FBWDo you realize that they have been a victim of a fraud ?
Most of their on-the field data are probably invalid (don’t know when the fraud did begin). Most fatigue-life calculations are probably out.
But I agree that asap, a short explanation regarding what was the extend of the fraud will be welcomed if that is not too sensitive.
May I remind you that lately we’ve seen two major program scraped due to the non-conformity of items delivered: the Spartan for the USAF and the NH90 for the NhAF. I don’t hear such loud crying in the press and the results are far more hair-raising
Fraud is a strong word, the issue is the myriad of subcontractors used in manufacturing the f135 (and the F-35 in general). This is not unique to the defense world. As many project managers can attest, what you contract for may not be what you get. It would be no surprise to anyone, but having spent some time recently talking with some wizards of Cupertino, CA: those who design the product may have different ideas on quality and standards than those who make it.
FBWFormal acknowledgement that the UK will have two carriers:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk39s-second-aircraft-carrier-will-enter-service-403407/
Quite possibly my favorite picture from the RN in the last 15 years. I hope that it is a harbinger for the future and not the swan song of the RN as a global force ( love the illustrious class carrier in the background). As a unabashed fan of the history of the Royal Navy, I do hope that Scotland decides that a strong, united U.K. will continue to build on a 400+ year maritime history.
FBWI can’t help but be slightly suspicious. Taranis by all accounts (on both sides of The Pond) exhibits a surprising level of technological maturity. History suggests that the US hasn’t always taken kindly to European aircraft that make it question it’s view of the aviation world.
Exactly this.
I doubt there is a conspiracy involved in this other than NG looking to partner with BAE systems for the UCLASS contract. Both Taranis and the X-47B are technology demonstration platforms. They will need both capital investment and development into production representative prototypes to meet the respective needs of the USN and the RAF. BAE is already a major player in the U.S. aerospace industry, not an foreign (outside) firm. If they can share technology and co-develop, they would stand a better chance of success in both the U.S. and U.K. market. The platforms do not need to be the same, but sharing technology and testing could benefit both companies. The days of going it alone on aviation projects are numbered, especially when the cost of failure could force a corporation out of the military aviation market.
FBWThe same issues must rear their heads on their F100’s and F119’s using the same materials. With material strength limitations being what they are, perhaps the larger diameter of the F135 is the issue.
Based on the assumption that they have an equal amount of impurities perhaps. If those blisk blades were not up to quality standards, or if the tolerances were not to the manufacturers specs, or if the process of attaching the blade to the disk was faulty. I’m going to wait for for the next SAR for sure.
FBWFor merge yes but BVR is different. However an altitude advantage at merge isn’t going to hurt. Before merge speed can be key to escape also.
You’ll have to explain how you arrive at that conclusion. CAT limits are for turn rate not speed???
The drag index calculated are wrong: (as I made the mistake with 600 gallon tanks which are not supersonic, nor used by USAF, in calculating drag, you also made a mistake by not adding the drag of the wingtip aim-9 or aim-120 which are calculated at a 7/6 as a baseline airframe drag ) Certain stores- are limited by airspeed. You are not figuring in the weight of the load or airspeed limitations of the configuration.
FBWdont see aim-120 rolling at all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpJSviD8D4kby contrast RIM-116 is rolling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdp9llrBLnAspiral paths happened to missiles using Laser beam-riding like 9K121 Vikhr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyabIb2QxuU
Think you are mis-interpreting what they are saying, may be a language issue.
Actually gravity impedes it gaining altitude. Drag reduces at increased altitude, hence why speed increases, keeping lift good for missiles, and also increasing range.
– @ Lukos- as speed increases so does drag and lift on a missile, at mach 4 the missile has exponentially more drag and lift than it does at subsonic speeds (though parasitic drag lower). Madrat is saying that a missile lofts while in powered flight trading kinetic energy for height then diving on a target at an optimal intercept point. Not sure why you are arguing this?
BTW- we are wayyyy OT- missile forum anyone?
FBWno way an F-16 with 2 external tanks and an ECM pod go M1.64, and unlikely M1.24, pending on alt which is duly lacking,
as is speed, this is really poor documentation on the event.
the most probable is 30 sec is derived from ‘not sure but roughly ~1/2 minute’
Depending on Alt, believe it or not, an F-16 with a drag index of 120 or so ( 2 600 gallon tanks, lantirn targeting pod, 4 AMRAAM, est. drag index depending on where stores are carried) will do between 1.3 and 1.5 mach at 30,000ft depending on weight.
Anyone have a more detailed account of the shootdown?
EDIT- oops, they were carrying ECM pod, not LANTIRN (I’ll check the drag index for listed pods)
FBWah, now i see, yes, this 2 stage missile is a good way of combining high agility with long range,
i admit i didnt look at the pic until now, this missile is too long to fit in F-22 tho.
This missile promises higher agility than meteor
No Same size as AMRAAM :http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/ncade/
I wonder which one have better kinematic Meteor or NCADE…
What worries me is that as long as future designs are frozen to the same diameter, and similar weight to the AMRAAM, it will take a major breakthrough in solid fuel propellant to keep pace with future AAM’s. Obviously HTK technology allows more room for propulsion. As far as a Meteor comparisons? I doubt you will find suitable data to answer that.
I don’t know why NCADE or Meteor… Or any Western missile for that matter… Is necessary in a thread about strictly Russian fighters. Especially when it concerns Russian versus Russian.
Good point, definitely OT.
FBWThe stuff I post here is all a minor spin-off from my professional work. My clients might not be amused to learn that I am posting stuff for free when they are having to pay for my services – which is why I often have to be a bit vague about who I have been speaking to on a given subject.
But when someone asks a question on this forum, I answer if possible. If I see what seems to be wrong information posted, I try to correct it. It is pleasant hobby for the lunchtime and tea breaks, and leaves individual forum members free to accept or reject what I post. In this field too, I have a track record.
I, for one, enjoy your posts and insight on this forum.
So are you an expert in AESA software and SP hardware or not? If you are I worry, as you have some catching up to do.
Don’t take offense Lukos, but you seem to enjoy engaging forum members in a combative style that grows tiresome. It’s a bit unseemly to be attacking the credentials of a professional in the field because you disagree. Many posters, myself included, may be uncivil at times, but come on.
FBWno i’m plain right on range, and 10 miles range at launch would be a rather typical BVR shot,
(if there is such a thing as typical shot, with all the possible closure rates that can be)
pilots & a2a theorists are better suited to distill the primary advantage of an autonomous missile,
my opinion is the primary positive fallout is freedom of maneuver after launch
You cannot take two charts from POGO as proof of your point. They, like APA, do a great job of producing wonderful official looking charts that are based on biased opinion and flawed analysis of “lessons learned”. I’ve posted quite a few papers on this previously: http://www.scaredscriptless.com/imag…aneuvering.pdf, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24445455/BVR-Missiles, http://www.ipcsit.com/vol16/24-ICICM2011M054.pdf, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/98-210.pdf
and that POGO archives document where you got that chart.
The bottom line is that trying to compare a ARH missile to a SARH missile as far as operational range using 1960’s Pk statistics with 1980’s tactics isn’t going to work. As far as the “Primary positive fallout is freedom of maneuver after the launch”, that is the point. A SARH missile (at least those available up to and including the Gulf War) had two disadvantages necessitating launching at as short a range as possible: a. the targeted aircraft was “lit up” the entire flight of the missile allowing the pilot to be forewarned and take evasive action b. the launch aircraft was open to counterattack, if the targeted aircraft counter illuminated and fired back, the launch aircraft would have to break away, lowering the chances of the missile to hit. The ARH missile, after receiving midcourse guidance, is free of those limitations.
FBWThe second part of that article remind me those guys blaming the poor girl just raped for her curves and short skirt.
Notice also that the company website (the Ti provider) is closed. I checked it yesterday and it was already down.
I don’t want to say too much with so few info but if material is not complying to the specs and this was consciously hidden in the quality ctrl chain, it might have been an hurdle to search for it and identify what was going wrong. Especially if you hadn’t a single clue at the beginning.
So instead of claiming that he has unveil the tip of a new 35’gate, that journalist might better question himself in what giving 3 month to PW to search for the glitch was not a more sage solution than make a drama of it.
Material fraud have always impaired the aero industry at critical time. Sadly.
The details of the article are not wrong, the spin is the issue. Using Defense-Aerospace.com for a source on F-35 problems is equivalent to a price quote from Stephen O’Bryan of Lockheed saying the jets will cost 65 million a pop……misleading.
FBWlike i said, it makes no difference in terms of range,
if anything, added electronics volume & weight in an autonomous missile reduces range
In theoretical range perhaps, the difference is in operational range. One reason why the USAF was keen on the AMRAAM in the first place was the critical advantage it would have provided the F-15 over Central Europe in conjunction with AWACS. With a SARH missile, the launch aircraft would have to get as close as possible to fire and guide the weapon with as little reaction time as possible. The targeted aircraft’s best defense would have been to illuminate and fire toward the launch platform guiding the SARH missile. The idea was to make the attacker break away. With the advent of the AMRAAM that was not really possible. The targeted aircraft may have gotten a twitch on it’s RWR, yet the AMRAAM itself would not have gone active until ~10 miles (or less) to the target, giving little time for a counterattack as the targeted aircraft would be forced into the defensive. Obviously, RWR and countermeasures have improved, but your premise that there was not a range advantage is just plain wrong.
FBWYou can not fool physics. Higher speed means friction and friction means heat. Heat must be discharged somewhere. If you keep the heat inside the whole aircraft will radiate heat or it will overheat with all it’s high tech inside. This is insane for modern aircrafts. This means you have to get rid of the heat and this can be gathered by IR-sensors. Nothing radiating is invisible. Even LPI radar you can spot with modern latest technology and sensitive broad band ESM gear. If your opponent knows you are there, but he doesn’t know where, he can take adequate measures to spot you. For example switch on bistatic/multistatic radars, long wavelength radars and EO sensors. IMHO even today a real stealth aircraft is an absolute silence aircraft with no radiations and no heat footprint.
Which is why the F-22,35 use fuel as a heat sink then burning it. I would say that engineers are well aware of the thermal issues and are already looking at improvements in thermal management. http://aviationweek.com/awin/afrl-s-invent-program-tackles-aircraft-system-efficiency
FBWFBW – You can “fix” a rubbing problem by relaxing your design clearance requirements. But you will take a hit somewhere in performance, durability, thermal issues or some combination of those factors.
When they have not determined whether the excessive rubbing was problem in the design, or manufacturing tolerances, implementing a design change that may impact other aspects of the engine’s performance seems hasty, no?
Babbling about “chicken little death spirals”, while showing slavish love for the program, does not change these things.
Couldn’t resist a shot huh? First off, I’ve never been an uncritical supporter, so my “slavish love for the program” is more related to the fact that at least for the U.S., the success of this program is paramount to recapitalizing an aging fighter force.
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140820/NEWS04/308200063/Pentagon-tells-international-partners-inspect-F-16B-fleet-cracks -Perhaps we can continue to rely on the F-16 for a few more decades by poring money into tearing down and replacing critical longeron supports stressed from 25 years of service? So when I cite those who decry the F-35 will end up in a “death spiral”, using every hiccup in the program as factual proof that they are right even as the program garners more international orders, I am on solid ground. The POGO’s, APA’s, et al. are shameless in pushing an agenda that could jeopardize the only fighter program that has a real chance to replace an increasingly maintenance heavy aging TACAIR fleet.
FBWNo. High speed is not useful for stealth aircraft. Speed means warm-up of the surfaces and that means stealth is useless because the aircraft can be spotted by IIR-sensors. The hotter the surfaces (the higher the speed) the longer the range it can be spotted by IIR-sensors.
A stealth fighter is stealth when it doses not emit any radiation. No radar, no ECM, no heat radiation, no communication…
In the first generation of “stealth” that may have been true. Newer fighters designed for LO use the fuel as a heat dump, comms/datalinks that are directed (MADL) etc., LPI radar that jumps frequencies, and passive detection that was not possible with the first generation of Low Observable fighters. In theory, engineers have tried to solve the problems that you have stated, to what degree they have been successful is a matter of conjecture and not likely to be open source information.
Sign In
