The F-35 Thread

[GGTharos]

It will because all the radiation is coming from the same point. Just to put things in perspective, there's even such thing as passive radar.

 

I think you have some lack in the understanding of how it all works.

 

That's the active signal that's being jammed though. You can tell where the jamming is coming from but it doesn't help you get the GPS info.

 

You don't and can't jam an 'active signal'. In all cases, you jam the receiver - you know, the passive part of things.

 

If you're talking about DIRCM, then yes it can jam IR with a laser, but an LWR would still be able to pin-point that signal.

 

Not necessarily. If you can bloom it out, it won't be able to tell you anything other than 'I'm blind'.

 

I'm sure if it were that easy to jam missiles, including IIR, nobody would bother investing in them.

 

That's right. There are imperfections in everything, including your perfect passive receivers ;)

[GGTharos]

The question to ask is, lacking power compared to what?

 

Compared to any of the teen fighters in their basic air to air configurations, maybe - but then again it wasn't designed around air to air. Compared to fighter bombers general, it's not lacking at all.

 

Sorry to interrupt the current weapon discussion, but I have a few questions about the plane itself.

 

I've heard some people say the F-35 is lacking in engine power. Yet (it would appear) it can hover on military power. AFAIK modern fighters can barely reach a thrust:weight of 1.2:1 while at full AB.

 

It isn't considered a VTOL because it would be too heavy to take off while carrying any sort of useful payload right?

[Pocket Sized]

It only has hover capability with a partial fuel load, e.g. at the end of a mission. And it only has hover capability when the lift fan is active, which raises dry thrust from 34,000lbf to about 41,000lbf. With AB it's T/W is below 1 but then the A and C variants carry a lot more fuel than typical fighters. With a 30% fuel fraction, T/W goes above unity (about 1.03 for the A model). For comparison a GR9A's T/W was well over 1.5 dry.

 

Does fuel not count as "useful payload"? :huh:

 

Sarcasm aside, I completely forgot about the lift fan, didn't realize it produced that much thrust. Another thing, does the F-35 use bleed air as a reaction control system like the Harrier? I think the thrust vectoring might have that covered but I don't quite see how it could control all 3 axis.

[Emu]

I think you have some lack in the understanding of how it all works.

 

You don't and can't jam an 'active signal'. In all cases, you jam the receiver - you know, the passive part of things.

Well kind of but that stops it being able to interpret the active signal. If all it needs to do is figure where the jamming is coming from then that's a different matter. If the jamming is coming from a separate source, then things get interesting though. For reference, when an ARH missile is being jammed it has a HOJ mode to fall back on.

 

Not necessarily. If you can bloom it out, it won't be able to tell you anything other than 'I'm blind'.

If you can bloom out 2 separate bands with amplitude filtering. Amplitude filtering means it doesn't get bloomed out, it just sees some guy shining a small bright dot and saying, "here I am, please shoot me down."

 

That's right. There are imperfections in everything, including your perfect passive receivers ;)

I still disagree. I think the ability to bloom out two separate bands with amplitude filtering is fairly impossible, to the point where it's not really realistic and I certainly wouldn't like to be the one relying on it to save my behind and get me into a dogfight. There's probably a better chance of shooting the incoming AAM down with an AAM of your own, but again, I wouldn't wish to be the one banking my ass on it.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Emu

[Emu]

Does fuel not count as "useful payload"? :huh:

Well I guess so, yes. But it generally isn't what we mean when talking about military planes.

 

Sarcasm aside, I completely forgot about the lift fan, didn't realize it produced that much thrust. Another thing, does the F-35 use bleed air as a reaction control system like the Harrier? I think the thrust vectoring might have that covered but I don't quite see how it could control all 3 axis.

There are roll post stabilisers too, if that's what you mean.

[HiJack]

I've heard some people say the F-35 is lacking in engine power.

Yes in current version. The engine is still being developed and more thrust is bound to hit the F35 before operation.

[Rangi]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/10/f-35-test-pilot-edwards-air-force-development/84042220/

 

Interesting article, sounds like a frustrating way to fly, I imagine the dcs beta testers have many days like this also.

[Sweep]

[ame]http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/type-selection-denmarks-new-fighter-aircrafts-english-summary5.pdf[/ame]

[Svend_Dellepude]

Not so sure we are doing the right thing here. Our F-16's are on the edge of extinction and F-35 still seems far in the horizon, but let's see.

[Hummingbird]

I do wonder how both the Eurofighter & Super Hornet somehow are estimated to have a higher procurement cost than the JSF, esp. the 15 billion procurement cost mystifies me, esp. considering that 30 billion is mentioned again and again for the 27 aircraft.

 

Even worse they deliberately lied about the flying hours pr. aircraft:

JSF = 8,000 h

EF = 6,000 h

SH = 6,000 h

 

The SH figure is for aircraft operating off of a aircraft carrier, for land based operation the figure is 9,500 hours. Finally the figure for the EF is completely made up, the actual figure being 11,000 hours.

 

I don't blame SAAB for pulling out considering this is how the "competition" is run.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Bushmanni]

BAE states Typhoon flight hours as minimum 6000.

http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/typhoon

 

Where did you get the 11000 number?

[Basher54321]

 

The SH figure is for aircraft operating off of a aircraft carrier, for land based operation the figure is 9,500 hours.

 

Where is that from? - are you sure that is not after a SLEP.

[Hummingbird]

The guys at Eurofighter themselves said 11,000 hours based on Denmark's needs, although another place says 8,300 hours.

 

Eurofighter & Boeing have been invited to a hearing at Christiansborg next friday to shed more light on the subject. I'll post here as soon as I hear anything new about it.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

Small update:

 

"Just because the government Thursday recommended the F-35 as Denmark's new fighter aircraft, Boeing hasn't yet given up. The aircraft manufacturer (Boeing) asked friday for permission to explain matters to the Defence Committee, which they will then do next Thursday.

 

Boeing is puzzled by some of the economic calculations from kampflykontoret (the Fighter Office). Therefore they would like to discuss the purchase price for the Super Hornet that the Fighter Office has estimated, as well as their estimates for the flight hours pr. airframe and staffing needs. Boeing estimates that the procurement and lifetime costs for the Super Hornet may have been exaggerated 50-100 percent higher than they actually are according to Boeing's own figures. This would lead to the Danish parliament making their important decision based on unfinished and possibly erroneous information, such is the warning from Boeing.

 

The inquiry from Boeing has led to an audience with the defense committee on thursday. At the same time Eurofighter have been invited to swing by the Conservatives' defense spokesman Rasmus Jarlov's office to explain and give their version of the dispute over the number of flight hours per airframe."

 

A translation of the the following Danish text:

http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/8561

[Sierra99]

Not so sure we are doing the right thing here. Our F-16's are on the edge of extinction and F-35 still seems far in the horizon, but let's see.

 

I'm not sure I understand comments like these. Yes, aircraft age...but aircraft are maintained with far greater attention to the things that make them "Old". Yes technology improves...but how often could technology developed for a "New and Improved" aircraft be adapted to existing Airframes at far less cost?

 

This isn't a poke at Sven or any new aircraft in particular...just curious.

 

Sierra

[Seaeagle]

I'm not sure I understand comments like these. Yes, aircraft age...but aircraft are maintained with far greater attention to the things that make them "Old". Yes technology improves...but how often could technology developed for a "New and Improved" aircraft be adapted to existing Airframes at far less cost?

 

This isn't a poke at Sven or any new aircraft in particular...just curious.

 

Sierra

 

F-35 deliveries for RDAF are scheduled to begin from 2021 and be completed by 2027....if all goes well. I think what he meant was that since our F-16s have been pushed to the limit(the selection process has already been delayed by several years beyond what was originally considered to be "in time"), that the choice for the F-35 may lead us to a situation, where we for a period of time have little or no fighter capability available.

 

Whether or not choosing one of the other candidates would speed up the replacement process I don't know - but given that they are already operational, while the F-35 is still under development, there is at least reason to think that it would.

[Svend_Dellepude]

F-35 deliveries for RDAF are scheduled to begin from 2021 and be completed by 2027....if all goes well. I think what he meant was that since our F-16s have been pushed to the limit(the selection process has already been delayed by several years beyond what was originally considered to be "in time"), that the choice for the F-35 may lead us to a situation, where we for a period of time have little or no fighter capability available.

 

Whether or not choosing one of the other candidates would speed up the replacement process I don't know - but given that they are already operational, while the F-35 is still under development, there is at least reason to think that it would.

 

Spot on!

[Skjold]

Most things in the arms industry is political. You as Denmark just as Norway have membership in NATO which comes with its own political expectations. That also involves buying weaponry from within NATO and especially from the papa NATO, USA.

 

I'm not saying that the F-35 will be a bad plane, but most purchases are political decisions rather then military ones. All non-american planes were always an underdog becouse of that. SAAB even dropped out saying that that the Danish contest was "Rigged to the point where only one winner was possible, the F-35"

[Hummingbird]

I'm not saying that the F-35 will be a bad plane, but most purchases are political decisions rather then military ones. All non-american planes were always an underdog becouse of that. SAAB even dropped out saying that that the Danish contest was "Rigged to the point where only one winner was possible, the F-35"

 

This is what a lot of people right now are starting to suspect is actually the case, and two things also seem to point in that direction:

 

1. Norway estimates F-35 lifetime costs at 60 billion versus a curiously low 20-30 billion listed in the report by the danish Fighter Office.

 

2. Both Boeing & Eurofighter's airframe lifetime figures have been grossly botched in the report from the Fighter Office which lists a mere 6,000 hours pr. airframe for both aircraft where'as the real figures are 9,500 (SH) & 11,000 (EF) hours respectively. Only LM were satisfied with the 8,000 hours 'estimated' by the Fighter Office for the F-35, i.o.w. favourable guesswork. Meanwhile the 9,500 hours for the SH and 11,000 hours for the EF are by comparison known real life figures and yet they were mysteriously lowered by the Fighter Office??

 

Unsurprisingly as a result things are heating up within the various political parties atm as a sneaking suspicion of foul play is starting to appear.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Tirak]

This is what a lot of people right now are starting to suspect is actually the case, and two things also seem to point in that direction:

 

1. Norway estimates F-35 lifetime costs at 60 billion versus a curiously low 20-30 billion listed in the report by the danish Fighter Office.

 

2. Both Boeing & Eurofighter's airframe lifetime figures have been grossly botched in the report from the Fighter Office which lists a mere 6,000 hours pr. airframe for both aircraft where'as the real figures are 9,500 (SH) & 11,000 (EF) hours respectively. Only LM were satisfied with the 8,000 hours 'estimated' by the Fighter Office for the F-35, i.o.w. favourable guesswork. Meanwhile the 9,500 hours for the SH and 11,000 hours for the EF are by comparison known real life figures and yet they were mysteriously lowered by the Fighter Office??

 

Unsurprisingly as a result things are heating up within the various political parties atm as a sneaking suspicion of foul play is starting to appear.

 

Got some literature to back this up? Sorry, but I find myself rather skeptical of your claims as of late, especially given Bushmanni's information about the Eurofighter comes direct from BAE.

[Hummingbird]

Got some literature to back this up? Sorry, but I find myself rather skeptical of your claims as of late, especially given Bushmanni's information about the Eurofighter comes direct from BAE.

 

You find yourself skeptical because you somehow think people are deliberately trying to decieve you for no reason. I have no sympathy for that, believe what you want to believe.

 

The issue regarding the F-35, EF & SH is a hot topic in Denmark atm and is being discussed in detail here: http://nytkampfly.dk/

 

Article on how Boeing's flight hours pr. airframe have been botched: http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/8617

Article on how Norway estimates F-35 costs as being double the amount estimated by kampflykontoret: http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/8564

Edited May 21, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

Also needs to be added that said report by the Fighter Office has been finished for over a year, further putting its validity into question.

[Tirak]

You find yourself skeptical because you somehow think people are deliberately trying to decieve you for no reason. I have no sympathy for that, believe what you want to believe.

 

The issue regarding the F-35, EF & SH is a hot topic in Denmark atm and is being discussed in detail here: http://nytkampfly.dk/

 

Article on how Boeing's flight hours pr. airframe have been botched: http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/8617

 

I'm skeptical because your claims directly contravene the manufacturer claim as demonstrated in Bushmanni's post. Care to translate for the English speaking among us?

[Hummingbird]

I'm skeptical because your claims directly contravene the manufacturer claim as demonstrated in Bushmanni's post. Care to translate for the English speaking among us?

 

The 11,000 hours repeated in Danish media is said to be EF's own estimate for Danish needs, and thus has nothing to do with the 6,000 hour minimum listed on the link Bushmanni posted. (EF apparently uses a safety margin of 300%, thus after completing 18,000 hours without incident 6,000 hours is guaranteed) Hence EF are getting an audience later next week.

 

PS: It should be noted that the figure 8,300 hours also turns up in places. What that is based on I don't know.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Seaeagle]

Most things in the arms industry is political. You as Denmark just as Norway have membership in NATO which comes with its own political expectations. That also involves buying weaponry from within NATO and especially from the papa NATO, USA.

 

I think the "papa USA" factor is more predominant within the military itself. But then we have a tradition for letting the military itself decide what equipment they want - trusting their professional prowess in making sensible decisions regarding operational requirements, technical capabilities and cost.......which unfortunately has lead to a long list of fiascos :D .

 

Politically the point about buying arms from a fellow NATO country is definitely a factor, but then all 3 remaining competitors fit that bill and, if you read the MoD paper, one of the main points(the only?) in favour of the EF mentioned is the potential for further cooperation with European NATO partners - in particular Germany.

 

However, in regards to the F-35 there is an extra aspect that you forgot to mention - namely that both Denmark and Norway have invested(are partner nations) in the development of the aircraft - which itself casts doubts as to how impartial a tender involving the same aircraft can be.

 

I'm not saying that the F-35 will be a bad plane, but most purchases are political decisions rather then military ones.

 

As I see it, the F-35 is the military's choice and in reality already sealed with the decision to become a partner nation in its development, while the tender is just a political requirement rigged to support it no matter what.

 

All non-american planes were always an underdog becouse of that. SAAB even dropped out saying that that the Danish contest was "Rigged to the point where only one winner was possible, the F-35"

 

....and Dassault, for the same reason, refused to enter to begin with.

 

Maybe the F-35 is the best choice - on the plus side its a generation ahead of the competitors and for a multi billion dollar investment meant to see us through the next 30+ years of fighter requirements, thats a strong argument. But then on the negative side is the uncertainty of buying a non-operational aircraft with a long list of unresolved issues based on that "too big to fail" mantra and lofty predictions from LM(which time and again have proved overly optimistic) with all the possible problems this can entail both concerning final costs as well as operational availability("hangar queen" situation).