LoooSeR Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domus Acipenseris Posted January 27, 2018 Report Share Posted January 27, 2018 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960000737 What does the board think of the document above? It's a 200 page 1995 NASA study on technologies and their impact on fighter agility. It seems to explain why the F-35 was not made more agile than the F-16. TLDR: Not cost effective. LostCosmonaut, Belesarius, That_Baka and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostCosmonaut Posted January 27, 2018 Report Share Posted January 27, 2018 It'll take me a bit to read it in detail, but just skimming it it looks good. Thanks for linking it, and welcome to the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted January 27, 2018 Report Share Posted January 27, 2018 18 minutes ago, Domus Acipenseris said: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960000737 What does the board think of the document above? It's a 200 page 1995 NASA study on technologies and their impact on fighter agility. It seems to explain why the F-35 was not made more agile than the F-16. TLDR: Not cost effective. SMSgt Mac had a writeup on a similar study. Domus Acipenseris 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted January 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Domus Acipenseris said: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960000737 What does the board think of the document above? It's a 200 page 1995 NASA study on technologies and their impact on fighter agility. It seems to explain why the F-35 was not made more agile than the F-16. TLDR: Not cost effective. Excellent first post. Welcome to SH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted January 27, 2018 Report Share Posted January 27, 2018 2 hours ago, Domus Acipenseris said: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960000737 What does the board think of the document above? It's a 200 page 1995 NASA study on technologies and their impact on fighter agility. It seems to explain why the F-35 was not made more agile than the F-16. TLDR: Not cost effective. Welcome to SH! I dig the username. The F-35 is more agile than the F-16, at least in some respects. We know, for instance, that the F-35 has at least double the AOA limit of the F-16, and airshow footage suggests that its roll rate is a little better as well. On the other hand, the F-16 probably beats the F-35 in sustained turn rate and transonic acceleration. Bottom line is that fighter agility has a lot of different parameters, and design choices that favor certain parameters of agility harm other parameters. A tailless delta will favor instantaneous turn rate and roll rate at the expense of sustained turn rate and cruise efficiency, for instance. Getting the best possible agility isn't just an issue of cost, it's a trade off with other performance parameters. We have a thread about these tradeoffs, at least in the context of WWII fighter design. My take on the F-35A's performance is: +Very good high AOA performance and AOA limit; comparable, possibly better than the super hornet based on leaked reports and soforth. +Very good instantaneous turn rate as a result of the excellent high AOA performance. +Very good roll rate as a result of wing planform and good software harmonization of the control surfaces. +Absolutely bonkers fuel capacity. The F-35A carries more fuel than a Tomcat. That's not relatively more fuel than a Tomcat, that's more gallons of fuel. +The advanced flight control software and good airflow at high AOA allow the F-35A to perform screwy new maneuvers like the J-hook. How useful this will be in actual combat is debatable. -Transonic acceleration doesn't sound so hot, although a fourth generation fighter would have to be carrying a very modest air to air load to actually best the F-35, since the F-35 is always clean. -Sustained turn performance doesn't sound so hot, but again, a fourth generation fighter would need a fairly modest load to actually exploit this. -Top speed is rather low, but top speed with heavy air to surface loads is probably unmatched (except maybe by the SU-57 or J-20). External stores are very draggy. Belesarius, That_Baka, Zyklon and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted February 1, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 http://www.janes.com/article/77420/italian-mod-takes-delivery-of-first-non-us-built-f-35b Italy takes delivery of Non-US built F-35 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juretrn Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 SpudmanWP of f-16.net uses the powers of FOIA to get a 2017 report on concurrency cost of the F-35: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=26535 Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 I appreciate Spudman's effort and research, but when I see the X-axis of that chart I just go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted March 17, 2018 Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 The Chief of the Luftwaffe is to leave his position in large part due to his support for a German procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Jane’s has learned. Lieutenant General Karl Müllner will leave his position by the end of May, with the news of his retirement breaking just two days after Germany’s defence secretary, Ursula von der Leyen, was sworn in for another term. Jane’s understands that Gen Müllner’s outspoken public support for the JSF as a successor to the German Tornado fleet was pivotal in the decision for his early retirement. “The Luftwaffe considers the F-35’s capability as the benchmark for the selection process for the Tornado replacement, and I think I have expressed myself clearly enough as to what the favourite of the air force is,” Gen Müllner told Jane’s and other media in November 2017. The Chief of the Luftwaffe’s active support of the JSF clashes with current Ministry of Defence planning, which prefers a successor solution involving the Eurofighter Typhoon. Xlucine 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted March 17, 2018 Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 I would love to see the germans try and replicate the capability of F-35 with typhoon. That is certain to be an efficient use of money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted March 17, 2018 Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 The most interesting thing I've learned about the F-35 lately is that the nose radome is apparently sealed. To service the radar... you don't. The active emitter portions of the radar are so reliable that they are expected to out-last the airframe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 On 3/17/2018 at 8:05 PM, Collimatrix said: The most interesting thing I've learned about the F-35 lately is that the nose radome is apparently sealed. To service the radar... you don't. The active emitter portions of the radar are so reliable that they are expected to out-last the airframe. It looks like the USMC agrees that AESA radar is much easier to maintain than mechanical http://www.janes.com/article/78735/usmc-to-upgrade-hornets-with-new-aesa-radar Quote USMC to upgrade Hornets with new AESA radar he US Marine Corps (USMC) is to replace the radars of its Boeing F/A-18 legacy Hornets with a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) system. A request for information (RFI) issued by the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) on 20 March calls for a new AESA system to replace the incumbent Raytheon AN/APG-73 radar on the USMC’s fleet of F/A-18C/D aircraft. “The AN/APG-73 has been subject to ongoing maintainability, supportability, and readiness issues,” the RFI noted, adding, “AESA solutions are required due to the increased reliability and sustainability requirements, as well as the associated capability improvements.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 9, 2018 Report Share Posted April 9, 2018 The Israeli F-35A, known as the F-35I Adir, recently took part in the attacks on Syrian ground-air systems that followed the downing of an Israeli F-16 by a Syrian ground -air SA-5 missile. LostCosmonaut 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 20, 2018 Report Share Posted April 20, 2018 Lockheed supposedly wants to sell Japan some sort of F-35/F-22 hybrid. Probably an F-35 tweaked to focus on air combat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted April 20, 2018 Report Share Posted April 20, 2018 16 minutes ago, Ramlaen said: Lockheed supposedly wants to sell Japan some sort of F-35/F-22 hybrid. Probably an F-35 tweaked to focus on air combat. I think this is bigger news than it seems to be. A hybrid of F-35 and F-22? They're almost definitely talking about a twin engine derivative. If that's true, there's no way it's just for Japan. It could mean a lot for the USAF, as they need more F-22 than they have right now, but the production is closed. This could be a way to get more F-22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted April 20, 2018 Report Share Posted April 20, 2018 I wonder how much of the computers and sensors on F-35 would carry over to a new airframe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted April 21, 2018 Report Share Posted April 21, 2018 9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: I think this is bigger news than it seems to be. A hybrid of F-35 and F-22? They're almost definitely talking about a twin engine derivative. If that's true, there's no way it's just for Japan. It could mean a lot for the USAF, as they need more F-22 than they have right now, but the production is closed. This could be a way to get more F-22. I also think there are bigger implications here. However, what the USAF really needs is not more F-22s, but an F-22 replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 21, 2018 Report Share Posted April 21, 2018 If you took an F-22, beefed it up a bit so you could fit a pair of the F-35's engines and give it the F-35's other toys, you might get the 'Penetrating Counter Air' fighter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted April 21, 2018 Report Share Posted April 21, 2018 PCA is a concept for a 6th gen fighter. It's not even really defined yet so I think just an upgraded Gen 5 warplane won't get us there. Or is it not really a 6th gen but closer to the YF-23? Either way, I think these news penetrated a lot of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted April 28, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holoween Posted April 28, 2018 Report Share Posted April 28, 2018 According to Augen Geradeaus rumor has it the F35 didnt fly at the ILA in berlin because itt may be possible to detect it with passive radar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juretrn Posted May 6, 2018 Report Share Posted May 6, 2018 Or in other words, LM didn't want to take chances with someone being able to measure the RCS of the F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted May 6, 2018 Report Share Posted May 6, 2018 I'm dubious. When stealth aircraft are flown around casually, they wear devices that increase their RCS dramatically. These are corner reflectors or Luneburg lenses. Not only do these devices obfuscate the RCS of the stealth aircraft when it is clean, they also allow it to show up on civilian air traffic control radar, which is a useful safety consideration. Even assuming that passive radar would be a helpful guide to the RCS of the aircraft, why wouldn't it be thrown off by these measures? Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted May 6, 2018 Report Share Posted May 6, 2018 (edited) Any radar can detect stealth aircraft, it's a fallacy to treats it as a Romulan cloaking device. The question is how far and what level of detail your frequency range will produce. The actual concept behind their passive radar seems reasonable, but the HF and below frequency range is probably useless. Edited May 6, 2018 by Ramlaen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.