F-35 news thread III

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: F-35 news thread III
jessmo_24 1/12/2011 7:23:24 AM

BF-2s 1st vertical landing. *ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS3ngl1GcaI&feature=player_embedded NAVAIRSYSCOM 10 Jan 2011 "F-35B test aircraft BF-2 accomplishes its first vertical landing and conversion back to normal flight mode at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The integrated test team is testing both the STOVL and carrier variants of the F-35 for delivery to the fleet. Video courtesy Lockheed Martin."

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NEXT

keffler25 5/10/2015 11:27:33 AM

If I have the option of either dumping the fuel or going AB. Ill likely light the burner. @ keffler the superbug seems to do pretty well at low speed High aoa. If Im stealthy why would I merge nose on any way? why fly right into sensor range. I think we shoudl start thinking about.

a. You may have to dump fuel to reduce mass. Inertia drag (gravity induced not air friction) does not go away otherwise.

b. The Super Hornet has to slow down to match its best corner speed against opponents and it has the engines to stand on its thrusters to force the Sukhois to turn with it at those slow speeds and fall into stall... But, and it is a big but, if you try that against a Gripen or a Typhoon and not only will the opposing plane get the angle on the SH in about two turns but they have the engines to play the same game against you and win.

c. Here I agree, but what if the radar packs it in and you are electro/optical only? No ranged missile shot. WVR happens real quick (about 20 seconds) from medium range.

1. In the future the standard combad A2A load will be 4-6 types Of amraam or 12 Cuda.

d. About the CUDA... LockMart trotted that out around late 2011 and since then, butkus. USN is buying extended range Sidewinder at the moment as a hedge against when the Russians work the bugs out in their latest SIREN countermeasures in their Sukhois against AMRAAM. AMRAAM in the meantime is acquiring a new home on seduce drive through reacquire add-on.

2. If I have only Amramm then Im sniping, and will likely only merge for a guns kill (winchester)

e. See (d).

3. If Im out of missiles, Im going to attempt to approach the enemy plane at an angle his radar cant see me in when close.

f. Speeds are too fast that close in (WVR). That's why it's called a turning fight. One flyby and don't miss. If you have altitude advantage and distance advantage (radar edge) you might be able to do a bounce, but that means you commit to a straight in attack. 40 seconds max you have from start at about Mach 0.8 or half that if you are a Raptor for a guns kill. Me? I prefer Sidewinders.

4. I cant find the article, but I beleive F-22 have snuck up before on F-16 for gun kills.

See (f).

5. Flying right into his sensors when I have less than 200 rounds left might not be the smartest thing I can do with my 100 mill jet.

g. What if you have to protect your carrier? Lots of rotten choices in the air. That's why the pilot's there.

Quote Reply

jessmo_24 5/13/2015 12:14:36 AM

If Thats the case then LM and the U.S. really need to get on the ball with upping the magizine count for the F-35.

If not 6 AMRAAms then 4 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM9X. Or get the cuda going.

Quote Reply

HeavyD Reality Check 5/13/2015 8:53:09 PM

From the article on the lack of aces:

While there have been few aces since the 1940s, there have been several thousand air-to-air encounters by jet fighters. There’s enough data on nearly 2,000 of these encounters to do some analysis. What this has shown is a very clear trend in which electronics and long range missiles are becoming more important while aircraft speed and maneuverability is much less of a factor. Thus the growing appeal to upgrade older aircraft (including F-5s, F-4s and MiG-21s) with modern electronics that make them capable to using long range air-to-air missile (like the radar guided American AMRAAM or the Israeli Derby). A look-and-shoot helmet also tends to be part of the upgrade as well as better defensive (missile detecting and defeating) systems. These upgrades are considered formidable air-to-air opponents, at least on paper. At the same time unmanned aircraft are becoming more reliable, effective and capable and another growing threat to future aces.

How many targets is a flight of F35s likely to encounter and engage? The average will be just barely over zero. Most airframes will never fire at another enemy craft during it's lifetime. Most F-15s, F-16, F/A-18s never have. Most F-14s, F-4s, F-5s etc never did.

Optimize design for the 99% use-case, not the 1%.

Quote Reply

jessmo_24 5/14/2015 12:37:49 AM

China reportadly trying to build a STOVL plane.

I wouldnt be surprised if they tried to divert lift from a j-15 engine.

GL china China has reportedly begun work on a Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) capability for the PLA Navy (PLAN). The equipping of the Liaoning carrier would free J-15 fighters tasked with air defense for strike missions. China has previously attempted to acquire STOVL-capable aircraft, with these previous projects dropped owing to cost and technical limitations. The J-15, a copy of the Russian Su-33, achieved its first carrier landing in 2012. Building on previous media coverage, these latest reports state that work on the future aircraft’s engine have begun, with AVIC Chengdu Engine Group and China Aviation Engine Establishment reportedly signing an agreement to cooperatively develop the engine, with this thought to have taken place in March. Northwestern Polytechnical University (NPU) in Xian is also thought to have developed a STOVL swivel nozzle last year.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/

Quote Reply

jessmo_24 5/14/2015 12:53:28 AM

LOL looks like a total copy, of the 3 bearing nozzel from a F-35B. But do they have the powerplant, and the intergrated flight computers to do it. The F-35B also has a auto eject system, that gets the pilot out in less than a 2nd. The Chinese will need that.

Quote Reply

keffler25 5/14/2015 6:24:51 AM

As I noted from the FC-31 technology seen in flight, the goal for a reliable thruster in a stabilized platform seems to be a perennial Chinese aviation bolo so I'll believe STOVL only when I see it. It actually seems to be everyone's current bolo except maybe the British, who've lost the air-frame ability but who have good engines and the Americans who are in danger of losing it in their jet thrusters if we don't keep our engine tech up to our air-frame standards.

The match has to be close or you kill pilots. That is literally the secret behind jet aircraft. The frame has to match the engine.

Quote Reply

keffler25 5/14/2015 6:28:47 AM

Do your research. GROUND TARGETS fight back and in the one case where near peers fought (Argentina and Britain) the air combat was INTENSE.

Optimize design for the 99% use-case, not the 1%.

Quote Reply

HR Jessmo 5/14/2015 5:05:42 PM

I just wonder how the current pace of Chinese expenditures can be kept up... I mean yet another aircraft type and one with limited export potential so they are the only buyer. Even assuming they copy it they still have to be maintain it, parts procured, up-grades, etc. It seems incredibly wasteful. But that aside it also seems that they will require two types... one for strike role and my guess is the second one for air defense... is that a good reading of what they are saying?

Quote Reply

HR Jessmo 5/14/2015 5:09:05 PM

And by the way... the So. China Sea and most areas of Chinese action are a death trap for large ships like these carriers. They need to break out into open waters and if they do how will they be supplied and maintained... so all this expenditure could be lost on day one of any fight... like the artificial islands. Someone is not thinking.

Quote Reply

keffler25 5/14/2015 8:49:42 PM

Lol.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NEXT