F-35 News thread. Part Deux

[haavarla]

Originally Posted by obligatory

Cause a billion Indians & 2 billion Chinese are getting a car ?
while at the same time oil get harder to drill.
Over the course of 5 years, oil will inevitably go up

No that is not correct, the world fuel consumption has infact gone down, both in US and China, that is one of the reasons for the low Oil price these days, and the fact that stored Oil reserves around the world is very healty and world eco recession.

[Tribes]

Originally Posted by Rii

To be fair, the F-22 is not 'on the market'. But the F-14 and F-111 and A-6 and Super Hornet...

And your point is...?

How many nations were even looking for aircraft in the F-14 and F-111 capability/price category? The Tornado program pretty much indicated that European countries, for example, were only willing to pay for simpler, less capable aircraft.

As for the SH, is the export performance of the EF or Rafale really that much better?

[Rii]

Originally Posted by Tribes

And your point is...?

There is no point; that was the point. Nobody with even a modicum of sense would suggest a correlation between an aircraft's 'quality' and its export performance. And of course this is doubly true of an aircraft that hasn't even been fielded yet.

It's pretty hilarious to observe the circularity of the reasoning involved though: everyone should buy F-35 because everyone is buying F-35. I'd like to see how stevedickson's logic deals with Australia's acquisition of ex-US C-27Js, as it suggests that either the Americans are stupid (for discarding the platform) or the Australians are stupid (for buying into it) or that there are additional contextual issues that need to be considered above and beyond the 'material facts', where all three options go to undermine the straight-line connection being drawn here between what various nations are doing re: F-35 and what they should be doing.

[Sens]

Originally Posted by djcross

You were not here when the same things were being said about F-22. I find it amusing how the F-22 critics are silent now.

.. and we all learned about the 1:200 exchange ratios claimed about that.

[Tu22m]

Originally Posted by haavarla

No that is not correct, the world fuel consumption has infact gone down, both in US and China, that is one of the reasons for the low Oil price these days, and the fact that stored Oil reserves around the world is very healty and world eco recession.

No. Consumption has been going up with a tiny exception 2008-2009 during the financial meltdown. Not that it is on topic but here is current and future outlooks regarding that.

Up to 2006
http://www.beodom.com/assets/images/...-1965-2006.jpg

Oil price
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images...dePrices_0.jpg

Oil wont get a lot cheaper. The trend is pretty clear. In a couple of western countries the useage has gone down though. Finland being one example: http://www.stat.fi/tup/suomi90/maaliskuu_en_003.gif

[Vnomad]

Originally Posted by haavarla

No that is not correct, the world fuel consumption has infact gone down, both in US and China, that is one of the reasons for the low Oil price these days, and the fact that stored Oil reserves around the world is very healty and world eco recession.

Prices may have dropped over the last quarter but its rise over the last decade is very clear. Oil prices have nearly tripled since crashing in 2009 and stand at 1.5-2 times higher than the pre-recession period.

Over the long term there is no denying the fact that the supply simply cannot keep up with the rising demand driven by rapidly developing countries in Asia and South America (and to some extent even Africa). Oil will comfortably breach the $200/barrel mark by the end of the decade.

A medium weight fighter is likely to consume 3-4 tons of fuel per hour. Over a lifetime of 6000 hours, that's about 20,000 tons (assuming a mid-life re-engining). At today's prices ($1200/ton), that's a lifetime fuel cost of about $25 million in 2012 dollars. Factor in rising fuel costs and the result could be well in excess of $100 million, outstripping inflation.

[obligatory]

Fuel consumption is a matter of national security in peace (trade balance & compounding interest) as well as war (re-stock of fuel is not a given, and a war machine consuming half as much will keep fighting twice as long, and in any case can be expected to be reduced to a point where it dictate operations)

[haavarla]

No arguing there.
Just take a look at Norway and the F-35A.
Norway is very keen on keeping a tight budged and strict spending, even if we have the world wealtiest Pension fond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gov...Fund_of_Norway

It has long ago been reported that our AF can't keep up with the same(F-16) predicted operational flight hours, due to increased service cost(fuel included!).

So our F-35 pilots will have to fly a lot more sim in the future..

[haavarla]

Originally Posted by Vnomad

Prices may have dropped over the last quarter but its rise over the last decade is very clear. Oil prices have nearly tripled since crashing in 2009 and stand at 1.5-2 times higher than the pre-recession period.

Over the long term there is no denying the fact that the supply simply cannot keep up with the rising demand driven by rapidly developing countries in Asia and South America (and to some extent even Africa). Oil will comfortably breach the $200/barrel mark by the end of the decade.

A medium weight fighter is likely to consume 3-4 tons of fuel per hour. Over a lifetime of 6000 hours, that's about 20,000 tons (assuming a mid-life re-engining). At today's prices ($1200/ton), that's a lifetime fuel cost of about $25 million in 2012 dollars. Factor in rising fuel costs and the result could be well in excess of $100 million, outstripping inflation.

Agreed. The oil price is on the rise again.

http://www.ssb.no/english/

[Sens]

Originally Posted by haavarla

No arguing there.
Just take a look at Norway and the F-35A..
It has long ago been reported that our AF can't keep up with the same(F-16) predicted operational flight hours, due to increased service cost(fuel included!).

So our F-35 pilots will have to fly a lot more sim in the future..

That is the general trend in every modern AF to train procedures and missions in the sim. It is no longer about the "flying ability" of every pilot in a FBW fighter. It ist to keep pace with the rising demands of understanding from the avionics (= info input) or he/she will become a "passenger" and not the final deciding one in the command loop of that. Despite all automation the Israelis still see the demand of a crew of two to handle all the real-time input and get not overtaxed by that.

[haavarla]

Originally Posted by djcross

You were not here when the same things were being said about F-22. I find it amusing how the F-22 critics are silent now.

Are they? Lol.

http://nation.time.com/2012/11/02/unfriendly-f-22-fire/

Coming from their own midst..
What a commie traitor!
- Lets crusify him the the wall for this!!

[djcross]

F-35 gets stealthier with age - WITHOUT CHANGES
Wow! It is difficult to defend this kind of stupidity.

There are many potential upgrades for RAM and RAS that were not available when the F-35's design was frozen in 2004. RCS always degrades because repairs for "flight line rash" never restore signature 100%. New technologies could be incorporated to further improve F-35's RCS, but someone needs to pay for it.

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35's RAM is part of the composite panels. It is not a simple paint/paste that has been used on previous generations of stealthy fighters & bombers.

Due to this, the composite skin would have to be physically damaged (ie scraped, gouged, etc) before the RAM is degraded and the RCS increased. You will never see the RAM (but maybe the paint) on the F-35 peeling off like has been seen on previous generations.

The LM VP's point was that since no manufacturing process is perfectly smooth as small specks, ridges, etc will still be on the panel. Over time, air & dust will slowly polish the panel surface thereby reducing the RCS (by a small amount).

Just in case you're wondering, the F-35's RAM CANNOT be washed off in the rain or saltwater spray.

Also, many of the F-35's panels & components can be accesses without the need to remove & reapply RAM thereby reducing labor cost and maintaining the RCS of the F-35.

[Sens]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

The F-35's RAM is part of the composite panels. It is not a simple paint/paste that has been used on previous generations of stealthy fighters & bombers.

Due to this, the composite skin would have to be physically damaged (ie scraped, gouged, etc) before the RAM is degraded and the RCS increased. You will never see the RAM (but maybe the paint) on the F-35 peeling off like has been seen on previous generations.

The LM VP's point was that since no manufacturing process is perfectly smooth as small specks, ridges, etc will still be on the panel. Over time, air & dust will slowly polish the panel surface thereby reducing the RCS (by a small amount).

Just in case you're wondering, the F-35's RAM CANNOT be washed off in the rain or saltwater spray.

Also, many of the F-35's panels & components can be accesses without the need to remove & reapply RAM thereby reducing labor cost and maintaining the RCS of the F-35.

What will be done with over 100 built F-35s without that?! The USAF was lucky in ordering a lower production rates despite the claim of LM to safe money staying with the higher number of LRIP.

[SpudmanWP]

Only the first few SDD F-35s don't have the RAM.

Every production F-35 has the RAM built into the composite skin.

Here is a good comparison pic showing the first 6 SDD F-35As. Notice that the first two are all solid grey in color while the last 4 show the sawtooth edges of the panels. Also notice the auxiliary radar reflectors that are needed on the later 4 in order for them to show up on radar.

[Scorpion82]

Obsolete

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by djcross

You were not here when the same things were being said about F-22. I find it amusing how the F-22 critics are silent now.

Yeah....especially regarding how it couldn't manevuer more than a brick (okay over exagerrated) even when the official fact was that the YF-22 was selected over the YF-23 with maneuverability as one of the key reason even though it wasn't a major requirement in the program metrics. This at the expense of YF-23 being faster and stealthier. All these criticisms subsided after the first public flight maneuver demonstrations. On the contrary, I don't think it's the most maneuverable thing at low speeds, but people just tend to ignore what was clearly stated as the design objectives. The F22 was designed to maneuver at high speeds and altitudes. The high speed maneuvering part requires a very rigid airframe for fatigue load, probably at the expense of fuel fraction. To criticize one aspect while ignore why the trade-off was made is just being a bad engineer...As long as it is physically possible, engineering products are based on specifications. When criticsizing a specific product, it's important to segregate specification versus design...because that's not the same thing and one needs to talk to a different group of people for each. Mixing them without drawing distinction is just argument for the sake of argument. On top of that, it's often very hard (at least for me) to find an expert competent on both simultaneously, most doing so are not experts in either. Then it's just a waste of time of he said she said...

Spudman, I never understand why couldn't they use the tail nozzle on the B model to do vector thrust. I thought the rotating joints are independent? I think in theory you can swivle in any direction...at least up and down since that's proven.

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by Vortex

Spudman, I never understand why couldn't they use the tail nozzle on the B model to do vector thrust. I thought the rotating joints are independent? I think in theory you can swivle in any direction...at least up and down since that's proven.

Nozzle cannot swivel up (needed to pull Gs), to the sides (tail in the way), and cannot swivel down while in AB.

There were two primary reasons that the F-22 got TVC.
1. High altitude supersonic maneuverability with less dependance on traditional control surfaces.
2. The need for the F-22 to point it's nose in order to acquire a WVR target for the AIM-9M.

Neither applies to the F-35.
1. It's not going to spend a lot of time > M so High-Altitude/Hi-speed flight is not the norm.
2. EODAS allows the AMRAAM to be launched without the need to point the nose.
3. Traditional TVC weighs too much to be of little benefit to the F-35.

However, newer (and lighter) TVC technologies coming down the pike may get put into the F-35 in a later upgrade.

[Sens]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

Only the first few SDD F-35s don't have the RAM.

Every production F-35 has the RAM built into the composite skin.

Here is a good comparison pic showing the first 6 SDD F-35As. Notice that the first two are all solid grey in color while the last 4 show the sawtooth edges of the panels. Also notice the auxiliary radar reflectors that are needed on the later 4 in order for them to show up on radar.

I have in mind from or after Lot IV LRIP Contract the new material available was built in.

[SpudmanWP]

LRIP 4 is where the first CNRP parts showed up which is a separate component from the RAM.

The RAM as part of the composite panels has been there since mid-SDD.

Here is AF-3 (an SDD pre-LRIP jet) going through RCS certification.



http://www.codeonemagazine.com/galle...l?item_id=1086

[djcross]

http://lexleader.net/wp-content/uplo...-factory-2.jpg

The linked image shows F-35s in final assembly. The aqua color is primer applied to graphite/BMI skins.

The gray on the nose radome is rain erosion coating. The gray on the leading edges is spray RAM. And the gray around the doors and access panels are polymeric RAM boots that hide the gaps. The tails have been sprayed with RAM.

Once the jet leaves final assembly, it goes to the fuel barn. Once it leaves the fuel barn, the jet goes to final finishes where it is masked and a slightly darker gray RAM is sprayed on. After final finishes, the jet goes to the anechoic chamber for testing.

[SpudmanWP]

IIRC, The "Fiber Mat" is under the green stuff.

[aussienscale]

Originally Posted by Rii

Australia's acquisition of ex-US C-27Js

Just wondering where you get that from ? Australia is not buying the US'
C-27J's, they will be new build aircraft, or have I missed something ?

Cheers

[Rii]

Originally Posted by aussienscale

Just wondering where you get that from ? Australia is not buying the US'
C-27J's, they will be new build aircraft, or have I missed something ?

No, you're probably right. I had read that the aircraft would be acquired via the US FMS system and put one and two together to get four.

[SpudmanWP]

Some people are under the misconception that the C-27s were headed to the US.

But an Italian industrial source said on May 10 that the Australian-bound C-27s would be newly built aircraft not previously destined for the U.S.

“They are not ex- or former U.S. aircraft, even though the order is through the [foreign military sales] program,” the source said.

“There will be no issue with the support that Alenia will guarantee,” he added.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...27Js-From-U-S-

[djcross]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

IIRC, The "Fiber Mat" is under the green stuff.

Correct. Fibermat is the outermost layer of the composite laminate. It keeps a radar from seeing the valves, wires, tubes, avionics boxes and other stuff inside the airplane.

In 1994, F-22 had a material similar to fibermat in development when the boss came through the design area, told everybody to stop work, log off their computers and sent them to security for de-briefing. Clinton had cut the development budget, so a decision was made to use cheaper materials derived from the F-117 SCF program. That bad decision causes substantial maintenance on F-22 today.

[Sens]

Originally Posted by djcross

Correct. Fibermat is the outermost layer of the composite laminate. It keeps a radar from seeing the valves, wires, tubes, avionics boxes and other stuff inside the airplane.

In 1994, F-22 had a material similar to fibermat in development when the boss came through the design area, told everybody to stop work, log off their computers and sent them to security for de-briefing. Clinton had cut the development budget, so a decision was made to use cheaper materials derived from the F-117 SCF program. That bad decision causes substantial maintenance on F-22 today.

Bad memory. The development cost ate up that allocated money for procurement. The LM people decided not to use that. No politican is blame for that in the hindsight.

[djcross]

Originally Posted by Sens

Bad memory. The development cost ate up that allocated money for procurement. The LM people decided not to use that. No politican is blame for that in the hindsight.

I didn't know you were in the L10 building in Marietta. Please tell us more.

[aussienscale]

Originally Posted by Rii

No, you're probably right. I had read that the aircraft would be acquired via the US FMS system and put one and two together to get four.

Thought I had missed something there

There was some talk of it in the beginning but Alenia but a stop to it and said they would not support the aircraft as they were obviously a bit sour on the US side of things.

The FMS still has to go via the US as the C27 has US tech in it, IE: Herc systems etc

Cheers

[aurcov]

Originally Posted by haavarla

Are they? Lol.

http://nation.time.com/2012/11/02/unfriendly-f-22-fire/

Coming from their own midst..
What a commie traitor!
- Lets crusify him the the wall for this!!

Did you read the article?

He said that the F 22 is too A-A specialized:

The aircraft’s maximum range is slightly superior to that of the F-16 but significantly inferior(*) to that of the F-15C, which it was designed to replace. This fact has three important consequences: operational missions need more air-to-air tanker support, the F-22 has a limited ability to deeply penetrate hostile airspace, and pilots cannot take full advantage of the F-22’s supercruise capability. The aircraft has also proven more difficult to maintain than originally anticipated. The Air Force acknowledged that the F-22’s “radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.” The service needs to maintain these coatings continuously to ensure the combat readiness of F-22s, thereby significantly increasing the necessary maintenance manpower (and cost). Moreover, even traditional (non-stealth-related) maintenance rates proved initially higher with the F-22 compared to those of older fighters. However, rates have improved vastly as maintenance personnel have acquired more experience. For example, the mean time between maintenance amounted to .97 flight hours in 2004, but that for newer F-22s has recently increased to 3.22 flight hours.

(*) I suppose that he meant inferior to the F15 with 3 EFTs

However, he praises its qualities:

In terms of performance, the initial operational test and evaluation in 2004 The F-22 Acquisition Program found the F-22 “overwhelmingly effective.” Air Force analysts reinforced this evaluation recently, estimating that the F-22 exchange ratio is up to 30 times better than that for F-15s, F-16s, or F/A-18s in similar high-threat scenarios. Although fourth-generation pilots are used to “seeing” nonstealth fighters 50 miles or more away with their radars, they typically fail to detect F-22s with their radar, visually or otherwise. Today’s F-22 clearly excels at its originally designed air-to-air mission, reinforcing the fact that stealth enables tremendous advantages in the radar-dominated environment of modern aerial combat. Further, the F-22 has demonstrated a capability to conduct air-toground attack in high-threat environments where fourth-generation fighters simply cannot survive. Advanced surface-to-air-missile systems such as the Russian S-300 (North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] designations SA-10 and SA-20) are the deciding factor in these environments. The S-300, similar to the American Patriot surface-to-air missile, has been operational since 1980. Although no Middle Eastern country currently possesses S-300s, Iran has expressed interest, and both China and Russia have fielded large numbers of them. This system can engage fourth-generation fighters at ranges exceeding 100 miles. A single S-300 battalion has the potential to render F-15Es, F-16s, and F/A-18s incapable of striking targets within a circle approximatlly 200 miles across. Additionally, the follow-on S-400 (NATO designation SA-21) further improves maximum engagement range. Fortunately, F-22s can utilize their stealth to operate effectively well inside the maximum engagement ranges of these systems

And he said that the F 22 should be designed differently:

If the service’s leaders had realized that surface-to-air-missile systems were eclipsing air-to-air threats as the primary danger to future air operations, they could have better leveraged the investment in ATF demonstration/evaluation to counter weapons like the S-300. The ATF’s stealth made the aircraft inherently more survivable against these threats, but it lacked a robust air-to-ground attack capability to target them. Furthermore, niche air-to-air capabilities such as thrust vectoring and some specialized avionics could have been eliminated to reduce cost and weight. Range should have received more emphasis, possibly even at the expense of supercruise. In addition to JDAMs, the Air Force should have added air-to-ground radar, Link-16 data-link transmit capability, and an infrared targeting sensor. These modifications would have greatly enhanced the F-22’s utility in threat environments dominated by surface threats without degrading air-to-air performance.

So, more range, no SC, no TV, AG radar modes, IR sensors...sound like an aircrfat I know...

BTW, DJcross refers to the threads prior to 2005, where many posters (of course Europeans), described the F 22 as a non-maneuvrabile airplane (because the compromises made for steallth ), a plane that will never be able to pull a Cobra. Of course, once the F 22 appeared in airshows, the posters were silenced. Bur of course, the same persons had an orgasm when the F22 "choke its pilots", or when some idiot reporters comme with the "1 trillion dollar" programm. OF course some detailes escape them, like that the sum its all the US tri-services will spent for 50 years of manufacture/operation of 2500 planes...