Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F35 Might Explode Mid-air  
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3396 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6371 times:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f...ploding-lightning-fuel-tank-2013-1

Seriously?

Should we start a pool on how much money the DOD is going to throw at them this time?
Or what reduction in performance the DOD will say is fine?

Its so hard to know with Lock-Mart. Apparently only somewhat worse than Walmart at making planes.

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6340 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While I'm a critic of the F-35 program, this hardly seems like a huge problem. Either the OBIGGS is not generating enough inert gas in all situations, or as the article implies, the tank sensor isn't doing an adequate job reporting on the oxygen level in the tanks. Neither should be a big thing to fix.

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6323 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 1):
Neither should be a big thing to fix.

The problem has been known since 2009 from what I read.... So while I believe you, It doesn't appear that easy is something LM can do quickly.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6310 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 2):
The problem has been known since 2009 from what I read.... So while I believe you, It doesn't appear that easy is something LM can do quickly.

Or the DOD doesn't appear to care that it will be an issue... remember, the F-14 had severe problems with buffeting that was discovered during flight testing under certain flight regimes. The DOD elected to ignore the issue and never ordered a fix for it.

Ditto the F/A-18E/F's store separation issue; they never properly fixed the issue by redesigning the wing, they elected to cant the pylons, which caused acceleration problems when loaded (increased drag).

Also note that flying in a thunderstorm deliberately is never recommended although it may have to be done for operational reasons, otherwise they are avoided where possible even with today's fighters. Also note that the issue with lightning protection is an issue with certification:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...17/dod-quick-look-ahern-report.pdf

Lightning Protection: The F-35 employs an active lightning protection system, which presents challenges to certification compared to a more conventional passive system. A 25 nm lightning restriction and dive rate limitations are in place for all aircraft until partial certification is completed at the end of 2012, with full certification expected in the 2014-2016 timeframe." PAGE 8
________________________

"Lightning Protection: The F-35 employs an active lightning protection system, which presents challenges to certification compared to a more conventional passive system. The F-35 outer surfaces are safety compliant, but there are seven subsystems not yet meeting safety qualification standards..... In addition, there is no fuel tank inerting (and therefore no lightning protection) when aircraft are parked. Improved inerting is being addressed via a two-phase design effort. The first phase has completed a Preliminary Design Review and will focus on OBIGGS changes. The second phase will emphasies fuel vent valve redesign in order to allow full dive rate capability (however, this is not currently scheduled before 2014). The contractor is also investigating design options for lightning protection while aircraft are parked, such as pre-charging fuel tanks with nitrogen using an auxiliary cart and adding a dedicated service port to the aircraft.

In the interim, a 25 nm lightning restriction and dive rate limitations are in place for all aircraft until partial certification is completed at the end of 2012, with full certification expected in the 2014-2016 timeframe. As Eglin AFB is located in a significant lightning environment, the current 25 nm restriction could lead to cancelling an estimated 25-50 percent of planned training events due to typical proximity and frequency of thunderstorm activity.

Conclusion: Moderate Concurrency Risk - full certification is not expected until 2014-2016" PAGE 18


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6163 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 1):
While I'm a critic of the F-35 program, this hardly seems like a huge problem. Either the OBIGGS is not generating enough inert gas in all situations, or as the article implies, the tank sensor isn't doing an adequate job reporting on the oxygen level in the tanks. Neither should be a big thing to fix.

Agreed.

This is nothing more than sensationalistic tabloid journalism, the kooks in the anti-jsf crowd are really starting to get desperate now that F-35's are arriving into operational squadrons. Soon their voices will be shut for good.


User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5964 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 4):
This is nothing more than sensationalistic tabloid journalism, the kooks in the anti-jsf crowd are really starting to get desperate now that F-35's are arriving into operational squadrons. Soon their voices will be shut for good.

Uhm, okay.   

Marine Major Aric "Walleye" Liberman was uncharacteristically modest for a Navy SEAL turned fighter pilot. He had just landed an F-35--one of the 2,457 jets the Pentagon plans to buy for $400 billion, making it the costliest weapons program in human history--at its initial operational base late last year. Amid celebratory hoopla, he declined photographers' requests to give a thumbs-up for the cameras that sunny day in Yuma, Ariz. "No, no, no," he demurred with a smile.

Liberman's reticence was understandable. For while the Marines hailed his arrival as a sign that their initial F-35 squadron is now operational, there's one sticking point. "It's an operational squadron," a Marine spokesman said. "The aircraft is not operational."



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136312-1,00.html

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5807 times:

lol another 'lets hate on the F-35' thread. Must be too many things going right for the F-35 this week.


This problem has probably been known for years, but there were bigger issues to be delt with, also because flying your untested fighter jet into a thunder store would probably be a bad idea to start with.

I would also like to add the titles of the last few F-35 articles BI has posted. Seems to be somewhat biased.

How The F-35 Turned Into Such A Disaster

The F-35 Could Explode In Midair If Struck By Lightning

There's No Way The F-35 Will Ever Match The Eurofighter In Aerial Combat

Completion Of The $382 Billion F-35 Fighter Project Is Nowhere In Sight

The F-35 Isn't Going Anywhere And The Pentagon Wants You To Know It

What It Really Means If Canada Ditches America's F-35

Marines Field First Operational Squadron Of F-35 Stealth Fighters

Canada's F-35s Are Now $37 Billion More Than Promised And It's Outraging The Whole Country

DEFECTIONS HAVE BEGUN: Canada Rejects The Pricey F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Pentagon Slams 'Worst Ever' Contractor Lockheed Over F-35 Problems

[Edited 2013-02-19 12:58:02]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5733 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 4):
This is nothing more than sensationalistic tabloid journalism, the kooks in the anti-jsf crowd are really starting to get desperate now that F-35's are arriving into operational squadrons.

Your opinion. And, since F-35 is still only part way through its' development phase, the term 'operational' is fantasy at best. More depot level work to be done with these 'operational' a/c (my opinion...).

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 4):
Soon their voices will be shut for good.

Sequestration is coming...Australia now seriously looking to bail (I am thinking another 24 SH order very likely), Harper and his gang now possibly looking at alternatives, particularly with the DND funding cutbacks. Netherlands parliament has voted to bail.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5729 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):
I would also like to add the titles of the last few F-35 articles BI has posted. Seems to be somewhat biased.

A fine, unbiased source.   Numpties.

You never see anyone writing articles when the F-35 reaches milestones. Just shows you that only bad news sells. What's worse is, that people are naive enough to only look at one side of the picture. Pretty pathetic when you get monthly F-35 horror stories that end up in threads on this forum.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5724 times:

http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheed+Ma...Lightning+Attacks/article29659.htm

Its all bias... right....


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5698 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Sequestration is coming...Australia now seriously looking to bail (I am thinking another 24 SH order very likely), Harper and his gang now possibly looking at alternatives, particularly with the DND funding cutbacks. Netherlands parliament has voted to bail.

Japan is widely expected to increase their order to 200 F-35's. Singapore is a likely customer as they are a Security Cooperative Participant. South Korea has also looked into F-35. Finland has expressed interest in F-35 with a decision in 2015. The UAE has asked for information on F-35's, possibly with an aim to purchase.

If there is further sequestration, foreign governments that have orders and would like F-35's earlier could be asked to see if they are interested in earlier slots (such as Israel and Japan). New export customers that sign on might also be interested in earlier slots.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 9):
http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheed+Ma...Lightning+Attacks/article29659.htm

Its all bias... right....

Dailytech is known for sensationalism, so read their articles with a grain of salt.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5657 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Australia now seriously looking to bail
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Harper and his gang now possibly looking at alternatives
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Netherlands parliament has voted to bail.

And 9/11 was a possible an inside job, and the US perhaps never landed on the moon, and....blah blah. All hearsay and rumours. There have been more countries added to the F35 purchase list than there have who have bailed. Everyone is "looking" at alternatives just to stall so the clueless opposition has something else to whine about.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5531 times:

And for brighter news; new capabilities of the F-35's AN/AAQ-37 DAS system is demonstrated; it can detect hostile tank fire:

http://news.morningstar.com/all/glob...ile-fire-detection-capability.aspx

Quote:
BALTIMORE, Feb. 11, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS), developed for the F-35 Lightning II, has added hostile ground fire detection to its capabilities by successfully detecting and locating tanks that were firing live rounds during preparations for a military exercise.

A video accompanying this release is available on YouTube at http://youtu.be/fHZO0T5mDYU.

While being flown on Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance. In addition to artillery, the system is able to simultaneously detect and pinpoint the location of rockets and anti-aircraft artillery fired in a wide area.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZO0T5mDYU&feature=youtu.be

Short video going over the system here: http://youtu.be/e1NrFZddihQ

This is a potential growth area for the F-35, and can change how close air support is provided to ground forces. Once you overlay the image with Blue Force Tracking information, and the JTAC you're talking to is asking for fire on some hostiles near some say, apartment buildings, I'd suggest the "talk down" phase could be speeded up considerably, less passes over the target, much faster and more positive hand-off to the aircraft because you can very quickly narrow down the sources of fire, and start talking back to the JTAC like you're on the same page.

If, while you're doing all of that some one chucks an MANPAD at you, you can be alerted not only of that fact, but where it came from, take evasive action, and respond to the threat without ever losing the picture of the ground elements.

That'd be pretty depressing for the bad guys - you get *one* free shot, maximum, then you get to meet your maker as a SDB or a JDAM comes down on you.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5325 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 11):
And 9/11 was a possible an inside job, and the US perhaps never landed on the moon, and....blah blah. All hearsay and rumours. There have been more countries added to the F35 purchase list than there have who have bailed. Everyone is "looking" at alternatives just to stall so the clueless opposition has something else to whine about.

And blah blah blah from your p.o.v. to justify an unjustifiable purchase (for Canada). As for the other unrelated topics you brought in, I guess there must be some bud in your living room. Every military will look at possible F-35 capabilities and say "geez, I wish we had some of those" and then the politicians (reality) will remind them of what they can actually afford.

Sequestration is coming...and a good thing, too. In the longer run. The change itself will be a bit bumpy.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5211 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13):
And blah blah blah from your p.o.v. to justify an unjustifiable purchase (for Canada).

Speaking of bud in the living room.....


User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5198 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
While being flown on Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance.

Neat. Why don't we buy some used BAC 1-11's and save ourselves a ton of cash.... 

F-35 A/B/C = Colossal Waste of Taxpayer Money.

My opinion.

There is something wrong with a weapons procurement program when you start planning cuts to your military manning just to pay for it.

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5034 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
That'd be pretty depressing for the bad guys - you get *one* free shot, maximum, then you get to meet your maker as a SDB or a JDAM comes down on you.

Assuming your perfect F-35, your scenario is only possible if the F-35 has any bombs left, since it only carries 2,000lbs of bombs for the Marines and 4,000lbs for the others into stealth combat - and only if they go in without any A2A missiles, which would also mean the F-35 is defenseless against any aircraft if it is discovered. And we know it can't outrun anything, so the F-35 without A2A would be basically dead if it meets any fighters at any range. The Marine Version would basically always operate without any A2A defenses, because otherwise it would carry no bombs at all into battle.

Any pilot flying against the F-35 Marine version over enemy territory, can bet it is probably not carrying any A2A missiles and no canon either. And since it can't outrun or out maneuver anything, the F-35 can be picked off by just about any old enemy fighter - even a MIG-21. That's right, it would not be able to outrun or outflank even an old MACH 2, 8.5 G, MIG-21, much less anything else.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4989 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 9):

http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheed Ma...Lightning Attacks/article29659.htm

Its all bias... right....

Biased, not liars. There is a stark difference. They just choose to leave out nearly everything positive that goes on with the F-35.



And Canada will get the F-35. Harper wants it, the DND wants it. Yes, there should have been a proper tender... but end of the day, the RCAF will get it.

If we get F/A-18E/F... it is going to be an end of life product in 10 years. Every update to keep it flying will have to come out of our pocket in development costs. Hate to see another Kosovo for our fighters.

Dont get me wrong, I love the F/A-18E/F (and would love to see it in RCAF markings), but the F-35, even if it does cost more, will be more bang for the buck down the line. Rolling operational costs into the purchase price is bull shit. How much would the CF-18s have cost of you pulled that math wizardry back in the late 70s. If you rolled every simulator, upgrade, flight hour, facility built/upgrade, every ml of fuel... the price would be staggering.

[Edited 2013-02-21 10:33:37]

[Edited 2013-02-21 10:34:19]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4952 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 16):

Assuming your perfect F-35, your scenario is only possible if the F-35 has any bombs left, since it only carries 2,000lbs of bombs for the Marines and 4,000lbs for the others into stealth combat - and only if they go in without any A2A missiles, which would also mean the F-35 is defenseless against any aircraft if it is discovered.

That is right Tommy because none of the F-35 versions have two dedicated internal A2A stations...  
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 16):
The Marine Version would basically always operate without any A2A defenses, because otherwise it would carry no bombs at all into battle.

Indeed, without those two dedicated internal A2A stations and without the stealthed external cannon pod on station 6 the F-35B will be a sitting duck!


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4876 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 16):
Assuming your perfect F-35, your scenario is only possible if the F-35 has any bombs left, since it only carries 2,000lbs of bombs for the Marines and 4,000lbs for the others into stealth combat

Assuming in your perfect scenario there is only one F-35 flying around. I know you hate the F-35 because you don't understand it but holy crap.....   


User currently offlinegipsy From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4682 times:

So you know in advance which threat will be coming to you? WVR or BVR? That's a nice feature.  

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4636 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 18):

Indeed, without those two dedicated internal A2A stations and without the stealthed external cannon pod on station 6 the F-35B will be a sitting duck!

That's true. There could be some F-35's carrying only A2A missiles into battle to escort the bombers. That means - at best - a 2 for 1 kill ratio, Assuming for every F-35 carrying only a bomb load, there is one escorting, carrying 4 A2A missiles. But if even one enemy fighter survives, it'll pick off a bunch of F-35s with short range IR missiles and it's gun, even if it's a MIG-21.

In general, using the F-35 as an air superiority fighter is not a good idea. However, it is replacing a bunch of fighters and that is how it'll be used as well.

The Achilles Heal of the F-35 is it can't carrying much into battle using stealth and has poor airframe performance, while the enemy carries a boat load into battle and can always catch or outmaneuver the F-35- though yes, not radar stealthy.

But radar stealth matters less these days because of passive sensors. To remain stealthy, attacking F-35s would not use their radars in a sweeping manner, as doing so would reveal their presence - especially in A2A roles. The Rafale and Typhoon already display the passive sensors on the pilot's visors and can shoot using voice commands. This is not new.

The strong point is the data link with other radars and planes. However, even today this is not unique to the F-35.

Overall, for A2A, it's not the strong point of the F-35 and it is vulnerable in my opinion if not escorted by better A2A aircraft. Even the F-18s would do, carrying a boat load of A2A missiles and their canon, scanning with their radar, sharing the image with everyone. This goes double if it is the F-35B doing the bombing.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
If, while you're doing all of that some one chucks an MANPAD at you, you can be alerted not only of that fact, but where it came from, take evasive action, and respond to the threat without ever losing the picture of the ground elements.

Using one of the very few bombs the F-35 does carry would be wasted on a MANPAD, assuming the missile misses the F-35 - some are IR guided. The F-35 is so expensive and asset and carries so few bombs in stealth, that it would be foolish to used it to take out one MANPAD that has already fired and which it has have already evaded.

The only unique new thing the F-35 does offers is radar stealth, mostly from the front aspect, at the expense of fewer bombs or missiles carried into battle to accomplish it. However, also with much poorer airframe performance at a much higher per frame acquisition cost and operating cost. A much poorer bang for the buck than what it is replacing.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4609 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
while the enemy carries a boat load into battle and can always catch or outmaneuver the F-35-

What enemy carries more and is smart enough to get WVR to somehow out-maneuver a coalition of F-35s? Fantasy.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4592 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 22):
What enemy carries more and is smart enough to get WVR to somehow out-maneuver a coalition of F-35s?

Any other fighter carries more than 4 A2A missiles than a stealth F-35 carries and they all carry a canon to boot. Being WVR is not even necessary to shoot down an F-35 without radar. If the passive sensors detect the F-35, against which it is not any more stealthy than any other fighter, it's in a bad spot right away. The F-35 is probably less stealthy than existing fighters there, since it emits a round, large and hot exhaust plume. So hot in fact, that it burns itself up right now, which is why it is speed limited for now till that is addressed.

To think that by 2020 there won't be a hole row of IR guided long range missiles, with datalink mid course guidance, is fantasy. The french MICA already has this BVR IR capability today. The F-35s might see them coming after they're fired, but good luck outmaneuvering one. The F-35 is stealthy only to active radar from certain angles and that's it.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4582 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
Any other fighter carries more than 4 A2A missiles than a stealth F-35 carries and they all carry a canon to boot.

What "any other fighter"? Which country, that is an enemy of NATO or the US for that matter, has enough fighters, weapons and proficient pilots to go against a squadron of F-35's that would be flown by the best aircrews in the world?


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7292 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 24):
Which country, that is an enemy of NATO or the US for that matter, has enough fighters, weapons and proficient pilots to go against a squadron of F-35's that would be flown by the best aircrews in the world?

The British are only getting 48 of them  


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4608 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 24):
What "any other fighter"?

You name it, and it carries more

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 24):
Which country, that is an enemy of NATO or the US

There are none. We are not at war with anyone, nor is any NATO country. The larger, more capable countries like Russia or China, are not countries that we will ever go to war against either. So what is the point of this thing? We can kill people on camels, horses, hiding in caves and houses, tanks and pick up trucks very well right now.

So answer the basic question: Which potential enemy country is the stealth of the F-35 needed for, that the B-2 couldn't handle? If there is no good answer, then there is no good reason for this expensive plane.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 18):

Indeed, without those two dedicated internal A2A stations and without the stealthed external cannon pod on station 6 the F-35B will be a sitting duck!

That's true. There could be some F-35's carrying only A2A missiles into battle to escort the bombers. That means - at best - a 2 for 1 kill ratio, Assuming for every F-35 carrying only a bomb load, there is one escorting, carrying 4 A2A missiles. But if even one enemy fighter survives, it'll pick off a bunch of F-35s with short range IR missiles and it's gun, even if it's a MIG-21.

Let me make this very clear. EVERY F-35 has TWO dedicated A2A internal weapons stations. These weapon stations do not carry bombs, they only carry A2A missiles. That means the ONLY time an F-35 will not be carrying two air to air missiles, most likely AIM-120s, is when the nation operating the F-35 has run out of them.......


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4456 times:

Quoting gipsy (Reply 20):
So you know in advance which threat will be coming to you? WVR or BVR? That's a nice feature.

Essentially correct. With F-35, there is absolutely no way for a enemy to try to sneak up, take a shot at it, and NOT be detected and tracked immediately. The range of EODAS is likely far enough, to where the F-35 will know of the launch aircraft, before a missile is fired (especially when combined with third party information, and an ESM system second only to the F-22's).

Bottom line, if you don't know you are in a fight until the other guy fires you are likely on your way to a bad day. With the new systems present on F-35, you will know you are going to be in a fight long before the other guy has a chance to fire on you.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
The Rafale and Typhoon already display the passive sensors on the pilot's visors and can shoot using voice commands. This is not new.

Incorrect. Rafale and Typhoon does not have the 360 degree IR coverage that the F-35 has. EODAS is considerably more capable in terms of its ability to detect, track, and guide weapons, in addition to providing IR image of the area. In addition, EODAS is also able to accurately track friendlies and hostiles around the battlefield, and provide that information to the pilot via the HMD. Some F-35 pilots have termed what the F-35's sensors can do is essentially turn a night time battlefield into day, and also see in other spectrums. They have also done some testing recently in where the test pilot actually put a vision-restrictive device over his visor, so he couldn’t optically see the outside world, but he had the sensor information pumped into his visor and he was able to virtually see the outside world.

Not only that, F-35 can project the image from the EODAS system directly onto the visor. Rafale and Typhoon do not have this capability; a Rafale and Typhoon pilot needs NVG's to see at night.

In night time ACM, the F-35 Helmet will be a game-changer, no doubt. The issue with night ACM is the tendency for one or more jets to hit the ground due to a lack of horizon and altitude reference, including the EF-111 kill during the Iraq '91 war. There have been several fatal mishaps during night ACM training, most notably when a F-15 pilot ejected out supersonic and survived, although the WSO was killed in the mishap. The F-35 helmet will have considerably better horizon and spatial reference because the field of view is not as limited as compared to JHMCS equipped pilot in another jet fighter using NVG, so all things being equal, disorientation is considerably less likely to occur but still quite possible.

Also, it means that a F-35 pilot is more confident at what he is shooting at; through the information provided and merged by the sensors and datalinks, a F-35 pilot can more easily detect if an approaching aircraft is hostile and know where in relation the approaching aircraft is, and where his wing mates and other friendlies and neutrals are, especially at night. In the Gulf War and over Kosovo, at least one F-15 pilot reported being unsure of the target was actually a enemy jet (especially a MiG-29 or a MiG-25) and not a F-15 friendly, although this was due to an IFF malfunction. Good tactics prevented a blue-on-blue kill from IFF issues.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
But radar stealth matters less these days because of passive sensors.

Well without getting into specifics about any particular system, late model IRSTs are limited to ranges in the ~25-45nm range, against head on fighter size targets (afterburning), and ~50-70+nm against a rear aspect (afterburning). Radar is still the king of long range detection and tracking.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4355 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 26):
You name it, and it carries more

So nothing. Got it.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 26):
Which potential enemy country is the stealth of the F-35 needed for, that the B-2 couldn't handle?

I don't recall B-2's doing daily CAS over Afghanistan or participating EVERY DAY in Libya. Whether the F35 is needed or not is not up to civilians to decide. There is a reason why the government doesn't hold public referendums on what weapon systems to buy. Civies should stay in their lane.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4360 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 26):
So answer the basic question: Which potential enemy country is the stealth of the F-35 needed for, that the B-2 couldn't handle? If there is no good answer, then there is no good reason for this expensive plane.

I see this question is being avoided.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 28):
Incorrect.

Um, no, the Rafale and Typhoon can do what I said they can, that much is not classified. You might be surprised if you look it up.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 28):
ot only that, F-35 can project the image from the EODAS system directly onto the visor.

No, because the F-35 has no working visor or helmet yet. It can not do that until something that actually works is fielded, years from now probably, while the European helmets and visor display systems are already operational and only getting better. You continually compare future technology and sales brochure promises against today's existing technology and thus discount improvements to existing competing technology. You also make claims that you can not possibly know, like claiming the F-35's passive sensors are better or have longer detection ranges (in the future) than other fighters. Nobody can know that, and certainly not you, since the F-35 system doesn't even work yet and much of these metrics on all fighters are classified.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 27):
That means the ONLY time an F-35 will not be carrying two air to air missiles, most likely AIM-120s, is when the nation operating the F-35 has run out of them.......

Really? The long range AM-120 do not fit into the smaller bays, only into the larger bays, displacing most bombs. If these large missiles are carried, they would displace any bombs in the larger bomb bays. With large AIM-120s, any bombs would have to be carried in the smaller bays. This means any F-35s (A and C) carrying 2 AIM-120s in the larger bays for beyond visual range shots, could only carry 4 x 250 lbs GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs in the smaller bays. That's 1,000lbs of bombs. That means 1 x B-2 would be the equivalent of 40 F-35s configured like that. Makes no sense and we have the B-2 right now.

More than likely the F-35 would carry 4,000lbs of bombs in the larger bays and 2x short range (AIM-132 or AIM-9X) in the smaller bays. And other F-35 would not carry any bombs and only A2A missiles as escorts. The F-35 simply has no internal room to carry 4,000lbs and also large long range BVR AIM-120s or similar BVR missiles simultaneously. There is no room. Sorry to burst your bubble.

The F-35B is even worse and more space constrained.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4355 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
Really? The long range AM-120 do not fit into the smaller bays, only into the larger bays, displacing most bombs. If these large missiles are carried, they would displace any bombs in the larger bomb bays.

Some of us actually know what we are talking about........

http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_test/a/sdd_f35testa_070.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6DyML-EPAKE/URluW0OucpI/AAAAAAAAB7o/SAo4-tY7GW4/s1600/F35+hardpoints.bmp
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
The F-35B is even worse and more space constrained.

It can carry the same AIM-120 on the dedicated A2A weapon station but is limited to a 1,500lbs on the A2G station.

And before you go there, the AIM-120 is the same diameter for all versions with the C & D models having clipped fins for internal carriage.


User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2786 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4310 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

The discussion has gone off topic. It will be archived. All posts after the lock will be removed for housekeeping purposes only.
Thanks
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Hellenic F-16 Mid Air Collision posted Thu Aug 26 2010 09:19:44 by SandroMag
Mid Air Collision Uscg C130 And Usmc Cobra posted Fri Oct 30 2009 00:26:25 by Mascmo
2 Russian Knights Su-27's Mid-air Collision posted Sun Aug 16 2009 08:10:10 by NCB
Last Time Airforce 1 Mid Air Refueled? posted Thu Apr 23 2009 16:53:39 by Runga08
Can A Tanker Be Refuled In Mid-air? posted Tue May 8 2007 23:56:05 by Pizzaandplanes
Red Arrows In Mid - Air Collision posted Fri Jan 12 2007 17:31:12 by EZYAirbus
RAF Shawbury Mid-air Crash posted Wed Jan 10 2007 19:13:12 by BmiBaby737
T-38 Near Mid-air Collision Video posted Mon Dec 18 2006 07:12:40 by OPNLguy
B-2 Near Mid Air Collision. posted Fri Aug 11 2006 03:28:06 by Bwood
Raaf Roulettes Mid-air Collision posted Fri Jan 21 2005 03:27:22 by VH-KCT*