F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
One thing we definitely won't see on the internet is anything to do with data relating to the capabilities of the F-22 or the F-35. It's fun to see all the openness about past aircraft, but current types are treated very differently. That's one of the reasons we see so much opinion, speculation and heavily restricted 'statements'. And quite right too.
It wasn't that long ago that you'd have been burned at the stake for even thinking some of the stuff that gets out there now.
It wasn't that long ago that you'd have been burned at the stake for even thinking some of the stuff that gets out there now.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope the natops aren't too close and like the aim-9x missile vid I put up, I'm surprised it's public
I doubt if the real classified stuff will get out, like what they call the 2 f-35 systems that aren't officially named yet.. other than classified every second sentence, the turkey request from the full reply to congress
Like the diving depth of subs, it's nowhere near what it is but you have to write something down,
there is just enough to keep the fanboys happy chatting..
if we really want to know, it seems we have to ask the chinese geek hackers.
I doubt if the real classified stuff will get out, like what they call the 2 f-35 systems that aren't officially named yet.. other than classified every second sentence, the turkey request from the full reply to congress
Like the diving depth of subs, it's nowhere near what it is but you have to write something down,
there is just enough to keep the fanboys happy chatting..
if we really want to know, it seems we have to ask the chinese geek hackers.
Last edited by JSFfan; 30th May 2013 at 18:09.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if we really want to know, it seems we have to ask the chinese geek hackers.
BBC News - Chinese hackers 'compromise' US weapons systems designs
"The compromised US designs include those for advanced Patriot missile systems called PAC-3, an Army anti-missile system known as Thaad, and the Navy's Aegis ballistic-missile defence system, according to the Washington Post.
The F/A-18 fighter jet, V-22 Osprey aircraft, Black Hawk helicopter and the Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship were also compromised.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons system ever built, was also cited on the list."
bet they don't try to back engineer the F35 though....
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM, I made a pleb mistake that you missed, I didn't allow for the CFT, that brings the base empty to 37klb, plus the 60% fuel 10.8 [I was too lazy to work out and went with 50% before] etc brings us into the next chart ..now that's is near enough the same as the f-35, still haven't added the weight of missiles, might need ir pod and the fuel burn to make some of the other 4klb up too
f-15
M.8 15kft
sus 4.7g
deg/sec 8
f-35
sus 4.6
deg/sec 9.7
f-15
M.8 15kft
sus 4.7g
deg/sec 8
f-35
sus 4.6
deg/sec 9.7
Last edited by JSFfan; 30th May 2013 at 20:50.
So have have you put the extra 16,000 lbs of thrust back into the equation? CFTs are an interesting piece of science. Their drag index is is a bit vague in that they do some area ruling magic. For the C model, they actually improved range in some areas of the envelope, so once empty they represented a small mass penalty, but the drag difference was not really an issue. Apart from the stuff hanging off them, the CFTs aren't going to make big difference.
It doesn't really matter anyway because we don't have any real figures to compare for the F-35. There is still a long way to go. It is not an Air Superiority fighter, so don't hold your breath.
A couple more big issues to deal with, but they will have to wait until tomorrow.
It doesn't really matter anyway because we don't have any real figures to compare for the F-35. There is still a long way to go. It is not an Air Superiority fighter, so don't hold your breath.
A couple more big issues to deal with, but they will have to wait until tomorrow.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 30th May 2013 at 20:48.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gang of 3
Re run of PAC from 20th May being shown on Parliament Channel now. CH 81 Freeveiw.
Discussing Costs, Time and Technicals.
Should be on the Comedy Channel like Ursula discussing Cats and traps in Nov 2011.
Bernard not looking 'appy.
Discussing Costs, Time and Technicals.
Should be on the Comedy Channel like Ursula discussing Cats and traps in Nov 2011.
Bernard not looking 'appy.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew the f-15 was magic 
looking back, it's a shame we didn't swap the f-111 back in the 90's for them, it was getting old then
for interest I would put the thrust on but ..no chart..we don't know what thrust the f-35 is getting in block 6 yet either
I think I might need a sar map,better add the radar pod to the f-15 too, but i think the 16k thrust will be king
no wonder apa plays Janes specs, it's fun
no, I'm not holding my breath for supersonic, it is another story, but subsonic it's looking better
in my plebness, I think of a car in second gear, lots of go but revs out early
if you are going to get your calc out, can you run the f-16c/50 numbers?
it's a different chart and I might be making a pleb mistake
https://publicintelligence.net/helle...light-manuals/
page 209 F-16C/D SUPPLEMENTAL FLIGHT
I'm getting deg/sec less than 4 clean @ 22klb...20klb and 2klb fuel
looking back, it's a shame we didn't swap the f-111 back in the 90's for them, it was getting old thenfor interest I would put the thrust on but ..no chart..we don't know what thrust the f-35 is getting in block 6 yet either
I think I might need a sar map,better add the radar pod to the f-15 too, but i think the 16k thrust will be king
no wonder apa plays Janes specs, it's fun
no, I'm not holding my breath for supersonic, it is another story, but subsonic it's looking better
in my plebness, I think of a car in second gear, lots of go but revs out early
if you are going to get your calc out, can you run the f-16c/50 numbers?
it's a different chart and I might be making a pleb mistake
https://publicintelligence.net/helle...light-manuals/
page 209 F-16C/D SUPPLEMENTAL FLIGHT
I'm getting deg/sec less than 4 clean @ 22klb...20klb and 2klb fuel
Last edited by JSFfan; 31st May 2013 at 03:34.
We've discussed quite a few issues associated with BFM and WVR combat, but one area that, frankly leaves me slightly perplexed is the business of extreme aoa manoeuvring (maneuvering if you're that way inclined). Apart from airshows and to demonstrate the excellence of that area of the F-35 flight control system, what's it for? This is a genuine question.
My confusion starts at the point where the pilot 'back-stops' the stick. If he's doing much more than cruise speed, the aircraft would (if the software allows it) snap to a very high number of gs as the aoa increases and the drag is going to go through the roof. If this was started from slower speed, you'd get the result we've been seeing in the high aoa testing vids.
What next? If the pilot maintains the aoa, the aircraft will have almost stopped and is now going to go in just one direction; down. At very slow speed, the F-35 will have become a strafe panel in the sky and a virtually non-evading missile sponge.
Someone claimed that it could be used in combat to slow the aircraft down suddenly. We know this is a fantastic BFM because Maverick did something similar in Top Gun, only he used the speedbrakes. From all the stuff we know about corner velocity and sustained rate of turn it's clear that the one place you don't want to be in a fight is low and slow - you cannot manoeuvre and you cannot escape.
Another claim was that it allows you to point the nose very quickly to take a shot. Why bother if you can do HOBS already? What would the airflow be like underneath the aircraft for a missile launch at 50 degrees aoa? I don't buy that one either.
And then there is the idea that it's some sort of substitute for thrust vectoring. See this:
The vid of the aircraft doing the high aoa tests did not show it "changing direction". All you really get is an enormous amount of drag for the thrust to overcome and a stalled wing that isn't even creating enough lift to maintain level flight.
And, of course it's nothing new. The Su-27 at Le Bourget in 1989 demonstrated Pugachev’s Cobra at low level, taking the aircraft past 90 degrees aoa at low speed and low altitude.
Even the Saab J-35 did it (without canards or vectored thrust).
Has anyone here seen this used as a successful combat manoeuvre?
So my question is, what's it for?
My confusion starts at the point where the pilot 'back-stops' the stick. If he's doing much more than cruise speed, the aircraft would (if the software allows it) snap to a very high number of gs as the aoa increases and the drag is going to go through the roof. If this was started from slower speed, you'd get the result we've been seeing in the high aoa testing vids.
What next? If the pilot maintains the aoa, the aircraft will have almost stopped and is now going to go in just one direction; down. At very slow speed, the F-35 will have become a strafe panel in the sky and a virtually non-evading missile sponge.
Someone claimed that it could be used in combat to slow the aircraft down suddenly. We know this is a fantastic BFM because Maverick did something similar in Top Gun, only he used the speedbrakes. From all the stuff we know about corner velocity and sustained rate of turn it's clear that the one place you don't want to be in a fight is low and slow - you cannot manoeuvre and you cannot escape.
Another claim was that it allows you to point the nose very quickly to take a shot. Why bother if you can do HOBS already? What would the airflow be like underneath the aircraft for a missile launch at 50 degrees aoa? I don't buy that one either.
And then there is the idea that it's some sort of substitute for thrust vectoring. See this:
The vid of the aircraft doing the high aoa tests did not show it "changing direction". All you really get is an enormous amount of drag for the thrust to overcome and a stalled wing that isn't even creating enough lift to maintain level flight.
And, of course it's nothing new. The Su-27 at Le Bourget in 1989 demonstrated Pugachev’s Cobra at low level, taking the aircraft past 90 degrees aoa at low speed and low altitude.
Even the Saab J-35 did it (without canards or vectored thrust).
Has anyone here seen this used as a successful combat manoeuvre?
So my question is, what's it for?
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 31st May 2013 at 09:05.
JSFfan,
I think you're misreading the graph. On page 209, if you follow the "Ps = 0 fps" curve (that's the zero SEP line) you'll see it peaks at about 14 degrees per second at around 7 g. For a clean F-16 with the big motor, that sounds much more likely to me.
I think you're misreading the graph. On page 209, if you follow the "Ps = 0 fps" curve (that's the zero SEP line) you'll see it peaks at about 14 degrees per second at around 7 g. For a clean F-16 with the big motor, that sounds much more likely to me.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been away for a while but do have a few questions that relate to this thread.
There have been some excellent posts that have discussed the stealth aspect of this amazing aircraft but how stealthy will the thing be when carrying external ordinance? When taking off from a carrier will either be carrying external fuel pods, have a limited or very limited range or have a garage in the sky carrying much needed fuel and I doubt that beast is going to be that stealthy.
Heat signature when on the flight deck
I have been reading a number of papers that are talking about high temperatures and whilst this might not be an issue on ships that are converted to take this aircraft, will it be an issue when cross decking? I ask this because an airfield will possibly have a lot of concrete on top of maybe hard core whereas a ship has a fairly thin flight deck and then underneath that will be working spaces, accommodation or machinery rooms. All of which might not appreciate excessive heat and having said that I was under the impression this was not going to be an issue.
The F35B may be the all singing, all dancing aircraft we are told it is but I cannot help asking myself questions about the many roles it is being asked to fulfil. Marines talk about Close Air support and yes we are told this is an excellent aircraft for this role but is the definition of close air support the exact same one as those grunts on the ground are expecting?
As a carrier based aircraft is this the all singing weapon of choice with a decent range and decent stealth characteristics?
As an air to air fighter, is it capable of taking on the World's best without more suitable aircraft being present?
when paying the sums of money being asked should we expect the very, very best or should we settle for something that is moderately good at everything but not outstanding in any specific role?
Would I be correct if I suggest that the air to air confrontations during the Falklands dispute might possibly help answer that query?
There have been some excellent posts that have discussed the stealth aspect of this amazing aircraft but how stealthy will the thing be when carrying external ordinance? When taking off from a carrier will either be carrying external fuel pods, have a limited or very limited range or have a garage in the sky carrying much needed fuel and I doubt that beast is going to be that stealthy.
Heat signature when on the flight deck
I have been reading a number of papers that are talking about high temperatures and whilst this might not be an issue on ships that are converted to take this aircraft, will it be an issue when cross decking? I ask this because an airfield will possibly have a lot of concrete on top of maybe hard core whereas a ship has a fairly thin flight deck and then underneath that will be working spaces, accommodation or machinery rooms. All of which might not appreciate excessive heat and having said that I was under the impression this was not going to be an issue.
The F35B may be the all singing, all dancing aircraft we are told it is but I cannot help asking myself questions about the many roles it is being asked to fulfil. Marines talk about Close Air support and yes we are told this is an excellent aircraft for this role but is the definition of close air support the exact same one as those grunts on the ground are expecting?
As a carrier based aircraft is this the all singing weapon of choice with a decent range and decent stealth characteristics?
As an air to air fighter, is it capable of taking on the World's best without more suitable aircraft being present?
when paying the sums of money being asked should we expect the very, very best or should we settle for something that is moderately good at everything but not outstanding in any specific role?
Originally Posted by Courtney
Has anyone here seen this used as a successful combat manoeuvre?
Welcome back, Glojo.
Ah, the old 'viff' manoeuvre eh? My thinking is that it's a bit of a last-ditch tactic when you're already in the poo and unlikely to make things any worse. Did anyone viff in the Falklands? That sounds like an openning for a tasty answer or two!
Ah, the old 'viff' manoeuvre eh? My thinking is that it's a bit of a last-ditch tactic when you're already in the poo and unlikely to make things any worse. Did anyone viff in the Falklands? That sounds like an openning for a tasty answer or two!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure the answer is no viff used during the Falklands War. I'll check whatever resources I can dig up but I don't think there was ever a situation where it was required. The Argies did not try particularly hard to get into a fight with the Sea Harriers and the various attack aircraft went for ships and other ground targets or just ran away from the "Black Death". (Black Death with a beard?)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by glojo
Heat signature when on the flight deck
I have been reading a number of papers that are talking about high temperatures and whilst this might not be an issue on ships that are converted to take this aircraft, will it be an issue when cross decking? I ask this because an airfield will possibly have a lot of concrete on top of maybe hard core whereas a ship has a fairly thin flight deck and then underneath that will be working spaces, accommodation or machinery rooms. All of which might not appreciate excessive heat and having said that I was under the impression this was not going to be an issue.
I have been reading a number of papers that are talking about high temperatures and whilst this might not be an issue on ships that are converted to take this aircraft, will it be an issue when cross decking? I ask this because an airfield will possibly have a lot of concrete on top of maybe hard core whereas a ship has a fairly thin flight deck and then underneath that will be working spaces, accommodation or machinery rooms. All of which might not appreciate excessive heat and having said that I was under the impression this was not going to be an issue.
When we were looking at required works for airfields the holding areas were a key concern as the APU would melt the bitumen (we're a bit cheapskateish compared to the yanks when it comes to military airfields) so they would have to be upgraded to concrete.
I'm guessing same thing is an issue for carriers.
Indeed, Romulus. We had to do the same work in the early days of the programme - the first time we were buying the B model. My guess is that doing STO and rolling landings is going to mean the jet eflux is never going to loiter on any one point on the dek. Problem solved.
CM - I take your point about the high-alpha stuff bleeding off energy (which of course it does) but it leaves me with one doubt:
The Sovs/Rooskies didn't/don't design fighters for air shows but have nevertheless spent the past 40 years (since the genesis of the MiG-29/Su-27 designs) trying to make fighters that are predictable and controllable at high alpha and low speed, culminating in the Su-35, which is going to water people's eyes at Paris if the plan to display it stays on track.
Why?
The Sovs/Rooskies didn't/don't design fighters for air shows but have nevertheless spent the past 40 years (since the genesis of the MiG-29/Su-27 designs) trying to make fighters that are predictable and controllable at high alpha and low speed, culminating in the Su-35, which is going to water people's eyes at Paris if the plan to display it stays on track.
Why?
Indeed, LO. I think the point is that the Ruskies build aircraft to a pretty standard design these days. It's just that the shape gets refined, smoothed, stealthified, etc and the engines made ever bigger. The shape they have is inherently controllable (through software) with canards, huge wing surface area AND tailplanes/stabs/tailerons/whatever AND thrust vectoring (in some cases).
The 360 degree 'flip' in Orac's vid is impressive, but still a low energy manoeuvre. Is it tactical? I don't know. I can't deny it would be surprising to watch that happen in a fight, but it doesn't present much of a navigation challenge to a missile and I doubt it gives the Ruskie pilot much time to select a target. lock and shoot during the manourve.
The 360 degree 'flip' in Orac's vid is impressive, but still a low energy manoeuvre. Is it tactical? I don't know. I can't deny it would be surprising to watch that happen in a fight, but it doesn't present much of a navigation challenge to a missile and I doubt it gives the Ruskie pilot much time to select a target. lock and shoot during the manourve.