STOVL F35's for RAN???
We have suffered a huge hole in Australia's naval warfare capabilities ever since the loss of our seaborne fixed wing capability.
This is a threat to the survivability of our naval ships. Strategically, it is a threat to Australia's ability to defend itself and prevents Australia from making its influence and presence felt in fields afar.
Any project that goes towards addressing our deficiencies in medium and long-range Fleet Defence and Naval Force Projection should be encouraged.
Naval aviators are specialists in their field and should belong to the Navy. There is no fundamental problem with the Airforce Fighter Conversion Unit providing training for Naval Aviators to become fighter pilots.
This is a threat to the survivability of our naval ships. Strategically, it is a threat to Australia's ability to defend itself and prevents Australia from making its influence and presence felt in fields afar.
Any project that goes towards addressing our deficiencies in medium and long-range Fleet Defence and Naval Force Projection should be encouraged.
Naval aviators are specialists in their field and should belong to the Navy. There is no fundamental problem with the Airforce Fighter Conversion Unit providing training for Naval Aviators to become fighter pilots.
Some clarification...
I remember last year F/A22 was not only a possibility it was offered to Australia
pilots would stay for the Raptor probably fly for free if it came to a pinch
Not F-18 superduds, real combat fighters like F-15's that have never been downed in real combat
F-18 is
not a decent stopgap vs MiG 29
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KR give us Raptor
Not true. Would love to know your source on that one."
But defence analysts say that if Washington changes its mind, Japan and Australia could be among the first to get access to the type. Lockheed is also keen to keep its Raptor production line open
I can't find another article that had even stronger words in it along the lines that an Australian (cut down) version of F22 was already designed for Australia. But you get the point if we asked we might get it. In fact get on board and get KR to ask, forget JSF it's rubbish, Australia deserves Raptor.
Again not true. Pilots would love to get their hands on it for sure, but after a couple of years dominating everything all the time it would get a bit tedious. All pilots like a challenge, fighter pilots especially so. This jet doesn't give it to them. Guys won't stay any longer than they currently do.
Rubbish. The Super Hornet will challenge SU-27/30 series fighters. There is more to life than kinematics. That said you can never have too much thrust.
They may challenge but they will not dominate and that's the point when we can only field smaller numbers.
The F-15 is superior to the 18 by a wide margin (18's are nowhere near as capable as F-15's i.e 104-0 in real combat, amongst the kills are MiG 25's, 21's and 23's as well as FIVE MiG 29's for zero losses)
Given that the SU27 is considered an F-15 eagle equivalent and given that SM Su-27's will have AMRAAMs superior to our AIM 120s (Russian AAMs aren't the rubbish manual clock things they used to be either, SM standard Su-27s can be equipped with R-77 AMRAAMs which outclass AIM-120 AMRAAMs) any 18 even the 18 superdud is outclassed by threats our immediate neighbors will have in a few short years.
(I refuse to put F in front of the 18 anymore as it is too compromised to be called a fighter)
KR Raptor us, Raptor us now!
How many F-18s have been defeated by an airborne threat?
During the first Persian Gulf War, two U.S. Navy F/A-18s were destroyed with the loss of their pilots.[14] On 17 January 1991, the first day of the war, Lieutenant Commander Scott Speicher of VFA-81 was shot down and remains listed as missing in action. The other F/A-18, piloted by Lieutenant Robert Dwyer (who was officially listed as killed in action, body not recovered), was lost over the North Persian Gulf after a successful mission to Iraq.
And I am going for this version of events
An unclassified summary of a 2001 CIA report states that Speicher's aircraft was shot down by a missile fired from an Iraqi aircraft, a pilot on the same mission reveals "I'm telling you right now, don't believe what you're being told. It was that MiG that shot Spike down."[3] most likely a MiG-25.[1]
The interesting thing to me is Raptor is it is a game changer. Sure it has excellent kinematics (MTOW is FULL fuel and weapons to give you some idea). Vectored thrust, low observables etc. But it's sensor array and supercruise which is just plain AWESOME.
If you get close to a Raptor you won't outfly one but chances are you will never see it coming. It operates at high altitude (hence the name Raptor) if you do spot it, by the time you climb to intercept it would have found you with it's passive embedded sensor array and dispatched you, by the time you reached intercept because of low observables and supercruise it's not there, if by some miracle you get close enough F22 has not neglected basics it will outfly you.
F-22 is it's own AWACS. It is also massively networked, squadrons of Raptors can light you up or locate your beam and fire each others missiles to knock you out. You can not only see your own targets but the rest of your squadron's as well.
The systems are more friendly so that you can concentrate on flying and not managing aircraft systems, in short it's a far more efficient air superiority machine.
That's of course assuming the whole time you detected it in the first place with it's low observables i.e STEALTH (hate that word)
Airframes in the latter stages of 3rd generation design were slower for a reason, BVR missiles were assumed, and rocketry had progressed in leaps and bounds, the airframe didn't need to accelerate the AAM anymore but basic fundamental kinematics (love that word) i.e basic air warcraft was still needed. A large powerful radar was needed for BVR engagement.
F22 can do that well but it's a game changer in it doesn't need to. Light it up with your 3rd gen radar (and low observables makes this really hard) and it will send an AMRAAM down your own beam. Go and intercept and it's not there, It will use it's whole squadron of missiles in the most efficient manner and if it runs out of AAMs to fire it will outfly you and take you out with guns.
Last edited by Slackjaw; 25th Feb 2009 at 11:19.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon someone needs to keep up with the news about subs...and not simply read all the glossy brochures. On sub invulnerability, whilst the exercise reports always play up how many carriers have gone down today, no-one seems to listen to the ASW guys. It's funny when you talk to them they always tell you about all the subs they have sunk! Indeed, every major submarine battle in history has been won by surface or above surface forces. NB: Nearly winning, or nearly bringing a country to its knees is not the same as actually winning.
Not sure why a cut down version of the F22 would be so great either? It would probaby be nearly as capable as an F35, but at only 3 times the cost instead of 4 times. With the small number affordable, a single well placed explosive device can take out a runway (notwithstanding what it could do to an aeroplane on the ground) and then an F22 can be theoretically as fast and capable as you like, but it's still stuck on the ground just looking pretty. A fighter stuck on the ground is useless. Ask the Yugoslavian Air Force about what happened in 1999. They had Mig 29s! So did the Iraqi Air Force in 1991-2003! By no means were the F15s solely responsible for the air domination involved in each case.
Not sure why a cut down version of the F22 would be so great either? It would probaby be nearly as capable as an F35, but at only 3 times the cost instead of 4 times. With the small number affordable, a single well placed explosive device can take out a runway (notwithstanding what it could do to an aeroplane on the ground) and then an F22 can be theoretically as fast and capable as you like, but it's still stuck on the ground just looking pretty. A fighter stuck on the ground is useless. Ask the Yugoslavian Air Force about what happened in 1999. They had Mig 29s! So did the Iraqi Air Force in 1991-2003! By no means were the F15s solely responsible for the air domination involved in each case.
Ask the Yugoslavian Air Force about what happened in 1999. They had Mig 29s! So did the Iraqi Air Force in 1991-2003! By no means were the F15s solely responsible for the air domination involved in each case.
If you saw the state of Iraq's Migs in 2003 you would know that they were never going to put up a fight of any kind.
Regardless of CK and his followers, we will probably end up with F-35 as a cost effective, supportable solution.
Biggest threats at the moment are a budget deficit and the Chinese making a play for Rio Tinto.
Another 24 Super Hornets and a possible extension of the current classic fleet should do the trick. That makes more economic sense.
The RAAF's desire for a 100 aircraft tactical fighter fleet. To fight an unrealistic defense of the continent, with a concurrent capability of fighting two different foes on two fronts, is predictably now pie in the sky!
Who are we supposed to be fighting with a huge fleet of fighters?
1) China. Our biggest trading partner? Sure, they are investing in more force projection. But their biggest investment is internal force projection in these economic times.
2) India? Sorry, they're on our side. They will naturally align with the West over the next decade.
3) Indonesia? Always a threat. Economic hardship will once again have them skip a generation of force projection.
What is operational now, in service with our allies and can be integrated with ease? Super Hornet. But do we really need more dual seaters?
If it is good enough to defend a carrier it must be good enough for the RAAF.
Another 24 Super Hornets and a possible extension of the current classic fleet should do the trick. That makes more economic sense.
The RAAF's desire for a 100 aircraft tactical fighter fleet. To fight an unrealistic defense of the continent, with a concurrent capability of fighting two different foes on two fronts, is predictably now pie in the sky!
Who are we supposed to be fighting with a huge fleet of fighters?
1) China. Our biggest trading partner? Sure, they are investing in more force projection. But their biggest investment is internal force projection in these economic times.
2) India? Sorry, they're on our side. They will naturally align with the West over the next decade.
3) Indonesia? Always a threat. Economic hardship will once again have them skip a generation of force projection.
What is operational now, in service with our allies and can be integrated with ease? Super Hornet. But do we really need more dual seaters?
If it is good enough to defend a carrier it must be good enough for the RAAF.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 26th Feb 2009 at 03:38.
I have read the biography of Speicher's life and the mission. According to this source it was most likely a MiG that shot the Hornet down but mostly out of luck. I can't remember the details but due to a combination of aircrew not using SOPs and ROE the MiG was able to slip through and fire before many people could react.
It was not the airframes shortcomings.
It was not the airframes shortcomings.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do I get my hands on a submarine brochure?
ASW vs subs? if you like there might be a "brochure" somewhere out there on how our Oberons did ferret runs into very hostile countries.
With modern ASW out there the French and British collided because they didn't tell each other where they were.
There may also be a "brochure" out there of why we were so sucessful in Timor and why Indonesea will not let it happen again hence the purchase of Kilo's and 209s.
Proposing anything but a balanced force Air Sea and land is silly, but if you don't own the air you are in a highly compromised position. STOVL? Really? how compromised an aircraft is that? Range? Payload? both of which JSF is struggling to meet it's targets for. This is a big brown land you know or are we going back to hauling it on vulnerable surface ships?
It reminds me of how we got 18s in the first place to replace our F-111s AND our mirages. 111s still flying because 18s can't fill that role. Jack of all trades master of none.
No SU27 vs F-15s beacause they are evenly matched. No Western country would want more than likely losses. JSF might fare ok against Su-27 but maybe not, F-22 is a whole generation ahead.
I will agree that if we did get F-22 we would need adequate funds to operate them, but even the less stealthy less capable JSF is going to be expensive, if you read Boeing's spiel then F22 costs less and needs less to field than F-15.
Now do you want our brave pilots to head out there in his STOVL JSF against Su-27SMs with a little bit of an advantage or out there in an F-22 knowing he owns the sky?
It took the USSR 12 years (Su27 inroduced 1984, F-15A 1972) to catch up with the F-15. Thats the kind of advantage I would rather Australia have.
As for F-15 vs the world the score is 104-0 regaredless of what other types participated in whatever campaign. The Iseralis went to guns a lot beause they were that confident of the advantage they had over their advesaries (MiG21s and 23s).
Here we go again with the untrained pilots. There are accounts of how much respect the Israelis had for the battlecraft of some of there advesaries, they still shot them down with their superior F15s on guns.
18s went to deliver bombs and got shot down, With an battleforce as large as the US they can have a bomber for delivering loads off carriers, we need a fighter for Air Defence.
Underestimating your opponent and trusting they won't be able to operate their fighters etc is a gamble and not sound defence policy. To say confidently they don't have the coin to train a fighting force that they are heavily investing in is a huge gamble with Australia's defence.
The F22As would still posses most of the passive sensor arrays but probably not as much of the battlegroup network coms as it is useless in our hands anyway. Maybe less stealthy? probably down to the level of JSF. So no loss there. It would still have PW F119s x2 so massive amounts of kinematic advantage in a conventional dogfight.
It would still outclass a JSF especially STOVL JSF.It would still be far better than an F-15 which is better than an 18.
It's in bad eceonomic times that nations go crazy and invade each other. Is China or India our friend? Tell you what if one or the other backs Indonesia we wish would we had F22s
ASW vs subs? if you like there might be a "brochure" somewhere out there on how our Oberons did ferret runs into very hostile countries.
With modern ASW out there the French and British collided because they didn't tell each other where they were.
There may also be a "brochure" out there of why we were so sucessful in Timor and why Indonesea will not let it happen again hence the purchase of Kilo's and 209s.
Proposing anything but a balanced force Air Sea and land is silly, but if you don't own the air you are in a highly compromised position. STOVL? Really? how compromised an aircraft is that? Range? Payload? both of which JSF is struggling to meet it's targets for. This is a big brown land you know or are we going back to hauling it on vulnerable surface ships?
It reminds me of how we got 18s in the first place to replace our F-111s AND our mirages. 111s still flying because 18s can't fill that role. Jack of all trades master of none.
No SU27 vs F-15s beacause they are evenly matched. No Western country would want more than likely losses. JSF might fare ok against Su-27 but maybe not, F-22 is a whole generation ahead.
I will agree that if we did get F-22 we would need adequate funds to operate them, but even the less stealthy less capable JSF is going to be expensive, if you read Boeing's spiel then F22 costs less and needs less to field than F-15.
Now do you want our brave pilots to head out there in his STOVL JSF against Su-27SMs with a little bit of an advantage or out there in an F-22 knowing he owns the sky?
It took the USSR 12 years (Su27 inroduced 1984, F-15A 1972) to catch up with the F-15. Thats the kind of advantage I would rather Australia have.
As for F-15 vs the world the score is 104-0 regaredless of what other types participated in whatever campaign. The Iseralis went to guns a lot beause they were that confident of the advantage they had over their advesaries (MiG21s and 23s).
Here we go again with the untrained pilots. There are accounts of how much respect the Israelis had for the battlecraft of some of there advesaries, they still shot them down with their superior F15s on guns.
18s went to deliver bombs and got shot down, With an battleforce as large as the US they can have a bomber for delivering loads off carriers, we need a fighter for Air Defence.
Underestimating your opponent and trusting they won't be able to operate their fighters etc is a gamble and not sound defence policy. To say confidently they don't have the coin to train a fighting force that they are heavily investing in is a huge gamble with Australia's defence.
The F22As would still posses most of the passive sensor arrays but probably not as much of the battlegroup network coms as it is useless in our hands anyway. Maybe less stealthy? probably down to the level of JSF. So no loss there. It would still have PW F119s x2 so massive amounts of kinematic advantage in a conventional dogfight.
It would still outclass a JSF especially STOVL JSF.It would still be far better than an F-15 which is better than an 18.
It's in bad eceonomic times that nations go crazy and invade each other. Is China or India our friend? Tell you what if one or the other backs Indonesia we wish would we had F22s
Yep, let's buy 15 F22s. That should just about cover all of our needs (as needs are always adjusted to fit the available budget), and we can make even more savings on the reduction in the RAAF's personnel numbers that would go with a force that size.
I've played ASW, and submarines, even nuclear ones, get themselves killed. It's nowhere near as one sided as some would like us to believe.
Actually, do we need any fighters at all? Perhaps a few 747s. Equip them with their own AWACs style radar, and rotary launchers with a couple of hundred of whatever missile takes your fancy.
I've played ASW, and submarines, even nuclear ones, get themselves killed. It's nowhere near as one sided as some would like us to believe.
Actually, do we need any fighters at all? Perhaps a few 747s. Equip them with their own AWACs style radar, and rotary launchers with a couple of hundred of whatever missile takes your fancy.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. I swear Michael Phelps is amongst us and posting here.
2. Wikipedia is not valid reference source, ever. Nerds and spotters writing it on the internet does mot make it fact.
3. Anyone see that KRud is handing out billions, and the economy is heading south. No way could we afford the F22 even if it was offered.
4. Quantity has its own quality.
5. So if Joel wants to get me on the dog and bone, what would I say.
2. Wikipedia is not valid reference source, ever. Nerds and spotters writing it on the internet does mot make it fact.
3. Anyone see that KRud is handing out billions, and the economy is heading south. No way could we afford the F22 even if it was offered.
4. Quantity has its own quality.
5. So if Joel wants to get me on the dog and bone, what would I say.
- Sort out the procurement process, no more cock ups, before they even think about any more major projects.
- Make sure we can deploy what we have got, now. (Thats means helo support for our troops now, not some far off fantasy fighters, and frankly this is a bit embarshing that the only thing we can deploy is 33%(2) of the Chook force at anyone time, to where they are needed)
- Order another 24 super bugs (with some growlers) and delay the JSF. Let the early adoptors iron out the kinks for us.
- First introduction of the JSF should be the B, nothing wrong with enhancing the capability of the LHDs.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slackjaw - back to the fanboy forums with you and don't let the door hit you on the arse on your way out...
Meanwhile, back in reality land, word on the streets is there's a Growler announcement imminent...
Meanwhile, back in reality land, word on the streets is there's a Growler announcement imminent...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard 4-6 jets will be wired for but not fitted with Growler gear, and that a decision on whether to buy the gear will be made downstream...
Confirmed that 12 will be wired for Growler gear with a decision on whether to pursue EA-18Gs to be made at a later date.
Confirmed that 12 will be wired for Growler gear with a decision on whether to pursue EA-18Gs to be made at a later date.
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 26th Feb 2009 at 22:09.
Growlers
$35m to be spent rewiring Super Hornets - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The Federal Government says it will spend $35 million upgrading half of the RAAF's still-to-be-delivered F/A-18F Super Hornets with the capacity to enable an upgrade of their electronic warfare capabilities.
But a final decision to upgrade the planes, which would cost $300 million, will not be made until 2012.
The Government purchased 24 of the multi-role fighters several years ago to maintain the RAAF's strike capabilities after the F-111 strike aircraft are retired.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says the upgrades will turn the RAAF Super Hornets into the electronic-warfare capable Growler variant.
"It will allow the aircraft to take out the electronic components of opposing aircraft," he said.
"In addition, in a counter-terrorism sense, the Growlers have the capacity to take out the ground communications systems of terrorist cells and indeed take out the triggering devices terrorists rely upon."
Mr Fitzgibbon blamed the former government for not originally allowing for the option when it ordered the planes in 2006.
"They missed the opportunity to wire some of the Hornets as Growlers while they were on the production line," he said.
But he has backed the fighter planes as a good choice.
"I'm convinced that the Super Hornet provides all the capability that Australia needs to see us through for the coming decades but the investment proposed today will again significantly upgrade that capability," he said.
In 2006 the previous government announced it was buying 24 Super Hornets to replace the F-111s until the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters were ready.
The Super Hornets are expected to be delivered next year.
The Howard government ordered 100 of the F-35s at a cost of $16 billion before they had ever been flown.
However the Government is yet to officially sign off on the deal after concerns were raised over their capability.
Mr Fitzgibbon is expected to make a decision on the deal when the Defence White Paper is released later this year.
But a final decision to upgrade the planes, which would cost $300 million, will not be made until 2012.
The Government purchased 24 of the multi-role fighters several years ago to maintain the RAAF's strike capabilities after the F-111 strike aircraft are retired.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says the upgrades will turn the RAAF Super Hornets into the electronic-warfare capable Growler variant.
"It will allow the aircraft to take out the electronic components of opposing aircraft," he said.
"In addition, in a counter-terrorism sense, the Growlers have the capacity to take out the ground communications systems of terrorist cells and indeed take out the triggering devices terrorists rely upon."
Mr Fitzgibbon blamed the former government for not originally allowing for the option when it ordered the planes in 2006.
"They missed the opportunity to wire some of the Hornets as Growlers while they were on the production line," he said.
But he has backed the fighter planes as a good choice.
"I'm convinced that the Super Hornet provides all the capability that Australia needs to see us through for the coming decades but the investment proposed today will again significantly upgrade that capability," he said.
In 2006 the previous government announced it was buying 24 Super Hornets to replace the F-111s until the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters were ready.
The Super Hornets are expected to be delivered next year.
The Howard government ordered 100 of the F-35s at a cost of $16 billion before they had ever been flown.
However the Government is yet to officially sign off on the deal after concerns were raised over their capability.
Mr Fitzgibbon is expected to make a decision on the deal when the Defence White Paper is released later this year.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Age: 56
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Submarines and Maritime Patrol Aircraft
I'm not sure why submarines feature so prominently in a discussion of about the F35; and I'll probably regret poking my nose in, but in view of where some of these posts are going:
I'd just like to mention that back in my day, 92 Wing and the Australian Submarine Squadron got along quite well. It was always a complete pain to organise to get a submariner on a sortie or to get aircrew to searide in a boat - but when we went to the effort it was always incredibly worthwhile. Much easier were the visits to Platypus and Edinburgh - but they were always good.
I am way out of touch; but I can't imagine any real submariners not being deeply worried by maritime patrol aircraft or of anyone from 92 Wing thinking that submarines are easy to find. I can't remember anyone I ever met from the Australian Submarine Squadron or from 92 Wing who thought like that.
I'd just like to mention that back in my day, 92 Wing and the Australian Submarine Squadron got along quite well. It was always a complete pain to organise to get a submariner on a sortie or to get aircrew to searide in a boat - but when we went to the effort it was always incredibly worthwhile. Much easier were the visits to Platypus and Edinburgh - but they were always good.
I am way out of touch; but I can't imagine any real submariners not being deeply worried by maritime patrol aircraft or of anyone from 92 Wing thinking that submarines are easy to find. I can't remember anyone I ever met from the Australian Submarine Squadron or from 92 Wing who thought like that.
If I remember correctly HMS Sheffield was fitted for, but not with, a point defense system (Goalkeeper?).
And Slackjaw, you really should stay on the medication.
And Slackjaw, you really should stay on the medication.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's great to see Labor reviving it's traditional Defence policy of: fitted for, but not with.
Perhaps next we can see a return to Defence of Australia?
Tell you what though, that Defence Minister of ours sure knows how to draw a crowd:
Also, he's a handy guy to know if you need a new battery installed in your car... but I probably wouldn't bother seeking his assistance in sorting out matters of pay and conditions
Perhaps next we can see a return to Defence of Australia?
Tell you what though, that Defence Minister of ours sure knows how to draw a crowd:
Also, he's a handy guy to know if you need a new battery installed in your car... but I probably wouldn't bother seeking his assistance in sorting out matters of pay and conditions
2nd LM F-35B STOVL Fighter Accomplished 1st flight
(Fort Worth, Texas, February 25, 2009) -- Lockheed Martin's [NYSE: LMT] second short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B Lightning II accomplished its first flight on Wednesday, Feb. 25. The aircraft, known as BF-2, joins a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A and another STOVL F-35B that already have logged a combined total of 84 flights.
During its flight on Wednesday, BF-2 went through a series of maneuvers to assess its subsystems and basic handling qualities, and to check on-board instrumentation. Subsequent missions will take the aircraft higher and faster, in a structured series of flights. All F-35 test aircraft to date have been powered by the Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan, the most powerful engine ever to fly in a jet fighter.
"The F-35 program is now entering a period of greatly accelerated flight testing, as aircraft are delivered to the flight line at an ever-increasing rate," said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. "Each aircraft that rolls off the assembly line fulfills a unique verification objective and moves us closer to our customers' initial operational capability dates."
BF-2 is on schedule to deploy to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., later this year. It will remain in Fort Worth for the next several months to conduct a series of ground-test events, instrumentation calibrations, powered hover-pit testing (simulating flight) and airworthiness flights, including STOVL-mode operation. Initial flights will be in conventional mode.
BF-2 is essentially identical to the first STOVL jet, BF-1. The major difference lies with the instrumentation - the two aircraft have different roles during flight testing. BF-2 will conduct flutter envelope expansion, air-refueling testing, high angle-of-attack testing, performance and propulsion testing, weapons testing and radar-signature testing. BF-1 will concentrate on initial STOVL flight operations such as short takeoffs, hovers and vertical landings, and will conduct ship-suitability and gun-integration testing. BF-1's first vertical landing is planned for the middle of 2009.
The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history.
Source : Lockheed Martin
During its flight on Wednesday, BF-2 went through a series of maneuvers to assess its subsystems and basic handling qualities, and to check on-board instrumentation. Subsequent missions will take the aircraft higher and faster, in a structured series of flights. All F-35 test aircraft to date have been powered by the Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan, the most powerful engine ever to fly in a jet fighter.
"The F-35 program is now entering a period of greatly accelerated flight testing, as aircraft are delivered to the flight line at an ever-increasing rate," said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. "Each aircraft that rolls off the assembly line fulfills a unique verification objective and moves us closer to our customers' initial operational capability dates."
BF-2 is on schedule to deploy to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., later this year. It will remain in Fort Worth for the next several months to conduct a series of ground-test events, instrumentation calibrations, powered hover-pit testing (simulating flight) and airworthiness flights, including STOVL-mode operation. Initial flights will be in conventional mode.
BF-2 is essentially identical to the first STOVL jet, BF-1. The major difference lies with the instrumentation - the two aircraft have different roles during flight testing. BF-2 will conduct flutter envelope expansion, air-refueling testing, high angle-of-attack testing, performance and propulsion testing, weapons testing and radar-signature testing. BF-1 will concentrate on initial STOVL flight operations such as short takeoffs, hovers and vertical landings, and will conduct ship-suitability and gun-integration testing. BF-1's first vertical landing is planned for the middle of 2009.
The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history.
Source : Lockheed Martin