FBWThe USAF F35 is not the same beast that lower tire operators will have access to, so comparing F35 with Typhoon with no qualification is disingenuous
There has never been any statement or information to suggest that the UK F-35’s would be in a different configuration, or have any downgraded capability. The one sticking point is over the development of Mission data files/ data loads. UK has expressed dissatisfaction that they don’t have access to: where sigint for threat database came from, or complex modeling of the F-35’s RCS from different angles against different threats.
The last part makes the the idea of RCS scatterplots generated by commercial software being representative of any LO aircraft’s true RCS more than laughable. After all, the RAF could just ask APA for their RCS analysis on the F-35 if it were that easy!
FBWGripen topspeed is nearly 300kts faster than F-35. No wonder Royal AF has’em too.
What are you smoking? The Gripen C has a maximum speed of Mach 1.8(ish). Operationally stated as Mach 1.8. (Btw, so is the F-18E/F). F-18 armed with 2 Aim-120 and 2 Aim-9 the maximum speed is Mach 1.55.
And armed Gripen isn’t even 80 Knots faster than an F-35. The Gripen E/F is stated as Mach 2. However, we will see when weights and final configuration are set. Your obsessing about a truly irrelevant topic. When armed there is very little difference between most. The Typhoon has been stated to reach Mach 1.8 with 3 EFT so it is likely it can reach near Mach 2 armed. Realistically, most of the time every one of these aircraft will be carrying at least a centerline tank (except F-35), and be unlikely to reach 700 knots 30-35k feet (not that they would most of the time).
Edit- added 100 knots by accident.
FBWIt is more than enough for me, but Mig-31 reaches M3
You have still failed to explain how the difference in maximum speed between the five entries makes a significant impact on the interception mission. Especially given that (when armed) there is roughly a 150 Knot difference between the slowest entry (F-18E/F) and the fastest (EF Typhoon). The middle three are all 700~790 knots.
FBWLess than some others. And i do not care really about 20 or 30 secs to cross transsonic.
That is an important metric for fighter aircraft (far more than max airspeed in level flight). And you might not care, but in terms of fuel consumption it matters greatly.
For every one of the alleged supercruise capable aircraft (other than the F-22 which had specific KPP to meet for supercruise), all that is available are vague statements. We know that the F-22 can accelerate through the transonic in military power, we also know they usually use augmented thrust to accelerate above transonic regime faster. What about Rafael? At what weights, with what external loads can it accelerate to supersonic speeds in military thrust? How long does it take at different DI? Get my point? It does matter.
Supercruise is not a marketing pitch. It was part of fighters requirements in Europe (specially F-22) in order to cross western Europe quickly.
Yes, of course I am aware of the supercruise requirement from the original ATF program. The F-22 didn’t meet the original goal, but it does have a representative combat mission radius for which part was to be in supercruise. What about the Rafale? Do you have any documents related to the development of the Rafale that had a stated mission radius was to be performed in supercruise? Any document related to the specific requirement from ACX program regarding supercruise? Love to read them….
There is no + to the mach 1.6, and afaik (i may be wrong) there is no clue that it is while carrying 4 AMRAAMS and fuel for 760 nmi.
You are in fact wrong; 700 knots, full fuel, full internal weapons… period.
FBW you know perfe tly those data are not public.
I am aware, so when you claim useful supercruise time/distance for Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon… what are you basing this on? We know the Typhoon can supercruise with x number of missiles and EFT. It shows the power of the aircraft, but it is a useless metric without knowing range, a representative mission combat radius. We do have one for the F-22 (at least what is publicly disclosed), and while impressive, it’s not what was envisioned when drawing up ATF requirements.
Adaptative cycle engines arent a new thing btw.
No, but the third stream adaptive cycle engines of AVENT-AETP are a new concept.
FBWThere is a very significant difference between a plane able to supercruise – or not-. Remember supercruise was part of the definition of 5th gen acording to LM?
Sorry Hallow, not biting. Show me the times/distances that any of the supercruisers can maintain speeds above mach 1 (along with at what loads/weights they don’t need afterburners to cross transonic). Super cruise is a nice marketing pitch, until we see adaptive cycle engines and internal fuel fractions approaching .4 that about all it is.
FBWGripen can almost reach the Soviet plane speeds. F-35 hardly even half of that. How could it ( F-35 ) be an interceptor ( as it needs F-22 cover ) ?
Appropriate post from someone with the tag “topspeed”.
What exactly is soviet plane speed? [ATTACH=CONFIG]260502[/ATTACH]
There isn’t a significant difference in the maximum speeds of any of the aircraft mentioned when armed, maybe 80 knots at 30,000 feet. The F-18E/F being the slowest in reality.
Not that it matters, how often do you think Finland will be involved in intercepts or air combat at speeds much above mach 1?
FBWWith what counterparty? Alliance membership?
Have you read anything about the reprogramming labs? Partner nations want to control aspects of their data and mission files (Italy and Netherlands partner on the lab, but in separate sections). If Finland wanted to set up their own, they could include that as a stipulation. FMS customers have a separate lab, Israel has opted for some independent control, as well as Denmark. If this was a serious concern, which it isn’t, Finland could address it in their request.
Ah, good news considering F-35 is probably already at the very high end of their 7-10 G$ range.
They must be very interested in the outraging quote proposed to Belgium…
Now we are in the business of predicting bids? Or are we still operating on the fallacy that other aircraft are cheaper to procure? That horse has been beaten to death, and if recent contracts are any prediction, quite the opposite is true.
You are entilted to your own analysis. LM cancelling vulnerability tests (and not rescheduling them, publicly at least) is also a good sign for the system’s security, eh? Furthrmore, your so-called ALIS independance, is in fact a mere buffer to cope with deployment ops and log issues… not a standalone capability.
How is the ability to operate without ALIS “so-called” it came up due to ALIS reliability issues (still unresolved). Every time the fallacy that the F-35 could be grounded by the U.S. (or foreign hacking), JPO has actively refuted this. The coding is proprietary to L-M not the DoD. If the aircraft can operate without ALIS then it is the very definition of a Standalone capability as the USMC has stated that it may need to operate outside of the network in austere conditions. For the most part, it makes no sense not to be connected to ALIS. This has been brought up in UK Parliament, Australian Parliament. Again the worst case scenario for being denied access to ALIS would be going back to manpower intensive maintenance logging and troubleshooting (and having to maintain an expensive ready stock of spares) MDF would not be updated but the ones in Finnish SOU at squadron level and data stored in the CPE would be available.
Finland sure counts on 30-days limited reliance in case of war, right?
Right, and now we are entering into fantasy conversation. This is another canard. How many nations that have forces in Europe (outside of Russia, and U.S.) maintain even a 30 day war reserve stock of ordinance and parts for their fleets? In a high intensity conflict, there isn’t an air force in Europe (outside of the above) that could sustain a 30 day war (Libya was far from a high intensity conflict and both France and UK depleted stocks of PGM). Can you honestly state that France, Eurofighter Consortium nations would be able to support Finland with weapons and parts for a conflict even half that long? Recent events and readiness reports suggest otherwise.
..and maintenande hubs? How do they go towards self-reliance?
Those hubs are for heavy maintenance. Partner nations decided to pool resources into those hubs for cost reasons. Here is the work performed:
“Heavy maintenance entails repairing large structural components like bulkheads, spars and wings, which require more advanced facilities and technical acumen….engine overhaul” –https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/italy-turkey-will-lead-f-35-…
How often do you think spars and bulkheads need replacing?
FBWDid you actually read anything I wrote?
Yes, which is why I responded.
FAF has minimum requirements for ‘maintenance security’, ie. ability to maintain the planes in times of crisis. It is not explicitly told what those minimum criterias are, but basically FAF expects to have ability to independently operate the plane for at least some time without outside support.
At the top of the page I put a link specifically referring to the F-35’s ability to operate without outside support, which was why I was puzzled when you brought up “self-sustainability” again.
Finland does not need an agreement similar to Israel’s which has a domestic defense establishment to support. Their desire to “customize” is largely driven by a desire to install Israeli hardware, comms. and weapons. Finland could negotiate to set up their own reprogramming lab (which would be a first for an FMS customer), or share space with one of the partner nations that are setting up labs. They can filter what data is shared with L-M as Italy is in the process of implementing.
Or they could do none of the above, aware that the current ALIS (buggy and still falling short on logistics and maintenance) isn’t a threat to their sovereign control and self-sustainability. Should they choose the F-35, I’d imagine it will be an FMS deal without any added stipulations (with added costs). They’ve operated F-18’s for 25+ years, and they were the first to receive AN/ALQ-165.
FBWThe issue is not “trust” or “political divergence”, having a degree of self-sustainability is simply strategic requirement by FDF.
And again, have you read the links to the articles from the last two pages? Your presenting self-sustiability as problematic for Finland to choose the F-35. What evidence have you presented to support this concern?
As far as Hallow’s “mission planning” canard. Each unit has an SOU that allows off-line mission planning software that can be transferred to a “brick” to upload the data to the aircraft. It does not rely on constant connection to the ALOU. Finland can store their own data and mission information. At some point, to update MDF, parts supply, or maintenance data the CPE of each nation does have to be networked with ALOU. As stated, the system can deploy for at least 30 days before this becomes an issue.
FBWWhat i read is “could”, “begins studying options”, etc. Nothing assertive.
Egypt already couldn’t use its F-16 for missions above Lybia due to USA not delivering MDFs (private info). So it is fairly natural that independant countries worry, isn’t it?
If your going to present yourself as an “informed critic” it would help to stay educated on the topic. No? Italy, and Norway, are implementing a system to filter sensitive data, as well as their own reprogramming lab. This is not a “could” or “might”. Australia is looking at the same thing.
As far as Egypt goes (or other ME customers), they have always had concessions attached for access to US technology. Most are due to agreements with Israel. You seem to be unaware that customers such as Egypt and UAE agree to restricted access and sovereign control to be cleared for advanced weapons (with very good reason).
Yet have they used their F-16’s for strikes in Libya? Yes. So perhaps your overstating the issue just a bit. I don’t think that is by accident either. There are 26 countries operating F-16’s (and nine operating the contemporary Mirage 2000), your constant harping on US restrictions belie reality; most nations have no issue with how, when, and where they operate US sourced fighters.
FAF has minimum requirements for ‘maintenance security’, ie. ability to maintain the planes in times of crisis. It is not explicitly told what those minimum criterias are, but basically FAF expects to have ability to independently operate the plane for at least some time without outside support. If the supplier can’t guarantee this, it is out of the contest.
Despite Hallow’s claims, the aircraft can be operated without ALIS, and Finland could include stipulations for their own lab for programming.
Again, the concerns were addressed long ago:
t is also possible to work off-line on ALIS without connecting to the CPE or the ALOU for up to 30 days, depending on the squadron’s operational tempo, by keeping information stored on the SOU. “The system is designed for deployability, for remote operations, for disconnected operations for a period of time,” Scott said.
FBWALIS is also a missino preparation system, fully controlable by the USA. Finland claim to be a neutral control.Every combat capability american
No, first off no one outside of Lockheed has access to the full coding of ALIS, not the USAF, not the USN, not DoD.
Second, Finland would have it’s own CPE for for Finland specific mission data and diagnostics. Just like every other operator.
Third, Even if the US cut off the Finnish CPE from the ALOU, it would not impact combat capability immediately. Updates and maintenance diagnostics would be impacted. Worst case scenario, maintenance would have to be tracked like legacy fighters and there would be no system updates or new mission data files (provided Finland did not have capability to create their own).
These concerns, largely unfounded to begin with, have been addressed:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-f-35-software-could-quell-alis-sovereignty-conce-430823/
What other Bogyman arguments do you have?
FBWUS Navy re-establishes 2nd fleet
What a waste. 7th fleet has accidents due to insufficient training and Navy leadership wastes resources to establish 200 cushy billets. Mission be damned, the bureaucracy takes care of itself first.
Well there is no fleet command for the northern Atlantic. There is only TF20. Pacific fleet has two numbered fleets, Atlantic only has 4th fleet which is southern command.
FBWTo be honest, I don’t think anything will come of this anyway. I messaged the mods without response (I don’t know if anyone else did).
From my personal view, half of the nastiness exhibited comes from off topic posts and blatantly inflammatory comments. One example would be the controversy surrounding the F-35. Discussion about the aircraft pops up in nearly every thread, even though it has it’s own separate thread. We have cheerleaders touting the aircraft in Russian threads, and people bashing the aircraft in threads about the Rafale, for example. A little posting discipline would allow those to just want to read about a particular aircraft or airforce to enjoy a thread without being subjected to dissertations on the “stealthiness” of a intake, or F-35’s CAS ability instead of Eurofighter Typhoon capabilities.
Outside of banning, there are few remedies for blatantly nationalistic and purposely inflammatory posts.
Anyway, that’s my take on why we’ve seen a loss of posters and activity, and why there has some nastiness (of which I am often a guilty party). It might have been helpful to have some active posters be given moderation powers, but it looks like a dead end.
FBWAnyone else catch this on NG declining to bid on upgraded DAS? Interesting because they are the primary contractor for the current DAS sensor.
L-M had announced Raytheon as the new supplier for a DAS sensor upgrade (presumably because NG bailed) quite some time ago. I find this odd, until recently NG had been pushing a line of EO-DAS sensors for everything from drones to ships leveraging their experience on the F-35’s system.
Have not seen much on Raytheon’s possible replacement sensor. They have ADAS for helo’s and make EO sensors for several different drones.
Raytheon-Elbit partnership? Elbit has experience and a considerable portfolio of EO sensors.
FBWSay hello!
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-Air-Force/Tupolev-Tu-160/4970729/L
Prettiest girl in the world from head on. Find the Bone to be a little more graceful from the side and above with sensuous curves, but those buck teeth sticking out the sides ruin her mug.
Sign In
