FBWGenerally speaing F-35.com as it is owned by lockheed i think.I would be interested by the lastest facst facts in finnish. Howeber, as eery coporate website, they will present you everything as rosy.
For the sake of everyone who is left on this forum, stop interjecting your poisoned opinion on all things F-35. You’ve conclusively demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about with regard to the F-35 and never bothered to educate yourself in the program…. it shows with your criticisms that are spectacularly uninformed.
FBWThat is IF you have a “ball aerospace”. Maybe you mean a lighter then air airship? The present result is F-35 do not have any satcom. It will come with block4. In itself, it is not redhibitory. No plane is perfect
Think u missed the point. Ball aerospace is the name of the manufacturer of the satcom node on the F-35. The hardware is present on the aircraft. The issue was a DoD switch to a new constellation of satellites starting around 2009. The protocol was not ready so the use was deferred till block 4. In the hustle and bustle of those years, priority was not satcom. Obviously it’s not been an issue because they’ve not moved up activating the node on the F-35.
in other words, not an F-35 program issue. It was a satellite issue.
FBWPS they also have a satcom, what about F-35, they need a pod?
FYI, Every F-35 has a UHF satcom from ball aerospace. The deferment for compatibility was due to DoD switching satellite networks, apparently that constellation was not ready when planning what capabilities the F-35 would have at IOC and got bumped to block 4 as Spud said.
FBWReading the last couple of pages of this thread. WOW. Time to say goodbye to this forum for good till such time that there is some modicum of moderation.
Can’t say I blame you. It’s a shame became so you are one of the few that make this forum a worthwhile place for information and discussion.
Seems to be a trend, good posters declining on every aviation forum (and an overall decline in posters in general).
FBWSwiss will tell.
That I heartily disagree with. I’d be surprised if the contents of the eval leak this time. Perhaps we will get a summary of the decision making process post selection. By your logic, had the scores of the previous competition not leaked would it have been valid to weigh the merits of the Gripen vis a vis the Typhoon & Rafale based on it’s selection? I’m of (have maintained from the beginning) that the F-35 is somewhat of a long shot to be selected by the Swiss. I STILL think the Rafale is the most likely choice and none of that is based on the relative merits of either aircraft, cost, or industrial participation per se.
FBWI think that the evaluations in the report are the result of the sum of result of several different pilots of a certain plane, made in different times, vs F-35.
So we didn’t know if the pilots were flying an older model or a newer one, in case of F-15C, the update is very recent and still not completed so it could be that the majority just didn’t have made the shift a.t.m. they tried the Lighting II.
In case of F-15E ones ,that has completed transition years ago , their pilots evaluated their own radar as SUPERIOR, by a little, to the F-35’s one.
I think that it’s important to note that the ratings included every tacair platform in the inventory (though the F-22 pilot sample size was 1 ). That the F-35 was scored, on average, higher than those platforms on the majority of metrics is somewhat more significant than first perception would indicate.
Most of the pilots who transitioned likely had many hours flying previous platform before F-35. Also, as one pilot indicated, the F-35 as a weapon system is still years from maturity. The fact that they rated it highly and had confidence taking it into conflict today is encouraging. And the F-15C has been transitioning to the APG-63(v)3 for nearly a decade so it is ludicrous to attempt to suggest that some (most) surveyed F-15C pilots hadn’t flown a jet equipped with it.
The “bad” if you will is that the HMDS is STILL a major cause for concern, and truthfully, older pilots may not get used to employing it even assuming issues are satisfactorily resolved. In context though, pilots don’t like flying with NVG either.
The F-15E’s APG-82(v)1 is a large and powerful radar. It is a newer radar than the APG-81 (though some components are older APG-79 back end, etc) it has likely benefited from the decades experience building and employing AESA sets, processing, algorithms. Anyway, I didn’t find that particularly surprising, the USAF has been very happy with the APG-82 not to mention “size matters”.
FBWLook up how many F-15C got an AESA radar back then. One squadron . . . . The hundreds of other F-15
That radar was never fitted to any other aircraft. The hundreds of other F-15Cs never got it.
True the APG-63(v)2 was only fitted to 18 aircraft based in Alaska? At the time I believe. Since then, numbers are hard to ascertain, but roughly half of all combat coded F-15C have either the (v)2 or (v)3 AESA. In the context of the discussion, Rall was correct in pointing out the obvious. Halloweene was talking out his rear that F-15C pilots rated the APG-81 higher because they’ve never had operational experience with an AESA set.
FBWOK Trottinette,
Let me guess, “an unnamed” pilot told you so?
FBWThis claim that STOBAR carriers are not effective holds not much merit from what I have seen and seems rather an axiom that journos repeat without much thought. Besides, newer planes with higher TWR and better low speed characteristics only improve the situation. And in the end you will need full fuel frequently, but how often will you need full weapons payload? Full A2A load is quite light for modern carrying capacities. A massive A2G load with i.e. 4 x 1500 kg bombs (don’t even know if the pylons of any plane stand that) is still “only” 6 tons. In the Russian case it is even better, since their heavy fighters don’t normally operate with EFTs, so a very big part of the most common external load in Western fighters is simply not there
I’ve read that simulation several times in the past. And while it is valid in terms of a “simulated” T/O of an F/A-18 off a ski jump, the author makes several assumptions no navy or aviator would. The first is WOD conditions, even a cat equipped carrier turns into the wind for a launch. Sufficient safety margin is crucial, it would be unacceptable to launch an aircraft at near stall speed. The WOD assumptions are “ahem” optimistic. second is the pitching deck. The simulation does not take into account the fact that at times the deck may very well be pointed down in a swell, even “shooters” on a cat carrier try to time launch on an upswell (not always successfully). A loss of altitude off the ramp would never be within safety parameters for normal operation. It’s a study of what is theoretical, no Rhino would/could operate at max GW off a ski jump. But it does show that at moderate loads/weights, an F/A-18E/F could use STOBAR.
There’s several reason why cat equipped carriers will continue to be more practical:
1. Sortie rate- even the CdG with its 2 cats would be able to put more aircraft in the air faster than a larger STOBAR carrier due to a larger staging area, forget a Nimitz.
2. Adverse weather or tropical conditions- in poor wind conditions a STOBAR carrier would not generate sufficient WOD to launch heavily loaded aircraft safely. Ditto for tropical conditions that rob engine power. Add in the issue of pitching deck mentioned above.
3. Limits the AEW aircraft to rotary wing (or something like the V-22 AEW concept), not to mention COD which comes in handy moving critical items to a carrier.
STOBAR is an effective, and cheaper way to provide an air umbrella, power projection, blue water aviation limited strike capability to a navy. The limitations as far as sustainable long range CAP, large strike packages, and limitations on take-of weight and fuel burn are not overstated, they are well understood. Hence China and India moving toward CATOBAR.
FBWYour new nickname on this forum is: trottinette
You’ve earned it. Congrats
FBWCan’t even tell you the average survival time of F-18 E/F vs RAfale in manoeuvers, you would not believe me…
Seriously though, what purpose does this comment serve and how does it pertain to the discussion in this thread? Who would doubt in scripted DACT exercises that the smaller, more agile aircraft would prevail over an aircraft that was kinematically inferior to it’s predecessors (F-18, F-14). What does this prove? DACT is important for developing pilot skills and teamwork, has little to do with warfighting these days.
Otherwise, Rafale pilots would have to ask adversaries not to use their HMS in wartime just like they do with Rhino pilots in exercises. Right?
FBWIs LRASM fully intgrated in F-35? Afaik it was mostly tested on B1B
@marcello by alleveidences, the very poor radar rating of F-15C is due not to have aesa. Whay not compare it with a sopwith camel?
Nvm, this is not a µRafale thread. I just brought here storm shadow as an example of F-35 limitaitons. (PS SS speed is 0.95 mach depending on altitude)
1. What does the integration on the F-35 have to do with your absurd claim on the LRASM being “too slow”
2. F-15C does not have an AESA radar? Really? This just highlights the fact you post uninformed opinion. (spend 30 seconds looking up APG-63 (v)2 and (v)3)
3. LRASM speeds are classified, only listed as “high subsonic” that would be in line with the Storm Shadow.
FBWWhat characteristics make the Su-57 capable of STOL?
Does it have thrust reversers? No
Does it have air brakes (outside of control surface deflection like many aircraft)? No
Does it have special braking system? Not specified in any literature.
Does it have the inherent light weight, low landing speed of aircraft meant for rough/short field landings? No.
like the adage “any aircraft can be a glider once”, in ideal conditions many aircraft can land on a shorter runway in optimal conditions and light loads. But it’s neither practical, nor practiced.
FBWWriting a detailed response to Halloweene’s cliche’s and sweeping generalizations has been demonstrated to be a waste of time and effort. I apologize for others spending time refuting his response to my earlier post mirroring his posting style. Mine was meant to be ironic, funny how he double down worth more sweeping generalizations.
although I would LOVE for him to explain how Storm shadow is a useful weapon while LRASM is “too slow to hit a pedestrian”. Do tell us posters what the speeds of LRASM and Storm Shadow are dear Hallow, and how they differ. So much for the quality of posting on this forum as of late.
FBWThats exactly wahy USAF is buying more F15. Large ammos areNOT a large bunch of ammos.Put 2 storms shadows under a F-35 for example to have a good laugh.
True that would be funny. The idea of the F-35 carrying several million dollar stand-off munitions. Keep them on the aircraft that are unable to penetrate enemy air defenses successfully.
Sign In
