Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
267
Reaction score
298
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
I think you are confusing the fact that the bay are kept open after landing or lengthy ground roll prior to takeoff for that purpose. Heat management can require secondary systems to be shut off when fuel quantity is low (heat sink). But then, what you are suggesting is unheard.
That may be it. I remember that there are certain conditions where the weapon bay doors are open to facilitate avionics cooling.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,448
Reaction score
1,408
Considering the investment, are they less efficient than the F-22 in this heat exchange regard?
More info please?
Sorry, busy day. I am on about the heat dissipation tech for electronic gear and engine systems. I get that the F-35 is not that large an airframe but a lot is crammed into. If NGAD comes on line as expected I see the F-35 not having quite such a load to bear so might have that extra bit of leeway on cooling, or not.
 

F119Doctor

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 15, 2021
Messages
39
Reaction score
88
F-22 / F119 does not have fan duct heat exchangers for airframe cooling purposes. It does integrate an independent fuel cooling flow control to move fuel thru the aircraft heat exchangers and the engine oil cooler at a higher rate than the engine fuel burn when needed, returning the excess fuel thru a air cooled heat exchanger (bleed air ejector assisted on the ground) to the fuel tanks. At high power and high altitude cold ambient temperature, the engine fuel burn provides sufficient cooling, at ground idle post flight with low tank levels and high ambient temperatures airframe cooling can be a challenge.

The problem with fan duct heat exchangers is that at high power settings, the pressurized fan discharge air is way too hot to provide any cooling to the airframe systems, so you have to shut this system down and use the high fuel flow for cooling instead. The three stream engines will delay this effect under high bypass conditions since the third stream will be less compressed and therefore cooler, making a third stream mounted heat exchanger more effective over more of the envelope.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
4,312
Spain looking seriously at the F-35 (Navy/AF):


(perhaps one of the three nations which whom LM recently revealed having some open discussion with).
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,325
Reaction score
6,318
Spain looking seriously at the F-35 (Navy/AF):


(perhaps one of the three nations which whom LM recently revealed having some open discussion with).

No surprise here. As unavoidable as Italian F-35Bs, because AV-8B Harrier: because Garibaldi & Asturias; and because "Juan Carlos" and "Cavour & Trieste". The two navies have had very parallel development since 1980 at least.

Spain dragging its feet for so long, relates to peculiar reasons.

-Retirement (and scrapping) of Asturias for budgetary reasons in 2013, unlike Garibaldi which not only remain in service but will survive as a rocket launch platform.

- Only one Juan Carlos vs Trieste and Cavour: clearly much less money there than on the italian side. Or different priorities. Less urgency for F-35s overall.

- Fact that Spain was never part of the "F-35 coalition" in the early 2000's. Unlike Italy, they seemed to be bothered about being a Typhoon coalition member. :D.

-More seriously: Typhoon probably sucked all money, and F-35 had to wait.

- Also not part of the Spanish air force long term plans, since Typhoon was already there.

- In the end Spain will get F-35s only as a last-ditch option for their Navy: no other way to replace AV-8Bs.

Also Spain armed forces never seemed to be bothered by multiple types. If you think Egypt is "spectacular" in that regard, Spain ain't bad either since the 50's.
They got: Mirage IIIs & Mirage F1s; F-4s, F-5s, and F-104s; then Hornets: then Typhoon. And Harriers for the Armada: first generation AV-8A, then AV-8B to the present day.
 
Last edited:

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
807
Reaction score
599
Well the F-35 is a reality whereas the European fighter project could end up anywhere after who knows how many years.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
4,312
There is room for both. It will even be better for the FCAS project if, at least, one lairforce get to gain some experience fielding stealth fighters.

It also allows participants to wait longer and refine the design into something truly efficient.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
807
Reaction score
599
There is room for both. It will even be better for the FCAS project if, at least, one lairforce get to gain some experience fielding stealth fighters.

It also allows participants to wait longer and refine the design into something truly efficient.
Absolutely but fielding stealth fighters now is an immediate need with both Russia and China doing the same and with plans to export. What arrives in 15 years can't help with today.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,325
Reaction score
6,318
There is room for both. It will even be better for the FCAS project if, at least, one lairforce get to gain some experience fielding stealth fighters.

It also allows participants to wait longer and refine the design into something truly efficient.
Absolutely but fielding stealth fighters now is an immediate need with both Russia and China doing the same and with plans to export. What arrives in 15 years can't help with today.

I'm quite confident Rafale F4 with a load of Meteors can kick ass of anything presently flying.
Even more the very few Su-57s in existence and a handful of J-20s with the wrong engines.
If only the AdA could procure, a bit more than the present 80-100: the 180 planned, or, even better, the 320 once planned in my youth (1996).
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
549
Reaction score
747
There is room for both. It will even be better for the FCAS project if, at least, one lairforce get to gain some experience fielding stealth fighters.

It also allows participants to wait longer and refine the design into something truly efficient.
There is also the inclusion of Spanish industry into the F-35 lifecycle as a major carrot from Lockheed, the economic benefits from the Hornet replacement program outweigh the actual performance of the fighters themselves.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,822
Reaction score
2,359
Website
beyondthesprues.com

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,325
Reaction score
6,318

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
807
Reaction score
599
I'm quite confident Rafale F4 with a load of Meteors can kick ass of anything presently flying.
Even more the very few Su-57s in existence and a handful of J-20s with the wrong engines.
That's an unknown and probably unlikely in my opinion. I doubt the Russians and Chinese invested decades developing something that's less capable than a 4+ gen plane that's 20 years old and isn't VLO. And F4 isn't presently in service either.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,325
Reaction score
6,318
You are reasonning backwards... and conveniently ignoring the points I raised.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
807
Reaction score
599
You are reasonning backwards... and conveniently ignoring the points I raised.
I'm confused, are you saying a Rafale can or cannot beat Su-57s and J-20s? As regards other aircraft, sure it has a chance, it depends how good each side's EW and radars are.
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
752
Reaction score
638
I'm quite confident Rafale F4 with a load of Meteors can kick ass of anything presently flying.
Even more the very few Su-57s in existence and a handful of J-20s with the wrong engines.
That's an unknown and probably unlikely in my opinion. I doubt the Russians and Chinese invested decades developing something that's less capable than a 4+ gen plane that's 20 years old and isn't VLO. And F4 isn't presently in service either.
1635583235875.jpeg
 

Lc89

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
315
Reaction score
208
But can't the F35's problems be solved with digital twins or open systems architecture? Or is it too late?
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
267
Reaction score
298
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
Nope, don’t have secret squirrel clearances, but astute observations on the open source goes a long way.

A spherical sensor bulb will have a largely uniform signal return across most aspects while faceting concentrates those returns into large “spikes” in selective aspects while reducing them across most others. Obviously this property of faceting will diminish as the frequency lowers. A continuous curvature fairing smoothly blended into the fuselage may be able to have the best of both, but thus we haven’t seen IR-transparent glass in large scale production with complex curvatures like that. Anyways, this probably isn’t the thread to discuss this topic.

Edit: LOL, that was quick. Regardless, the point still stands.
 
Last edited:

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
701
Reaction score
824
and a question on the F-35 in response to steve of a physical feature got deleted but its ok to talk about something similiar to the su-57 thread, why?
 

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
865
Reaction score
350
I think you are confusing the fact that the bay are kept open after landing or lengthy ground roll prior to takeoff for that purpose. Heat management can require secondary systems to be shut off when fuel quantity is low (heat sink). But then, what you are suggesting is unheard.
That may be it. I remember that there are certain conditions where the weapon bay doors are open to facilitate avionics cooling.
I'm going off memory here and a post I made in 2016, but I believe the problem was some avionics system (implied to be a vehicle system, not a mission system) was moved into the weapon bays for greater ease of access for maintenance, etc. The problem however was that the weapon bays are a hot environment due to their proximity to the engine, and temperatures in the bay (when flying fast and low with a warm ambient air temp) were hotter than what at least one component within that avionics system was certified for.

The bay temps have been said to exceed 80C, so if the component was only certified to a standard testing temperature of like 85C it may have been getting exposed to conditions where it's lifespan is unknown. If my memory serves, there was talk about the program office having that component undergo further testing to see whether the certification could be extended (nullifying the risk), or whether it'd have to be replaced or have the restriction permanently imposed.

I don't think it was ever reported what finally happened, but I know DOT&E reports after 2015 never talked about the restriction again, so it might have turned out to be a non-issue, or perhaps they're still flying with the restriction today; I haven't heard any pilots or program officials mention the restriction since then either, but I also haven't seen any directly asked about it.
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
267
Reaction score
298
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
I'm going off memory here and a post I made in 2016, but I believe the problem was some avionics system (implied to be a vehicle system, not a mission system) was moved into the weapon bays for greater ease of access for maintenance, etc. The problem however was that the weapon bays are a hot environment due to their proximity to the engine, and temperatures in the bay (when flying fast and low with a warm ambient air temp) were hotter than what at least one component within that avionics system was certified for.

There are some similarities with early flight testing of the F-22 where they were paying close attention potential overheating of the avionics and thus had envelope restrictions. That’s understandable, given that the VMS is required for the aircraft to fly, and those restrictions were gradually lifted as temperature issues were resolved or were deemed safe.

and a question on the F-35 in response to steve of a physical feature got deleted but its ok to talk about something similiar to the su-57 thread, why?

Consider that it was laced with the absurd notion that the Slavic surnames of some high level individuals in the F-35 program indicate that the aircraft should somehow be owed to Russia’s genius. Wonder why it wasn’t taken seriously then. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
701
Reaction score
824
Consider that it was laced with the absurd notion that the Slavic surnames of some high level individuals in the F-35 program indicate that the aircraft should somehow be owed to Russia’s genius. Wonder why it wasn’t taken seriously then.
pretty much an inside joke of users hating anything crediting Russia, I was also talking about the high RCS cylindrical shape on the right side of the F-35 they could have edited the answer instead of fully deleting it. Whats the service life of the F-35 anyways, just trying to understand its purpose a little more.
 

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
865
Reaction score
350
Whats the service life of the F-35 anyways, just trying to understand its purpose a little more.
It's current service life is 8000 flight hours, which under the USAF's estimated usage of 250 hours per year would give each jet a service life of 32 years. The last USAF F-35A is scheduled to be delivered in 2044 though that's always subject to change, which theoretically means (and this is what the services have programmed) that the jet would serve with the USAF until 2077 (33 years later because the last jet to roll out likely wouldn't fly 250 hours in its first year).

The F-35A durability test article survived 3 lifetimes of testing however so there was talk of possibly having the F-35A's rated service life increased by some amount (eg: maybe to 10,000FH or whatever). F-35s could also possibly get service life extensions in the future if deemed necessary, but only the future knows if that'll happen.
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
267
Reaction score
298
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu

Reading through this again, this statement shows the challenges that the current F135 has in meeting the thermal requirements.

The F135 is already being operated in excess of its specifications as new capabilities have been added to the F-35, Latka said.

That is only going to become more of a problem as the Pentagon upgrades the F-35 with Technology Refresh 3 — a new core processor, memory unit and panoramic cockpit display — and adds the Block 4 hardware and software capabilities, which will further tax the jet’s existing weight and cooling thresholds.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
807
Reaction score
599

Hawn-Briefing-Slide-jpeg.jpg
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,325
Reaction score
6,318
The F135 had huge amount of thrust and power... and yet they have managed to bust its limits.
It says something about the F-35 avionics and missions and capabilities...
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
364
Reaction score
574

Hawn-Briefing-Slide-jpeg.jpg
Makes you wonder what scenarios is USAF testing in their Red Flags :rolleyes:
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
701
Reaction score
824

Hawn-Briefing-Slide-jpeg.jpg
I swear this is not a troll bait response. But isn't the f-16 like 1m2 and the f-35 lower than .0001m2? That entire graph should be blue, I guess the aircrafts I have in mind do have a chance after all since those are f-16A/C variant aircrafts. I am going to have a field day with this graph.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
575
Reaction score
384
URL unfurl="true"]https://billieflynn.com/f-35-war-gaming-fear-mongering/[/URL]

Hawn-Briefing-Slide-jpeg.jpg
I swear this is not a troll bait response. But isn't the f-16 like 1m2 and the f-35 lower than .0001m2? That entire graph should be blue, I guess the aircrafts I have in mind do have a chance after all since those are f-16A/C variant aircrafts. I am going to have a field day with this graph.
Aggressor F-16 has IRST
01450AA7-798E-45FD-A85C-6C6674479C55.jpeg
B6544E98-AF99-4287-91B0-9EDAC706EBA8.jpeg
 

Vanessa1402

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
43
Reaction score
9
I swear this is not a troll bait response. But isn't the f-16 like 1m2 and the f-35 lower than .0001m2? That entire graph should be blue, I guess the aircrafts I have in mind do have a chance after all since those are f-16A/C variant aircrafts. I am going to have a field day with this graph.
Advance 4 generation fighters can also be F-15E and F-18E/F working together or F-15E and F-16C.
 

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
865
Reaction score
350
I swear this is not a troll bait response. But isn't the f-16 like 1m2 and the f-35 lower than .0001m2? That entire graph should be blue, I guess the aircrafts I have in mind do have a chance after all since those are f-16A/C variant aircrafts. I am going to have a field day with this graph.
What do you mean by entirely blue? 20:1 kill-loss ratio that F-35As running Block 3i software (2x AMRAAM only, no gun, 7G max loading, reduced mission systems functionality) got going up against F-16A/Cs, Draken International aircraft, and F-15Cs (the 125th FW had their jets augment Red Air at times) - remember too that the dedicated aggressors are designed to use range instrumentation systems to emulate the capabilities of MiG-29s, Flankers, etc (even using virtual radars, etc to emulate the mission systems of other jets).

That chart on the right is then running through 5 scenarios where a Blue Air comprising of 40 jets (100% 4.5th gen on the left, then 75%, 50%, 25% and then finally 100% F-35s on the right) goes up against 120 Red Air jets of equivalent 4.5th gen capability. Red losses are shown above the horizontal axis, Blue losses underneath. Colours designate what Blue Air jet made the kill or was killed.

So initially on the left 6x 4.5th gen Red Air fighters are killed and 20x Blue Air 4.5th gen fighters are killed. On the second-last from the right all 120 Red Air are killed, with something like 95-99% of kills made by F-35s and the remainder made by the Blue Air 4.5th gens. Meanwhile 19 Blue Air jets are killed, with about half being 4.5th gen and half being F-35s.

It's a very simplistic / simplified analysis that's just running those 2 kill ratios, the availability rate and force sizes (40 vs 120) through the Lanchester laws, but it delivers the intended message.
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
701
Reaction score
824
Aggressor F-16 has IRST
I mean I guess infrared is better than radars, i have no idea.

What do you mean by entirely blue? 20:1 kill-loss ratio that F-35As running Block 3i software (2x AMRAAM only, no gun, 7G max loading, reduced mission systems functionality) got going up against F-16A/Cs, Draken International aircraft, and F-15Cs (the 125th FW had their jets augment Red Air at times) - remember too that the dedicated aggressors are designed to use range instrumentation systems to emulate the capabilities of MiG-29s, Flankers, etc (even using virtual radars, etc to emulate the mission systems of other jets).

That chart on the right is then running through 5 scenarios where a Blue Air comprising of 40 jets (100% 4.5th gen on the left, then 75%, 50%, 25% and then finally 100% F-35s on the right) goes up against 120 Red Air jets of equivalent 4.5th gen capability. Red losses are shown above the horizontal axis, Blue losses underneath. Colours designate what Blue Air jet made the kill or was killed.

So initially on the left 6x 4.5th gen Red Air fighters are killed and 20x Blue Air 4.5th gen fighters are killed. On the second-last from the right all 120 Red Air are killed, with something like 95-99% of kills made by F-35s and the remainder made by the Blue Air 4.5th gens. Meanwhile 19 Blue Air jets are killed, with about half being 4.5th gen and half being F-35s.

It's a very simplistic / simplified analysis that's just running those 2 kill ratios, the availability rate and force sizes (40 vs 120) through the Lanchester laws, but it delivers the intended message.
Read his source, read the graph, may I kindly ask where you are getting that only 2 amraams were used? Since I am assuming that your looking at a different source than the one I am looking at from Forest Green unless my vision is that bad that I have to see an eye doctor or ask lasik for a refund? This article was published in October 2021, graph is showing January, February 2017 red flag exercies and I am assuming that block 3I isnt used by that date correct but full weapons? I just want to be sure were both on the same page here before I decide to pass judgement.
 

Similar threads

Top