In-depth pictorial expose with analysis on the New Russian Fighter
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Moorings
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35 is in production at Ft Worth and stands up with the USMC in 2012. The first UK pilots start training next year.
According to the US GAO -
Manufacturing JSF test aircraft continues to take more time, money, and effort than budgeted. By December 2009, only 4 of 13 test aircraft had been delivered and total labor hours to build the aircraft had increased more than 50 percent above earlier estimates. Late deliveries hamper the development flight test program and affect work on production aircraft, even as plans proceed to significantly ramp-up annual procurement rates. Some improvement is noted, but continuing manufacturing inefficiencies, parts problems, and engineering technical changes indicate that design and production processes may lack the maturity needed to efficiently produce aircraft at planned rates. Although DOD's restructuring actions should help, there is still substantial overlap of development, test, and production activities while DOD continues to push ahead and invest in large quantities of production aircraft before variant designs are proven and system performance verified. Given the extended development time and reduced near term procurement, DOD still intends to procure up to 307 aircraft at an estimated cost of $58.2 billion before completing development flight testing by the beginning of fiscal year 2015.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO if this aircraft delivers even half of what is promised, it will be a world
beater, but could the RAF operate a stealth aircraft like this?
If we were to buy it, it would surely have to be re engined with a modern Spey,
and in true RAF fashion would need to constantly leak oil which could ruin its
stealth
.
To be serious though, I feel that this new arrival fits into the 'if it looks right'
category. The PAK could be our new air superiority fighter, and the Typhoons
could be used in A to G instead of buying F35's........Well I am allowed to dream.
beater, but could the RAF operate a stealth aircraft like this?
If we were to buy it, it would surely have to be re engined with a modern Spey,
and in true RAF fashion would need to constantly leak oil which could ruin its
stealth
.To be serious though, I feel that this new arrival fits into the 'if it looks right'
category. The PAK could be our new air superiority fighter, and the Typhoons
could be used in A to G instead of buying F35's........Well I am allowed to dream.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Back to Level 1
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had been reading about PAK-FA & HAL/FGFA in different forums from a while now.
TheShadow's post really made a very-very interesting read.
Little Google & found the estimated unit cost PAK-FA/FGFA about $100 mil Vs F22 $150 mil (also not available) & F-35 $190mil . PAK-FA is to be produced about 1000 aircrafts; 200 for Russia & India (FGFA) each & 600 for export...
so next time Talibs in Afghanistan would not only be sporting immortal AKs, but would come out blazing in a stealth fighter
. Never invest in technology, it gets cheaper by the day...
I know I'm exaggerating it
look here
TheShadow's post really made a very-very interesting read.
Little Google & found the estimated unit cost PAK-FA/FGFA about $100 mil Vs F22 $150 mil (also not available) & F-35 $190mil . PAK-FA is to be produced about 1000 aircrafts; 200 for Russia & India (FGFA) each & 600 for export
...so next time Talibs in Afghanistan would not only be sporting immortal AKs, but would come out blazing in a stealth fighter
. Never invest in technology, it gets cheaper by the day... I know I'm exaggerating it
look hereLast edited by xuejiesandi; 4th Jul 2010 at 18:33. Reason: correction
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ned,
You have answered your own question in your quotes. Like Merlin and Typhoon, F35 is in production at the same time as flight testing continues. USMC (and some UK) aircrew will start training on the early production aircraft and the USMC will form squadrons in 2012/2013 - like Typhoon and Merlin they will not field front line capability and like the former aircraft it will take time to reach maturity. However, with a programme this size they need to get on with the build now to ensure there are enough airframes around to replace other aircraft as they go out of service. I am not saying it is the right way of doing things but it is the current pattern.
Who knows, we may pay off GR4s and some Typhoon early and increase the intro rate of F35 - anything is possible in this SDR (except increasing the size of our Forces!).
You have answered your own question in your quotes. Like Merlin and Typhoon, F35 is in production at the same time as flight testing continues. USMC (and some UK) aircrew will start training on the early production aircraft and the USMC will form squadrons in 2012/2013 - like Typhoon and Merlin they will not field front line capability and like the former aircraft it will take time to reach maturity. However, with a programme this size they need to get on with the build now to ensure there are enough airframes around to replace other aircraft as they go out of service. I am not saying it is the right way of doing things but it is the current pattern.
Who knows, we may pay off GR4s and some Typhoon early and increase the intro rate of F35 - anything is possible in this SDR (except increasing the size of our Forces!).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a russian that came up with the stealth "equation"... Looks as if the ruskies have really learned how to exploit it.
Was pretty pessemistic until I saw the AESA radar and LE radar, plusplasma countermeasures - all pretty cutting edge.
Of course, until it goes up against AMRAAM, no-one will know. Fortunately at the mo, only the Indians and russians are getting them... for now.
Was pretty pessemistic until I saw the AESA radar and LE radar, plusplasma countermeasures - all pretty cutting edge.
Of course, until it goes up against AMRAAM, no-one will know. Fortunately at the mo, only the Indians and russians are getting them... for now.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Moorings
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like Merlin and Typhoon, F35 is in production at the same time as flight testing continues.
Still, progress to date hardly inspires much confidence in Lockheed's latest projections.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes I despair.
If you even had a tiny bit of knowledge about the F-35 you'd know about this - F-35 Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS).
Erm, no it's not. It takes a lot more than a fancy paint job. You might be surprised to learn that the company that built the F-117, the F-16 and the F-22 still knows a thing or 2 about building combat airplanes.
The US, with a long track record of building stealth aircraft have had the F-35 in flight test for years, has hundreds of hours of flight test with the sensors in flying testbeds, and has over 200 hours of flight test in 8 prototypes. The Russians fly their first LO aircraft for the first time, and everyone throws their hands up in the air saying that the end of the world is nigh. Somehow everyone unquestioningly believes every single word of Russian propaganda, and by looking at a couple of photographs infers that they've somehow made quantum leaps in technology - all without spending any money. At the same time Lockheed Martin are not to be trusted. Does anyone else think this is a slightly bonkers approach, or is it just me??
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!
Time for an Stealthy US IRST sharpish...
F35=cannon fodder for this thing...
The US, with a long track record of building stealth aircraft have had the F-35 in flight test for years, has hundreds of hours of flight test with the sensors in flying testbeds, and has over 200 hours of flight test in 8 prototypes. The Russians fly their first LO aircraft for the first time, and everyone throws their hands up in the air saying that the end of the world is nigh. Somehow everyone unquestioningly believes every single word of Russian propaganda, and by looking at a couple of photographs infers that they've somehow made quantum leaps in technology - all without spending any money. At the same time Lockheed Martin are not to be trusted. Does anyone else think this is a slightly bonkers approach, or is it just me??
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry mate, didn't mean to flick your switch. 
Yes I had read all that guff but I don't trust to "company" spiel, we've learned the hard way before.
But if it works, that will be a superb SA advantage, pity the platform it is nailed on to will be have been leapfrogged in performance terms.
Bear in mind that the opposition have has "stealth" in their sights for for how long now?? 1 decade or 2??? I think that designing an aircraft that performs below the Raptor is taking a big chance with other peoples lives.
Oh and 1 donkey over the ocean @ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ a pop, DUMB.
qsat2ows----see I can type meaningless stuff too what was that about flying bricks?
Yes I had read all that guff but I don't trust to "company" spiel, we've learned the hard way before.
But if it works, that will be a superb SA advantage, pity the platform it is nailed on to will be have been leapfrogged in performance terms.
Bear in mind that the opposition have has "stealth" in their sights for for how long now?? 1 decade or 2??? I think that designing an aircraft that performs below the Raptor is taking a big chance with other peoples lives.
Oh and 1 donkey over the ocean @ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ a pop, DUMB.
qsat2ows----see I can type meaningless stuff too
what was that about flying bricks?
Last edited by glad rag; 6th Jul 2010 at 23:55.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh and 1 donkey over the ocean @ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ a pop, DUMB.
You may be interested to know that when the USN put out the requirement for a new trainer to replace the Buckeye they specified it must have two engines. BAe felt this was wrong so put in a non-compliant bid with a modified Hawk. As part of this process we set about educating folk about the modern realities of multi engined military aircraft. As you know the T-45 eventually won in a fly-off against the Alphajet (a twin)
Incidentally the first Tornado lost was due to a double engine failure as was the first Eurofighter and the first Alphajet.
As you know the T-45 eventually won in a fly-off against the Alphajet (a twin)
Come on John, there are many more reasons why the Hawk was chosen over the Alpha Jet than the "1 engine vs 2 engine" debate.
The fact that both donks failed on the aircraft that you mentioned does not negate the fact that many a twin-engine aircraft has returned on 1 donk safely - Hawk, Harrier and A4 drivers would have definately had to step over the side, if this had happened to them (excluding dead-stick)!
Nope, single engined jets have no "insurance" compared to multi-engined jets. What's even dumber about the JSF STOVL version is that it carries a perfectly serviceable 2nd engine pointing in the wrong direction (ie. the lift fan) - now that is dumb!
The B Word
PS I always thought that the first Tornado loss was P.08 in June 1979 and it was a CFIT oversea in the Irish Sea?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF STOVL version is that it carries a perfectly serviceable 2nd engine pointing in the wrong direction (ie. the lift fan) - now that is dumb!
I am not aware that we have lost any more single engine aircraft than twins...indeed we may have lost more of the latter.
Not sure it is an engine....it is a lift fan driven by the main (single) engine.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B word
I do not see how my post could be interpreted as suggesting that was the reason why the Hawk won. I certainly did not intend that - I merely made the point that a single engined aircraft was chosen over a twin despite the original spec requiring a twin.
I implied there were good reasons why BAe won the 'single is safer than a twin' debate in the context of that competition. Please note those words 'in the context of that competition'. I stand by that. It involved the thrust that was required for the mission, the effect of splitting that between two engines, issues with soak times before takeoff that are engine core diameter related, the complexity and power absorption of a gearbox that can run the aircraft services from either engine and many other things.
It may seem an obvious to thing to say that two will always be better than one but the engineering suggests otherwise in some cases.
If you still cannot see what I am getting at ask yourself whether you would enjoy throttling back to half thrust as you went down the cat in a T-45 at max AUW? Of course not. The only way that would be acceptable would be at a lighter weight.
You are quite entitled to hold your views but I happen not to share them.
Come on John, there are many more reasons why the Hawk was chosen over the Alpha Jet than the "1 engine vs 2 engine" debate.
I implied there were good reasons why BAe won the 'single is safer than a twin' debate in the context of that competition. Please note those words 'in the context of that competition'. I stand by that. It involved the thrust that was required for the mission, the effect of splitting that between two engines, issues with soak times before takeoff that are engine core diameter related, the complexity and power absorption of a gearbox that can run the aircraft services from either engine and many other things.
It may seem an obvious to thing to say that two will always be better than one but the engineering suggests otherwise in some cases.
If you still cannot see what I am getting at ask yourself whether you would enjoy throttling back to half thrust as you went down the cat in a T-45 at max AUW? Of course not. The only way that would be acceptable would be at a lighter weight.
You are quite entitled to hold your views but I happen not to share them.
I hear your technical points and agree with most of them. However, the success of the T45 bid was also to do with US jobs as well - had the French/Germans offered a single engined bid, I'm pretty sure they would not have been successful either.
On the subject of whether I would sooner have half thrust halfway down the cat-launch? Yes, you bet, as my jet would decelerate slower than with no thrust and I might just avoid being run over by a blooming great carrier as I 'plop' off the end of it!
Still, that's just an opinion, that's all...
The B Word
On the subject of whether I would sooner have half thrust halfway down the cat-launch? Yes, you bet, as my jet would decelerate slower than with no thrust and I might just avoid being run over by a blooming great carrier as I 'plop' off the end of it!
Still, that's just an opinion, that's all...
The B Word
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad rag,
You haven't flicked my switch at all old chap. But as I said, I despair that there are people (you're clearly not the only one) who don't trust LockMart's company spiel, but lap up Sukhoi's as if it were gospel. Seems like a very unbalanced position to take to me. Yes the Russians have been trying to figure out how to crack the stealth nut for decades, but that doesn't mean that they have. Even if they've got their design absolutely sorted at the first attempt, and their sensors have somehow incorporated alien technology, Russian aircraft maintenance and manufacturing is not world-reknowned for its quality, and LO aircraft are highly dependent on both to keep their signatures down.
I suppose your single-minded obsession for F-22 dog-fighting manoeuvrability is your reason for thinking that the F-35 isn't worth buying? I'm afraid that, as I'm only a simple pilot who's dumb enough to fly single-engined airplanes over the sea, I don't understand your banter. Ever since 1914 or so there have been highly manoeuvrable fighters (such as the Camel, Spitfire IX or F-22 and Typhoon), and slightly less manoeuvrable aircraft that are optimized for schwacking ground targets. The situation today is no different. Except there is a difference - if you're a really quite stealthy striker and have the best radar, IRST and datalinks on the battlefield, you've got no excuse for ever stumbling into a turning fight with anyone. How many turning fights did the F-117 get into during its service life, even including exercises? How many B-2s have been caught unawares in exercises?
Finally, if the US won't sell you an F-22 even if you wanted one anyway, surely it's a moot point? Unless you think BAE can just whip one up for us in a couple of years...?
We can do the whole 1 vs 2 engine debate somewhere else and some other time. Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
You haven't flicked my switch at all old chap. But as I said, I despair that there are people (you're clearly not the only one) who don't trust LockMart's company spiel, but lap up Sukhoi's as if it were gospel. Seems like a very unbalanced position to take to me. Yes the Russians have been trying to figure out how to crack the stealth nut for decades, but that doesn't mean that they have. Even if they've got their design absolutely sorted at the first attempt, and their sensors have somehow incorporated alien technology, Russian aircraft maintenance and manufacturing is not world-reknowned for its quality, and LO aircraft are highly dependent on both to keep their signatures down.
I suppose your single-minded obsession for F-22 dog-fighting manoeuvrability is your reason for thinking that the F-35 isn't worth buying? I'm afraid that, as I'm only a simple pilot who's dumb enough to fly single-engined airplanes over the sea, I don't understand your banter. Ever since 1914 or so there have been highly manoeuvrable fighters (such as the Camel, Spitfire IX or F-22 and Typhoon), and slightly less manoeuvrable aircraft that are optimized for schwacking ground targets. The situation today is no different. Except there is a difference - if you're a really quite stealthy striker and have the best radar, IRST and datalinks on the battlefield, you've got no excuse for ever stumbling into a turning fight with anyone. How many turning fights did the F-117 get into during its service life, even including exercises? How many B-2s have been caught unawares in exercises?
Finally, if the US won't sell you an F-22 even if you wanted one anyway, surely it's a moot point? Unless you think BAE can just whip one up for us in a couple of years...?
We can do the whole 1 vs 2 engine debate somewhere else and some other time. Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Either Side
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I strongly suspect that if we asked, with the caveat that JSF was proving too difficult for us, the US would indeed sell us F-22s. I think the biggest problem would be the RN and BAe workshare issues. I completely agree with the LM proven products versus Sukhoi flannel argument. How quick we are to rubbish the proven in service products vice the projected capabilities of a product form a company that has yet to produce a combat proven LO platform.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#35
I suppose your single-minded obsession for F-22 dog-fighting manoeuvrability is your reason for thinking that the F-35 isn't worth buying? I
GR
