The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[lantinian]

Sprey and Wheeler argued in a editorial published on Sept. 10, that the F-35 which weighs in "at 49,500 lb air-to-air take-off weight, with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter."

These guys obviously compare different configurations under different circumstances.

F-35A has empty weight is 29,036 lb
Add max internal fuel 18,480 lb,
4xAMRAAMs 1884 lb,
Gun+Amunution 500 lb,
pilot at 250 lb and
you have a total of about 50,000 lb.

Best information for the power of F135 is 43,000 lb.
A simple math give us a trust to weight ration of 0,86.

The fighter with the best trust to weight ration the F-35 is replacing will be the F-16. If the AirForce does not buy the F-35, they will need to buy more F-16s like those they sold to UAE - the F-16E/F

F-16E/F empty weight is 22,000 lb.
Add max internal + external fuel(3x fuel tanks) 20,760 lb,
4xAMRAAMs 1884,
Gun+Amunition 550 lb,
pilot at 250 and
you have a total of 45,000 lb .

With max trust of the F110-GE-132 at 32,500 lb,
we have a trust to weight ration of 0,72

So, in a similar long rage intercept mission with similar weapons, F-35A vs F-16E/F goes as follows.
Trust to weight ratio: 0,86 vs 0,72
Max speed: Mach 1,6 vs Mach 0,96
Sustained G: 9 vs 6-7 (
External Drag and RCS: Low vs Huge

It's visible to the naked eye that F-35 brings improvement in every performance category and quantum leap in some.

To me, the best way to compare pure fighter performance potential is to look at trust to weight ratios of military power vs aircraft empty weight. Configurations can very and often lead to misleading conclusions.

In that scenario F-35 gets 1.07
which is more than F-16E/F with 0,86
or F-16A with 0,90.
Even SU-35BM has just 1,00

The top players in performance being
Eurofighter with 1,26
and F-22A with 1,33

So, unless you load the F-35 with a lot more payload/fuel than the F-16 it will always have more power and will always fly in cleaner aerodynamic configuration.

The Thunderbirds will be happy to transition to the new plane if they have the chance. But thats unlikely to happen for many years.

 

[donnage99]

Most of the criticism of the f-35's stealth characteristic are focused on its nozzles. That led me to wonder, does anyone know or better yet have a picture/drawing of the final production model's nozzle? 'cause the nozzles on the test vehicles flown right now do not incorporate stealth features into its nozzles for cost purpose.

 

[AeroFranz]

A 2-D nozzle would be stealthier. If they keep the axisymmetric nozzle, then the nozzle petals could at least be shaped like those of a recent (last three years) trial installation on an F-16. They had curious "pointy" petals. Anyone know what i am talking about? I am looking for a picture and will post when I find one.

 

[sferrin]

Most of the criticism of the f-35's stealth characteristic are focused on its nozzles. That led me to wonder, does anyone know or better yet have a picture/drawing of the final production model's nozzle? 'cause the nozzles on the test vehicles flown right now do not incorporate stealth features into its nozzles for cost purpose.

Could you be more specific? The nozzles on the current F-35s have the serrated edges specifically for RCS reasons.

 

[sferrin]

A 2-D nozzle would be stealthier. If they keep the axisymmetric nozzle, then the nozzle petals could at least be shaped like those of a recent (last three years) trial installation on an F-16. They had curious "pointy" petals. Anyone know what i am talking about? I am looking for a picture and will post when I find one.

You're thinking of LOAN probably. As I recall it had 8-12 "points". The F135 has points as well, just more of them and smaller.

 

[AeroFranz]

You're thinking of LOAN probably. As I recall it had 8-12 "points". The F135 has points as well, just more of them and smaller.

That's the one I was thinking of. I finally found a picture here:
http://www.habu2.net/vipers/viperblocks/

 

[donnage99]

Most of the criticism of the f-35's stealth characteristic are focused on its nozzles. That led me to wonder, does anyone know or better yet have a picture/drawing of the final production model's nozzle? 'cause the nozzles on the test vehicles flown right now do not incorporate stealth features into its nozzles for cost purpose.

Could you be more specific? The nozzles on the current F-35s have the serrated edges specifically for RCS reasons.

That's what I thought too, until I saw the picture in Code One Magazine:

To reduce cost, the nozzles of engines flown on the first aircraft do not have the low-observable characteristics that will be found on engines for subsequent aircraft.

 

[sferrin]

Most of the criticism of the f-35's stealth characteristic are focused on its nozzles. That led me to wonder, does anyone know or better yet have a picture/drawing of the final production model's nozzle? 'cause the nozzles on the test vehicles flown right now do not incorporate stealth features into its nozzles for cost purpose.

Could you be more specific? The nozzles on the current F-35s have the serrated edges specifically for RCS reasons.

That's what I thought too, until I saw the picture in Code One Magazine:

To reduce cost, the nozzles of engines flown on the first aircraft do not have the low-observable characteristics that will be found on engines for subsequent aircraft.

Well if you look at that picture and then the most recent aircraft you'll see the difference is where the fuselage ends. On the picture you posted it has a straight edge. Take a look at this more recent aircraft. Also they could be talking about different coatings on the nozzle itself which might be impossible to tell from a picture unless you knew what to look for.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

These early F-35 prototypes are for vehicle systems testing in a flight environment. AA-1 isn't even in the production configuration being of the pre-weight loss design. So assessing the final outer mould line from pictures of these aircraft and then making a call on the radar cross section of the production F-35 is very, very foolish. On the 2-D vs 3-D nozzle stealthiness the F-35 utilizes a design based on the IHPTET low signature axisymmetric advanced nozzle which was designed to have similar RCS to the F-22's 2-D nozzle but weigh less and be cheaper.

 

[rousseau]

Does the picture you guys here posted hint our that the sawtooth bring the stealth effectiveness?

 

[sferrin]

These early F-35 prototypes are for vehicle systems testing in a flight environment. AA-1 isn't even in the production configuration being of the pre-weight loss design. So assessing the final outer mould line from pictures of these aircraft and then making a call on the radar cross section of the production F-35 is very, very foolish.

Who here is doing that?

On the 2-D vs 3-D nozzle stealthiness the F-35 utilizes a design based on the IHPTET low signature axisymmetric advanced nozzle which was designed to have similar RCS to the F-22's 2-D nozzle but weigh less and be cheaper.

IHPTET has nothing to do with the nozzle. LOAN (Low-Observable Asymmetric Nozzle) is the ancestor here, IHPTET is purely engine, nothing at all to do with the RCS of the nozzle.

 

[donnage99]

These early F-35 prototypes are for vehicle systems testing in a flight environment. AA-1 isn't even in the production configuration being of the pre-weight loss design. So assessing the final outer mould line from pictures of these aircraft and then making a call on the radar cross section of the production F-35 is very, very foolish.

Who here is doing that?

He's probably talking about Carl Kopp.

 

[lantinian]

On the 2-D vs 3-D nozzle stealthiness the F-35 utilizes a design based on the IHPTET low signature axisymmetric advanced nozzle which was designed to have similar RCS to the F-22's 2-D nozzle but weigh less and be cheaper.

There is absolutely no way for the F135 nozzle to be as stealthy as the F119 one. To learn why notice the change some F-22 panels undergone in the 1994 signature reduction measure redesign. In few words: Less sawtooth edges. Reducing the shape to as few corners as possible decreases scattering and help vs longer wavelengths. That is one big reason B-2 is much stealthier than F-117 even though it is way bigger. Same thing for the nozzle.

He's probably talking about Carl Kopp.

Indeed. Though, I think the man deserved to have his articles fully read, not just the headlines.

I would however agree with the F135 nozzle approach of adding the most LO per pound of weight features. I might be wrong but I think the F/B-23 Fast Theater Attack model from Northrop also used the same type of nozzle even though the engine was F-136 I believe. That was probably done to cut cost, rather than adopt the YF-23 type of exhaust but it nevertheless shows the nozzle to be stealthy as it is.

If I had to arrange them according to LO of the Nozzle. YF-23>F-22>>F-35.

Further, I doubt there is much LO coating on the F135 nozzle. If they eliminated Supersonic Bomber designs from the NGLRS due to immaturity of high supersonic LO materials.....the conditions over a 43,000 engine nozzle are far worse when it comes to both temperature and vibration. They just don't have RAMs for those conditions yet.

 

[donnage99]

I wonder if the f-35 will get a system similar to AN/ALR-94 that spread around the leading edge like the f-22.

To F-14D: Isn't the f-22 carrying a AN/AAR 56 Infra-Red sensor for missile approach warning. Any modern aircraft would have some sorta infared related system for missile approach warning.

 

[lantinian]

I wonder if the f-35 will get a system similar to AN/ALR-94 that spread around the leading edge like the f-22.

I think it has. It just does not have as many antennas as the F-22. Something like less than 10, compared to more than 30 for the Raptor.
I don't have exact number though

 

[doolyii]

I am surprised to see that F-35 is even compared with F-22...let alone F-16. Unlike LWF program (F-16) which started as 'alternative' to expensive (and huge) F-15 back in Fighter Mafia days, JSF started as CAS platform, based on assumption that air dominance will be taken care of by ATF class (now F-22) airplane (lesson learned..no competition like F-16/F-15 again).

If I remember correctly, air to air requirement was relaxed due to weight issue (it did not require huge improvement over F-16 class), and it has two ammraam class missile for self defense, not in the mold of F-22/F-15 type air dominance mission.

System wise, F-35 will be brand new of course, airframe/powerplant/aerodynamics performance wise, I don't think it will be hugely different than F-16. Against latest Eurocanards and/or Russian fighters, I am not sure. Again, that portion of business will be done by F-22 or F/A-18E/F for US.

I am still waiting to see how the final performance number would look like. Replacement for Harrier / F-16 CAS / and basic F/A-18 C/D, it will do what it was planned, A-10 portion I don't think it will. Substituting F-22 class ? I doubt it. Of course, due to current economic situation and perceived cost benefit of JSF, it may be spin as F-22 alternative..but that was not the original specification, and wing shape (low sweep, shorter span), engine (high bypass turbofan), fuel fraction (don't recall, but not much) tells it was designed to do what current F-16 is doing (transonic, medium altitude) with better system and stealth attribute, under cost restraint..Still, getting three different version within reasonably common airframe and system would be a huge achievement.

Just my opinion..

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Just my opinion..

Which is unfortunately hugely wrong. Not that its your fault. Most of the 'journalistic' data out there about the F-35 is based on equally wrong assumptions and a lack of knowledge filled in with misplaced historical pattern forming.

It doesn't matter what the JSF started as - and frankly it started from so many projects that any type for type connection is useless - what matters is what it was specified to do from the design stage. And this included a huge amount of air to air.

The key thing to understand about the F-35 is it will achieve its air to air capability not by aerodynamics but by digital systems. It will be the first high angle off bore sight (HOBS) fighter and as such will be able to defeat ANY and I mean ANY (F-22 included) preceding fighter in a within visual range (WVR) 'dogfight'. It will do this because its missiles will do the turning enabling it to retain high energy and engage targets at up to 180 degrees off boresight (ie full spherical engagement).

As a beyond visual range (BVR) dogfighter only the F-22 is better but that is without outside input. Because the F-35 will have far superior networking capability (Link 22 vs Link 0) it will be able to fenjoy higher levels of EMCON supported by long range IRST. This may be a difference in many missions. What advantages the F-22 has in WVR would be offset by two F-35s in the air for each F-22, which is a reasonable assumption considering the cost differences.

When the F-35 emerges from 2020 in the Block V and higher configuration carrying at least 8 JDRADMs it will be even more capable.

 

[doolyii]

If it's about super agile missile (say Python 5 / 9X / ASRAAM class) and HMS goes with it, then F-35 won't offer any advantage over current aircraft with equal missile with HMS. Networking capability, systems (however superior it may be) will be matched or surpassed by upgrades or planned update of competing fighters.

Difficulty in export success of Swedish offering even with superior (and working now) networking capability (Gripen) lead them into developing scaled up and higher thrust version, so good old aerodynamics based sheer performance is still big part of the equation. 1. Speed-Height / 2. Maneuverability-agility / 3. Stealth / 4. System are all important, and JSF is superior in 3,4, comparable in 2, need some cover in 1. Overall system will win the day instead of sheer aerodynamic performance was also big justification of F/A-18 E/F's perceived lack of aerodynamic performance, but its relatively weak export record so far tells something else must be important too.

Super agile missile WVR, and system awareness are extremely important, but if the opposing forces has speed and height advantage plus BVR capability, I don't see how WVR capability can be more than self defense, because opponent can engage and disengage at will. So, if talking about WVR capability, I don't see why it needs to spend that much effort in stealth at all. relatively high BPR (0.56? about same as F-100) of F135 (that engine was the biggest thing I've ever seen...still remember the day I saw first prototype engine...it was next to F-100...it was huge..), not sure how it can fare with lower BPR engined aircraft without using afterburner, which will be exposed with high IR signature..

That being said, any opposition will be cleaned up by F-22 class forces..so I am not too worried..Don't get me wrong, I love F-35 and F-135 engine...after all, I spent quite a time on that thing during my tenure at Pratt..

That being said, F-35 will do the job it was designed..better than Typhoon / Russians, even F-18 E/F ? I have to wait and see how it will perform after initial development stage is over. For now, it's an open question.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

we can find just as convincing material but opposite point of view, so just have to wait and see what JSF will do for me..

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If it's about super agile missile (say Python 5 / 9X / ASRAAM class) and HMS goes with it, then F-35 won't offer any advantage over current aircraft with equal missile with HMS. Networking capability, systems (however superior it may be) will be matched or surpassed by upgrades or planned update of competing fighters.

Helmet mounted sights are NOT high angle off bore sight (HOBS). The F-35A with AIM-120D and JDRADM will be able to shoot at all angles thanks to its distributed aperture system (DAS).

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

we can find just as convincing material but opposite point of view, so just have to wait and see what JSF will do for me..

That page is full of so many flaws it isn't funny. If like APA you want to ignore (or not be aware) all the new technology going into the F-35, invent an operational concept for it that bears little resemblance to what real air forces are planning to do with it and load every decision point against the F-35 then you can come to that conclusion. If you want all you answers laid out for you for free on the internet then you get Wikipedia quality data like APA.

 

[donnage99]

That being said, F-35 will do the job it was designed..better than Typhoon / Russians, even F-18 E/F ? I have to wait and see how it will perform after initial development stage is over. For now, it's an open question.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

we can find just as convincing material but opposite point of view, so just have to wait and see what JSF will do for me..

another victim of Carlo Kopps I see. This website's main purpose is to get orders for the f-111 upgrade for their company. This is the same guy that blown up everything that's Russian, doubting any claims made by Lockheed or the Air Force yet gladly embraced Russian claims without a doubt, and said NOTHING accept f-22 can overcome russian products, yet proposed the f-111 "pig" as a replacement for air superiority. Carlo Kopp and his clowns have been disproved so many times. Here's an example:
http://ozzyblizzard.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=3

I'm sorry that my post is vicious toward Airpower, but I'm just very angry at their desperate attempt of dishonesty (if you follow the news, these guys are even more desperate in the last few days). It's not that they are ignorant (Karl Kopps done some very informative articles that were not related to Australia's decision to buy superhornet and f-35), it's that they are intentionally putting out false information and half facts to push for their exterior motive.

As for the f-35's dogfight capability. Agility is its KNIFE, but its GUN is EODAS, which enables it to have the first shot in any merge of dogfight from any angle.

 

[doolyii]

Ha ha, obviously Dr. Kopp prefers F-111 (too much) as well as F-22...biased he probably is. Grain of salt when reading his post ? Yes definitely. Totally lying ? I doubt it. Every article, analysis report, business case they do have an agenda and mix fact/data/bias to prove their points, so it's hard to believe anything...Like

As an aircraft engineer, and propulsion guy, I just had some doubt about its aerodynamic performance, may be I should reconsider factors of other weapon system perspectives (I have to revise thesis now !!!)..thanks for the insight.

One thing I know for sure, it's plenty enough capability against taliban and Iran (may be)...hopefully enough for N. Korea and China (may be)..

 

[donnage99]

Ha ha, obviously Dr. Kopp prefers F-111 (too much) as well as F-22...biased he probably is. Grain of salt when reading his post ? Yes definitely. Totally lying ? I doubt it. Every article, analysis report, business case they do have an agenda and mix fact/data/bias to prove their points, so it's hard to believe anything...Like

As an aircraft engineer, and propulsion guy, I just had some doubt about its aerodynamic performance, may be I should reconsider factors of other weapon system perspectives (I have to revise thesis now !!!)..thanks for the insight.

One thing I know for sure, it's plenty enough capability against taliban and Iran (may be)...hopefully enough for N. Korea and China (may be)..

In term of aerodynamic performance alone, if you don't take into account the fact that any modern fighter out there has to carry fuel tanks, sensor pods, weapons, etc. under its wings, which greatly reduced their speed and agility due to massive drag, then the f-35 is aerodynamically worrying. However, they do have to carry these junks in combat load out, while the f-35 doesn't have to, since these stuff are built into the airframe, and weapons are stored internally in stealth mode. It's logical to only assume that f-35 will be able to out accelerate, out turn any fighters accept f-22, especially with 40,000+lbf of thrust for a single engine fighter.

 

[flateric]

Kopp looks (just IMHO) as an average company outsourcing IT man, why desperately insists reporting to company chief that his company must buy a mega-PFLOPS IBM Roadrunner instead of buying good desktops - just because his personal hobby is supercomputers (he even has Cray-2 scale paper model at home).

 

[LowObservable]

JSF was launched originally as 70 per cent air to ground, 30 per cent air to air. Not surprisingly since the biggest customer was the USAF, planning at that point to acquire 442 F-22s. Look at the design and you see an F-117 + daylight operations (situational awareness/self defense) + through-weather (SAR) + moving targets (GMTI + EOTS) + the ability on Day Two to carry external weapons and hit more targets (wing pylons).

Abe is correct in one aspect: the idea is that you decline the merge and blow through the fight using DAS to track targets and provide cueing to a lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) HOBS missile.

The first problem is that in LO configuration the F-35 does not have one. Although the AIM-120 has a HOBS mode, its aerodynamics are optimized for long range (given a relatively small motor) and a radar seeker is distinctly not optimal for this job because bearing resolution is only as good as the antenna size and beamwidth.

The second problem is that you are assuming that air combat will change to suit the F-35.

Also, Block 5 is due at about 2018 (with two year blocks) and I would be interested to see the plan that produces a JDRADM, small enough to fit eight in a JSF, by that time.

 

[lantinian]

Also, Block 5 is due at about 2018 (with two year blocks) and I would be interested to see the plan that produces a JDRADM, small enough to fit eight in a JSF, by that time.

Yes, that will be interesting to see. If the F-35 can carry up to 8 JDRADMs, then the F-22 will carry up to 10, perhaps even 12. Those kind of capabilities will put many critics to rest. That may be the reason why no apparent effort is put into integrating more AMRAAMS into the F-35. It will be like the AIM-9M on the Raptor. Provide just basic capability.

Here is a link to a good presentation of the Air Dominance missile culminating in the JDRADM
http://freebsd48.googlepages.com/AirDominanceMissileDesign.pdf

 

[donnage99]

JSF was launched originally as 70 per cent air to ground, 30 per cent air to air. Not surprisingly since the biggest customer was the USAF, planning at that point to acquire 442 F-22s. Look at the design and you see an F-117 + daylight operations (situational awareness/self defense) + through-weather (SAR) + moving targets (GMTI + EOTS) + the ability on Day Two to carry external weapons and hit more targets (wing pylons).

Abe is correct in one aspect: the idea is that you decline the merge and blow through the fight using DAS to track targets and provide cueing to a lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) HOBS missile.

The first problem is that in LO configuration the F-35 does not have one. Although the AIM-120 has a HOBS mode, its aerodynamics are optimized for long range (given a relatively small motor) and a radar seeker is distinctly not optimal for this job because bearing resolution is only as good as the antenna size and beamwidth.

The second problem is that you are assuming that air combat will change to suit the F-35.

Also, Block 5 is due at about 2018 (with two year blocks) and I would be interested to see the plan that produces a JDRADM, small enough to fit eight in a JSF, by that time.

First day of war, I doubt any f-35 will come in alone, or any aircraft for that matter after the introduction of stealthy air to air capable aircrafts. The only exception being b-2 and f-117 back when US didn't have any stealth air dominance aircraft to accompany them. Anyway, back to f-35 comes in in pack, perhaps one f-35 with air to ground weapons and BVR air to air missiles, and the other(s) with all air to air missiles, including short range missiles. The problem only arises in a scenario where only one lone f-35 with air to ground bombs and 2 aim-120 comes into the merge of a dogfight, but then it doesn't, as they will be in pact of several aircrafts in first day of war.

Second of all, what do you mean by air combat will change to fit f-35?

 

[Racer]

First day of war, I doubt any f-35 will come in alone,...

For countries like Netherlands and Norway it does.

So they have to counter modernized fighters like Su-35 (or whatever) in air-to-air combat. And they'll have HOBS, with much better HOBS-missiles as an AMRAAM to.

-->means only equal capabilities without the better aerodynamic performance.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe is correct in one aspect: the idea is that you decline the merge and blow through the fight using DAS to track targets and provide cueing to a lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) HOBS missile.

DAS and HOBS doesn't mean the F-35 declines the merge just that it will act differently through the merge and in other WVR situations. Basically the F-35A doesn't have to maneuver. It can retain its original or slightly changed vector and keep all its kinematic advantage. Air combat maneuvers only serve two purposes: to keep the other fighter in sight (lose sight, lose fight) and to bring them into the firing arc of your weapons. The F-35 will have a full spherical SA tracking and engagement system thanks to DAS and HOBS. Since DAS and HOBS keep everyone in sight (and identified) at all times without the pilot having to move his head or vector and enable engagement in a similar way the F-35 has a huge advantage over everyone else. Why maneuver when you can stay fast?

The first problem is that in LO configuration the F-35 does not have one. Although the AIM-120 has a HOBS mode, its aerodynamics are optimized for long range (given a relatively small motor) and a radar seeker is distinctly not optimal for this job because bearing resolution is only as good as the antenna size and beamwidth.

AIM-120D will have a range of HOBS friendly improvements. For short range engagement obviously the customized JDRADM will be much better with its multi-mode seeker and motor. But part of the AIM-120D and JDRADM HOBS capability is a two way data link to enable target updating from the DAS. This will enable a much better engagement capability at short range for the AIM-120D.

The second problem is that you are assuming that air combat will change to suit the F-35.

Not at all. Everyone else can keep turning and burning and that will make the F-35 even more lethal by comparison. With an F-35 in the air the last thing anyone else will want to do is get into a furball. They will try and stay fast and far away for WVR engagements.

Also, Block 5 is due at about 2018 (with two year blocks) and I would be interested to see the plan that produces a JDRADM, small enough to fit eight in a JSF, by that time.

JDRADM will be the same size as an AMRAAM but the F-35 will be able to carry many of them from Block 5 because of the (albeit potential) availability of a multi-stores capability for the F-35. This will enable F-35A/C to carry up to four AMRAAM sized stores in each of its internal bays. Production JDRADM won't be available until 2020 at the earliest.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes, that will be interesting to see. If the F-35 can carry up to 8 JDRADMs, then the F-22 will carry up to 10, perhaps even 12. Those kind of capabilities will put many critics to rest. That may be the reason why no apparent effort is put into integrating more AMRAAMS into the F-35. It will be like the AIM-9M on the Raptor. Provide just basic capability.

Not at all. JDRADM is an AMRAAM sized store. The F-22 will be limited to six for internal carriage. And with out full spherical targeting systems and advanced data links the F-22 will not be able to leverage full JDRADM capability.

There is plenty of effort into integrating more AMRAAM sized stores into the F-35. Since not much effort is actually required and there are a range of valid and invalid but equally strong political arguments against making a big deal out of it you don't hear much. USAF's attempts to keep the F-22 alive mean that emphasizing the F-35's air to air capabilities is not a good idea and the F-35 project do not want to grow the cost and complexity in any way until they have production contract signatures.

 

[donnage99]

i don't think so. I think they'll go in pact. There's no way in first day of war, any aircraft would go in alone, unless you can only afford 20 aircrafts in the whole entire airforce

anyway, I'm guessing DAS guides the missile toward the enemy until it comes within its field of views? 'cause no matter how HOBS, there's no way a missile gets a lock on a target right behind the aircraft according to the video. At least it needs some guidance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNMio9zN2Q

 

[Abraham Gubler]

anyway, I'm guessing DAS guides the missile toward the enemy until it comes within its field of views? 'cause no matter how HOBS, there's no way a missile gets a lock on a target right behind the aircraft according to the video. At least it needs some guidance.

F-35 with AIM-120D and JDRADM capability includes a two way data link to enable the aircraft to update the missile for the targets position and to correlate seeker lock on. Even without a two way data link and a LOAL missile like AIM-132 the aircraft can guide the missile to where it should be able to lock on.

 

[lantinian]

Here is a cool new video to watch...
http://vimeo.com/3437045

 

[fightingirish]

This short video shows the EOTS without the gold layer.
Video Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter Electro-Optical Targeting System

 

[energo]

anyway, I'm guessing DAS guides the missile toward the enemy until it comes within its field of views? 'cause no matter how HOBS, there's no way a missile gets a lock on a target right behind the aircraft according to the video. At least it needs some guidance.

EODAS has no means for guiding the missile once it leaves the aircraft. As I understand it the missile is assigned a target sector - in any direction - based on suitable input from any sensor subsystem. The missile will turn and seeker start tracking as soon as its leaves the weapons bay. It is plausible that future equiped missile types will use the EOTS laser and MADL datalink for mid coarse guidance. Perhaps even for active target aquisition, given the requirement and further development.

Bjørnar Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[flateric]

After reading THIS carefully, your hairs are rising

"We tried a lot of brainstorming techniques, but the one that proved most useful was the “a la Carte Menu”
approach. This is a technique for inventing something new by generating arbitrary combinations of existing
mechanisms. Using this technique, we made a list of all the ways to extract power from the hot, high pressure
exhaust gases at the back of the engine (for example, turbines, scoops, heat pipes, magnetohydrodynamics, etc),
and another list of all of the ways to transfer power from one point in the aircraft to another (gas ducts, drive shafts,
chain drives, superconducting wires, energy beams, etc), and a third list of all the ways to use power to generate
thrust (fans, pulse jets, explosions, piezoelectric pumps, etc.). The procedure is to arbitrarily pick one mechanism
from each column and figure out how they might be made to work together to solve your problem. Skunk Works®
engineers came up with some truly innovative concepts. For example, using the energy of the exhaust gas to pump a
gas laser, then beaming the energy forward and using it to explode the air in a pulse jet engine.

But none of these turned out to be really practical. By now it was the early summer of 1987, and the final report
was due in another month. I started to worry that I wouldn’t have anything to report. Sitting at my desk one
afternoon, looking over all the impractical ideas, I became frustrated by the realization that there’s just no better way
to extract power from exhaust gases than with a turbine. And the best way to get the power forward in an aircraft is
with a driveshaft (it’s light and doesn’t increase the cross sectional area of the fuselage), and there’s no better way to
produce vertical thrust than with a fan."


Inventing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Paul M. Bevilaqua
2009 Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition
5 - 8 January 2009, Orlando, Florida
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Palmdale, California, 93599

 

[red admiral]

But none of these turned out to be really practical.

Got to love that bit. You'd think these people would know what was practical already.

And the best way to get the power forward in an aircraft is
with a driveshaft (it’s light and doesn’t increase the cross sectional area of the fuselage), and there’s no better way to
produce vertical thrust than with a fan."

Least worst of the other options apart from Pegasus configuration thrust vectoring. The driveshaft arrangement is anything from simple from talking to the designers at RR. Largest problem is thermal expansion as the engine and fan are pinned to the airframe and the driveshaft squashed in between when running. Then designing to make sure that won't break, as if it does it results in aircraft loss.

 

[doolyii]

Interesting...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-030509.xml&headline=F-35%20Air%20Combat%20Skills%20Analyzed

 

[BDF]

The key thing to understand about the F-35 is it will achieve its air to air capability not by aerodynamics but by digital systems. It will be the first high angle off bore sight (HOBS) fighter and as such will be able to defeat ANY and I mean ANY (F-22 included) preceding fighter in a within visual range (WVR) 'dogfight'. It will do this because its missiles will do the turning enabling it to retain high energy and engage targets at up to 180 degrees off boresight (ie full spherical engagement).

I think you’re confusing the definition of acronyms. HOBS literally means High off Bore Sight and is relevant for sensors, systems and weapons. To say no other fighter has HOBS is not correct as right now eagles, vipers and rhinos (super hornets) have the JHMCS; the tiffy is getting its own HMD and the Rafale is getting one as well. All of those systems display weapon and target data overlays on the pilot’s visor and provide weapon and sensor cueing. What you’re talking about is the next step where the F-35’s HMDS can cue the weapon system to targets beyond the weapon’s nominal field of regard. The HMDS is the next big step, but I’m not convinced it’s a significant advantage in a neutral or offensive merge.

As a beyond visual range (BVR) dogfighter only the F-22 is better but that is without outside input. Because the F-35 will have far superior networking capability (Link 22 vs Link 0) it will be able to fenjoy higher levels of EMCON supported by long range IRST. This may be a difference in many missions. What advantages the F-22 has in WVR would be offset by two F-35s in the air for each F-22, which is a reasonable assumption considering the cost differences.

I don't think this is accurate. The F-35 is not getting Link 22 (I don’t think the US is even adopting that protocol); right now it’s earmarked for MADL, Link 16 in/out and later MUOS satcom link. As it stands, only the MADL is LPI compatible and is now earmarked by the USAF to link the “anti-access” (stealth) assets (B-2, F-22, and F-35) as its LPI compatible network. The F-22 will get this data link with increment 3.2 [Block 35] which is due to enter service in 2013. BTW- the F-22 always had the IFDL which allowed for local (IIRC 8 to 12) network. The MADL expands the range and the number of clients the network can support.

So the F-35’s only advantage in cooperative engagement technology is possibly IRST but from talking to guys who work the field it doesn’t sound like it’s nearly as advantageous as is often cited in brochures. I think this is particularly true when you factor in the vast kinematic differences between the two platforms and the result is -- according to LockMart recently -- an exchange ratio of ten times higher for the F-22 against near term threats. My great concern is that we don’t buy enough F-22s and we are forced to put F-35’s up against fighter that has near F-22 capability in kinematics and signature.

BDF

 

[donnage99]

Why aren't you convinced its significant advantage? I can only see the only worry is not in the practicality of the system, but in whether or not the makers can deliver the system (which is still an open question). Because if the DAS becomes reality, it will give aircraft supremacy in term of fist shot/first kill in WVR engagement. This is not just a significant advantage, but a revolutionary advantage.

As for f-35's kinematics performance, I suggest you read the previous posts of this thread.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think you’re confusing the definition of acronyms. HOBS literally means High off Bore Sight and is relevant for sensors, systems and weapons. To say no other fighter has HOBS is not correct as right now eagles, vipers and rhinos (super hornets) have the JHMCS; the tiffy is getting its own HMD and the Rafale is getting one as well. All of those systems display weapon and target data overlays on the pilot’s visor and provide weapon and sensor cueing.

I guess the acronym hasn’t been invented yet but HOBS fighter is close enough. The F-35’s ability to leverage its full spherical, automated SA and engagement capability places it in a totally new ballpark.

HOBS engagement can be targeted by another networked aircraft, HMD, etc as long as the missile is up for it. But what makes the F-35 so different to these platforms is it has onboard “HOBS” SA. The DAS system provides it with full spherical (no black spots), long range (for visual), fully automated SA. No other aircraft has anything like this.

So the F-35 pilot doesn’t have to be swinging his head around and thinking hard to maintain SA or for HOBS shots he just looks at everything presented in a nice map form HMI and clicks and shoots. This enables the F-35 to retain full SA and take any shoot, including HOBS shoots, without the need for changing its vector. So it will retain high energy throughout the dogfight.

I think this is particularly true when you factor in the vast kinematic differences between the two platforms and the result is -- according to LockMart recently -- an exchange ratio of ten times higher for the F-22 against near term threats. My great concern is that we don’t buy enough F-22s and we are forced to put F-35’s up against fighter that has near F-22 capability in kinematics and signature.

Considering the difference in acquistion numbers between F-22 and F-35 its reasonable to assume for every mission in which a single F-22 has a job you can have at least two F-35s. Because the F-22's kinematic advantage is so limited in endurance (<15 minutes of supercruise in a typical mission) I can't see it being able to do too much more than two networked F-35s.

As to fighting a near peer to F-22 that is so far in the future (if ever feasible) the F-35 will be carrying a laser and other stuff by then so the lethality index will be way against the F-22iski.