F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO thats the demonstrator that flew three years ago. They only did wind tunnel tests last year. Seriously that's the same as saying the X35 was a finished production ready aircraft, and I know you wouldn't do that.
It's a development mule thats all.
It's a development mule thats all.
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 4th Apr 2013 at 21:10.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it is MUCH closer to the production aircraft than was the X-35. All the avionics and software integration is complete, which are items still being accomplished on the F-35.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
didn't I read that boeing stopped their initial funding f-15SE a while ago that someone would have paid big to develop. They are going to just offer some of the mods, aren't they?
Last edited by JSFfan; 5th Apr 2013 at 00:13.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly looking at an international briefing set of slides about the F15SE it seems to have it's navigation, IRST and Sniper pods all hanging off the bottom of the plane. I'm not sure how all of this qualifies as VLO/LO from the front aspect? It also does not appear to employ any RAM coatings, just a somewhat vague statement about stealth from the frontal aspect?
The weapon bay appears to be the conformal fuel tanks and can only fit the same amount as the F35B, is there any fuel capability left in the tanks, which seems slightly unlikely looking at the design of the 'tanks'.
It all looks like a bit of a management driven lash up to be honest, which I'm slightly suprised at given you would have thought there might be some crossover from the X32.
The weapon bay appears to be the conformal fuel tanks and can only fit the same amount as the F35B, is there any fuel capability left in the tanks, which seems slightly unlikely looking at the design of the 'tanks'.
It all looks like a bit of a management driven lash up to be honest, which I'm slightly suprised at given you would have thought there might be some crossover from the X32.
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 5th Apr 2013 at 00:32.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PhillipG
Is this the USMC's process and procedures document for establishing an austere base? If it is let us hope that the conflict is a long one to give enough time for the base to be constructed..
'How to build' - and where - 5 VL pads at Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, SC with many diagrams and photos to guide us.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "austere bases", "forward bases", or anything other than a permanent airfield!
Originally Posted by eaglemmoomin
I'm not sure how all of this qualifies as VLO/LO from the front aspect? It also does not appear to employ any RAM coatings, just a somewhat vague statement about stealth from the frontal aspect?
To achieve that level of RCS reduction they apply RAM to the airframe ‘on key surfaces’ and install the equipment listed in the DCSA notification to Congress, which we’ve all seen (http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36...orea_13-11.pdf). There are some other airframe changes from the standard F-15E including ‘other 5th generation-type stealth imprvements’. I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on the canted tails as I don’t think Boeing found that to be effective enough to make it worthwhile. That’s not to say they wouldn’t offer it as an optional extra!
That produces an ‘advanced F-15E’ with reduced RCS that can now be employed in two modes, LO or conventional. Its LO (frontal) mode is ‘for day 1 operations’ and requires them to remove all the external stores and replace the CFTs with CWBs. That looks like this:
By all accounts that is where it offers the frontal RCS equivalent to F-35.
The ‘day two onward’ mode is where they hang the full option of F-15E weapons, sensors, pods and tanks on the jet and revert to full-up Strike Eagle mode as the obvious expense of the frontal LO. It would look a lot like an F-15E
So, I think you’re quite right, eaglemmoomin, if you’ve seen a picture with stuff hanging off it, it’s not LO. As for ‘a bit of a management driven lash up’, not really, just an upgrade to the F-15E designed to offer a much lower cost option to the full stealth platforms that are coming. As for crossover from the F-32, some of the technology is linked, but the basic F-15 airframe is, as I said before, never going to look like today’s concept of a LO/VLO aircraft.
I hope that makes sense and explains roughly what the concept is about.
Courtney
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 5th Apr 2013 at 09:08.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
1st F-35B Night Vertical Landing Video
1st F-35B Night Vertical Landing Video:
F-35B Jump Jet Makes Its First Vertical Landing At Night (VIDEO)
F-35B Jump Jet Makes Its First Vertical Landing At Night (VIDEO)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their latest statement says it will only have the level of stealth permitted by the US Government for export – an important issue for all stealth exports, by the way – and the level of stealth will only be comparable to fifth generation aircraft ‘such as the F-35’ from the frontal aspect. In other words, it’s only LO (not VLO) and only then in the head aspect and (these are my words only and I could be wrong) optimized against the air-to-air threat. Regarding the export issue, I think they were granted a license last year.
I can only find that they aren't claiming it on slide 5
F-15 Silent Eagle Media Briefing - The DEW Line
The F-35 is VLO according to DoD, I can give a link if needed
Last edited by JSFfan; 5th Apr 2013 at 10:24.
Good vid, Spaz. Shows the heat and power really well. Thanks for posting.
In the accompanying article theys said "But if the Harriers have to retire before the F-35B can replace them -- or if the F-35B is cancelled -- that pocket carrier capability goes away, and the amphibs are limited to launching helicopters and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors."
When they say the capability goes away, I'm assuming (and hoping) that really means a capability gap UNTIL the Harriers are replaced and not a permanent loss. Could any of the American posters here comment on that?
In the accompanying article theys said "But if the Harriers have to retire before the F-35B can replace them -- or if the F-35B is cancelled -- that pocket carrier capability goes away, and the amphibs are limited to launching helicopters and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors."
When they say the capability goes away, I'm assuming (and hoping) that really means a capability gap UNTIL the Harriers are replaced and not a permanent loss. Could any of the American posters here comment on that?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"But if the Harriers have to retire before the F-35B can replace them -- or if the sky is falling -- that pocket carrier capability goes away, and the amphibs are limited to launching helicopters and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors."
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a Request for Proposal issued to contractors to bid for the contract to build the PERMANENT FACILITIES AT THE PERMANENT "INSIDE-THE-US" MARINE AIR BASE AT BEAUFORT SOUTH CAROLINA!
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "austere bases", "forward bases", or anything other than a permanent airfield!
GreenKnight I can and have read the document quickly, my point was that if the work schedule described in the document was necessary to ensure that a permanent inside the USA base can operate F35Bs safely, this base being one that I assume had previously had Harriers operating from, then the work necessary to ensure that F35Bs can operate safely from anywhere other than an Amphib, would be somewhere in the same order.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "austere bases", "forward bases", or anything other than a permanent airfield!
GreenKnight I can and have read the document quickly, my point was that if the work schedule described in the document was necessary to ensure that a permanent inside the USA base can operate F35Bs safely, this base being one that I assume had previously had Harriers operating from, then the work necessary to ensure that F35Bs can operate safely from anywhere other than an Amphib, would be somewhere in the same order.
JSFf,
Slide 5 compares conventional Eagle with 5th gen. Slide 19 compares SE with 5th Gen. In any event, I tend not to put too much faith in manufacturers' glossy brochures I would rather base my opinions on defence analysis.
I wonder if, in this case of the ROK sales bid, they're comparing the head aspect RCS with the US F-35 or the version that Korea would get (and you guys, come to that). What do you reckon?
Slide 5 compares conventional Eagle with 5th gen. Slide 19 compares SE with 5th Gen. In any event, I tend not to put too much faith in manufacturers' glossy brochures I would rather base my opinions on defence analysis.
I wonder if, in this case of the ROK sales bid, they're comparing the head aspect RCS with the US F-35 or the version that Korea would get (and you guys, come to that). What do you reckon?
Originally Posted by JSFfan
fixed it for you
if you're going to quote me, please do not alter my words. In any event, I was quoting your source not expressing my views.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
OMFTS
'PhilipG', earlier recent posts have highlighted the use of AM-2 Matting and probably soon some new updated version of AM-X Matting or whatever it may be called then, to be used as a temporary surface for VLs, or Runny Landings if AM-2 runway long enough. An entire USMC base called '29 Palms' in California is made out of this stuff (I'm guessing to test the AM-2 in all the variations of use).
Here is a thread start: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7767535
Today the USMC want to become MARINES again, operating from Sea Bases/Operational Maneuver From The Sea (OMFTS) and other acronyms. Here is a recent news blog article about their wish to NOT be a second Land Army (whilst temporary close to shore FOBs are in the mix to give options/variations of use but mainly use flat decks at sea for F-35B ops). Last year an Ex. Bold Alligator highlighted this new 'back to the future' MARINE direction:
Marine Corps Will Push for Return to Maritime Roots (UPDATED) - Blog
Here is a thread start: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7767535
Today the USMC want to become MARINES again, operating from Sea Bases/Operational Maneuver From The Sea (OMFTS) and other acronyms. Here is a recent news blog article about their wish to NOT be a second Land Army (whilst temporary close to shore FOBs are in the mix to give options/variations of use but mainly use flat decks at sea for F-35B ops). Last year an Ex. Bold Alligator highlighted this new 'back to the future' MARINE direction:
Marine Corps Will Push for Return to Maritime Roots (UPDATED) - Blog
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 5th Apr 2013 at 10:46. Reason: add permalink
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Boeing is claiming 5th gen, no mention of the f-22 or f-35
I think it will be the same as Japan and at this stage ROK doesn't know the f-35 RCS. It was only be disclosed after the contract was signed and not included in the money Japan paid and assume the ROK too payed to consider the f-35
I think it will be the same as Japan and at this stage ROK doesn't know the f-35 RCS. It was only be disclosed after the contract was signed and not included in the money Japan paid and assume the ROK too payed to consider the f-35
I think when Boeing themselves were making any claims about it they actually said "an aircraft that can match the frontal-aspect stealth profile of any fifth generation fighter in configurations cleared by the US government for export release.".
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks CM. But I'm still not all that convinced.
Your first day of strike F15SE no longer has it's navigation pod, IRST or sniper pod attached to it when performing a strike mission. To carry all of it pretty much appears to break any kind of frontal aspect LO.
It looks like to offer the electronics capability of the F35 you end up with in effect an F15E so why buy the F15SE? To offer stealth you end up with a much more 'basic' avionics.
Seems to me to perform any strike missions which to me is the whole point of the Joint Strike Fighter you'd need several 'day two' F15SE's datalinked to several day one F15SE's to actually acheive the same effect has half the number of F35's would be able to acheive. I'm not saying that's wrong as surely that's not all that disimilar to the current status quo? To me the avionics and sensor fit is what makes the JSF a fifth generation platform not it's performance figures which are just 'ok' and it's those systems that enable missions to be performed differently using less assets or with a 'stealthy' swing role edge. Or at least thats the theory. I guess we'll see.
As I said to me it appears like a bit of a lashup to be able to keep a production line and revenue stream going much like the F18 update that Boeing were touting a while back, which would be a management driven strategy as opposed to an engineering led strategy imho.
Your first day of strike F15SE no longer has it's navigation pod, IRST or sniper pod attached to it when performing a strike mission. To carry all of it pretty much appears to break any kind of frontal aspect LO.
It looks like to offer the electronics capability of the F35 you end up with in effect an F15E so why buy the F15SE? To offer stealth you end up with a much more 'basic' avionics.
Seems to me to perform any strike missions which to me is the whole point of the Joint Strike Fighter you'd need several 'day two' F15SE's datalinked to several day one F15SE's to actually acheive the same effect has half the number of F35's would be able to acheive. I'm not saying that's wrong as surely that's not all that disimilar to the current status quo? To me the avionics and sensor fit is what makes the JSF a fifth generation platform not it's performance figures which are just 'ok' and it's those systems that enable missions to be performed differently using less assets or with a 'stealthy' swing role edge. Or at least thats the theory. I guess we'll see.
As I said to me it appears like a bit of a lashup to be able to keep a production line and revenue stream going much like the F18 update that Boeing were touting a while back, which would be a management driven strategy as opposed to an engineering led strategy imho.