F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Firn]

I don't think so. In real terms AIM-120D and Meteor are peers. Both will have extremely capable seeker packages and comparable range performance. The Meteor should have better end game energy state (although the AIM-120D will have a multi burn rocket motor), and slightly better range (but comparable).

While we don't know the exact capabilities of both missiles I agree that the seeker packages will be both top-notch and it is impossible to know which one is better. Assuming that the fuel carried is comperable than the Meteor should greatly outperform the AIM-120D in terms of kinetic performance, range and relative end game energy state. Remember that both are with good reasons similar in their dimensions, but the Meteor has a far more efficient engine. (Less fuel carried will mean a bigger warhead and increase the chance of the kil)

But critically if the dual rail launcher under development eventuates the AIM-120D will be enable 6 internal AAM's on the F-35A, but you cant squeeze the Meteor in AFAIK negating that advantage. In real terms I see the AIM-120D as the superior choice for the F-35A in the RAAF.

Given that bodies have practically the same lenght and diameter it should be possible, although AFAIK there are yet no plans to do so. It should certainly not be a engineering miracle to make the seemingly relative minor adjustments.

One of the critical reasons for Meteor's massive range is to make up for the lack of VLO on the Typhoon in order to increase the platforms survivability. The F-35A negates that need because it will be able to reach AIM-120D launch range undetected with current and projected radar technology (AFAIK no one is developing a non X band FCR).

A good point. However superior performance at possible similar price tag is always attractive.

As for JDRAAM. Well that missile will be a full generation better than the Meteor. It will have a dual IIR and active radar (likely AESA), and provide the user with precision strike and anti radiation modes, thats right you get a Maverick and HARM capability with a A2A seeker package that is a full generation ahead of Meteor or AIM-120D, its a no brainier IMHO.

The sensor package of the JDRAAM should be clearly superior. However the excellent kinetic performance of body of the Meteor is certainly a fine base for further developments. So one would expect also further development for the carried package.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The AUS DMO has now came out to set the record straight about Dr Dennis Jensen MP's article of 7 Jan 09 in the Australian Financial Review (AFR).

Basically, he's full of it and so is Kopp (F-35s RCS article).

 

[SpudmanWP]

dual post

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I was wondering what happens to the F-35 aircraft that are block 1,2,3, and 4 do they eventually get upgraded to the block 5 standard?

 

[SpudmanWP]

the first operational F-35s will be Block 3.

In the proposal to Norway, F-35s would start to be delivered in Blk 3 config and upgraded to Blk 5 as part of the purchase cost.

 

[Jezza]

question fo the older people?
who can rememeber the F-16 development

did the F-16 cop so much crap?
or is this just jealous national pride
to mud sling the F-35?:

 

[Gerry301]

OTOH, if it has all-around stealth as good or better than an F-117, then no worries.

Its my understanding the steath on the F-35 is 2.5 times that of the F-117. I assume that means 250% greater. Its RCS is 2.5 times smaller? Or 250 times smaller?

 

[Feanor]

Do you have a source for that figure?

 

[Gerry301]

Do you have a source for that figure?

No! (hows that)(and I spent most of the morning trying to find where I read it). Heres the next best I could find, from Global Security, F-35, Design.


According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2.

 

[Feanor]

Well then that would answer your own question right?

 

[Gerry301]

Well then that would answer your own question right?

Not really, since I could not find the original quote.

 

[Feanor]

According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22.

This is what you need right? If you are really keen on comparing with the F-117, then I supposed you need to dig up similar figures for it.

 

[Gerry301]

This is what you need right? If you are really keen on comparing with the F-117, then I supposed you need to dig up similar figures for it.

LOL, no, not really. And the problem is because I don't know how to outline a "part" of a previous comment in blue when quoting someone else.

I also seemed to have a penny stuck in my fuse box when commenting. So the matter has become confused and I'm going to give up on it. Live and learn as they say.

 

[wtsimpson7]

Jsf

I believe it will be interesting to see if the JSF project delivers as promised, and to see if the F-35 will even make it into production!

 

[Grim901]

I believe it will be interesting to see if the JSF project delivers as promised, and to see if the F-35 will even make it into production!

It will, the project is relied on by too many nations, the US included.

I don't see any indications of it not making it too production.

The B and C variants are guarantted to come into production at the very least.

 

[Crusader2000]

I believe it will be interesting to see if the JSF project delivers as promised, and to see if the F-35 will even make it into production!

Sorry, no JSF Partners have left the Program and even the one that have opened up the selection process to include other types. Have thus far all chosen the F-35! Further, several other countries have express strong interest with Israel recently placing a order..........



BTW the F-35 is already in production..............(i.e. SDD and LRIP)

 

[Gerry301]

Sorry, no JSF Partners have left the Program and even the one that have opened up the selection process to include other types. Have thus far all chosen the F-35! Further, several other countries have express strong interest with Israel recently placing a order..........



BTW the F-35 is already in production..............(i.e. SSD and LRIP)

Just looked it up and the first six F-35As are completed of a batch of 17.

The first 13 produced will be test models and the remaining four will go to Eglin AFB in 2010. 83 test flights have been recently been completed.

So it has begun. Awesome

 

[Crusader2000]

Just looked it up and the first six F-35As are completed of a batch of 17.

The first 13 produced will be test models and the remaining four will go to Eglin AFB in 2010. 83 test flights have been recently been completed.

So it has begun. Awesome

F-35 production will start to accelerate as time goes...........with hundreds coming off the lines in just a few years time.

 

[shanes_world_05]

Maintainence requirements for JSF

Hi guys,

Abit has been touted about the low maintainence requirements for operating the JSF. Can anybody define "low" and then after they have done that make a break it down into laymans terms or a "fixing jets and stuff for idiots" (about my level).
And is anyone able to put it in perspective to the nearest competitor Typhoon, F-18 SH, and the perfect girlfriend (ultra low maintainence- the dream of every man) type Gripen?
What I am looking for but can't find is a man hour break down of each of the major trades or skill sets to keep it flying and mean time before 2nd or 3rd line deep cycle maintainence (by the way I have no experience with this above trucks, diggers and not much else).

Curious as to its operational sustainability for the smaller nations (I wish NZ was one).
Think it would be important if Israel's concern over base targeting does swing them to get the B variant as an example. If there bases were nulified I imagine logistics would also be under strain in that sort of scenario.
Also are there any two seaters yet? havent seen a single publicity shot. And if so how does the extra man affect range and load? If not is this normal in aircraft development to tackle a two seater later?

And any postulation as to the effect UCAVs will have to its future? In my ignorance I would have thought there would be more concern with signal disruption and manipulation with UCAV control (as the man in the loop that the laws of war possibly require) would guarantee some support for the man future fighters. But UCAVS offer a simpler (cheaper), more numerous , less risky proposal to conventional fighters once the technology and doctrine regarding their use matures (when... I dunno).


Cheers,

Shane

 

[Gerry301]

Hi guys,

Abit has been touted about the low maintainence requirements for operating the JSF. Can anybody define "low" and then after they have done that make a break it down into laymans terms or a "fixing jets and stuff for idiots" (about my level).
And is anyone able to put it in perspective to the nearest competitor Typhoon, F-18 SH, and the perfect girlfriend (ultra low maintainence- the dream of every man) type Gripen?
What I am looking for but can't find is a man hour break down of each of the major trades or skill sets to keep it flying and mean time before 2nd or 3rd line deep cycle maintainence (by the way I have no experience with this above trucks, diggers and not much else).

Curious as to its operational sustainability for the smaller nations (I wish NZ was one).
Think it would be important if Israel's concern over base targeting does swing them to get the B variant as an example. If there bases were nulified I imagine logistics would also be under strain in that sort of scenario.
Also are there any two seaters yet? havent seen a single publicity shot. And if so how does the extra man affect range and load? If not is this normal in aircraft development to tackle a two seater later?

And any postulation as to the effect UCAVs will have to its future? In my ignorance I would have thought there would be more concern with signal disruption and manipulation with UCAV control (as the man in the loop that the laws of war possibly require) would guarantee some support for the man future fighters. But UCAVS offer a simpler (cheaper), more numerous , less risky proposal to conventional fighters once the technology and doctrine regarding their use matures (when... I dunno).


Cheers,

Shane

LOL, You want what low maintenence in laymens terms, then ask for a breakdown by hours spent by trade and comparisons to the other major fighters. Not a problem, just write to Lockheed Martin and ask, I'm sure they will give you the figures.

As with many new systems the low maintenence is expected to come from diagnostic tools as well as on board computor systems that will isolate problems as they arise. This makes the swap a part or circuit board much quicker than in the past.

Other areas of advance concern less overall parts that make up the aircraft in relation to LRUs that can be used. (line replacement units).

Many items such as reliability, durability, and easy access to componants also insure quick repair and turnaround times.

There will be a period of time before enough data is collected to determine which parts wear out the fastest or where modifications are needed before it is determined to be mature in the sense of repairability. Give it a couple of years then ask for comparisons.