- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,314
- Reaction score
- 9,036
Airplane said:Excess thrust + TV + wing loading. All that the 35 doesn't have. But, hey, maneuvering fights are dead or don't ya' know about the aim9x?
Wut?
Airplane said:Excess thrust + TV + wing loading. All that the 35 doesn't have. But, hey, maneuvering fights are dead or don't ya' know about the aim9x?
sferrin said:Airplane said:Excess thrust + TV + wing loading. All that the 35 doesn't have. But, hey, maneuvering fights are dead or don't ya' know about the aim9x?
Wut?
Sundog said:sferrin said:Airplane said:Excess thrust + TV + wing loading. All that the 35 doesn't have. But, hey, maneuvering fights are dead or don't ya' know about the aim9x?
Wut?
High alpha isn't the same as high agility.
sferrin said:Sundog said:sferrin said:Airplane said:Excess thrust + TV + wing loading. All that the 35 doesn't have. But, hey, maneuvering fights are dead or don't ya' know about the aim9x?
Wut?
High alpha isn't the same as high agility.
Hmmm. . .9G, high AOA capable airframe? Nope, not agile at all. (Of course the pilots say different but what do they know?)
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/
Airplane said:I don't think anyone said the F-35A isn't maneuverable; only that it will never be anywhere near the same ballpark as a F-22, or for that matter an F-15C. When someone says that XYZ can pull 9g, that literally means next to nothing. The F-15 and F-16 are both 9g airplanes, but at altitude, the F-15 is simply better than the F-16.
Airplane said:If you take away LO from the F-35 you're left with a pretty unimpressive airplane that is a throwback to the 1970s in kinematics.
lastdingo said:About 7 °/s less turn rate at 15,000 ft Mach 0.7 to 0.8, for example.
sferrin said:Airplane said:I don't think anyone said the F-35A isn't maneuverable; only that it will never be anywhere near the same ballpark as a F-22, or for that matter an F-15C. When someone says that XYZ can pull 9g, that literally means next to nothing. The F-15 and F-16 are both 9g airplanes, but at altitude, the F-15 is simply better than the F-16.
The F-15 is not a 9G aircraft ( the C definitely isn't). As for G factor meaning "literally next to nothing" you pretty much shot yourself in the foot. Do you have any objective, you know FACTUAL, information that suggests the F-35 can't maneuver? Certainly nothing published thus far supports that notion. I get it, some people can't get past the fact that it doesn't look as kewl because it doesn't have missiles hanging all over the outside. Some people can't seem to comprehend that aircraft don't go into combat in airshow configuration.
Airplane said:If you take away LO from the F-35 you're left with a pretty unimpressive airplane that is a throwback to the 1970s in kinematics.
"Yet another quality of the F-35 becomes evident in this flight regime; using the rudder pedals I can command the nose of the airplane from side to side. The F-35 reacts quicker to my pedal inputs than the F-16 would at its maximum AOA (the F-16 would actually be out of control at this AOA)."
"Another aspect is the kind of reaction I get when I push the stick forward; the F-35 reacts immediately, and not delayed like the F-16."
" I’m also impressed by how quickly the F-35 accelerates when I reduce the AOA. High AOA produces lots of lift, but also tremendous induced drag. When I «break» the AOA, it is evident that the F-35 has a powerful engine."
Unimpressive? Sure, sure. : Maybe you should try actually reading the link I provided. A former F-16 pilot pretty much says the opposite of what you're claiming.
Airplane said:F-15 for a fact will pull 9G.
Airplane said:Please show me in my own words where I said the F-35 can't maneuver.
lastdingo said:F-15C sustained turn rate (clean) is nowhere close to F-16 sustained turn rate at same altitude and speed:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-msOHnX8u22k/UW4c5YRZvzI/AAAAAAAACRs/QC9xg3CErlI/s1600/F-16Blk15+at+15k.jpg
(too big for embedding)
About 7 °/s less turn rate at 15,000 ft Mach 0.7 to 0.8, for example.
F-22 hasn't been and will not be exported, thus I wouldn't trust any turn performance claims made whatsoever. Intentional disinformation is almsot guaranteed, and we can't even know if it's exaggerating or downplaying.
sferrin said:The F-15C is not rated for 9Gs. See attached.
Airplane said:...
If you take away LO from the F-35 you're left with a pretty unimpressive airplane that is a throwback to the 1970s in kinematics.
Ogami musashi said:The F-15C is rated for 9G. The A equipped with the OWS was also rate for 9G (TO-1F-15-A, page A9-12)
NeilChapman said:Airplane said:...
If you take away LO from the F-35 you're left with a pretty unimpressive airplane that is a throwback to the 1970s in kinematics.
Please explain what you mean by this. I'm not an AE.
Thx!
sferrin said:Sundog said:sferrin said:Airplane said:Excess thrust + TV + wing loading. All that the 35 doesn't have. But, hey, maneuvering fights are dead or don't ya' know about the aim9x?
Wut?
High alpha isn't the same as high agility.
My point was you used high alpha photos as a response to a comment about maneuverability/agility, which was the equivalent of a visual non-sequitur. High alpha is actually more about control power and stability than it is agility. Nowhere in my comment did I speak of the agility or the maneuverability of the F-35.
Hmmm. . .9G, high AOA capable airframe? Nope, not agile at all. (Of course the pilots say different but what do they know?)
https://youtu.be/Yeq2hvSmtwE
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/
sferrin said:Ogami musashi said:The F-15C is rated for 9G. The A equipped with the OWS was also rate for 9G (TO-1F-15-A, page A9-12)
Interesting. Back in the day they made a big deal of one of the F-15Es improvements being to make it into a 9G aircraft (strengthened structure).
bobbymike said:http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-edge-verse-russia-china-f22-2016-12
Sundog said:And that doesn't even include the aircraft we're flying that are still classified Secret.
bobbymike said:http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/us-air-force-tackles-repair-f-22-stealth-coating?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20161130_AW-19_296&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7781&utm_medium=email&elq2=9b5e94eb064447349f4bcb48140b9881
Grey Havoc said:bobbymike said:http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/us-air-force-tackles-repair-f-22-stealth-coating?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20161130_AW-19_296&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7781&utm_medium=email&elq2=9b5e94eb064447349f4bcb48140b9881
If I'm not mistaken, the affected coating isn't the original one developed for the F-22, but one developed for the F-35, and retrofitted to the F-22 fleet in the expectation that it would be both lower cost and less maintenance intensive than that developed for the F-22. So it's quite likely the extant F-35s will be affected as well, if they aren't already.
Grey Havoc said:bobbymike said:http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/us-air-force-tackles-repair-f-22-stealth-coating?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20161130_AW-19_296&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7781&utm_medium=email&elq2=9b5e94eb064447349f4bcb48140b9881
If I'm not mistaken, the affected coating isn't the original one developed for the F-22, but one developed for the F-35, and retrofitted to the F-22 fleet in the expectation that it would be both lower cost and less maintenance intensive than that developed for the F-22. So it's quite likely the extant F-35s will be affected as well, if they aren't already.
Grey Havoc said:bobbymike said:http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/us-air-force-tackles-repair-f-22-stealth-coating?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20161130_AW-19_296&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7781&utm_medium=email&elq2=9b5e94eb064447349f4bcb48140b9881
If I'm not mistaken, the affected coating isn't the original one developed for the F-22, but one developed for the F-35, and retrofitted to the F-22 fleet in the expectation that it would be both lower cost and less maintenance intensive than that developed for the F-22. So it's quite likely the extant F-35s will be affected as well, if they aren't already.
sublight is back said:The F35's stealth is almost completely baked into the skin
Air Force upgrades F-22 sensors, weapons software
The Air Force is in the early phases of creating new sensors and performing substantial software upgrades to its F-22 Raptor to enable the stealth platform to fire new advanced weaponry, better identify targets and perform a wider scope of attack missions.
The software improvement will permit the Raptor to improve its air-to-air and air-to-surface strike technology, service officials said.
The weapons modernization effort includes both software and hardware improvements to the aircraft, service and industry developers said.
"In the Summer of 2019, the F-22 fleet will begin to receive upgrades to its available weapons with the Increment 3.2B upgrade. This upgrade allows full functionality for the AIM-120D and AIM-9X Air-to-Air missiles as well as enhanced Air-to-Surface target location capabilities," said 1st Lt. Carrie J. Volpe, Action Officer, Air Combat Command Public Affair, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va.
An essential software adjustment, called “Update 6,” is now being worked on by Lockheed Martin engineers on contract with the Air Force. Work on the software is slated to be finished by 2020, said John Cottam, F-22 Program Deputy, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics.
A hardware portion of the upgrades, called a “tactical mandate,” involves engineering new antennas specifically designed to preserve the stealth configuration of the F-22.
“New antennas have to be first constructed. They will be retrofitted onto the airplane. Because of the stealth configuration putting, antennas on is difficult and time consuming,” Cottam said.
Lockheed plans to have the “tactical mandate” portion of the work finished by 2021, he added.
Also, the Air Force is beginning the process of identifying requirements for a next-generation sensor for the F-22.
“Enhancing sensor capabilities is needed to keep the F-22 as an air-dominance platform into the future. Threats are always evolving so we need to evolve this plane as well,” Cottam said.
In the nearer term, the software upgrades will enable the aircraft to fire a wider range of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.
The F-22 currently carries the AIM-9X Block 1 and the current upgrade will enable carriage of AIM-9X Block 2, Volpe added.
Raytheon AIM-9X weapons developers explain that the Block 2 variant adds a redesigned fuse and a digital ignition safety device that enhances ground handling and in-flight safety. Block 2 also features updated electronics that enable significant enhancements, including lock-on-after-launch capability using a new weapon datalink to support beyond visual range engagements, a Raytheon statement said.
Another part of the weapons upgrade includes engineering the F-22 to fire the AIM-120D, a beyond visual range Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), designed for all weather day-and-night attacks; it is a "fire and forget" missile with active transmit radar guidance, Raytheon data states.
The AIM-120D is built with upgrades to previous AMRAAM missiles by increasing attack range, GPS navigation, inertial measurement units and a two-way data link, Raytheon statements explain.
Additional future enhancements to the F-22 include the addition of a LINK-16 datalink designed to enable digital communications between 4th and 5th generation airplanes.
"The backbone of this upgrade also includes the installation of an open systems architecture that will allow for future upgrades to be done faster and at less expense than could be previously accomplished," Volpe said.
Steven said:https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/03/14/f22.aspx
First time hearing of integrating new antennas into the airframe, this sounds like a rather substantial upgrade to hardware. Perhaps bring_it_on may know, but are there any plans in place for gallium nitride modules to make their way into upcoming F-22 upgrades?
Meanwhile, the service is moving forward with its near-term F-22 modernization plans. The program is in the midst of flight tests for Increment 3.2B -- one phase of a progressive software and hardware upgrade. That increment builds on an earlier 3.2A upgrade and achieved milestone C in early August. The service expects to award a low-rate initial production contract for the first 35 kits in January 2017, McIntyre said. Kit installations will likely begin in the FY-18 time frame.
To date, 114 of the Air Force's 137 combat-coded F-22s are equipped with Increment 3.2A and a subsequent update package, called update 5. By the end of next summer, all combat-coded aircraft will have Increment 3.2A and the update installed.
Following increment 3.2B installations in the FY-18 time frame, the program has another upgrade known as Interoperability Update 6, which McIntyre said is focused on cryptographic modernization. The program then will move forward with a pair of tactical upgrades -- one that will field a Link 16 transmit and open mission systems capability and another that will field Mode 5 and combat-identification improvements. The first of those programs will field in 2020 and the second in 2021.
All of these modernization efforts precede the proposals included in the roadmap, McIntyre said. While he would not speculate on the pre-decisional components of the roadmap, he noted it does include plans for a new helmet-mounted display -- an upgrade the program had hoped to begin in fiscal year 2018 but which may be pushed to the FY-19 time frame due to competing priorities.
"At this point in time, we have a lot of financial pressures that we are looking to resolve in the FY-19 [program objective memorandum]," McIntyre said. "If we cannot resolve our financial pressures, we may be slipping a year."
bobbymike said:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/26/did-the-air-force-dash-its-hopes-for-building-more-f-22s.html
Just 20/year since cancellation and we'd be approaching 300 Raptors today. What a conventional deterrent this plane could have been. :'(