F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[StealthFlanker]

Stealth Flanker : the come back .....
You are ill informed my dear :
Rafale A flown in 1986. Rafale A was a test bed. Not a single component in common with Rafale B/C/M . Only an aero configuration test bed (for semi ventral without mobile piece air intakes, fully digital FBW, closed coupled delta canards)
To be sure you understand well : Rafale A is to Rafale B/C/M the same than X35 is to F35.
If you desesperatly not understand, please just modify the first flight of F35 not to 2006, but 2000.

Actually, X-35 doesn't even have a weapon bay, but fine, let take the first flight of F-35 and Rafale C
still 2006 vs 1991, so Rafale has 15 years head start yet now has around 1/2 the number produced and less than 1/3 number of customers.

At the beginning F35 with a block 3i ? YOU ARE PULLING MY LEG BRO. What mean i?
3F ? F like... Final? unfortunately no.....

No the beginning of F-35 is not block 3i, read again, beginning is block 1, the " i " in 3i mean interim.
the "F" in 3F mean full warfighting capability, meaning all SDD weapons

We don't know yet what kind of mission. just to sniff some SAM site from hundreds kilometers ?
IOC.... what mean IOC ?
FOC is not for tomorrow... the non kept promises of LM don't give confidence.

They literally said they used it to struck targets at 2 front.

“We are flying the F-35 all over the Middle East. It has become part of our operational capabilities. We are the first to attack using the F-35 in the Middle East and have already attacked twice on different fronts,” he said during the IAF Senior Air Force Conference in Herzliya.

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/IAF-commander-Israel-first-to-use-F-35-jet-in-combat-558030
IOC is the acronym for Initial operational capability.

Sure that a plane always in a politicaly correct IOC phase after 12 years of developpment need a "technological refresh". 12 years...
An engine change, a DAS change, an EOTS change .... the only thing that will not change is the frame. It's not a refresh, it's a complete LIFTING.

This is an extremely dumb argument. Probably the dumbest i ever read
What is your point exactly? that aircraft shouldn't have any advanced version of its sensors for future upgrade?
How about the fact that Rafale also changed from RBE-2 to RBE-2AA? Changed from two channels OSF to single channels OSF?
Current version of EOTS, DAS and APG-81 is already superior to current DDM-NG, OSF and RBE-2AA, yet F-35 will have even more modern versions of those sensors, bring the gap even further.
Btw, the engine upgrade isn't for F-35 only

It is so IR stealthy that it needs to open regularly its bay to refresh itself !

Once again, you read too much tabloid without understand the underlying fact.

First of all - the reason for this limitation is not found in the design of the F-35, as many would have you think. What is really the case is that certain components belonging to the avionics, that have been installed in the weapons bays for ease of maintenance, have not been qualified at the required temperatures. Until these components are re-qualified, their temperature limitations by definition become the temperature limitations of the weapons bay as a whole, and anything above that becomes "excessive." So while the contents of the report on this area are factually correct, it in no way tells the whole story, and creates the impression that an isolated issue is indicative of an issue with the aircraft as a whole.

Spread fuel ? Nice for the already short range.

Do you not understand the concept of heat sink? fuel are spread over wide area inside the aircraft making it harder to heat up, and F-35 range isn't short, it out range every other fighter on internal fuel, except Su-35 and F-15E

Mace XIII, in Slovaquia, 2012. Rafale wasthere

I meant, apart from Rafale, everything else in that exercise is ancient like F-16 MLU, L29, Mig-29A... etc

 

[BON PLAN]

let take the first flight of F-35 and Rafale C
still 2006 vs 1991, so Rafale has 15 years head start yet now has around 1/2 the number produced and less than 1/3 number of customers.

15 years ago Rafale was between F1 and F2 block. It was operationnaly used every day. F35 is not, and has too many deficiencies to see a clear FOC date.

 

[BON PLAN]

IOC is the acronym for Initial operational capability.

If you want to say "fuck" to me, say it loud and clear ! I know what mean IOC. But in the F35 case it's a political IOC to calm some politicians and some customers. Every body know that.

 

[BON PLAN]

How about the fact that Rafale also changed from RBE-2 to RBE-2AA?

RBE2 AESA is a classical RBE2 with ONLY a new antenna. It was on the agenda since the beginning.
It's why it only take 2 hours to change the antenna. No software change. It's a very limited change.

 

[BON PLAN]

Once again, you read too much tabloid without understand the underlying fact.

I read like you : it need to open its marvellous ans so stealthy bays. It's the only thing interesting. The rest are excuses.

 

[BON PLAN]

Australia’s F-35A stealth fighters may cost millions to bring up to a fighting standard

AUSTRALIA’s two shiny new F-35 Strike Fighters may never go to war...

Touted by manufacturer Lockheed Martin as the most advanced fighting machines ever built, virtually the entire production run of over 100 machines so far has one glaring problem : They can’t fight.


https://www.news.com.au/technology/...d/news-story/7a28b881ff92cc27ed5fd88f2480f512

 

[BON PLAN]

F-35 was first produced in 2006.

the roots of F35 are older than you want to convince us...

"What is commonly known today as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program had its origination in several programs from the late 1980s and early 1990s."

http://www.jsf.mil/history/his_prejast.htm

 

[StealthFlanker]

15 years ago Rafale was between F1 and F2 block. It was operationnaly used every day.

Except that it wasn't. First F1 was only delivered in 2002, and it only have basic AA capability without forward-looking TV / infrared sensor or Link 16 datalink, and no AG capability obviously.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dassault-accelerates-rafale-f2-testing-173697/

If you want to say "fuck" to me, say it loud and clear ! I know what mean IOC. But in the F35 case it's a political IOC to calm some politicians and some customers. Every body know that.

By everybody know that you actual mean you believe that because it fit your personal agenda.

I read like you : it need to open its marvellous ans so stealthy bays. It's the only thing interesting. The rest are excuses.

Except that was for a period in testing phase when one maintenance component need to be qualified and have nothing to do with actual real combat condition.

RBE2 AESA is a classical RBE2 with ONLY a new antenna. It was on the agenda since the beginning.
It's why it only take 2 hours to change the antenna. No software change. It's a very limited change.

Laughable comment, do you even know what are the differences between AESA and PESA???

PESA use a single or sometimes two high power amplifier (HPA) source ( often a klystron or TWT ) transmitting a single power signal, the signal is then divided into thousands of paths represent thousand phase shifter and elements , there is also a single low noise amplifier (LNA), by contrast, AESA radar consists of thousands of T/R modules, each have their own LNA, HPA, duplexer, phase shifter. So no, it is not just the antenna that you change, changing from PESA radar to AESA radar is not like changing from a parabolic to slotted antenna.

the roots of F35 are older than you want to convince us...
"What is commonly known today as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program had its origination in several programs from the late 1980s and early 1990s."
http://www.jsf.mil/history/his_prejast.htm

Nice try, so on one hand, you don't want to use Rafale A delivery date as the start date because it is only a testbed. Yet at the same time, you want to compare Rafale C01 first flight date with the start date of programs that pre-date even JSF and literally have no common component with the current F-35. Bias much?. How about the root of rafale from 1975?

australia’s F-35A stealth fighters may cost millions to bring up to a fighting standard

AUSTRALIA’s two shiny new F-35 Strike Fighters may never go to war...

Touted by manufacturer Lockheed Martin as the most advanced fighting machines ever built, virtually the entire production run of over 100 machines so far has one glaring problem : They can’t fight.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...d/news-story/7a28b881ff92cc27ed5fd88f2480f512

They literally said this

A spokesman for the Defence Minister has rejected any suggestions Australia’s F35s won’t be combat ready.

“Australia does not possess any F-35A Lightning II Block 2B variants,” he said. “Both of our planes were updated more than a year ago. The Australian F-35 is currently operating a much newer software package, the Block 3i. This is similar to the types of planes operating in South Korean military exercises a few weeks ago.

 

[BON PLAN]

Except that it wasn't. First F1 was only delivered in 2002

No again.
First F1 was delivered in 1999. 3 in 2000, 6 in 2001, ...

 

[BON PLAN]

Except that was for a period in testing phase when one maintenance component need to be qualified and have nothing to do with actual real combat condition.

after 15 years of developpment ? It's not serious.

What actual combat condition? FOC still needs a long way...

 

[BON PLAN]

changing from PESA radar to AESA radar is not like changing from a parabolic to slotted antenna.

RBE2 was studied from the beginning with AESA in mind. It's why it's so easy to change the antenna.
There was no european T/R modules factory in the late 90', and it was not politically suitable to depend from US modules, so the interim PESA antenna was used.
The main advantage was that all the softwares used to drive the PESA could be re used with the AESA (the contrary is not true).
=> The first serial RBE2 AESA, delivered in february 2012, benefits from more than 12 years of software improvements.

A chance the Captor E, regularly postponed, will not have... It will be a noob radar at the first delivery and will need time to be fine tuned.

 

[BON PLAN]

How about the root of rafale from 1975?

If you want you can say that rafale roots is Mirage 1.... 50's area.

It's not 100% true, but not 100% false.

 

[BON PLAN]

" Raytheon hasn't even developed the new system yet, and already the Project knows the savings: $3B lifecycle, 45% unit recurring, 50% sustainment. Also double the performance improvements and five times the reliability. Tastes great & less filling! Amazing! "

https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2018/06/f-35-distributed-aperture-system.html

 

[BON PLAN]

Italy’s new populist government may slow down but not reduce its order of F-35 fighter jets,

It always begin by a slow down... before a cut.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...ster-commits-to-f-35-butts-heads-with-france/

 

[Immanuel]

" Raytheon hasn't even developed the new system yet, and already the Project knows the savings: $3B lifecycle, 45% unit recurring, 50% sustainment. Also double the performance improvements and five times the reliability. Tastes great & less filling! Amazing! "

https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2018/06/f-35-distributed-aperture-system.html

Well Raytheon is the world's foremost leader in Radars and such tech for them is rather easy, it's also obvious they have been busy with a competitor to NG's DAS for a while knowing that reliability was the biggest problem with the NG's system. Choosing a new supplier for a key compenent doesn't happen so and so while thousands of aircraft will potentially operate it , it's clear USAF, USN, USMC & LM have sampled the new sensor's performance on test beds.

 

[BON PLAN]

Sprey (he helped to study the F16 with the "fighter mafia") :

The original marketing hype, both out of the services and Lockheed Martin, was always “It’s a great dogfighter; it’s a great close-support platform.” In truth it can’t do any of those missions very well because, like all multimission airplanes it’s highly flawed, and the technical execution of this airplane is unusually bad by historical standards. I agree with [Lt.] Col. Berke that no airplane looks for a dogfight. On the other hand, in serious wars sometimes you can’t avoid it.

The F-35 is a horrible target if it has to get into a dogfight. It’s got an enormously high wing load. It’s almost as unmaneuverable as the infamous F-104.

 

[asianobserve]

Will the F-35 beat out ‘the usual suspects’ in Singapore’s search for F-16 replacement?

https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...ts-in-singapores-search-for-f-16-replacement/

 

[StealthFlanker]

Sprey (he helped to study the F16 with the "fighter mafia")

He didn't really though, John Boyd, Harry Hillaker are people who actually contributed to the design of F-16.

During the early 1960s, Boyd, together with Thomas Christie, a civilian mathematician, created the Energy-Maneuverability theory, or E-M theory of aerial combat. A legendary maverick by reputation, Boyd was said to have stolen the computer time to do the millions of calculations necessary to prove the theory, though a later audit found that all computer time at the facility was properly billed to recognized projects and that no irregularity could be prosecuted. E-M theory became the world standard for the design of fighter aircraft. At a time when the Air Force's FX project (subsequently the F-15) was foundering, Boyd's deployment orders to Vietnam were canceled and he was brought to the Pentagon to re-do the trade-off studies according to E-M. His work helped save the project from being a costly dud, even though its final product was larger and heavier than he desired. However, cancellation of that tour in Vietnam meant that Boyd would be one of the most important air-to-air combat strategists with no combat kills. He had only flown a few missions in the last months of the Korean War (1950–1953), and all of them as a wingman.

With Colonel Everest Riccioni and Pierre Sprey, Boyd formed a small advocacy group within Headquarters USAF that dubbed itself the "Fighter Mafia". Riccioni was an Air Force fighter pilot assigned to a staff position in Research and Development, while Sprey was a civilian statistician working in systems analysis. While assigned to working on the beginnings of the F-15, called the Blue Bird at the time, Boyd disagreed with the direction the program was going and proposed an alternative "Red Bird". This concept was for a clear weather, air-to-air only fighter with a top speed of Mach 1.6 rather than the Blue Bird's Mach 2+/2.5+. Top speed would be sacrificed in favor of lower weight (and therefore better maneuverability and lower cost). Boyd and Sprey also argued against an active radar and radar-guided missiles. They both proposed this concept to Air Staff but there were no changes to the Blue Bird.

The Secretary of Defense, attracted by the idea of a low cost fighter, gave funding to Riccioni for a study project on the Lightweight Fighter program (LWF, which became the F-16). The DoD and Air Force both went ahead with the program, stipulating that it have a "design to cost" basis no more than 3 million per copy over 300 aircraft. The USAF considered the idea of a "Hi-lo" mix force structure and expanded the LWF program. The program soon went against the Fighter Mafia's vision: it was not the stripped-down air-to-air specialist they envisioned but a heavier multi-role fighter-bomber with advanced avionics, an active radar, and radar-guided missiles.Harry Hillaker, a F-16 designer, remarked that he would have designed the plane differently if he had known it would become a multimission aircraft.

The F-35 is a horrible target if it has to get into a dogfight. It’s got an enormously high wing load. It’s almost as unmaneuverable as the infamous F-104.

Again, you show a fundamental flaw in your understanding of agility, despite the fact that you were taught many times, once again, higher wing loading is not the indication of unmaneuverable because you don't know the Lift coefficient, even small change in wing sweep or AoA or thickness or wing shape will change the lift coefficient

F-16 is an example of an aircraft with very high wing loading yet very agile

RBE2 was studied from the beginning with AESA in mind. It's why it's so easy to change the antenna

No, just no, you need to understand the differences between AESA and PESA first.

No again.
First F1 was delivered in 1999. 3 in 2000, 6 in 2001, ...

Source?
even if that true, you still only have 1 aircraft instead of 0 , still no forward looking infrared, no link 16 datalink, no A2G capability

 

[Jumbo]

Sprey (he helped to study the F16 with the "fighter mafia") :
……………………………...
…………………..…………...
The F-35 is a horrible target if it has to get into a dogfight. It’s got an enormously high wing load. It’s almost as unmaneuverable as the infamous F-104.

Basically, F-104 was an supersonic interceptor aircraft.

 

[BON PLAN]

Again, you show a fundamental flaw in your understanding of agility, despite the fact that you were taught many times, once again, higher wing loading is not the indication of unmaneuverable because you don't know the Lift coefficient, even small change in wing sweep or AoA or thickness or wing shape will change the lift coefficient

Stop that Bro.
Fact is that F35 was studied for air to ground role. There is nothing new under the sun about a so classical wing + tail config. F35 has not a radical more potent wing than F16. Just more loaded.
The same occured with the Tornado. The ADV variant was a pity.