User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:02:12 PM EDT
[#1]
I have to question the article some...how does anyone know what the RCS of the F-35 is going to be outside of Lock-Mart? It seems odd that Lock-Mart would forget all they know about LO stuff that they've learned over decades plus computing power so vastly increased from the time the F-117 debuted. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:06:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Hopefully someone at defence will kill off the JDF. We have a new defence minister now, and he's more sensible than the last one. Trying to replace both the bugs and the pigs with one little plane was always a stupid idea.
For 35 years we've been able to penetrate the air defences of any nation in the region AND sink anything on the high seas. It's pissed off the neighbours, many of whom were or are little better than petty tin-pot dictatorships. A good time was had by us  Now, with so many flankers entering the region, we have nothing to counter them (the F/A-18A+ that we have has never had the legs to do more than defend Darwin, really) and no meaningful strike radius once the pigs are retired in 2012 or so. I have a bad feeling about this... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:07:03 PM EDT
[#3]
With weapons loaded the F-35 would have to be stealthier than a Superbug just due to the JSF's internal carriage no? Or am I oversimplfying this? 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:07:39 PM EDT
[#4]
The bunker busters were made out of 5 in gun barrels. There were still two IOWA battleships in service at the time. The other two only recently decommed. As for the Mach III thing, I'm not concerned about the speed of the aircraft, only the capabilities of moder Look Down/Shoot Down radars and modern missiles. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:09:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Awesome plane! The wing and rear horizontal control surfaces were replaced with a cranked-arrow delta wing, 120% larger than the original wing. Extensive use of carbon composites allowed the savings of 600 lb (270 kg) of weight but still 2,800 lb (1300 kg) heavier than the original. Less noticeable is that the fuselage was lengthened by 56 inches (1.4 m) by the addition of 2 sections at the joints of the main fuselage sub-assemblies. With the new wing design, the tail section had to be canted up 3 degrees, and the ventral fins removed, to prevent them from striking the pavement during takeoff and landing. However, as the F-16 XL exhibits greater stability than the native F-16, these changes were not detrimental to the handling of the aircraft. These changes resulted in a 25% improvement in maximum lift-to-drag ratio in supersonic flight, and 11% in subsonic flight, and a plane that reportedly handled much smoother at high speeds and low altitudes. The enlargements increased fuel capacity by 82%. The F-16XL could carry twice the ordnance of the F-16 and deliver it 40% further. The enlarged wing allowed a total of 27 hardpoints on the plane: 16 wing stations of capacity 750 lb (340 kg) each 4 semi-submerged AMRAAM stations 2 wingtip stations 1 centerline station 2 wing "heavy/wet" stations 2 chin LANTIRN stations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16XL |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:09:52 PM EDT
[#6]
I also wonder how much of this is prompted by Congress' recent aversion to exporting advanced weapons systems. The source code thing the Brits are pissed about is a Congressional restraint, not one by the administration. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:14:21 PM EDT
[#7]
As one defence insider in Oz said of the F-111 this week… "The F-111 has given us the fuck off factor." ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:15:31 PM EDT
[#8]
I say bring back the F-20.
  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:16:43 PM EDT
[#9]
Why don't we bring back the P-51 while we're at it? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:26:30 PM EDT
[#10]
DoD is saying this, not the papers… last year we were told the F-35 had a golf ball sized RCS, now it's a beach ball… F-22 Stealth Ability Revealed by USAF 12/9/2005 11:34:21 PM The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all. The air force revealed this information, which is usually kept secret, because it wants to make the case that it makes more sense to cut production of the F-35 (which cost $30-50 million each), so that more F-22s (that cost over $100 million each) can be bought. Most of the air force generals are former fighter pilots, and the F-22 is a much hotter fighter than the F-35 (which is basically a fighter-bomber, with emphasis on the latter function.) This is causing an international uproar, because of the many foreign countries that are buying the F-35. Some of these countries have contributed money for the development of the F-35. The F-22 will not be exported, because it uses so much top secret technology. http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/478-2538.asp |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:39:27 PM EDT
[#11]
There was a vectored thrust engine system developed for the F-16 as well that would have cost about a million bucks a copy to install at that time, in the early to mid 80s.
The level of maneuverability that the testbed aircraft had as a result of the thrust vectoring system was astonishing. It achieved -180 degree angles of attack! That's flying north and pointing south! Imagine how that would have changed things on a global scale to have hundreds of F-16s equipped with that system back in the 80s. Some really great concepts have been flown but not produced because we're stupid. Or at least, our military planners and beancounters are. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:42:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Or, more likely, the military tested certain ideas and decided they were undesirable for one reason or another. Those reasons don't make the news, like the manufacturers hype does, so you don't hear about that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:42:06 PM EDT
[#13]
Final thoughts on this…
As I see it LM has sold us what is increasingly looking like a case of the ever decreasing with every review capability. When the RAF/Royal Navy looked at their requirements for a carrier/land based strike aircraft back in the late 90's the F-35 won through against the F/A-18 because it was going to be; Cheaper Stealthier In service by 2008/9 Now it seems it going to be … Much dearer Not a lot stealthier And due to constant program slippages (with more expected) in service 'sometime' between 2011 and 2014/15/16…allegedly! We should have bought the F/A-18E ANdy |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:51:50 PM EDT
[#14]
Yes, and you'd have them in service NOW. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:54:41 PM EDT
[#15]
+1. Damned fine little plane that would have been the ideal 'low' in our high/low mix. Guess Northrop didn't bribe the right people? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:55:33 PM EDT
[#16]
That and it couldn't carry a radar guided missile. Big problem these days. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 3:58:25 PM EDT
[#17]
It could carry and fire the Sparrow. Presumably it could have been updated to carry the -120. No, I don't really think we should bring it back, but it was an amazing little plane. ETA: Vito's threads always make me want to play some Harpoon. All that talk about naval power and air power... 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:04:56 PM EDT
[#18]
It was a modernized F-5. Big deal. I seem to remember reading it could not fire a radar guided missile. Maybe it was something about the lack of volume to upgrade avionics. I don't recall it doing anything better than the F-16/F-18 other than being smaller. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:07:11 PM EDT
[#19]
And that is not a good thing because...?
As my cite shows, you remember wrong.
It cost less and had ridiculously low maintenance requirements. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:15:55 PM EDT
[#20]
Do they spell defense, "defence" in Australia, or is that just a poorly proofread article?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:24:51 PM EDT
[#21]
The Aussies use 'English-English'… 'Defence' is right for them. ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:41:59 PM EDT
[#22]
You're right, I did remember wrong. However, it did not meet any of the USAF's requirements. It was designed from the beginning as an export fighter. And, of course, no one wanted a fighter that wasn't good enough for us to use. Sure it supposedly had low maintenance requirments, but only time really would have told the truth. The F-16 outclassed it in payload and with both radars the 66 and the 68. The F-16 matched its turning ability and its cockpit offers better visibility for A2A. The F-20 had shorter legs than the F-16. It could be argued that Carter administration encouraged Northrop to develop the F-20 with the promise of foreign sales because they had already lost the LWF competition. The problem, of course, was the Reagan adminstration didn't have the same inhibitions about selling the F-16 to foreign governments. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:43:22 PM EDT
[#23]
You expect the Navy to fly 22's off the carriers? Or the Marines to buy 2 (with the money they've got) and use them for CAS? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:47:03 PM EDT
[#24]
The Navy looked at a navalized F-22 for a while. The F-22 is about the size of an F-14, so it's not like it's too big for a carrier. As for the MC: with the ammount of DoD money being spent on the F-35, the MC could buy any off the shelf jet they could want and use it. The A-10 would be a perfect jet for the marines IMO. Re-start the A-10 line, upgrade it with modern gizmos, and let it rip. The MC doesn't need stealth like the AF does, especially not for CAS. If you're giving CAS, it's not like the enemy doesnt already know you're there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:48:31 PM EDT
[#25]
A-10s cannot be operated off of LHA's and LHD's. The F-22N was rejected. A ship ain't a nice pristine airfield. We can't baby aircraft like bluesuiters do. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:49:52 PM EDT
[#26]
I'm sure an AAM could give it a run for its money. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:50:26 PM EDT
[#27]
USAF, now I know why you have so much free time on your hands. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:50:45 PM EDT
[#28]
The super hornet lower RCS is because of a special "stealth" paint job.
Why not start a new production line of A-10 Super Warthogs that uses same stealthier paint bigger more reliable engines a small air to groun/ with air to air search radar LATARN or FLIR built in and enclosed wheel pods to allow for full load of mavericks or hellfires |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:51:37 PM EDT
[#29]
Which is all I was really saying. It really was an amazing little plane.   Some facts: Compared to contemporary international fighters of its time, the F-20 used 53% less fuel, had 63% lower operating and maintenance costs, needed 52% less maintenance manpower, and was four times as reliable. RELIABILITY SUMMARY The F 20A Tigershark demonstrated unprecedented reliability throughout the flight test program. Mission reliability during the flight test program was consistently greater than 95 percent. Field measured data indicated that the F-20A reliability was 159 percent better than anticipated. These data confirmed Northrop's approach to reliability and showed that the expected level at maturity of 6.00 field inherent MFHBF (mean flight hours between failure) was conservative. members.aon.at/mwade/f20maint.htm |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:52:01 PM EDT
[#30]
Yeah, we didn't drink Webster's kool aid 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:56:06 PM EDT
[#31]
From Global Security. A estimated 30% increase in weight, going off of the best information available. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:58:01 PM EDT
[#32]
That's easy to do with a couple of hand-built aircraft. It would be interesting to see if they could have maintained QC during actual production runs. Sorry, I don't drink the Flav-R-Aid that Northrop was pushing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 4:59:10 PM EDT
[#33]
USMC has decided they want SVTOL. Not too many of those off the shelf. The problems with a Marine A-10 have been discussed. Doesn't fit aboard ship, no tooling for new airframes, not optimized for naval service. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:00:02 PM EDT
[#34]
True, every landings a 'controlled crash' and no on site 18 hole Golf Courses…
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:02:50 PM EDT
[#35]
Ok. I hadnt really gotten into WHY the F-22N was killed, but that seems reasonable. So the Navy needs a new jet. Why saddle the USAF with a Navy jet when you can get more mileage out of the different services (who do different missions) having different jets. the F-35 is political bullshit from start to finish. Having a joint jet is not like having a joint gun. The USAF flies a different mission than the USN who flies a different mission than the USMC. Trying to split the difference between them produces a jet that does poorly at ALL the missions. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:06:37 PM EDT
[#36]
I dunno, the F-4 seemed pretty decent. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:06:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Forcing common airframes has had some fine successes in the past:  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:07:13 PM EDT
[#38]
Historically, naval aircraft have generally performed very well when used ashore with air force users… Zero, Corsair, Skyhawk, Phantom, Corsair II, Hornet, Buccaneer… |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:07:19 PM EDT
[#39]
The USAF needs a new jet as well. If the F-35 enters into service in the 2012-13 time frame that means the F-16 will be a 35 year old aircraft. If you think about it, all three services need a multi-role aircraft. The difference between the F-16 and F/A-18 isn't that great when it boils down to mission. Hell, they were even in the same LWF competition. The F-22A cannot fill the F-16 role. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:08:50 PM EDT
[#40]
Yep, the key, as stated in the Global Security article, is integrating the carrier borne requirement early in the design. Unlike the F-22/F-111 attempts. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:10:59 PM EDT
[#41]
you guys got me one the F-4/F-8 thing....
BUT.... i see the F-35 as being a different animal. The AF F-35 is supposed to be fast and light like the F-16, while the Navy F-35 needs to be heavier and more robust to take the carrier beating, and the USMC version needs to be STOVL/VTOL. Last I heard, the AF version has been scrapped, and AF will fly the SAME jet as the Navy and MC. It just does not compute to me why that is a good idea beyond politics |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:13:15 PM EDT
[#42]
Man, we jumped on that F-4/A-7 thing, didn't we? Latest news was the USAF was going to buy a few of the Marine models for CAS. Why, I haven't the foggiest clue. It could have been a political move by the MC to keep the model viable; we need the plane more than any of the other services, mostly because there isn't exactly another SVTOL plane we could turn to if it went tits up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:14:09 PM EDT
[#43]
It's not a different animal. If anything it is the spirit of the F-4 reborn. BTW, it wasn't the F-8, it was an A-7. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:33:26 PM EDT
[#44]
Uh those were both navy planes the airforce later bought.... the Air Force had nothing to do with their developement.... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:36:03 PM EDT
[#45]
No! Really? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:59:51 PM EDT
[#46]
No version of the F-35 is 'fast and light'… It makes sense to use the Navy version. The strengthened airframe will pay dividends in airframe durability when flown by the USAF along with longer range… the difference in performance between the USAF/Navy version is negligable. ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 6:00:01 PM EDT
[#47]
Lock-Mart says different.....
JSF Stealth Won’t Be Reduced: Program Officials By MICHAEL FABEY Foreign press reports that the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) sold to Australia will be less stealthy than promised are wrong, prime contractor Lockheed Martin says. The Sydney Morning Herald reported March 15 that the proposed Australian version of the JSF would have “low observability” instead of “very low observability.” Lockheed JSF spokesman John Kent said there has been no downgrading of any of the aircraft’s stealth for foreign or domestic sales. “It appears that there was just a misunderstanding of terms and definitions,” Kent said. He said the Australian press reports apparently misinterpreted what “low observable” would mean. The planes will still have the same stealthy ability to avoid radar and other detection equipment as before, he said. Australia is one of the partner countries expected to buy JSFs in the coming decade. Another U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released this week says JSF officials have taken four “key actions” to speed up such technology transfers: • Lockheed developed an international industrial plan that identified the type of licenses needed to transfer certain of the technologies; • JSF program agencies now have dedicated staff for JSF technology licensing; Lockheed and JSF program agencies have used exemptions in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to avoid delays; and • Talks about releasing classified information or other technology are taking place early in the program. Another GAO report released this week said the Pentagon plans to start low-rate initial production of the plane by 2013 without completing some performance tests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 6:11:00 PM EDT
[#48]
There is more that goes into making an aircraft have a low RCS than just the paint. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 6:14:49 PM EDT
[#49]
And ain't that last sentence a kicker? They are going to start building it WITHOUT completing performance testing!!! LM Translation: Trust us, we reckon it 'should' be ok on the day, possibly, probably, maybe…  And I still call BS on LM's counter claim… A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website. That sounds like LM is telling something differerent from the official script... ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 6:18:09 PM EDT
[#50]
nevermind
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
