What's new

F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions.

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,230
138
23,215
Country
United States
Location
United States
Thanks for the explanation.
One more thing, if you don't mind.
When ready, to what fighters will the JSF be comparable technically? Be it Existing ones or the ones under development.
The F-35 is to be a 'jack-of-all-trades' kind of fighter. Like the F-16 is today. There is nothing wrong with being such. The world advances more because of the many 'jack-of-all-trades' engineers than from the few master engineers who specialized in one thing. The issue is the bar on each of those trades.

For example, we want a fighter that can carry a load like the B-52, accelerate like the F-15, sustains turns like the F-16, long range like a tanker, and take-off vertically like a Harrier.

Pretty much a dream, correct?

So what we do is design a fighter that can do all of those things to some degrees. Then we design the next generation of 'jack-of-all-trades' to do those things to some higher degrees. And so on...
 

Esc8781

FULL MEMBER
Jun 7, 2012
1,199
0
1,351
Country
United States
Location
United States
Sorry guys that I stopped updating these :D. This is an awesome picture. I hope it isn't photoshop.








Kongsberg's developmental Joint Strike Missile (JSM) has been attached to a Lockheed Martin F-35 for the first time at the airframer's Fort Worth, Texas facility.

Installed on 27 February as part of a "fit check" using one of the stealthy fighter's external weapons pylons, the munition will undergo a further test later this year to verify that it is also able to be carried within the F-35's internal weapons bay.

Lockheed will conduct similar external trials on all three variants of the fighter, while internal fit checks of the JSM will be confined to the conventional take-off and landing F-35A ordered by Norway, says Norwegian F-35 programme director Anders Melheim.




A critical design review of the missile will be carried out in mid-2013 to confirm that integration efforts can continue.

Oslo will acquire up to 52 F-35s for operation by the Royal Norwegian Air Force. Two initial examples will be delivered in 2015 with a second pair due to follow in 2016. These will remain in the USA to support training activities.

Deliveries under the main part of the up to NKr62.6 billion ($10.9 billion) order will commence in 2017.



Second production F-35C, no VFA-101 scheme though :angry:
 

Esc8781

FULL MEMBER
Jun 7, 2012
1,199
0
1,351
Country
United States
Location
United States
I have one question: It is logical to replace the A-10 with the F-35? If so, how?
Not sure. The F-35 has a weaker gun, but it has GPS guided bullets. This factor would make the f-35 precise, so it wouldn't go "low n slow" for its target(s). The USAF isn't replacing the whole A-10 fleet I hope. Well if they do replace the thunderbolts the A-10 would feel better about themselves not being mocked by F-16 pilots though. So it's a confidence booster for A-10 pilots I can guarantee you on that! :D

Breaking news they are introducing the new block of A-10s. lol.

http://www.********.com/view?i=b7e_1358591128
 

liontk

FULL MEMBER
Feb 18, 2012
843
0
1,458
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
The F-35 is to be a 'jack-of-all-trades' kind of fighter. Like the F-16 is today. There is nothing wrong with being such. The world advances more because of the many 'jack-of-all-trades' engineers than from the few master engineers who specialized in one thing. The issue is the bar on each of those trades.

For example, we want a fighter that can carry a load like the B-52, accelerate like the F-15, sustains turns like the F-16, long range like a tanker, and take-off vertically like a Harrier.

Pretty much a dream, correct?

So what we do is design a fighter that can do all of those things to some degrees. Then we design the next generation of 'jack-of-all-trades' to do those things to some higher degrees. And so on...
Gambit, for our countries perspective, we have long waited for JSF program to deliver the F-35 and yet the cost keeps going up and we have not seen a single fighter developed to the Canada or any NATO country for that reason. I am not trying to be insulting but humbly, we are currently having a debate in Canada whether a two engine plane may be better for the Canadian artic as far as doctrine is concerned. Personally do you think that Canada should still consider getting the super hornets to replace the current fleet or is the f-35 really what its told to be. I know this is a long question and respectfully what is your opinion on the gripen as some politicians are making it appear to be a direct a competition to f-35 particularly the lower house liberals.
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,230
138
23,215
Country
United States
Location
United States
Gambit, for our countries perspective, we have long waited for JSF program to deliver the F-35 and yet the cost keeps going up and we have not seen a single fighter developed to the Canada or any NATO country for that reason. I am not trying to be insulting but humbly, we are currently having a debate in Canada whether a two engine plane may be better for the Canadian artic as far as doctrine is concerned. Personally do you think that Canada should still consider getting the super hornets to replace the current fleet or is the f-35 really what its told to be. I know this is a long question and respectfully what is your opinion on the gripen as some politicians are making it appear to be a direct a competition to f-35 particularly the lower house liberals.
If the issue is purely technical, then the single versus two engines debate have been settled a long time ago -- the F-16. The F-16 have been well tested in cold weather, even that of the Arctic.

The F-35 replaces 7 fighter platforms. Even if you count its variants, that would still be 3 to replace 7. Given what happened during the Cold War, it is inevitable that if not the F-35, then it would be something else that must be developed to replace 5, 6, or 10 platforms for defense. It cost too much to maintain such a diverse fleet and even your frugal Canada realized that. The -18SH is an excellent alternative for Canada IF VTOL and low radar observability are not going to be requirements for Canadian defense doctrine.

The trend now is towards low radar observability, which is even more important given that an air force is going to have only one platform for diverse missions. The -18SH does have some RCS control measures installed and they do work well, but as far as low radar observability go, it is as low as it could get with the current technology. We need something revolutionary like sub-surface active cancellation that can be applicable to all materials and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Am not saying that the -18SH is a bad choice. It is an excellent alternative and Canadians must act in the best interests for Canada, financial and everything else. But it is desirable that among allies, our air forces have seamless interoperability no matter who contribute and how much. So in the event that the RCAF have to deploy, the question would be how much can the RCAF contribute when its allied air forces will have to lower certain technical and operational expectations because of the -18SH instead of the F-35.

Am not going to the absurd length and say the -18SH is a musket while the F-35 is a machine gun. But if we grant the optimism that the F-35 will work through its developmental problems, and on the technical issues I am confident that we can, once deployed the -18SH is going to be like a semi-auto while the F-35 is the full combat auto.
 

liontk

FULL MEMBER
Feb 18, 2012
843
0
1,458
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
If the issue is purely technical, then the single versus two engines debate have been settled a long time ago -- the F-16. The F-16 have been well tested in cold weather, even that of the Arctic.

The F-35 replaces 7 fighter platforms. Even if you count its variants, that would still be 3 to replace 7. Given what happened during the Cold War, it is inevitable that if not the F-35, then it would be something else that must be developed to replace 5, 6, or 10 platforms for defense. It cost too much to maintain such a diverse fleet and even your frugal Canada realized that. The -18SH is an excellent alternative for Canada IF VTOL and low radar observability are not going to be requirements for Canadian defense doctrine.

The trend now is towards low radar observability, which is even more important given that an air force is going to have only one platform for diverse missions. The -18SH does have some RCS control measures installed and they do work well, but as far as low radar observability go, it is as low as it could get with the current technology. We need something revolutionary like sub-surface active cancellation that can be applicable to all materials and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Am not saying that the -18SH is a bad choice. It is an excellent alternative and Canadians must act in the best interests for Canada, financial and everything else. But it is desirable that among allies, our air forces have seamless interoperability no matter who contribute and how much. So in the event that the RCAF have to deploy, the question would be how much can the RCAF contribute when its allied air forces will have to lower certain technical and operational expectations because of the -18SH instead of the F-35.

Am not going to the absurd length and say the -18SH is a musket while the F-35 is a machine gun. But if we grant the optimism that the F-35 will work through its developmental problems, and on the technical issues I am confident that we can, once deployed the -18SH is going to be like a semi-auto while the F-35 is the full combat auto.
So to just comment and keeping in mind my knowledge base on extend as far as land based vehicles so I am a nooby in aviation but you mentioned repeatedly the RCS control measures, what is your assessment on the future of things like radar absorbent material(if i used wrong term correct me) and is there a cheaper solution to this problem instead of buying an expensive f-35 in contrast to already available Cf-18 superhornets may be a potential upgrade that can reduce their RCS(i know this sounds very childish) via addition to the construction material by implementing a coating in the near future, if a better one appear tech wise.

Also as far as canadian artic is concerned, if we do get another fleet of super hornets, can they still be an active deterrence to the russian t-95 bomber that continually violate our airspace as far as future artic conflicts are concerned.
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,230
138
23,215
Country
United States
Location
United States
So to just comment and keeping in mind my knowledge base on extend as far as land based vehicles so I am a nooby in aviation but you mentioned repeatedly the RCS control measures, what is your assessment on the future of things like radar absorbent material(if i used wrong term correct me) and is there a cheaper solution to this problem instead of buying an expensive f-35 in contrast to already available Cf-18 superhornets may be a potential upgrade that can reduce their RCS(i know this sounds very childish) via addition to the construction material by implementing a coating in the near future, if a better one appear tech wise.
All absorber today is passive, meaning the material allows penetration and as the signal travels inside the material its energy is gradually dissipated. For the most part, passive absorber technology has plateaued for military aviation application. This is simply because of weight consideration. The thicker the layers to be as wide bandwidth as possible, the more weight the material will be on the aircraft.

Active absorber technology is being worked on and the future for this is very promising but the main problem is still no different than passive: material composition and weight. Passive absorber can allow only a portion of the signal to penetrate. Active absorber intends to allow the entire pulse to penetrate and regardless of wavelength.



The above is not to true scale but to give perspective on wavelengths compared to each other. Most popular signals are in the 3-7 cm wavelength range. Then when we move to longer wavelengths down to the HF bands, we would be looking at meters length signals. So the problems are to create a composite material that is light and thin enough and to behave like a transistor well enough in order to absorb the entire signal and not just a portion of it.

If we can do this, we can render shaping obsolete and apply this quasi-magical material to any aircraft and have it 'stealthy' like never before. I have an idea on how is the US doing in this field but am not going to say any more about it. Suffice to say that for US, we will use shaping for at least one more iteration of 'stealth' designs. That is not to say that there is no chance that some genius somewhere in the bowels of Skunk Works may have a 'Eureka' moment and practically do away with absorber technology as we know it. The Skunk Works do have a record of surprising the aviation world.

Also as far as canadian artic is concerned, if we do get another fleet of super hornets, can they still be an active deterrence to the russian t-95 bomber that continually violate our airspace as far as future artic conflicts are concerned.
My opinion? Yes.
 

Esc8781

FULL MEMBER
Jun 7, 2012
1,199
0
1,351
Country
United States
Location
United States
F-35B makes first vertical landing at Yuma
A first for the Corps outside of testing
By Gretel C. Kovach3:51 p.m.March 21, 2013

An F-35B from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 lands vertically at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Mar. 21, 2013. BF-19 was piloted by Maj. Richard Rusnok, an F-35B test pilot. (photo by U.S. Marine Staff Sgt. Jessica Smith) An F-35B from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 lands vertically at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Mar. 21, 2013. BF-19 was piloted by Maj. Richard Rusnok, an F-35B test pilot. (photo by U.S. Marine Staff Sgt. Jessica Smith

The first operational squadron of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets passed a milestone Thursday in Yuma when the Marine Corps version of the aircraft made its first vertical landing outside of testing.

The first F-35 squadron meant to eventually fly the jet in combat was established in November at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma -- Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121. Until now the squadron was not allowed to perform the F-35B’s signature feature, its ability to land like a helicopter.

Maj. Richard Rusnok, an F-35B test pilot flying BF-19, conducted the first hover and vertical landing for the squadron, the Marine Corps announced. The commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Scott, accompanied him in a second F-35B as a chase aircraft.

Meanwhile, the military has been prepping pilots on the new aircraft at the F-35 Integrated Training Center at Eglin and testing it at Edwards Air Force Base, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., and at sea.

Although the Yuma squadron is considered the first operational unit of F-35, the jet is far from ready for combat. The squadron cannot deploy with its F-35Bs until they are upgraded with software revisions not expected until mid-2015.

The Yuma squadron is building up to about 300 Marines and 16 aircraft expected by late 2013. The first F-35 squadron is not expected in San Diego at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar until fiscal 2021.

The $396 billion F-35 program, the Pentagon’s most expensive and by some measures most ambitious ever, has been under development by Lockheed Martin since 2001.

Because of its cost, technical glitches and slipped development timeline, the F-35 program has been continually sniped at for potential curtailment or cancellation. Most recently, a controversial report released this month by the Center for a New American
Security
, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, suggested scrapping the whole program, as well as phasing out aircraft carriers.

The move to “cancel the always-troubled JSF now while simultaneously extending production of the lower-cost Hornets,” would free $70 million per aircraft for investment in unmanned aerial combat vehicles, or drones, flying off smaller ships, wrote Capt. Henry Hendrix,
a career
naval flight officer.

The aircraft, also called the Lightning II, was conceived as a relatively affordable “fifth generation” stealth jet to be used across the services, saving money through a common production line, design and parts. Three versions were developed: one for the Marine Corps that would protect the service’s ability to operate from short runways in austere locations and small amphibious ships, an Air Force model using conventional runways, and a Navy version for aircraft carriers.

The F-35B is slated to replace three types of aircraft in the Marine fleet: F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B Harriers and EA/6B Prowlers.

As the Air Force tests and trains on its version and the Navy awaits delivery of its first production tailhook model, the Marine variant has faced the most performance pressure and danger of cancellation. Critics point to ongoing engineering challenges in the most complicated F-35 variant and say the Corps can do without a vertically landing jet.

The first production model of the Navy’s F-35C carrier variant flew its inaugural sortie in February. It is expected to be delivered to Eglin Air Force Base later this year for Strike Fighter Squadron 101, a training unit.


[video]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/Yuma_VL-v2.jpg[/video]


The program's progressing nicely. :tup:

The first operational UK pilot selected to fly the Lockheed Martin F-35B undertook his first training sortie in the Joint Strike Fighter on 19 March at Eglin AFB, Florida.

"It flies very smoothly," says Royal Air Force Sqn Ldr Frankie Buchler, who previously flew the Sepecat Jaguar and Eurofighter Typhoon. "Nothing unexpected, it went pretty well."

US Marine Corps Capt Daniel Flatley, who was flying as Buchler's instructor in another F-35B, says the purpose of the first training sortie was primarily to familiarise the student with the differences between the simulator and the real aircraft. Additionally, the student had to familiarise himself with flying the F-35B around the traffic pattern at the base.

"Really, the landing pattern is what we want to expose the student to on the first flight," Flatley says.

With one flight out of the way, Buchler has five more sorties to complete before undertaking his checkride in the F-35B. After he receives his initial qualifications in the aircraft, he will undertake an instructor pilot upgrade course.

Wg Cdr Jon Millington, the senior UK officer at Eglin AFB, says the next UK pilot to qualify on the F-35B will be Royal Navy Lt Cdr Ian Tidball, who will fly in the coming weeks.

The British pilots who are undergoing training at Eglin AFB are highly experienced aviators with operational test and weapons instructor pilot backgrounds, Buchler says.

Another pilot, who will eventually become the commander of the British F-35B operational test squadron, will be selected "shortly" - but that selection is currently on hold, Millington says. The UK is also training a dozen maintainers at the Florida base, he adds. More UK engineers and maintainers will undergo F-35 academics at the site starting in September 2013.

For the next few months, the first two UK pilots and maintainers will remain at Eglin AFB, operating as part of the USMC's VMFAT-501 squadron, until they move to Edwards AFB, California. The personnel are spilt 50:50 between the RAF and RN. "The 12 that we've got here plus our two pilots will form up the initial cadre of our test and evaluation squadron, which will move up to Edwards in the spring next year," Millington says. In addition to the British personnel, the two UK F-35Bs currently assigned to Eglin AFB will also be transferred to the California base.

Under the current plan, 17 Sqn, which is a joint RAF and RN unit, will conduct operational testing through 2015 to 2016, Millington says. If everything goes according schedule, the UK hopes to stand-up its first operational F-35B squadron consisting of RAF and RN personnel in 2018. But, Millington cautions, the dates are not set in ston,e given the F-35's programmatic fluctuations.

A third UK F-35B is expected to arrive this April at Eglin AFB, Millington says. The aircraft will be the first F-35 stationed at the base to be equipped with the more advanced Block 2A software. Aircraft currently at the base are in the older Block 1A and 1B configuration.

RAF's first operational F-35 pilot flies first training sortie
 
Last edited by a moderator:

moon_light

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

May 28, 2012
83
0
17
100% Agreed!



Disagreed !
you should watch this youtube.com/watch?v=lT8_9hhMEMw
btw i dont see su-30/35 can have any advantages against f-35 in both bvr and wvr
1-bvr : f-35 rcs = 0.001 m2 , su-35 rcs = 2 m2 ( the su-35 have rcs =10 m2 but some source say with ram treatment it come down to 1 m2 :what: so missiles + pylon will increase rcs by at least 1 m2 )
APG-81 AESA(F-35A/B/C):
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 16 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 28 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 90 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 160 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 240 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 285 km+
=> f-35 can track su-35 from at least 160 km
the irbis-e can detect target with rcs = 0.01 m2 at 90 km so according to radar formula su-35 can detect f-35 at 45-50 km by radar
another thing you should note is that Apg-81 is an AESA radar while Irbis-e is PESA which mean APG-81 have much better LPI feature => much harder or even impossible to detect by RWR )

+ about IRST the Ols-35 on su-35 can detect fighter head on from 50 km however firing solution required range but the laser finder range on OLS-35 only have range of over 20 km:)
igorrgroup.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/ols-35-irst-option-for-su-30-family.html

about the jamming aspect there 2 kind of jamming
1-noise jamming => easily defeated by any missiles with HOJ feature ( aim-120 , meteor, r-77 ) , and very easy to be detect by enemy
2- deceptive jamming => can't jam more than 1 target at a time ( what if the f-35 launch more than 1 missiles ;) ) and also can be defeat by the use of datalink to correct missiles course

another thing is that in future f-35 will be able to carry many missiles internally
at the moment it can only carry 4 aim-120d but in block 5 it can carry 6 aim-120 , also able to use Meteor ( ramjet missiles => much better terminal maneuver ) , CUDA in future will also allow a lot of 20 missiles all internally ( i think the prefer load would be 3 Meteor + 4 CUDA )

2-in WVR
the su-35 may be more maneuver but the F-35 have DAS + JHMCS that allow it to launch missiles at enemy coming from direction, and no matter how agile the su-35 is i dont think it can out maneuver a missiles like aim-132 or aim-9x whixh can turn 70-80 G not to mention F-35 will also have DIRCM which mean it will be much less vulnerable to IR , IIR , EO guider missiles compared to fighter like su-35
the only problem now of f-35 is that it carry too little missile but which CUDA in use in future the problem will be solve with 4 CUDA + 3 Meteor i think the F-35 should be able to shot down 2 su-35 before going down ;)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom