roughly Mach 1.2 (depending on wing, etc.) ,the aircraft has not cleared the shockwave and airflow over the vehicle is not fully supersonic.
Many fighters can technically stay in that transonic regime slightly above mach 1 on full military power (F-106, F-35, F-16 according to some of it’s pilots, Gripen E/F, Su-35). There are few (currently 2 or 3) true supercruisers that can maintain speeds above transonic without blasting along in full military power.
If you want to define the Gripen NG prototype as a supercruiser for sustaining mach 1.2, then throw in a half dozen other aircraft as well.
FBWThe only thing I would comment on TU-22m, would be the assertion that the Gripen would outclimb or accelerate the F-16.
The F-16 MLU as those flown by Norway, are essentially F-16A with the added weight of latter blocks without the increased power.
It is likely that the Gripen has better sustained turn rate at altitude, but I doubt it could out climb or accelerate an F-16C. As many try to point out with the F-35: and aircraft with lower TWR and greater drag is unlikely to match the F-16 by sheer physics.
The Swiss were uncomplementary in their comparison of the Gripen vis a vis the F-18’s they flew and the F-18 is not as capable a kinematic performer as the F-16.
FBWThe USN uses scheduled land-based tankers for most of its current needs. Buddy tanking will always be secondary.
Simply put, everyday there are carrier ops happening there are supers circling over the carrier buddy tanking. It’s critical to being able to sortie the aircraft at safe distance and carrier ops safety overall.
If you only consider tanking that happens as part of theater ops, then yes the USN relies on air force tankers.
FBWwhat dj said: buddy tanking is best viewed as emergency or testing events, rather than operational practice,
Bager has more on it
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?63922-Little-Info-on-the-Clemenceau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult
Wrong, it’s been standard since the KA-6 and S-3 were retired.
FBWBuddy tankers launched by the carrier do not carry enough fuel for anything other than recovery of air wing aircraft if the flight deck is temporarily closed by arresting gear malfunction or if a jet needs enough fuel to divert to a friendly shore base. Mission tanking is performed by large shore-based aircraft.
No idea where you get that idea from. It is the basis of Carrier ops right now, not a safety precaution or extraordinary, it is part of regular ops.
On U.S. Navy carriers, the first aircraft to go off as part of flight operations is usually the tanker, loaded down with external tanks so that it can top off jets after they launch but before they actually set off on their missions. Fighter jets drink fuel like teenagers drink Mtn Dew
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/15/uk-to-study-f-35c-buddy-refueling/
This video provides a different point of view: this is what refueling your F/A-18F Super Hornet from another “Rhino” (as the SH is dubbed in the naval aviation “slang”) looks like.
The buddy refueler in the video is an F/A-18E in a “five wet” configuration, that is to say it carries five external fuel tanks.
Notice how many corrections are required to eventually plug the probe into the basket.
Further, over the past ten years, the Super Hornet fleet has seen higher than expected fleet utilization rates because of the demands of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, industry and Navy sources said.
Particularly, the heavy “five-wet” configuration eats up fatigue life expectancy (FLE) much faster than a lighter configuration.
Airframes are cycled to minimize the impact of the tanker mission on the overall Super Hornet fleet. Only a few aircraft at a time are use for tanking, and as those planes are rotated, the fatigue life balances out, Bailey said.
http://news.usni.org/2014/04/01/uclass-used-tanker-carrier-air-wing
FBWHit jobs hit jobs everywhere. French lobbyists planting story against Russians, Russians against French, Americans planting stories of “strategic support”, Swedes maintaining a marketing team fro Gripen years after they were rejected and all the agents of arms importers taking a collective dump on domestic products.
These reports have been coming for some time. Doubt it is “planted”, nor has it anything to do with MMRCA.
Here:
Today, availability has risen slightly to 55 per cent, far lower than advanced western air forces, which generate 80-85 per cent availability rates. In terms of aircraft numbers, only 106 of the 193 Su-30MKIs that the IAF flies today would be available in war. The remaining 87 fighters, each worth Rs 358 crore at current prices, would remain on the ground.
– article puts most of the blame on spares management
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-takes-note-of-su-30mki-s-poor-serviceability-114102300006_1.html
FBWyou’re not seriously suggesting that this buddy refueling be the standard operating procedure for all ops ? It’s absurd that you’d think that such a massively payload constrained fighter operating off an antique carrier would be a far superior choice to a STOBAR MiG-29K operating off a heavily modified Russian carrier. Face it, the better option was the modified Gorshkov/MiG-29K rather than the Clemenceau/Rafale M that had almost no payload capability worth talking about..
That pretty much is standard operating procedure for U.S. carrier ops. Fighters taking off from a carrier for a sortie top off from circling Supers acting as tankers, Rafale M from the De Gaulle do the same. Take-off, even from a CATOBAR carrier uses a lot of fuel esp. when launching with a large weapon payload.
The problem with STOBAR vs. CATOBAR is that the aircraft cannot take off with full load of weapons and fuel STOBAR. But either way the aircraft is going to top off after it launches. The Clemenceau had the same the short run Bs-5 cats as the Eagle and Ark Royal’s bow cats. They could launch a lightly loaded F-4 (empty weight +/- 30,000 lbs. depending on model), so a Rafale M would not be an issue at a loaded weight of roughly 35,000lbs.
The Gorshkov was probably a better choice as it has had a shorter operational life than the Clemenceau, I don’t think the Mig-29K operating STOBAR has any advantage over operating Rafale M from a CATOBAR config even if they couldn’t launch at max weight.
FBWF-35 SAR report out:
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter– Overall F-35 program costs decreased $7.5 billion from $398.6 billion to $391.1 billion. The details are provided below by subprogram:
F-35 Aircraft – Subprogram costs decreased $5.8 billion (-1.8%) from $329.9 billion to $324.1 billion, due primarily to the incorporation of the latest prime contractor and subcontractor labor rates for all variants of the F-35 (-$4.4 billion) and revised escalation indices (-$3.4 billion). There were also reductions in initial spares requirements due to maturation of the technical baseline, definition of customer requirements, and further definition of Service bed down/ fielding plans (-$1.1 billion). These decreases were partially offset by increases for revised airframe estimates based on actual costs from early low rate initial production lots (+$4.4 billion).
F-35 Engine – Subprogram costs decreased $1.6 billion (-2.3%) from $68.6 billion to $67.0 billion, due primarily to revised escalation indices (-$0.7 billion), reductions in initial spares requirements due to maturation of the technical baseline (-$0.6 billion), and revised estimates based on actual costs from early low rate initial production lots (-$0.5 billion). These decreases were offset by increases resulting from changes to the procurement profile (+$0.2 billion).
http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=17181
FBWPod mounted cyber attack capability?
http://www.janes.com/article/50036/f-35-programme-begins-developing-cyber-attack-capability
I’m curious if the author is confused and is referring the NGJ, or this is something entirely new. Considering that there are no other references to a CW pod, I’m inclined to think the article is talking about the NGJ.
Edit- picked up for another forum… Forgot about this: (still details are sketchy)
http://www.terma.com/press/news-2012/f-35-multi-mission-pod-on-display/
http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/10/fia12-f35-multimission-pod/
Sign In
