F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[average american]

Inside the F-35, the futuristic fighter jet - Telegraph

Inside the F-35, the World's Most Futuristic Fighter Jet
An aviation fantasy from the realms of Star Wars, the F-35 is the most sophisticated, expensive and controversial jet fighter ever produced. Jonathan Glancey takes its flight simulator for a spin
By Jonathan Glancey 16 Jan 2013
Telegraph
A blazing hot December morning. High blue skies. Wide open spaces. This is Fort Worth, Texas, famous for its frontier atmosphere, its stockyards, rodeos, Art Deco downtown – and the vast Lockheed Martin factory.

Boasting a mile-long aircraft assembly plant, opened on April 18 1942 – the day Lt Col Jimmy Doolittle led the first Army Air Corps raid on Japan – this is where, for the next quarter of a century, the world's most sophisticated, controversial and expensive jet fighter will roll off a surgically clean production line.

One of the first of these £100 million supersonic aircraft, a Lockheed Martin F-35B, hot from trials and shimmering in the 80-degree heat, is perched over a 'hover-pit', a deep concrete well absorbing the fierce downward blast of the STOVL (short take-off and vertical landing) jet. The F-35B is tethered like some momentarily quietened bucking bronco.

This is not only an American beast. There is a strong likelihood that from 2030 the F-35 will be the only high-speed fighter in service with the RAF and the Royal Navy.
The much-loved Harrier was retired two years ago; the Tornado follows between now and March 2019. This will leave us with the Typhoon Eurofighter (introduced in 2003, and made in Britain and Europe), yet when that is scheduled to fly into the sunset a decade or so later, and with no Typhoon Mk2 in the wings to replace it, the
Lockheed Martin F-35 may well be the one front-line jet able to defend British airspace and coalition interests.

By then, the nation that created the Spitfire and the Harrier will have long stopped making fighter aircraft of its own. Airfix, yes; Supermarine, Hawker and their successor BAE Systems, no.

Even if we had the will, we are unlikely to have the money. We will depend on our special relationship with the United States more than ever before. These are weighty matters that have drawn critics and supporters into a frenzied debate over the virtues of the F-35.

Just as I near the restrained grey jet at Fort Worth to talk to its test pilot, a bright orange butterfly catches my eye. A Gulf fritillary, it flutters innocently within feet of the supersonic warbird. It makes me think of the need we feel to protect the simplest freedoms with the most complex and terrifying weaponry, machines that, like the
proverbial wheel, can break a butterfly.

We need the assurance of jet-powered, digitally guided, mechanical windhovers – fabricated from the most advanced materials and loaded with the latest digital sorcery and Star Wars weaponry – to assure a future in which we, or a young girl on her way to school in Afghanistan, can stop and stare at a fleeting fritillary.

'Darth Vader never had a helmet like this,' says Billy Flynn, a senior Lockheed Martin test pilot with combat experience flying Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18s in Serbia and Bosnia, showing me his Vision Systems International 'bone-dome'. Made of carbon-fibre, the Israeli-US-designed augmented-reality helmet is packed with hi-tech gadgetry, and displays all the data the pilot needs inside its visor.



'This is an essential part of the F-35. It's what makes such a difference,' Flynn says. 'It's been laser-scanned to fit my head, bumps and all. Through it, I can see 360 degrees all around the airplane. It's wild seeing the undulations of the Red River along the Texas border beneath your feet. It's virtual reality! Strange? Different, sure, but there's not a pilot who would trade it for anything else. It needs refining, but it'll make pilot and airplane an integral, all-seeing weapon.'

Everyone I meet involved in the F-35 project talks lyrically about the computer wizardry of this digital-era aircraft. I ask the same analogue question, over and again, of the test pilots: so what's it like to fly?

'A no-brainer,' they chorus.

They talk so fervently about the Star Wars aspects of the F-35 partly because it is the easiest aircraft any of them has ever flown: pilots are free to manage the weaponry while the F-35, more or less, flies itself.



Tucked away inside the Lockheed Martin complex, Dr Mike Skaff, the chief engineer of pilot/vehicle interface for the F-35 programme, and a former USAF F-16 pilot, guides me through the simulator.

The seat is comfortable, the view commanding, the controls minimal. Turn on the battery. Press the starter. In 90 seconds, the virtual F-35B is ready to fly just as the real aircraft would be: unlike most aircraft, the F-35 performs all necessary safety checks automatically and extremely quickly. The instrument panel is a glass screen measuring 20x8in. As with an iPad, you touch it to bring up the information you need. Pilots can also talk to the aircraft; it talks back.

Pushing the left-hand throttle forward and pulling ever so gently on the stubby right-hand control stick, take-off is smooth, almost imperceptible, and the climb rapid. Up we go, above what I take to be a 3D map of Afghanistan.

The aircraft rolls, loops and darts about with minimal input from the pilot. You might expect this of any existing 'fourth generation' fighter jet, such as a USAF F-16 Fighting Falcon or RAF Typhoon, but it is a revelation to someone like me, a qualified pilot with experience of piston engines and no more than a 'second generation' Hawker Hunter jet.

The F-35B, however, is 'fifth generation'. Not only is it stealthy in the military sense – all but undetectable by radar because of its origami form, its special coating, its hidden engine and low heat emission – but it can also perform truly extraordinary tricks through its continuously upgradeable computer software and complex engineering. What sort of tricks? Well, here I am turning towards the airfield. Not only will the F-35B land itself, but it will also hover at the touch of a button. Where hovering a Harrier is not unlike spinning plates on a pole on the tip of your nose while riding a trick bicycle on a circus high-wire – and no mistakes are affordable – the F-35 stops in the air, just like that, the pilot's hands off the controls.

With a second push of the button and a touch of throttle and stick, the F-35 soars back into the sky. Skaff suggests I might like to take out a 'bad guy'.

I don't play computer games, but surely none could be as easy as this? With its complex radar, stealth capability, sensors and lasers, the F-35 finds enemy aircraft invisible to the eye. I trace my finger across a matrix on the glass screen and lock on to the enemy. I am not even pointing the aircraft in their direction. I don't need to. The F-35 can see and sense across huge distances in all directions. I select a missile from the store of weapons concealed in the fuselage, squeeze the trigger and, pulling away, watch a digital countdown. Zero: enemy destroyed.



My simulated flight may have been a little all-over-the-sky, yet given a couple of hours I'm sure I could be a Top Gun, ready to climb into the cockpit of the real thing and, armed with that Darth-Vader-eat-your-heart-out helmet and a stiff dose of the Right Stuff, ready to take on the enemy wherever they may be threatening freedom on land, sea or air.

It seems all so simple, so certain and seductive. Who wouldn't want this all-but-invisible, all-but-invincible sky warrior on their side? There is no other military aircraft like it in the pipeline, much less in production; Russian and Chinese 'rivals' are still essentially fourth generation. So why is the F-35 controversial? Why is Canada threatening to cancel its order? Why have there been so many spats between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin?

Because the F-35 programme is at least five years behind schedule. Because costs have risen by more than 90 per cent. Because design, development and testing have thrown up many problems that insiders view as teething problems – the helmet needs further work; early tailhooks failed to catch the wire when planes landed on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Wasp; computer software is not all it should be, or not yet – and outsiders are determined to see as fundamental flaws.

Earlier this year, Winslow T Wheeler of the US Center of Defense Information called the F-35 a 'gigantic performance disappointment', adding, 'It's the problem of paying a huge amount of money thinking you're getting a Ferrari; you're not, you're getting a Yugo.' While this is hardly true, it shows how high passions have run as the F-35 has been delayed.

The F-35 emerged from the US Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter Project, a strictly American venture, announced in 1993, that metamorphosed in 1996 into the US Joint Strike Fighter Program (JSF), in collaboration with Britain and other international partners. The purpose of the project was to develop a stealth fighter to replace several frontline aircraft including the F-16 Fighting Falcon (a design from the mid-1970s still in production at Fort Worth, with more than 4,500 built), the F/A-18 Hornet and the AV-8B Harrier II.

'It's what we call a South West policy,' says Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed Martin's fast-talking vice-president for F-35 business development, referring to America's most popular budget airline, the inspiration behind EasyJet and Ryanair. A former F/A-18 US Navy pilot – O'Bryan flew the first 'shock and awe' missions to Baghdad in 2003 – he cites the efficiency and profitability of the Texas-based airline, which operates a single type of aircraft, the Boeing 737. 'Like South West, everything's the same,' says O'Bryan, predicting sales of 3,100 F-35s between now and 2037 when production is scheduled to end, 'so everything's easier and cheaper, too.'



The US government plans to buy 2,443 F-35s in three variants: the F-35A is a 'conventional' Air Force fighter; the F-35B is the STOVL version for the Marines, and the variant Britain has pledged to buy (it can operate from more or less anywhere); the F-35C is the Navy version with folding wings, designed for carriers, launched by steam-catapults and fitted with arrester hooks to catch the wires that stop the aircraft on deck. The remaining 500-600 F-35s are to be bought, incrementally, by JSF partner nations.

Along with the US, Britain is the only 'level one partner'. We've stumped up $2 billion to date, or four per cent of the costs, yet, as O'Bryan says, we 'get 25 per cent of the say in the project and 100 per cent of the benefits. Also, the first operational F-35s will be in 2015 with US Marines, while the RAF airplanes won't be in service till 2018, so you'll get the results of three years of testing and training.'

The enthusiasm of partner countries – the 'junior' partners are Italy, Holland, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Turkey, Israel and Japan – has ebbed and flowed since 1996, and has notably waned since 2007, when the global economy stalled. Governments have come and gone, with long-term defence projects unsettled by political turbulence and indecision.

In December 2006 the Labour government announced it was keen to buy 138 F-35s, but the current coalition government figure is only 48 F-35Bs, with future orders dependent on the findings of the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review.

At the moment, no one is fully certain that Britain will hang on to its new F-35-equipped aircraft carriers – HMS Queen Elizabeth II and HMS Prince of Wales – currently under construction, nor whether future orders for F-35s may be cancelled in favour of pilotless drones. And who knows how big the British Armed Forces will be by the time the Queen Elizabeth II is ready for action in 2020?

'The RAF is down to 33,000,' Group Capt Harv Smyth tells me. A Harrier veteran, in combat from 1996 to 2010, Smyth is Britain's JSF National Deputy, and my guide on this trip. 'The Navy is 30,000; you could seat the two forces comfortably inside Old Trafford. But because we're asked to do a lot, around the world, and because over the past 20 years every major mission we've undertaken has been a surprise, we really do need to be prepared. We need the tactical and strategic advantage F-35 offers. Even with the Harrier, we cut down the number of ground troops needed in Afghanistan by huge numbers. Stealth fighters are expensive to buy, but they'll save governments and taxpayers a lot of money in the long run, and save the lives of troops, airmen and innocent civilians, too.'

The F-35A first flew in December 2006. The F-35B followed in June 2008, with the British test pilot Graham Tomlinson making the first full-stop in mid-air in March 2010 and the first vertical landing the following day. The Navy's F-35C took to the air that June. A symbolic handover of the first F-35B to the British government, represented by the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, was made at a ceremony at Forth Worth in July last year, and in November US Marines took delivery of three F-35Bs at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona. To date there have been just over 2,500 F-35 test flights, as programme and production – running concurrently – have come up to speed. No one doubts that there are development problems to overcome, yet even the most vociferous naysayers have tended to go to ground as F-35s have taken, increasingly confidently, to the air.



Money, though, remains the aircraft's Achilles' heel. Delays have caused serious friction between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin. The total cost to the USA for development and procurement has been estimated at $323 billion, with a total lifecycle cost of $618 million per aircraft. The life expectancy of an F-35 is 30 years.
Meanwhile, according to a 2012 US government accountability report, F-35 costs have increased 93 per cent, in real terms, over the 2001 estimate.

But unlike other military aircraft the F-35 can be reprogrammed and updated throughout its life. As the aircraft will be flying into the late 2060s, perhaps this is just as well. The Lockheed Martin F-16 has been in service since 1978. By chance, four of these nimble fighters barrel low over the company's Fort Worth offices as I leave the lobby after my four-mile walk through the complex. As Steve O'Bryan says of the very able F-16, 'It has the computing power of a Commodore 64 in comparison to an F-35.'

Turkey vultures wing low over the magnificent wooded estate of the US Naval Air Station Patuxent River – Pax River – on the fringes of Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, as I drive in with Harv Smyth. It's winter here, breezy and close to freezing. In warmer times of the year, ospreys and bald eagles circle the 14,500-acre base and the 22,000 personnel who live and work here, including 22 British pilots, engineers and commanders lodged with the F-35 team who are carrying out extensive tests on the aircraft. They include the RAF's quietly spoken Sqd Ldr Jim Schofield, who flew 70 hours in Harriers in combat in Iraq in 2003. He learnt to fly, on a Piper Super Cub, before he could drive.

'I've flown 10 frontline fighters,' Schofield says. 'The F-35 is by far and away the easiest. I've flown the aircraft up to Mach 1.6 and pulled up to 7g. The helmet gives me a God's-eye view. And when you press that hover button it's as if engineering and electronics have overcome the laws of physics.'

Peter 'Wizzer' Wilson flew Sea Harriers with the Royal Navy from 1990 to 2000. 'The new technology takes workload and risk away from the pilot. It's amazing how one press of a button will set in motion so much magic around you. The one time you get to hear something mechanical working hard is when the big [vertical lift-off] fan behind you spools up; it sounds like an angry mosquito. The [Rolls-Royce] fan is also very smooth in motion, which has really helped as we've practised precision deck landings at sea on USS Wasp; it's a quantum step in every way from the Harrier.'

Flying the F-35 is neither as 'visceral' nor as 'thrilling', to use Schofield's word, as the old British Harrier, yet it is clearly more comfortable and far less demanding on the pilot than its Anglo-American successor, the AV-8B Harrier II. The F-35 has an Anglo-American pedigree, too. As everyone I talk to at Forth Worth and Pax is keen to stress, 15 per cent of each F-35 put into service over the next 25 years will be made in Britain. From Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems to Martin-Baker, the family-run manufacturer of the world's finest ejector seats, and a further 130 companies spread, serendipitously – not by political design – the length and breadth of the country, British industry will continue to take part in the design and manufacture of military aircraft, their weapons, equipment and software.

'It's impossible for Britain to go it alone,' says Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge, the head of RAF Strike Command, 2003-6, Commander in Chief of British forces in Iraq in 2003 and, today, very much involved with Italian-built I F-35s – the only aircraft to be built outside Texas – as the vice-president of strategic marketing for Finmeccanica UK. A highly experienced pilot with a first-class Cambridge degree in physics, Burridge is also a member of the council of the Defence Manufacturers Association.

'The MoD has to think very hard in its 2015 review whether it wishes to develop the Typhoon, or to buy further F-35s and nothing else,' he says. 'This would have quite profound consequences for European industry. Not to develop the Typhoon, which still has potential sales in Oman, UAE, Saudi and Malaysia, would mean that British expertise would wither on the vine.'

Burridge, like others concerned for British and European industry, would like to see F-35s operating alongside upgraded Typhoons. But economic conditions, the ways of warfare and the public's diminishing appetite for deaths of soldiers and civilians are having an effect on the very nature of fighter aircraft. 'We could go 100 per cent unmanned after F-35,' Burridge says. 'It's a plausible position; but there's a limit, politically and morally, to robotic warfare, and a lot of questions concerning the ethics of extra-territorial attacks and extra-judicial killings.'

Shortly before Christmas Air Chief Marshall Sir Stephen Dalton, Chief of the Air Staff, announced the formation of a new grouping known as Remotely Piloted Air System (RPAS) pilots. Because they will have to gain basic flying qualifications, this new generation of pilots will wear the same 'wings' RAF pilots have cherished for generations. The 'lethal precision of their weapons', Sir Stephen told the Royal United Services Institute, means that RPAS pilots will be seen increasingly as 'a cost-effective way to conduct warfare'. They will not be chasing the shouting wind alone in the cockpits of Typhoons, nor flying F-35s through footless halls of air; instead, they will be flying computer screens in remote underground bunkers.

'We're making these [F-35s] for our kids to fly,' Steve O'Bryan says, meaning future generations. Military pilots such as Jim Schofield, Harv Smyth, 'Wizzer' Wilson, Billy Flynn and Brian Burridge will always want to fly in real airspace, and yet it is chastening to learn that the X-35B, the prototype F-35B, is already perched silently in the Boeing Aviation Hangar of the Smithsonian Institution in Virginia – a museum piece. Today's fifth-generation fighter, hugely impressive, deeply seductive, upgradable and so very important and perhaps necessary to so many people's security, jobs and freedom, is, oddly, already beginning to seem a part of military aviation history.

 

[p2prada]

The point is that the Americans already have the technological base to develop these systems early on, even earlier than the Soviets. It could have been that the Americans as usual downplayed the capabilities of the Soviets and wrongly assumed that they will not be able to develop a similar system after they (Americans) induct their AIM 9 successor (after AIMs 82 and 95 program were cancelled the Americans considered AIM 9 as stop gap missile until the induction of ASRAAM).

Sure, there are a lot of developments which were first thought of in the 50s, 60s and 70s and are becoming a reality now. Both the US and the Russians have the technology base to design everything that we know of.

There are some where the Americans are ahead, and there are some where the Russians are ahead.

For eg: The Americans obviously have a higher capability in stealth. But the Russians have a higher capability when it comes to ballistic missiles, RAMJET and SCRAMJET propulsion, which the Americans acknowledge. There is a chance the Russians will develop the first spacefaring fighter jet, well before the Americans can. So, this goes both ways.

Fact of the matter is, when it comes to IR technologies, the Soviets started first. So, you can't really impress me with the EO DAS and its 360 degree capability. Something the Russians have already demonstrated and offered on the Mig-35 and prototype testing a far more advanced capability on the PAKFA today.

Anyway, the Americans have claimed the F-35 will be the most advanced fighter ever. India has claimed the same for FGFA.

Sensors on PAKFA that we know of.

 

[asianobserve]

But how do you rate the systems integration of PAKFA? Why didn't the Russians implement some sort of augmented reality like what you have in the F-35 since PAKFA later and it obviously it has a myriad of active and passive sensor scattered around the airframe? A mix of the best of F22 and F35 cannot be matched.

The strength of the American aircrafts has always been the simplification for the pilot of exploiting the capabilities of the installed systems. In the end I think this is what mattersd in combat not just the number of sensors installed.

 

[asianobserve]

Note that Serbian Mig29s were armed by Archer and equipped with Shchel-3UM HMD but they were still shot down by F15s and F16s in the Kosovo war.

 

[asianobserve]

But the Russians have a higher capability when it comes to ballistic missiles, RAMJET and SCRAMJET propulsion, which the Americans acknowledge. There is a chance the Russians will develop the first spacefaring fighter jet, well before the Americans can. So, this goes both ways.

The Russians or Soviets were not ahead of Ramjet and Scramjet technologies. Read this:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...Vv_5nH&sig=AHIEtbSUho8Vc4lBAkWRu6ZBxcozpwWRMA

Remember Bomarc? Talos? Bloodhound (UK)? How about A-12? In terms of Scramjet we are now in the 4th generation of development, which Scramjet powered vehicles do you think are now in active testing or development? Not Russian.

Fact of the matter is, when it comes to IR technologies, the Soviets started first.

Why, did the Soviets have something analogous to AIM 4 with IR seeker prior to the induction of that American IR missile? Anyway, I also found this material...

2 . 2 E a r l y S y s t e ms – F r o m T h e o r y t o A p p l i c a t i o n

In the 1940s and during World War II, two other technologies emerged. The first was analogous

to television systems, with discrete detectors and mechanically scanning capability. Other developments

included an infrared vidicon or other non-scanning devices [Lloyd, 1975]. It was also during this period

that the original night vision systems were created for the US Army. These devices used active infrared

projection called IR Illuminator. A beam of near-IR light, invisible to the human eye, was projected to

16

the object and reflected back to the lens. This technology was very similar to the normal flashlight

[Works, 2006]. The original scanning thermal imagers were called thermographs, with single detector

element, two dimensional, slow framing scanners that recorded the image on film and were therefore not

real-time devices. The Army built the first thermograph using a 16-inch searchlight reflector, a dual axis

scanner, and a bolometer detector. The Army continued rapid development of thermographs through

1960. Up to the late 1950s, electrical signal frequency bandwidths were limited to a few hundred Hertz

because poor detector response above this range gave low image signal-to-noise ratios. The first fast

framing sensors were made possible by the development of cooled short-time-constant indium antimonide

(InSb) and mercury doped germanium (Ge:Hg) photo detectors [Lloyd, 1975].

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...jpAtWd&sig=AHIEtbQsZPR2l_nW00pw8C1a6XrcIIdmVg

 

[asianobserve]

Bomarc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIM-10_Bomarc
First flight: 1955

 

[asianobserve]

By just watching the development reasoning behind the F-35 that there's a revolution in WVR air combat going on. Some of the major considerations:

1. All aspect passive and active detection systems takes the place of maneuvering to acquire a targeting solution. The key is to be the first one to get the firing solution;
2. HOBS missiles will do the maneuvering (and targeting) instead of the fighter doing the turning towards the enemy. With turning capabilities up to 55Gs and and up to 3x the speed of sound, there's not much current or projected fighters can do to evade modern 5th gen missiles.
3. Sensors fusion will shorten the time the target is detected, acquired and dispatched.
4. Radar and heat signature minimization to significantly reduce the chances of being targeted first.

Of course it's too early to know if the F-35 mentality is right. For all we know this might go down the F4 experience, but then again they may be right this time. Personally, I think the Americans got it right this time (F-35 cost aside).

 

[asianobserve]

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-2236-start-15.html

 

[p2prada]

The Russians or Soviets were not ahead of Ramjet and Scramjet technologies. Read this:

Page 32, 2nd last paragraph on the right hand column. It talks about how Russia revolutionized RAMJET in the 60s and 70s.

Page 37, more Russian examples were operational than any other. Along with being more diverse.

Remember Bomarc? Talos? Bloodhound (UK)? How about A-12? In terms of Scramjet we are now in the 4th generation of development, which Scramjet powered vehicles do you think are now in active testing or development?

A-12 isn't a RAMJET/SCRAMJET. It is a Turbojet.

Not Russian.

Russia is supposedly already testing a 1500 Km SCRAMJET land attack cruise missile. for operational use. Brahmos II research is already happening, for a 2017 flight test.

Also, try to google Holod. How Russia's Holod was the first SCRAMJET vehicle to reach hypersonic speeds and how the Americans leeched Russian technology after the fall of the Soviet Union in order to push forward their own programs. Holod was tested with American and French scientists because they wanted to learn.

After that Russia got into a JV with American institutes and transferred technology to them.

Холод

Also,
SCRAMJET | Seminar Paper :: Engineering Seminar Topics

Several scramjet designs are now under investigation with Russian assistance. One of these options or a combination of them will be selected by ONERA, the French aerospace research agency, with the EADS conglomerate providing technical backup. The notional immediate goal of the study is to produce a hypersonic air-to-surface missile named "Promethee", which would be about 6 meters (20 ft) long and weigh 1,700 kilograms (3,750 lb).

They still need Russian assistance.

Why, did the Soviets have something analogous to AIM 4 with IR seeker prior to the induction of that American IR missile? Anyway, I also found this material...

So, what? You are still comparing 50s and 60s to current technology.

Like saying the Americans are the best because they did something first, but you end up comparing some ancient first generation system to a later generation system and still trying to draw comparisons.

Bomac, Talon etc to SA-6, heck not even Yakhont and Oniks class.

Where are operational systems? Why does the west need Russian help for SCRAMJET? Why is it that Russia is developing operational systems while the west is still stuck with prototypes? Figure these out and you have your answer.

 

[p2prada]

But how do you rate the systems integration of PAKFA? Why didn't the Russians implement some sort of augmented reality like what you have in the F-35 since PAKFA later and it obviously it has a myriad of active and passive sensor scattered around the airframe?

Huh? What? Augmented reality, what's that?

Dunno, let's see once more info is available.

A mix of the best of F22 and F35 cannot be matched.

Lol. Okay.

The strength of the American aircrafts has always been the simplification for the pilot of exploiting the capabilities of the installed systems. In the end I think this is what mattersd in combat not just the number of sensors installed.

Simplification with less sensors is better than complication with more sensors.

Sorry mate, you are completely wrong here. More the number of sensors better is the capability. The F-35 is touted to be the best because of this feature, PAKFA far exceeds that in IR detection as well as radars (notice the plural).

Note that Serbian Mig29s were armed by Archer and equipped with Shchel-3UM HMD but they were still shot down by F15s and F16s in the Kosovo war.

They did not have radars. They used IR sensors to detect aircraft. No chance in hell they would win.

To top it off they had one squadron of 14 aircraft, out of which only half was functioning during the time against something like 2 million aircraft....

 

[p2prada]

1. All aspect passive and active detection systems takes the place of maneuvering to acquire a targeting solution. The key is to be the first one to get the firing solution;

Hence why you need more sensors.

2. HOBS missiles will do the maneuvering (and targeting) instead of the fighter doing the turning towards the enemy. With turning capabilities up to 55Gs and and up to 3x the speed of sound, there's not much current or projected fighters can do to evade modern 5th gen missiles.

This is only on paper. We are yet to see how the real world application works out.

Python V can do 100Gs.

There is a limit to how well missile systems work. For eg: SAMs are given hit probabilities of 96%, 98% etc depending on how many missiles are fired and how static the target is. Aircraft are expected to defeat these systems with maneuverability and a combination of MAWS and counter measures.

Comparatively, air to air missiles have lower hit probabilities and greater failure rates. Hence, there is greater scope for evasion.

 

[asianobserve]

Page 32, 2nd last paragraph on the right hand column. It talks about how Russia revolutionized RAMJET in the 60s and 70s.

The article only mentioned the Soviet Ramjet achievements after having discussed American Ramjet weapons.

Page 37, more Russian examples were operational than any other. Along with being more diverse.

I don't know what part of the article you read but based on the tables on Pages 36-40 the following are the figures between US and USSR/Russia:

A. Ramjet (1911-2003)
1. Russia - 13
2. US - 51

B. Scramjet (1955-2003)
1. Russia - 10
2. US - 24

A-12 isn't a RAMJET/SCRAMJET. It is a Turbojet.

The variable-geometry inlets for the engines were quite complex and intricate. The most prominent feature was a hydraulically-actuated conical spike which was automatically moved forward or aft by the Air Inlet Computer as required to keep the supersonic shockwave properly positioned in relation to the inlet throat. Working in conjunction with a series of bypass ducts and doors, the spike prevented supersonic air from entering the inlet and maintained a steady flow of subsonic air for the engine. at Mach 3.2 cruise the inlet system itself actually provided 80 percent of the thrust and the engine only 20 percent, making the J58 in reality a turbo-ramjet engine.

Factsheets : J58 Turbojet Engine

Also, try to google Holod. How Russia's Holod was the first SCRAMJET vehicle to reach hypersonic speeds and how the Americans leeched Russian technology after the fall of the Soviet Union in order to push forward their own programs. Holod was tested with American and French scientists because they wanted to learn.

After that Russia got into a JV with American institutes and transferred technology to them.

They still need Russian assistance.

The JVs were only resorted to since American politicians found the NASP to be too expensive (The Russian tech were cheaply up for grabs, besides who will pay all those former Soviet Scientists who suddenly are dried of funding?). But should the project been only funded then it would certainly have come to a successful fruitation. And frankly after the collapse of the USSR there was no need for an expensive exotic weapon when nobody can challenge US military power. It would be political suicide for whoever politician at that time who will approve such expensive weapons system when the trend was scaling down of military expenditure.

So, what? You are still comparing 50s and 60s to current technology.

Again, perspective. I made that statement in reply to your earlier statement, to wit:

Fact of the matter is, when it comes to IR technologies, the Soviets started first.

Remember?

 

[asianobserve]

Huh? What? Augmented reality, what's that?

This is what they call to the fancy (but potentially very effective) 360 degree field of view in F-35.

Simplification with less sensors is better than complication with more sensors.

Emphasis should be on "simplification" (which to me means integration) and quality of sensors. Of course if you can have both + more sensors then it would be better.

They did not have radars. They used IR sensors to detect aircraft. No chance in hell they would win.

This is where you see the genius of American design. They don't see a part or aircraft as detached entities but as parts of an integrated system.

 

[p2prada]

The article only mentioned the Soviet Ramjet achievements after having discussed American Ramjet weapons.

The Soviets made real world products, not Americans.

I don't know what part of the article you read but based on the tables on Pages 36-40 the following are the figures between US and USSR/Russia:

A. Ramjet (1911-2003)
1. Russia - 13
2. US - 51

And how many in service?

Factsheets : J58 Turbojet Engine

Okay, but it is not RAMJET. But the suction force created by the inlet is more to do with supercruise than RAMJET.

The JVs were only resorted to since American politicians found the NASP to be too expensive (The Russian tech were cheaply up for grabs, besides who will pay all those former Soviet Scientists who suddenly are dried of funding?). But should the project been only funded then it would certainly have come to a successful fruitation. And frankly after the collapse of the USSR there was no need for an expensive exotic weapon when nobody can challenge US military power. It would be political suicide for whoever politician at that time who will approve such expensive weapons system when the trend was scaling down of military expenditure.

It meant the Russians were ahead and the stuff was easy to get, rather than having to re-invent the wheel.

The Americans are still trying to build expensive and exotic weapons. ABM is the new mantra now.

In 15-20 years we will need fighters capable of leaving the earth's atmosphere. So more exotic weapons.

Brahmos II and the new hypersonic LRCM are exotic too. We are talking about fielding SCRAMJET based technologies in real operational capacity. It is nowhere compared to simply having tested the systems once or twice with mixed results.

Again, perspective. I made that statement in reply to your earlier statement, to wit:

Remember?

I am talking about IR systems as a sensor on aircraft. Not on missiles. IR on missiles is extremely old and predates the Aim-4.

You can't selectively quote me for your own agenda. Here's the full para,

Fact of the matter is, when it comes to IR technologies, the Soviets started first. So, you can't really impress me with the EO DAS and its 360 degree capability. Something the Russians have already demonstrated and offered on the Mig-35 and prototype testing a far more advanced capability on the PAKFA today.

 

[p2prada]

This is what they call to the fancy (but potentially very effective) 360 degree field of view in F-35.

I am not sure if you remember, but 360 degree IR capability on Russians systems already exist.

If you are talking about displaying that on the HMD, then we are yet to see what's being planned for LCA Mk2 let alone FGFA/PAKFA.

As for PAKFA, we are moving into 360 degree radar capability. Forget IR, we are talking about radar. We are talking about multiple 700 (possible) to 900mm radars all over the aircraft. F-35 will be nowhere close to that. Not even the F-22. If the twin seater version of the FGFA is designed, it will even exceed the capability of today's AWACS.

Emphasis should be on "simplification" (which to me means integration) and quality of sensors. Of course if you can have both + more sensors then it would be better.

Yes, sensor fusion will be there on PAKFA. They already mentioned that. PAKFA will also be integrated to satellites right from the outset, that's not even planned for F-35. Meaning PAKFA will directly patch into satellites for navigation and communications.

This is where you see the genius of American design. They don't see a part or aircraft as detached entities but as parts of an integrated system.

Wrong comparison. The Serbs were poor and weak. No way can they fight off a 15 country, 1000 aircraft NATO consortium with 14 half beaten aircraft.

Don't know what was so "genius" about it.

 

[asianobserve]

The Soviets made real world products, not Americans.

Must be tough carrying a heavy Soviet burden...

And how many in service?

This is all you can say when faced with facts?

Most of the 50s, 60s and 70s American Ramjet powered weapons were already phased out in favor of solid fueled rockets. But that tech was not totally forgotten, there were a few supersonic naval training cruise missiles that were/are Ramjet powered to simulate actual Russian supersonic cruise/anti-ship missiles. Of course I'm not unmindful of the newer trend towards solid fueled Ramjet BVR missiles (the Americans pioneered this tech), they're solid fueled rockets with Ram air ducts to speed up the fuel burn.

The rest of the World has moved on. I understand though why Russia is stuck with Soviet era antiques, the Soviet collapse has been too hard on it and they're still trying to get back some of their mojo. Russia without the budget of the USSR (especially in the 90s) cannot sweepingly replace its carry over weapons from the 60s. That's why Russia has to induct slowly new systems to augment their existing Soviet stocks. And it has to beg from innocent donors like India just to maintain its industrial base.

Brahmos II and the new hypersonic LRCM are exotic too. We are talking about fielding SCRAMJET based technologies in real operational capacity. It is nowhere compared to simply having tested the systems once or twice with mixed results.

You should let Russia start developing and testing its Scramjet dream before you start singing praises.

Just to show you the level of the tech Russia has duped you into spending a lot of money on:

This is Bhramos:

It has the old 2-stage solid rocket booster and then Ramjet layout.

Then these are grandfather 50s Ramjet missiles from US and UK:

(Talos)

(Sea Dart)

Both the above missiles follow the solid fueled rocket booster and Ramjet configuration. It helps to always know a little bit of history.

I am talking about IR systems as a sensor on aircraft. Not on missiles. IR on missiles is extremely old and predates the Aim-4.

You mean to say that the Soviets inducted first a fighter with IRST sensor before the Americans put an IR sensor on top of their AIM 4? That's a tall claim! What Soviet IR A2A missile predated the AIM-4?

And BTW, the American's first jet with integrated IRST sensor suite was the F-101 Voodoo which first flew in 1954. Did Soviet's Mig 15, Mig 17, Mig 19, La-250 or Tu-28 carried IRST?

 

[asianobserve]

As for PAKFA, we are moving into 360 degree radar capability. Forget IR, we are talking about radar. We are talking about multiple 700 (possible) to 900mm radars all over the aircraft. F-35 will be nowhere close to that. Not even the F-22. If the twin seater version of the FGFA is designed, it will even exceed the capability of today's AWACS.

Let them design it first before anything else.

Yes, sensor fusion will be there on PAKFA. They already mentioned that. PAKFA will also be integrated to satellites right from the outset, that's not even planned for F-35. Meaning PAKFA will directly patch into satellites for navigation and communications.

This is ancient capability to the Americans. Practically all their assets are connected to Link-16. Even F-22 can now connect to Link-16.

Wrong comparison. The Serbs were poor and weak. No way can they fight off a 15 country, 1000 aircraft NATO consortium with 14 half beaten aircraft.

Don't know what was so "genius" about it.

Always the same excuses.

 

[p2prada]

Must be tough carrying a heavy Soviet burden...

This is all you can say when faced with facts?

Facts speak for itself. RAMJET is successful when you use it in an operational capacity.

SAMs are the easy way out. Heck Akash SAM is also a RAMJET and we designed it in the 80s.

Most of the 50s, 60s and 70s American Ramjet powered weapons were already phased out in favor of solid fueled rockets.

The Americans hit a bottleneck in the technology. That's the reason they did not pursue the design.

The rest of the World has moved on. I understand though why Russia is stuck with Soviet era antiques,

American SCRAMJET attempts started after Russia transferred technology for their designs in the 1993-97 period. Before that, there were technological bottlenecks that they could not surpass at the time.

You should let Russia start developing and testing its Scramjet dream before you start singing praises.

They are already a step ahead of the world. Do I need to repeat this again? Both Russia and India (through a JV with Russia) are designing and bench testing missiles for operational use. The rest of the world is still designing experimentals. That alone is a massive difference in capability.

It has the old 2-stage solid rocket booster and then Ramjet layout.

Then these are grandfather 50s Ramjet missiles from US and UK:

Talos and Sea Dart are not equivalents to the Brahmos. Heck, they are SAMs, not sea skimming missiles.

You mean to say that the Soviets inducted first a fighter with IRST sensor before the Americans put an IR sensor on top of their AIM 4? That's a tall claim! What Soviet IR A2A missile predated the AIM-4?

You still don't get it. Most countries had rudimentary IR systems since WW2. Nobody is talking about the first IR system, that's like asking who invented the wheel in a tank discussion. We are talking about employing IR systems in combat as IRSTs. The Americans made IRST operational on aircraft first, but these were not employed in air to air. The Soviets started first with the second generation OLS systems for both Mig-29 and Su-27. It was after the Russians did it that others started to focus on this department. Three to four decades later, the first American jet called the F-35 will employ old Russian techniques in air to air combat while the Europeans brought in IRST systems on Rafale and EF two decades after the Russians.

High offbore sight missiles, IR sensors, super maneuverability, these are all stuff the Russians developed and brought it to operational capacity.

So, are you still trying to impress me with stuff that we already have?

All the videos you showed me of the F-35's EO DASS had to do with what the Russians have been demonstrating since the 80s.

We can keep going in circles, but facts remain facts. RAMJET and SCRAMJET, the Russians are ahead. WVR capability, the Russians are still the better one.

Here, something interesting from Decklander from the LCA thread.

The famous Pughachev Cobra is a way of firing missiles in an over the shoulder toss method to shoot down enemy aircraft who are behind you or chasing you. You give a Mig-29 or Su-30MKI just 500 meters around you in any plane, and he will be on your tail.

So, the Russians have had over the top capability even in the 80s.

 

[p2prada]

Let them design it first before anything else.

Haha. Now you are talking.

You were comparing experimentals with operational systems all this while.

When I said Russians have actual operational systems, you were trying to back American technology with experimentals.

Now when I pointed out the Russians already have experimental capability and bringing it to operational capacity on PAKFA, you are asking for the system to be designed first.

Now do you see how this works. You compare operational systems with other operational systems. You don't bring in experimentals into the domain of operational systems.

Anyway, how about letting pictures speak for themselves?

Zoom in on the tail and look at the radiation symbol on the cone. What do you think that is for?

This is ancient capability to the Americans. Practically all their assets are connected to Link-16. Even F-22 can now connect to Link-16.

No it is not. PAKFA will be the first aircraft to have direct access to satellites. Link 16 has nothing to do with it. It is a datalink between other assets.

F-22 don't use Link 16s, they currently use MADL which links 4 F-22s together. A more refined datalink is in development.

Due to the extreme range of Flankers and now the PAKFA, the aircraft tend to operate well within enemy territory and most of the times are cut off from land based communication systems. AWACS help remove that obstacle, but even AWACS cannot operate inside enemy territory. Hence they will use a submarine type of link with satellites to maintain communications even when deep inside enemy territory. This is the communications aspect. Navigation will also be linked to satellites due to the higher capability the PAKFA will bring in through its stealthy design. These links are directional and are nearly impossible to jam.

Communications capability already exists in other aircraft, but navigation does not. Meaning current aircraft, including F-35, don't get images from satellites in real time for navigation.

Always the same excuses.

Think about it. If the US invaded Malaysia today, what will the 18 MKMs do to the Americans.

Or is it that with just 18 MKMs, you will fight off the entire horde of American teen fighters?

Go check the military size and capability of the Serbian military and compare it to the other 15 NATO nations that started the bombing campaign.

 

[Armand2REP]

F-35 pilot can see 360 degrees around the aircraft. That means it can target objects behind, above and below it... Who needs TVC? Then it only needs 1 press of a button to hover...

The pilot can see as far as his sensors will allow. If he isn't getting AWACs support or someone well behind him it isn't going to be far. Anything in Link 16 has that capability. It just won't be on the visor.

Only 35B can hover and it can't do it on the spot. It is an overhyped airplane at an exceptional cost.