FBWAnd no, it’s not an air superiority fighter AT ALL and is more akin to F/A-18 than F-16 anyway.
Based on what? You opinion? That opinion is not shared by the services that plan to use it as such.
Did Norway operate the F/A-18? BTW, the Swiss use the F/A-18 as their fighter for OCA/DCA missions. Guess what? It was rated better than the Gripen and just below the Typhoon.
FBWGilmore listed deficiencies of F-35 and as such is a potential threat to the program,
its much better to say “f-35 will **** on pak-fa”
Spud beat me to it. I know it is difficult for you to grasp (as you used KPP in the other thread to discuss the F-35 performance thresholds despite being told, conservatively 200 times those are not key performance parameters). Gilmore and his office seem to have a problem with security, discretion, not to mention JPO (which reports test points and progress to GAO) is constantly rebutting the reports as dated, inaccurate.
Since 2012, one has a track record of being right, one has a track record of being wrong. Hint, looks like Gilmore lost in his fight with JPO.
FBWIts 2 totally different designs. The Pak Fa is basically an under engine design with each engine separated with levcons on top. The air is free to go around each engine. The F 22 has a blended fuselage/intake design. And in that design, there is more potential for dead air where the intake separates from the fuselage.
KGB, Haavarla was talking about the boundary layer bleed system spill ducts. You are going off in a totally different direction. Do you know what a boundary layer bleed flow control system is? Look on the inside of the F-22 and Pak-Fa inlet.
The spill ducts for said system are on the topside of the F-22 and bottom of the Pak-Fa respectively.
FBWLooks like a mess compared to the Pak Fa. Any air that doesn’t go through the engine on the Pak Fa, has a straight path right out to the back of the jet.
No it doesn’t, look on underside of Pak-Fa inlet. If u want to respond, move it over to appropriate thread.
FBWWhat do you mean… you re not aware that the program is having soon 10 years of delay and two times initial budget despict major issues were postponed to further block ?
Did you read what I wrote? Or just the first two sentences?
Yes, it is obvious that you are posting on limited knowledge of the program and (past/present) issues.
FBWYes they talk in present, that doesn’t mean they are talking about the current status of the F35.
In a previous Interview, a pilot conclude with the something like “I support the F35 because I understood it” .
Problem is nobody know if the issues will be solve in a relevant timing… And at what costs. I consider the catastrophic states of the program is not supporting any optimistic scenario for the futur. But in 10 years from now why not.
Frankly Ezco, you don’t know the current status of the program or the F-35’s capabilities fielded today (as shown by your last two posts). I’m not pointing that out to be rude, as not everyone has interest, time, or inclination to know the status of various weapons programs. But it is obvious you are confusing what you have previously read with what the aircraft is capable of TODAY.
The program is in nothing resembling a catastropic state. Since 2011-12, the program has largely met cost reduction goals, timeline, and performed largely as expected. That doesn’t mean there aren’t issues: Engineering problems have (and will continue) to pop up, and be resolved. That is no different than previous programs such as: F-15 propulsion issues, F-16 horizontal stab issues, F-18 E/F TRO issues. There are still software problems: threat database, 3F stability, etc. These are not catastrophic. How many times does your smartphone software get updated to fix glitches and vulnerabilities every year? Does this impact your use?
Lot of drama, little substance in these latest F-35 “the sky is falling” reports and articles.
FBWOn my part, I always said that the F-35 is by far the better solution for what our own air force need i.e. a substitute for Tornado and AMX: it’s when they want to sell it out as a Caccia that I begin to LOL…
LoL if you must but it is a more capable fighter than the types it is replacing. Is it an air superiorty fighter by design? No, but neither was the F-16.
FBWAny pics ? I have no idea what this is about
He’s talking about the boundary layer spill ducts. Look on top of the F-22 near intake.
BTW, these “whose bigger” contests vis a vis the F-22 and the Pak-Fa are stupid. They are different design philosophies for different operators-Different horses for courses. If anyone, (based on the classified nature of each) can state definitively that one design is superior to the other (based on the respective service’s requirements), your full of it. One may have a lower RCS, or better low speed maneuverability, one may be 15 years newer, but it’s obvious they were not designed with the same requirements, other than air dominance.
And in the wrong thread.
FBWIt makes me wonder why they didn’t just take the F 16 and do what it took to stealth it, internalize fuel and weapons and put the fancy computers in it.
It would require: embedding all antennas, sensors, complete rewiring, entirely new mission computers, entirely new airframe, engine, design and placement of intake, canopy, twin tails, enlarged nosecone.
In other words, you can’t “stealthify” an exsisting design. You can marginally improve RCS (as the US already did with the Have Glass programs). Even equipping an F-16 with sensors and systems equivalent to an F-35 would lead to a substantially inferior aircraft functionally and kinematically.
FBWUS Navy surface force strategy- https://news.usni.org/2017/01/09/new-surface-warfare-strategy-emphasizes-high-end-surface-warfare
“If it floats, it fights”
Navy is pushing distributed lethality. They are considering fitting the VLS launchers that the San Antonio class has space reserved for example.
FBWSounds fishy, how would the Taranis control surfaces address pitch/yaw instability approaching supersonic speeds without TVC? I know NASA did some research into tailless supersonic configurations (and they were seriously odd looking, other than the X-36, which did have TVC in yaw only ), Taranis has conventional flying wing layout.
Edit- Sweetman claimed Taranis might have TVC (does not look apparent in pictures), likely yaw.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/broadband-stealth-may-drive-taranis-design
FBWExcept that with the F 35, most of the criticism is coming from people close to the program. This doesn’t always happen.
That isn’t what is happening here either. Who is criticizing the F-35 that is “close to the program”? GAO?
Here is the issue all along. I’ve said it before, in response to Gilmore’s latest comments: The relationship between JPO and GAO has been poor all along.
The cycle of negative reporting and disconnect from realities of the program looks something like this:
1. JPO identifies a problem in testing
2. JPO begins implementing a fix
3. JPO notifies GAO of progress in periodic updates
4. JPO begins testing fix of problem
5. GAO issues report (which often leaks before approved for public release. I found Gilmore’s Congressional testimony online 1 day after he reported to congress in 2015, it had been leaked before the GAO report was issued. The fact that this has happened repeatedly gives some insight into GAO’s institutional dysfunction.)
6. The media gets the GAO report, presents it as the present status of the F-35, omitting the fact that the issue has been, or is in the process of a fix. Journalists devote the majority of their articles to the GAO reported problems, with perhaps one sentence or two quoting JPO saying it will be a non-issue (if they are attempting to be objective).
7. John Q Public reads said reports and assumes the F-35 is horribly broken, despite the fact it is in service. The average poster (like Ezco), who only follows the program through these sensationalist articles, posts on this forum based on these articles. Those who actually follow the program know the reported issue is fixed or in the process of a fix. These informed posters are shouted down as “fanboys”. “liars” etc. for daring to know the actual state of the program instead of regurgitating crap from “War is Boring” or editorial notes from Di Briganti on “Defense Aerospace”.
Add to the fact that GAO has been consistently wrong about their recommendations in recent years. 2B/3i were completed in time (in spite of GAO stating that there would be a several month delay). The F-35A reached IOC in the fall (in spite of GAO stating IOC would not be reached until 2017). These are just two off the top of my head.
FBWOk, but in the meanwhile? There are still 10 carriers using steam catapults no?
Yes indeed, and barring some massively expensive refit or technology breakthrough in power generation for the Nimitz, they aren’t getting EMALS.
They have 2 years to implement a fix before impacting IOC for Navy. Considering JPO’s track record so far, it will be done in plenty of time, though not fast enough to prevent GAO from issuing “recommendations” that will invariably cause a media firestorm. Wait, that’s already happening.
FBWSo yes one day, everything you can read from some pilot feedback will happen… mini awaks etc… but I personally think that it will arrive too late, when sensors will be obsolete, and when threats will also be improved.
Which sensors? L-M is already flight testing the Advanced EOTS, and will be available for block 4 (provided customers want them). DAS sensors are pretty simple, it is the software algorithms that allow the 6 cameras to be stitched together, shape recognition, integration with all the other sensors that give it unique functionality. Speaking of which, the processors are updated in TR2 (when upgrading to 3i/3f), with TR3 already scheduled (contract June 2016).
FBWAny statistics about loading on carrier take off? Because “likely” is a bit imprecise… Aswell as EM catapults being smoother (genuine question that one)?
Linear (uniform) acceleration. Think hand gradually applying force to your back vs. releasing a rubber band. Also the EM cats can can be dialed in to more accurately apply the correct amount of force for take-off weight.
Sign In
