FBWOk, so some obvious hyperbole here… “an afterburner takeoff, almost immediately pointing his nose to the sky and letting the aircraft climb away essentially vertically” is a move unique to the F-22 and F-35? Unless there is some fine distinction that didn’t make it into the article I don’t see why that would be.
Nonetheless, it looks like they have put some real effort into this show. The 50 degree AoA demo is nifty. It will be interesting to see what they can do once they are free to go all the way to 9Gs.
With L-M pilots doing the display, I’m curious if the USAF had any say on the specified weights and/or inert weapons. Haven’t seen the weapon bay open in any of the demos (though the low show would include this according to the avweek article) The F-22 starts it’s demo at 18,000 lbs of fuel (- any inert weapon weight). If the F-35 is taking off with full internal fuel, the climb out is agressive for sure. The AvWeek article states
“the Joint Strike Fighter flying the demonstration this week is fully combat-ready. Flynn’s F-35A will move easily through complex aerial maneuvers loaded with everything it needs to go to war”
which does not necessarily mean full fuel, especially with a 6 minute display.
Will be interesting to read the airshow demonstration/profiles documents when the USAF finally clears the F-35 for airshows by service personnel.
FBWas I said earlier, you can partner only between countries who have compatible needs on the project they partner for.. you speak about a tank.. well, Germany and france use them pretty much the same way… they can partner on it… if france wants to make a second aircraft carrier, will they be able to partner with germans on it? germans can build ships, but they have no use of an aircraft carrier, so the partnership won’t go anywhere… you get the point?
Germany want a fighter that can replace the tornado? France can propose them the Rafale right now, if they want.. the next aircraft for the french may be a UCAV that would accompany the Rafale for strike, when needed, and for Rafale replacement, it way too early anyway
France backed out of joint development of the Leopard II due to disagreements over design. The Leopard II entered service and was in full production before the Leclerc prototype was in testing. France ended up with a MBT that took another decade to enter service, and rumored to be the most expensive MBT in the world.
The point is that France HAS a robust defense industry, and like the U.S. is going to defend that industry even if less expensive analogues are available. The parallel development of the Typhoon and the Rafale is another example. The needs were largely compatable, there were some obvious disagreements over some specifications (9500 vs 9750 kg empty weight target, carrier capable, strike capability), but nothing that should have been insurmountable. Disagreements over workshare requirements were insurmountable. Perhaps it is a pessimistic view, but I don’t think that will change should any future European fighter program be initiated.
France would insist on the lead to protect Dassault, rightly viewing any future European fighter project as a threat to the Rafale. The U.S. and France protect their indigenous defense industry (and considering the relative fiasco of the Typhoon upgrade path, the Horizon frigate procurement, and the A400M, who is to say that is wrong?). It is hard to fathom how Airbus is going to navigate the workshare minefield.
FBWincluding AESA radar and 20%VAT For M (carrier version)
You have confirmation of that? Or opinion. The RBE2 wasn’t in serial production until mid-2013. Why would the senat report for 2013 include AESA on production Rafale?
As of 2017, only 32 sets have been produced. Does not add up.
FBWLooks pretty serious:
Flight I, doubtful they will repair it if there is significant structural damage. Unless the new navy directive pushes the early burkes past 30 year service life.
FBWSo what do you guys think about the Le Bourget F-35 display?
Wait till the actual flight display? I don’t expect anything to wow the average forum airshow pundits. Other than, it’s there, it’s actually a fighter, and there will more than a few twits with stopwatches trying to infer turn rate via demonstration.
Sans, sarcasm. Having watched a few of the practice runs, the F-35 impresses in pitch rate so far, have not seen full roll rate. Never been a fan of the low speed maneuvering in air shows common now. The ripping past the crowd an pulling vertical was more exciting in person back in the day.
FBWSwerve, this was a back and forth over Halloweene citing shoddy defense reporting that claimed the US government was hiding the “true cost” of the F-35 despite the myriad of accounting measures and reports published. In other words, what you just said about the French senat reporting was exactly the response of several posters to those claims about the F-35.
The poster was using sarcasm back at Hallow. This has been an ongoing argument. Not sure you want to wade into this without reading the background posts.
FBWUSAF Orders 72 AN/APG-83 AESA Radar sets for F-16
This is big news buried in the recent headlines over PCA, B-21, F-35. etc. Finally, the USAF is committing to capability upgrades for the F-16/-15 fleets with APG-83 and EPAWSS. The legacy fleet will be flying at least until the late 2020’s (F-15C), and into the 2030’s for some of the F-16’s and F-15E. Some was obviously funding due to BCA. On the other hand, considering the known delays in the F-35 ramp up and block buys, the service dragged their feet committing to upgrading the F-16 fleet, and backtracked several times on scope and scale of the modernization.
FBWBack on topic,
first appearance of a LO fighter at Le Bourget since the B-2 imminent:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-s-arrival-stealth-returns-paris
Some see a bit of contradiction in the Berlin-Paris pledges and the recent request for F-35 Briefing by Germany
https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/europe/030363760658-paris-et-berlin-daccord-pour-accelerer-leurope-de-la-defense-2091403.php
FBWI was referring to a famous case of spatial disorientation. I’ll see if I can find the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-adcRA3u8Q
Take the narrator’s comments with a grain of salt. I believe it was determined his aircraft pulled over 12g with momentary g reaching 14-15.
FBWHallow, what is the point of this post? This is JSR quality, not a good reflection of you.
Do you really need an explanation in why the F-35C has larger wings?
Yes, the Rafale can pull over 9g in airshows due to its control laws allowing it. What is your point? The US aircraft are largely restricted to 9g by their control laws because there is no point in allowing more G. One, because of pilot safety, two because loaded for combat, most aircraft can’t even pull 9G (stores limited, G demand system limits). If airshow performance were a measure of combat effectiveness than the Rafale would be hands down in the top echelon. Happy?
So, a mirage III pulled 14g once? So did an F-15. Every aircraft can be a glider once too. That is why there are G limits. If you are breaking the aircraft by exceeding the structural limit that isn’t very impressive, that is exactly why they have control law limits.
FBW@marcellogo
Your focus on Mach is indicative of the comprehension issue people have regarding performance. The F-35A/C are limited to 700 knots. Not to mention that is a CLAWS enforced limit. L-M described in the literature on the control laws how easily pilots can overspeed the aircraft at all FL and configurations if they are not careful. The F-35A can also exceed the speed of sound at sea level, Hardly slow. They’ve exceeded that 700 knot/Mach 1.6 limit in testing. If they saw an operational benefit for higher speed, the aircraft wouldn’t been constrained to the control law limit. We can speculate on why they decided to set the limit at 700 knots (thermal constraints or whatever) but it’s irrevelant based on 70 years of data regarding operational use of high speed flight.
FBWHere the results according to International Budget Partnership’s Open Budget Survey (OBS). Russia is right there, below Sierra Leone..
Kudos…. Hope you didn’t waste your entire day searching for a non-profit that gave Russia a favorable rating. Unfortunately, you are confusing ratings over information released to the public on budget information (which pretty much every developed nation does), and the real issue I was referring to- corruption, kickbacks, and accurate reporting of defense spending.
You can disagree, but the high profile cases were even reported in Russian news, In 2011, the military prosecutor estimated that a fifth of defense spending was stolen or misappropriated.
You’ve made absurd claims that the DoD or U.S. government is “hiding” the true cost of the F-35 by including such things as long lead items into contracts that are a matter of public record, in spite of a multitude of budget documents and reports (that are also a matter of public record). Then try to claim you can find accurate information Su-30 costs from Russia. It would help if you (and Defense-Aerospace) took even a few minutes to look at procurement practices in the DoD.
FBW@Msphere
There is a lot of data about Russian aircraft, as well.. I have seen complete BOMs for Russian Su-30SM orders, incl. foreign content, you won’t find that on the F-35.. the problem is you can’t read cyrillics, but that is a problem of your own, not mine
Yes, Russia is synonymous with “budget transparency” especially in their defense industry.
They rank among the elites in openness and transparency: Just below Sierra Leone and just above Kyrgyzstan.
FBWYep.. and these are the only figures which really do matter.. ~$150 mil a pop domestic delivery price.. twice as much as an F/A-18E/F..
What is the PAUC equivalent for the two other western aircraft currently being produced? ( I posted them in the Typhoon and Rafale thread- for the Rafale that is 231 million in 2013 (USD). Odd that Defense Aerospace doesn’t want to delve into that further.
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-158-814.html
Might want to check your numbers for the F-18 E/F, they are no longer 75 million flyaway. Also, why would you compare flyaway of an F-18 E/F with the PAUC of the F-35? That, and the flyaway for the SH doesn’t include GFE like the engines (Edit- engines are included in the 79 million FY 2017 flyaway cost in the Navy budget).
FBWThe ever sneaky Concurrency cost that is the sole fault of US Senate, politics and what not..
It has nothing to do with F-35 program and its inherent production Lot’s. No sir, its two different issues.. nothing to see, moving on!
And what are the concurrency costs of the F-35’s being produced now? What are they for lots 10, 11?
Flippant comments are a poor substitute for knowing what you are talking about.
Sign In
