RAZBAM_ELMO Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 True apologies for the off topic Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, sooner or later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass. — Dave 'Preacher' Pace, USN.
Emu Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Why not fund the development of a fifth Gen Avro Arrow which is designed in and for Canada? Because you'd be looking at >$200m per aircraft, probably more and it would take at least 15 years, by which time the F/A-XX will be out. As for Mach 3 capable skin and stealth, good luck with that, make it $400m per aircraft.
Emu Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 I personally agree with you. I think the Typhoon and Rafale will just be as much as an F-35. I honestly think the aircraft Canada's looking for is out of their reach. I think the issue with the F-35 only having one engine is blown out of proportion too. That was a major factor in aircraft survival 50 years ago but today it makes very little difference. As regards speed, once you actually add operational payloads, the F-35 comes out close to the Eurocanards, probably a lot better than Gripen in fact. I think some guy in parliament has honestly got a bee in his bonnet on an issue and chucked the F-35 and then asked for straw from gold.
Fer_Fer Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 I think the issue with the F-35 only having one engine is blown out of proportion too. That was a major factor in aircraft survival 50 years ago but today it makes very little difference. As regards speed, once you actually add operational payloads, the F-35 comes out close to the Eurocanards, probably a lot better than Gripen in fact. I think some guy in parliament has honestly got a bee in his bonnet on an issue and chucked the F-35 and then asked for straw from gold. No. The reason why Canada is shafting the F-35 in its current form. - The Harper government fudged the numbers (it used the costs for a 20 year lifespan instead of the 36 year lifespan) - The Staggeringly big discrepancy between what Lockheed says, and what the DoD reports to congress. (Lockheed: Flight Testing is on track. DoD Report: Lockheed has Deferred 20% of scheduled flight tests and new features to the next bloc.) - Questions of weather the F-35's abilities are worth the cost - operational considerations. - alleged bribery by Lockheed.
Phantom88 Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 New Simulators http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/december/151201-mst-us-air-force-pilots-train-for-f-35-operations-with-new-virtual-technologies.html?utm_content=sf15765944&utm_medium=spredfast&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=Lockheed+Martin&sf15765944=1 Patrick
Goldsmack Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 New Simulators http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/december/151201-mst-us-air-force-pilots-train-for-f-35-operations-with-new-virtual-technologies.html?utm_content=sf15765944&utm_medium=spredfast&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=Lockheed+Martin&sf15765944=1 makes it now completely worth it :thumbup: Windows 10 Pro 64, I5 4690k @4.6GHz with CAPTIAN 240EX AOI, Samsung 850 EVO ,G Skill Ripjaws 16G RAM, Nvidia GTX 970 STRIX, MSI Z97 GAMING 5, WD Blue 1TB HDD, Seasonic M12 II EVO psu, Track IR 5, Pro Flight X-55 Rhino H.O.T.A.S
Vitormouraa Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Brazil has no money to develop its own fighter. You probably don't know the Embraer.. SplashOneGaming Discord https://splashonegaming.com
Vitormouraa Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 I work for Embraer lol Trabalhas no que na Embraer? Agora que percebi que tu és português lol :huh: Embraer tem sim dinheiro para fazer seu próprio caça. Oh sorry, I didn't remember I need to write in enligsh, sorry.. SplashOneGaming Discord https://splashonegaming.com
Pilotasso Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Trabalho numa subsidiaria da Embraer chamada OGMA em Portugal. .
tflash Posted December 20, 2015 Posted December 20, 2015 S-400 seems to make the case for F-35: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russia-grounds-us-jets-in-syria/ar-BBnKk4e?li=AA9SkIr&ocid=spartandhp [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Shaman Posted December 20, 2015 Posted December 20, 2015 I work for Embraer lol I have heard EAI closes down facilities in Europe / France. I have been launch customer of Embraer, as manager at LOT Polish Airlines done quite a lot of work with EAI. What do you do in Embraer? 51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-) 100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-) :: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky tail# 44 or 444 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer
Pilotasso Posted December 20, 2015 Posted December 20, 2015 Engine MRO project manager. Rolls Royce AE2100 and 3007 series. .
Fredy5 Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) No. The reason why Canada is shafting the F-35 in its current form. - The Harper government fudged the numbers (it used the costs for a 20 year lifespan instead of the 36 year lifespan) - The Staggeringly big discrepancy between what Lockheed says, and what the DoD reports to congress. (Lockheed: Flight Testing is on track. DoD Report: Lockheed has Deferred 20% of scheduled flight tests and new features to the next bloc.) - Questions of weather the F-35's abilities are worth the cost - operational considerations. - alleged bribery by Lockheed. - Not really. Most of the numbers were given to the Harper government properly, but the media blew the numbers way up, and far out of context. Just like all the medias reporting on the F-35 did. - Again, not really. All of the flight testing, prices, blocks, capabilities, etc, all come from the DoD and not Lockheed Martin. Media fails to report the actualities and almost always strait up blames Lockheed, even when the actualities are different. - Definitely. I'll explain later. - ... - Need a source for this. Perhaps you mean lobbying? Which is totally legal (somehow). If Lockheed didn't/doesn't lobby, the insane amout of lobbying by Boeing would be a huge hindrance on the F-35B/C buys, and of course for foreign sales (without Lockheed "balancing"). Seriously. A lot of the funded F-35 "haters" have sponsorship that originate from Boeing. I like Boeing, and they've created phenomenal aircraft, but Boeing lost this one. The JSF was won by Lockheed. Now for why the F-35 is by far and away the best fighter currently available for purchase: 1) Price: The F-35 is one of the least expensive options available. The F-35A is less expensive when fuel tanks, targeting pods and countermeasures pods are accounted for the Super Hornet. Looking at PAUC: the PAUC for an F-35 is ~$332 billion / 2457 (14 of those are test aircraft) = ~$135.1 million.The PAUC for an F-22 is ~$70.77 billion / 195 = ~$362.9 million. The PAUC for a Dassault Rafale is ~$64.23 billion / 140 = ~$458.8 million. The RAF EF Typhoon ~$62.81 billion / 160 = ~$392.6 million. What about cost per flight hour? Well here we can see that it would be about the same as the F-16. What about total program cost? Well here you can see the program cost style of estimation being applied to the legacy fleet, in which case the legacy fleet would cost about 4 trillion compared to the F-35's 1.3-1.4 trillion. For a comparison of export purchase with the F-18E, $218.75/plane for Australia. And here are contracts for the F-35: 201.09/plane for Norway, 150.58/plane for the Netherlands and 198/plane for Australia. Keep in mind I have accounted for inflation, all are in FY2014 USD. And remember these numbers include more than just the aircraft itself, but the purchases are equivalent. 2) BVR: The F-35's APG-81 is a direct derivative of the APG-77. The APG-81 has less transceiver modules, but is a little more advanced. Although it's impossible to get an actual radar range, estimations here and here place it second only to the APG-77 in raw range (remember, the CAPTOR-E isn't finished yet). The APG-81 is also the first radar with fully integrated ECM and data links. It's ECM is also said to be the best ever fitted to a fighter (i'm not verifying, so take with a grain of salt). As with the APG-77, the APG-81 also has been built to avoid alerting an RWR. One such way the APG-77/81 do this is by switching radar channels over 1,000 times per second. Then we get to stealth. The common stealth estimates for the F-22 are about .0001. For the F-35, they're between .01 and .001. However, according to Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers, the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22. Two more quotes about the F-35's stealth by General Hostage can be found 1 and 2. So if we combine the best stealth with the second best radar, the F-35 will have the ability to detect an opponent from a long distance and remain undetected until very close in. In short, the first warning a bandit will get is when the AIM-120D's radar (or a Meteor's) becomes active. 3) WVR: The F-35 has a very unique sensor for WVR. Called EODAS. This system allows the pilot to use the aircraft as an enhanced vision system. The F-35's EOTS has a much better zoom and range than the human eye. So good, it can look into a window from 50 miles away. Further, this is combined with DAS to make the EODAS. DAS is built to utilize all sensors, identify all possible targets around the aircraft, and track all possible targets. DAS will find a bandit far before the pilot is able to detect the bandit. This thus give the F-35 the unique ability to gain and maintain a lock with a missile from anywhere around the aircraft. For turning, I'm going to pull up some numbers. People like to look at wing loading, so let's look at that. The F-16 has a maximum of 510 ft^2 while the F-35 produces 828 ft^2 (estimations from a PDF given at the bottom). The F-16 weighs 18,900 lbs, while the F-35 weighs 29,098 lbs. This gives an empty lift-loading of ~37.06 lbs/ft^2 for the F-16 and ~35.14 lbs/ft^2 for the F-35. This means that as long as both aircraft are given the same load, the F-35 will always have a lower lift-loading than the F-16. Another important number is the AoA limit. The F-16 is limited to 25 degrees AoA, while the F-35 is limited to 50 degrees AoA. Another important number is T/W. The F-16's engine produces 28,600 lbf, and the F-135 produces 43,000 lbf. I gave the empty weights earlier, so here are the T/W: ~1.51 for the F-16, ~1.48 for the F-35. However, this doesn't tell the whole story for the T/W. Because the F-16 has so little thrust, and weighs so little, it's T/W will be dis-proportionally affected by adding fuel and munitions. So, how many lbs of fuel/munitions can be carried by each before they exceed a T/W of 1? 9,700 for the F-16 and 13,902 for the F-35. So how about that document about the F-16 'beating' the F-35? Well, for starters, the F-16 and F-35 were not dogfighting. As found from the report: "The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs...The Flying Qualities criteria were that the aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected, or unpredictable aircraft responses. Qualitative observations were made regarding the high AoA capability, cues that the aircraft was entering a low energy state, as well as various human factors considerations." The F-35 in question was also AF-2, which is not a fully operational air frame. It was built to explore the F-35's aerodynamics at high AOA. "...this airframe is designed for flight testing, it’s designed to fly in certain restricted flight envelopes. It does not feature the majority of systems present in frontline aircraft." (source). "Thompson said AF-2 has specific instrumentation and was calibrated for in-flight loads measurements..." (source). That second source came out 6 months before the BFM tests were done. So what were the conclusions in the document: "Increasing pitch rate and available Nz would provide the pilot more options...Consider increasing alpha onset...Consider increasing the beginning of the blended region to 30 degrees or greater...Consider increasing pilot yaw rate control authority..." Notice a trend with all these? They're all related to the 'control laws' also known as software. 4) Fuel: The F-35 carries about as much fuel as the F-22, even though the F-22 is larger and heavier than the F-35. The biggest question about this always comes down to loiter time. So I'm going to compare it to the A-10. The F-35 burns about 20% more fuel than the A-10 [.886 lb/(hr x lbf) vs. .74 lb/(hr x lbf)]. However, the F-35 carries about 64% more fuel than the A-10. Yes, the F-35 can burn a lot more fuel a lot quicker when needed, but why would an F-35 do so when trying to loiter? A lower power setting is always applicable for situations that call for it. Here, an article where USAF personel explain that the F-35s burned 5,000 lbs of fuel each flying 900 miles from Eglin AFB to Oshkosh Wisconsin. Thus, we can calculate the max range (in this configuration). 18,500 / 5,000 = 3.7 (max fuel / fuel burned). 3.7 x 900 = 3,330. 3,330 miles = 5,360 km. A chart of fuel burned per hour in certain conditions can be found here. 5) Weapons: The F-35 can carry a higher weapons load than any other fighter. The F-35 can carry up to 22,300 lbs of weapons. Compared to 16,000 of the A-10, 17,000 of the F-16 and 17,750 for the F/A-18 Super Hornet. 6) Single vs Duel Engine: Modern single engined aircraft have proven to be more reliable than duel engined aircraft. Here is a chart showing engine related mishaps of the modern F-16, F-15 and F-22. Also, single engined aircraft are well proven in the artic. The F-16 has proven it can operate there, as well as a whole host of older aircraft. Further videos made by Dragon029 on youtube: [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] <Really good video here ---------- Characteristics estimations: [ame]http://www.mediafire.com/view/k32znieecno6613/USAF_Strike_Fighters_rev2.pdf[/ame] (Click on the "pop-out" button, delete the part of the address added on by google within the address bar, and go right to the mediafire link) Edited December 24, 2015 by Fredy5 Fixing links 4
Sweep Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (snipped) Post of the day, by far. Rep be yours! :thumbup: Lord of Salt
Basher54321 Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Its a good post - I would only say that if you want to compare WL & TW those simplistic figures are a tad useless because they don't account for everything and vary greatly on the usually unspecified numbers used. In the Jan 2015 Air International Vol.88 No.1 Arnaud Boxman & Kees van der Mark interviewed a few RNLAF pilots - one put this comparison of the F-35A / F-16AM with this: When comparing performance, I would say that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16 It was certainly tested to 50 degrees AOA I haven't seen anything yet to say that is the limit?
aaron886 Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Yeah flight test envelope and operational limits are different things. Suffice to say, more alpha than the Viper.
Fredy5 Posted December 25, 2015 Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) Its a good post - I would only say that if you want to compare WL & TW those simplistic figures are a tad useless because they don't account for everything and vary greatly on the usually unspecified numbers used. In the Jan 2015 Air International Vol.88 No.1 Arnaud Boxman & Kees van der Mark interviewed a few RNLAF pilots - one put this comparison of the F-35A / F-16AM with this: When comparing performance, I would say that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16 It was certainly tested to 50 degrees AOA I haven't seen anything yet to say that is the limit? Absolutely. On all your points and more. For instance, I know the parts where I talk about fuel, weapons capacity and more are really just arbitrary numbers. However, for non-fighter enthusiasts, it gets the point across. Regarding the turning, "F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths 3" also has a good quote about the kinematic performance. It says essentially what you just described at about 5 min in from a totally separate source (I think?). Another common way pilots describe the F-35's kinematics is between the F/A-18E and F-16C (about 3:30 into the episode). But either way, it's like being between good and very good. On the fuel, the F-35 is heavier, so it will need more thrust just to stay in the air on top of not having as efficient engines. However, it's very difficult to calculate such, and so I left it out. As for weapons capacity; the 22,000+ lb number comes from adding up all the pylons. However, that's usually not the limit for planes. The limit is usually max takeoff weight. In which case, it seems that a full fuel tank + weapons at max takeoff is listed as 18,000+ lbs. But still, the F-35's number is one of the largest available. That number becomes even bigger once you realize that every pound of the F-35's external weapons load is used for weapons, while "conventional" aircraft utilize large portions of that weight on drop tanks. /Edit: The 50 degree AoA number comes from Lockheed Martin: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2014/f35-high-angle-of-attack.html. Edited December 25, 2015 by Fredy5
tflash Posted December 25, 2015 Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) Even more impressive is that already 154 F-35's have been delivered today, that have flown >40.000 hours with amazingly few mishaps. Together with the F-22 this makes the US flying more 5th generation fighters today than most airforces have fighters whatsoever. http://yhoo.it/1m95k3H https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/testing Edited December 25, 2015 by tflash [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
tflash Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Business Insider 15 best photos of F-35 in 2015 http://uk.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-15-best-photos-of-the-f-35-from-2015-2015-12?r=US&IR=T [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Weta43 Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 I know this is a bit against the grain of the thread, and those are 2 very informative posts - and sorry if this is obvious from previous posts - it's not a thread I've been following, and it's too damn long to go back through now, but when you say ... The F-35A is less expensive when fuel tanks, targeting pods and countermeasures pods are accounted for the Super Hornet. How does that work from the graphs you posted ? If I look at 2015 'F-35A cost per plane BY' it sits at $125 M, while the Super Hornet sits at (projecting) $65 M. The F-35A doesn't become 'cheaper' till 2020, which means it 'might' be cheaper in the future, if current assumptions on development costs remain valid, if current assumptions around production numbers remain valid, etc. etc. - but leaving asides that these same numbers have slipped at every milestone in the past, and leaving aside any possible existing 'disagreements' between L.M. & the DoD, when was the last time that happened for any aircraft, anywhere ? Saying the 'F-35A is 'currently projected' to be the cheapest option by 2020' seems a reasonable, if optimistic, statement. Saying it IS the cheapest option seems to be based on something other than the figures you presented... Or have I just mis-read the graphs ? Cheers.
Recommended Posts