FBWhttp://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/threat-data-biggest-worry-for-f-35as-ioc-but-it-will-be-on-time/
Interesting article on the threat database for the F-35. It gives some idea why the aircraft has such a massive amount of software code. The advancements of newer fighters to classify targets is, in my opinion, revolutionary. Fighters like the F-15 had a single sensor to locate, track, target a bogey, then had to rely on IFF to determine whether bogey was hostile.
The newer generation can classify based on emissions, fan blades, “other” ways that among the most classified aspects of the new generation of fighters. That is crucial seconds off the OODA loop. It punches clean holes in the arguments made by unnamed aviation “experts” the BVR engagements are not truly applicable due to IFF difficulties, “fog of war” etc.
FBWhttp://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1769
A-10 gone by 2019, SDB-II on the F-35 by 2022. Air force is looking at filling the gap and assuaging fears.
FBWYet your “contributions” always do eh feddy? LOL. Typical F35 fanboy high handedness. 🙂
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?133321-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2015)&p=2207432#post2207432
You just proved my point from the above post. Sorry, not everyone who knows the details of the F-35 program and may have an overall positive view is a “fanboy”. You can label me a “fanboy” all you want it only displays your ignorance. You obviously have not read my posts. The only person who’s posting style is decidedly highhanded is yours.
There has been plenty of informed discussions on this thread between people who have positive and negative views on the program. Some of those with negative views are posters I hold in high regard (TU-22M, LO, MSphere) because they are informed posters who bring intelligent counterpoints to the discussion. You, Snafu are not one of them. Lay off the snark and make an attempt to research your objections to the program.
FBWNo FBW my last comment was simply an observation on the distinct difference between hoppy’s vague it’s “darned impressive” comment lacking any actual data on what makes it “darned impressive” and the factual list provided by hotshot.
Hotshot provided hard facts. Your F35 supporting chums in contrast offered vague platitudes, which isn’t exactly a new thing for F35 supporters.
Making up false comments to then attack them is called creating a strawman. You don’t do yourself any favours by doing so.
Sorry Snafu, but time to call you out. It is you who never posts supportive details, links, nor anything other than vague assertions of you version of the “truth”. The few times that I’ve seen you post details: like information on the F-15A, or U.S. amphibious doctrine… you were dead wrong.
Instead you use the typical “strawman” and “troll”, and “appeal to the higher authority” crap to avoid posting meaningful refutations that someone can call you out on. The reason is simple, you don’t have any idea what you are talking about.
As far as the integration of weapons, Block 3F, currently about 5 months behind schedule includes all weapons that the F-35 was designed to carry since the software roadmap was laid out. And yet, the list of weapons integrated on the F-35 by 2019 is damned impressive, obviously you don’t follow the weapon integration trials and tribulations of the Typhoon, et al ( Paveway IV?). The Marines want to go to IOC with Block 2B with limited weapon integration, that is their choice.
FBWFor those interested in reality it is interesting to note the difference between the vague assertions made on one hand by those inclined to a favourable view of the F35 and the hard facts presented by those with less favourable views.
Thanks Hotshot and hoppy.
Oh my god! The SDB-II and the Aim-120D which were developed AFTER the F-35 aren’t part of the immediate integration plan! The horrible lies and deceit of Lockheed. Cancel the F-35. it’s obviously a failure.
Thanks Snafu, every time you post it brings a smile to my face because you never let hard facts get in your way. Good job!
FBWSaw that…Reuters report from an hour ago makes no such claims but does sound positive:
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINKBN0LT12N20150225?irpc=932
FBWThanks , I had not such a good laugh for ages, spilt my drink in the process, but that was worth it. No pun intended , it is just the statement is resonating so wrong from where I stand.
Perhaps you would not spill your drink so easily if you spent more time reading up on the contract and less time drinking. Apparently you missed the whole flap about life cycle costs. Dassault has stood by their statement that there has been no price increase on the original proposal. MoD has said that the LCC costs were incorrectly calculated.
Obviously a 10-12 billion deal in 2012 would not be 10-12 billion in 2015. Second, I doubt that EVERY source that has stated that there has been contract cost escalation based on LCC is wrong. What are you going on, intuition?
FBWI would be putting a whole lot of salt on this pretended ‘ informed, yet anonymous sources’ that supposidelly report budget/Price figures escalating linearly. Lots of echo in the media, to make the numbers for what it lacks in credibility , do not make it more true.
GoI would hardly talk figures before the report ,due some time now, Concern over Price, over LCC yes plenty I am sure, double Price I doubt it , negociation would have long been terminated . Double budget, why not if the industrial Investments needed to absorb TOT have been poorly estimated. But yet, this is all comming from unknown, anonymeous sources. I would think the government and officials would have voiced a Price problem , before tunnel visionning on guarantee to comply to RFP.
Even if it were still 10-12 billion in then-year dollars there are other factors to consider:
1. It ain’t gonna be 12 billion in constant dollars
2. The weakness of the Rupee since 2012
3. The oft-repeated (possibly untrue) rumors that MoD had reported that some equipment they thought was included in the contract, was not.
The Indian press has been reporting a total value of 18-21 billion for years now, not just some anonymous posters.
FBWFBWFBWhttp://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-f-35-and-infamous-transonic_22.html
SMSgt Mac breaks down the F-35 acceleration numbers
This guy did an excellent job of breaking down the F-35 sustained g spec kerfuffle. Here he is working on the acceleration numbers.
Note 1- Yes it is a blog, take the conclusions with a grain of salt if that is your wish. But, he does a great job of breaking down the data in a user friendly format and there is value in that. His posts on the sustained G spec were detailed and spot on (in my opinion)
Note 2- When looking back the KPP controversies from the F-22 and F-35 programs, I would think that when the services begin to lay out the requirements for their sixth generation fighters, they will use a different approach:
The F-22 exceeded most of the KPP set out with the exception of the sustained g at 30,000ft. The F-22 obviously still has operationally suitable maneuverability, so the using a single point of measurement at a given speed and alt. were not representative of the F-22’s overall performance.
The F-35 threshold requirements were based again on maneuverability and acceleration at a single altitude, or speed and alt.
Point is, it is a terrible way to express the threshold acceleration or maneuverability required. I would expect the next project to either define the performance requirements across a spectrum of weights, speeds, and alt., or set broad concept of performance required and do away with the single data points that have led to so much negative attention.
FBWRafale was L1. Rafale being too expensive means there is no quick solution to make up the numbers needed to keep the squadron levels up.
The only solution is to give the contract to a vendor which can deliver the initial orders really fast. Boeing fits the bill perfectly.
Had India wanted fast delivery with no tech transfer or offsets, they could have had a deal signed in a matter of weeks; just as Egypt.
The whole MMRCA program was structured on the premise that it would advance the indigenous aerospace technology/industry. Had they just wanted a replacement fighter in a short amount of time, the U.S. offerings would have suited quite nicely. The idea that India will just drop the negotiations and just move to the next bidder seems absurd considering the complexities apparent. It took Dassault and the Indian MoD 3 years to get to this point. More than likely the whole MMRCA program would be dropped.
I seriously doubt that India wipe the slate clean and simply order F-18E/F’s.
FBWThe airflow into the turbofan has to be subsonic. That is the point of the supersonic inlet, slow the airflow. The inlet must be shaped to manage the shockwave from supersonic flight. Most supersonic inlets have boundary layer diverters to prevent turbulent air from entering the compressor. The average pressure recovery for a supersonic inlet is around 85% (at supersonic speeds) as opposed to 95% or higher for subsonic.
Most turbofan fighters (until recently) topped out at around mach .9-.95 without afterburner, so no they were not efficient moving at supersonic speeds because they needed afterburner to reach those speeds. Newer turbofans with a lower bypass ratio have higher exhaust velocity.
Ceteris paribus: a higher bypass ratio is more efficient but has lower exhaust velocity.
FBWI think back in the day the UK seen the F-35 as a cheap way to maintain naval aviation capabilities.
Indeed, which is why the jet is short enough to fit the elevators on the Invincibles. (The modern version of the Stirling’s wingspan being sized by RAF hangars and its fuselage by packing crates.)
POGO is one of those names that induces a LALALALLA I CAN’T HEAR YOU response. IIRC one of their main criticisms of the M-1 was that the turbine engine was a flat-out bad idea for a tank. So what is the central feature of GDLS’ proposed M-1 upgrade? (Hint: it has cylinders and fuel injectors.)
The major criticism of the F-22 was the cost of production and ownership, which was obviously completely wrong as the USAF bought 440 of them and has aggressively upgraded the F-22’s capabilities.
Come on LO, that is a bit revisionist, no?
Yes POGO was critical of the M1 powered by a gas turbine, as were many others. It was called a trade off, the speed & cross country mobility requirements seemed to suggest a turbine was the most effective solution circa 1971-4. That was NOT their only, nor their main point. The rest of the complaints against the M1 are the usual half truths or tired maxims like quoting from Patton in WWII.
Same thing with the F-22, the vast majority of their claims attacked: the idea of stealth, that the F-22 had sub par maneuverability and power based on their own “analysis” of wingloading and TWR, and that the IFF and target identification of the F-22 would be no better than previous fighters and would require visual ID.
Having one truth, or one sound criticism in a nest of half-truths and lies is not responsible oversight of defense programs. I could predict the weather every day for the next week, if I accurately predict the weather for one day does that make me a weatherman?
FBWI would agree with you Mr Malaya. The problem is that the F-35 program is deeply polarizing. For every release by the government, or JPO, etc, you have deeply divisive articles “interpreting” the information to support their own agenda pro or con.
Sign In
