More delays for the F-35
Indeed, you're right about aiming modes, JTO, but they are all calibrated from missile boresite, so if that's off by more than 2 and a bit degrees, they're all off by enough not to see the tgt. Is that a real configuratin, do you think, or is it a demo? I've never seen weapons mounted at at anything other than a common (weapons) reference datum before.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what you're all saying is that after day 1/2 these aircraft become technically redundant and we could do the same job with a cheaper non-stealth aircraft?
So why not do the day 1 attacks with missiles, and lower cost drones? You could even build a large fleet of disposable one way / one trip drones and still save money.
So why not do the day 1 attacks with missiles, and lower cost drones? You could even build a large fleet of disposable one way / one trip drones and still save money.
Yeah, that's kind of what I'm wondering, Milo. I know there's a lot more to it than that, but stealth is REALLY expensive (and comes with a lot of limitations), so that significant part of the airframe seems only valid for a small, early part of ops. Of course, if the jets don't survive day 1/2 they're no good to us later anyway. And a smart enemy may still have stuff in reserve that we don't get early on. But I still wonder about this.
PhilipG, indeed. Do we really want to put such an expensive jet in harm's may in a high threat environment? Although, I suppose that's the point of making it totally invincible. But it comes back, again, to the point, why have such an expensive jet if you dare not fied it on ops? Which I think is your point.
Super Hornet in SEAD role instead, anyone?
PhilipG, indeed. Do we really want to put such an expensive jet in harm's may in a high threat environment? Although, I suppose that's the point of making it totally invincible. But it comes back, again, to the point, why have such an expensive jet if you dare not fied it on ops? Which I think is your point.
Super Hornet in SEAD role instead, anyone?
Courtney, I think you have answered your own question, as long as all parts of the weapon system know where the other parts are (harmonisation in old money) then all is good. If all you have is a simple T as your weapon sight and a missile that can only be slaved, rather than scanned around, then a small FOV and a misalignment would be bad. AIM-9L may not have had the largest FOV in the world but compared to some other systems (think French) its pretty relaxed.
Whilst the picture is genuine the camera does lie and the real geometry is not as extreme as it looks and the drooping seekers does not help. On the other hand the outboard pylon and rail combination is more unusual than that picture suggests.
Whilst the picture is genuine the camera does lie and the real geometry is not as extreme as it looks and the drooping seekers does not help. On the other hand the outboard pylon and rail combination is more unusual than that picture suggests.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
Without wanting to turn this into QWI/AWI porn...
Whilst the FOV for a AIM-9L/M is as you quote, the system can be cued off boresight to considerably more than that, and will hold the lock out to about as much again. So as long as the weapon is calibrated to the cueing source there isn't a problem.
As for high off boresight weapons such as ASRAAM, AIM-9X and Python then they can acquire so far off boresight a 2 degree nose low mounting angle is immaterial. Isn't it?
Without wanting to turn this into QWI/AWI porn...
Whilst the FOV for a AIM-9L/M is as you quote, the system can be cued off boresight to considerably more than that, and will hold the lock out to about as much again. So as long as the weapon is calibrated to the cueing source there isn't a problem.
As for high off boresight weapons such as ASRAAM, AIM-9X and Python then they can acquire so far off boresight a 2 degree nose low mounting angle is immaterial. Isn't it?
Quite correct, JTO. Hopefully we're talking AIM9X / ASRAAM.
Not so much a question as thinking out loud - or whatever the written equivalent is.
EDIT: Sorry ORCA, I think I was typing as you posted. I agree with you. But the target does have to be within missile FOV for acquisition. As I said before, though, it can be tweeked electronically. But, it still seems odd to me to put different stations on different datums (sorry, DATA).
Nice photo, JTO! It looks better to me from that angle with weapons displayed.
Not so much a question as thinking out loud - or whatever the written equivalent is.
EDIT: Sorry ORCA, I think I was typing as you posted. I agree with you. But the target does have to be within missile FOV for acquisition. As I said before, though, it can be tweeked electronically. But, it still seems odd to me to put different stations on different datums (sorry, DATA).
Nice photo, JTO! It looks better to me from that angle with weapons displayed.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 21st Feb 2012 at 18:51.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1st day of the war argument is an interesting question; indeed, maybe a small number of F35s, supplemented by a large force of F18s (proven war winner, high degree of redundancy etc. etc.) and Typhoons is the way forward?...assuming the total 140 F35, or equivalent, requirement is eventually filled, even if it is in 15 years time.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Either Side
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we not in danger of comparing apples to oranges here with the datum discussion? It looks like the 2 9x pylons are aligned on the same datum. The fact that they are not aligned on exactly the same datum as the BRUs inboard of them seems to be of little to no consequence when one considers the type of ordnance being carried. I could see your point if we were seeing 6 independently angled 9x pylons(!), which I don't think we are. If the plan were to carry all A-A ordnance underwings then I suspect we would see different attachments on the inboard and centre pylons (not BRUs) that would allow for reasonably coincident aim points for each weapon (Meteor/120/9x).
With all that being said I sure that having slightly different bore sight aiming positions is no biggy when it comes to modern supercomputer equipped fighters:
With all that being said I sure that having slightly different bore sight aiming positions is no biggy when it comes to modern supercomputer equipped fighters:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the target does have to be within missile FOV for acquisition.
Bastardeux:
''The 1st day of the war argument is an interesting question; indeed, maybe a small number of F35s, supplemented by a large force of F18s (proven war winner, high degree of redundancy etc. etc.) and Typhoons is the way forward?...assuming the total 140 F35, or equivalent, requirement is eventually filled, even if it is in 15 years time.''
i'm with you - except on keeping a small number of F-35. lets remember gents that each F-35 airframe, without its through life costs and its aircrew, will cost the same as at least 100 TLAM's.
so even a limited use 50 aircraft buy with the rest a Typhoon/SuperHornet split, would provide over 5000 Tommahawks.
and even without enemy action over 30 years of operating F-35 we'd still have broken 20% of them on hills, powerlines, the North Sea and seagulls - so, in 30 years, which is going to provide the better/more acceptable FDoW capability - 5000 TLAM's or the 40 remaining F-35?
''The 1st day of the war argument is an interesting question; indeed, maybe a small number of F35s, supplemented by a large force of F18s (proven war winner, high degree of redundancy etc. etc.) and Typhoons is the way forward?...assuming the total 140 F35, or equivalent, requirement is eventually filled, even if it is in 15 years time.''
i'm with you - except on keeping a small number of F-35. lets remember gents that each F-35 airframe, without its through life costs and its aircrew, will cost the same as at least 100 TLAM's.
so even a limited use 50 aircraft buy with the rest a Typhoon/SuperHornet split, would provide over 5000 Tommahawks.
and even without enemy action over 30 years of operating F-35 we'd still have broken 20% of them on hills, powerlines, the North Sea and seagulls - so, in 30 years, which is going to provide the better/more acceptable FDoW capability - 5000 TLAM's or the 40 remaining F-35?
true - but we've got the Type 45's 'fitted for', we've got the Astutes 'Fitted with', and we've got the design stage Type 26 to play with - a well as whatever replaces the Vanguards, though whether the conventional/strategic mix is a good idea is another issue.
it would be interesting to see what work was done in the days of the FOAS on the technicalities of lobbing ALCM's out of the back of a A400M/C-17 - though i'm assuming that at 18ft its too large a store to be carried by a Typhoon/SuperHornet...
its not perfect, but neither is a $100m+ airframe thats years late, racing through every cost ceiling put before it, won't have commonality with our weapon systems, and currently can't catch an arrestor wire.
it would be interesting to see what work was done in the days of the FOAS on the technicalities of lobbing ALCM's out of the back of a A400M/C-17 - though i'm assuming that at 18ft its too large a store to be carried by a Typhoon/SuperHornet...
its not perfect, but neither is a $100m+ airframe thats years late, racing through every cost ceiling put before it, won't have commonality with our weapon systems, and currently can't catch an arrestor wire.
It can be shot in the general direction of a target from the HMS and then acquire after firing.
Mainwheels are a long way back = a big nose-down moment = if you hold the nose up too long, the nosewheel's going to have a firm touchdown - massively derotational on touchdown. Those main wheels are too far back, hence the hook problems. I hope that design is worth it for the first two days of the war.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely this "first day" concept is partly due the fact that these aircraft are going to have high attrition rates and most of them won't be coming back, so landing on deck is the least of anyones worries. No point in making work something thats unlikely to happen.
Surely the vary fact that there is a deemed "day one" mission, is a statement that the day one pilots are expendable cannon fodder? They are there just to expend the other sides resources.
Surely the vary fact that there is a deemed "day one" mission, is a statement that the day one pilots are expendable cannon fodder? They are there just to expend the other sides resources.
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 23rd Feb 2012 at 20:25.