|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Dec 22, 2008 17:21:39 GMT 12
Or in case you decide to "frag" your wingman.....  |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Dec 24, 2008 5:49:56 GMT 12
www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/12/us-navy-scrooges-f-35-program.htmlUS Navy scrooges F-35 program? By Stephen Trimble on December 23, 2008 "It may not be a merry Christmas for the F-35C carrier variant this year. The US Navy appears to be considering a dramatic cutback in its commitment to the program next year. As many as three of the four planned F-35C orders planned orders could be cut, which, if approved, would reduce the fourth lot of low rate initial production from 32 to 29 (which includes 13 F-35As for the US Air Force and 15 F-35Bs for the US Marine Corps). The news comes from this acquisition notice posted yesterday: www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=22ed5d067b9aaab53307e1beade6b45b&tab=core&_cview=0The Joint Strike Fighter Program Office intends to award a sole source contract to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, Fort Worth, TX for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 4 of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. The proposed contract will provide thirteen Conventional Take-off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft, fifteen Short Take-off Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft, one to four Carrier Variant (CV) aircraft."
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Dec 24, 2008 13:40:08 GMT 12
NEATO little DooDad for JSF perhaps?: rnzaf.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=world&action=display&thread=8176..."The air force won't, for obvious reasons, discuss the exact kill range of the of the various models of AESA radars on American warplanes (the F-15, F-35 and F-22 have them). However, it is known that range in this case is an elastic thing. Depending on how well the target electronics are hardened against EMP, more electrical power will be required to do damage. Moreover, the electrical power of the various AESA radars in service varies as well. The air force has said that the larger AESA radar it plans to install on its E-10 radar aircraft would be able to zap cruise missile guidance systems up to 180 kilometers away. The E-10 AESA is several times larger than the one in the F-35 (the largest in use now), so make your own estimates. Smaller versions of this technology would arm the CHAMP system. www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20081223.aspx |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Dec 29, 2008 18:42:08 GMT 12
www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/12/23/320498/lockheed-martin-completes-assembly-on-six-f-35s-first-optimized.html" Lockheed Martin completes assembly on six F-35s, first optimized CTOL By Stephen Trimble DATE:23/12/08 SOURCE:Flightglobal.com Lockheed Martin has rolled out the last of six developmental F-35s to join the ground and flight test fleet by end-year. The roll-out of the AF-1 – the second conventional takeoff and landing model, but the first completed in the weight-optimized configuration – rolled-out of Lockheed’s final assembly centre in Fort Worth on 19 December. AF-1 joins a mix of CTOL and short-take-off-and-vertical landing (STOVL) models that have completed 86 flight tests so far. Two days earlier, Lockheed rolled out AG-1, a ground test aircraft. AG-1 will be transported by cargo ship in late March to Brough, UK, for loads testing. Lockheed also has completed assembly earlier this year of STOVL prototypes BG-1, BF-1 and BF-2. The first flight test aircraft – AA-1 – rolled out in December 2006. AA-1 is several thousands pounds heavier than later models, as it began production before a 2004 weight savings programme was launched.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Dec 29, 2008 18:45:52 GMT 12
www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/12/23/320481/correction-us-navy-restores-lost-f-35c-orders.htmlDATE:23/12/08 SOURCE:Flightglobal.com CORRECTION: US Navy restores lost F-35C orders By Stephen Trimble [Corrects inaccuracies reported in previous story, headlined: "US Navy mulls slashing F-35C orders next year"]Lockheed Martin confirms the US Navy has submitted a request to fully fund three F-35C carrier variant aircraft that were eliminated last year by Congress. The so-called above threshhold reprogramming request "is now with Congress for final approval", Lockheed says. The same request has already been approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Last year, Congress eliminated funds for three of the four planned F-35C variants in the fourth lot of low rate initial production (LRIP-4). The USN, however, is seeking to restore the funding to allow the USN's initial operational test and evaluation phase to proceed as planned. The Department of Defense plans to award a contract for 32 LRIP-4 to Lockheed in January, according to an acquisition notice posted yesterday. The sole-source award includes 13 F-35As for the US Air Force, 15 F-35Bs for the US Marine Corps and one F-35Cs -- with an option for another three F-35Cs -- for the USN. The USN plans to buy a total of 640 F-35Cs and short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35Bs over the life of the programme. Last year, the F-35 Joint Programme Office announced delaying the initial operational capability (IOC) date for the F-35C to 2015. The USN is currently evaluating its future tactical aircraft inventory needs as the service faces an acknowledged shortfall of at least 69 fighters in 2017. Options range from accelerating F-35C procurement to extending production of the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Dec 29, 2008 22:21:58 GMT 12
Nor will I. But think F-14 (AWG-9) ranges with better solutions. And don't let anyone tell you different. |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 1, 2009 10:40:55 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 1, 2009 12:23:49 GMT 12
DAS Boot up the khyber - delivered by a Baby Seal mit Club: "http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A41255466-a6f1-419b-8a08-c2e2cb00fbcc" TINY URL is: tiny.cc/1rUbLJSF - "Maneuvering is Irrelevant" (spelling is irrelevant also) Posted by Bill Sweetman at 10/2/2008 [HatTip H/T to the 'shiney lever weilder] Two weeks ago at the Air Force Association convention, Northrop Grumman briefed media on the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) that it is developing for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Subsystem briefs aren't always revealing, but this was different. As this story in DTI (p40) explains, DAS comprises six fixed, wide-angle infrared cameras that constantly image the entire sphere around the F-35. It's been publicized in the past for its ability to allow the pilot to "see through the floor" in a vertical landing, and one of its functions is to provide imagery to the VSI helmet-mounted display. Another is missile warning. But one of the DAS' most interesting capabilities is that it can constantly track every aircraft in the sky, out to its maximum range - which varies but, absent clouds, covers the within-visual-range envelope. DAS has two vital attributes in this respect: it stares, never looking away from any target, and it has optical accuracy, with megapixel-class resolution. (Northrop Grumman didn't say "megapixel", but one of their suppliers did. Bad supplier! The naughty spot for you!) This means that once a target is ID'd, it stays ID'd, and the pilot can see what every aircraft around him is doing. Moreover, DAS is expected to track with enough accuracy and tenacity to permit a safe high-off-boresight, lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) missile shot with any datalink-equipped missile. Indeed, Northrop Grumman's DAS business development leader, Pete Bartos - who was part of the initial USAF JSF requirements team - says that this was basic to the F-35 design and the reason that it did not need maneuverability similar to the F-22. Rather than entering a turning fight at the merge, the F-35 barrels through and takes an over-the-shoulder defensive shot. As a Northrop Grumman video puts it, "maneuvering is irrelevant". What this says about the F-35 is that the 1995 statement of its godfather, George Muellner, still stands: it is 70 per cent air-to-ground and 30 per cent air to air. Consider the USAF, by far the largest customer, in 1995. It was expecting to get 442 F-22s, which would dominate any foreseen air threat (a major regional power) for decades. It was four years after Desert Storm, where the F-117 had been the star, combining stealth and precision attack into an overwhelming force multiplier. Looking back, the USAF was clearly seeking something that would do the F-117 job while remedying its limitations. The F-117 was a clear-night system, unable to bomb in adverse weather or survive in daylight, and could not hit all the targets covered by other strike aircraft. The JSF requirement was built around an F-117's internal weapon load. It added a radar and GPS-guided weapons for all-weather attack. It added situational awareness (that is, an EW system capable of detecting, identifying and avoiding pop-up threats) and AAMs for self-defense, for daytime survivability. Finally, it added external pylons for the "day two" missions and the entire target set tackled by F-16s. All this had to fit inside the tightest limitation imposed by the joint-service JSF concept, which was size: the Marines and the UK wanted (but didn't get) an aircraft no bigger than an F/A-18C. Within those limits, the JSF could not be designed for the supersonic cruise and maneuverability that had been included in the F-22. Moreover, it was the first USAF requirement written after the end of the Cold War, and the rude shock of realizing just how dangerous the Vympel R-73 and associated helmet-mounted sight would be in close combat. Rather than attempting to play a game that might be mutual suicide, the JSF requirement authors stressed stealth, situational awareness and LOAL. If the fight does get to the merge, the best thing to do in an F-35 is to accelerate through it, put the adversary in the rear sector and take an over-the-shoulder shot. Of course, the use of 360-degree weapons on a fighter has an illustrious precedent...  ...about which the less said the better. If the Germans had had an expression for "clubbed like baby seals" in 1940, the Luftwaffe would have used it. The other first-level observation about the JSF self-defense strategy is that - at service entry - the jet won't carry (internally) a missile that is very suited to the job. The AIM-120 can in theory be vectored in any direction, although it generally receives updates via the radar, which cannot update the missile outside its field-of-regard, and the weapon's design emphasizes range and speed rather than agility. The F-35 can carry the AIM-9X Block 2 or ASRAAM, but only on external pylons. And even with a more-stealthy pylon design - discussed earlier this year - that's a serious compromise. Eventually, the F-35 may get an internal, LOAL AIM-9X capability - because that's what it really needs to take advantage of DAS.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 1, 2009 12:31:10 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 10, 2009 13:02:01 GMT 12
www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15983&R=15FFD2F9F0PAK-man Loser. Yippee. PAK-SFA (Sweet Fanny Adams) Brazil (they are cool because they operate Skyhawks from a carrier - in the AMAZON!) gets a mention in this article: Just Like US(AF)? Russia's fifth generation fighter by Reuben F. Johnson 01/09/2009 Kiev Karlo Copp is probably on holidays there as we readFor more than a decade the world has been waiting for Russia's aerospace industry to produce a fifth-generation fighter aircraft -- a replacement for the more than 25-year-old designs of the Mikoyan MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27/Su-30 models and an analogue to the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor and F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Organised as a cooperative program involving almost the entirety of the Russian military aircraft industry, the project is known as the PAK-FA (Perspektivnnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks - Frontovoi Aviatsyi, or Future Air System for Tactical Air Forces). The design bureau designation for the prototype is T-50, with this airplane in the beginning stages of assembly at the Komsommolsk-na-Amure Aviation Production Association (KNAAPO) plant in the Russian Far East region of Kharabovsk. "Metal is being cut at the KNAAPO plant" and the plan is now for the aircraft to fly in 2009 -- or 2010 at the latest -- said a source knowledgeable of the program. The emergence of a Russian fifth-generation fighter airplane should be music to the ears of the U.S. Air Force (USAF), which has long sought to use the specter of such a program to justify increased procurement of the F-22A and funding for the F-35. But, no one on the Air Staff in the Pentagon should be putting champagne on ice just yet. Ironically, the PAK-FA seems to be taking the same labourious route from first flight to actual deployment that started with the selection of the YF-22 prototype in the early 1990s. "During the flight evaluations of the YF-22 and the [Northrop-McDonnell-Douglas] YF-23 the Lockheed design was picked as the 'winner,' but this was despite the fact that the prototype airplane did not demonstrate stealth, did not have a working radar or avionics suite for testing, and did not supercruise. So, all that was really evaluated and 'won' the fly-off was an aerodynamic paint job," said US aviation and stealth technology analyst Jim Stevenson. Stevenson has authored numerous articles on the F-22A and has written extensive histories of both the F-18 and ill-fated A-12 program. "The USAF essentially picked a winner and then said 'now that you have officially won go and develop the airplane,' which took another 14 and half years between this fly-off of virtually empty prototypes and the official acceptance of the F-22A into service at the end of 2005," said Stevenson. The PAK-FA seems destined to meet a similar fate. The prototype will fly sometime within the next 12 to 18 months, but -- like the F-22A -- it seems that these demonstration flights will meet almost none of the Russian Air Force's (VVS) operational requirements. Russian industry representatives close to the program tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that "the radar to be flown in the aircraft from NIIP design bureau will be a variant of the same Irbis-E passive electronically scanning array (PESA) radar technology that is in the Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker and not the next-generation active array (AESA) that program requirements call for. The engine will be the Saturn/Lyulka 117S modernised derivative of the Su-27's AL-31F-Series 3 engine and not the next-generation AL-41F1 design. There will also be few new-age on-board systems in the avionics suite." As early as mid-2007, Sukhoi General Director Mikhail Pogosian and other senior Russian industry officials were downplaying expectations when they hinted that these on-board systems might not be ready when the first prototype aircraft flies and would only come on line later. When asked about the engine development at the Le Bourget air show outside of Paris in June 2007, Pogosian responded "that since the serial production covers a period of 30 years and 30 more years for operation, the engine and other systems will change considerably in the course of serial production. That is normal." According to the division of labour that has been agreed to for the PAK-FA, the KNAAPO plant will be the lead final production assembly point. The Chkalov NAPO plant in Novosibirsk will supply the nose section and other carbon composite sections for the aircraft. But, officials in Novosibirsk have previously told THE WEEKLY STANDARD "there are no plans to place a large share of the [PAK-FA] production at NAPO, largely due to the nature of the local workforce here in Siberia. Because there are no so many commercial trading companies now here in Novosibirsk it is too difficult to retain enough skilled engineering talent with this kind of competition from the private sector." But, labour problems are only one facet of the difficulties that Russian defense industry now faces. Among them is a government out of touch with industry's problems, lack of investment, and technological bottlenecks -- and literally demanding that they "make ropes from sand," as the old fable says. An example came during a recent telemost broadcast on Russian state television in which Russian PM Vladimir Putin answered phone-in questions he was asked about the PAK-FA program and stated "we are developing such airplanes and the work is going according to plan. I am certain that they will appear in the Russian Armed Forces and I would like that they appear on time." Demanding that the PAK-FA appears "on time" shows that Putin and Co. have not spent enough time reading their briefing book on "why the Soviet Union failed as a nation-state." Rule number one from that briefing is that simply decreeing a desired outcome does not make it so. Even though Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Board of Russia's Unified Aircraft-Building Corporation (OAK), Sergei Ivanov, stated in May 2007 that Pogosian had "confirmed that the first plane will make its maiden flight in late 2008," these technological obstacles have made it so that the first flight will now be at least a year late. "The most likely near-term future for the PAK-FA is that there will be prototype demonstrators that make a number of flights -- just like the Mikoyan MFI 1.44 and Sukhoi S-37/Su-47 models -- and then the program may slow down or come to a halt altogether while industry tries to finish developing these on-board systems," said one analyst in Moscow familiar with the program. The consensus of the industry representatives who spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD is that overcoming these technology bottlenecks depends significantly on whether or not any foreign partners come on board to cooperate -- and bring some much-needed funding with them. Development of the avionics and radar components will require a significant investment in Russia's electronics industry sector, which has been neglected for years. Russia, now in the middle of the worst economic crisis to hit the nation since the hyperinflation of the 1990s, simply lacks the resources required to bring its largely dilapidated defense industrial base into the 21st century. The most optimistic estimate for the program is that production-series PAK-FA airplanes will not be flying in VVS service before 2016 and that export customers would receive their aircraft much later. One of the nations that Russia had been hoping would become a program partner was Brazil. Concerned about the acquisition of so much advanced Russian weaponry by Compañero President Hugo Chavez in neighbouring Venezuela, Brazil -- South America's largest nation -- decided to embark on a major modernization of its long-outdated air force. Russia had hoped to convince Brazil to join the PAK-FA program, but last year's state visit by President Dmitri Medvedev did not convince the government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to sign onto the project. Russian officials had proposed that the Força Aérea Brasileira (Brazilian Air Force or FAB) sign on to an initial procurement of the Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker and then follow on with a role in the PAK-FA, but the FAB Commander, Juniti Saito, stated that: "I do not want to blacken the image of Sukhoi, but the project did not fit into our necessities." Translation: Brazil is not in the position to finance the development of a Russian fighter that is not in production yet nor will it be soon -- it needs something it can buy off the shelf now. The FAB, which earlier dropped the Su-35 from its FX-2 competition, stated that it had excluded Sukhoi fighters from the program because of compromises that would have to be made on terms of technology transfer. This is almost a complete turnaround from several years ago, when the Su-35 made it into the last round of the FX-2 competition before the program was put into abeyance. In these intervening years, Russia has started to lose the technological edge that made it so attractive to its export customers, and in today's environment they are not likely to have the financial means to address that deficiency. A representative from one of the PAK-FA's major partners told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that "the situation is very simple. Right now the only real fifth-generation fighter airplane in service in the world is the F-22A. This state of affairs is not likely to change anytime soon." Reuben F. Johnson is a regular contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 13, 2009 6:35:35 GMT 12
JSF hears the thunder, Down-Under By Stephen Trimble on January 12, 2009 www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/01/jsf-hears-the-thunder-down-und.html"Australian member of parliament (MP) Dennis Jensen has challenged Air Vice Marshall John Harvey to a public debate about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Jensen's gesture came after a week of sparring with Marshall over the F-35's capabilities in dueling press releases. The anti-F-35 Jensen re-opened the debate by publishing a commentary on 7 January, attacking the viability of all three fundamental JSF selling points: price, stealth and networking. In short, the JSF is an expensive aircraft, with very limited aerodynamic performance compared to legacy fighters, let alone other advanced fighters. The stealthiness of the aircraft has been shown, with hard numbers, to be poor compared to real stealth aircraft, and its much vaunted networking capability further degrades this. (Read full commentary www.dennisjensen.com.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=307&Archived=true)The next day, Harvey published a two-page rebuttal on the Defence Materiel Organization's web site. Dr Jensen makes a large number of incorrect judgments about the capability and cost of the JSF. It is the JSF's combination of stealth, advanced situation awareness and affordability that make it so attractive to the nine JSF partner nations and many other nations that are looking to acquire it. (Read full rebuttal www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/harvey7jan09.pdf) Only 11Kb file size (a good read - I guess text can be posted below) That provoked a re-rebuttal from Jensen on Friday (continue reading www.dennisjensen.com.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=310&Archived=true), as well as an invitation to the aforementioned public debate about Australia's planned $100 billion investment in F-35 program. Regardless of the specific points made by either side, there is perhaps no country in the 11-nation partnership enjoying such a public and informed? :-) debate about its F-35 investment." _____________________________ Comment (must be a pilot - can't spell ‘moot’): By alloycowboy on January 12, 2009 5:56 PM "The limiting factor in the F-35's rate of turn is the pilot blacking out not the aircraft. But this is a mute point any way because the pilot and aircraft would have to execute a 35-40 G turn to evade the missle which is going to be fired beyond visual range any way. In modern jet combat the aircraft that can aquire a missle lock first wins."
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 13, 2009 6:47:25 GMT 12
Text below is from the PDF mentioned above:
In his article of 7 January 2009 titled “Pricey stealth fighter not up to scratch”, Dr
Dennis Jensen, MP, makes numerous incorrect claims about the capability and cost of
the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
First, Dr Jensen falsely claims Defence is hiding behind unnecessary classification of
JSF performance information as there are no JSF technologies or capabilities that are
not already known in the public domain. The JSF incorporates the most advanced
combat technologies of the US and they are very closely protected to ensure the US
and JSF partner countries maintain a capability edge. On current plans the JSF will
represent 90% of the combat aircraft of the US Air Force and be the frontline combat
aircraft for the US Navy—these Services demand the highest level of capability. JSF
Partner countries are fortunate to have access to this level of technology and are
obliged to protect it at the highest level.
Second, the report critical of JSF performance to which Dr Jensen refers was refuted
by the US RAND Corporation and was never part of the US Pacific Vision Exercise
as previously claimed by Dr Jensen.
Third, Dr Jensen makes a number of incorrect claims regarding JSF price estimates.
Because the JSF will be purchased in US dollars the price is very sensitive to
exchange rate, hence Dr Stephen Gumley’s stipulation that his estimate of A$75M
was in 2008 dollars at an exchange rate of 0.92. It is also essential to understand that
the A$75M figure refers to the basic aircraft—the so-called Average Unit Recurring
Flyaway Cost. The total project cost will be considerably higher, having to take into
account spares, facilities, weapons, support equipment, training equipment, etc, hence
AVM Harvey’s previous advice of an Average Unit Procurement Cost in the order of
A$130 M. (Note this figure was in A$, not US$, and at a time when the exchange
rate was around 0.75. This is consistent with the publicly available Defence
Capability Plan provision for the AIR6000 Project). Cost figures Dr Jensen
attributes to Norway align more with cost figures media articles attribute to Israel.
These figures were based on what is referred to as a “Never To Exceed” estimate that
took into account total project costs and include extensive modification of the JSF Air
System to incorporate specific Israeli systems and weapons.
Fourth, in terms of its stealth characteristics, the US Government and Lockheed
Martin have both acknowledged that the JSF will be a Very Low Observable aircraft.
Dr Jensen’s statements in this area are also incorrect. The JSF has the benefit of
experience with all previous stealth aircraft programs and the lessons learnt from them
have been incorporated into the JSF. Defence has detailed insight into the stealth
characteristics of the JSF and its performance has been confirmed by detailed,
independent Defence Science & Technology Organisation analysis. There have been
many advances since the basic radar cross section performance modelling was
conducted in the 1970s, particularly in terms of incorporating stealth into highly
manoeuvrable combat aircraft. Major developments in computer modelling were
required to allow the design of the highly complex F-22 and JSF aircraft, modelling
not available for the first stealth aircraft, the F-117, which relied on flat surfaces and
had very limited manoeuvrability.
Fifth, in terms of networking, while Dr Jensen is correct that the concept has been
around for many years, he fails to recognise that the JSF is implementing networking
to an extent well beyond any previous aircraft.
In summary, Dr Jensen makes a large number of incorrect judgments about the
capability and cost of the JSF. It is the JSF’s combination of stealth, advanced
situation awareness and affordability that make it so attractive to the nine JSF partner
nations and many other nations that are looking to acquire it.
As Defence Minister Fitzgibbon has reiterated, however, the Australian Government
will not make an acquisition decision on the JSF until we are confident that the JSF
can do what we need it to do and we know what it will cost and when it will be ready."
Air Vice-Marshal J.P. Harvey
Program Manager New Air Combat Capability
8 January 2009
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 13, 2009 13:54:24 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 14, 2009 14:48:47 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 15, 2009 7:25:04 GMT 12
www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/01/us-analyst-f-35-beats-russias.htmlUS analyst: F-35 beats Russia's best By Stephen Trimble on January 14, 2009 The F-35s prowess has been taking a beating, especially on this blog. Rand's "baby seals" report in September clubbed the F-35 as the "can't turn, can't climb and can't run" fighter. Even the infamous YouTube video of the US Air Force officer describing Red Flag contained an implied insult of the F-22's kid brother. Of course, it's not easy to balance the commentary when Lockheed Martin declines to publicly defend the F-35's dogfighting skills, presumably out of concern that a good word for the F-35 could undermine the case to save the F-22. But here's a new analysis by Heritage Foundation analyst Ariel Cohen, which ranks the F-35 as a clear winner against even the MiG-35 and Su-35. Stealth is a major discriminator between a 5G fighter like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and "Gen 4 plus plus" competitors like the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 Fulcrum and the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker that are essentially modernizations of their respective progenitors, the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 and the Sukhoi Su-27. No operational Soviet or Russian stealth aircraft has ever been reported to have entered service.
A U.S. analyst who requested anonymity said that while the Russians have some good specific system technologies, their ability to effectively integrate them often lags behind that of the West, and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter takes integration of off-board intelligence to a step well beyond proven Russian capabilities.Russia trails U.S. in pursuit of a fifth-generation jet By ARIEL COHEN Published: Jan. 14, 2009 at 11:38 AM www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/01/14/Russia_trails_US_in_pursuit_of_a_fifth-generation_jet/UPI-35761231951126/
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 16, 2009 8:06:07 GMT 12
www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/01/us-marine-corps-finally-divulg.htmlUS Marine Corps finally divulges F-35B order count By Stephen Trimble on January 15, 2009 It seems the most closely guarded secret in the F-35 program has been, strangely enough, the order breakdown between the US Navy and US Marine Corps. The combined purchase is 680 aircraft. But the order split between the USMC's F-35B and the USN's F-35C has remained a mystery. I've heard suggestions of a roughly 50/50 split, but nothing specific. This morning's Federal Register -- as spotted by my colleague John Croft -- finally solves the mystery. The USMC submitted two environmental impact statements, as federal law requires, for plans to base F-35Bs on the east coast and west coast. The statements contain the first official breakdown of the F-35 order count. Here it is: East Coast: 10 active duty squadrons, one reserve squadron of up to 16 aircraft each. Plus, two training squadrons of 20 aircraft each. Total number: 216. West Coast: 10 active duty squadrons, one reserve squadron of up to 16 aircraft each. One operational evaluation unit of six aircraft. Total number: 182. (Note: Both totals add up to 10 fewer aircraft than the maximum. I can't explain why.) That adds up to a USMC planned order for 398 aircraft. Deductively, the USN's order count would amount to 282 aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 27, 2009 14:38:19 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 28, 2009 8:53:40 GMT 12
BVR and Russian roulette By Stephen Trimble on January 27, 2009 www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/01/bvr-and-russian-roulette.html Beyond visual range (BVR) will remain the raging controversy in air combat until a definitive, modern air war -- which nobody wants -- proves which side is correct. The Air Power Australia group, which defiantly wears its pro-F-22/anti-F-35 bias on its sleeve, make a strong case today against BVR, breaking down the odds of failure at each step in the BVR kill-chain. Active missile confirmed on launch rail -- 0.1% (chance of failure) Search and track radar jammed -- 5% Launch or missile failure -- 5% Guidance link jammed -- 3% Seeker head jammed or diverted -- 30% Chaff or decoys seduce the seeker -- 5% Seeker chooses towed decoy -- 5% Aircraft out-manuevers missile -- 40% Fuse or warhead failure -- 2% PROBABILITY OF A BVR MISSILE KILL: 17.1%The question is simple: Even if it is technically possible to destroy an opponent's aircraft beyond a pilot's visual range, is it now or will it ever become tactically feasible? Pierre Sprey, a co-father of the A-10 and F-16, adamantly says no. The fog of war and the complexity of air combat dictates that pilots must wait until their targets come within visual range before they can be shut down. Even if they dare to fire, the chances of a BVR missile kill are too small for the strategy to work. [The F-35 is able to overcome the fog & complexity so why whine about it?] ;D But the US Air Force corporately says yes, a sentiment echoed by the makers of the F-35 Lightning II, which its supporters will likely concede is optimized for the BVR fight. To be sure, since 1991, the USAF has fired 13 AMRAAMs to achieve six BVR kills, a 45% success rate, according to this Rand air power study. But Rand's analysts note that these shots have come against inferior or unsuspecting opponents, and offer no confidence that an engagement with modern Su-30s would bear similar results. [So have a go ya mug!] ;D www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-270109-1.html& [Former RAAF Jock] BVR AUTHOR BIO: www.ausairpower.net/CV-CLM-2007.html
|
|
|
|
Post by vgp on Jan 29, 2009 13:25:46 GMT 12
Bring back noisy jets I say. Replacement RAAF aircraft 'twice as loud' BY BEN SMEE 28/01/2009 9:00:00 AM A NEW RAAF aircraft set to be based at Williamtown would be twice as loud as the F/A-18 Hornets it would replace, prompting concerns about noise effects on residents and future development in Port Stephens. The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is the likely choice to replace the Hornet, and a fully operational squadron is expected to be in place at Williamtown by 2015. But data obtained by The Herald in an environmental impact statement from a US Air Force base at Eglin, Florida, suggests the Joint Strike Fighter is twice as loud as the Hornet when cruising at 300 metres. At full engine thrust during take-off, the Joint Strike Fighter's sound exposure level is 121 decibels, four decibels louder than the F/A-18, and within the range of what is commonly considered to be the pain threshold. Noise levels on approach to the tarmac are similar between the F-35 and F/A-18. Plans to base the fighters at Eglin and in Nevada have created outrage among residents of nearby towns, with the city of Valparaiso in Florida launching legal action to obtain noise studies. Similar concerns are being felt at Port Stephens, where Mayor Bruce MacKenzie last week called on the Defence Department to stop acting like a "secret society" and share information with locals. Defence has been blamed for putting a major new development at Kings Hill, north of Raymond Terrace, on ice because of concerns about aircraft noise. Cr MacKenzie described Kings Hill as "essential" to the future of the region, and said he believed the RAAF's objections were based on potential future noise from military aircraft rather than current levels. "We need Kings Hill and the secret society stuff that goes on with the RAAF [doesn't help]," he said. A spokesman for Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said any new aircraft based at Williamtown would first require Australian Noise Exposure Forecast zones, used to guide development around the base and Salt Ash weapons range, to be redrawn. Cr MacKenzie said he would be concerned by any expansion of the exposure forecast contours, which prevented development in areas most susceptible to aircraft noise. Paterson MP and assisting shadow defence minister Bob Baldwin said there would be a definite noise increase when the Joint Strike Fighter arrived in Williamtown, and urged planning authorities to take a commonsense approach to future development that considered those noise impacts. Mr Fitzgibbon's spokesman said potential noise effects on local communities were being taken into account when planning for replacement aircraft for the Hornets, and that defence was assessing Joint Strike Fighter noise levels. Cr MacKenzie said he would be concerned by any expansion of the exposure forecast contours, which prevented development in areas most susceptible to aircraft noise. Paterson MP and assisting shadow defence minister Bob Baldwin said there would be a definite noise increase when the Joint Strike Fighter arrived in Williamtown, and urged planning authorities to take a commonsense approach to future development that considered those noise impacts. Mr Fitzgibbon's spokesman said potential noise effects on local communities were being taken into account when planning for replacement aircraft for the Hornets, and that defence was assessing Joint Strike Fighter noise levels. www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/replacement-raaf-aircraft-twice-as-loud/1417987.aspx?storypage=0 |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jan 29, 2009 15:46:53 GMT 12
"Mr Fitzgibbon's spokesman said potential noise effects on local communities were being taken into account when planning for replacement aircraft for the Hornets, and that defence was assessing Joint Strike Fighter noise levels." Fitzy has a sense of humour for sure. ;D
I like the way the Mayor does NOT want to protect his constituents from potential noise. Cool dude.
|
|
