Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JWCook

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I'm pretty sure F-22 has 2000 modules, so it would still have more power than JSF. Regardless, we can generally say that by the next upgrade, it will have same generation of AESA radar as JSF, so this comparison would be a little irrelevant.

The only evidence i can find is this http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/ANAPG-77V1_a001562001.aspx
The fourth generation variant of AN/APG-77 electronically scanned array radar system features reduced production and maintenance costs compared to third-generation variant. The APG-77 new design has been previously implemented successfully in the APG-80 (F-16E/F) and APG-81 (F-35) radars.
Which could tally in with the info I heard that the F-22 was getting the F-35 radar antenna of 1200 modules!???.

or it could just mean the modules are used in the old APG 77 face? I really don't know for sure.

anyone have any more info?

cheers
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Not too sure about this figure. Several credible sources puts the internal fuel capasity at 20650lbs, including USAF Technical Order 00-105E-9 and Air Power Australia's F-22 analysis.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
I've received my reply from USAF, and AGRA is correct (and thus the TO is incorrect!):

Mr. (name deleted)

In answer to your question, we double-checked our numbers with our Requirements directorate, and the numbers listed on the F-22 fact sheet are correct.

Thank you again for your interest.

Sincerely,

SSgt. (name deleted)
Air Combat Command Public Affairs
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
The only evidence i can find is this http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/ANAPG-77V1_a001562001.aspx


Which could tally in with the info I heard that the F-22 was getting the F-35 radar antenna of 1200 modules!???.

or it could just mean the modules are used in the old APG 77 face? I really don't know for sure.

anyone have any more info?

cheers
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm
that's where i get the 2000 T/R modules from. Of course, APG-77 will also be behind APG-79/81 on areas like radar software, digital signal processor, data processor and receiving hardware. But I'm sure these can all be improved soon.
 

AGRA

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm
that's where i get the 2000 T/R modules from. Of course, APG-77 will also be behind APG-79/81 on areas like radar software, digital signal processor, data processor and receiving hardware. But I'm sure these can all be improved soon.
The APG-77 is already getting the APG-77(V)3 upgrade to bring its hardware technology up to APG-81 levels. But this is only part of the picture. The AESAs on the Block II Super Hornet and JSF will be integrated with other sensors like their FLIRs and ESM. Driving this integration and further modernisation is software.

The F-22 is coded in lower order and faster Machine Codes and the B2 SH and JSF in higher order languages like C++. The importance of this is that no one is learning machine codes so who is going to do the code? You can't make programmers learn the old languages they will just quit and go work for games companies.

The F-22 is up against the wall thanks to its half way mechanism of adopting COTS computer technology. Its like writing a book in the 1950s in Latin only to find that schools stopped teaching the language in the 1960s and no one will be around to read it anymore.
 

rattmuff

Lurk-loader?
The F-22 is coded in lower order and faster Machine Codes and the B2 SH and JSF in higher order languages like C++. The importance of this is that no one is learning machine codes so who is going to do the code?
Wow! That means I can do the programing when I'm done in school. :nutkick
Those "faster machine codes" is used in any modern working factory, industry, workshop, mill, power plant, camera, cell phone, car, PC, laptop and military aircraft. Well, take a look around you find it almost everywhere.


((Sorry, just couldn't resist.))
 
Last edited:

energo

Member
I've received my reply from USAF, and AGRA is correct (and thus the TO is incorrect!):
I've seen this reply. The accuracy of the AF figures are somewhat doubtful though: obviously the "empty weight" figure is wrong and Lt. Michael "Dozer" is on quote saying they are, although he didn't specify which figure. All in all it seems hard to get an official confirmation of these characteristics. Most book sources I've come accross put the figure between 18500 and 22000lbs while Lockheed Martin lists it as classified.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Norway
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I've seen this reply. The accuracy of the AF figures are somewhat doubtful though: obviously the "empty weight" figure is wrong and Lt. Michael "Dozer" is on quote saying they are, although he didn't specify which figure. All in all it seems hard to get an official confirmation of these characteristics. Most book sources I've come accross put the figure between 18500 and 22000lbs while Lockheed Martin lists it as classified.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Norway
There were a couple of follow up questions I lodged and they have declined to answer.

In the absence of released info, we can only work on whats been confirmed by USAF.

Personally, I'd be working on the validity of data from the manufacturer. and thats not forthcoming. As we all know, the data thats publicly declared is often way off the mark.
 

AGRA

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I've seen this reply. The accuracy of the AF figures are somewhat doubtful though: obviously the "empty weight" figure is wrong and Lt. Michael "Dozer" is on quote saying they are, although he didn't specify which figure. All in all it seems hard to get an official confirmation of these characteristics. Most book sources I've come accross put the figure between 18500 and 22000lbs while Lockheed Martin lists it as classified.
Who cares! It actually doesn't really matter if the F-22A has 18,000 lbs or 22,000 lbs as internal fuel capacity. What matters is the radius.

It's 410 NM for a supercruise mission (of which only 200 NM is actually supersonic) when the ATF RFP specified 600 NM. The internal fuel was cut from the original YF-22's 25,000 lbs and the weight went up significantly lowering the F-22A's fuel fraction from what had been required.

All this was happily accepted by the Air Force because modern missiles, radars, integrated systems and VLO makes energy manouevre a thing of the past. Which BTW for those out there that understand EM is what Boyd predicted anyway. His final ATA paper 'Fast Transients' lists VLO and missile/radar/systems complexs as the most important growth areas (circa 1975).
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
F-35 to now carry 12 AAMs instead of 8.

The Joint Strike Fighter could be upgraded to carry up to six internal AIM-120 AMRAAM Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, according to a Lockheed Martin executive. "Our spiral development program includes the ability to carry up to six internal AMRAAMs", G. Richard Cathers, senior manager of Lockheed Martin's strategic studies group, told the IQPC Fighter Conference in London on Wednesday. "It's a capability second only to the F-22."
Cathers added that the JSF's air-combat capability "has not been advertised as it could or should have been", partly because "at the same time as we are developing the F-35, we and the USAF have wanted to expand the F-22 program." Apparently, the USAF has not wanted to advertise the JSF's air-to-air capability, concerned that it would weaken the case for acquiring more than the 183 F-22s authorized today.
The four added internal AMRAAMs would be carried in place of internal bombs. It's not clear, however, whether the short-take-off, vertical landing F-35B variant, which has smaller weapon bays, would be able to carry the added weapons.
An executive for a competing fighter program, speaking at the conference, said that the six-missile capability would be a major improvement for the JSF. Until now, competitors have criticised the JSF because it carries only two AAMs - supporting only a single engagement - in stealth mode.



Here is the link: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:4f04259d-8fca-4e42-8e17-44f5dca7edf4
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The Joint Strike Fighter could be upgraded to carry up to six internal AIM-120 AMRAAM Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, according to a Lockheed Martin executive. "Our spiral development program includes the ability to carry up to six internal AMRAAMs", G. Richard Cathers, senior manager of Lockheed Martin's strategic studies group, told the IQPC Fighter Conference in London on Wednesday. "It's a capability second only to the F-22."
Cathers added that the JSF's air-combat capability "has not been advertised as it could or should have been", partly because "at the same time as we are developing the F-35, we and the USAF have wanted to expand the F-22 program." Apparently, the USAF has not wanted to advertise the JSF's air-to-air capability, concerned that it would weaken the case for acquiring more than the 183 F-22s authorized today.
The four added internal AMRAAMs would be carried in place of internal bombs. It's not clear, however, whether the short-take-off, vertical landing F-35B variant, which has smaller weapon bays, would be able to carry the added weapons.
An executive for a competing fighter program, speaking at the conference, said that the six-missile capability would be a major improvement for the JSF. Until now, competitors have criticised the JSF because it carries only two AAMs - supporting only a single engagement - in stealth mode.



Here is the link: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:4f04259d-8fca-4e42-8e17-44f5dca7edf4
Merged with existing F-35 thread.

In actual fact the F-35 will be able to carry significantly MORE than 12x AAM's if they need to.

Tje F-35 will have 6x external hardpoints, with the "inboard" pylons rated at 5000lbs. There is no reason dual rail AMRAAM launchers could not be carried on the inboard and centre pylons on each wing, plus an WVR missile on the outboard pylon which along with the 6x internal AAM's would give a total of 16x AAM's.

Of course I find it difficult to imagine such a scenario requiring that many AAM's, but the possibility is there...
 

ROCK45

New Member
6 AMRAAMs

Am I missing something where do you see 12? The four added internal AMRAAMs would be carried in place of internal bombs, adding to the (2) it would carry for self-defense, bring the total to six like the F-22. The F-22 also carries (2) internal IR missile currently 9M but soon 9X. The F-22 Carries a total of 8 missiles to date or what's released to the public. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
:D
 

Scorpion82

New Member
Am I missing something where do you see 12? The four added internal AMRAAMs would be carried in place of internal bombs, adding to the (2) it would carry for self-defense, bring the total to six like the F-22. The F-22 also carries (2) internal IR missile currently 9M but soon 9X. The F-22 Carries a total of 8 missiles to date or what's released to the public. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
:D
You seem to forget about the external hardpoints which are available, if required. There are already photos of the Raptor flying with external tanks and AMRAAMs.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
Right now the F-35 can carry 2 AIM-120s internally and 4 more externally plus two AIM-9s on the wing tips for a total of 8 AAMs, comparable to the F-22 and F-15. But with the upgrade it will be increased to 10 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9. Ether way the F-35 will have an air to air capability that is second only to the F-22.
 

ROCK45

New Member
external hardpoints

Sorry I was just talking about internal weapons stations. Yes of course external hardpoint would add more. Defeats the purpose of the stealth in a way but you know an enemy aircrafts radar might not pick up the F-35 so easily. You might be in AMRAAMs range or close to it by the time a radar picks them up hanging under a wing. That would be strange for a pilot to see the missiles but not the aircraft?

Aussie Digger
I agree dual rail AMRAAM launchers would increase the warload.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
Sorry I was just talking about internal weapons stations. Yes of course external hardpoint would add more. Defeats the purpose of the stealth in a way but you know an enemy aircrafts radar might not pick up the F-35 so easily. You might be in AMRAAMs range or close to it by the time a radar picks them up hanging under a wing. That would be strange for a pilot to see the missiles but not the aircraft?

Aussie Digger
I agree dual rail AMRAAM launchers would increase the warload.
Well even with external weapons the F-35 will still be stealthier than any F-15, Su-30, Su-35 or anything else that I know of. Honestly I don't see the F-35 using the so called stealth mode other than night strikes that the F-117 did. The rest of the missions will have external weapons to max out the F-35s striking power.:D
 

ROCK45

New Member
stealth mode

Good point F-15 Eagle night attacks like you mention and on fighter patrols. I know there's aren't too many places in the world the stealth fighters are currently needed for such a missions but it they were it would be used. I think another way the stealth mode might be use would be like the no fly zone set up where ground based radar's would turn on every now and then. I agree in most cases if would be used just like a F-16s. SAM or anti-aircraft batteries threats would be dealt with as part of the pre-strike mission, UAV, lead in stealth aircraft, stand-off weapons, etc.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
I have a theoretical question. What would happen if say a F-22 and a F-35 were to have a mock dogfight with each other? I would seam like two men trying to fight each other in the dark, both have a gun(missile) and a flash light(radar), but whoever uses the flash light(a.k.a. the radar) first is already dead. To me that is what I think a dogfight between two stealth fighter jets would be like. But also, how does a F-35 compete with a Su-30/35 or the Mig-35? Since those are the jets the F-35 is most likely to face in future wars.
 

jaffo4011

New Member
Right now the F-35 can carry 2 AIM-120s internally and 4 more externally plus two AIM-9s on the wing tips for a total of 8 AAMs, comparable to the F-22 and F-15. But with the upgrade it will be increased to 10 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9. Ether way the F-35 will have an air to air capability that is second only to the F-22.
how do we know that to be true,its theoretical at this time and needs to be backed up by facts.

and isnt this thread about the norwegen fighter purchase of which the f22 isnt in the remote picture...
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
how do we know that to be true,its theoretical at this time and needs to be backed up by facts.

and isn't this thread about the Norwegian fighter purchase of which the f22 isn't in the remote picture...
Because the F-35 is designed to carry 2 internal air to air missiles (though this can be increased to 6) and 2 stations for bombs internally plus 6 external weapons for a wide range of air to air and air to ground weapons or fuel tanks. I know this because that is what the F-35 was designed for. Its payload is more than 20,000+lbs that is more than the legacy fighters it will replace and it is more than even the F-22 Raptor. The U.S. will never export the F-22, the USAF too busy trying to get more F-22s for themselves before they even start thinking about exporting it, so no Norway will not get the F-22, but they could get the F-35.
 

ROCK45

New Member
F-35 vs others

F-15 Eagle
how does a F-35 compete with a Su-30/35 or the Mig-35? Since those are the jets the F-35 is most likely to face in future wars.
Very carefully two of the jets you mention are real and deadly fighters. Its theoretical at this time since those types of test haven't completed on the unfinished F-35 but, there's always a but. One can assume since the F-35 is basically built off the F-22 program know how picking it up and locking radar guided missiles should be a difficult feat to do. Keeping the fight mid to long range even if the target aircraft can pick up the F-35 radar it should get into good launching positions. Getting into good firing positions with modern air to air missiles usually means air to air kills. It's very difficult to say how good the stealth will work on an aircraft that's not really produced and may change many more times before being released. My personnel feeling is if the F-22 can have it's way F-15C pure fighter jocks 4,5, etc at one time and the F-35 is built mainly after the F-22 well I think it should be a very good aircraft/platform. Time will tell in this case and we still have a few years to go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top