Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 1st Jun 2013, 15:22
  #2661 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
JTO,

Good advice. Agree and thanks.

Yours

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2013, 19:06
  #2662 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Relevant to the current missile harrier discussion and further to the Russian stuff, the RAAF like RAF say bugger all publicly, but I found this USMC piece on classic hornet c/d on exercise, It also needs to be remembered that Malaysia also run the C/D hornet, so it's not as if they don't know them
mig 29 vs hornet C/D
Hornet v. MiG | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
“The Americans have better radar, better weapons,[comparable to Malaysian hornets] so we try to get in close,” says Major Patricia Yapp Syau Yin of the Malaysian air force, recounting a one-on-one engagement she had against a Hornet. “Try to defeat their radar capabilities by doing aggressive moves—zooming in. We have to try to roll in behind them, not roll in front of them. Weapon-wise, software-wise, they are one up. But power-wise, we are one up.” The MiG-29N that the Malaysians fly has a top speed of Mach 2.3 and a climb rate of 65,000 feet per minute; the F/A-18D’s maximum speed is Mach 1.8 with a climb rate of 50,000 feet per minute. The Hornet, however, is a more maneuverable aircraft, with a fly-by-wire control system and more advanced avionics and cockpit displays.

By the end of Air Warrior, the Marines had won virtually all of the air-to-air fights (with a few draws). But the Malaysians say they appreciate even the losses. “Every year we learn something new from the Americans,” says Major William.

Last edited by JSFfan; 1st Jun 2013 at 20:47.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2013, 19:59
  #2663 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
JTIDS not Link 16 for F-3?

'Low Observable' my question was specific about the F-3 story. Your response to that question seems to indicate that JTIDS was responsible - not Link 16. Anyone else have a response to the F-3 story (I did not ask for a critique of the Williams Foundation nor the rest of the text in the PDF nor do I require same). Thanks.

http://tinyurl.com/mu24zso

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 1st Jun 2013 at 20:05. Reason: JTIDS link
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2013, 20:34
  #2664 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,555
I think the F3 versus F-15 story is recounted somewhere hereabouts. It involved using silent shooters and "eyeballs" operating to the rear.

(I did not ask for a critique of the Williams Foundation nor the rest of the text in the PDF nor do I require same)

In that case I will waive the normal fees.

Last edited by LowObservable; 1st Jun 2013 at 20:35.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2013, 20:49
  #2665 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
F9F Panther Hook Issues

Thanks for the update 'Low Observable' and thanks for the earlier relevant input. If I take up any of your time I do not apologise however.

Thanks 'JSFfan' for your link to the story about. A sidebar pointed to this little snippet about hook issues (let us not wish any of these on the F-35C) and some great anecdotes about Neil Armstrong in F9F Panthers and other tidbits - only go there if interested and do not consider your time being wasted....

Panthers At Sea By David Noland | Air & Space magazine, June 2013

Panthers At Sea | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine

"U.S. Navy Panthers weren’t highly evolved, but they could shoot. And they were air conditioned....

...The Grumman F9F Panther was a conservative design; it had straight wings, a conventional tail, and the rugged structure for which Grumman had earned the nickname “Iron Works.”...

...When the Navy took over testing of the Panther, the jet suffered an embarrassing moment hardly in keeping with Grumman’s reputation. During its first arrested landing, on a runway at the Navy’s test center at Patuxent River, Maryland, the sudden jolt to the tailhook pulled off the entire tail section. The engine was still firmly attached to the forward fuselage and running normally. The pilot, believing he had simply missed the cable, applied full power for a go-around. Alerted by radio to his predicament, the pilot aborted the tailless takeoff. (Subsequently, Grumman strengthened the tail attach joint.)

The Panther entered the fleet in 1949, and landings continued to present problems. “I flew the Panther during my first cruise on the USS Boxer,” says Robert Morris, a former Navy pilot who lives in San Diego, California. “I would end up in the barricade a number of times because of a faulty tailhook. The Panther had a bad hook dashpot [a hydraulic cylinder that dampens movement]. The hook would bounce up and down across the deck.” The Boxer, like other carriers, had a barrier that would catch an airplane in case of just such a problem with the arresting gear. On one trap, Morris put his Panther down in perfect position, but “the hook was skipping right over all the wires. On one of my barrier encounters, the canopy came off its hinges and hit me on the shoulder.”..."

1st Photo Caption: "If its tailhook failed to catch an arresting wire, a landing aircraft would be halted by a barrier. (National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)) Photo from: "Panthers At Sea""
&
2nd Photo Caption: "Four months into the war, accidents weren’t uncommon. The F9F in the foreground was hit by another Panther that could not catch an arresting wire."

http://media.airspacemag.com/images/...-War-715-5.jpg
&
http://media.airspacemag.com/images/...08_Panther.jpg




Last edited by SpazSinbad; 1st Jun 2013 at 21:22. Reason: Another relevant 'Hook Problem' pic for goofers & lollygaggers
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2013, 21:42
  #2666 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
spaz:Thanks 'JSFfan' for your link to the story

sorry I can't find one about the su-30 here last year, the anti's like to beat it up, but it's not with over a 1/3 fuel
the known sus 4.6g of the f-35 wirh 50% fuel load/fraction @ 15kft and M.8 [end of life engine] is very comparable to the to the others including the legacy f-15,16/50,18c with full internal and CFT's and maybe a tank as well to get the fuel fraction, as CM will show us when he gets the time. especially when you add all the pods for a tough air/ground mission

spaz like cm you would have the knowledge to uses the flight manuals to come up with a comparison too, if you get the time

as to LO's current infatuation with the su-35, it's a su-27 with a FCS
"Unlike the Su-27M and Su-30MKI, the new Su-35 features the same aerodynamic configuration as the basic Su-27, but with larger wings and engine intakes. The Su-35 is not fitted with canards. The flight performance and manoeuvrability will instead be improved by the advanced KSU-35 fly-by-wire system."

Last edited by JSFfan; 1st Jun 2013 at 23:37.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2013, 01:28
  #2667 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,555
When you near the round-down and you see Wings' frown
You may safely assume that your hook isn't down
A bloody great barrier looms up in front
And you hear Wings' joyful shout, "Cut your engine, you

[half beat pause, no more and no less]

fool!
LowObservable is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2013, 04:54
  #2668 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
jsffan : if we really want to know, it seems we have to ask the chinese geek hackers.
glad rag
yep!


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....
I think we have upset their sensibilities, looks like we have found a way to counter it
Chinese Hacker Complains About ?Perverted? American Military
Chinese Hacker Complains About ‘Perverted’ American Military
JSFfan is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2013, 10:24
  #2669 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
Glad you can an the amusing side to it.
glad rag is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2013, 21:19
  #2670 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
I can't seem to find a reference to the Super Hornet F/A-18E/F in the last couple of pages, it seems to be about the old classic or legacy Hornet the F/A-18 a-d

Like your last paragraph. The points being made seems to be to not take the Janes specs at face value, sometimes it's what's under the skin and training, weapons that's important.

Last edited by JSFfan; 2nd Jun 2013 at 21:40.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2013, 00:21
  #2671 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by JSFfanboy
...as to LO's current infatuation with the su-35, it's a su-27 with a FCS
Incorrect! It is so...SO much more!

And, as for Malaysian MiG-29s having a ROC of "65,000 fpm"!!! Hmmm...
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2013, 01:14
  #2672 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
and the fa-18c has a climb rate of 55kft per min, somehow I think something got lost in the translation

seems the usual stuff, take a su-27 design and tart it up, only this time it's the KnAAPO plant, remembering my post was in reference to maneuverability
the real design money it seems is being spent on the PAK-FA and that's running late

I'll put the full link rather than going through the site from what I quoted from before
MILAVIA Aircraft - Sukhoi Su-35 (Su-27BM) "4++ Generation Flanker"
The designation Su-35 had already been used from 1992 onwards to market the company's modernized Su-27M "Super Flanker" (bureau designation T-10M). Developed in the late 1980s for the Soviet Air Force, the Su-27M incorporated a modified aerodynamic configuration, uprated engine, and upgraded avionics. Sukhoi realized by 2002 that it would no longer be able to compete with comtemporary and future foreign fighters. The single-seat Flanker needed to be drastically upgraded, including a major redesign of its airframe. Furthermore, the Sukhoi-owned KnAAPO plant had been struggling to compete with its Su-30MK2 against the more advanced Su-30MKI derivatives of the Irkut Corporation, its rival Flanker producer which is only partially owned by Sukhoi.

Unlike the Su-27M and Su-30MKI, the new Su-35 features the same aerodynamic configuration as the basic Su-27, but with larger wings and engine intakes. The Su-35 is not fitted with canards. The flight performance and manoeuvrability will instead be improved by the advanced KSU-35 fly-by-wire system. It also lacks the larger vertical tails of the Su-27M. Internal fuel capacity has been increased by redesigning the airframe internal volumes. The Su-35 can carry 11,500kg of fuel, which can be increased to 14,300 kg using two underwing drop tanks. Like previous Su-27 derivatives, it has also been fitted with a retractable refueling probe. The new Su-35 lacks the Su-27's large upper air brake owing to advanced rudder control by the KSU-35 system.
Perhaps the most significant improvement is the extensive use of titanium alloys, which increases the aircraft's service life from 4,000 to 6,000 hours, with the time between overhauls growing to 1,500 hours. Another significant improvement is the use of radar absorbing materials (RAM) in various parts of the airframe reducing the fighter's X-band radar cross section within the +/- 60° sector.

Last edited by JSFfan; 3rd Jun 2013 at 02:18.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2013, 05:37
  #2673 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 51
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by JSFfan
...the real design money it seems is being spent on the PAK-FA and that's running late
The sense of irony is strong in this one
Finnpog is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2013, 06:54
  #2674 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
I had him on ignore but I saw that CM and others were continuing to engage him and started sounding a little more reasonable, so I un-ignored him to see if he'd come round a little...he hasn't!
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2013, 07:08
  #2675 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
yep, Russia's no different to anyone else with that one, the su-27 variant replacement has been going on for a long time, even before the collapse of the USSR. With the current GDP being less than the UK it's been an uphill battle and you could argue the baton is being passed to China for sole-country, non-western planes in the future.

Last edited by JSFfan; 3rd Jun 2013 at 07:22.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2013, 09:38
  #2676 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,292
Having been away for a couple of days, I feel I should comment on some of the stuff posted here in the last couple of days.


Harrier manoeuvrability.

First, remember there are big differences between SHAR, GR1/3 and GR5/7/9, so the term 'Harrier' means something very different today from 30 years ago. Anyway, as you were talking about the Falklands, let’s stick to first generation Harrier. As has been stated, it was a high wing loader with dry power only and, therefore, did not turn well. We seemed to do pretty well against it in theF4, which also had a high wing loading. As I have said before, beware fighting blue against blue to evaluate capability against an enemy.

As for viffing, it falls into the same category as the 50° aoa manoeuvre, unless your adversary has really screwed it up, you should die before the manoeuvre is complete. The only situation where I ever saw it used effectively was in a rather non-representative,1v1 guns-only fight as a last ditch to try to defeat a tracking guns shot. Henra’s comment at post #2659 is correct.

During the Falklands, however, none of this was particularly relevant. The Argentinean pilots were based 400 miles or more from the fight and had neither the fuel nor the inclination to get tangled up in a fight with the Harriers. Also, their weapons and pilot training/experience were inferior. I don’t think exMudmover was being at all insulting in his comment. The AIM9L is a pretty straightforward weapon to operate and the Argentinean pilots were simply flying as fast and as low as they could (that was very fast and very low in most cases) to try to stay away from the Harriers whilst getting to and from their targets. That meant radar and visual engagements, but not much air combat of the'turning and burning' kind. Those facts in no way detract from the skill and bravery of the RN and RAF pilots involved inthe Falklands war – I certainly don’t think stating those facts is ‘slagging’ anyone off.


Fact versus Fiction.

Not a brilliantly written piece, maybe a bit of a curate’s egg. A couple of points that people here seem to have focussed on.

First, JTIDS/Link 16 confusion. Some clearly don’t understand, so to clarify, JTIDS is the bearer system, Link 16 is the NATO message specification, which is carried by JTIDS. It’s a bit like the difference between the World Wide Web and the Internet. JTIDS/Link16 worked well in the case of the “(British) RAF’sTornado F-3 air defence fighter” (WRONG! Air Defence INTERCEPTOR) because we were the only players in those exercise that had it. That soon changed. Also the tactics used became less effective with time. That said, and as I have said before, the F3 was a very capable INTERCEPTOR in its adulthood. I just took a while to get there.

Second, the 60 g missile. What happens to a missile when it is forced to turn at 60 g? It slows down. The more it slows down, the more lead it requires to achieve an intercept and, therefore, the further it has to turn – look up proportional navigation. And that it the trick to defeating the long range shot and why (see my earlier poston the subject) single or multiple high-performance turns by the target are so effective – not just an f-pol manoeuvre. As an aside, that is also why ‘all-round’ stealth is necessary, not just desirable – if the LO technology is optimised head on, any crank, f-pol manoeuvre or turn away will instantly expose the higher RCS to the bad guys.

With any modern fighter, it is the entire system that’s important, not just selected features on a platform such as stealth, agility, power, weapons, etc.

Last edited by Courtney Mil; 4th Jun 2013 at 08:57.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2013, 12:22
  #2677 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 480
Canada

Of interest - hope it hasn't been posted already:


What interested me was that they claim large control surfaces are bad for stealth which makes me think of the FLAVIIR project although the people at the BAE stand at Farnborough strenuously denied that stealth was of any consideration at all.

t43562 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2013, 22:14
  #2678 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by t43562 View Post
What interested me was that they claim large control surfaces are bad for stealth which makes me think of the FLAVIIR project although the people at the BAE stand at Farnborough strenuously denied that stealth was of any consideration at all.
Lots of “marketing” being done by both LM and Boeing. Designing control surfaces on a low signature aircraft requires some consideration but the main issue is the impact on signature when the control surfaces are deflected. The other issue is the “gap” between the control surface and the fuselage. On the F-22 LM/Boeing used a tapered concept which seems to work pretty well. And if you look at the F-22 I would say it has some fairly large control surfaces.


Bevo is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2013, 04:08
  #2679 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
U.K. test pilot completes first F-35B vertical landing

U.K. test pilot completes first F-35B vertical landing 03 Jun 2013

U.K. test pilot completes first F-35B vertical landing | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation

"... Royal Air Force Squadron Leader James Schofield completed the first vertical landing by a United Kingdom military test pilot May 28, 2013 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Schofield flew F-35B Lightning II test aircraft BF-1...."
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2013, 05:30
  #2680 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,518
Ares:

JSF Gets A Schedule After Three Years

The New Era of Good F-35 Feelings
ORAC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.