FBWDo we really need a separate thread for this? The Su-35 agreement was signed and announced with the joint development deal. We already have a thread for that, and the Su-35 deal was discussed already in that thread.
FBWSo basically, fusion is still failing and pilots take it in charge? Hope block 3F R6 will fix it… And we already knew that Marines were strong supports, understandable comparing to what they were flying with…
Because Gilmore expressed this concern to Congress in the fall based on reports from the spring of ’16? You don’t suppose that there has been some improvement in software stability in the past six months? Reports from RF suggest there has-
“We flew these jets hard. We flew a ton of missions in Red Flag during those four weeks. I would strongly disagree (with the proposition) that the jets are not ready. We are ready to take these jets on the road whenever we’re asked to,”
““All our mission systems were up every time,” Watkins said, noting that he would often fly his F-16 with one or more of its mission systems down and just have to find work-arounds. “For the F-35 at this Red Flag, every mission system was up every time.”
FBWActually the YF-22 and the F-22 EMD airframes were completely different: different wings, different vertical and horizontal stabs shape and size, different cockpit position, different inlet boundary layer bleed vents, different internal structure, not to mention the lack of avionics, nose shape, landing gear position ‘and on and on. That is why the YF-22 and YF-23 were true prototypes.
FBWFirst flight of PakFa. It didn’t even have radar. It was mostly for the new FBW and aerodynamic handeling.
Yes, why are you repeating my point. I’m not comparing the Pak-fa to the F-22 or F-35 at first flight.
This was about what could be considered a production representative aircraft’s first flight. As I said, the Pak-fa program is a little different in approach (as expected).
FBWThe YF-22 is not the F-22. The EMD aircraft were the first F-22’s. Likewise the X-35 was not the F-35 ( note the X). Technology demonstrators and prototypes are not representative. Would you use the first flight of the EAP as the Eurofighter Typhoon’s first flight? I think not.
Addition: I excluded development timeframe (which would include technology demonstrators like the X-35). The reasoning being: according to reports, the joint aircraft will be based on the MiG-29, presumably with existing and mature engine, radar, avionics systems. That would correspond roughly with the first flight of the F-35, or F-22 EMD, to give a comparable timeframe. The Pak-fa is a bit different as engines (2nd stage) and presumably some subsystems were not mature at time of first flight.
FBWEven the F 35 will see huge cuts in the coming years. They talk about building 2500 of them but I doubt they will ever make more than 500 of them in the next 10 years.
I will take that bet, 200+ flying with 147 more in lots 9 & 10 finalized. Those are still LRIP contracts, unless full rate production yields less than 150 aircraft, your assumption is wildly off the mark.
Likely the USAF will end up ordering less than the 1,760 F-35A in the program of record. A number around 1,200 to 1,300 is more likely (excluding the Trump factor in these numbers). Add to that ~500 export F-35A, on the extreme low side. Sticking just the “A” model, production will top 2,000 even given a moderately pessimistic estimate.
FBW.. But now we probably may get the needed funds from UAE, just like it was in case of Pantsir in 1990’s, which development program was funded by UAE on 90%, with other 10% paid by our MoD to modify and adapt Pantsir for our own needs.
Let’s not forget, in the past 5 years, UAE announced they were buying the Typhoon only to back out of contract negotiations, then entered negotiations with Dassault, all the while negotiating with Boeing on the F-18. To make the situation more muddled, they’ve been using both overt and back channel pressure to lobby for an F-35 purchase.
In summation, this may be a way to extract the lowest contract cost from one of the competitors, even Russian Su-35’s as rumored. They may just be fed up with the US dragging their feet on approving FMS deals. It could be a ploy to pressure an early F-35 sale. What I doubt is that UAE is truly looking to develop a joint fifth generation aircraft.
FBWBut, assuming money is available, why should Russia have a problem to design and make another fighter is beyond me.. (?)
Because, aside from a few delusional posters from the “Rodina”, Russia doesn’t have the need for another fifth generation fighter project (or likely the resources given the breadth of the military modernization drive).
The Pak-fa project has met with the same difficulties faced by every modern fighter program- technical issues, expanded timeline, most likely cost overruns (not that we are likely to get reports on this). The focus is on inducting sufficient numbers of Su-35 and -34’s, with Pak-fa’s coming on line in the 2020’s. Personally, I think the potential 2019 order for Mig-35’s is a total waste of resources as well. That is capital and effort that could be directed into the Pak-fa program.
In any case, this UAE partnership doesn’t make a lot of sense on the face of it. First off, the timeline for developing any true fifth generation aircraft is long (first flight to IOC has averaged 7.5 years for the two US aircraft, the Pak-fa is at 7 years and counting), that is not even considering design stage. Assuming a joint UAE-Russia project used available engines, radar, system architecture, your still looking at a decade long project. Second, the idea of basing said aircraft on the MiG-29 just doesn’t make sense. Something is being lost in translation, or, as I and others have suggested, the UAE is applying leverage as they did in the Typhoon/Rafale/F-18 negotiations.
FBWI thought it was constructed to allow for it to be retrofitted into an aircraft carrier in the future. I didn’t know that the retrofit (fully functional elevator ect) is already done.
The idea that sub components like elevators are fully functional makes it more ridiculous than I previously thought.
And now I don’t believe that the deck isn’t properly coated to allow for F 35B’s.
It was always a helicopter carrier. It’s function is as a ASW carrier (technically an ASW destroyer) with a disaster relief secondary mission. The Canberra class also “look” like carriers but are LHD with a secondary disaster relief mission (or the HMS Ocean for that case). It could, with modifications, operate F-35’s as could the Canberra class. That are not planned, for either as of now. Japan wasn’t trying to “fool” anyone, it is a helicopter carrying ASW destroyer with a lineage in JSDF history stretching back to the Haruna class.
The Izumo class also can carry troops. How would you rate the Mistrals? Looking like an fixed wing aircraft carrier is one thing, functioning like one is a different matter. As of now, the Izumo class are what Japan designed them as: helicopter ASW destroyers that has multirole capability to provide disaster relief, amphibious warfare, and flagship duties.
If they planned on converting the class into true STOVL carriers from the outset, there wouldn’t be design compromises like; limited hangar space, lack of aircraft handling equipment, and an elevator amidship. Compare to the Cavour in above diagram as she was always intended to operate STOVL aircraft. In the future, it is possible that Japan could modify the class to operate a small number of F-35B’s. But it’s clear that was not the primary design driver.
FBWso is a lack of a ski jump a big issue? the American LHDs don’t have ski jumps and will operate the Daves.
Big issue? No, the Izumo is long enough for the F-35B’s rolling takeoff distance. A Ski-jump cuts roughly 1/3 off the take off run. That frees up space for spotting aircraft on deck, or recovering helicopters or lightly loaded F-35’s on the rear spots.
FBWIzumo’s elevators shouldn’t be an issue. They plan to operate V-22 off the Izumo. The thermion coating could be applied if Japan so wished. There are no technical issues (besides a lack of a ski jump) that would limit the Izumo from operating the F-35B, other than smallish hangar. The political question makes it unlikely that either Izumo or Kaga will operate F-35’s in the near future
FBWIs this Fedosov old? He alludes to comparative tests that never happened (unless he is confusing COPE INDIA 2004), but those were exercises. The Indians never had comparative tests between the F-22 and Su-35 either. I don’t know what he is talking about with the F-22, 2 out of 6 squadrons are based in Alaska not “almost all”.
He is wrong on the F-35 too, the design didn’t lose volume for weapons and fuel, as the requirements changed the weapons bay grew to incorporate the 2,000 lb bomb (not going to comment on his comparative analysis between the F-22/35 and their Russian counterparts, except to say that some of his assuptions are off base).
Is this guy the Russian Pierre Sprey?
FBWThey say that the catapult allows for a 25% increase in payload compared to the ski jump. How does the SVTOL really compare ?
25% is something but some people talk like its a 50% advantage. They talk like its not even worth having a carrier unless it has catapults. Which I think is absurd.
It’s not just payload. It is sea state, WOD, and takeoff distance. A cat allows aircraft to operate at a high tempo even when the carrier is in a tropical climate with little wind while still carrying a significant load. Add to that, the shorter distance needed for takeoff run. The flexibility is undeniable. Even the F-18 E/F could take off from a ski jump at MTOW with enough WOD according to simulations. But that would be a limiting factor considering the commonplace deployment to th Persian gulf or South china seas with their high temp and lack of winds at certain times of the year.
The addition of EMALS will add UCAV ops, and higher MTOW. Not an insignificant difference.
FBWyou got 3 options:
1] escort with an AEW from behind
2] fly blindfolded into hornets nest
3] flip on the radar on the strike package and thus light up the “LO” composed package like a christmas tree,
and still see comparatively through a straw with those fixed AESA,
OPFOR will have a glorious dayi’ll have #1 tnx
No that simply isn’t how AEW assets operate. Your not going to be escorting anything with a Hawkeye or Merlin. They will set up on a track safely off the coast with escorts, tankers out of SAM range and still be able to direct the fight from safe distance. That isn’t to say that the AEW mission won’t change with UAV and the possibility of distributed AEW, but as of now, they don’t escort on the heels of a strike package. It would be stupid to.
FBWUsing helicopter based AEW system is a reasonable, and affordable compromise for a STOVL carrier. A V-22 based AEW would be invariably more costly, less reliable, add logistical burden (instead of easing burden via commonality with Merlin fleet). Perhaps you would add option of IFR via tanker module tested for the V-22, but I’m not convinced the MoD would procure enough V-22’s to meet both requirements.
The only issue I see is the somewhat “penny wise-pound foolish” decision to opt for the Thales cerberus/searchwater system. Seems like a poor future proofing investment to skimp on the sensor designed to protect a multi billion pound task force. A modern phased array would have been a wiser choice from an upgrade path pov. L-M skepticism aside, they offered such an array.
Sign In
