Jump to content

Military and Aviation News Thread (NO DISCUSSION)


topol-m

Recommended Posts

Can't understand why everyone hates the F-35.

 

Maybe because it's generally known that if it looks good, it fly's good,... this one however doesn't look good.

 

But than again this have nothing to do with it's true capabilities:)

Intel Core i5-9600K, Gigabyte Z390 AORUS PRO, 16GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro, Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 WINDFORCE 8G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would like to know where this 'proof' emanated from.

 

Because you asked.

 

 

 

 

The VTOL version is suffering from bending at the center of the aircraft when nearing G limits due to that engine right behind the cockpit. The multi role one started out well. However all the upgrades made it too heavy to fight, very sluggish right now. Still as a bomber, all it's sensors are great.

 

So way back in 2006, they were mentioning that it's a capable fighter, however at high altitude it turns to complete crap. (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html)

 

Then more bad news in 2008, when computer simulations showed that an attack by Russian SU-30s against F35s F22s and F18s would yield a Russian win (Some disputes about that). But one thing that was summarized was this: An F35, against an SU-30 would yield these results “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.” Against older generation fighters, it's still ok. Another thing to note is this "Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb (22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter…"

 

It goes on to say: "[F-35A and F-35B variants] will have a ‘wing-loading’ of 108 lb per square foot…. less manoeuvrable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 ‘Lead Sled’ that got wiped out over North Vietnam…. payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay…. With more bombs carried under its wings, the F-35 instantly becomes ‘non-stealthy’ and the DoD does not plan to seriously test it in this configuration for years. As a ‘close air support’... too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods…. What the USAF will not tell you is that ‘stealthy’ aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft…. As for the highly complex electronics to attack targets in the air, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based air-to-air combat that has fallen on its face many times in real air war. The F-35’s air-to-ground electronics promise little more than slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.”

(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/)

 

 

2009 some war games took place in Hawaii where the F-35s were completely devastated against the SU-35s. "the JSF had been clubbed like baby seals by the simulated Sukhois" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2300453/posts

 

In what I think is the same report on the same war game an article "F35 JSF and the SEC Defs nightmare" summarized "But the most grievous damage is to the F-35 JSFs, which are gunned down by Sukhoi fighters like flocks of pigeons in an pest eradication program."

 

Since then more issues about the F35 have created some serious doubts. The UK was originally going with F35C, but later went with F35Bs when it became apparent that they wouldnt be capable of carrying Aim 135s. They are back at AMRAAMS. In the end, things are not going well for it. To summarize: Under IDEAL CONDITIONS the F35 is a formidable opponent. However in the negative, it is too heavy, too sluggish, SEVERELY OUTGUNNED (can only carry 4 maximum weapons, not to mention I heard things of it not having an internal gun at all in certain versions just to reduce weight), etc and so forth. The thing to remember is that it was developed to match or outmatch an F-16 when it was first being created. They could not have forseen the Russian fighters like the SU-30 and the Eurofighter Typhoon that are scoring simulated kills right now against the F-22s even...

 

Yes, it's a beautiful aircraft. Yes, it's EO DAS system and what not is cute (Though it won't work in the real world for a rear shot), but no, it's air to air capabilities are questionable, and have been in SEVERE trouble since 2006 or even earlier. But as an Air to Ground operator, it is definitely very suited for it.

 

 

I guess the only way to truly figure this out, is to see how it does out there in real combat. Until then, we just don't know. Same thing with the F-22, that has been losing it's fights. F-22's operated in a Red Flag exercise against German Typhoon fighters, the F-22s got their asses handed to them. Later the German pilots gave 4 easy steps in how to defeat the F-22:

 

Step 1: Find the F-22 on infrared. The Raptor is very hard to spot on radar, but it's big, and it's hot. A Typhoon can pick up a Raptor from about 50 kilometers away with infrared sensors.

 

Step 2: Get close and stay close. F-22s excel at long-range combat, so bring the fight to them.

 

Step 3: Force an aggressive, turning dogfight. In its slickest configuration (without external fuel tanks), the Typhoon (which is smaller, lighter and more powerful) can outmaneuver, outaccelerate and outclimb the F-22. The Raptor does have those fancy thrust vectoring engines, but using the thrust vectoring takes a lot of energy, meaning that the Raptor can make rapid direction changes but becomes vulnerable immediately afterwards as it "sinks" and has to recover.

 

Step 4: Use your helmet-mounted sight to engage. Technical problems prevented the Raptor from being designed with an integrated helmet sight, which lets Typhoon pilots simply look at a target to lock onto it.

 

There were however a few gun kills for the Raptors, but on the overall picture, they lost badly.

 

 

 

But it is worthy to note that this is NOT how they plan to use the F-22. They want to fight at higher faster longer ranges which gives them the edge. But if the fight were to ever get in to a dogfight... well.... not good for the Raptor. Thing is, the Air Force thought the same thing when they introduced the Phantom for the first time, thinking that the close range fights would end.... well...

 

Part of the reason that the Phantom got itself into dogfights was that rules of engagement in Vietnam required visual identification of an enemy before engaging, and if you're close enough to see the other guy, the whole super stealthy long-range missile idea goes completely out the window. And these rules haven't changed much over the years. The best way to be absolutely sure that you're engaging an enemy is still to look for yourself, and it's possible (likely, even) that the F-22 will also have to do this, making it a lot less lethal.

 

The other problem with the long-range engagement idea is that missiles are far less effective than you might think. An Air Force-funded study analyzed 588 air-to-air missile engagements (going back to the 1950s) and found that only 24 of them happened at beyond visual range. In general, the study concluded that missiles are about 90% less effective than the Air Force thinks that they're going to be.

(http://dvice.com/archives/2012/08/f-22-raptors-pr.php)


Edited by ralfidude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much all that evidence is either wrong or highly disputed. There's all sorts of rubbish in there like the point about it being too quick to see tactical targets. Even with the VTOL version? Seriously?

 

The statistics for AMRAAM A & Bs show 9 confirmed kills with 16 missiles. So the evidence to suggest that BVR engagements are 90% less effective than any estimation is mathematically flawed.

 

Needing to see the enemy. Flawed assumption again. C4ISTAR technology has improved somewhat since Vietnam. The position of all friendly and civilian flights are known and can be confirmed in a snap. With modern satellite technology, most enemy flights can be seen as soon as they take off.

 

F-22 bad in a dogfight? It may not be better than a Typhoon in a dogfight but rest-assured it's better than an F-15, which itself has a record of something like 142:0.

 

There's so much wrong in the above it's not really worth continuing.


Edited by marcos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-22 is more agile than an F-16, and the falcon can take on the Typhoon in close range dogfight. Wanting to get close in with an F-22 is like dodging the broadsword only to get stabbed by a dagger.

 

Also, the one with better SA and Long range capability will dictate the terms of the merge. This involves more than mere stats-on-the-paper comparison.


Edited by Pilotasso

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-22 is more agile than an F-16, and the falcon can take on the Typhoon in close range dogfight.

Only if it wants a good beating.:)

 

df_3030_neuburg_18-07-12.jpg

closeup1.jpg

 

But I hear what you're saying, neither the F-16 nor F-22 can be described as 'poor dogfighters', they're just not the best. How some analyst has randomly concluded that an Su-30MKI with a lower TWR (even with only 15,000lb of internal fuel) and higher wing loading will beat an F-22 is beyond me. Then we have the 'clubbing baby seals' link which has already been refuted in another thread.

 

Otherwise I agree with what you're saying. Stealth will win BVR and whilst the F-35 doesn't appear to have a great TWR (depending on whether it gets the 50,000lbf engine or not), it carries way more fuel than most aircraft of it's size/weight. Within the likes of NATO you've got the F-22, F-35, Typhoon and Rafale. The stealth planes can AMRAAM aircraft BVR and go up front and illuminate enemy aircraft for the Meteors of the Typhoon and Rafale while they keep a safe distance. Then the Typhoons and Rafales can go in and finish the meal.

 

They didn't waste x billion dollars developing stealth aircraft because putting F119s in an F-15C could have yielded a better air superiority fighter. Stealth does actually work, which is why both Russia and China are also developing stealth planes.


Edited by marcos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that the wings of the F-15K were built in S. Korea, so maybe they ****ed up. TBH, it's very difficult to visualise what they're talking about. I think by 'upper wing' they mean the JASSM fin.


Edited by marcos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/11/205_123931.html

 

Could someone specify what is this Bullsheet? JASSM don't fit properly on Eagle? Deoes the Slam Eagle differ in this way from the 'vanilla' Mudhen?

The JASSM has been successfully integrated onto the F-15E, so the K must be different.

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/july/mfc-072612-lm-completes-JASSM-F-15E.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-35 gatling gun to undergo testing:

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/air-force-orders-armor-piercing-ammunition-for-f-35-test-firings

 

The U.S. Air Force at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. anticipates awarding a sole source Firm Fixed Price contract to Rheinmetall AG in Zurich, Switzerland for Frangible Armor Piercing (FAP) ammunition to be tested aboard the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

 

The Air Force will procure up to 12,000 rounds of Rheinmetall 25-millimeter x 137-millimeter FAP ammunition. “As part of the F-35's developmental and operational flight test firings, this FAP ammunition's performance will be evaluated with respect to the GAU-22/A gun system and F-35 aircraft interface requirements,” the Air Force said in contract documents released on Friday through the Federal Business Opportunities website.

 

The seventh Lockheed Martin-built F-35 flight test aircraft, also known as “AF-2,” was the first F-35 to have the internal GAU-22/A 25-millimeter gun system installed. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products in Burlington, VT. makes the gun system, featuring a four-barrel Gatling gun, which fires at a rate of 3,000 rounds per minute.

 

It is anticipated that the total contract period of performance will not exceed 12 months from the time of award and will have an estimated value of $2 million, the Air Force said.

 

The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Armament Directorate, Advanced Program Division, System Interface and Integration Branch at Eglin AFB are coordinating the contract award.

FAP Ammo.pdf


Edited by marcos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New engine incoming:

 

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_05_2012_p80-511307.xml

 

10% more thrust, 25% better economy.

 

qh5b0fhre3M

 

There is no guarantee that the next generation of U.S. tactical aircraft will be fielded, as hoped for, some time around 2030. Instead, the adaptive engine and system technology now being developed will find its home first in upgrades to the Lockheed Martin F-35, the only U.S. fighter in production through the 2020s.

 

Although aimed at the “next-generation air dominance” platforms being eyed by the U.S. Air Force and Navy, the closely related Advanced Versatile Engine Technology (Advent) and Integrated Vehicle Energy Technology (Invent) programs led by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) are structured to spin off upgrades for the F-35.

 

And while the F-35 provides a reason to mature adaptive technologies sooner rather than later, the Pentagon is launching a prototyping initiative for the next fighter that includes using the latest automated design tools, modeling and simulation to reduce the chances of inefficient development.

 

In an early October memo to the Air Force and Navy, Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, outlined plans to begin exploring next-generation air dominance concepts, leading to a prototyping program to be completed within five years. The program is to begin with an 18-month concept definition effort funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), says the memo obtained by Bloomberg News.

 

“It is not too early to begin consideration of the next generation of capability that will someday complement and eventually replace the F-35,” Kendall says in the memo. “In addition, the F-35 has been the only high-performance vehicle in development in the U.S. for approximately a decade … and I am concerned that our ability to design cutting-edge platforms of this type is already atrophying.”

 

The effort will be an opportunity for design teams to apply the adaptive technologies and model-based tools being developed under programs like Advent, Invent and Darpa's Adaptive Vehicle Make. AFRL has already selected General Electric and Pratt & Whitney to demonstrate variable-bypass, adaptive-fan engines under the follow-on to Advent, the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program.

 

GE and Pratt will run fan, core and nozzle rigs in 2016, allowing for a notional full engine test as early as 2017. Although intended for a next-generation stealthy, supersonic-cruising fighter, the AETD engines must be designed to fit in the F-35, providing 5-10% more thrust with a 25% reduction in fuel consumption over the current engine.

 

The Invent integrated ground demonstration, meanwhile, is also planned to culminate in 2016, around the time the initial system upgrades developed under Invent Spiral 1 could be finding their way into production F-35s. One of those upgrades, the capability to calculate the F-35's remaining thermal capacity in real time, is at the heart of Invent's drive to move the industry to using dynamic models and away from static specifications.

 

Being developed under a Phase 2 small-business innovative research contract with PC Krause and Associates, the real-time thermal capacity algorithm “will allow the pilot to know if he is adding heat to the fuel versus cooling it, to know if he is jeopardizing the mission,” says Sam Septembre, a senior analyst with the Navy's futures branch. If too much heat is being added, the pilot could climb to a higher altitude to let the fuel cool down. The capability could be in the aircraft within 3-4 years, he says.

 

Initially the algorithm, derived from detailed models of the F-35 thermal-management system and designed to adapt to changing environmental and mission conditions, would be used in the preflight mission planning system. Later the aircraft fuel tank would be instrumented and a gauge in the cockpit would show if heat is being added or rejected, allowing the pilot to take an active role in thermal management.

 

Spinning technologies off to the F-35 while continuing toward development of an energy-efficient, sixth-generation fighter with high-power capacity and no thermal constraints will be key to sustaining industry's capabilities over the next decade. Without a “meaningful opportunity for leading-edge design, build and test,” says Kendall in his memo, the U.S. capability to design high-performance aircraft “will not be preserved, and our technological advantage in [air dominance] will not endure.”


Edited by marcos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thermal mgmt issues:

 

 

http://www.globalspec.com/reference/21597/121073/f-35-may-need-thermal-management-changes

 

MELBOURNE, Australia – The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II may be redesigned to improve its ability to absorb heat from its electronics and systems.

 

The aircraft is meeting the specification for thermal management, but the Joint Strike Fighter program’s deputy executive officer, Maj. Gen. David Heinz (select), says he is asking contractors to assess the costs of changes to give it a bigger margin over the requirement.

 

“We meet that requirement but it is a very tough requirement,” Heinz says, adding that, while he has asked for studies for an improved margin, “at the moment I don’t need it.”

 

The F-35 is designed to transfer heat from its powerful electronics and systems to its fuel, to keep the aircraft cool and make it less detectable by infrared cameras.

 

Under most conditions, that presents no challenge, but if the aircraft is at the end of a mission, it will have little fuel aboard to absorb the heat energy, says Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin’s executive vice president for F-35 program integration. And the toughest part of the specification is to distribute the heat into the remaining fuel while operating in the tropics in hot and high conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many F-22's crashed or otherwise withdrawn for service?

 

Subtract those to 187, and then project this into the future... oh, and lets not forget the fleet will probably be retired before numbers go down to 1. Logistical costs are worth so much after so few aircraft are left airworthy.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Video: Bruchlandung einer DHL-Maschine: Radioaktives Material an Bord (Crash-landing of a DHL aircraft: radioactive material on board)

 

Translation of voice-over:

 

A DHL aircraft crash-landed at the airport of Bratislava in Slovakia. The front gear had cracked. There was radioactive material for medical purposes on board, which according to sources had not been damaged. A spokeswoman for the airport:

 

"The cargo is not dangerous to people who live in the neighborhood."

 

The crew was not injured in the incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carriage of Radioactive Isotopes for medical purposes happens all the time including on regular passenger services. Its not a big deal.

 

I didn't post that so much because of radioactive stuff being transported, but because the incident just happened today.

 

The mere fact that radioactive materials were mentioned was most probably because "Der Spiegel" / "Spiegel Online" published the news. Sounds more sensational than just "front gear collapsed, nobody injured". :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...