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

[500]

How come you can acquire before us, you are not even a partner country.....

LIC planes will require upgrades later. They more early is batch the more upgrades u will need. So it has pros and cons.

 

[bidonv]

By:thediplomat.com
Enough Air Power? Singapore Drops the F-35 Stealth Fighter

Singapore is putting on hold plans to procure up to 12 Lockheed-Martin supersonic fifth-generation F-35B stealth multirole fighter jets for the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF), according to the Pentagon’s F-35 program office, Bloomberg News reports.

Singapore’s Permanent Secretary for Defense Development, Ng Chee Kern, purportedly already informed the U.S. Department of Defense in the middle of June about the city state’s decision to postpone the acquisition of four F-35B fighter jets by 2022. (A tentative agreement included an option to buy an additional eight aircraft.)

However, U.S. President Barack Obama was apparently unaware of the mid-June decision taken by the city state. “We welcome Singapore’s interest in purchasing the F-35 aircraft,” he said last week at a White House press conference with Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

In 2015, Singapore expressed interest in the F-35B variant, the aircraft’s most complex model designed for use by the United States Marine Corps. “The F-35B is capable of vertical or short takeoffs and vertical landings without requiring a catapult launcher, thanks to a lift fan and a directed thruster,” I noted elsewhere (See: “Finally! US Marine Corps Declares F-35B Operational”).

Singapore joined the F-35 program in 2003 as a so-called Security Cooperation Participant, which allowed the defense ministry to explore configurations and modifications to the aircraft to meet the city state’s specific operational requirements. Only in 2014 did Singapore dispatch a “letter of request”—the first official step in Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process.

The city state has not revealed why it decided to postpone the procurement and put the contract on hold. According to Bloomberg News, an emailed statement by the Singapore defense ministry noted that “as a small country with no strategic depth, Singapore will always need superior air capabilities to protect its interests and borders.” Furthermore, quoting from a 2013 statement by the country’s defense minister, “our current fleet of fighter aircraft are adequate for our defense needs and the F-35 is still under evaluation.”

Indeed, Singapore may have adequate air power for the time being to deter aggressors. From 2010 to 2014, Singapore received 24 F-15SG combat aircraft from the United States. It is also in the process of upgrading its fleet of 63 F-16C/D/D+ fighter jets. As The Diplomat already reported in 2013:.......................Read more

 

[Q_W_Q]

 

[monitor]

Best Fighter Jet In History Grounded By Bees
F-22Beeeeeeeeeesssssss

By Kelsey D. Atherton Yesterday at 9:46pm

Carlos Claudio, U.S. Air Force courtesy photo

Bees On An F-22

Look at this little swarm on this expensive plane.

Drones aren’t normally a problem for the F-22. The U.S. Air Force's advanced stealth fighter is built to clear the sky of any hostile aircraft, be it another fighter, an encroaching bomber, or even an unmanned aerial scout. It turns out, however, there’s a kind of flyer that even the F-22 can’t defend against: bees! No, really. Bees.

In June, a swarm of bees found its way into the exhaust nozzle of an F-22 at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia. Rather than exterminating the bees, the maintenance crew that discovered the swarm decided to find someone who could relocate the bees.

From the Air Force:

Andy Westrich, U.S. Navy retired and local bee keeper, arrived on base with the needed materials and supplies. According to Chiarantona, Westrich said the swarm was one of the largest he had ever seen. He was escorted to the aircraft and used vacuum hoses to safely corral the honey bees off of the aircraft into large buckets. He then took the bee's home and found that, as a hive, they weighed eight pounds which calculates to almost 20,000 bees!

"The honey bees most likely came from a much larger bee hive somewhere else on base," said Chief Master Sergeant Gregg Allen, 192nd Maintenance Group Quality Assurance chief, who also happens to be a bee keeper. "Bee hives are constantly growing and they eventually become overcrowded. Around springtime, the bees will make a new queen, scout for a new location and take half of the hive with them to that location."

The bees may have just been resting on the jet on their way to find a new home for their queen, though there was also a chance the swarm could have built a hive right there, in the exhaust nozzle of the $143 million jet fighter. Before that could happen, the beekeeper relocated the swarm to the hive of a beer producer, which will use the honey.

Once that beer is ready, I can imagine the mechanics getting together over a round of a brew that I can only hope will be named Stealth Honeybeer, and telling the tale of the time a jet was grounded, if only for a day, by a swarm of bees.

Check out some more pictures of the swarm below:

Carlos Claudio, U.S. Air Force courtesy photo

Bee Swarm Flush With F-22

This F-22 is the first to win any Bee Beard contests.

Carlos Claudio, U.S. Air Force courtesy photo

Removing Bees From A Jet

This is the easiest and safest way to defeat a swarming tactic.

Carlos Claudio, U.S. Air Force courtesy photo

Scraping The Last Of The Bees Off The Jet

The trick with swarms is there are just so dang many of them.

Carlos Claudio, U.S. Air Force courtesy photo

Beekeeper Andy Westrich

This is the retired U.S. Navy veteran who, in his post-service life as a beekeeper, removed bees from a jet. It is probably the coolest beekeeper story I've ever heard.

Tags:

• Animals
• bees
• honeybees
• f-22
• jets
• us air force
• stealth fighters
• beekeepers
• swarms
• Military

by Taboola
Sponsored Links
You May Like35 Places You've Never Seen but Wish You Had (photos)www.thefunkyruca.comThe most addictive game of the year! Play with 14 million Players now!Forge Of Empires - Free Online GameEnd Your Nightly Snoring Nightmare With This Simple SolutionMy Snoring SolutionThe Ultimate Way to Get Cheap Hotel RoomsSave70Now You Can Track Your Car Using Your SmartphoneTrackr BravoAre you a strategic thinker? Test your skills with millions of addicted playe…Stormfall: Free Online Game


Want more news like this?
Sign up to receive our weekly email newsletter and never miss an update!

our privacy policy.

Related Content

• 
  Check Out This Infrared Photo Of A Stealth Fighter
• 
  Does This Grainy Image Show Japan's First Stealth Fighter?
• 
  Watch F-22 Raptors Refuel At Night
• 
  Air Force Declares F-35 Ready For Combat

 

[That_engineer_guy]

Why do they care if there are bee on the aircraft ? what they gonna do ? sting the aircraft to death ?

 

[Blue Marlin]

@gambit since your quite a smart guy in the feilf of aeronautics i was hoping you would know what ar the flaps for?

i got it froma video of an engine test below @0:12

 

[gambit]

@gambit since your quite a smart guy in the feilf of aeronautics i was hoping you would know what ar the flaps for?
View attachment 325717
i got it froma video of an engine test below @0:12

First, am not a specialist in aerodynamics. Avionics is more my thing. But out of curiosity I have read a few textbooks on aerodynamics.

Second, the image you posted, according to my sources at Nellis, is of the intake overpressure relief system. And not every aircraft have it.

The problem -- in a manner of speaking -- is from the combination of the F119 engines and their associated inlets. Americans use 'inlet'. Brits use 'intake'. So let us not quibble over that.

Anyway...The near alien F119 engine is so efficient that it can literally suck so much air into the inlet system that overpressure can build up inside the inlet tunnel, threatening the sustainment of the engine run. Sustainment mean keeping it running. Results ranges from engine stall to even blade damages.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740021543.pdf

The overpressure relief doors are topside and just right in front of the engines themselves. On a stationary engine run like the video, the doors are essentially vents to drop inlet pressure to a more usable level.

Inlet problems are not new. When I was on the F-111, its inlet design could starve the TF30 even in flight, albeit at low speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_TF30

The F-111 had problems with inlet compatibility, and many faulted the placement of the intakes behind the disturbed air of the wing. Newer F-111 variants incorporated improved intake designs and most variants featured more powerful versions of the TF30 engine. The F-111E used TF30-P-3 engines, the F-111D included TF30-P-9, and the F-111F had the TF30-P-100.

Note the highlighted. Just like buying/selling real estate, it is: Location, location, and location.

The entire system consists of the inlet dimension, engine design (efficiency), and engine location. There are aerodynamicists who do not work on wings but on inlet geometries, and they are well paid.

So for the F-111...

The A-model (top) have what is called a 'translating cowl' system that literally push a section of the inlet forward so as not to starve the engine. Hydraulics driven and unnecessarily complex.

The later D/E/F models have a much mechanically simpler system of 'blown in doors'. Spring loaded closed, but will open by themselves if external pressure is great enough.

Interesting, is it not ? One aircraft can supply too much air that the engines could die. Another aircraft can supply too little air that the engines could die. Tells you how complex an aircraft really is.

Hope this helped.

 

[Blue Marlin]

First, am not a specialist in aerodynamics. Avionics is more my thing. But out of curiosity I have read a few textbooks on aerodynamics.

Second, the image you posted, according to my sources at Nellis, is of the intake overpressure relief system. And not every aircraft have it.

The problem -- in a manner of speaking -- is from the combination of the F119 engines and their associated inlets. Americans use 'inlet'. Brits use 'intake'. So let us not quibble over that.

Anyway...The near alien F119 engine is so efficient that it can literally suck so much air into the inlet system that overpressure can build up inside the inlet tunnel, threatening the sustainment of the engine run. Sustainment mean keeping it running. Results ranges from engine stall to even blade damages.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740021543.pdf

The overpressure relief doors are topside and just right in front of the engines themselves. On a stationary engine run like the video, the doors are essentially vents to drop inlet pressure to a more usable level.

Inlet problems are not new. When I was on the F-111, its inlet design could starve the TF30 even in flight, albeit at low speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_TF30

Note the highlighted. Just like buying/selling real estate, it is: Location, location, and location.

The entire system consists of the inlet dimension, engine design (efficiency), and engine location. There are aerodynamicists who do not work on wings but on inlet geometries, and they are well paid.

So for the F-111...

The A-model (top) have what is called a 'translating cowl' system that literally push a section of the inlet forward so as not to starve the engine. Hydraulics driven and unnecessarily complex.

The later D/E/F models have a much mechanically simpler system of 'blown in doors'. Spring loaded closed, but will open by themselves if external pressure is great enough.

Interesting, is it not ? One aircraft can supply too much air that the engines could die. Another aircraft can supply too little air that the engines could die. Tells you how complex an aircraft really is.

Hope this helped.

thanks pal,
so the f119 hasa problem of taking in to much air and these are like a relief flap. kinda the opposite of the f-111.

yes we use intake and you lot use inlet among other things like we say petrol and you say gas. you call a liquid gas. i could go on but jeremy clarkson and michael mcintyre beat me to it.

it will be interesting to see the next gen of engines being variable flow. if this case arises then i would assume the air would be bled to the bypass ducts

 

[gambit]

so the f119 hasa problem of taking in to much air...

Nnnnnnnot exactly...But good enough.

The problem is that the inlet's tunnel is a confined area. So it is not too much air but too much air doing unpredictable things in a confined chamber.

Did the F-22's engineers knew about this ? Probably.

But then why not modify the inlets ?

I will guess this is where my guys -- the radar geeks -- entered the picture. They probably said something in the line of: 'You cannot do this, that, and these because it would raise the local radar cross section contributorship to X level.' And they probably have enough colorful charts to back up their arguments.

So in the larger scheme of things, overpressure under very limited situations can be compensated without negatively affecting the whole RCS, and the inlets were left the way they are with the relief doors topside where they are rarely seen anyway.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Nnnnnnnot exactly...But good enough.

The problem is that the inlet's tunnel is a confined area. So it is not too much air but too much air doing unpredictable things in a confined chamber.

Did the F-22's engineers knew about this ? Probably.

But then why not modify the inlets ?

I will guess this is where my guys -- the radar geeks -- entered the picture. They probably said something in the line of: 'You cannot do this, that, and these because it would raise the local radar cross section contributorship to X level.' And they probably have enough colorful charts to back up their arguments.

So in the larger scheme of things, overpressure under very limited situations can be compensated without negatively affecting the whole RCS, and the inlets were left the way they are with the relief doors topside where they are rarely seen anyway.

well i would have shown them colourful charts too. engin intakes or inlets to you are a source for radar wave to bounce back to it source. the b2 was a simple design and having the intakes on the top of the body/wings. i have a feeling the next gen fighters would have their intakes above the wings, either leaving room for a huge weapons bay or a flater bottom, what would you pick?

 

[gambit]

the b2 was a simple design and having the intakes on the top of the body/wings. i have a feeling the next gen fighters would have their intakes above the wings, either leaving room for a huge weapons bay or a flater bottom, what would you pick?

I do not share that.

In RCS control, physical size matter. The B-2 is for a different mission with different flight characteristics. The first time I saw the F-16, I thought: 'What a huge eff-ing tail'.

The reason for the F-16's vertical stab, which is really outsized for the jet's size, came from the need for high AOA.

The higher the AOA, the less stable air available for the vertical stab, which leads to DECREASING yaw axis stability and control. If the AOA is high enough, the vertical stab would not get any air at all, leading to an out of controlled flight condition. One solution is to incorporate twin vertical stabs and move them to the fuselage edges: F-15 and F-18 for a couple examples.

If the fuselage can block air to the vertical stab, it can also block air to the engines, if the AOA is high enough. The B-2's flight profile do not have the jet doing fighter-like maneuvers. So it can afford to have its inlets topside, away from most ground based radars.

I would be cautious in assuming how much of the current design can and will be incorporated into future designs. When the F-117 came out, not long after, there were plenty of artist conceptions of how that design would work on future 'stealth' aircrafts. One of those conceptions was the 'navalized' version of the F-117.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/f117/pics03.shtml

The problem was that the sources of these conceptions do not have any working knowledge of basic radar operations, which mean they do not know radar signals behaves on complex bodies, which mean no one anticipated the unexpected shapes of the B-2 and F-22 when they finally debuted. All curvy instead of angular.

 

[Blue Marlin]

I do not share that.

In RCS control, physical size matter. The B-2 is for a different mission with different flight characteristics. The first time I saw the F-16, I thought: 'What a huge eff-ing tail'.

The reason for the F-16's vertical stab, which is really outsized for the jet's size, came from the need for high AOA.

The higher the AOA, the less stable air available for the vertical stab, which leads to DECREASING yaw axis stability and control. If the AOA is high enough, the vertical stab would not get any air at all, leading to an out of controlled flight condition. One solution is to incorporate twin vertical stabs and move them to the fuselage edges: F-15 and F-18 for a couple examples.

If the fuselage can block air to the vertical stab, it can also block air to the engines, if the AOA is high enough. The B-2's flight profile do not have the jet doing fighter-like maneuvers. So it can afford to have its inlets topside, away from most ground based radars.

I would be cautious in assuming how much of the current design can and will be incorporated into future designs. When the F-117 came out, not long after, there were plenty of artist conceptions of how that design would work on future 'stealth' aircrafts. One of those conceptions was the 'navalized' version of the F-117.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/f117/pics03.shtml

The problem was that the sources of these conceptions do not have any working knowledge of basic radar operations, which mean they do not know radar signals behaves on complex bodies, which mean no one anticipated the unexpected shapes of the B-2 and F-22 when they finally debuted. All curvy instead of angular.

so basically the b2 does not need to have its intake in a conventional position and its does not need verticle tails as its not intended for fighter like manouvers.
back to your point of having two verticle tails..... those are for mainly wide jets. notice i said wide not twin engined as a large number of jets mainly americain and rusain incorprate this design whilst we europeans prefer a single large tail. also its very common the f35 has twin tails yet being single engined one thing that does confues me a bit is that american designers still prefer agility over stealth, which is one reason why the yf-22(now called the f22) won over the yf-23. if the f35 had the same wing layout, diamond wing layout of the yf-23 with the pelikan tails of the x-32. it would be one hell of a fighter and be even more stealthy and more manouverable.

 

[gambit]

back to your point of having two verticle tails..... those are for mainly wide jets. notice i said wide not twin engined as a large number of jets mainly americain and rusain incorprate this design whilst we europeans prefer a single large tail. also its very common the f35 has twin tails yet being single engined...

Twin canted vertical stabs are necessary for RCS control.

The dreaded corner reflector. A huge no-no.

...one thing that does confues me a bit is that american designers still prefer agility over stealth,...

It is not so much the designers but our pilots. But with advances in aerodynamics and avionics, we now have both.

...which is one reason why the yf-22(now called the f22) won over the yf-23. if the f35 had the same wing layout, diamond wing layout of the yf-23 with the pelikan tails of the x-32. it would be one hell of a fighter and be even more stealthy and more manouverable.

Then it would not be the F-35 as specified by the customer.

The customer want so-and-so capabilities. The laws of physics cannot be bypassed. This is not PDF China where there are alternate physical laws. This is real physics. If the customer want so-and-so capabilities, the aerodynamicists and their associated engineers will pull from their bags of tricks a set of airfoils, wing areas, fuselage forms, avionics, and so on, to best accomplish the customer's requirements. Each set contains some features that are emphasized and some compromised. There are no free lunch. If you want fast and minimal, look at the F-104. Still the design to beat. If you want really fast at the expense of everything else, then look at the SR-71. If you want as small as possible and as versatile as possible, then look at the F-16. Sometimes an outstanding design became outstanding only thru time and accidental discovery of what it can do. Sometimes an outstanding design was outstanding from paper, like the A-10.

I predict that the F-35 will be another F-16.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Twin canted vertical stabs are necessary for RCS control.

The dreaded corner reflector. A huge no-no.

end of the day it depends on which way the radar hit the airframe doesn't it? mind you theres no such thing as a invisble aircraft, just low observable. the next gen will focus on closing this gap to near invisibility and changing cockpits for unmanned and manned missions

It is not so much the designers but our pilots. But with advances in aerodynamics and avionics, we now have both.

fair enough they were probable were comparing it to the likes of the f15 when choosing what to go for.

Then it would not be the F-35 as specified by the customer.

The customer want so-and-so capabilities. The laws of physics cannot be bypassed. This is not PDF China where there are alternate physical laws. This is real physics. If the customer want so-and-so capabilities, the aerodynamicists and their associated engineers will pull from their bags of tricks a set of airfoils, wing areas, fuselage forms, avionics, and so on, to best accomplish the customer's requirements. Each set contains some features that are emphasized and some compromised. There are no free lunch. If you want fast and minimal, look at the F-104. Still the design to beat. If you want really fast at the expense of everything else, then look at the SR-71. If you want as small as possible and as versatile as possible, then look at the F-16. Sometimes an outstanding design became outstanding only thru time and accidental discovery of what it can do. Sometimes an outstanding design was outstanding from paper, like the A-10.

well. yes the customer would be getting a lockheed and boeing hybrid. but the diamond wing formation combined the the pelikan tail results in a stealthy agile airframe. but hey thats me and my opinion.

I predict that the F-35 will be another F-16.

your fair to say that but were putting stealth before payload (internally) externally you can have as much as the f16, but then thats defeats the objective of a stealth airframe as the weapons will show like a sore thumb. you can just get the internal pod from boeing which is what they are pitching on the f18's. note the pic below has ctf's too.

 

[gambit]

mind you theres no such thing as a invisble aircraft, just low observable. the next gen will focus on closing this gap to near invisibility and changing cockpits for unmanned and manned missions

When I first came on here, I shocked the forum by telling everyone that in radar detection, NOTHING is invisible. Radar sees all. Then I proceeded to explain why 'stealth' changed air combat syllabus.

your fair to say that but were putting stealth before payload (internally) externally you can have as much as the f16, but then thats defeats the objective of a stealth airframe as the weapons will show like a sore thumb. you can just get the internal pod from boeing which is what they are pitching on the f18's. note the pic below has ctf's too.

There are limits in trying to 'stealthify' an existing platform. Those limits came from studying the basic clean platform, then inserting those 'stealthy' modules. If the combination does not lower the new RCS below a certain threshold, then there is no need to pursue the idea.

The official unofficial par for 'stealth' is a clean F-16. It is an average taken from all aspects. The F-16 standard is not a hard rule but from common sense. If the reduction method cannot lower the effective detection distance by at least 1/2, the venture is not worth it financially. In other words, if the F-1000XS jet fighter is originally detected by the X-band freq at 100 km, then the reduction method must reduce that distance with the same radar criteria to 50 km in order to produce effective tactical uncertainty. The nearer the geographical distance between two potential adversaries (to each other), the more critical this 1/2 reduction criteria.

Am sure some measurements have been performed on the F-15 and F-18 platforms and the results were sufficiently convincing to some potential customers. But as far as the US is concerned, for now, we want a 'stealthy' design from paper.