• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,010
Reaction score
2,432
I suspect SDB is actually a very small head on radar target, due to shape and size. And the low cost means that practically anything you send against it probably costs as much or more, so spamming an air defense system is practical both from an economic and warload sense (any aircraft can carry at least eight with some AAMs). But clearly a dedicated high speed weapon is needed as well for pop up threats, even you are will to play a slow game of attrition with an IADS.
Phalanx and Sea Wolf were shooting down artillery shells in the 80s. An SDB would be nothing for systems like this.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,010
Reaction score
2,432
"The Air Force will propose about a 10 percent cut in its planned F-35 purchases in the upcoming future years defense plan, citing sustainment costs for the jet well above what was expectd, and because the service prefers to wait for the more advanced Block 4 model. Budget talking points obtained by Air Force Magazine appear to show the USAF giving the F-35 program an ultimatum: Get costs under control over the next six to eight years or the overall buy will be sharply reduced. "

Cutting numbers because they want the more advanced block seems counterproductive to reducing costs. Imagine what the costs of the F-16A would have been if they'd slashed the numbers until the Block 30s came out.
 

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
736
There is also the 388th now deployed in South West of France for the 2021 edition of exercise Trident (Mont de Marsan):
Hill-F-35-900x600.jpeg

U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning IIs assigned to the 4th Fighter Squadron, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, taxi down the flight line at Mont-de-Marsan Air Base, France, upon arrival May 10, 2021. During their time in the European theater, the aircraft will take part in multiple events, including Atlantic Trident 21. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Alexander Cook.

Notice how the picture appears to be heavily edited (and the temporary shelters on the left).
More details here (In Fr):
Typhoon, F-35, Rafale, F-22, M2K, HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier (with 18 F-35B (USMC included))!
And obviously, probably also the training units with Alphajets.

Probably a good time to hang around Cazaux AB (sea front - Rafale where deployed en masse there) if the weather is good.

1621415963048.png
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,010
Reaction score
2,432
Interesting that the F-35s generate strong vortices where the Rafales do not.
canard effects?

On the subject of Canards, I was wondering if they help in terms of carrier landings?

I just realized that the F-35 actually started as a delta canard at first, before evolving into what it is now
0b5b490f3cb7086ce7950a02717b0f01.jpg
And before that it basically looked like a single-engine J-20.

A-few-improvements-to-the-design.jpg
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
143
Reaction score
255
Interesting that the F-35s generate strong vortices where the Rafales do not.
canard effects?

On the subject of Canards, I was wondering if they help in terms of carrier landings?

I just realized that the F-35 actually started as a delta canard at first, before evolving into what it is now
0b5b490f3cb7086ce7950a02717b0f01.jpg
There was also that Northrop NATF with canards as well, and from what I know, yes.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
3,960
It feels weird for me to look at those beautiful pictures of Rafales tangling with F-35s... and not only because it has a definite Buck Danny / Les chevaliers du ciel vibe.
I grew up in the background of these pictures, I could even been familiar with the road and houses seen there. Presently living in Bordeaux suburbs so far away from the mayhem it must be; but my mom is still living there, and she must be going full Abe Simpson against those noisy jets (I'm an aviation buff, my mom is not: Rafale are noisy things even 20 miles from Mont de Marsan runway.)
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
265
Reaction score
148
Interesting that the F-35s generate strong vortices where the Rafales do not.
Doesn't the 35 need to generate more lift and ie stronger vortices than the Rafales because its heavier?

A long time ago when I was going through flight instruction, I was taught to stay far away from anything heavy and slow because of stronger vortices than something small and lighter.
 

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
824
Reaction score
245
Interesting that the F-35s generate strong vortices where the Rafales do not.
Doesn't the 35 need to generate more lift and ie stronger vortices than the Rafales because its heavier?

A long time ago when I was going through flight instruction, I was taught to stay far away from anything heavy and slow because of stronger vortices than something small and lighter.
It also depends on the geometry at the wingtips; the way that the F-35's wingtips are sharp and parallel with the direction of airflow means that the air coming off the bottom of the wing can be all moving in the same direction as it wraps up towards the low pressure zone above the wing.

When you have launch rails and missiles on your wingtips, some of the air is wrapping up towards the top further inboard or outboard (due to gaps between the missile and rail, the different length of the missile, rail and wing chord, the fins on the missile, etc). Therefore some of the air curving around geometry is encountering other air flows whose velocity vectors are different than theirs; it may not be outright destructive interference, but it's not fully constructive either.
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,799
Reaction score
2,885
AIR FORCE FIGHTERS’ MISSION CAPABLE RATES

Fighters / 2019 Mission Capable Rate / 2020 Mission Capable Rate
F-15C 70.05% 71.93%
F-15D 72.45% 70.52%
F-15E 71.29% 69.21%
F-16C 72.97% 73.90%
F-16D 70.37% 72.11%
F-22A 50.57% 51.98%
F-35A 61.6% 76.07%

 
Last edited:

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
824
Reaction score
245
To my knowledge there are already no more TR1 jets, just TR2 as of last September. I think the true costs here are in (probably) higher sustainment costs of earlier airframes and perhaps deeper level mods required, that increase the cost figures associated with bringing them to current non-avionics hardware configurations.

Edit: Source for the fleet only being TR2 now:
View: https://youtu.be/jhhUK2eYfb4?t=14669
(4:04:29 if the timestamp doesn't work).
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
880
Reaction score
501
The USN won’t update the F-18E/F blk1 to blk3 for the same reading, though I think most of them are still retained as training aircraft.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
3,960

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
824
Reaction score
245
Found it, it's just the opinion / speculation of a Quora poster: https://www.quora.com/Can-the-F-35-...onic-Attack-abilities-Compare-contrast-Please (it's from the answer by "Abhirup Sengupta, Military Aviation Enthusiast").
I couldn't find that specific bit.
You have to expand their answer by clicking the "(more)" button near the bottom of their post. It expands into this:

1622456477530.png

The patent they linked to is to this one from Westinghouse:
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
143
Reaction score
255

It really depends on if the TR modules of the AN/APG-81s are capable of such wideband transmission. I mean concerning the antenna element, sure it could be although I'm not confident to say if it would be capable of radiating lower frequency band compared to X-bands. Anyways, radiating is one thing, and radiating it in such way that it is effective enough is another. My take would be that the TR modules of the AN/APG-81 and the radar control OFP installed on the ICP are probably not capable of beamforming the radar transmission in such way that it is effective for any jamming apart from X-band bandwidth.

Also, considering the transmitter module design, especially the MMIC part of it, even the NGJ is divided into low-band, mid-band and high-band. What that Quora post seems to argue is that the AN/APG-81 could cover the bandwidth range of at least 2 or even 3 different NGJ system. That alone clears the possibility of AN/APG-81's TR module being capable of covering off such a large bandwidth I feel. The older ALQ-99, which the later models used phased array(probably Rotman lens based) design for its transmitters, were also divided into different bands as well. It really depends on which kind of antenna element the TR module uses, but at least afaik your typical Rotman lens based transmitter design is relatively easy to make it into a wideband antenna so there's my take.
 

Similar threads

Top