Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 458

Thread: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

  1. #101
    Adar's Avatar Just doing it
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelius View Post
    There's no new engine designs in the works for competitor fighter aircraft at present so I think that's doubtful, and there's already firsthand accounts from test pilots and engineers who say the F-35 handles excellently in the transonic regime, with performance well in excess of legacy aircraft and only exceeded by the F-22. Which shouldn't be surprising since it's optimized for maneuvers in the transonic regime:

    "There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes "through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily." The transonic area is "where you really operate."
    The LM marketing on this particular issue is rather interesting and even inspirational if your interested in marketing. They love making positive quotes but when you look at the perfomance with the actual key performance parameters they are failing. I read an article that show this in a very comprehensive manner. Just look at the structure:

    1) Objective data show that the F-35 fail.
    2) An explanation which is hard for the reader to evaluate is given.
    3) Cheery quotes from people involved with the project are given.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    The F-35 Lightning II’s transonic acceleration may not meet the requirements originally set forth for the program, a top Lockheed Martin official said.
    “Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s program manager for the F-35. “The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing.”
    The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35’s relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can’t quite match its predecessors.
    “We’re dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that’s a certain size, you have a wing that’s a certain size, you have an engine that’s a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics,” Burbage said. “I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?”
    A recent report by the Defense Department’s top tester, J. Michael Gilmore, says that the Navy’s F-35C model aircraft, which has larger wing and tail surfaces, is not meeting requirements for acceleration.
    The report doesn’t say whether the F-35A and F-35B have hit similar snags.
    Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said that the revelation was not particularly surprising.
    “It’s a strike fighter,” Aboulafia said. “It’s not an interceptor; it’s not an F-22.”
    Aboulafia said it was unclear whether additional engine power could boost acceleration in the difficult transonic regime. So far, doubts about the aircraft’s aerodynamic performance haven’t diminished Lockheed’s sales prospects, he said.
    The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said.
    But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, Burbage said. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.
    “What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally,” Burbage said, the F-22 Raptor notwithstanding.
    Even fully loaded, the F-35’s performance doesn’t change from its unencumbered configuration, he said.
    In the high subsonic range between Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.9 where the majority of air combat occurs, the F-35’s acceleration is better than almost anything flying.
    Thus far, Lockheed has not had issues with the plane’s acceleration, Burbage said. There are top level Key Performance Parameters from which lower level detailed engineering specification are derived and Lockheed’s job is to meet as many of those specifications as possible within the laws of physics, he said. Discussions are underway about if those original specifications are relevant given the jet’s acceleration in a combat configuration, Burbage added.
    Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith, director of operations at the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and F-35 test pilot, said that flying the aircraft is a thrilling experience.
    “I can’t even explain the adrenaline rush you get when you light the afterburner on that thing,” Smith said. “The acceleration is much better than an F-16.”
    But the F-35’s aerodynamic performance is not what makes the jet special, Smith said. The F-35 powerful sensors and data-links and how that information is fused into a single coherent and easy to use display are what will make the jet an effective warplane.
    Burbage added that while the F-35 is designed as a supersonic fighter, it’s not optimized for the extremely high supersonic speeds that the Raptor was designed to operate at.
    “This is not a supercruising airplane like the F-22,” Burbage said.





    What we however do know is that the aerodynamic shape of the F-35 is far from optimal and that it is the only modern fighter jet which is unable to super cruise in an A2A configuration.

    Essentially the F-35 got two huge weaknesses compared to other aircrafts
    1) Short and stubby which brakes the area rule, this is the optimal shape for an object moving at transonic and supersonic speed:


    Now lets take a look at the F-35 and the Gripen

    F-35




    Even with a centerline fuel tank and 4 A2A missiles the Gripen will have a shape closer to the Sears-Haack shape which is why the Gripen is superior in the transonic and super sonic region.

    The drag an aircraft must overcome at high speeds is essentially related to the square of the velocity which is why the powerful F-35 engine is able to provide excellent acceleration at low speed but is unable to provide the F-35 with supercruise capability.

    It is also interesting to note that the internal weapon load of F-35 provides an advantage when it comes to interference drag but at a cost of an increased cross section. The easiest way to overcome the issue with a interference drag is to position the external pylons as far away from each other as possible. With four A2A missiles all the Eurocanards got more than enough space between the weapons to minimize drag. The Rafale and Eurofighter does however have an advantage when carrying a larger number of weapons as the Gripen is smaller and the F-35 must position it weapons in such a way that they don't block the internal weapon bays.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelius View Post
    What are you talking about. The F-35 with similar weapons load, can fly further on internal fuel, than can the both the Hornet or Super Hornet can with external fuel tanks. And it can use external drop tanks if need be.

    "In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. "We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen" fighters. The F-35 "compares favorably in any area of the envelope," he asserted."
    Previously the objective for the F-35 was a combat radius of 690 nm and the absolute minimum performance was 590 nm. The end result is that the F-35 failed to even achieve the minimum requirement (public statement here) and the last I read was that they achieved 584 nm which forced the Pentagon to relax the flight profile to make it 590 nm.

    Boeing only states 500+ miles on their combat radius (here)
    Gripen NG got a combat radius of 710nm + 30 minutes on station with a single fuel tank (here)
    The Eurofighter got a combat radius of 750n + 10 minutes on station with an unknown number of fuel tanks (here). My guess is two but I am not sure.

    It should also be noted that the development of fuel tanks was cancelled in 2006 (here) due to cost increases (they essentially lack a good place to put them). So unlike other aircrafts you need aerial refuelling to increase the range of the F-35 unless further development is funded.
    Last edited by Adar; December 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM.

  2. #102
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    I like the Gripen because its Swedish.

    Sweden, the nicest merchants of death you will ever meet.

  3. #103
    Pielstick's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    2,063

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    Quote Originally Posted by I WUB PUGS View Post
    Sweden, the nicest merchants of death you will ever meet.
    Don't forget flat pack furniture

    Saab have made some pretty f-cking cool aeroplanes. Sweden punches way above its weight in aircraft design.


  4. #104

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  5. #105
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35


    Its like science-fiction.

  6. #106
    Pielstick's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    2,063

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    Quote Originally Posted by Condottiere 40K View Post
    Brilliant!

    Quote Originally Posted by I WUB PUGS View Post
    Its like science-fiction.
    My favourite Saab design.

    I also love the Viggen:



    As a builder of scale model aeroplanes the Viggen is on my to-do list but the splinter camo scheme is a pretty scary prospect!


  7. #107
    Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Athenai
    Posts
    33,211

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    I built a Viggen model quite a few years ago, painting it was indeed quite challenging!

    Anyway, I'm not a fan of Swedish planes.

  8. #108
    mrmouth's Avatar flaxen haired argonaut
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    10,741

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    Quote Originally Posted by Pielstick View Post
    I'm pretty sure nobody was criticising the US. Maybe you should grow a thicker skin?
    Oh come on. It's the typical . This thread should have died a few pages ago.
    The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity

  9. #109

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    Canada should just say it and go with the old Boeing X-32 that didn't win out. Who knows, maybe it'll even be better than the F-22.



    BTW, if you're wondering what that giant "mouth" is on it, it's exactly that. If an enemy shoots a missile you can catch it in your jet's "mouth" and then shoot it back at teh enemy. No jet today has that technology except the X-32...
    Last edited by brandbll; December 14, 2012 at 12:52 PM.

  10. #110
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    No self-respecting pilot would ever fly that hideous craft.

    Really Boeing, its like they didn't even try.

  11. #111
    Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Athenai
    Posts
    33,211

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    Could Boeing have produced an uglier aircraft than that?

  12. #112

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    The operational cost of the Swedish Saab Gripen aircraft is the lowest among a flightline of modern fighters, confirmed a White Paper submitted by the respected international defense publishing group IHS Jane’s, in response to a study commissioned by Saab.
    The paper says that in terms of ‘fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs’, “The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH).”
    The study, conducted by Edward Hunt, Senior Consultant, at IHS Jane’s Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.
    “At an estimated $4,700 per hour (2012 USD), the Gripen compares very favorably with the Block 40 / 50 F-16s which are its closest competitor at an estimated $7,000 per hour,” says the report, adding, “The F-35 and twin-engined designs are all significantly more expensive per flight hour owing to their larger size, heavier fuel usage and increased number of airframe and systems parts to be maintained and repaired. IHS Jane’s believes that aircraft unit cost and size is therefore roughly indicative of comparative CPFH.”
    In comparison, the figure for the F/A-18 Super Hornet ranged from USD 11000 to USD 24000, depending on degree of operational capability. The figure for the Rafale was USD 16500 per flying hour and number for the Eurofighter Typhoon, derived from British Parliamentary figures and seeming to cover only fuel usage, was USD 8200. But Jane’s estimate of the actual Cost Per Flying Hour for the Eurofighter, keeping in mind supplies and scheduled maintenance raised the figure up to USD 18000.
    The cost of operation of the F-35 appears to be in a whole other league. Jane’s cites Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) estimates for the conventional F-35 A, assuming operational service over 30 years with 200 hours per year for each aircraft, to amount to USD 21000 per hour of flight. The paper also sources US Navy projections of the cost of operation of the F-35 B & C variants until the year 2029, which come to USD 31000 per flight hour.
    The report says the figures were based on data sourced from the respective operating militaries and governments, disclosed international fighter competition cost figures (Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen), manufacturer-stated figures (F-35, Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen) and IHS Jane’s estimates for all aircraft.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  13. #113
    Pielstick's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    2,063

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    Quote Originally Posted by mrmouth View Post
    Oh come on. It's the typical . This thread should have died a few pages ago.
    Just re-read the thread again. Maybe I'm just stupid but I can't see any criticism of the US. Perhaps you'd care to point it out for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by brandbll View Post
    Boeing X-32
    My eyes! They're bleeding! Why would you post a photo of the X-32?

    WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!?!?!?!
    Last edited by Pielstick; December 14, 2012 at 12:59 PM.


  14. #114

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    Boeing was either on something or onto something with the X-32...

  15. #115

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    So basically an aircraft that doesn't perform as well as the amount of money spend on developing it. This was supposed to be the 5th gen F-16 but oh well. Soon the US will be 2nd economic power of the world and the days that American military hardware both performed better than their rivals and were more numerous due to the US's industrial strength will soon be over.

    And Saab is pretty awesome I wonder if they are working secretly on their own 5th gen fighter


  16. #116
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    The only entity capable of eclipsing the US economically is the EU. That's going so well.

  17. #117

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    Quote Originally Posted by Pielstick View Post
    Just re-read the thread again. Maybe I'm just stupid but I can't see any criticism of the US. Perhaps you'd care to point it out for me?



    My eyes! They're bleeding! Why would you post a photo of the X-32?

    WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!?!?!?!
    I also heard that if you throw a penny into that big opening you can make a wish and it will come true.

  18. #118
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,026

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    Soon the US will be 2nd economic power of the world
    Wait I think I know this tune I've heard it before - Oh right back in 1980 when Japan was going to pass us in decade or two... Plus China has PPP to thank for its sudden jump and of course per capita income is very much smaller than the US even with PPP and even it was equal to the US.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  19. #119
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    China has a looming demographic catastrophe and no domestic economy despite the Government fighting tooth and nail to build one.

    /China > US fantasy

  20. #120

    Default Re: Canada Pulls Plug On F-35

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...our-years-oecd

    The age where one nation was way ahead of the rest economically and militarily is coming to an end.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •