F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.

colay

New Member
I like defense-aerospace but the editor is always making comments about the JSF, it annoys me. I don't know what his problem is but he is blatantly anti-JSF.
I visited their site and the first thing I noticed were the EF Typhoon and Rafale ads.. maybe that has something to do with it?:rolleyes:
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I like defense-aerospace but the editor is always making comments about the JSF, it annoys me. I don't know what his problem is but he is blatantly anti-JSF.
Of course he does. He's paid to pimp Euro products, particularly by Dassault and Eurofighter Corporation, but he's still got the nerve to accuse L-M execs of doing the exact same thing for their own products...
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A bit more info on the CUDA missile for F-35:

The Aviationist » New (still quite secret) Hit-to-Kill missile for the F-35 unveiled: the Lockheed Martin “Cuda”

Confirmation it's going to use Hit to Kill technology, radar guidance and be sized around SDB size. The rocket motor potentially could take up the majority of the airframe given the HTK nature of the weapon, meaning it can have a useful potential range.

Contemplating a mixed load-out of CUDA and AMRAAM gives some interesting weapons mix possibilities...
AD, was just wondering, do you think the colour bands on the picture in the article are accurate ? or have they just been put on there for make it look pretty ?

IIRC a yellow band denotes HE Warhead, the darker bands rocket motor ? So why have HE if they have stated the Cuda to be HTK ?

Cheers
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
AD, was just wondering, do you think the colour bands on the picture in the article are accurate ? or have they just been put on there for make it look pretty ?

IIRC a yellow band denotes HE Warhead, the darker bands rocket motor ? So why have HE if they have stated the Cuda to be HTK ?

Cheers
HTK weapons still have a an explosive charge as I understand them, but it's a very small charge, merely enough to help with frag (airframe materials etc) against the target, rather than an actual serious explosive warhead. I believe they use a very simple impact fusing system as well, rather than radar-based proximity fuses, which overall saves a significant amount of space within the missile body.

That image however may or may not be representative of the actual weapon L-M have in mind. They themselves have admitted they are having difficulty with USAF releasing classified details of the system, which may be a marketing ploy, but I suspect that image may be an artistic mock-up only.
 

colay

New Member
What I find interesting about Cuda is precisely that the AF is being very secretive which makes me think that the missile is more than just a concept. It's been reported that Cuda is a LM initiative but the AF concerns on secrecy seem to indicate it's keen on the missile. For a missile that has just come to public attention, it may be further along in the development process than would be normally expected.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What I find interesting about Cuda is precisely that the AF is being very secretive which makes me think that the missile is more than just a concept. It's been reported that Cuda is a LM initiative but the AF concerns on secrecy seem to indicate it's keen on the missile. For a missile that has just come to public attention, it may be further along in the development process than would be normally expected.
well, successful SDB tests against fast moving mobile land based targets were being run 5 years before the weapons system went "gold" so the odds are that its actually been through the cycle of active T&D and may well have been "live and field " tested already

bear in mind that the successful tests were also announced in JED 5 years before the public became aware of SDB's
 
Last edited:

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
HTK weapons still have a an explosive charge as I understand them, but it's a very small charge, merely enough to help with frag (airframe materials etc) against the target, rather than an actual serious explosive warhead. I believe they use a very simple impact fusing system as well, rather than radar-based proximity fuses, which overall saves a significant amount of space within the missile body.

That image however may or may not be representative of the actual weapon L-M have in mind. They themselves have admitted they are having difficulty with USAF releasing classified details of the system, which may be a marketing ploy, but I suspect that image may be an artistic mock-up only.
Thanks for that, makes sence. As mentioned I would not be surprised if it is a bit more than a concept if the USAF are hesitant to release details, I would only see it as a marketing ploy if LM were trying to get interest and they were not releasing information, but the fact that the Air Force are driving the release of info suggests otherwise ?

Which leads to the image being reasonably accurate ? if that is the case and with the stated size of the Cuda, it looks like a decent sized motor :)

Cheers
 

colay

New Member
Can we glean anything from the fact that it employs a RF seeker in lieu of IIR tech?

Is radar more suitable for HTK applications than IIR hence it's use in the HTK PAC-3?
 

the road runner

Active Member
LM has released a video on the delivery of the F-35B delivered to YUMA on the 20th of November.Of note John McCain states the JSF may be flying for the next 50 years.

They also talk about the US "soon" having 22 Aircraft carriers ,11 light carriers(F-35B on LHD's) and 11 heavy carriers once all JSF are delivered.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW7SBMAldIs&feature=g-all-u"]First F-35B Delivery to MCAS Yuma - YouTube[/nomedia]
 

colay

New Member
LM has released a video on the delivery of the F-35B delivered to YUMA on the 20th of November.Of note John McCain states the JSF may be flying for the next 50 years.

They also talk about the US "soon" having 22 Aircraft carriers ,11 light carriers(F-35B on LHD's) and 11 heavy carriers once all JSF are delivered.

First F-35B Delivery to MCAS Yuma - YouTube
Well, they already have Harriers flying off the Gators. Still, the F-35B will provide new levels of performance and capabilities and should help reduce the workload on the CVN fleet going forward.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Can we glean anything from the fact that it employs a RF seeker in lieu of IIR tech?

Is radar more suitable for HTK applications than IIR hence it's use in the HTK PAC-3?
A radar seeker allows for an SARH guidance mode as well, along the lines of that used by ESSM, ie: the powerful radar in the launch / off-board aircraft or perhaps even a separate platform type (through data-linking) provides guidance rather than the tiny radar in the missile.

Such is not possible with an IIR seeker...

This capability is present in AMRAAM today which makes a mockery of the fools of the type on ELP's blog who call for "multi-mode seeker" technology missiles, implying in the process that we don't have them today...

What active radar, SARH, radar homing and GPS aided IMU guidance all in the same missile (in the case of AIM-120D), isn't enough for you?

And then something like NCADE rolls out, which has all of that AND an IIR seeker and of course it's STILL not good enough...

:rolleyes:
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
They also talk about the US "soon" having 22 Aircraft carriers ,11 light carriers(F-35B on LHD's) and 11 heavy carriers once all JSF are delivered.
?? thats a bit of poetic license

even the USN doesn't get that carried away in trying to talk their numbers up...

the ARG's and CGB/CTF's are never included together because their roles are fundamentally different.

the ARG flattops can't undertake meaningful carrier type ops, they're a support act in that role. fixed air on the ARG's is about supporting the marines etc... in expeditionary landings.

eg look at the airwing fitout for their phatships as opposed to their CVN's
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It was stated by the Robert Work the Under sectary of the Navy ,i assumed he would have know what he was talking about,he must be "talking up" Navy.Thanx for the clarification gf it did give a wrong assumption and that was not my intention.
Mate, wasn't having a crack at you - more re the original statement - I'm guessing that its a local politics consumption and dog and pony show comment as Obamas administration has copped traffic about the state of DoD etc....

on the basis of the UnderSecs definition, then 4 years ago the USN had 30 carriers and the USN has declined in capability....

/smirk on
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
I found a Spear video on MBDA's website and hosted it on Youtube

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPpfoak-LQA"]Spear Missile from F-35 - YouTube[/nomedia]
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Lexington Institute



Not being familiar with the Lexington Institute and the nature of what the F35 does to people, i'm not sure how accurate it is.

EDIT: Should point out that when this report was sourced on defense-aerospace.com it came with the following editors note

Outlook for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Brightens
The Lexington Institute is a "pay to play" Washington DC, well Arlington VA, lobby. They aren't an unbiased, objective independent think tank or government agency. I wouldn't trust them anymore than the anti-defense media.

One has to scrutinized their sources, but I put much more trust into the Air Force Association and the Navy League than I do the Lexington Institute. But both of these organizations are linked to and support both services.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Lexington Institute is a "pay to play" Washington DC, well Arlington VA, lobby. They aren't an unbiased, objective independent think tank or government agency. I wouldn't trust them anymore than the anti-defense media.

One has to scrutinized their sources, but I put much more trust into the Air Force Association and the Navy League than I do the Lexington Institute. But both of these organizations are linked to and support both services.
Unlike the media, at least they get the terminology right and yes they are industry sponsored, that doesn't mean they aren't also right...
 

uuname

New Member
F-35s scrapped by Conservatives as audit puts true cost past $30B | National Post
The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the Harper government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.
Reports: Canada Reconsidering F-35 Fighter Purchase | defensenews.com
MONTREAL — The Canadian government is backtracking on a decision to buy U.S.-made F-35 fighter aircraft in the face of higher than expected costs, the daily National Post reported Dec. 7.
Despite the overly melodramatic headlines, they don't actually seem to be cancelling it, just considering other options at this stage. I'm guessing the Super Hornet would be the only other serious contender, but it's hard to tell from the articles.

The reporting is pretty awful- several obvious factual errors in the first article, and the whole thing smells like politics.

Is this likely to spend a few months bouncing around before the JSF is selected again, or is there a real chance of a Super Hornet buy- and would it be interim or a long-term prospect?
 

jack412

Member
I think it will be similar to what the aussie new labour gov did in late 2000 and have a 'full review' and then say their previous concers have been met and we will buy the f-35.

It's just internal politics shifting the focus off themselves onto the Public works dept as I see it and in Canada's case has a 7 point plan for their review, there is no competition as such.
I can't see canada buying a fleet of any new 4th gen planes given the price and time line of the f-35 that seems well founded at this stage, going by gov/air force/LM announcements. The SAR/dod report has the BY2012 URF cost of the SH at $66m and the BY2012 URF f-35 at $73m full rate production in 2018'ish
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top