Debate on F-35 JSF aerodynamics [Archive]

BKNO

April 30th, 2007, 06:15 AM

Quote from another topic, the poster will reconise himself...

I can think of any number of mach 2.5+ aircraft that have fixed inlets.

Well, you're more than welcome to enlight us mere mortals. :confused:

BTW the notion of "ONE" shock is in fact a false one particularly on aiframes equiped with boundary layers spliter plates and fixed inlets.

In aviation "REAL" terms (NASA and else) it will be dubbed "normal" shock inlet because there can be only ONE single computable solution and pressure recovery can be modeled by the normal shock equation.

There are TWO types here, the PITOT type is a simple tubular design like that of a F-86, the second is that of the F-16 called "Convergent/Divergent", the difference is in the intake leading edge of in later designs the (boundary layer splitter plates) called diverter used in supersonic designs.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1518&stc=1&d=1177928019

Diverter leading edges provoques the MAIN shock at the intake lips with a smaller oblique shock and have to be dimentioned and positioned in such a way that the (small) shock they provock hits the intakes lips at a pre-selected Mach, depending on design optimisation.

Since the assembly is of a FIXED design there can be only one optimised Mach, past it the engine will be poushed beyhond its red line.

In the case of the F-16 design, for mach numbers of approximately 1.6, the pressure losses is greater than 10% and can reazch as much as 60% at M 1.8.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1514&stc=1&d=1177927594

To reach a higher Mach than 2.0, F-15 has a serie of inlet ramps which turn the airflow through multiple oblique shocks and permit a more linear pressure/thrust recovery.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1515&stc=1&d=1177927660

The intake of F-35 is working on the same principle than that of the F-16, the bump integrated on the fuselage wall acting as a "mild-Shock" trigger and controls the diffusion of the boundary layer in front of the intake.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1517&stc=1&d=1177927859

It is of a compresssive/expensive waves design much as that of the Mirage 2000 or SR-71 "Souris", only it is fixed and WAY inside the intake which indicates an optimisastion for lower Mach recovery.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1516&stc=1&d=1177927799

As a matter of FACT F-35 Diverterless Inlet were chosen for several reasons and optimised for an altitude and Mach according to requierements. = lowest drag, lowest weight, lowest cost, and highest propulsion performance.

There was NO performance gain at high Mach when tested on the F-16, so the F-35 Mach limits are to be looked for elswhere like engine pressure recovery and airframe aerodynamics for example.

I am hoping for a proper debate based on FACTS and immune from legends if possible at all!!!:)

powerslavenegi

April 30th, 2007, 07:34 AM

Impressive post mate,anyways have some pretty simple questions regarding the intake design

1.If one looks at the engine intakes of most of the aircraft (except the F-35 and the Raptor) one would find the intake isnt fused with the fuselage infact there exists a clear separation (i.e. a gap spanning couple of inches say),to be precise look at the intakes of F-16(in link potse by you ) and even the Euro canards(Rafale,Typhoon and the Grippen) and the Russian jets Mig-35 and the Su-30.

But if you look at the F-35 and f-17 all have done away with the gap and instead have a slightly bulged fuselage instead eg.://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/13899

well have come across different explanations on the WWW describing the reasons for such a separation(something got to do with doing away with the turbulence caused due to the boudary layer adjacent to the fuselage),but wanted deeper insights regarding the same.

2.Had read the book (dont remember the name by Dassault avaiation) covering the 'Delta winged' aircraft designed by the French firm there it mentioned as to how the engineers did away with the 'sonic cones'(what ever you call em ) on the Mirage inlets while they were designing the Rafale.
Why did those guys have them in the first place ?

BKNO

April 30th, 2007, 09:18 AM

powerslavenegi But if you look at the F-35 and f-17 all have done away with the gap and instead have a slightly bulged fuselage instead

This is the "Stealthy" trend for controling the bopundary layer in this area.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1517&d=1177927856
They do away with the conventional diffuser but the F-35 have a particular design which diffuses part of it around the intake roots:

powerslavenegi 2.Had read the book (dont remember the name by Dassault avaiation) covering the 'Delta winged' aircraft designed by the French firm there it mentioned as to how the engineers did away with the 'sonic cones'(what ever you call em ) on the Mirage inlets while they were designing the Rafale.
Why did those guys have them in the first place ?

We call them "Souris" (Mices) and they were very useful with the technology available at the time (including aerodynamics) they actualy allowed the under-powered Mirage III to reach M 2.+

The design evolution from Mirage III/2000 to 4000 to Rafale is mainly due to evolutionary design and computing progresses with CATIA and its Aerodynamic plug-ins allowing for better design.

I seem to recall something on the nose of the 4000 which was doing a curious job at close to M 1.8, actually nillifying the effisciency of the souris at up to (passed) M2.0.

Thus (If you have the book you can post the details it will be interesting) Rafale front fuselage is designed for speed above M 2.0 only the M-88 dynamic pressures limits it to <> M 2.0 and its Operational speed to 1.8.

I take advantage of your post to point out that engines and intake designs only arent enough to determine the Mach of an aircraft...

powerslavenegi

April 30th, 2007, 09:54 AM

This is the "Stealthy" trend for controling the bopundary layer in this area.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1517&d=1177927856
They do away with the conventional diffuser but the F-35 have a particular design which diffuses part of it around the intake roots:
Hm.... I see (you mean apart from the much talked about 'S' curve by eliminating the diffuser and having this design further assists in hiding the engine fan blades from the EM waves,or I am missing something ).

Thus (If you have the book you can post the details it will be interesting)
:( Sorry man it was long back also a library copy which my father got for me .

zidane1989

April 30th, 2007, 08:29 PM

Would the rafale's speed also be affected by the ram coating's speed limit?

rjmaz1

April 30th, 2007, 10:13 PM

Would the rafale's speed also be affected by the ram coating's speed limit?
I doubt it.. This is a good example of how lighter/simpler/stealthy fixed inlets can reduce the potential top speed of the aircraft. The Rafale still cruises as quick as previous Mirage aircraft but its top speed is definitely down. This isn't a bad thing as i've heard/seen enough evidence that the in combat they dont go anywhere near the top speed.

Yes the top speed is also down on the F-35, but that doesn't matter for 99% of the missions. Its cruising speed will be decent, possibly equal to or even greater than the legacy jets its replacing which is all that matters.

Everything that BKNO has posted only reflects the top speeds of the aircraft. None of that info will help give us the cruising speed of the F-35. It will only give us a brief indication that the cruising speed will be lower than its top speed and higher than its landing speed.

We can debate as long as we want but at the end of the day the F-35 wont be slow. Its already cruised quicker than a clean Hornet which is a very good.

No enemy aircraft that faces the F-35 will have a speed advantage large enough to make a significant difference. It will not be able to overcome the very significant stealth/detection advantage of the F-35

We wont know who's right for many years until the performance numbers are published.

BKNO

May 1st, 2007, 05:11 AM

powerslavenegi Hm.... I see (you mean apart from the much talked about 'S' curve by eliminating the diffuser and having this design further assists in hiding the engine fan blades from the EM waves,or I am missing something ).

NO you're NOT missing anything.

zidane1989 Would the rafale's speed also be affected by the ram coating's speed limit?

It all depends on the frictional characteristics of the material.

rjmaz1 I doubt it.. This is a good example of how lighter/simpler/stealthy fixed inlets can reduce the potential top speed of the aircraft.

This is an inacurate view of reality.

The CHOICE of Mach limit at design stage is the reason for the F-35 Mach limit not the Diverterless Inlet configuration, they could have been designed for a higher Mach.

Had L-M responded to the SAME requierements than for F-22 it would be able to fly at the same Max Mach but requierements were for M 1.5...

rjmaz1 The Rafale still cruises as quick as previous Mirage aircraft but its top speed is definitely down. This isn't a bad thing as i've heard/seen enough evidence that the in combat they dont go anywhere near the top speed.

Again it was against a requierement for a Max Mach of 1.8 and the fact that it is only M 2.0 capable doesn't mean its Max speed is down it means it wasn't requiered nor design to fly at higher speeds than M 2.0.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1519&stc=1&d=1178009743

Still its configuration is derivated from the original M 2.2+ ACX which helps a little.
As for the Operational vs Dash speed it is mostly due to the fact that Dassault always provides datas in Operational values.

BTW Rafale Supercruises at a Mach FAR HIGHER than Mirage 2000 with the same payload, it ALSO outfly it in DRY power only.

rjmaz1 Yes the top speed is also down on the F-35, but that doesn't matter for 99% of the missions. Its cruising speed will be decent, possibly equal to or even greater than the legacy jets its replacing which is all that matters.

Not what a pilot would say about DASH speed when you're winchester and having to bug out from hostile territory.

Reason WHY all external tanks are cleared to M 1.6 on Rafale for example with the possiblity to drop them if needed and reach M 2.0.

SLOW DASH speed means MORE time over danger areas.

rjmaz1 Everything that BKNO has posted only reflects the top speeds of the aircraft.

WRONG: It covers virtually the whole of the flight envelop, subsonic, transonic and supersonic alike, the fact that there are limits that you define as top speed is irrelevant.

Best example is that the intakes provides a marked gain at very low speed as they were optimised for pressure recovery in DRY power at low level for STVOL take off without after-burners...

L-M test pilot already stated a GAIN of <> 33% during Take-off.

rjmaz1 None of that info will help give us the cruising speed of the F-35.

You meant NONE that you know about but L-M actually specified that F-35 will NOT be supercruising in their W-S FAQ page.

rjmaz1 It will only give us a brief indication that the cruising speed will be lower than its top speed and higher than its landing speed.

Where do YOU get your information from please???

rjmaz1 We can debate as long as we want but at the end of the day the F-35 wont be slow. Its already cruised quicker than a clean Hornet which is a very good.

You have NO clue here again. I dont regard a Mach LIMIT of 1.6 as not being SLOW and could post a F-22 comments stating exactly this, F-35 problems are SPEED and LOW CRUISING speed.

rjmaz1 No enemy aircraft that faces the F-35 will have a speed advantage large enough to make a significant difference. It will not be able to overcome the very significant stealth/detection advantage of the F-35

A 4th generation aircraft with 4 AAMs will have a 0.4M kinetiq advantage over it in DRY power, M 0.3 for a Rafale M with 4 MICAs and 1 X 1.250 L.

To use F-22 kineqiq energy advantage, it is considered that with BOTH AIM-120, a F-22 flying at high altitude vs a low flying subsonic (M0.98) target will have an AAM extra range of up to 50%.

I dont know what YOU call this if not a speed advantage large enough to make a significant difference.

MORE TO IT: a 4th gen aircraft equiped with Optronics + BVR IR AAM will be capable of passively detecting F-35, whith a 75% extra range i AAMs, meaning 25%_ (lower) for an AIM-120 having to shoot-up and 50%+ (higher) for the shooter.

rjmaz1 We wont know who's right for many years until the performance numbers are published.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9663/lmprogrambriefsept06wt9.jpg
WE already know what L-M published and it is: MACH LIMIT for all vatriants 1.6 and NO supercruise. As for operational considerations i also know trhem well by (ex) profession.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1520&stc=1&d=1178009916
Here are TWO different design configurations for F-35...

Grand Danois

May 1st, 2007, 05:48 AM

MORE TO IT: a 4th gen aircraft equiped with Optronics + BVR IR AAM will be capable of passively detecting F-35, whith a 75% extra range i AAMs, meaning 25%_ (lower) for an AIM-120 having to shoot-up and 50%+ (higher) for the shooter.

That makes me wonder why the F-22A is equipped with a radar and no optronics...

No wait! It doesn't. IRST is so inferior to a good AESA that it makes perfect sense.

Primary sensor: radar.

No reason to do the Flanker discussion all over again.

BKNO

May 1st, 2007, 06:28 AM

Grand Danois That makes me wonder why the F-22A is equipped with a radar and no optronics...

Lack of funding was the reason for this, the US lags behind in IR/UV/Optronic technology and to keep up with a proper A2A Optronic system it would have been coming close to breaking DoD bank acount.

BTW. LPI doesn't mean UNDETECTEABLE. It ONLY means LOW Probability of Intercept but as a matter of FACT, a system like SPECTRA was tested at NATO MACE-X exercise (Cazauz EW base) successfully vs LPI AESAs.

It's all a question of computing power and sensor sensitivity, another legend goes down in flame.

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/4381/f35jsfmilcontactfaqshn0.jpg
HERE: L-M FAQ page on F-35.

Grand Danois

May 1st, 2007, 07:04 AM

Lack of funding was the reason for this, the US lags behind in IR/UV/Optronic technology and to keep up with a proper A2A Optronic system it would have been coming close to breaking DoD bank acount.

Proves my point. The radar was the most important sensor.

BTW. LPI doesnt mean UNDETECTEABLE. It ONLY means LOW Probasbility of Intercept but as a matter of FACT, a system like SPECTRA was tested at NATO MACE-X exercise (Cazauz EW base) successfully vs LPI AESAs.

This is a strawman. You are putting words in my mouth. I never introduced any LPI as an argument. Why you choose to bring it up and how you attribute it to anything I've said, is something you have to explain.

I just noted that IRST is down the list of priorities when it comes to what sensor goes first on a fighter. ;)

It's all a question of computing power and sensor sensitivity, another legend goes down in flame.

...and accuracy of calibrated sensor model, content and quality of data, and especially concept of employment. And this is where the difference is.

You are just being very selective and omissive in your quotes and arguments.

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/4381/f35jsfmilcontactfaqshn0.jpg
HERE: L-M FAQ page on F-35.

Wrong link, BKNO.

BKNO

May 1st, 2007, 07:10 AM

Grand Danois Proves my point. The radar was the most important sensor.

Agreed.

Grand Danois This is a strawman. I never introduced any LPI as an argument. Why you choose to bring it up and how you attribute it to anything I've said, is something you have to explain.

I didn't i just posted informations on the subject, no fuss.

Grand Danois I just noted that IRST ist down the list of priorities.

It IS for the US as technology developement.

A totally different phylosophie than the European or Russians...

Grand Danois ...and accuracy of calibrated sensor model, content and quality of data, and especially concept of employment. And this is where the difference is.

Good to see someone knowing his subject but dont worry if you dig you'll figure we got what it takes...

Grand Danois You are just being very selective and omissive in your quotes and arguments.

You're paranoid or confrontational, you choose i have NO time and post what i can.

Grand Danois Wrong link, BKNO.

Not regarding the topic subject here, it's about the dresigned MACH LIMITS as provided by L-M as for Sept 2007...

Grand Danois

May 1st, 2007, 07:29 AM

You're paranoid or confrontational, you choose i have NO time and post what i can.

Whatever you think. I'm just unhappy with, say, arguments wrt capability based on 8 year old statements delivered in a political context where the F-22A was in risk of cancellation. I.e. desperate.

That kinda stuff. ;)

Not regarding the topic subject here, it's about the dresigned MACH LIMITS as provided by L-M as for Sept 2007...

Well, yes. Inside the wider topic. I was adressing the sensor issue, so figured you posted the wrong link in your reply to me.

BKNO

May 1st, 2007, 08:23 AM

Grand Danois Whatever you think. I'm just unhappy with, say, arguments wrt capability based on 8 year old statements delivered in a political context where the F-22A was in risk of cancellation. I.e. desperate.

What is a desperate move is to try to deny this one while taking it out of its contest.

Beside you totally failed to make a counter-point here.

More to it, if F-35 had anywhere near the A2A capabilties the USAF needs they would rather have more of them than F-22 for the buck no???

So i believe that what they were saying at the time was correct and that your insistance into basing your own opinions on incomplete fatcs and datas is your problem, not mine, i provide with all sort of infos including 8 years old archives.

Grand Danois Well, yes. Inside the wider topic. I was adressing the sensor issue, so figured you posted the wrong link in your reply to me.

I only replied to one of the answers i was given as for your analysis on the sensor issue it doesn't apply nor to european nor to russian IRSTs if you care to inform yourself that little.

Grand Danois

May 1st, 2007, 08:32 AM

I only replied to one of the answers i was given as for your analysis on the sensor issue it doesn't apply nor to european nor to russian IRSTs if you care to inform yourself that little.

If you open the link you provided, you'll realise it contains nothing on the subject of optronics.

This suggests that you may have wished to post another link on the subject, but mixed them up.

BKNO

May 1st, 2007, 08:53 AM

Grand Danois This suggests that you may have wished to post another link on the subject, but mixed them up.

No no mix-up here it was on the subject of F-35 Mach limits as stated by L-M.

For the optronics issue i will be more than happy to provide if you insist.

From were we're standing there is a HUGE amount of sceptiscism mainly based on the ignorance of what is going on in Europe.

Cant help it if European and Russians alike believe stealth can be defeated.

I am not being confrontational or else i have a totally different set of information to the point that i believe it is even a cultural thing is you see what i mean....

Grand Danois

May 1st, 2007, 09:01 AM

No no mix-up here it was on the subject of F-35 Mach limits as stated by L-M.

For the optronics issue i will be more than happy to provide if you insist.

From were we're standing there is a HUGE amount of sceptiscism mainly based on the ignorance of what is going on in Europe.

Cant help it if European and Russians alike believe stealth can be defeated.

I'm European, living in Europe.

I would think 'defeated' is a wrong term. It's rather that the advantage that comprehensive radar signature management gives you will be less as time progresses.

Any relevant signature reduction gives you a huge advantage over your adversary. It will become less, but still significant. Unless, say the adversary fields a comparable capability.

The US approach is actually very holistic, and as such, stealth is no achilles heel. trying to make the argument that the American approach is one-dimensional, is a strawman.

Rich

May 1st, 2007, 09:01 AM

More to it, if F-35 had anywhere near the A2A capabilties the USAF needs they would rather have more of them than F-22 for the buck no???

You dont live here do you? Ever since we started this hi-lo stuff, "good exuse to build more fighters", we have always underestimated the performance of the lo component. Why you ask? Because if the F-16 type aircraft could perform as well as the F-15, or near close to, then the congressman would start screaming, "why do we need to buy the F-15"?

Small wonder the Hi part of the equation gets built first aint it? Then, to be even more slick, the Generals start saying, "Oh well the F-15s have more hours on them so we have to build their replacements first". And that creates a on-going cycle of the USAF getting its expensive ATA F-wonder planes first.

And the funny thing is planes like the F-16 had more then enough ATA ability for us to go with one fighter. But try telling a general that. I mean if you were a General would you rather have the 180 m fighter or the 50 m fighter?

And so they play their little games to get us all scared and to pay for the darn things. They pull stunts like the circus acts in India where they set up Eagles and Falcons to get trounced in air games that are rigged against them, their pilots winking back at their Generals, "who BTW hold their careers in their hands". They start their slick little campaigns about how we need the 180 m fighter, while throwing off just enough on the 50 m fighter to make it look far less capable.

Its an old game here.

BKNO

May 1st, 2007, 09:08 AM

You dont live here do you?

NO but i havent been living out of this solar system for the past 30 years either.

As i say, we got USAFE pilots reporting combat exercises flying OUR Mirage 2000-5Fs from my ex-base vs BOTH types and your stament on F-16 proves to be simply of the highest level of innacuracy when it comes to reality. (If you're HYPED you'll figure which one only with the aircraft type, simple!!!)

Rich Its an old game here.

SURE: Appart for the fact that i play it for the past 30 years, it still doesn't help F-15/F-16/F-35 to escape the laws of physics aerodynamics or operational realites.

Rich

May 1st, 2007, 09:15 AM

NO but i havent been living out of this solar system for the past 30 years either.

Oh your going to fit in good here. Let me first tell you that you are dealing with the master of sarcasm. Ive only laid off because the Mods ask me to start resembling a decent human being. But, we'll see if they let me loose.:p:

As i say, we got USAFE pilots reporting combat exercises flying OUR Mirage 2000-5Fs from by ex-base vs BOTH types and your stament on F-16 proves to be simply of the highest level of innacuracy when it comes to reality.

Huh, what, huh, what? Post your links to backup your babbling or I'll stuff a croissant down your gullet. Your are a Frenchie aint you?

SURE: Appart for the fact that i play it for the past 30 years, it still doesn't help F-15/F-16/F-35 to escape the laws of physics aerodynamics or operational realites.

You played what and where? And "with yourself" doesn't count. Small matter that both the F-15 & F-16s conquered the worlds air during their tenure aint it?

And get a spellchecker. Your spelling sucks!

BKNO

May 1st, 2007, 11:52 AM

Rich Oh your going to fit in good here. Let me first tell you that you are dealing with the master of sarcasm.

NOT interested, got a master for KungFu and i'm sure he is far better at it than you are at your art.

Huh, what, huh, what? Post your links to backup your babbling or I'll stuff a croissant down your gullet. Your are a Frenchie aint you?

A link for the AdA magazine? You're dreaming, if you want to read two solutions, LEARN FRENCH + JOIN the AdA!!!:onfloorl:
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/presse/air_actualites_magazine_de_l_armee_de_l_air

Here you got an idea of the SOURCE.....

I'm afraid even if it doesnt look good in this forum you're going to have to trust me on this one because i'm not about to scan it for you, some of our pilots reports on 2 vs 2 vs Belgian F-16 MLUs can be seen then and there in the internet but it's about it.

If i want a refresh i ask my pals....

Rich You played what and where? And "with yourself" doesn't count. Small matter that both the F-15 & F-16s conquered the worlds air during their tenure aint it?

Played with aircrafts and their weapons for a while as a pro, meaning i had to learn a few thing that apparently still eludes you BIG time not to mention the elementatries necessary for flying them (not AdA thought).

Commercial success is again NOT too much of a guarantee for performances and capabilties.

I'm not a nammie trying to debate about the latest washing powder i'm an ex-AdA specialist and as such your comments on F-15/F-16 make me laugh.

Rich And get a spellchecker. Your spelling sucks!

Go learn French, Dutch and now Chinese then come back for some lecture on my grammar, will ya? Have a good day.

More interesting poster here...

Grand Danois I'm European, living in Europe.

Well in this case i'm surprised you dont show more confidence on optronic systems...

Grand Danois I would think 'defeated' is a wrong term. It's rather that the advantage that comprehensive radar signature management gives you will be less as time progresses.

This is where is trongly desagree, so does SAAB, Eurofighter and Dassault, not to mention the Russian manufacturers.

Grand Danois Any relevant signature reduction gives you a huge advantage over your adversary. It will become less, but still significant. Unless, say the adversary fields a comparable capability.

True but true for both EM and IR. US engines are not designed for lower IR signatures, nor are their exhausts, if you look at the futur upgrades for Gripen and Rafale you'll SEE a comprehensive IR signature programme going with the engines.

Grand Danois The US approach is actually very holistic, and as such, stealth is no achilles heel. trying to make the argument that the American approach is one-dimensional, is a strawman.

It is, compared to the European one, it realies mostly on EM technologies including for thre attack helos and for example Europe like Russia have developed DRMs (Dual Range Missiles) the US still doesnt have them.

+ You dont want to compare F-135 IR signature with that of the current M-88 trust me...

Aussie Digger

May 1st, 2007, 12:38 PM

Lack of funding was the reason for this, the US lags behind in IR/UV/Optronic technology and to keep up with a proper A2A Optronic system it would have been coming close to breaking DoD bank acount.

Hmm. Who do European Countries keeping buying US targetting pod systems then?

Witness: British acquisition of Litening III pod for Typhoon and Sniper-XR for Harriers...

As to F-35's EOTS system. It is a DEVELOPMENT of the Sniper-XR targetting pod which is amongst the most capable such targetting pod in-service today and amongst the "top 3" US EO/IR targetting systems (Litening III/AT, Sniper-XR and ATFLIR).

Comparing it directly to this is irrelevent. Would you compare a Damocles Pod to an ATLIS pod?

Rich

May 1st, 2007, 01:19 PM

Played with aircrafts and their weapons for a while as a pro, meaning i had to learn a few thing that apparently still eludes you BIG time not to mention the elementatries necessary for flying them (not AdA thought).
OK, what position, service dates, and aircraft worked on. And in what capacity?

NOT interested, got a master for KungFu and I'm sure he is far better at it than you are at your art.

Oh, so your a Kung Fu expert now too? Dude, you can anyone you want on the Internet. More power to you. I'm an expert in every fighting style ever created. In fact I just won my brown pants in pooh-shitsu.

A link for the AdA magazine? You're dreaming, if you want to read two solutions, LEARN FRENCH + JOIN the AdA!!!

Naah, I cant take woman with hair under their arms. I dont even know what the AdA is. Is it like the AA?:drunk1

I'm afraid even if it doesnt look good in this forum you're going to have to trust me on this one because i'm not about to scan it for you, some of our pilots reports on 2 vs 2 vs Belgian F-16 MLUs can be seen then and there in the internet but it's about it.

Why would we trust you?

Commercial success is again NOT too much of a guarantee for performances and capabilties.

Yeah but NOBODY wants the Rafael. Its not only commercially unsuccessful but its not even commercial.

I'm not a nammie trying to debate about the latest washing powder i'm an ex-AdA specialist and as such your comments on F-15/F-16 make me laugh.

Whats a "nammie"? Is it like a Nannie? And what does washing powder have to do with anything? Is it like AdA? My comments on the two Yank fighters is based on the incredibly high kill ratio they have flying against all these other airplanes.

Go learn French, Dutch and now Chinese then come back for some lecture on my grammar, will ya? Have a good day.

Man, you are what we call a "man of the ages". Are you like a top secret spy too? Lay a little Chinese on us.:p: BTW use a chinese spellchecker.http://www.worldlanguage.com/Products/Chinese/SpellChecking/Page1.htm

swerve

May 1st, 2007, 01:38 PM

Hmm. Who do European Countries keeping buying US targetting pod systems then?

Witness: British acquisition of Litening III pod for Typhoon and Sniper-XR for Harriers...

As to F-35's EOTS system. It is a DEVELOPMENT of the Sniper-XR targetting pod which is amongst the most capable such targetting pod in-service today and amongst the "top 3" US EO/IR targetting systems (Litening III/AT, Sniper-XR and ATFLIR).

Comparing it directly to this is irrelevent. Would you compare a Damocles Pod to an ATLIS pod?

Rafael would probably be very upset that you think they're American. They're proud to be Israeli. A state-owned firm.

Here's a Litening brochure.
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/7/477.pdf

Aussie Digger

May 1st, 2007, 09:24 PM

Rafael would probably be very upset that you think they're American. They're proud to be Israeli. A state-owned firm.

Here's a Litening brochure.
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/7/477.pdf

The original was I agree. Rafael has now teamed up with Northrop Grumman to upgrade and market the pod worldwide, however.

Australia has bought it's Litening AT's from Northrop...

WebMaster

May 1st, 2007, 11:02 PM

Rich, BKNO, others: Please drop the name calling and useless hits on each other and discuss F-35 aerodynamics... not how many insults your brain can carve out.

Rules, if you have forgotten:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

gf0012-aust

May 2nd, 2007, 01:47 AM

Played with aircrafts and their weapons for a while as a pro, meaning i had to learn a few thing that apparently still eludes you BIG time not to mention the elementatries necessary for flying them (not AdA thought).

There is a rule of credibility in this forum that when people profess to have credentials or declare experience in the military sector that they produce the evidence. This includes separation papers for those who no longer serve.

As you can appreciate, we have had a raft of pretenders claiming expertise when there was none. Our goal is to not have pretenders pollute the debate by making unsupported claims of competency.

Now that you've implied expertise, please provide Web with suitable supporting documentation.

I'm sure you would appreciate being able to confirm your capability for other members.

powerslavenegi

May 2nd, 2007, 02:27 AM

US engines are not designed for lower IR signatures, nor are their exhausts, if you look at the futur upgrades for Gripen and Rafale you'll SEE a comprehensive IR signature programme going with the engines.

You are not gonna make new friends here with statements like that ;) ,anyways as far as I can recollect there is enough info on the WWW pertaining to various US fighter programmes that have tried to adress this issue infact the idea to mitigate IR signature was concieved during the testing of one of the F-16 prototypes.

And it is obvious they might have taken the tech to the next level during the development of F-35/Raptor programme.

Btw I am curious to know as to how would one suppress the IR signature without compromising on the absolute performance (thrust in this case) .And you mentioned about the Gripen programme ,but that uses the GE engines isnt it ?

You dont want to compare F-135 IR signature with that of the current M-88 trust me...

By comparing the heat signature of two engines do you mean stripping the A/C and placing the engines on the test bed and then taking the reading or using some sort of IRST to track the A/C itself ?

swerve

May 2nd, 2007, 04:49 AM

The original was I agree. Rafael has now teamed up with Northrop Grumman to upgrade and market the pod worldwide, however.

Australia has bought it's Litening AT's from Northrop...

But the UK has bought its Litening III/EFs from Rafael, via a UK firm which will provide all support, will do any future upgrades, & may (though that's not been disclosed) build them. AFAIK, the only countries to buy via the USA are those operating US-built aircraft.

Northrop & Rafael sell different versions. What Australia (& some others, e.g. the Netherlands, Italy & Spain) have bought are Northrop versions (with Rafael as a subcontractor), & what we & India have bought are Rafael versions. Sweden, Germany, Hungary & maybe South Africa seem to have a German version built jointly by Rafael & Carl Zeiss Optronics, for Tornado & Gripen.

I reckon that makes it an Israeli product with foreign variants produced by partners, who can sell their variants in the appropriate markets. Not an American product.

BKNO

May 2nd, 2007, 05:25 AM

powerslavenegi You are not gonna make new friends here with statements like that

I thought this was a military forum and that we were supposed to post it as it is.

What i say i CAN prove.

powerslavenegi ,anyways as far as I can recollect there is enough info on the WWW pertaining to various US fighter programmes that have tried to adress this issue infact the idea to mitigate IR signature was concieved during the testing of one of the F-16 prototypes.

But NOT carried over to operational aircrafts to the same degree than SNECMA did for the actual M-88.
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/254/irsupress021by.jpg
And it is obvious they might have taken the tech to the next level during the development of F-35/Raptor programme.

Next level is still FAR lower than concurent manufacturers, SAAB with their future version and Dassault ahead with the actual version...
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1596/irsupress5js.jpg
Btw I am curious to know as to how would one suppress the IR signature without compromising on the absolute performance (thrust in this case) .And you mentioned about the Gripen programme ,but that uses the GE engines isnt it ?

By cooling the hot jet with a cold layer feed by another source than the engine itself in fact a secondary airflow channel and shielding the exhaust nozzles as much as possible....
http://img349.imageshack.us/img349/9581/nm882e44qz.jpg
Here the M-88 on a Navy Rafale M.
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4797/shaded9qv.jpg
IR Reduction by paints and materials made possible by the configuration, on the hot nozzles, the IR suppressant material would burn fast and you can't use one with the same IR charateristics either.

The material layer can be made thicker and more absorbant.

Yes the Volvo is originally US designed but SAAB adressed the issue with IR supressant exhausts in their upgraded versions of JAS-39.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5149/gripen281024x76817dg25wv.jpg
powerslavenegi By comparing the heat signature of two engines do you mean stripping the A/C and placing the engines on the test bed and then taking the reading or using some sort of IRST to track the A/C itself ?

Simple logic: F-129/F-135 runs hoter and doesn't posseses a cold airflow channel appart for that provided by the compressor on M-88 even the engine casings and their BAYES are cooled.
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7955/f35catia5tc.jpg
This in turns means that SNECMA can run their engine hotter for the same IR signature or even lower...
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/2904/m88ir6tt.jpg
In a word they got less WAYS to cool the exhaust gas.

Aussie Digger

May 2nd, 2007, 08:37 AM

I know YOU need to cool down a bit BKNO, but if you read this, why don't you spend some time trying to find what the ACTUAL exhaust outlet looks like on the JSF?

You're making some pretty bold statements, but I am CERTAIN you are not aware that NO F-35 variant photographed to date actually has the production exhaust nozzle fitted to it.

The reason for this is cost related. The LO exhaust nozzle is too expensive to be fitted to the test aircraft. The ones currently fitted are NOT representative of production exhausts.

But hey, I guess people really DO know what the LO characteristics are going to be like don't they?

powerslavenegi

May 2nd, 2007, 08:57 AM

Aussie Digger

May 2nd, 2007, 09:20 AM

AD had read about the IR suppression tech on the Nighthawk it talked of making the nozzle CS profile rectangular this makes the exhaust plume leave the A/C resembling a rect. "sheet" reducing the detection angle on or about the horizontal plane of the aircraft. The initially round cross-section expands into a two-dimensional (rectangular shape) exhaust nozzle and in a side view has a very shallow S shape. The unusual aspect of the design is the incorporation of a coanda surface in the rectangular section that shields the turbine section of the engine when looking into the nozzle. Because the exhaust duct is internally mounted within the fuselage of the aircraft, its length can be very long and it can be semi-rigidly mounted therein. (info.... US patent 5699662).

One can assume that technology might have matured to a different level by the time F-35 and F-22 programmes were concieved and hence they would incorporate something similar or better than the techniques described above.

I agree. A lot of people have speculated that because the F-35's engine exhaust nozzle is "round" that it's somehow not stealthy. That may be the case (except we don't know for SURE of the production models shape) however implict in this argument is the idea that no advancements in LO technology have occurred in the time since the F-117, B-2 and F-22 were designed...

Perhaps it HAS. If it's true that LM IS holding back the final design of the engine nozzle from public view, it would tend to seem more credible to me.

In anycase it's hardly something that's going to be broadcast across the breadth of the Internet, is it?

Rich

May 2nd, 2007, 11:39 AM

My friends I seriously question anyone who would comment on the F-35 as if the final design is set in the stone of the one bloody test model they have flying around.

I dont doubt much of what is going to be the final F-35 lives in the current test model but lets not forget we just signed off on the initial production of the thing. The F-35 program is still evolving.

And USAF is playing their games as well. The last thing they want is to make the F-35 look "to good" as they are also angling for more Raptors. Like I said its an old game. I remember when the F-16 was sitting in its place on the initial production lines. Boy they were all screaming about what a dog it was going to be in ATA and how we needed more Eagles.

An interesting difference is the F-35 is entering an export market saturated with good designs. One of which is the Rafael which I believe is a well designed fighter bomber. There are others and the F-16 didn't enter an export market with so many potential customers as the F-35 is, the reason being is there is no more Cold War and the aircraft purchase limitations inherent to the Cold War Political realities..

And interest in the F-35 is very high regardless. In a saturated market the interest is very high. Why is that BKNO? And I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about why nobody has ordered the Rafael yet.

AGRA

May 2nd, 2007, 06:44 PM

And interest in the F-35 is very high regardless. In a saturated market the interest is very high. Why is that BKNO? And I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about why nobody has ordered the Rafael yet.

I'll try. The Rafael is a very good aircraft on a value for money basis far better than the Typhoon. The reason(s) no one has yet to buy it is its just too freaky.

For the operator the cockpit HMI [HUman Machine Interface] is too different to everything else flying until the F-35. The unique head level display, touch screens, etc are all very different to all others. While this does not mean worse it means any air force that buys it would have to change their lead in fighter training system as well and convince knuck' fighter pilots to change the way they fly.

Secondly for the bean counters if you buy Rafael you have to buy a new suite of weapons. Typhoon, SH E/F B2, F-15K/SG, F-35, F-16 B60 etc all use pretty much the same US/NATO family of weapons. Rafael doesn't. So add in extra cost.

All this doesn't mean its better than the F-35, thats just crazed Gaullic ultranationalism,

tiddles

May 2nd, 2007, 07:54 PM

Aussie Digger

May 2nd, 2007, 10:40 PM

I am tempted to plagiarize your comments to use on another forum that has neverending EF versus Rafale arguments, it brings into focus some of the real reasons for the failure of the Rafale to gain an export customer.I had thought that I had read that the Rafale could if necessary be programmed to use NATO/US weapons although no tests have been ever done as far as I know.

Any aircraft can, if you're prepared to invest enough time, money and resources into the integration efforts. Even Russian aircraft are coming with Israeli and French avionics, EW and probably even weapons these days, but no-one ever said it was easy... :)

Magoo

May 3rd, 2007, 01:52 AM

I'll try. The Rafael is a very good aircraft on a value for money basis far better than the Typhoon. The reason(s) no one has yet to buy it is its just too freaky.

For the operator the cockpit HMI [HUman Machine Interface] is too different to everything else flying until the F-35. The unique head level display, touch screens, etc are all very different to all others. While this does not mean worse it means any air force that buys it would have to change their lead in fighter training system as well and convince knuck' fighter pilots to change the way they fly.

Secondly for the bean counters if you buy Rafael you have to buy a new suite of weapons. Typhoon, SH E/F B2, F-15K/SG, F-35, F-16 B60 etc all use pretty much the same US/NATO family of weapons. Rafael doesn't. So add in extra cost.

All this doesn't mean its better than the F-35, thats just crazed Gaullic ultranationalism,

And THEN you'd need the French to continue to support the system in times of crisis where we are engaged in a scenario which doesn't necessarily correspond to their foreign policy, something the RAAF (and Israel and others) have learned the hard way in the past! On the other hand, if we had to take the F-35 or F/A-18F to war tomorrow, you just know the US would have a C-17 full of spares here by the end of the week.

Why do you think we sent Canberras to Vietnam instead of Mirages??? And why did Israel and South Africa develop their own indigenous versions of the Mirage?

I suspect the Typhoon would have similar 'strings' attached to it unless a deal could be done directly and solely with BAE instead of with the multi-national Eurofighter consortium.

Decisions about equipment procurement are far more than just the platform's capability and price - the political side of the deal is a huge consideration.

Cheers

Magoo

Falstaff

May 3rd, 2007, 02:43 AM

I suspect the Typhoon would have similar 'strings' attached to it unless a deal could be done directly and solely with BAE instead of with the multi-national Eurofighter consortium.

No, it wouldn't. BAE would be responsible for such a sale (to Australia) and for support as well. So no strings attached here... BTW what about the NH-90 an and Tigers? Surely if Australia bought EFs they most likely would be provided with a very robust maintenance infrastructure or even become project members. But that's just fictional and very OT :)
Apart from that I can't imagine the German, Italian or Spanish government holding back spares for Australia. For some reason you guys are very popular here ;)

Decisions about equipment procurement are far more than just the platform's capability and price - the political side of the deal is a huge consideration.

Well said mate.

BTW how come really every thread these days becomes a F-35 vs. Rafale vs. Eurofighter thread?

tiddles

May 3rd, 2007, 02:51 AM

The political reasons for buyers resistance have been argued many times elsewhere,ad-finitum in fact, however Agras reply pulls a few good arguments together that I will use elsewhere, however there has been plenty of info suggesting that the Rafale combat system is capable of being programed to handle US/NATO weapons although none have been tested. The closer the JSF program gets toward the assembly line the further away chances of sales get for EF,Gripen EF.

Magoo

May 3rd, 2007, 03:20 AM

BTW what about the NH-90 an and Tigers?

Good point, but as those aircraft are built here from a steadily increasing local content, we'd probably be able to support them as a stand alone entity.

BTW how come really every thread these days becomes a F-35 vs. Rafale vs. Eurofighter thread?

I guess it's F-35 vs the rest of the world in some people's eyes these days!

Cheers

Magoo

Aussie Digger

May 3rd, 2007, 07:27 AM

No, it wouldn't. BAE would be responsible for such a sale (to Australia) and for support as well. So no strings attached here... BTW what about the NH-90 an and Tigers? Surely if Australia bought EFs they most likely would be provided with a very robust maintenance infrastructure or even become project members. But that's just fictional and very OT :)
Apart from that I can't imagine the German, Italian or Spanish government holding back spares for Australia. For some reason you guys are very popular here ;)

I have a feeling that is why the Tiger's weapons (apart from the cannon) are US sourced. Afterall we have sufficient levels of support to FLY the helo in Australia, what would it matter WHERE we chose to fly it?

However if the weapons supply were turned off it'd impinge on our ability to operate them in the manner and places we so choose...

Aussie Digger

May 4th, 2007, 05:17 AM

Mod edit: "And around and around we go"...

Ladies and Gentleman. The F/A-18E/F, F-22 and F-35 threads are going to be rested for several weeks. They are simply nothing around in circles and achieving nothing. The SAME arguments and opinions are being repeated over and over again.

This is the decision of the mods AND Webmaster. Please respect it and do not open new threads nor continue these discussions "off topic" in other threads.

The situation will be reviewed in several weeks.

Regards

AD.

BKNO

May 12th, 2007, 08:45 AM

AGRA All this doesn't mean its better than the F-35, thats just crazed Gaullic ultranationalism,

It is Rafale. Rafael is an Israely Avionic company if i remember well.

Now; Looks like everything remotly informative is pure "crazed Gaullic ultranationalism" these days. isn't it?

We're getting used to this sort of assumption, it changes little to FACTS.

For the rest of the posts it's really not worth a reply, i'm sorry to say but you guys need to travel a little you're welcome in France to have a look at what is going on here other than forum legends and US desinformation...

Ozzy Blizzard

May 12th, 2007, 12:33 PM

I agree. A lot of people have speculated that because the F-35's engine exhaust nozzle is "round" that it's somehow not stealthy. That may be the case (except we don't know for SURE of the production models shape) however implict in this argument is the idea that no advancements in LO technology have occurred in the time since the F-117, B-2 and F-22 were designed...

Perhaps it HAS. If it's true that LM IS holding back the final design of the engine nozzle from public view, it would tend to seem more credible to me.

In anycase it's hardly something that's going to be broadcast across the breadth of the Internet, is it?

You would have to assume with the heavy consideration given to low level survivability in the design of the F35 (EOTS, X band stealth) that the IR missile threat would have been at least somewhat adressed, and that would mean engin exhaust cooling as well as countermeasures.

Although AD i have to question your assumption that just becaus LM may have learned about LO technologies, that automaticaly the F35 will be more stealthy than it was designed to be. More comprehensive LO means more bucks, and due to the "low" nature of this platform in the force structure, i doubt they are going to want to put whiz bang stealth on it when it wasn't required in the design.

Todjaeger

May 12th, 2007, 01:56 PM

Although AD i have to question your assumption that just becaus LM may have learned about LO technologies, that automaticaly the F35 will be more stealthy than it was designed to be. More comprehensive LO means more bucks, and due to the "low" nature of this platform in the force structure, i doubt they are going to want to put whiz bang stealth on it when it wasn't required in the design.

Given time (and additional work/development) sometimes LO techniques do end up performing better than originally designed. Depending on the hows & whys of the improvement it doesn't necessarily increase the cost. I don't have specific examples to cite but it's not unreasonable to think the JSF might have better LO characteristics than originally planned. Likely not to the extent of the F-22 but better than originally intended.

-Cheers

Scorpion82

May 12th, 2007, 02:58 PM

i doubt they are going to want to put whiz bang stealth on it when it wasn't required in the design.

The JSFs design were also not required to use comprehensive onboard sensors, but rely more upon the networkcentric battlefield environment. Look what it is now. And don't forget about the associated cost increasements, though there're numerous other reasons for that as well.

Ozzy Blizzard

May 12th, 2007, 11:23 PM

The JSFs design were also not required to use comprehensive onboard sensors, but rely more upon the networkcentric battlefield environment. Look what it is now. And don't forget about the associated cost increasements, though there're numerous other reasons for that as well.

If there are more efficient ways to achieve a lower RCS in specific wavelengths for the same or similar bucks, then yes I agree the F35 will be more stealthy than it originaly was. However you cant assumethat it will have comprehensive stealth, just because LM know how to do it on other platforms, even though its not one of the design peramiters. Just because LM know how to make it better, doesent automaticaly mean it will be. Platforms are designed to meet a specific set of requirements for a specific price, and that equasion may have changed somewhat but dont think it'll be the best thing in the world because it could be. For one thing its primarily a strike platform, and will be the most outstanding CAS/BID platform ever created, but i dont see how that automaticaly translates to outstanding A2A performance as the manufacturors are now saying. All of its systems have most of their design geared toward strike. It wont be great at things it wasn't designed to be great at. Thats my point.

vivtho

May 13th, 2007, 03:46 AM

AD had read about the IR suppression tech on the Nighthawk it talked of making the nozzle CS profile rectangular this makes the exhaust plume leave the A/C resembling a rect. "sheet" reducing the detection angle on or about the horizontal plane of the aircraft. The initially round cross-section expands into a two-dimensional (rectangular shape) exhaust nozzle and in a side view has a very shallow S shape. The unusual aspect of the design is the incorporation of a coanda surface in the rectangular section that shields the turbine section of the engine when looking into the nozzle. Because the exhaust duct is internally mounted within the fuselage of the aircraft, its length can be very long and it can be semi-rigidly mounted therein. (info.... US patent 5699662).

One can assume that technology might have matured to a different level by the time F-35 and F-22 programmes were concieved and hence they would incorporate something similar or better than the techniques described above.

Won't a long nozzle like you described above lead to increased loss of thrust. I am not an expert in this field, but I do know that early aircraft (best example de Havilland Vampire) were optimized with as short a nozzle as possible to minimise this loss. Even modern fighters continue to keep the engine at the extreme rear of the aircraft for a similar reason.

Also, will the Marine version of the JSF use the same nozzle. The design described above seems incompatible with the requirement for vectored thrust.

vivtho

May 13th, 2007, 03:53 AM

And THEN you'd need the French to continue to support the system in times of crisis where we are engaged in a scenario which doesn't necessarily correspond to their foreign policy, something the RAAF (and Israel and others) have learned the hard way in the past! On the other hand, if we had to take the F-35 or F/A-18F to war tomorrow, you just know the US would have a C-17 full of spares here by the end of the week.

Why do you think we sent Canberras to Vietnam instead of Mirages??? And why did Israel and South Africa develop their own indigenous versions of the Mirage?

I suspect the Typhoon would have similar 'strings' attached to it unless a deal could be done directly and solely with BAE instead of with the multi-national Eurofighter consortium.

Decisions about equipment procurement are far more than just the platform's capability and price - the political side of the deal is a huge consideration.

Cheers

Magoo

That's gonna happen no matter which country you buy it from. Just a few examples...

France: Denied sales Mirage IIIs and spares to Israel after 1967 war.
USA: Arms embargo on Argentina after the Falklands war. Arms embargo on India after nuclear tests. Arms embargo on Pakistan after nuclear tests. The Pressler amendment blocked deliveries of F-16s that were already paid for.
Russia: Stopped parts delivery on T-80 components sold by Ukraine to Pakistan. Stopped assistance to China on development of JF-17 fighter.
Italy: Stopped sale of aircraft components to China after Tienamen square massacre.

Military sales are one of the ways a nation imposes it's foreign policy. The only way out is for a country to develop it's weapons indegenously.

Just my $0.02.:cool:

Scorpion82

May 13th, 2007, 07:49 AM

If there are more efficient ways to achieve a lower RCS in specific wavelengths for the same or similar bucks, then yes I agree the F35 will be more stealthy than it originaly was. However you cant assumethat it will have comprehensive stealth, just because LM know how to do it on other platforms, even though its not one of the design peramiters. Just because LM know how to make it better, doesent automaticaly mean it will be. Platforms are designed to meet a specific set of requirements for a specific price, and that equasion may have changed somewhat but dont think it'll be the best thing in the world because it could be. For one thing its primarily a strike platform, and will be the most outstanding CAS/BID platform ever created, but i dont see how that automaticaly translates to outstanding A2A performance as the manufacturors are now saying. All of its systems have most of their design geared toward strike. It wont be great at things it wasn't designed to be great at. Thats my point.

I see we have a similar opinion here. I'm not saying the F-35 is going to be a super duper AA platform as the F-22 is, because of costs and different requirements. But I say some things can change over the developement cycle of an aircraft. That doesn't mean that you receive a completly different platform at all.

Aussie Digger

May 13th, 2007, 08:05 AM

You would have to assume with the heavy consideration given to low level survivability in the design of the F35 (EOTS, X band stealth) that the IR missile threat would have been at least somewhat adressed, and that would mean engin exhaust cooling as well as countermeasures.

Although AD i have to question your assumption that just becaus LM may have learned about LO technologies, that automaticaly the F35 will be more stealthy than it was designed to be. More comprehensive LO means more bucks, and due to the "low" nature of this platform in the force structure, i doubt they are going to want to put whiz bang stealth on it when it wasn't required in the design.

And what was F-35 designed LO level meant to be?

Can you please tell me because I'm SURE it's published on the WWW...

Funny how the USAF describes the F-35A as a "first day of war" asset designed specifically to go head into "modern IADS and win"...

Check out what General DAVIS has to say about it:

The one thing we also do not necessarily talk too much about on the F-35 is the fact that it is a day one platform in the most stressing scenarios. There is a difference in how we would attack a day one target set out there as opposed to how the F-22 would do it. Obviously we use a little bit different formation. We may even use more airplanes to go out and attack those very high value, very high threat targets. But we do have an ord requirement to be able to do those missions and right now we have no real, if you will, challenge meeting those missions. That’s where we get into how the stealth employs, how the electronic attack capabilities and different things on the airplane work.

Ozzy Blizzard

May 13th, 2007, 11:28 AM

And what was F-35 designed LO level meant to be?

Can you please tell me because I'm SURE it's published on the WWW...

Right, we dont know the exact specifcations. But that somehow translates to B2 like LO hugh? Even though it was designed by LM to have a narrowband stealth that's purpose is to defeat X band fire control and search radars? Requirements=Design=Costs. Not just because its new it'll have evenrything and be awesome at everything.

Funny how the USAF describes the F-35A as a "first day of war" asset designed specifically to go head into "modern IADS and win"...

Check out what General DAVIS has to say about it:

The one thing we also do not necessarily talk too much about on the F-35 is the fact that it is a day one platform in the most stressing scenarios. There is a difference in how we would attack a day one target set out there as opposed to how the F-22 would do it. Obviously we use a little bit different formation. We may even use more airplanes to go out and attack those very high value, very high threat targets. But we do have an ord requirement to be able to do those missions and right now we have no real, if you will, challenge meeting those missions. That’s where we get into how the stealth employs, how the electronic attack capabilities and different things on the airplane work.

Im not suprised at all that the USAF intend to use this 5th generation joint STRIKE fighter to penitrate decent IADS and hit high value targets, since IADS rely on x band fire controll radars that the F35's LO was specificaly intended to defeat. I would assume that the F35 would rely more heavily on EA than the F22 to defet long range VHF radars. But penitrating an IADS doesent automaticaly equate to B2 LO.

The point about EA is very interesting. You would assume given the advances made in US AESA's, notably the APG 79, the APG 81 would have a very mature EA capability. An ability to interupt datalinks, comms, and radar to cover non LO assets or disable lower frequency radars would be devistating when coupled with the platforms LO. It will indeed be a feasome strike platform. However it will still be vulnerable to advanced EO/IR, but less so if the detecting platfoms comms are interupted.

Grand Danois

May 13th, 2007, 11:58 AM

The F-35 is optimised for the X-band range, but what is there to suggest it is not stealthy in the low-frequency ranges?

Internal munitions bay, obvious shaping, angled tailfins, bandpass nosecone (particularly effective vs search radars), serrated edges, goldtinted canopy, buried engine, etc.

The manufacturing tolerances for the X-band would also help in the other bandwidths.

Plus the multigenerational stealth knowledge that the aircraft will inherit.

Why wouldn't the F-35 be in the -10 to -20 dB RCS range vs search radars?

Already at -10 dB the RCS would be basketball sized, which is still stealth, though not bird- or insectsized.

Ozzy Blizzard

May 13th, 2007, 12:11 PM

You would have to assume that the F35's LO is still effective at lover wavelengths, just less so. I read an article which stated that the lower the wavelength the less effective the LO, which i'm guessing is similar for most LO aircraft after a certain point,due to the sheer size of the wave's ( i would post the link but i dont want to get into one of those arguments again ;) ). Even at VHF or HF, just due to shaping and internal weapons you would assume it would have a lower RCS than legacy fighters. I wasn't disputing that.

However i was disputing the notion that the F35 would be anywere near as capable at defeating lower wavelength radars as the F22/B2.

Grand Danois

May 13th, 2007, 12:13 PM

However i was disputing the notion that the F35 would be anywere near as capable at defeating lower wavelength radars as the F22/B2.

I certainly wouldn't make that argument either. F-22A/B2 are uncrompromising in their approach to VLO.

Aussie Digger

May 14th, 2007, 06:14 AM

Right, we dont know the exact specifcations. But that somehow translates to B2 like LO hugh? Even though it was designed by LM to have a narrowband stealth that's purpose is to defeat X band fire control and search radars? Requirements=Design=Costs. Not just because its new it'll have evenrything and be awesome at everything.

I don't recall stating that, but given we don't know the B2's exact capability, this would appear to be a non-sequitur wouldn't it?

I don't and never have suggested the F-35 will be the best at "everything". What I do think it will be, is the best SINGLE FIGHTER for the RAAF in coming years, given the breadth of roles the RAAF is required to perform.

Could the RAAF technically be enhanced beyond this by the inclusion of F-22 or some other "high end" fighter? Probably.

Will the budget exist though to do this? Unlikely.

Im not suprised at all that the USAF intend to use this 5th generation joint STRIKE fighter to penitrate decent IADS and hit high value targets, since IADS rely on x band fire controll radars that the F35's LO was specificaly intended to defeat. I would assume that the F35 would rely more heavily on EA than the F22 to defet long range VHF radars. But penitrating an IADS doesent automaticaly equate to B2 LO.

The point about EA is very interesting. You would assume given the advances made in US AESA's, notably the APG 79, the APG 81 would have a very mature EA capability. An ability to interupt datalinks, comms, and radar to cover non LO assets or disable lower frequency radars would be devistating when coupled with the platforms LO. It will indeed be a feasome strike platform. However it will still be vulnerable to advanced EO/IR, but less so if the detecting platfoms comms are interupted.

As will every OTHER platform. The F-35 though has the ability to employ standoff weapons from it's internal bays, to ranges that the F-22 cannot match with ANY weapon in it's inventory...

Ground based EO/IR systems are going to be LOS limited, which probably explains why they don't seem to be employed on anything besides MANPADS and AAA, though I am happy to be corrected on this point. I am certainly no expert in this field nor have I read extensively on it, but I believe this to be the case at present.

BKNO

May 14th, 2007, 06:34 AM

alexsa

May 14th, 2007, 07:02 AM

@Aussie Digger

You are making assumption which are based on false datas.

Optronics and IR/technologuies are not equaly advanced in the US and the EUs to start with, they still are using mid-waves...

As they know too well since they choose to protect their ships with our Optronics for its all-weather performances.

Something else i think i can recall you stating that the F-135 nozzle design wasn't definitive.

You are simply wrong. There is NO further IR reduction design features in the pipeline for F-135/136, or else you know something thet even L-M doesn't...

Pretty strong counter. do you have the inside knowledge of the JSF project and what L-M has planned to be sure of this or is it your opinion.

Occum

May 14th, 2007, 07:21 AM

Will the budget exist though to do this? Unlikely.

Dear Aussie Digger,

Not much point talking budget if you are not prepared to sensibly discuss the figures.

The simplest of arithmetic shows that more than enough budget already exists to provide Australia with the best air combat capability, in the most cost effective way and at the lowest risk while ensuring the Australian Defence Aerospace Industry remains intact.

Though now a little out of date and still awaiting final input from the peer review by Defence (some has already been received), you will find the bulk of the budget figures in the Total Project Cost Comparison table at -

http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html

The now $31+ billion already required to support the Minister's current plans (the F/A-18F interim solution was not a Defence recommendation nor decision so this should not be sheeted back to them) for the next 13 years is more than adequate to cover the greater capability of the F-22/Evolved F-111 Option and still leave well over $10 billion in the capability development kitty.

Realise you are likely to disagree, so let's see the results plus associated references and assumptions of your costing analysis. Nothing like a bit of professionalism to spur on a good debate.

;)

Aussie Digger

May 14th, 2007, 07:22 AM

@Aussie Digger

You are making assumption which are based on false datas.

Optronics and IR/technologuies are not equaly advanced in the US and the EUs to start with, they still are using mid-waves...

As they know too well since they choose to protect their ships with our Optronics for its all-weather performances.

Something else i think i can recall you stating that the F-135 nozzle design wasn't definitive.

You are simply wrong. There is NO further IR reduction design features in the pipeline for F-135/136, or else you know something thet even L-M doesn't...

Tell me why BKNO, it's what you CONSISTENTLY fail to do. BACK UP what you say with SOMETHING.

Tapping your nose and saying trust me gets you nowhere.

I never said the exhaust nozzle wasn't definitive. I said none of US have seen it the production nozzle YET. Hence the limited value in any analysis of the aircraft. A representative production aircraft hasn't even been BUILT yet.

AA-1 doesn't have the "weight loss" for a start...

Aussie Digger

May 14th, 2007, 07:42 AM

Dear Aussie Digger,

Not much point talking budget if you are not prepared to sensibly discuss the figures.

The simplest of arithmetic shows that more than enough budget already exists to provide Australia with the best air combat capability, in the most cost effective way and at the lowest risk while ensuring the Australian Defence Aerospace Industry remains intact.

Though now a little out of date and still awaiting final input from the peer review by Defence (some has already been received), you will find the bulk of the budget figures in the Total Project Cost Comparison table at -

http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html

The now $31+ billion already required to support the Minister's current plans (the F/A-18F interim solution was not a Defence recommendation nor decision so this should not be sheeted back to them) for the next 13 years is more than adequate to cover the greater capability of the F-22/Evolved F-111 Option and still leave well over $10 billion in the capability development kitty.

Realise you are likely to disagree, so let's see the results plus associated references and assumptions of your costing analysis. Nothing like a bit of professionalism to spur on a good debate.

;)

I have no financial interest in the outcome, so why should I bother spending the time researching the open data that you love so much? You've intimated previously I spend too much time on these forums anyway...

It seems however that you have made a profession out of researching US Government budget papers and selectively quoting them.

Was the US$175m per F-22, EACH (in FY06 dollars), figure I mentioned earlier wrong? US Congress doesn't think so...

BKNO

May 14th, 2007, 07:55 AM

Tell me why BKNO, it's what you CONSISTENTLY fail to do. BACK UP what you say with SOMETHING.

Well actually if you are in need for basics physics you can find numerous SOURCES to learn the ABCs of the buziness, this topic is here for the purpose of comparing aerodynamics and accessorly shifted to IR signature of engine designs.

AND: Backing up WHAT? The right assumption that for a similar exhaust temperature one extra layer of cool air is lowerering the IR signature of an engine?

Wants photos of the M-88 and F-135 for comparison???
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/8642/18m88barrieresthermiquehn8.jpg

Aussie Digger Tapping your nose and saying trust me gets you nowhere.

All you have been doing so far is getting at me at a personal level and accusing ME of doing what YOU do and of not providing with evidences while ignoring and dismissing the one i post.

I never said the exhaust nozzle wasn't definitive. I said none of US have seen it the production nozzle YET.

So the difference is??? AGAIN you might be knowing some L-M doesn't but then, go tell them their structural design isn't frozen yet, that they need to redesign their engine BAIES and add an additional inlet to feed it with low-pressure cool airflow that will be exhausting AROUND the existing nozzles and cool them as well as the engine airflow....

I'm SURE they're going to LOVE this.

To lower the airflow with the SAME level of technology FIND another solution than adding another layer of cooler, uncompressed AIR.

You can check on this all you want, this is a simple matter of the most elementary physics.

F-135/136 doesnt posses a secondary, cool airflow duct like M-88 and if you cared to inform yourself on the matter you'd KNOW that USN/USAF/NATO pilots already report problems locking IR AAMs on the actual aircrafts equiped with M-88 but then again you're going to cry out for evidences now......
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9001/2e4ecofr3.jpg

So i am asking YOU to provide US with the evidence that the US engines have similar design and IR supression features which is quiet visible with the secondary fixed nozzle visible around the more conventional con-dis.

I KNOW for a FACT they DONT.

Another FACT: They (F-119/135/136) RUN HOTTER than M-88.

rjmaz1

May 14th, 2007, 08:15 AM

The simplest of arithmetic shows that more than enough budget already exists to provide Australia with the best air combat capability.
Just checked the APA link. Again its completely incorrect like the stats you posted in the Super Hornet thread that got locked.

50 F-22's cost 9.1 billion

100 F-35's cost 15.5 billion

That means the F-22 will cost 182 million each and the F-35 costs 155million each. That works out to the F-22 costing only 17% more!!!

Now thats absolutely false and completely made up using the lowest price for the F-22 and highest price for the F-35. Comparing projected prices of an aircraft in LRIP against an aircraft in full rate production is like comparing apples with oranges. Defence see's right through APA's incorrect facts.

The cost of the evolved F-111 is also completely unrealistic. I dont even know where to start as it boggles my mind.. They dig a deeper grave with everything they release.

Aussie Digger

May 14th, 2007, 09:50 AM

Just checked the APA link. Again its completely incorrect like the stats you posted in the Super Hornet thread that got locked.

50 F-22's cost 9.1 billion

100 F-35's cost 15.5 billion

That means the F-22 will cost 182 million each and the F-35 costs 155million each. That works out to the F-22 costing only 17% more!!!

Now thats absolutely false and completely made up using the lowest price for the F-22 and highest price for the F-35. Comparing projected prices of an aircraft in LRIP against an aircraft in full rate production is like comparing apples with oranges. Defence see's right through APA's incorrect facts.

The cost of the evolved F-111 is also completely unrealistic. I dont even know where to start as it boggles my mind.. They dig a deeper grave with everything they release.

Of course, but they are not really interested in debate. They are interested in support, as they hope a sufficient amount of this may sway whatever elected representatives are in power to proceed with their proposals for the evolved F-111's.

What's actually best for Australia has NOTHING to do with their arguments.

Defence gains NOTHING from engaging in debate with APA, even if APA is 100% correct, which seems difficult to believe in an at least "2" sided debate.

The Joint Standing Committee on Defence Foreign Affairs and Trade has already stated that it is satisfied with Defence's response (most of which occured behind closed doors) to APA's submissions.

Articles like that posted in the now closed "F/A-18E/F versus SU-30" are simply rehashed submissions provided to the Senate Committee.

The Committee is satisfied with Defence's arguments and the Government is too. Labour has recently admitted they support the F/A-18F acquisition, the final "G" model F-111's are already being retired and the "C's" (now with Labor's blessing) will be retired from 2010, with the "draw down" process to their final withdrawal underway soon.

All we are seeing is a "last ditched" effort and one that has been repeated ad nauseum at that...

BKNO

May 14th, 2007, 10:27 AM

Here are the visual evidences of the difference between the F-135 and the m-88.
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/1835/comparedirey6.jpg
Even if "Non-scientific" and only visual it is pretty obvious that M-88 posseses a duct runing from the root of the air intakes (A; between the diffusers and the fuselage) and the hot con-di nozzles.

These scoops doesn't FEED the avionic baies during flight, they are cooled in close circuit.

This feature allows for a partial shielding of the nozzles as well as the cooling of the hot exhaust and works wonder, there is NO increase of temperature as for normal engine baies cooling systems due to the of absense high pressures.

Picture B even allows to distinguish between the two airflows, to be compared with the exhaust of the F-135 as mounted on the F-35, and the M-88 layout (D) showing the root mechanism of its con-dis shielded under the composite-ring.
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9941/spliirjetengine110dc4.jpg

This ONERA IR spectrum shows how it actually work in static test, under certain angles the con-di nozzles and their hot spot would be invisible.

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7006/rafaledettuyeredsc0004cm1.jpg

I think it's pretty obvious that whatever way you want to put it, running hoter and being less developed at this level is hardly going to help the F-135 to reach lower IR signatures.

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/8596/concentrationsohmsd21kc7.gif
Here is an ONERA scan of an engine IR signature.

Aussie Digger

May 14th, 2007, 11:15 AM

Ozzy Blizzard

May 14th, 2007, 01:36 PM

I don't recall stating that, but given we don't know the B2's exact capability, this would appear to be a non-sequitur wouldn't it?

What is it with you AD??? We dont know the exact specifications or capability, so and therefore you are unconfortable with assuming theat the B2 has a more effective LO system than the F35???? Geesh!!!!

And anytime i mention the limited nature of the F35's LO your object to it, which would inidicate you dont agree.

I don't and never have suggested the F-35 will be the best at "everything". What I do think it will be, is the best SINGLE FIGHTER for the RAAF in coming years, given the breadth of roles the RAAF is required to perform.

But you object to any critisism of the platform, and rebut it with a quote of someone from LM saying how good it is. Again this would indicate you dont agree with said critisism.

As far as a SINGLE FIGHTER soloution, I agree. The F22 (if it were for sale) is just too expensive, and no other platform is as capable in as wider variety of roles for a similar investment. however i dont agree with the single fighter concept. the platform was intended to function as part of a high-low mix, and therefore lackes some important capabilities. Not to mention the risks with a one platform air force. If there is a generic problem in the whole fleet, the RAAF could go into Air cargo for a while.

Could the RAAF technically be enhanced beyond this by the inclusion of F-22 or some other "high end" fighter? Probably.

Will the budget exist though to do this? Unlikely.

A single squadron replacement with F22's would grant us a practicaly unbeatable force structure, on par with the USAF.

if we really wanted it we could afford it. We're in one all mighty surpluss at the moment, and as long as the Coalition stay in power there should be enough money floating around for a squadron sized purchase without too much trouble.

As will every OTHER platform.

I'm not being sarcastic, but what are you refering to in this comment, i'm not realy understanding what this is actually refering to??????:confused:

The F-35 though has the ability to employ standoff weapons from it's internal bays, to ranges that the F-22 cannot match with ANY weapon in it's inventory...

For one thing the F22 dosent need to employ stand off weapons, its LO renders it pretty much untouchable for most IADS so it can just fly over the target and hit it with a J series free fall weapon (JDAM, SDB).

Also, external carriage pods that are under development will alow the F22 to carry a wider variety of weapons without comprimising its LO. (obviosly this will comprimise its performance, however this is less important when on a strike mission). With these carriabe pods the F22 can carry all the weapons the F35 can carry internaly (JSOW, NSM, note that JASSM has to be carried externaly). Have a look at the bottom of this post.

So it doesnt need stand off weapons for most occasions, and with underwing hardpoint carriage it can carry more of the same inventory without compromising its LO.

Ground based EO/IR systems are going to be LOS limited, which probably explains why they don't seem to be employed on anything besides MANPADS and AAA, though I am happy to be corrected on this point. I am certainly no expert in this field nor have I read extensively on it, but I believe this to be the case at present.

I was refering to its consequenses in the A2A combat environment. As far as the SAM/AAA threat, you would think that due to weather conditions and LOS advanced IR/EO systems would be restricted to the low level environment, and therefore will have far less of an impact than its aplication on other fighters.

Scorpion82

May 14th, 2007, 02:18 PM

Don't forget about the miniature stand-off missiles currently under developement. The LOCAAS and SMACM are very small stand-off weapons designed to fit in the Raptors and probably Litening IIs weapon bays. Newer JDAM and SDB additionally use wing kits for extended range, enabling even the Raptor to perform stand-off attacks. The point is that the Raptors avionics aren't designed for AG operations. Of course many things could be changed with help of new software or partitially replacing existing sensors with new ones. Further developing the Raptors MLDs into a multifunctional IR-sensor suite is a strong possibility.
In terms of costs I'm still not convinced that the F-35 is going to be a low cost aircraft "cheaper than all other new gen fighters". Total programme costs has by now increased at over 30 %, while the total numbers were reduced. LM is still not will to guarantee fix fly-away prices for a very good reason. And ~45-62 mio. USD is already significantly above the originally projected cost of 28-38 mio USD depending on the version.

Occum

May 14th, 2007, 10:18 PM

I have no financial interest in the outcome, so why should I bother spending the time researching the open data that you love so much? You've intimated previously I spend too much time on these forums anyway...

This is an interesting comment for you to make. All other Australians have a financial interest in this matter. The F/A-18F will cost over forty million dollars per electorate and the overall cost of the current plans will be in excess of two hundred million dollars per electorate while the savings to be made by adopting the plans that are supported by detailed analyses which have also been validated by independent analyses done in Defence would be more than sixty million dollars per electorate.

Do the arithmetic if you don't believe.

As to the time you spend on these forums, that is none of our business and really has little bearing on the discussions. However, the quality and veracity as well as the tenor of your arguments does.

It seems however that you have made a profession out of researching US Government budget papers and selectively quoting them.

Just because some people are incapable or choose not to do the research does not mean that others can't or don't. After all that is the professional way to approach these matters.

Please point out where your claim of 'selectively quoting them' is supported by fact. In the posts where the Pentagon and US Govt Budget Papers have been cited, we have posted the actual data from these papers. Clearly, you need to use sophistry, mendacity and spin to support your belief system but you should also realise this goes to your credit.

Was the US$175m per F-22, EACH (in FY06 dollars), figure I mentioned earlier wrong? US Congress doesn't think so...

Not entirely, just not applicable as has been stated previously - mainly on the threads and posts that you, as the super regurgitator, have removed or shut down.

This figure along with the US$153 million AUPC cited by Angus Houston in his Strategic Insight back in 2004 are representations of the Average Unit Procurement Cost from the current production for the USAF (the 184 units). Neither Australia nor Japan nor any other prospective procurers/lessees of this technology can access this production run. Any access to this technology would be over and above the 184 presently in production and, as is being claimed for the JSF Program, the more you build the cheaper the unit price gets. Pretty simple, really, don't you think?

:rolleyes:

Aussie Digger

May 14th, 2007, 11:13 PM

This is an interesting comment for you to make. All other Australians have a financial interest in this matter. The F/A-18F will cost over forty million dollars per electorate and the overall cost of the current plans will be in excess of two hundred million dollars per electorate while the savings to be made by adopting the plans that are supported by detailed analyses which have also been validated by independent analyses done in Defence would be more than sixty million dollars per electorate.

Do the arithmetic if you don't believe.

It may do however the contract has already been signed and the money spent. It's much like your inclusion of the HUG program in your "cost analysis" of our future air combat capability. You don't of course include the F-111 AUP or AGM-142 acquisition costs in your diagram because they don't help your argument, yet they are every bit as relevant as the HUG funds that have already been spent...

Not entirely, just not applicable as has been stated previously - mainly on the threads and posts that you, as the super regurgitator, have removed or shut down.

Well once again you resort to an "Ad Hominem" attack to attempt to make a point. But's it rich that you refer to me as a regurgitator. You and Dr Kopp have no choice but to regurgitate the work of others in this debate, because you CANNOT access the data that RAAF has.

Selective quoting? You did it a couple of days ago pointing to Loren Thompson's comments that F-22 could easily be made available for export. Of course Brigadier General Kohler states otherwise, but hey, again that hardly supports your obsession does it?

This figure along with the US$153 million AUPC cited by Angus Houston in his Strategic Insight back in 2004 are representations of the Average Unit Procurement Cost from the current production for the USAF (the 184 units). Neither Australia nor Japan nor any other prospective procurers/lessees of this technology can access this production run. Any access to this technology would be over and above the 184 presently in production and, as is being claimed for the JSF Program, the more you build the cheaper the unit price gets. Pretty simple, really, don't you think?

:rolleyes:

It may if the US decided not to impose any levy for the enormous development costs of the aircraft on any prospective foreign acquirer, nor bothered charging said foreign acquirer for upgrades (or should that be downgrades?) Nor bothered charging the customer for the upgrades even the USAF admit would be necessary to give the "multi-role" capability we would need...

Doesn't seem very likely though...

rjmaz1

May 15th, 2007, 01:01 AM

It may do however the contract has already been signed and the money spent. It's much like your inclusion of the HUG program in your "cost analysis" of our future air combat capability. You don't of course include the F-111 AUP or AGM-142 acquisition costs in your diagram because they don't help your argument, yet they are every bit as relevant as the HUG funds that have already been spent.
Spot on. Defence see's right through this charade and APA has lost all credibility with them.

The average Australian who is uneducated on the topic will go "wow look at the pretty graphs and look at how much money we can save!!"

For example Air Power Australia could state: "The SU-30 has a slim chance of photon torpedo's and hyperdrive being added to the aircraft in the region". In a way they aren't lieing. APA will then post graphs which happen to be based on the aircraft with said torpedo's and hyperdrive instead of the realistic capability. They will exclude the figure 0.0000001% chance of either technology even being invented yet let alone being added to the Suhkoi's, yet they use the words "slim chance". This is what they have done with the AL-41F and the ficticious stealth/streamlined weapon bay between the engines of the suhkoi. Neither of which will ever be used by Indonesia. Notice how i said ever? Thats an APA tactic. Its probably a 99% chance Indonesia will not get these but ill smudge the figure to 100% ;)

Another example if you have an aircraft who's range is 900 miles and one that is 1000 miles. On a graph you can change the scale so that the bottom of the graph is 800 miles and the top is 900miles. So even though one aircraft has 10% extra range the bar on the graph is twice as long.. Air Power Australia do this all the time. For example to compare an aircrafts radar If you had two radars one with 1000 AESA modules and another with 2000 AESA modules.. Air Power Australia would then put a bar graph showing the larger radar with a 100% increase. Yet in real life the detection increase would not even be 50%. Air power Australia would then totally exclude the fact that the aircraft with the smaller radar has a much lower radar cross section So the the smaller radar'd aircraft would detect the other aircraft well before, yet the graph says otherwise. This is selective reporting/researching/quoting. Or as i like to call it, lieing.

ANYONE who has half a brain on the topic will see right through Air Power Australia.

Anyway the F-22 will cost 317 million each (a) and the F-35 will only cost 38 million each (b) so nearly 10 times as much. That statement is 100% correct!!!

Ozzy Blizzard

May 15th, 2007, 01:32 AM

i will have a full response in a minet

Todjaeger

May 15th, 2007, 01:46 AM

It's somewhat sad that I feel the need to suggest this, but I do. Perhaps it might be a good idea for the Oz SH/JSF/F-22/etc al threads to be put back in to cool off, but this time stick them in the freezer for a wee bit longer.

I would like to see a serious, reasonable and polite debate, but it seems to have already descended to ridiculing and name calling again.

Webbie/mods, it's your call.

Ozzy Blizzard

May 15th, 2007, 02:04 AM

Spot on. Defence see's right through this charade and APA has lost all credibility with them.

Sigh....I didnt want to get into this debate with you again rimjas, but since the below comments are indirectly aimed at me, because i sighted APA in my argument and therefore have only half a brain, i feel obliged to defend myself.

So mods dont blame me if this thing goes the way of the last little debate on the future of the RAAF were APA was brought up.

The average Australian who is uneducated on the topic will go "wow look at the pretty graphs and look at how much money we can save!!"

I dont agree with the F22/F111S idea and i daont agree with some of APA's analysis on this topic. There are just to many maybe's is the plan for accurate cost projections to be maid, so i am somewhat scheptical of the numbers given on the F22 (does it include lifetime costs) and the rebuilding of the F111, which is frought with risk.

For example Air Power Australia could state: "The SU-30 has a slim chance of photon torpedo's and hyperdrive being added to the aircraft in the region". In a way they aren't lieing. APA will then post graphs which happen to be based on the aircraft with said torpedo's and hyperdrive instead of the realistic capability. They will exclude the figure 0.0000001% chance of either technology even being invented yet let alone being added to the Suhkoi's, yet they use the words "slim chance". This is what they have done with the AL-41F and the ficticious stealth/streamlined weapon bay between the engines of the suhkoi. Neither of which will everbe used by Indonesia. Notice how i said ever? Thats an APA tactic. Its probably a 99% chance Indonesia will not get these but ill smudge the figure to 100% ;)

This is were you and me part ways buddie.

Here are just a few things wrong with what you have just said so simplisticly (i'm trying to be nice). By the way everything i am about to say i have said before so i am sure you are well aware of why the above statement incorect.

For some reason you only consider indonesia a threat nation, or a nation that needs to be considered. When the two nations (with current capabilities mind you, not the ones under development) who actualy have some capability to project power into the air/sea gap and northen australia or i.e. pose a threat, are India and China. And dont start saying that a war with them is so unlikely that they dont need to be considered, because its about as likely as a war with indonesia, which you seem to consider a threat.

Do you know what stage of production the AL41F powerplant is in??? LRIP or Low Rate Initial Production. That is about the same stage of development as mauch of the F35 programe. And given the HUGE expansion in the export market for flankers and upgrades for them in PROC, India and SEA, could you explain exacltly how the russian are going to have trouble selling this in their next evoloution of flanker or as a powerplant upgrade, given its capabilities???? Because the way i see it its about as likely as ever seeing an F35 in RAAF colours. Your right it is about as likely as photon torpedoes huh???? Its intersting how you continually speak of future Australian capabilities as absolouts, but relegate the posibility of future threat capabilities to, how did you put it, "hyperdrive, photon torpedoes, and 0.0000001% chance". It seems you are more culpable when it comes to an inbalanced argument than APA, since you think the F35 will be some sort of a super fighter capable of doing anything, and the posibility of threat aircraft improving at all is so ridiculous to even consider it is evidence of stupidity.

Another example if you have an aircraft who's range is 900 miles and one that is 1000 miles. On a graph you can change the scale so that the bottom of the graph is 800 miles and the top is 900miles. So even though one aircraft has 10% extra range the bar on the graph is twice as long.. Air Power Australia do this all the time. For example to compare an aircrafts radar If you had two radars one with 1000 AESA modules and another with 2000 AESA modules.. Air Power Australia would then put a bar graph showing the larger radar with a 100% increase. Yet in real life the detection increase would not even be 50%. Air power Australia would then exclude the fact that the aircraft with the smaller radar has a radar cross section 1/1000th the size. So the the smaller radar'd aircraft would detect the other aircraft well before, yet the graph says otherwise. This is selective quoting.

If your going to make accusation like that it would be good to give some evidence, lest you look foolish by making childinsh, immature and overly simplistic accusations. Note the bottom of this page, three graphs i picked up from the APA website. Both show the whole length of the graph, not just the "top section" in order to exagerate any difference. 10M2 RCS to 0.001M2 RCS is pretty comprehensive. They dont "change the scale" to exagerate any differnce. They may not take track radii or EA into account but they dont claim to.

Anyway the F-22 will cost 317 million each (a) and the F-35 will only cost 38 million each (b) so nearly 10 times as much. That statement is 100% correct!!!

:onfloorl: thats a lame attempt at sarcasm.

Could you back up your accusations with SOME evidence please????

In general terms the argument behind the F111/F22 idea may indeed be flawed and Kopp does have a personal/finantial interest in it. However people like Mr rimjas will use that to render any arguments made by APA as irrelevent because they dont like it upseting the warm, fuzzy feeling they get wgen they think of the F35, even though it is an argument based in factual analysis. Someones intention is irrelevent if their argument is backed up with EVIDENCE, which APA does. Now their analysis may be flawed to some extent, if so make a factual argument of your won to rebutt theirs, dont just make childish accusations.

P.S. it is slightly hipocritical to accuse APA of makeing simplistic or biased analysis, when you did use high school phisics equasions to support youtr argument concerning the F35's kinemetic performance. Perhaps your attitude towards any advancements in the flanker family can be seen in a similar light???

Ozzy Blizzard

May 15th, 2007, 02:09 AM

Mods, i am more than willing to have a cool headed dabate on the issue, I admit the F18F thread did get heated and i was partly to blame.

However this is a very important area for debate and closing all said threads just because some members cant keep it from getting into name calling. So take that in mind before you stop all of us from enjoying the discussion.

Tasman

May 15th, 2007, 02:23 AM

Anyway the F-22 will cost 317 million each (a) and the F-35 will only cost 38 million each (b) so nearly 10 times as much. That statement is 100% correct!!!

The F-22 will cost more than the F-35 but where on earth did you get these figures from? :rolleyes:

Whilst some of the propositions made by APA seem flawed to me I accept that there is some very good information on their website. I disagree with the F111S/F-22 proposal but I would support an F-35/F-22 mix if the F-22 is ever made available and if could be purchased at a price that will not bankrupt the country.

Mods, i am more than willing to have a cool headed dabate on the issue, I admit the F18F thread did get heated and i was partly to blame.

However this is a very important area for debate and closing all said threads just because some members cant keep it from getting into name calling. So take that in mind before you stop all of us from enjoying the discussion.

I think that even if the Oz discussion gets heated It would be a pity for all discussion re the F-22/F-35/SH to be banned as it is also very relevant to other countries, e.g. Japan, South Korea and of course the US itself.

BTW, would it be worthwhile combining all of the OZ air combat threads?

Cheers

Magoo

May 15th, 2007, 02:31 AM

Another example if you have an aircraft who's range is 900 miles and one that is 1000 miles. On a graph you can change the scale so that the bottom of the graph is 800 miles and the top is 900miles. So even though one aircraft has 10% extra range the bar on the graph is twice as long.. Air Power Australia do this all the time. For example to compare an aircrafts radar If you had two radars one with 1000 AESA modules and another with 2000 AESA modules.. Air Power Australia would then put a bar graph showing the larger radar with a 100% increase. Yet in real life the detection increase would not even be 50%. Air power Australia would then totally exclude the fact that the aircraft with the smaller radar has a much lower radar cross section So the the smaller radar'd aircraft would detect the other aircraft well before, yet the graph says otherwise. This is selective reporting/researching/quoting. Or as i like to call it, lieing.

Uh oh...something's wrong here...I actually agree with something RJMAZ said! :hitwall

I agree that all bar or line graphs should start their X axes with 0, not at or near the lowest number in the comparison, although this isn't something that has jumped out at me as being a telling feature of APA's comparisons.

OT - It does annoy the hell out of me when you see the various news networks showing the supposedly wildly fluctuating stock market closing figures of the past X number of weeks, months or years, but using only the lowest figure of that period as the starting point of the X axis to exaggerate the rises and falls!

Anyway the F-22 will cost 317 million each (a) and the F-35 will only cost 38 million each (b) so nearly 10 times as much. That statement is 100% correct!!!

Oh well, I knew it couldn't last. :rolleyes: Try about A$200m each and A$115m each respectively using roughly comparable non-recurring flyaway costs, and then add support, infrastructure, a weapons package, and a few block upgrades to that figure. It is estimated that to make the F-22 available for export, roughly A$1.5bn would need to be spent dumbing down or sealing whatever systems the US are sensitive about. I believe the Block 20/30 and maybe 40 spiral upgrades which would give the F-22 an EO-IR sensor, and moving target and anti-shipping strike capabilities are included in the US$70bn total program cost, but some or most of this additional funding is yet to be approved by Congress.

If you really want to divide program cost by airframes (which is not a true apples vs apples comparison due to technology flow downs and cross-overs between programs, e.g. APG-81, APG-79 and APG-80 technology insertions to the APG-77(v)1), currently the F-22 is tracking at around US$350m each (~US$70bn for 184 airframes), while the F-35 will average out at around US$100m (~US$300bn for 3000 airframes) spread across the more expensive but fewer in number F-35B/Cs, and the cheaper but more prolific F-35As. The F-35 was NEVER going to cost $38m in recent calculations, in any currency!

In the unlikely event that Japan and, say Australia, were to take a further 150 F-22s between them, this per unit cost would obviously drop quite substantially. There is also the possibility of the USAF taking more than the 184 currently ordered, further reducing the unit cost, and also making the spiral upgrades far more likely to be fully funded.

Magoo

Todjaeger

May 15th, 2007, 02:35 AM

I think that even if the Oz discussion gets heated It would be a pity for all discussion re the F-22/F-35/SH to be banned as it is also very relevant to other countries, e.g. Japan, South Korea and of course the US itself.

BTW, would it be worthwhile combining all of the OZ air combat threads?

Cheers

I don't want the topics to be banned. It just seems right now, they keep devolving into personal attacks, usually involving the same culprits as have caused the threads to be locked for cooling off periods before. Therefore I think a longer cooling off period might be in order.

What I'd like to see is less <insert male bovine scatalogical reference HERE> as well as unsupported statements of who/which country is better at making widgets. Instead, I'd like to have a discussion on where and how the F-22/JSF/SH can and should be used.

I'm not sure that it's possible to conduct such a debate at present given the ongoing rancour.

BKNO

May 15th, 2007, 06:44 AM

Just to point out , guys that we are FAR from the original topic subject.

At least with the price issue. since perfs are th result of aerodynamics and thrust i wont mind too much but i feel that this topic have been hijacked...

Waylander

May 15th, 2007, 06:52 AM

Hey, maybe we need another "F-22/F-35/SH for Oz"-Thread... ;)

Seriously I think this topic is interesting to read but since some time every thread which only comes close to one of the mentioned planes results in the same discussion. And this for dozens of pages.
I know that we have a big Aussie community here but in my eyes it is just too much. Concentrating on one thread would be really nice so other threads like this one could stay unharmed of this discussion and be purely about the intended thread topic.

cheers :)

BKNO

May 15th, 2007, 07:08 AM

Well F-35 IS an issue for the Australian community, some guys are even MORE emotional about it than we are about Rafale...:)

Waylander

May 15th, 2007, 07:12 AM

I know that it is an important topic for our big Aussie community.
Nevertheless one or two threads about it should be enough.

BTW, who is we? There are only two frenchmen here on the board and one of them is a navy guy. ;) :D

BKNO

May 15th, 2007, 07:13 AM

The other an Ex-AdA but non longer qualified, so it doesnt count...

rjmaz1

May 15th, 2007, 09:36 AM

Sigh....I didnt want to get into this debate with you again rimjas, but since the below comments are indirectly aimed at me, because i sighted APA in my argument and therefore have only half a brain, i feel obliged to defend myself.
Im sorry to offend that was not directed at you in any way. Its fine to use APA as a source as they do bring up good idea's. For example they showed that we definitely need more tankers, the analysis was excellent, but their conclusion was off the mark. We definitely dont need over a dozen tankers though it made it pretty clear that we need more.

As a researcher the conclusion is always the authors opinion based on the information they analysed. You personally can use the analysis from various sources and combine it all into one giant conclusion.

My first conclusion is that both the F-22 and F-35 are decent and would offer excellent capability to Australia. Either aircraft will annihilate the enemy (Indonesia) back to the stone age.

My second conclusion is that based on various projects in recent history, (Block 60 F-16's) i do not believe for one second that the Evolved F-111 will cost the price that Air Power Australia suggests. Tripple the figure and we may get close, and at that price its no longer a cost effective solution. Still effective just no longer the cheapest.

As the F-111 wont work then this effects my first conclusion as we may not be able to afford enough F-35's let alone F-22's to fill all the squadrons. So the F-35 gets my tick of approval.

Also it seems that you have seen through APA's vested interest in the Evolved F-111, so the half a brain comment does not apply :D

The F-22 will cost more than the F-35 but where on earth did you get these figures from? :rolleyes:
Notice the fine print at the bottom of my post ;) You always must read the fine print.

Aussie Digger

May 15th, 2007, 10:40 AM

What is it with you AD??? We dont know the exact specifications or capability, so and therefore you are unconfortable with assuming theat the B2 has a more effective LO system than the F35???? Geesh!!!!

And anytime i mention the limited nature of the F35's LO your object to it, which would inidicate you dont agree.

I unlike many people hereabouts am simply not prepared to make definitive statements about capability when none of us are authorised to know what ANY of these levels are.

BKNO for instance makes claims about the Rafales T:W ratio advantage over the F-35. This is very curious given the F-35 is STILL under development and the F-135 and F-136 are proving to generate MUCH greater thrust levels than previously expected. In any case even the 43,000lbs afterburner and 28,00lbs dry figures released in the P&W data sheet in September 2006 are only a publicly releasable numbers. They COULD be the real numbers, or perhaps the real figure could be less or more, but none of us will know for sure.

A single squadron replacement with F22's would grant us a practicaly unbeatable force structure, on par with the USAF.

And cost an absolute FORTUNE to maintain the 2 types, for a small gain in capability in one narrow role.

if we really wanted it we could afford it. We're in one all mighty surpluss at the moment, and as long as the Coalition stay in power there should be enough money floating around for a squadron sized purchase without too much trouble.

I'd rather say if we really NEEDED it we could afford it. Assuming the USA would actually sell it to us and it was still in production.

I don't see that need eventuating, even in 20 years.

I'm not being sarcastic, but what are you refering to in this comment, i'm not realy understanding what this is actually refering to??????:confused:

It was in reply to your "however it will still be vulnerable to advanced EO/IR" comment. Every aircraft until the advent of "cloaking devices" will be...

[quote]For one thing the F22 dosent need to employ stand off weapons, its LO renders it pretty much untouchable for most IADS so it can just fly over the target and hit it with a J series free fall weapon (JDAM, SDB).

Also, external carriage pods that are under development will alow the F22 to carry a wider variety of weapons without comprimising its LO. (obviosly this will comprimise its performance, however this is less important when on a strike mission). With these carriabe pods the F22 can carry all the weapons the F35 can carry internaly (JSOW, NSM, note that JASSM has to be carried externaly). Have a look at the bottom of this post.

Except the integration of said weapons onto F-22 is not funded nor is the upgrades and sensor additions needed to employ them. The pods if they eventuate will have equal applicability on an F-35.

If the need for SOW is not there on an LO aircraft, why does the mighty B-2 need them?

So it doesnt need stand off weapons for most occasions, and with underwing hardpoint carriage it can carry more of the same inventory without compromising its LO.

And with 183 aircraft, and a better striker on the way I'm sure USAF is going to be employing it's F-22 in this most dangerous (to it) role, on a regular occurrence, once F-35 arrives...

BKNO

May 15th, 2007, 12:54 PM

Aussie Digger BKNO for instance makes claims about the Rafales T:W ratio advantage over the F-35. This is very curious given the F-35 is STILL under development and the F-135 and F-136 are proving to generate MUCH greater thrust levels than previously expected.

1) M-88 ECO is also in developement and have already generated 90 kN.

2) A twin engine have always a higher degree of TWR growth than a single engine aircraft, while it wouldn't matter if F-35 had a higher TWR now it makes a difference from now on anyway because its TWR is lower and wingload higher today.

3) F-35 weight can only grow during developement, that of Rafale is NOT going to increase as its avionics/systems developement is already well matured into the F2 standard with no weight increase foreseen to the F-3/post F-3s.

At Dassault they talk about weight saving measures including an increase in TWR without engine mass increase = ECO.

4) You still keep implying that design targets havent been reached at L-M i suggest you read their documentation, and check for the weights figures as well as design standards, 240-4 is clearly representative of production aircrafts.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9663/lmprogrambriefsept06wt9.jpg

That's:

20.036 lb CTOL

32.161 lb STVOL.

32.072 lb CV.

If anything in the STVOL case weight increased since SWAT.

You're definitly NOT going to have Typhoon/Rafale performances out of F-35 simply because it was never designed for the purpose in the first place.

What is IS is a stealthy strike aircraft which is going to dominate the battlefield thanks to its design features but is NOT designed for high level of A2A threats like F-22 or even the Typhoon/Rafales.

A limited amount of L.O in its design doesn't change this fact, to achieve this you need the F-22 total requierements; i.e. high cruising speed, FULL L.O, high maneuvrability and kinetiq energy etc...

The rest like sensors and to a lower degree engines can be upgraded for BOTH F-35 and its futur opponents.

Tasman

May 15th, 2007, 01:46 PM

I

Notice the fine print at the bottom of my post ;) You always must read the fine print.

OK - I get the picture now. Damn, I always forget to read the fime print! ::rolleyes:

Cheers

Aussie Digger

May 15th, 2007, 09:48 PM

1) M-88 ECO is also in developement and have already generated 90 kN.

2) A twin engine have always a higher degree of TWR growth than a single engine aircraft, while it wouldn't matter if F-35 had a higher TWR now it makes a difference from now on anyway because its TWR is lower and wingload higher today.

3) F-35 weight can only grow during developement, that of Rafale is NOT going to increase as its avionics/systems developement is already well matured into the F2 standard with no weight increase foreseen to the F-3/post F-3s.

At Dassault they talk about weight saving measures including an increase in TWR without engine mass increase = ECO.

4) You still keep implying that design targets havent been reached at L-M i suggest you read their documentation, and check for the weights figures as well as design standards, 240-4 is clearly representative of production aircrafts.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9663/lmprogrambriefsept06wt9.jpg

That's:

20.036 lb CTOL

32.161 lb STVOL.

32.072 lb CV.

If anything in the STVOL case weight increased since SWAT.

You're definitly NOT going to have Typhoon/Rafale performances out of F-35 simply because it was never designed for the purpose in the first place.

What is IS is a stealthy strike aircraft which is going to dominate the battlefield thanks to its design features but is NOT designed for high level of A2A threats like F-22 or even the Typhoon/Rafales.

A limited amount of L.O in its design doesn't change this fact, to achieve this you need the F-22 total requierements; i.e. high cruising speed, FULL L.O, high maneuvrability and kinetiq energy etc...

The rest like sensors and to a lower degree engines can be upgraded for BOTH F-35 and its futur opponents.

Lucky Australia has no current intention of buying the STOVL variant then. We intend to acquire the F-35A which IS the cheapest, lightest and quickest of the 3 variants.

Out of interest how exactly can you tell what the T:W ratio of these aircraft will be when they are still developmental, EXTREMELY so in the case of the F-35?

The F-136 engine for instance is reputedly creating full afterburning thrust at around the 50,000lbs mark and 30,000lbs dry thrust mark. That hasn't been released publicly though...

ELP

May 15th, 2007, 10:26 PM

That's:

20.036 lb CTOL

32.161 lb STVOL.

32.072 lb CV.
.

Hi BK hope you are doing well. I am sure you meant 29,036lb for CTOL. ;)

BKNO

May 16th, 2007, 04:15 AM

Out of interest how exactly can you tell what the T:W ratio of these aircraft will be when they are still developmental, EXTREMELY so in the case of the F-35?

How can you miss the bit were 240-4 is already frozen???

Aussie Digger The F-136 engine for instance is reputedly creating full afterburning thrust at around the 50,000lbs mark and 30,000lbs dry thrust mark. That hasn't been released publicly though...

Another LEGEND? Go to the manufacturer own web site and this is going to be 43.000 lb like for everyone else...

ELP Hi BK hope you are doing well. I am sure you meant 29,036lb for CTOL.

Yep! Well spoted ELP. I typoed this one..

I am NOT making thing up, so i make NO claims as such, i just have to compare manufacturer datas and i use the aircrafts politico-industrial histories to figure what their requierements were in the first place.

A pretty obvious tendency in the "F-35" community is to forget what F-35 was requiered (and designed) to do, and it is not to take the role LWF was designed to have when it was launched.

LWF was totally design-biased toward air-superiority with performances in this role which were the standard for 30 years and this is the reason WHY F-16 was such a good fighting machine, it was designed for air superiority.

Now the other fashionable thing is to tell us that there are no datas on performances or capabilities when the manufacturer have been publishing high-end figures for years and the programme is so well documented that even MTO limitations for its optronics are known.

So i dont know about YOU down-under but WE, in Europe, WE KNOW damned well what the whole F-35 programme is about since France was duely briefed on F-35 before L-M aircraft was chosen, and Britain the only priviledge partner so far...

Dassault was pitted with Boieng in the concurent bid on the cockpit layout ("Big Picture") and its avionics.

So the PRECISE set of requierement was perfectly known from France industrials, reason why none of them is so impressed by what F-35 is really today.

To make thing clear here, i want to remind you that as opposed to what many implies, F-35 level of stealth have certainly not increased.

If anything it have decreased, wing skin and some bulkheads thickness have decreased to save weight and it IS also a L.O feature.

SAME fro structural G limits...

Now, the Dutch fighters competition results show one thing:

F-35 : 697/850
Rafale : 695/850
Eurofighter : 585/850

With L.O, the US industrial package and all the goodies actually fitted to the actual aircraft can someone explain to me why an underdeveloped export version of the Rafale dubbed F-4 scored only 2 point less than F-35???

TECHNICAL POINTS:

1) The optimised intakes are the result of an atempt to recover thrust at low speed, because the STVOL version overshot its target design weight by a full 35% and that it was impossible to recover more than 25% of the weight.

The rest have to be found in extra thrust at low level/low-speeds to allow for safe STVOL operations and the previous intake was found to be "licking" BTW.

2) The difference in design between the TWO intake configuration allows for an extra 33% of static thrust recovery NOT an increase of ENGINE thrust of 33%.

3) The Engine is also optimised for STVOL Ops NOT high/altitude/High-speed, in fact it is a logical approach as the STVOL version can't use Burners during T-O and Landings.

Now you can check all you want you won't find better than what L-M are giving in their PDFs as non-approximates for the most recent 240-4 configuration.

CTOL: 29.036 lb

STVOL: 32.161 lb

CV: 32.072 lb.

TWR would give us:

Non-AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 0.964.

AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 1.480.

Non-AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 0.870

AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 1.337.

Non-AB Thrust TWR CV: 0.873.

AB Thrust TWR CV: 1.340.

Mach LIMIT for all variants: 1.6.

I didn't read Carlo Kopp essai on the subject BEFORE becoming a member of this board but i can already see one thing, the French specialists are coming to the same conclusions about F-35 and they know much more than Kopp on the subject...

The only thing that they are visibly worried about are the politico-industrial implications of the programme and its long-term impact on Europe R&D effort.

Remember they were part of the programme once and if F-35 had been predicted to be that better it would have been in AdA shoping list, even as a X-Mass wish...

In Singapore 2000 Serge Dassault was already stating that comes 2010 his aircraft would have every single system F-35 have been designed to carry and more, with the actual roadmap and R&D it's well on its way to become reality.

Another aspect of the F-35 programme that some have to beggin to aknowledge.

So that's WHY the Brits are going it all out with Typhoon, SAAB invests in upgrading their JAS-39 and France won't consider taking part into the programme.

My opinion is:

Trying to pass this aircraft for the "futur of air-to-air combat" is the greatest insult anyone could make to John Boyd, there cannot be an OODA loop out of the Energy-Maneuverability Theory...

Aussie Digger

May 16th, 2007, 04:43 AM

SAME fro structural G limits...

Now, the Dutch fighters competition results show one thing:

F-35 : 697/850
Rafale : 695/850
Eurofighter : 585/850

With L.O, the US industrial package and all the goodies actually fitted to the actual aircraft can someone explain to me why an underdeveloped export version of the Rafale dubbed F-4 scored only 2 point less than F-35???

Structural limits for the "A" model remain 9G's. The B and C are rated at 7.5G due to an attempt to conserve airframe life in the naturally more challenging naval environment.

It is USN policy to operate to a maximum of 7.5g. The current Hornet fleets are operated to the same level, but their ability to exceed 7.5G is well documented.

Wow, the Dutch show that the F-35 in such an immature stage of development STILL outclasses both the Eurofighter and Rafale, yet you still manage to turn this around and chalk it up as an example of this alleged superiority for the Rafale? :confused:

Incidentally, which fighter have the Dutch chosen to invest in as their next generation fighter?

What exactly do these numbers indicate anyway? What was the criteria for the competition and Is it too much to ask that you actually provide some evidence of your claim?

I think your nationalistic pride is starting to get the better of your reasoning here, mate.

BKNO

May 16th, 2007, 05:44 AM

Aussie Digger Structural limits for the "A" model remain 9G's. The B and C are rated at 7.5G due to an attempt to conserve airframe life in the naturally more challenging naval environment.

It's a structural LIMITATION resulting from DESIGN and WEIGHT issues.

And for your info, USN like the other services requiered better turning performances following the Critical design Review of configuration 230..

As for the USN "traditional" 7.5 g it's another forum myth, they would use a 9G fighter if ever they could put their hands on it, only no one have been able to design a 9 G carrier capable aircraft with the same structural life-span than the 7.5G F-18 which BTW have been flight-tested at up to 11.0 Gs.

There is a huge difference between the limits imposed by F-18 design (aerodynamics) and conventional FBW and that imposed by L-M after SWAT had to shread metal from everywhere they could to keep up with their weight devis.

Aussie Digger Wow, the Dutch show that the F-35 in such an immature stage of development STILL outclasses both the Eurofighter and Rafale, yet you still manage to turn this around and chalk it up as an example of this alleged superiority for the Rafale?

Immature? You are mystaking design configurations with predicted global performances and capabilties here, at the time is was also predicted to be lighter, and NOT structurally G-limited.

Alleged? No mate PROVEN. MORE poke, FASTER, FURTHER, TIGHTER.

Aussie Digger Incidentally, which fighter have the Dutch chosen to invest in as their next generation fighter?

Incidentaly which country did equip their A-F previously?

The Netherland is one of the European contries who never used anything non-US since the F-84 and i should know about it i have been living in Nijmegen for 3 and half years and also speak Dutch.

Yep, i was there when their pilots were experiencing G=looks with their brand new F-16s and crashing in people's gardens

What exactly do these numbers indicate anyway? What was the criteria for the competition and Is it too much to ask that you actually provide some evidence of your claim?

The indicate that despite the US industrial weight, the weapon package, the L.O and the FACT that the other aircrafts were not from the US it only was marginally ahead as a total package.

Aussie Digger I think your nationalistic pride is starting to get the better of your reasoning here, mate.

My "nationalistic pride " is looking increasingly like a reality check-up for you guys...

Falstaff

May 16th, 2007, 05:51 AM

Errrr... don't want to get into this but the Dutch had a strong ground attack role in mind that's one reason why the EF scored so bad. Just my 2 (€-)cents.

Aussie Digger

May 16th, 2007, 05:52 AM

It's a structural LIMITATION resulting from a DESIGN issue.

And for your info, USN like the other services requiered better turning performances following the Critical design Review of configuration 230..

As for the USN "traditional" 7.5 g it's another forum myth, they would use a 9G fighter if ever they could put their hands on it, only no one hav4e been able to design a 9 G carrier capable aircraft ith the same structural life-span than the 7.5G F-18.

Immature? You are mystaking design configurations with predicted global performances and capabilties here.

Alleged? No mate PROVEN. MORE poke, FASTER, FURTHER, TIGHTER.

And yet the Dutch found it to be superior.

Can you provide a link to where L-M states The F-35 is structurally limited to 7.5G. I'd wager you can't.

Incidentaly which country did equip their A-F previously?

The USA obviously. As a current F-16 user I am CERTAIN they are well aware of the capability gains the F-35 provides over it. Certainly more so than yourself.

The indicate that despite the US industrial weight, the weapon package, the L.O and the FACT that the other aircrafts were not from the US it only was marginally ahead as a total package.

But still ahead and cheaper too...

My "nationalistic pride " is looking increasingly like a reality check-up for you guys...

No, it's making you look arrogant and foolish.

BKNO

May 16th, 2007, 06:17 AM

@ Aussie Digger Listen mate i'm going to try to stay polite here. Your reality denial exercise is leading you nowhere.

You want evidences you got them, the only thing you have been doing so far is denying them and resorting to personal attacks.

And yet the Dutch found it to be superior.

LOL that's a really funny quote. Take L.O the US economy and weapon out of the equation and what do YOU have left???

Can you provide a link to where L-M states The F-35 is structurally limited to 7.5G. I'd wager you can't.

Yes i CAN because as opposed to you i dont FEED myself with mythology, i'll dig it for you if it pleases you but instead of giving us the bull factor woudln't it be more "respectfull" to inform US properly???

Incidentaly which country did equip their A-F previously?

The USA obviously. As a current F-16 user I am CERTAIN they are well aware of the capability gains the F-35 provides over it. Certainly more so than yourself.

Sure of course so according to the USAF commericals let say 4 X time legacy effisciency in A2A do YOU know what our Rafale kill ratio is vs F-16 for a laugh? Even the 2000-5F score better than that.

Been ignorant ofsome fact is something denying them when presented with them another one, attacking people personal integrity for lack of arguments is pull by the (pubic) hairs methink...

AGAIN you ressort to personal attacks here, looks like you're very short in arguments.

But still ahead and cheaper too...

Cheaper? Wait for it mate and you'll SEE once you have to pay for 30 years of support and spare if you can match the price.

So far in view of the developement cost you are provren WRONG.

No, it's making you look arrogant and foolish.

GEE there must be a LOT of sand where you live...:onfloorl:

For the time being i'm bugging out i'm done here for a little while i need to read some good literature on the subject of aviation.

rjmaz1

May 16th, 2007, 07:13 AM

LOL that's a really funny quote. Take L.O the US economy and weapon out of the equation and what do YOU have left???
Take the wings, engines, ejector seat and avionics out of the F-35 and what do you have left? An aircraft that doesn't fly.

Not a very good argument at all. The F-35 has great levels of stealth the Rafale has basic stealth. The only way the Rafale will be as survivable would be to have insane speed, speed that makes the F-22 look slow. As it does not have this speed it will not have the survivability of the F-35. The Rafale may in fact be quicker than the F-35, however all the international customers must believe that its not quick enough to overcome its higher radar cross section.

I notice how your strike comparison between the F-35 have the Rafale carrying three external fuel tanks compared to the internal fuel of the F-35. Now thats not fair at all. Compare the numbers of the F-35 with a pair of 480 gallon fuel tanks. The Rafale can no longer match its range, as its now in the range class of an F-111 not an F-15E.

If you know an aircraft will always be carrying external fuel tanks, then its internal fuel capacity should be increased. The F-35 took decades of Aviation history into account. Lets do a simple comparison, Aircraft A carries 5000kg of fuel externally and that knocks 100 knots off its cruising speed. Aircraft B Integrated that extra 5,000kg of fuel into the fuselage this only knock roughly 10 knots off the cruising speed. So when traveling to the target aircraft B will be flying 90 knots faster, when returning the aircraft A would dump its tanks and will be traveling only 10 knots faster.

Also as a third of the external fuel is needed just to overcome the drag added the range will be reduced. Aircraft B now only needs 3,333 kg of fuel internally to have the same range as Aircraft A carrying 5,000kg externally. So now Aircraft B travels even quicker to the target and when returning Aircraft A in clean config will only be a few knots quicker.

Thats why the F-35 is better than the Rafale in long range, subsonic strikes.

Aussie Digger

May 16th, 2007, 09:09 AM

@ Aussie Digger Listen mate i'm going to try to stay polite here. Your reality denial exercise is leading you nowhere.

You want evidences you got them, the only thing you have been doing so far is denying them and resorting to personal attacks.
You don't provide evidence. You post attachments stating, "look at this comparison of an M-88 and F-135" and you post only a picture of the M-88.

You state "French pilots" are quite impressed with the capability of their Rafales against Italian Typhoon's. What pilots? From what Squadron? What exercise? What was the objective? What were the rules in play (WVR only etc?) What did the Italian pilots have to say about the Rafales?

Answer THOSE sorts of questions and I'll concede you are providing something approaching evidence, because then we can try and CHECK them.

You provide unqualified statements as "evidence
and quote unspecified "manufactures data" and a nameless Squadrons website.

Then turn around and accuse US of lacking evidence because we quote Lockheed Martin...

LOL that's a really funny quote. Take L.O the US economy and weapon out of the equation and what do YOU have left???

A fighter which exceeds the flight performance of the F-16/F/A-18 series fighters, has an avionics suite the ENVY of any other fighter, as one example Rafale may get an AESA one day, though with a reduction in aircraft purchases to PAY for it, F-35 will START with it.

Sure of course so according to the USAF commericals let say 4 X time legacy effisciency in A2A do YOU know what our Rafale kill ratio is vs F-16 for a laugh? Even the 2000-5F score better than that.

So you say, again with no qualification. I can provide ANY number of links to F-16 articles where people rave about it's superiority over the M-2000 series fighters.

Here's one comment from a HaF commander (MIRA 330 Squadon) of Mirage v F-16 in ATA combat, BUT with the Caveat of MICA IR armed Mirages but AIM-9L and AIM-120A AMRAAMS on Block 30 F-16's.

Put AIM-120C5, IRIS-T and JHMCS on the Block 52's (as Greece are doing) and things will be somewhat different... (For those unaware the Hellenic Air Force operates BOTH the F-16 and Mirage 2000-5 fighters)

"I'm very satisfied with the F-16 - in fact, I love it. In particular I love the Block 30."

He also states about the Mirage 2000 used mainly for Air to Air:

"It's an effective fighter, which the f-16 can't beat in a dogfight."

He ends by saying:

"The F-16 is much better multi-roll combat jet... it really is the complete package... " (Courtesy - Illustrated Aircraft).

Dogfighting. Wow. The 1 area that even a HaF commander conceeds a Mirage outperforms F-16. Thanks but I'd rather overall capability.

Been ignorant ofsome fact is something denying them when presented with them another one, attacking people personal integrity for lack of arguments is pull by the (pubic) hairs methink...

AGAIN you ressort to personal attacks here, looks like you're very short in arguments.

Indeed I am. I don't claim technical expertise in this area and am forced to rely on the open sourced data I can be bothered to find, but you do. Once again without ANY qualification whatsoever.

Cheaper? Wait for it mate and you'll SEE once you have to pay for 30 years of support and spare if you can match the price.

So far in view of the developement cost you are provren WRONG.

What? Do these costs not exist with Rafale? Do 2x engines NOT require more maintenance than 1x?

Or have the brilliance of the French designers managed to make a more reliable and cheaper aircraft to acquire and maintain despite this aircraft being at least 10 YEARS older developmental wise and having a user base that will be at least 10 times smaller???

Perhaps you can predict support costs from it's political-industrial history too? :onfloorl:

For the time being i'm bugging out i'm done here for a little while i need to read some good literature on the subject of aviation.

Excellent, perhaps you can share some of it with us, next time you make a point. A novel idea I know, but give it a try sometime. You'll find it refreshing if nothing else.

BKNO

May 16th, 2007, 09:40 AM

Aussie Digger You don't provide evidence. You post attachments stating, "look at this comparison of an M-88 and F-135" and you post only a picture of the M-88.

No? And what is it then??? You WONT see what doesn't please YOU.

Starting with all the most recent L-M documentation on weights and performances...

Aussie Digger You state "French pilots" are quite impressed with the capability of their Rafales against Italian Typhoon's. What pilots? From what Squadron? What exercise? What was the objective? What were the rules in play (WVR only etc?) What did the Italian pilots have to say about the Rafales?

Mate i expect people to have the minimum of curiosity, i'm not in charge of making the news here and i provided with more sources already than i'm sure we can find to your name in this entire forum NO???...

Aussie Digger Answer THOSE sorts of questions and I'll concede you are providing something approaching evidence, because then we can try and CHECK them.

I'm proving MY points while you do NOT make yours.

Aussie Digger You provide unqualified statements as "evidence
and quote unspecified "manufactures data" and a nameless Squadrons website.

Sure. L-M Programme briefs are unspecified "manufactures data", nameless Squadrons website arent the real thing. What planet are you living in?

Aussie Digger Then turn around and accuse US of lacking evidence because we quote Lockheed Martin...

Keep quoting, only from now on try quoting L-M.

Aussie Digger A fighter which exceeds the flight performance of the F-16/F/A-18 series fighters, has an avionics suite the ENVY of any other fighter, as one example Rafale may get an AESA one day, though with a reduction in aircraft purchases to PAY for it, F-35 will START with it.

Apparently you still NEED to READ L-M documentation.

They dont say ANYTHING like you say to start with.

Slower, G -limited, superior ONLY in A2G configuration due (logically) to internal weapon loading ,spare us the hyped-up commercials please...

Aussie Digger So you say, again with no qualification. I can provide ANY number of links to F-16 articles where people rave about it's superiority over the M-2000 series fighters.

No mate it's NOT ME saying it's OUR pilots as well as the RAF pilots saying that there is only ONE aicraft they regards a superior thanks to its L.O and it's F-22, the fact that you keep dismissing their comments doesn't change FACTS.

Aussie Digger Dogfighting. Wow. The 1 area that even a HaF commander conceeds a Mirage outperforms F-16. Thanks but I'd rather overall capability.

My friend the Greeks are using the 2000-5 derivative in the Air defense role for a good reason. It IS an Air superiority fighter in a league above that of the F-16 and is NOT designed for thre strike role, for this we have the Ds.

Indeed I am. I don't claim technical expertise in this area and am forced to rely on the open sourced data I can be bothered to find, but you do. Once again without ANY qualification whatsoever.

You DENY source datas even the most recent from L-M, are you kidding me??? As for technical expertise i dont think all due respect that you could claim any, your comments are showing some serious lack of basics as for aerodynamics, structural design and the rest...

Aussie Digger What? Do these costs not exist with Rafale? Do 2x engines NOT require more maintenance than 1x?

Try to compare them as they are, and BTW the equation is also valid for F-22 or the S-H for that matter.

The Rafale programme is WAY cheaper and unit costs includes all part supports for 30 years. Thanks.

Aussie Digger Or have the brilliance of the French designers managed to make a more reliable and cheaper aircraft to acquire and maintain despite this aircraft being at least 10 YEARS older developmental wise and having a user base that will be at least 10 times smaller???

What they have produced is a faster, more maneuvrable omnirole which carries MORE, further than F-35 in stealth configuration and still have some in reserve like CFTs for example.

Aussie Digger Perhaps you can predict support costs from it's political-industrial history too?

Perhaps you should interess yourself to the subject you'll be enlighted then...

Aussie Digger excellent, perhaps you can share some of it with us, next time you make a point. A novel idea I know, but give it a try sometime. You'll find it refreshing if nothing else.

I keep doing it and as amatter of FACT it's an advice i return to you.

>>>>>Here goes.

Quote 1: Similarly, the design team has spent a long time looking at high angle-of-attack (alpha) flow characteristics to see if the F-35 might be susceptible to the vertical tail buffet issues encountered by the F/A-18 and F/A-22. "It's a good thing we did that," says Burbage, adding that the windtunnel tests show the F-35 chine does indeed generate a strong vortex at high alpha, and that flight tests would have revealed a distinct tail buffet. Structural reinforcement is being designed into the aircraft's F-35 vertical fins as a result of the tests says Burbage. He adds: "We are bound to have enough of our own problems without repeating those of others."

DATE: 25/11/03
SOURCE:Flight International
Weighty matters

Guy Norris / Los Angeles
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2003/11/25/174243/weighty-matters.html
>>>>>

Quote 2: The concept of cousin parts has been maintained – the 7g-stressed F-35B may have thinner, lighter bulkheads than the carrier-capable F-35C or 9g-capable F-35A, but the difference is not visible, says Williams. There are also cousin parts in the systems: the electro-hydrostatic actuators on the power-by-wire flight controls are different sizes – the STOVL actuators were downsized to reduce weight, while the CV’s are bigger to provide higher control rates for low-speed approach – but they are all manufactured by the same supplier using the same process, he says.

DATE:27/06/06
SOURCE:Flight International
JSF special: Future fighter
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/01/11/207482/first-strike-flight-international-jsf-special.html

SO? NO SOURCES?

Aussie Digger "Structural limits for the "A" model remain 9G's. The B and C are rated at 7.5G due to an attempt to conserve airframe life in the naturally more challenging naval environment."

YOU ARE WRONG: According to Bobby Williams, L-M air vehicle team leader.

"the 7g-stressed F-35B may have thinner, lighter bulkheads than the carrier-capable F-35C or 9g-capable F-35A,"

As I was saying it's 7.0, 7.5 AND 9.0 Gs structural LIMITS and you'd could wager that all i am coming forward with is duely documented with official sources.

As Quote 1: shows to well, there ARE progresses made in some areas but weight have also to INCREASE in order to solve other problems as they occur.

"Structural reinforcement is being designed into the aircraft's F-35 vertical fins as a result of the tests says Burbage."

As for the turning performances:

Configuration 230 (230-3) had reduced area of USAF/USMC JSF wings by seven per cent, but increased USN variant wing area by 11 per cent.

Further redesign occured in 1999, culminating in September with configuration 230-5 which has enlarged wing to satisfy sustained turn performance requierement and strengthened to meet 9G stress requierement for the CTOL variant.

Source: Jane's world's Aircraft edition 2006/07.

Among the more visible changes to the final Lockheed Martin-led 230-5 design iteration is an enlarged main wing to meet a higher 9g stress requirement. The size of the wing on the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) and conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) versions has been increased from 38.3m² (412ft²) to 42.7m², while the wing on the US Navy's carrier variant (CV) has grown from 55.7m² to 57.6m².

DATE:10/11/99
SOURCE:Flight International
JSF changes revealed
Paul Lewis/WASHINGTON DC

So if the USN "didn't requier" a 9 G aircraft it simply because it wasn't possible to achieve this with 11% more wing surface and keep a reasonable empty weight...

The parametric estimates were overstated by 35% for all version and L-M were still 10% off them with configuration 240, they had to look for alternative solutions.

Configuration 230-5 was submited as Prefered Weapon System Conceipt design in mid-2000, at the time there was still NO talks about reducing Gs to 7.0 on the F-35B, this was all due to the SWAT effort to regain weight margins.

NOW: The British NAO aren't in the buzziness of desingorming people arwe they???

Quote: NAO 2005 on F-35...

MoD assured us that in total there has been a 3.000 lb reduction in the actual weight of the STVOL aircraft and the equivalent of a further reduction of 1.000 lb through improvements in thrust and the review of the landing requierements
NAO-JSF.jpg

So since the Dutch and other customers were given the parametric estimates and figures for 230 performances, i guess it IS what you could call IMMATURE.

According to the Ministrie van defensie Bevelhebber der Luchtstrijdkrachten, directie Materieel:

Dates for request for submission is 1999, MOU was signed in 2002.

As i was saying, F-35 as proposed to them was expected to be lighter and without structural limitation due to design and weight target problems.

For the rest there have been NO change in specification as for where the systems are concerned, they were all well known at the time.

HERE is reality for you my friend.

F-35 Avionics and Systems developements:

From first tests to up to 2000 h+.

Source: Jane's Wordl's Aircrafts.

FCS = ------------------------TESTED IN April 1998.

Avionics = -------------------TESTED IN 1999.

HMD = ------------------------TESTED IN 2000.

ATC/EOTS = -------------------TESTED IN 2000. SNIPER DEIVATIVE.

Comparison:

SPECTRA/Rafale F1 = ----------TESTED IN 1996. Standard F1.

SPECTRA/Rafale F2= -----------TESTED IN 2000. (NATO MACE-X = F2 Standard).

NEW MDPU = -------------------TESTED IN 2000.

DVI = ------------------------TESTED IN 2001.

MIDS/LVT = -------------------TESTED IN 2002.

DGA contract RBE2 AESA (1) dev = ------ 2002.

DGA contract F3 dev = --------------Feb 2004. STILL being developed today..

DGA contract RBE2 AESA (2) dev = ---Jun 2004. Flight-tested now.

OSF NG = --------------------------STILL R&D.

APG-81 FIRST TEST-FLIGHT: = --------Aug 2005.

Source: Jane's and some other reputable specialised press....

Now i'm SURE you'll claim that these are unqualified sources and no evidences, next time i will scan the book for you....