User avatar
747classic
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:06 pm

Ashton Carter, deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, will reconsider all aspects of the F-35's current programme, including design, manufacture and flight test, to prevent further delays and cost overruns.
See following article :
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...sought-to-avert-more-problems.html

[Edited 2009-11-12 07:07:30]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:51 pm

I found these comments from the article interesting ...

"The F-35, meanwhile, continues to face new flight-test delays. Aircraft BF-1, the first short take-off and vertical landing prototype, remains at Lockheed's facility in Fort Worth, Texas. It is already several weeks late in ferrying the aircraft to Patuxent River, Maryland, where it must complete its first transition from forward flight to vertical landing.

Lockheed's first weight-optimised conventional take-off and landing flight test aircraft, AF-1, also has still has not achieved its first flight."

Does anyone know what the cause for the delays is?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:57 am



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 1):
Does anyone know what the cause for the delays is?

Haha!
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:15 am

O Geez. Another cluster of a program. The military industrial complex at its best at milking money for itself. Eisenhower warned us. At what point would it be cheaper to just cancel and go with the Rafael or Typhoon? Of course manufacture the units in the US to keep jobs and industry here employed. But this magnitude in over runs and delays is just incompetent at its worst. What then, if the performance is subpar as well? Ok, so I'm down on this waste of money, who wouldn't?
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:06 pm



Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 3):
At what point would it be cheaper to just cancel and go with the Rafael or Typhoon?

I didn't realize the Rafael or Typhoon had the STOL and VTOL capabilities that the F-35 will.  Yeah sure
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
evomutant
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:47 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:01 pm



Quoting Mayor (Reply 4):

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 3):
At what point would it be cheaper to just cancel and go with the Rafael or Typhoon?

I didn't realize the Rafael or Typhoon had the STOL and VTOL capabilities that the F-35 will. Yeah sure

Neither will most of the US F35's. I don't know how many of each variant the States will order, but i'm guessing the B will not be the most numerous.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:23 pm



Quoting Mayor (Reply 4):
I didn't realize the Rafael or Typhoon had the STOL and VTOL capabilities that the F-35 will. Yeah sure

Well at least the Rafael is carrier capable and makes landing in Us carriers from time to time. So that would be off the shelf ready. To me, the F-35 is like a Swiss Knife - an expensive one. Jack of all trades but master of none. It can also only remain in stealth if it does not carry external loads.

The Rafael on the other hand seems capable on many levels. It's just a great compromise design, not made for 100% stealth, let's call it 50% stealth - especially with the outer surface coating material. The 100% stealth approach of the F-35 design is what is hampering it, in my opinion. New radars will be able to detect 100% stealth designs anyway, like the F3 Rafael radar already can to some degree.

It works like this (I've read): Where there is a stealth aircraft, there is no or very little return signal to the originating radar, unlike the background and other aircraft. So the radar computer can point out this "hole" and track it. This is of course an infinitely simplified explanation.

Anyway, F-35 is already way expensive and if more cancellations come it'll get more expensive still. This is, in my opinion, an out of control program and military contractor consortium.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:02 am



Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 6):
To me, the F-35 is like a Swiss Knife - an expensive one. Jack of all trades but master of none. It can also only remain in stealth if it does not carry external loads.

First, look at how many aircraft it is replacing. The USAF doesn't need another thoroughbred beast, that is what the F-22 is for. Second, no one expect the F-35 or even F-22 to always be stealthy. When stealth is important, they will fly clean profiles. When it is time to chase tanks and bomb low risk targets, the fly dirty. The ability to be stealthy when needed is what is important.

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 6):
The 100% stealth approach of the F-35 design is what is hampering it, in my opinion.

Its shape is not what is hampering it, squeezing a F/A-18, F-16, AV-8B, and A-10 into one airframe is the problem. When was the last time a advanced high technology military program was on time or on budget? This is not the 40s where they can design and fly a aircraft in 117 days. Modern fighters are a bit more complicated these days.

The US already has gen 4/4.5 fighters, the F-16C/D, F/A-18E/F, and soon the F-15SE (and they dont even fly the F-16C/D). An advanced F-16 could handle a Typhoon pretty well, but the US doesn't like fair fights.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:01 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 7):
Its shape is not what is hampering it, squeezing a F/A-18, F-16, AV-8B, and A-10 into one airframe is the problem. When was the last time a advanced high technology military program was on time or on budget? This is not the 40s where they can design and fly a aircraft in 117 days. Modern fighters are a bit more complicated these days.

It was the same more than 40 years ago. Read "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich and you'll see exactly why those kinds of problems are encountered and why each new problem or requirement by the gov't. costs so much, especially during the Blackbird program. This was in the early 60s.

Somewhat the same problems when the U-2 was being developed in the 50s.

[Edited 2009-11-15 20:32:13 by mayor]
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3152
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:52 am

And for some good news on the F-35 project: The first production-standard A model, AF-1, finally flew for the first time on Saturday.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:19 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 1):
"The F-35, meanwhile, continues to face new flight-test delays. Aircraft BF-1, the first short take-off and vertical landing prototype, remains at Lockheed's facility in Fort Worth, Texas.

BF-1 arrived Pax River Sunday 15 Nov 2009.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:13 pm

The F-35 program won't be cancelled, it has too much economic and political momentum to it. What will happen is what has already happened to the B-2 and F-22: planned procurement figures will be viciously and heinously slashed...

Faro

[Edited 2009-11-20 05:14:24]
The chalice not my son
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5214
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:50 am

And eager/willing customers would take up the slack from undecided partners.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...xt-main-fighter-jet%3A-report.html

Japan mulls F-35 purchase as next main fighter jet: report
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Flighty
Posts: 7681
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:14 am

It's pretty clear Japan and others would like to buy it. The question is, when is the best time for them to gather around the campfire without paying too much of their own money. So far, they have been smart to wait it out. Who wants to pay all these development costs? Let the Americans do it.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:18 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
It's pretty clear Japan and others would like to buy it. The question is, when is the best time for them to gather around the campfire without paying too much of their own money. So far, they have been smart to wait it out. Who wants to pay all these development costs? Let the Americans do it.

It doesn't matter when you purchase an aircraft (or any other item) the development costs are included in the price.

Seems Japan has made a decision:

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/general/20091123_f-35_fighter.html
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5214
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:11 am

So has Australia.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ns-initial-order-for-14-ctols.html

Quote:
"The Minister for Defence, Senator John Faulkner, today announced that the Australian Government had approved acquisition of the first batch of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft as foreshadowed in the 2009 Defence White Paper.

[.....]

The Government has approved acquisition of the first 14 Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) Joint Strike Fighters and infrastructure and support required for initial training and testing, at an estimated cost of $3.2 billion.

'Approval of this first batch of JSF aircraft is evidence of the Rudd Government’s strong commitment to defence and our commitment to implementing the Defence White Paper,' Senator Faulkner said.

Approval of the next batch of aircraft and all necessary support and enabling capabilities, sufficient to establish three operational squadrons and a training squadron of CTOL JSF, will be considered in 2012. This will fulfil our White Paper commitment to acquire three operational squadrons comprising not fewer than 72 aircraft."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1458
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:38 am



Quoting Oroka (Reply 7):
An advanced F-16 could handle a Typhoon pretty well, but the US doesn't like fair fights.

Nonsense, it would have little chance against it, aswell against the Rafale.  banghead 
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:37 pm



Quoting Autothrust (Reply 16):
Quoting Oroka (Reply 7):
An advanced F-16 could handle a Typhoon pretty well, but the US doesn't like fair fights.

Nonsense, it would have little chance against it, aswell against the Rafale.

My understanding is that there's only one air-to-air bird that can relatively easily overcome the Typhoon, and that's the F-22A. Typhoon is one tough bird to beat in air-to-air.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:06 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 17):
My understanding is that there's only one air-to-air bird that can relatively easily overcome the Typhoon, and that's the F-22A. Typhoon is one tough bird to beat in air-to-air.

What about an AESA equipped F-18F?
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
spudh
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:24 pm

F-18F had a hard time WVR with an F-14D or even F-18C. It loses all the number games to the EF.

Basing air supremacy on the superiority of the radar is back to putting the fight into the missile instead of the fighter. I thought the Missileer and the gun-less phantom killed that argument 30 years ago.

The only game changer will be an advance in passive detection so unless AESA can produce a firing solution using the opposing fighters emmisions then the F-18F has nothing but the pilot to give it an advantage over the EF.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:16 am

As always the case, the scenario can often dictate the outcome.

With updated AMRAAMs and powerful AESA radars, AIM-9X and JHMCS, they can make even an F-4 a potent adversary let alone an AESA powered F-18F that can sling 11 AAM's. Sure, in a 1v1 it sweats against a legacy Hornet let alone being dictated to by a GE powered F-14, but it's got a powerful radar and potent missiles who don't care what brought them to the fight.
 
spudh
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:52 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 20):
As always the case, the scenario can often dictate the outcome.

With updated AMRAAMs and powerful AESA radars, AIM-9X and JHMCS, they can make even an F-4 a potent adversary let alone an AESA powered F-18F that can sling 11 AAM's. Sure, in a 1v1 it sweats against a legacy Hornet let alone being dictated to by a GE powered F-14, but it's got a powerful radar and potent missiles who don't care what brought them to the fight.

Agreed.

I was thinking some more about it, can a section of F-18F's act as hunter-killer combo's with one producing a firing solution from outside the missile envelope of the opposing fighter while the other closes without using its own radar to get off a shot using data link info from the first?

Otherwise you're back to the old F-15/sparrow scenario (and right into the F-14/phoeniix advantage) where the range of the radar far exceeds the range of the missile and the F15 is vulnerable as it closes to gain a firing solution. Even though you've detected the opposition at longer range than he can detect you, your radar has alerted him to your presence and the element of surprise is gone. Granted AMRAAM is far superior to sparrow but I wonder what its real range in full active mode is. I bet no more than 10 miles, probably less.

No matter how superior the F-18F radar is (and I doubt that the gap between last generation conventional and 1st gen AESA is as wide as people think), the EF radar is going to be operating right in the heart of its sweet spot by the time the F-18 is close enough to fire its own missilies.

Hmmm, obviously ROE's play a huge part but tactics would be king.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:47 pm

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
TGIF
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:01 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:03 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 22):
For the F-35 haters out there.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art....html

I think it will turn out fine as a fighter. But some of the reasons given here makes little sense to me, since they don't address the 'naysayers' concerns i.e. waste of taxpayers money (not only US taxpayers).

Quote:

Here are four reasons the F-35 program is going to turn out fine.
1. There is no alternative.
2. Other programs are faring worse.
3. The design concept is sound.
4. The development strategy is refined.

1. Since when is monopoly a good thing when it comes to lowering costs? If this is the case, then why not ditch the F-136 and the KC-X competition already?
2. How does B787, A380 and A400M delays help taxpayers around the world? And saying the development has progress "smoothly" just doesn't seem right. Almost 3 years delay since its original schedule doesn't sound smoothly to me...
3&4. On these points, I agree though, i.e. learning from the F-22. These are key factors in keeping costs low.

My conclusion from this statement is: The F-35 will turn out fine since we put all of our eggs in one basked and the government will continue to open it's wallet until the F-35 turns out fine. So this wont stop the "F-35 haters".
 
spudh
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:40 pm



Quoting Spudh (Reply 19):
The only game changer will be an advance in passive detection so unless AESA can produce a firing solution using the opposing fighters emmisions then the F-18F has nothing but the pilot to give it an advantage over the EF

I've been doing a bit more homework since I wrote that, seems I underestimated the ability of AESA to operate undetected - in fact it seems to be one of the primary advantages of AESA over last gen conventional radar.

Still doesn't totally turn the tables though. You're still in the situation that the F18F has to get within firing range before the EF picks up the F18 Radar signature, he just doen't have his RWR jumping up and down telling him to 'ooh, look over here, look over here'.

IMHO the biggest advantage the F-18F has is the guy sitting behind the pilot!
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:47 pm

Another target for the F-35 haters. Don't spare the vitriol on this one.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...sNews/idCNN0310240720091203?rpc=44

Quote:
Martin Corp (LMT.N) said Thursday that its multinational F-35 fighter aircraft, the Pentagon's costliest acquisition program, was performing surpassingly well in early test flight.

"We have never seen, ever, success in terms of avionics stability and maturity this early in a program," said Ralph Heath, executive vice president of the company's aeronautics business unit.

Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales, projects it will sell up to 4,500 F-35s worldwide to replace its F-16s and 12 other warplanes for 11 nations initially. The United States plans to spend about $300 billion over the next 25 years to buy 2,443 F-35s.

Heath said about three-quarters of the jets returning from test flights were ready to go again, a standard he said normally applied to production models, not test planes.

"So it really is a brand-new phenomenon," he told a webcast Credit Suisse aerospace and defense industry conference in New York.

The test flight program is far behind schedule. The development program overall is facing a potential $16 billion shortfall through 2015, according to independent studies commissioned by the Pentagon.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
art
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:51 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 22):
For the F-35 haters out there.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-whistling-past-the-graveyard.html

Interesting conclusion in the Lexington Institute analysis cited. The Lexington Institute analysis concludes:

"F-35 is progressing at a healthy pace, and is not in trouble."

What are the Lexington Institute's credentials?

From Wikipedia:

"On 9 June 2008 the Press-Register reported that almost all funding for the Lexington Institute came from the defense contractors whose products it frequently wrote in favor of."
 
User avatar
747classic
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:08 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 22):
For the F-35 haters out there.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art....html



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 25):
Another target for the F-35 haters. Don't spare the vitriol on this one.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...pc=44

I think you are reading a lot of one sighted literature about the F-35, but sadly for you the W.W.Bush times are over, with unlimited funds for the US-military, without many questions asked.

I am not a F35 hater, but it's a fact that the whole F-35 project is far behind schedule and far over budget.
I only want to know the actual progress and the actual costs spent so far and not an answer, produced by a biased (funded by companies involved with the F-35) press release.

Also I have to contribute, as a Dutch taxpayer, to this money absorbing project and I welcome the investigation by Ashton Carter, deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition.

I hope he can get some real, not biased, financial figures of the F35 project and a real statement about the actual and future progress of the whole project.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
art
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:14 am



Quoting Art (Reply 26):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 22):
For the F-35 haters out there.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-whistling-past-the-graveyard.html

Interesting conclusion in the Lexington Institute analysis cited. The Lexington Institute analysis concludes:

"F-35 is progressing at a healthy pace, and is not in trouble."

Mmmmm.... Progressing at a healthy pace, eh? How ill would you have to be before the doctors at the Lexington Institute told conceded that you were not in good health?

"Officials at the Pentagon appear poised to take a more conservative approach to the $300-billion Joint Strike Fighter program after design changes, parts shortages and out-of-sequence work severely delayed completion of development aircraft.

Officials at Lockheed Martin maintain the problems are finally under control and they expect a six-month slip in completing development deliveries."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ore%20Cautious%20JSF%20Test%20Plan
 
rob2507
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 3:47 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:21 pm

The alternate engine program has been spared:

Mass. push saves costly engine plan
Lawmakers protect jobs at GE in Lynn despite Obama call to ax program
By Bryan Bender
Globe Staff / December 23, 2009
WASHINGTON - Massachusetts lawmakers, over the fierce objections of the White House, have succeeded in reviving a costly plan to build a jet fighter engine at General Electric’s Lynn plant in an effort to protect thousands of Bay State jobs.
When President Obama urged Congress earlier this year to cancel a series of major weapons programs deemed no longer needed, he specifically cited the effort to build a backup engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
 
TGIF
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:01 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:58 pm

Good news for the F-35B. After 33 days on the ground at Pax River, BF-1 finally got its feet off the ground again and the countdown to the first vertical landing resumes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...hristmas-comes-early-for-join.html

Quote:
The short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) variant's pre-Christmas sortie came as slight surprise, as Lockheed passed word only two days ago that BF-1's next flight may not come for another week. It was not immediately clear if yesterday's flight counted towards the roughly 12-sortie-series required to complete the first vertical landing, a long-awaited milestone event for the program.

 
allegro
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:37 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:30 am



Quoting Spudh (Reply 21):
No matter how superior the F-18F radar is (and I doubt that the gap between last generation conventional and 1st gen AESA is as wide as people think

Actually, it is the opposite ... the AESA radar is MUCH better than most people think ... we have not ever used its full potential against foreign air forces, specifically so that they would not what they are up against. An AESA radar equipped aircraft will blow away anything that is using mechanical scanning, in more ways than one ... it has many tricks up its sleeve.

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 6):
Where there is a stealth aircraft, there is no or very little return signal to the originating radar, unlike the background and other aircraft. So the radar computer can point out this "hole" and track it. This is of course an infinitely simplified explanation.

Umm ... no. If you do not see it on radar you cannot track it (which requires a stronger return), the idea of tracking a "hole" is simply not reasonable as the whole sky is a "hole". Urban legend ...

Quoting Spudh (Reply 21):
the EF radar is going to be operating right in the heart of its sweet spot by the time the F-18 is close enough to fire its own missilies

This all depends on the direction of attack ... not true if the F-18 is at your 6 or more precisely the F-18 (or whatever AESA plane) will be able to get to your 6 without you knowing it.

Quoting Spudh (Reply 24):
IMHO the biggest advantage the F-18F has is the guy sitting behind the pilot!

And his AWACS handler ...

Quoting 747classic (Reply 27):
but it's a fact that the whole F-35 project is far behind schedule and far over budget

Please name one modern fighter that came in on-budget and on-time. I remember reading and hearing about these very same complaints back in the early 70's about the F-15 ... about how late it was and how its LRU's (line replaceable units) were failing and how over budget it was. Several liberal congressmen tried unsuccessfully to cancel it. Clearly, today we can see that cancelling it would have been a wrong decision, with a kill ratio of 104 to 0.

It wil be late ... but it will be a fine airplane and set the standard for the future.

What should happen is the Rafale and Typhoon should be cancelled in favor of the F-35  duck 
Flown on: DC-3, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, MD-90, 707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, A300, A310, A320, A330,
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:32 am



Quoting Allegro (Reply 31):
What should happen is the Rafale and Typhoon should be cancelled in favor of the F-35 duck

The main flaw I have read about the F-35 is it's lack of missile carrying capacity. No matter how stealthy and effective it is, once it's fired off it's last missile, it's as good as useless. The Australians had exactly such a scenario calculated with the help of RAND, which to me is telling, because RAND is normally a hyping body for whatever it is studying. I think the maximum is 4 internally, though I could be wrong on that.

If it is going to carry missiles externally, then it's not better in stealth than what's already out there - it will be seen from a distance if it does that. It then has to rely on other capabilities. And here is where it would fall short as the flight envelope is significantly smaller than the JSF or Rafael for instance.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:04 am

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 32):
The main flaw I have read about the F-35 is it's lack of missile carrying capacity. No matter how stealthy and effective it is, once it's fired off it's last missile, it's as good as useless. The Australians had exactly such a scenario calculated with the help of RAND, which to me is telling, because RAND is normally a hyping body for whatever it is studying. I think the maximum is 4 internally, though I could be wrong on that.

I think the issue with lack of missiles is that the current weapons racks inside the weapons bay does not use the space very efficiently; the weapons bay of the F-35 is bigger than the bay in the F-22. They will have to be redesigned to take advantage of the size being offered in the F-35.

[Edited 2010-01-01 17:05:16]
 
sphealey
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:39 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:42 am



Quoting Allegro (Reply 31):
Umm ... no. If you do not see it on radar you cannot track it (which requires a stronger return), the idea of tracking a "hole" is simply not reasonable as the whole sky is a "hole". Urban legend ...

I don't claim to be any sort of radar expert (although no one with deep knowledge of the technology is going to be posting here, either), but the National Weather Service discusses in detail on its site the effort that has been required to tune its last two generations of radars due to their capability to get returns on water vapor molecules, microscopic dust motes, pollen, etc. In the midwest US planting season and the onset of tornado season coincide and you can clearly see this effect during the course of a day as the NWS decreases the sensitivity of its radar to kill the return from dust clouds, increases it to try to pick up gathering storm clouds, decreases it as humidity goes up in advance of a storm, and so on. So on the face of it the idea that a section of the sky that had zero return would be trackable is not unreasonable.

sPh
 
User avatar
747classic
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:27 pm

Defence chiefs are preparing drastic cuts to the number of American stealth aircraft planned for the RAF and the Royal Navy's proposed new carriers.
see :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...fence-aircraft-jet-fighters-budget

If this becomes reality, the unit price will further increase for the all JSF partners.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:31 pm



Quoting Sphealey (Reply 34):
So on the face of it the idea that a section of the sky that had zero return would be trackable is not unreasonable.

No, that's not how it works.

The abilities you speak of, are of a completely different nature than that of tracking an aircraft. Tracking clouds of dust, pollen, etc. is done on a much larger scale. You are literally getting a return on millions of spores or particles, over a very large area. Even on the much weaker radar that I work with, if the dust is significant, I can gather a return... and yes... while I can see areas of "less" dust, that area must be quite large.

But the notion that radar can 'see' the hole created by a single aircraft is just laughable. We're talking about a picture the size of several counties, at least. So finding a hole of a hundred square feet is just not probable.
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:03 am

I'm not a radar expert in any way. However, if other experts are saying it is becoming possible to track stealth aircraft, I don't think it's all hot air.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 36):
But the notion that radar can 'see' the hole created by a single aircraft is just laughable. We're talking about a picture the size of several counties, at least. So finding a hole of a hundred square feet is just not probable.

Why wouldn't it be the reverse of tracking a target that does show a return on the radar. From what I read, the stealth aircraft absorb or deflect the radar returns away from the originating radar, which means the entire background is blocked as well. No dust, vapor - nothing - as there is no return signal at all "originating" where the stealth is.

Another idea occurred to me in that if two (or more) fighters can coordinate their radar signals where one can receive radar signals originated by another fighter, then the stealth fighter can become visible, to the non originating fighters, no? It's not that stealth aircraft have no radar return, it's that they are either absorbed and deflected away from the originating radar.

[Edited 2010-01-13 21:04:22 by tommytoyz]
 
spudh
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:21 pm

Maybe I've got this all wrong but I thought stealth does not eliminate the radar return but reduced the return by an order of magnitude so say a B1 returns an image 1/10th that of a B52 and a B2 say 1/100th that of a B52 (say equiv to a bird).
So to say there is no return is incorrect and therefore there is no 'radar hole' to look for.

If I've got this right the radar is picking up everything in the sky and the fancy software filters out the 'clutter' thereby displaying the filtered returns to the radar operator. The object of stealth is not to make the aircarft disappear but to get it lost in the clutter so the filters miss it.

The old fahioned doing a 90deg turn to break a doppler lock was essentially a stealth maneouver. The radar was still getting a return but its relative velocity was now indistinguishable from the background clutter so lock was lost.

Or maybe I'm just wrong and should stick with reading instead of typing  Smile
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: More Problems For The F-35?

Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:39 am



Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 37):
Why wouldn't it be the reverse of tracking a target that does show a return on the radar. From what I read, the stealth aircraft absorb or deflect the radar returns away from the originating radar, which means the entire background is blocked as well. No dust, vapor - nothing - as there is no return signal at all "originating" where the stealth is.

You are visualizing that a radar signal return is equivalent to looking at a black fly on a white wall. But air, water vapor, pollen, etc, are not solid, planer or even homogeneous.

Air currents, temperature and pressure variations make the background "lumpy" not homogeneous. Also return from these sources is equivalent to a collection of tiny spheres not a solid flat plane. So at a distance the reflection from a "hole" gets covered over. Visualize a fly in a dense fog

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests