FBWBy the way, the Industrial Participation that Canada got is PATHETIC…so bad in fact that the Company in Ottawa that makes some special valves that THEY designed, that are used in the F35’s is selling them to wind turbine producers as sales are so slow that their production line was in danger of closing for the $5,000 part….and the few other firms making stuff for the F35 are also pathetically few in numbers and required parts….if anything I would estimate that fewer 2,000 Canadian jobs hinge on the F35….
600 million in contracts right now, with opportunities for more. Canada invested Edit 160 million in the program.
https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada-industrial-participation
FBWSee this is where I get confused….I am SURE that the CF188 Hornet ( Canadian designation)…flys at MACH 1.8 @ 36,100 ft and has a ceiling of 50,000 ft……
Ok, I don’t doubt you have the best of intentions for what you believe will be the best choice for your country. However, some of metrics you are using to compare the F-35 vis- a -vis other aircraft are just not correct. Technically the F-18C is a 1.8 mach aircraft, it won’t really reach those speeds armed, nor can it reach them for long clean. The F-18C is and always has been a bit short legged. Reaching the theoretical top speed, even clean would mean that it could not stay at that speed for long. The F-35 is technically a mach 1.6 or in a test article, mach 1.67 probably at 30,000 feet (they will test the aircraft in excess of requirements to ensure a margin of safety, ex. 9g limit yet tested to 9.9g) How long the F-35 could maintain top speed is questionable, as few aircraft can maintain speeds above mach 1.2 for very long due to fuel burn. Using the F-16 as a comparison, which has both better acceleration and a higher climb rate than the F-18, the F-35 is about 8 seconds off the F-16’s acceleration from mach .8 to 1.2 at 15,000 feet, that was one of the test f-35’s which are a bit heavier than production aircraft. In reality, compared to what the RCAF is currently flying, the F-35 will have better overall performance.
Without knowing the RCAF operational requirements, it would be hard to rule out or favor any of contenders unless it is based on cost (which would be higher for the F-35), commonality with U.S. ( a strong point), or industrial participation ( which Canada already has in JSF program).
FBWAfter a wonderfully productive rant session of the thread this weekend, actual news:
FBWThe assertion that “by 2020 everyone will have it”, does that consider that Thales Scorpion, or Elbit’s SAPIR system are federated? Or is it that easy to develop the software to integrate an advanced MAWS system into the ICP like the F-35, I think not. Considering that the beloved Gripen C used ADA for flight control software. How easy would the MS21 software allow for integration of a DAS like system? The Gripen is not alone, the Rafale is (was) a federated system also written (originally in ADA), and we’ve seen the tortured development of software for the Typhoon. Considering the USAF experience with the F-22, the assertion that it will be easy to integrate all the sensors: Radar, MAWS, IRST, IDAS with the HDMS as in the F-35 as an afterthought is questionable.
or LO nada?
FBWHas there been any revisions to the T-50 timeline as a result of the recent political issues? It seems like the news service has gone dry as of late. It is surprising considering the openness of the program until the Ukraine crisis?
FBWlike that. Preparing an article explaining it aswell as data fusion screen
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232674[/ATTACH]
HMDS is integrated but not ordered. And no it cannot look around and see the aircraft.
MFD is specific on Rafale as it is collimated to infinite. Differnet concept.
The very pilot who shot this photo told me he fired a mica IR rearwards to a M2K RDI at 20 NMs using only passive sensors without link 16.
Halloweene- Thank you, not to denigrate the the Rafale, based on the claims of some towards the HDMS of the F-35 regarded, there are some differences. Obviously, looking at the display, the sensors are all integrated on the MFD. I do not doubt the ability of Rafale, or Typhoon obtain target information on passive sensors, then again that was not the question.
FBWIf your going to chide Lukos for claiming he’s positing nonsense as fact, then don’t do the same. Unless you’re assuming that all other combatants are whipping around the sky at 800 kts, 45,000 ft. at all times, which is absurd, there would be no difference in launch parameters (assuming the aircraft detect each other at similar ranges). If you believe in the notion that a LO airframe with means of passive detection, such as the F-35, has an advantage in “first look”, then that aircraft has the ability to react, gain speed and position prior to launch. If you don’t subscribe to these ideas, then your belief would contrast with what every fighter manufacturer is currently promoting. So no, the F-35 would not be in an inferior launch position unless on a low level strike mission, but then that’s obvious.
@Falcondude –
Vnomad is referring to the ability of DAS working with all the other sensors to track and display the aircraft all around the F-35 (according to multiple reports this includes the ability to distinguish friend from foe right down to aircraft types), giving the pilot a critical advantage in closing the OODA loop in close range engagements. If you are coupling this with the aim-9x, or even the aim-120d, both of which allow high off-boresight shots, that is a significant advantage. Within 10 miles, IN my opinion (not a fact), I would think that firing first would be the deciding factor, not a minor difference in Pk considering modern aams would have a high energy state at such short distances. During the 1990’s, research suggested that sensor agility would be a critical advantage due to: 1. the limits of the human body and airframe stresses that there are diminishing gains to be had in platform agility. 2. Increases in thrust to weight ratio would need to be very great to give a decisive advantage in WVR combat. The ability to fire first gives a kinematic advantage. That is the theory, personally I do think that we are approaching a time where engagements within that 10 nmi “bubble” are going to be rare.
come on oblige- waiting for an intelligent response to this…
FBWyes they do, as for the rest of your junk, take MSphere word for it, and the chipped Meteor is also not better,
it has smaller fins
great, now respond to the rest of yours and Mphere’s comments that are wrong from the previous page. Or do you want to validate his comments that could not even correctly read an F-35 doc on range? Just because your posts seem to tickle LO’s eye does not make the context any more correct than those who’ve posted links that oppose that view.
FBWDefinitely not unique to F-35, Rafale can do that (reported by test brazilian test pilot), Gripen Ng also will…
Halloweene, how is that information presented to the pilot on the Rafale? Can he use the HDMS to look around and “see” the aircraft tracks? or is it on a MFD that requires a “heads down” presentation?
FBWDefine “many”. It does not mean “one”.
On HMDs &c. As the Intevac EBAPS technology, and possibly equivalents, come on line, and with the optical waveguide technology used on the Thales Scorpion and BAE Q-series, much of the EODAS-plus-HMDS capability will be commoditized. Symbology will be delivered directly from sensors on the helmet, with advanced MAWS supplying targeting data and symbology only being fed from the aircraft. By 2020 everyone will have it.
The assertion that “by 2020 everyone will have it”, does that consider that Thales Scorpion, or Elbit’s SAPIR system are federated? Or is it that easy to develop the software to integrate an advanced MAWS system into the ICP like the F-35, I think not. Considering that the beloved Gripen C used ADA for flight control software. How easy would the MS21 software allow for integration of a DAS like system? The Gripen is not alone, the Rafale is (was) a federated system also written (originally in ADA), and we’ve seen the tortured development of software for the Typhoon. Considering the USAF experience with the F-22, the assertion that it will be easy to integrate all the sensors: Radar, MAWS, IRST, IDAS with the HDMS as in the F-35 as an afterthought is questionable.
FBWmore likely it will almost always have worse parameters,
why aren’t you considering launch parameters ?
did it even occur to you that that has a direct impact on missile Pk ?
If your going to chide Lukos for claiming he’s positing nonsense as fact, then don’t do the same. Unless you’re assuming that all other combatants are whipping around the sky at 800 kts, 45,000 ft. at all times, which is absurd, there would be no difference in launch parameters (assuming the aircraft detect each other at similar ranges). If you believe in the notion that a LO airframe with means of passive detection, such as the F-35, has an advantage in “first look”, then that aircraft has the ability to react, gain speed and position prior to launch. If you don’t subscribe to these ideas, then your belief would contrast with what every fighter manufacturer is currently promoting. So no, the F-35 would not be in an inferior launch position unless on a low level strike mission, but then that’s obvious.
@Falcondude –
don’t think this is even physically possible. You can’t have the first shot if you have ran out of missiles for instance. But there are other reasons at play. For example the enemy may lead you in a position where launching a weapon is not permitted due to the launch parameters of the plane during the manoeuvre (I don’t have any data on the F-35 on this, I really don’t know what its launch envelope is)
Until it it sees widespread adoption and fielded use, it remains a gadget. I do recognise however that this is my personal view and I could be wrong. (also nobody knows the details of the fixes of the issues we talked about.
That is just it. Nobody knows when the opposition missiles will work better. Each weapon has an envelope of optimum operation and therefore increased Pk. Although your math is correct, it is also not telling the full picture.
Vnomad is referring to the ability of DAS working with all the other sensors to track and display the aircraft all around the F-35 (according to multiple reports this includes the ability to distinguish friend from foe right down to aircraft types), giving the pilot a critical advantage in closing the OODA loop in close range engagements. If you are coupling this with the aim-9x, or even the aim-120d, both of which allow high off-boresight shots, that is a significant advantage. Within 10 miles, IN my opinion (not a fact), I would think that firing first would be the deciding factor, not a minor difference in Pk considering modern aams would have a high energy state at such short distances. During the 1990’s, research suggested that sensor agility would be a critical advantage due to: 1. the limits of the human body and airframe stresses that there are diminishing gains to be had in platform agility. 2. Increases in thrust to weight ratio would need to be very great to give a decisive advantage in WVR combat. The ability to fire first gives a kinematic advantage. That is the theory, personally I do think that we are approaching a time where engagements within that 10 nmi “bubble” are going to be rare.
FBWDAS looks to be comparable to PAWS-2 that will be the standard MAWS on Gripen NG
No, PAW-2 is an IR warning system more analogue to AN/AAR-56 on the F-22. The F-35 EODAS imagery displayed in the Pilot’s HMD, provides ID and tracking around aircraft autonomously.
Edit- the PAWS-2 six IR sensors probably don’t differ much from those of the DAS. Elbit does offer SAPIR which provides a 360 degree view. To what extent the information provided to the pilot in the SAPIR is equivalent to the system in the F-35 is debatable. It is a stand alone system that can be integrated to PAWS-2, the F-35’s system is integrated with all other sensors on the aircraft.
FBWWhat is with the ranting and yelling lately on this thread? Take it to YouTube, you will be welcome there amongst the other disjointed “mine is better than yours” crowd. Did we do away with spell check in the Great White North?
FBWno, that is not a fact, that is your faith/belief,
history suggests the pilot with the more training has the upper hand
Very true, the other part of that maxim is realistic training (i.e. red flag) as pilots are most likely to die in their first few missions.
As for the F/A-18 rate and cost – everything is interactive. As you see, it is less costly than the F-35 at much lower rates. There’s no clear comparison because the F-18 is the only other aircraft currently priced under the same assumptions and ground rules as published figures for the F-35. It would be interesting to see what the F-18 offer to Denmark looks like compared to the F-35
.
@LO- The problem is, and has been that the F-18 E/F is not particularly attractive to nations shopping for an F-16 replacement. It can compete on price, yet it remains: a. a carrier aircraft lugging around extra structural strengthening, uncertain upgrade future past the mid-2020’s, a production line ending probably no later than 2018. Add onto that engine upgrades that have not been funded, nor integrated IRST, aerodynamic improvements as promised ( seems Boeing and GE aren’t willing to take it in the neck for a couple of billion for an aircraft with an uncertain future).
Personally, I would love to see the USN continue to purchase the Rhino, it is a great deal and having another hot production line seems like an intelligent hedge against whims of Congressional retrenchment on NAVAIR recapitalization. Were I a military looking to replace my fleet of F-16’s with an aircraft expected to stay relevant for 30 years, I would question that 55 million dollar purchase as a prudent future investment.
FBWyes, the conversation was about acquisition costs,
roughly about as relevant to defense budget as the cost of toothpaste is to private spending per year,
So: why getting hung up on acquisition cost ?
I’m not, that was a point of contention by posters above. If we are moving on to O&S costs, then your chart would be relevant.
Sign In
