The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

Deino said:
Are there any status updates on the flight testing and especially any information about the "B"-prototype ??? ... It't very much "quite" around for a while !

Deino

The first "B" prototype is in final assembly at the moment and likely won't fly 'til December or so. *chuckle* We're still fielding some late breaking equipment fit changes. AA-1 completed 19 flights and is now down for upgrades and for rectification of the causes of the problems on the last flight test (nope, can't comment further).
 
From Air force Magazine Nov 2007.
 

Attachments

  • Joint Strike Missile LM.jpg
    Joint Strike Missile LM.jpg
    224 KB · Views: 241
An adaptation of the Kongsberg NSM anti-ship missile for internal carriage in the F-35:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lockheed-kongsberg-partner-to-bring-nsm-to-jsf-03015/
 
...Of course, no one could expect that even fuel tanks would look as usual at F-35.
 

Attachments

  • f-35tanks6aeroshaped.jpg
    f-35tanks6aeroshaped.jpg
    36.3 KB · Views: 92
  • f-35tanks5aeroshaped.jpg
    f-35tanks5aeroshaped.jpg
    17.8 KB · Views: 68
  • f-35tanks4aeroshaped.jpg
    f-35tanks4aeroshaped.jpg
    33.3 KB · Views: 61
  • f-35tanks3.jpg
    f-35tanks3.jpg
    57.6 KB · Views: 146
  • f-35tanks2.jpg
    f-35tanks2.jpg
    76.3 KB · Views: 148
  • f-35tanks1.jpg
    f-35tanks1.jpg
    166.3 KB · Views: 138
Very cool.
Things that I wonder:
Are the tanks that shape for some supersonic/transonic type of reason or because they need to clear the exhaust from the roll posts on the B?
That wind-tunnel model seems to have a smaller tank on the other wing.
Don't know whether the B model will be able to STO with all that stuff on board, and at last count the tanks had been deferred for the A model.
 
Slightly other reason...

"At the start of SDD, the F-35 was expected to carry the standard U.S. Navy 480 gallon drop tank, in common with the F/A-18 Hornet. Around the time of the Preliminary Design Review in early 2003, however, at least three external stores did not meet safe release criteria adjacent to this baseline fuel tank. Instead, certain stores would rapidly yaw upon release, creating some danger of striking the aircraft or adjacent fuel tank upon their departure. Sample store separation trajectories for large stores such as a two-thousand pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (2k JDAM) and Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) are shown..."
 

Attachments

  • F-35_480galtank-JDAMseperation.jpg
    F-35_480galtank-JDAMseperation.jpg
    83.8 KB · Views: 88
  • F-35_480galtank-JSOWseperation.jpg
    F-35_480galtank-JSOWseperation.jpg
    68.1 KB · Views: 75
Let's pray they don't have to adopt the Subpar Hornet's "solution".
 
sferrin said:
Let's pray they don't have to adopt the Subpar Hornet's "solution".

They shouldn't have to, as they have new fuel tanks for it.
 
Slightly other reason...
I thing it may also have to do with the area effect rule. If the rear of the tank was as the standart one, it would have added substantial area to the section with the highest area - the blue zone. So even tough the tank itself is made thicker, the peak area ( aircraft + tanks) passing trough the air is reduced. And so is drag.
 
I think Dassault's tanks are shaped the way they are for area ruling reasons.
 
See:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/061108ae_f35B_firstflight.html
 
From the above article:

Though nearly identical in appearance to the F-35A, the F-35B incorporates a counter-rotating shaft-driven lift fan positioned directly behind the cockpit.

Why does it have a "counter-rotating shaft-driven lift fan"? I'd have thought the mass (and length) of the aircraft was sufficient to offset any torque that the lift-fan might produce.
 
It also allows a mechanically balanced design, with the gear on the fanward end of the clutch being sandwiched between the two stages. And what he said - you need the two stages to get the pressure ratio and thrust in a fan that fits inside the fuselage.
 
BF-1 first flight video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXzcsF2N2Ao

Original *.wmv file http://lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/gallery/f35/video/F-35BFirstFlightMusicVideo.wmv
 
First flight photos
 

Attachments

  • F08-39000.jpg
    F08-39000.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 31
  • F08-38992.jpg
    F08-38992.jpg
    61.2 KB · Views: 27
  • F08-38979.jpg
    F08-38979.jpg
    40 KB · Views: 30
  • F08-38971.jpg
    F08-38971.jpg
    161.5 KB · Views: 27
  • F08-38967.jpg
    F08-38967.jpg
    167.7 KB · Views: 26
  • F08-38876.jpg
    F08-38876.jpg
    77.3 KB · Views: 70
  • F08-38848.jpg
    F08-38848.jpg
    44.3 KB · Views: 54
  • F08-38823.jpg
    F08-38823.jpg
    64.2 KB · Views: 58
more
 

Attachments

  • F08-39041.JPG
    F08-39041.JPG
    39.7 KB · Views: 21
  • F08-39039.JPG
    F08-39039.JPG
    69.7 KB · Views: 22
  • F08-39036.jpg
    F08-39036.jpg
    70.3 KB · Views: 34
  • F08-39033.jpg
    F08-39033.jpg
    64.3 KB · Views: 23
  • F08-39032.jpg
    F08-39032.jpg
    62.2 KB · Views: 18
  • F08-39027.JPG
    F08-39027.JPG
    58.7 KB · Views: 19
  • F08-39019.jpg
    F08-39019.jpg
    47.7 KB · Views: 17
  • F08-39002.jpg
    F08-39002.jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 25
and here go weird helmet and champagne
 

Attachments

  • F08-39155.jpg
    F08-39155.jpg
    125 KB · Views: 40
  • F08-39146.jpg
    F08-39146.jpg
    87.1 KB · Views: 52
  • F08-39131.jpg
    F08-39131.jpg
    88 KB · Views: 22
  • F08-39119.jpg
    F08-39119.jpg
    86.3 KB · Views: 43
  • F08-39117.jpg
    F08-39117.jpg
    81.4 KB · Views: 40
  • F08-39065.jpg
    F08-39065.jpg
    77.4 KB · Views: 38
  • F08-39057.jpg
    F08-39057.jpg
    108.1 KB · Views: 21
  • F08-39042.JPG
    F08-39042.JPG
    35.1 KB · Views: 19
...champagne
 

Attachments

  • F08-39156.jpg
    F08-39156.jpg
    125.3 KB · Views: 68

Attachments

  • F-35B groundtest.jpg
    F-35B groundtest.jpg
    608.7 KB · Views: 89
Apologies if this has already been posted, did a search first ;)

Lockheed Martin's CodeOne magazine has some very nice side by side comparison pics of the X-35B and F-35B here http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2008/articles/apr_08/f35transition/index.html
 
SteveO said:
Apologies if this has already been posted, did a search first ;)

Lockheed Martin's CodeOne magazine has some very nice side by side comparison pics of the X-35B and F-35B here http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2008/articles/apr_08/f35transition/index.html

Thanks a bunch for spotting this! How ironic it is that the X-35 used parts from Northrop and MDD aircraft, Lockheed's rivals on the ATF, including hydraulic pumps taken from the YF-23 itself!
 
Cheers SteveO,
Everyone knows the healthy skepticism I have for corporate press releases but this stuff's great. I'm particularly enjoying their archive piece "F-22 Design Evolution".

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/f22design_98.html

Thanks, Woody
 

Attachments

  • F22_cover_1998_01SM.gif
    F22_cover_1998_01SM.gif
    10 KB · Views: 436
I was gonna post this article in an existing thread (but since it got closed and Overscan suggested me to open a new thread). Here's an article in response to the recent criticism of the jet that interestingly includes Beesley, who is a test pilot for both the f-22 and f-35 program, commenting about the aircraft in term of handling, acceleration, agility characteristics in comparison to f-22.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html

This thread is open to anyone to add in other news concerning its capabilities (since as the program getting more progress, more of its features and capabilities get released).

Excerpt of the article concerning its capabilities :

Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program, explained that critics of the F-35 simply do not understand the fundamental requirements and technologies behind the aircraft, nor have these critics been briefed about the true capabilities of the new warplane. The F-35 is "not designed for an air-show in Paris," Davis said referring to the thrust vectoring Russian Su-35 aircraft which regularly performs spectacular routines at air-shows around the world. Davis said that while the F-35 was not designed as a pure air superiority machine, the program has a requirement to defeat any threat aircraft today- or any projected threat aircraft in the future.

The JSF accomplishes this feat by relying on its incredible suite of sensors, its stealthy airframe, and a surprising level of agility. The F-35 is not only equipped with the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar (AESA), which according to Lockheed Martin F-35 Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley, is the most advanced fighter radar system in the world, but also a host of other sensors. The radar can track an enormous numbers of targets in the air at phenomenal ranges while simultaneously operating air to ground modes, Beesley said.

Complementing the radar, the F-35's airframe is also lined with antennas that gather vast amounts of electronic information from the jets surroundings. The system allows the fighter to target and identify the electronic emissions of hostile radars in the air or on the ground with startling precision, Beesley said. The data gathered from these sensors allows the aircraft to track, identify and attack the sources of these signals without giving away the F-35s' position.

Furthermore, the F-35 has two separate types of infrared sensors that allow the jet to track targets passively. The Distributed Aperture System (DAS) is a system of cameras that feeds an infrared image of the planes' surrounding to the pilots' helmet, Beesley explained. The computer fuses the images from the six cameras and merges the images into a single seamless picture that allows the pilot to see 360 degrees around the aircraft, including through the cockpit floor and indeed the pilots' own body. The DAS also acts as a missile warning system (MWS) that alerts the pilot to incoming missiles. The second infrared sensor, called the electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), allows the aircraft to target, track, and identify object in the air or on the ground at long ranges and high resolutions, Beesley said.

The F-35 is able to transmit the wealth of data that the warplane gathers to other aircraft and to ground forces. Not only does the F-35 carry the standard Link-16 data-link to transmit information to over 100 other types of NATO platforms, the jet will carry data-links to communicate with ground forces and other stealth aircraft. A next-generation data-link called the Multifunction Advanced Data-Link (MADL) which will be carried by the F-35, will allow the plane to stealthily share data with the F-22 air dominance fighter and B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, enhancing the capabilities of all the aircraft involved. Additionally, the fighter's communication suite is based on an open source software programmable system. Thus as new technologies become available, new hardware and software can be added without the difficulties typically encountered with upgrading military systems, Davis said.

The F-35 is a stealthy airframe. Because the F-35 is designed to fly and fight in even the most heavily defended airspace, stealth is an essential component of the jets' design. The stealthy airframe is tailored for the mission of flying into the teeth of the most advanced air defences that the enemy can muster where conventional aircraft are vulnerable, Davis said. While the aircraft has a different radar cross section depending on which aspect angle is facing a threat radar, the plane meets the stringent requirements set forth by the U.S. military services based on more than 20 years of American experience with stealth aircraft design, Davis explained. Furthermore, stealth does not merely apply to an aircraft's radar cross section, an aircraft's infrared signature is similarly tailored to be less detectable by the enemy, Davis said. The sum total is an aircraft that is less vulnerable to the enemy from the air or ground.

The F-35 carries a diverse load of weaponry. Almost every air to ground weapon in the U.S. arsenal will eventually be integrated into the jet. These weapons include a host of laser guided weapons, satellite guided munitions, and air to ground missiles. While the perceived lack of weapons payload is the one of the main criticisms levelled at the JSF, Davis points out that the aircraft can carry a huge load of weapons externally once the enemy air defense systems have been destroyed. During the opening days of a war, Davis said weapons have to be carried internally in order to maintain the maximum level of stealth. In a full stealth configuration, the primary weapons load is limited to two 2000 lbs JDAM satellite guided munitions and two air to air AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. In the future, however, the JDAM will be exchanged for as many as eight, possibly more, 250 lbs Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), allowing a single jet to strike as many as eight or more separate targets, Davis said.

In a pure stealth air to air configuration, the F-35 currently carries four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles internally in its weapons bays, Davis said. While this configuration gives the jet a significant punch, Davis said studies have been undertaken that would increase the stealth air to air war load to six to possibly as many as eight air to air missiles which would be carried internally. The jet can also carry air to air missiles externally should the need arise and stealth is no longer a concern, Davis said.

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

The aircraft flies in "large measure like the F-22, but it's smaller, and stiffer" than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.

Ironically, the Navy version, which has larger wings but a lower G limit of 7.5G, has the best turning capability of the three F-35 versions Beesley explained. The Air Force version, meanwhile, has the best acceleration and is rated for 9Gs, Beesley said. Davis, explaining that the Marine Corps deemphasizes manoeuvrability in its air combat doctrine, said that the short take off, vertical landing (STOVL) USMC plane has a 7G limit. Beesley said that the aircraft makes up for the lower G limit by offering the flexibility in basing required by the Marines. Nor does the STOVL give up too much in range because of the engine driven lift fan installed behind the cockpit, Beesley said. The jet has "a range of more than 500 miles", while the Air Force and Navy planes both have ranges greater than 600 miles, Beesley explained, adding that the USAF version has as much internal fuel capacity as the larger twin engined F-22 Raptor.

While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis, who was previously the program manager for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). "I don't see how that gets you an advantage" Davis said, referring to the Mach 2+ capability. Beesley said that in terms of supersonic flight that the F-35 is still more than competitive with existing designs.

Comparisons to the F-22 Raptor are unfair as "supersonically, the Raptor is in a class by itself. It lives there," Beesley explained. "In many ways the Raptor is the first true supersonic fighter," Beesley added, referring to that aircrafts' much publicized and unique supersonic cruise capability.

Beesley explained that the F-35 is different from legacy fourth generation fighters such as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, or even more modern aircraft such as the Eurofighter, in that the primary weapons load is stored internally. This arrangement means that there is no added drag to the airframe from externally carried weapons, fuel tanks, or sensor pods as in older aircraft types. The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters. Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft "felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel" but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts' performance.

What this means for the pilots who will fly the F-35 over future battlefields is that the Lightning II will be an aircraft that will excel in a multitude of roles. The JSF will provide the troops on the ground with close air support (CAS). However, the way the F-35 will carry out the CAS mission will be significantly different from the way the current A-10 Warthog performs the mission. There will be less emphasis on flying at low altitudes and absorbing ground fire and more emphasis on intelligence gathering and precision guided strikes, Davis explains. The F-35 will use its superb sensor capabilities and data-links to transmit real time imagery and sensor data to the troops on the ground in addition to using its 25 millimetre cannon and SDBs to provide fire support, Davis said. The jets' stealth capabilities will allow the jet to do so even in a high threat environment.

The most challenging mission for the JSF is where the F-35s will have to penetrate deep into a dense integrated air defense system reinforced by enemy fighters and strike a target with no support, Davis said. This is the most difficult mission for the F-35, but it is also one that is near suicidal for current aircraft such as the F-16. Modern Russian built surface to air missile systems such as the SA-20 are deadly to conventional aircraft, Davis explained. A package of four, six, or even eight F-35s would have to divide up the responsibilities for the suppression of enemy air defenses, mapping out the target, clearing the skies, and striking the target, Davis said. The larger number of aircraft is necessary since the F-35 "doesn't have the kinematics of the F-22", Davis explained, "we're a slightly fatter, slower aircraft, so it takes a few more planes to get the job done."

Beesley for his part, when asked which aircraft he preferred, said that "for clearing the skies" he'd have to pick the Raptor, but for everything else the F-35 would be his pick he said, adding,

"The F-35 offers a greater depth and breadth of missions." Beesley said, given the F-35s' awesome capabilities, "The only airplane that can complete with it is the Raptor. Everything else is playing in a different league."
 
From what I remember hearing the F-22 had 360-degree all-around sensor coverage which I've been told greatly enhances the pilots ability to manage a battle. From the statements I've heard, it seems to suggest similar capability to the F-35, although I could be wrong.


KJ Lesnick
BTW: I just hope the F-35's EOTS and data-linking capability isn't used to spy on Americans...
 
I just hope the F-35's EOTS and data-linking capability isn't used to spy on Americans...

Please refrain from statements which make you seem like a conspiracy-obsessed nutcase. If America wanted to spy on its citizens a fighter plane is one of the least sensible candidates to carry out such activity.
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
From what I remember hearing the F-22 had 360-degree all-around sensor coverage which I've been told greatly enhances the pilots ability to manage a battle. From the statements I've heard, it seems to suggest similar capability to the F-35, although I could be wrong.


KJ Lesnick
BTW: I just hope the F-35's EOTS and data-linking capability isn't used to spy on Americans...
the f-22 doesn't have 360 degree all around infared and optical sensors; it doesn't even have a HMD yet. The f-35 will the be the first of the kind.
 
donnage99 said:
KJ_Lesnick said:
From what I remember hearing the F-22 had 360-degree all-around sensor coverage which I've been told greatly enhances the pilots ability to manage a battle. From the statements I've heard, it seems to suggest similar capability to the F-35, although I could be wrong.


KJ Lesnick
BTW: I just hope the F-35's EOTS and data-linking capability isn't used to spy on Americans...
the f-22 doesn't have 360 degree all around infared and optical sensors; it doesn't even have a HMD yet. The f-35 will the be the first of the kind.

I may be wrong about this, but I don't believe F-22 has IR or EO sensors at all. At the time of program definition, USAF didn't believe in 'em.
 
I believe an IRST system was planned for the Raptor at some later date, but got lost in the budget cuts and so on.

A bit off topic, but back in the YF-22 stage there were plans for a two seat version of the F-22A. Was this officially given the designation of F-22B before it was cancelled? If that is the case would F-22B be skipped in favor of F-22C if or when we see a future version of the Raptor?
 
F-14D said:
donnage99 said:
KJ_Lesnick said:
From what I remember hearing the F-22 had 360-degree all-around sensor coverage which I've been told greatly enhances the pilots ability to manage a battle. From the statements I've heard, it seems to suggest similar capability to the F-35, although I could be wrong.


KJ Lesnick
BTW: I just hope the F-35's EOTS and data-linking capability isn't used to spy on Americans...
the f-22 doesn't have 360 degree all around infared and optical sensors; it doesn't even have a HMD yet. The f-35 will the be the first of the kind.

I may be wrong about this, but I don't believe F-22 has IR or EO sensors at all. At the time of program definition, USAF didn't believe in 'em.
I believe there's at least one ATF contender that proposed 1 or 2 IR on their aircraft. Can anyone help me on this!
 
donnage99 said:
F-14D said:
donnage99 said:
KJ_Lesnick said:
From what I remember hearing the F-22 had 360-degree all-around sensor coverage which I've been told greatly enhances the pilots ability to manage a battle. From the statements I've heard, it seems to suggest similar capability to the F-35, although I could be wrong.


KJ Lesnick
BTW: I just hope the F-35's EOTS and data-linking capability isn't used to spy on Americans...
the f-22 doesn't have 360 degree all around infared and optical sensors; it doesn't even have a HMD yet. The f-35 will the be the first of the kind.

I may be wrong about this, but I don't believe F-22 has IR or EO sensors at all. At the time of program definition, USAF didn't believe in 'em.
I believe there's at least one ATF contender that proposed 1 or 2 IR on their aircraft. Can anyone help me on this!

The GD verison would have had the IR in the nose and two AESAs in the wing root leading edges.
 
sferrin said:
donnage99 said:
F-14D said:
donnage99 said:
KJ_Lesnick said:
From what I remember hearing the F-22 had 360-degree all-around sensor coverage which I've been told greatly enhances the pilots ability to manage a battle. From the statements I've heard, it seems to suggest similar capability to the F-35, although I could be wrong.


KJ Lesnick
BTW: I just hope the F-35's EOTS and data-linking capability isn't used to spy on Americans...
the f-22 doesn't have 360 degree all around infared and optical sensors; it doesn't even have a HMD yet. The f-35 will the be the first of the kind.

I may be wrong about this, but I don't believe F-22 has IR or EO sensors at all. At the time of program definition, USAF didn't believe in 'em.
I believe there's at least one ATF contender that proposed 1 or 2 IR on their aircraft. Can anyone help me on this!

The GD verison would have had the IR in the nose and two AESAs in the wing root leading edges.


That's what I remember about the initial GD proposal as well. Since USAF wasn't requiring it (which probably meant they wouldn't pay extra to get it), GD dropped IR as its concept was blended with Boeing's and Lockheed's.
 

Attachments

  • gdatf.jpg
    gdatf.jpg
    13.3 KB · Views: 140
Lampshade111 said:
I believe an IRST system was planned for the Raptor at some later date, but got lost in the budget cuts and so on.

A bit off topic, but back in the YF-22 stage there were plans for a two seat version of the F-22A. Was this officially given the designation of F-22B before it was canceled? If that is the case would F-22B be skipped in favor of F-22C if or when we see a future version of the Raptor?

I believe it was referred to as the F-22B as you state. As for whether the "B" would be skipped, it depends on the mood of the designators at the time. For example:

1st was the F-14A, which was not supposed to be the production version but ended up being the version most produced. Then there was the first F-14B, which was supposed to be the production version with a number of changes, the biggest of which was the F401 engine. It never entered production. Then there was the F-14C, that designation was used a number of times but originally was to be an F-14B with new avionics. It was never built. Then there was the F-14A+, which is basically an F-14A with some improvements, most imp[ortantly the GE F110 engine which finally allowed the F-14 to perform as it was designed to do, and was considered a stepping stone to the definitive Tomcat. The F-14A+ was then redesignated the F-14B. Following that, it would seem appropriate for them to use the F-14C designation again, since no F-14C ever flew, but they skipped "C" and went to "D".

So, the answer in the case of the Raptor would most accurately be, "Who knows"?
 
Its very rare for an aircraft to be redesignated though letter codes these days in order to avoid the appearance of cost. For example the F-16 has gone through changes that would have resulted in multiple letter codes (F-16R?) in the 1950s but are now represented through block numbers.

If the F-22A ever gets a mid life upgrade it would probably just be named in relation to the next block, ie F-22A Block 40.

The original planning for the F-22A was a post-2011 Block 40 "definitive Global Strike configuration" with full sensor networking, range enhancements, integrated ISR capabilities, and a Helmet Mounted Display similar to the F-35. Longer term planning for a Block 50 envisaged an Electronic Attack variant to replace the EF-111A with a stealthy external stores pod for JDAM and SDB (seen on the Lockheed F/B-22 proposal).

Personally I doubt we will see such extensive upgrades beyond Block 40 (that will hopefully include Link 16!) to the F-22A. Certainly not with the F-35 and NGB coming online next decade.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Its very rare for an aircraft to be redesignated though letter codes these days in order to avoid the appearance of cost. For example the F-16 has gone through changes that would have resulted in multiple letter codes (F-16R?) in the 1950s but are now represented through block numbers.

If the F-22A ever gets a mid life upgrade it would probably just be named in relation to the next block, ie F-22A Block 40.

The original planning for the F-22A was a post-2011 Block 40 "definitive Global Strike configuration" with full sensor networking, range enhancements, integrated ISR capabilities, and a Helmet Mounted Display similar to the F-35. Longer term planning for a Block 50 envisaged an Electronic Attack variant to replace the EF-111A with a stealthy external stores pod for JDAM and SDB (seen on the Lockheed F/B-22 proposal).

Personally I doubt we will see such extensive upgrades beyond Block 40 (that will hopefully include Link 16!) to the F-22A. Certainly not with the F-35 and NGB coming online next decade.

Interestingly enough, even though the F-16 got up to an "I" model (of course they skipped G & H), they reused a Block number.

Block 60 was originally supposed to be the stillborn "A-16". Then Block 60 was reused for the very advanced version sold to the UAE which, just to make things confusing, is also the F-16E/F!
 
it appears somehow related to engine thrust meaning an increase in MTOW , which then implies a transformation in the mission priorities . Out my woods , ı am maybe on thin ice but assuming C/D was actually meant to be F-110 class thrust levels but Block 25 was ordered as a stop gap and E/F are supposed to be farther going than ordinary Cs in attack missions both in range and weapon capabilities , though of course late production 50/52s can match them . 60s would be competing with F-15Es if they were concurrent .
 
r16 said:
it appears somehow related to engine thrust meaning an increase in MTOW , which then implies a transformation in the mission priorities . Out my woods , ı am maybe on thin ice but assuming C/D was actually meant to be F-110 class thrust levels but Block 25 was ordered as a stop gap and E/F are supposed to be farther going than ordinary Cs in attack missions both in range and weapon capabilities , though of course late production 50/52s can match them . 60s would be competing with F-15Es if they were concurrent .


C/D introduced greater capabilities and more importantly much improved avionics over the Falcon A/Bs, which were basically day VFR WVR fighters. The importance of the avionics upgrade can be inferred from its sales relative to the F/A-18. The F/A-18A/B, whatever else you might say for or against it, was a more flexible aircraft that the -16 A/B and this reflected in the exports achieved. I believe I am accurate in stating that when the -16A/B competed with the -18A/B it never won, but when the Falcon C/D competed with the Hornet C/D, it never lost. The need for the F110 class engine was driven by the weight growth of the Falcon. Basically, it didn't add new performance as much as it restored the agility of the aircraft back to what it was in the days of the early A/Bs. The exception was the F-16N, which married the weight of the F-16A to the thrust of an F-110 engine. Those that got to fly it didn't stop grinning for days!

Oh, yeah; back to topic. F-35 will be lots better.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom