The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Sea Skimmer]

The original S-300 missiles flew a ballistic arc for long range shots, but the ceiling was limited to 40km. The way 40N6 gets its massive range improvement without being a much larger weapon is it can fly a much higher ballistic arc, over 80km as I recall. However while doing so its control are locked, because using them would cause it to tumble out of control which was the reason for the original limit. The control surfaces just aren’t big enough to be effective in such thin air, they can only do harm. So for that mid course ballistic arc it’s locked on a set course for a time, which makes engaging a fast moving or evasive target questionable. It can start maneuvering again as it comes back down. How well this works against a fighter, who knows. Also this method of flight control suggest that 40N6 must waste energy in its climb, in ordered to adjust the radius of the arc it will take to the target before locking control surfaces. This could be accomplished with a spinny sort of maneuver as THAAD does for most firing tests to keep it inside the firing ranges.
Supposedly all S-300s have had directional warheads, with the missile rolling as it approaches the target to aim them. It’s also been suggested that the latest ones actually gumball the warhead; I’m skeptical anyone would ever bother with that since it would waist diameter that though I’ve seen concept sketches for the idea and its at least plausible. So lethal range could be rather high for the warhead weight, but also dependent on the success of the guidance system in more ways than jet raw distance to target.

 

[SOC]

The weapon with the fixed control fins was a modified 48N6 fired in the 80s to see if they could get one out to 400 km as part of the initial development work on the S-400 concept; the ceiling was actually around 70 km for this test. It worked! They re-captured the missile using the modified TOMB STONE radar as it descended to about 20 km and guided it from there.

Only the 48N6 uses directional warheads, the 5V55s did not.

The SAGG guidance mode confers a higher degree of accuracy than pure TVM, relatively speaking, making the concept workable at range from an accuracy standpoint.

The 48N6 and 5V55 missiles do use a semi-ballistic trajectory, they top out around 38 km. They also are moving at around Mach 6 at burnout (motors run for about 10 seconds on the 5V55s and 12 seconds on the 48N6s). That velocity means very small control inputs translate into significant course deviations. The problem is that the missile bleeds off kE as it maneuvers, which causes it to lose velocity, which leaves it with less kE to maneuver again, and so on. The system gets around this by not going into full guidance mode until endgame, meaning your RWR gear likely isn't telling you "holy crap we've been shot at" until the missile is only a few seconds away. That solves part of the problem by leaving you far less time to maneuver, which is advantage: missile. Plus, again, you've got a nice big warhead to exploit as well.

It's the total combination of engagement geometry, velocity, and warhead capability that makes the system effective, even at very long range.

 

[beachhead1973]

short fo reading through 64 pages and counting of this thread, is there a professional, military-gounded place i could go to find out if canada has dropped the F-35 yet?

I do not trust wiki

I'd also like a good, trusted rundown of the development pogram.

Thank you very much

 

[BDF]

That depends on which missile you're referring to. The S-500 will likely have a secondary S/A capacity but not a design capability, as it's designed as an ABM/ASAT weapon system. The S-400's big stick, the 40N6, is likely optimized for high-visibility targets like ISR platforms and AWACS...namely, things that are not going to be able to outmaneuver it, referred to as cooperative targets. These are what you're probably going to have a significant deal of inherited capability against with the S-500. For non-cooperative, i.e. fighter-type, maneuvering targets...the 48N6 series (the S-400 uses the 48N6DM to a range of 250 km) is fully capable of blowing one up at range thanks to kinetic energy retention at endgame and a ridiculously large warhead granting a significant kill radius.

Plus, standard firing doctrine is shoot-shoot-look, with two 48N6DMs per target. Watching intercept videos of earlier 48N6 rounds used by the S-300PM (SA-20 GARGOYLE) they even appear capable of employing two different paths to the target.

So, yeah...good luck with that.

Yes that's basically was I was attempting to alucidate, that the 40N6 which gives the range that everyone raves about is an high value asset killer. The 48N6 series is generally the one to be feared by fighters. Not that I'd feel comfortable with a 40N6 barreling down on me......

 

[SOC]

The 48N6 series is generally the one to be feared by fighters.

...which has a 250 km range in the S-400's 48N6DM. That's beginning to border on the ridiculous for a high-performance SAM system.

 

[Broncazonk]

The last dozen or so posts have been incredible-GTX, SOC, Sea Skimmer, Totoro, BDF you know who you are, it's been like reading an encyclopedia-
-and what a pleasure its been to read them. Thanks.

Bronc

 

[Machdiamond]

short fo reading through 64 pages and counting of this thread, is there a professional, military-gounded place i could go to find out if canada has dropped the F-35 yet?

They have not dropped it, they are reconsidering their decision. It used to be a done deal until the Auditor General of Canada has recently established in this report http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html that the per unit price of the F-35 was not what the government has been telling the parliament ($128m rather than $75) and that "National Defence did not exercise due diligence in managing the process".
My guess on the outcome is that Canada will end up purchasing a lower number of F-35 and complement it with something else more adapted to Artic patrol.

 

[beachhead1973]

short fo reading through 64 pages and counting of this thread, is there a professional, military-gounded place i could go to find out if canada has dropped the F-35 yet?

They have not dropped it, they are reconsidering their decision. It used to be a done deal until the Auditor General of Canada has recently established in this report http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html that the per unit price of the F-35 was not what the government has been telling the parliament ($128m rather than $75) and that "National Defence did not exercise due diligence in managing the process".
My guess on the outcome is that Canada will end up purchasing a lower number of F-35 and complement it with something else more adapted to Artic patrol.

We do have a LOT of territory to cover up there.

 

[fightingirish]

An F-35C carrier variant test aircraft performs high-speed flyovers at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL0_A2g8TKM

 

[shedofdread]

Enjoyed the video - thanks.

I posted this question a little while ago but I think it got hoovered up in the great 'clear-out' -

Will there be different levels of F35? By that, I mean will it be similar to the MQ9 situation (RAF / USAF run one version and others get a lesser one)? I ask because with this being such an important platform yet so widely exported, the risk of 'leakage' and the impact thereof will be high.

Regards,

S

 

[Triton]

Video of first F-35 night refueling tests at Edwards AFB, Calif. in March 2012.

http://youtu.be/qr1ibsrSu2A

An F-35 test pilot talks about airstart testing at Edwards AFB, Calif., in early 2012.

http://youtu.be/ue5g1jPGxu0

 

[F-14D]

Enjoyed the video - thanks.

I posted this question a little while ago but I think it got hoovered up in the great 'clear-out' -

Will there be different levels of F35? By that, I mean will it be similar to the MQ9 situation (RAF / USAF run one version and others get a lesser one)? I ask because with this being such an important platform yet so widely exported, the risk of 'leakage' and the impact thereof will be high.

Regards,

S

Within US forces, the F-35 capabilities will be pretty much identical. Internationally, that's been a subject of much debate. Clearly, Britain will get everything, but some of the other partners are not so sure, especially regarding stealth. Somecountries have been told they will not be allowed to do depot level maintenance in order to protect the stealth technology, and that's been the cause of much angst. I don't think that's really been settled yet.

 

[F-14D]

Would an F-22 that was upgraded with F-35 systems make a good strike fighter?

I'd argue that it's already a good strike fighter. You've got the ability to deliver multiple PGMs already. Add in JDRADM or whatever it's called these days and there's your SEAD/DEAD capability. The question is, what do you want it to do that it can't do already? At a minimum expanding the weapons options would make sense, such as adding JASSM (will it fit in the bay...maybe not, but perhaps bulged bay doors can be made with minimal RCS impact).

Could the existing F-22 airframe be 'navalized' in less time and for less cost than working out all the wrinkles in the F-35C?"

No. The naval F-22 design was rather different than the USAF F-22. Not as different as the YF-23 to the NATF-23, but still quite different. At a minimum you'd have to beef up the airframe in spots, adding weight and potentially impacting maneuverability and acceleration unless you uprate the F119s or figure out a way to get F135s in there. Need beefier landing gear and an arrestor hook. Then you have to see if the aerodynamics need to be modded to deal with the standard carrier landing flight profile. You could probably do it if you really wanted to, but I'd bet it's not going to be cheaper than going forward with the F-35C.

It's not that simple to port over F-35 systems to the Raptor. For one thing the systems on the F-35, like those on the F-22 are tightly integrated with the aircraft. That's both the blessing and the cures of the high level of computerization of our upcoming aircraft. For another, the F-22 uses a unique closed architecture which means it's hard to port anything dramatic from another aircraft. There are talks of going to an open architecture as used by the F-35 and other vehicles at the time the F-22's processors are replaced with modern technology units, but there is as yet no funding to actually work on doing that. Maybe it'll be part of the still nebulous Increment 3.3 that may start in the post 2020 timeframe.

On operational F-22s below increment 3.1 (which is virtually all of them) strike capabilities are limited to the two JDAM, which I don't believe can easily be retargeted during the mission. Increment 3.1 will give the capability to carry and use eight SDBs in the bay, but only against two preprogrammed targets. Increment 3.2 (b?) will give the capability to use each SDB against a different target and to retarget them. There are no plans to put powered a/g weapons in the bay, or even even the standoff SDB II. JASSM and JASSM-ER are probably too long to fit in F-22's bay (in fact even F-35 will only carry them externally).

Sadly, the Administration is canceling JDRADM in the FY13 budget.

While sharing many systems with the F-22A, the naval F-22 was substantially different aircraft and required its own production line. Among other things, it was a variable geometry aircraft. The Navy pulled out because of the tremendous cost of a naval F-22 and because it was thought to be too much fighter, not enough strike and even with the A-12 coming (they thought) they wanted their fighters to have a significant strike potential as a secondary role.

 

[GTX]

Within US forces, the F-35 capabilities will be pretty much identical. Internationally, that's been a subject of much debate. Clearly, Britain will get everything, but some of the other partners are not so sure, especially regarding stealth. Somecountries have been told they will not be allowed to do depot level maintenance in order to protect the stealth technology, and that's been the cause of much angst. I don't think that's really been settled yet.

My understanding is that those nations who are part of the development program (i.e. UK, Australia, Italy, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Turkey) all get the same basic F-35 as the USA. There is no 'export variant' for these countries. I believe the same goes for the F-35s both Israel and Japan have selected. Outside of that it will be a case by case basis...though I suspect that anyone approved to get the F-35 will get the full package.

My understanding of the maintenance aspect isn't so much tied to releasability of technology, but rather for cost purposes: one of the aspects of the F-35 program is that there is also pooled sustainment solutions. If any one country wants to be different however (say, they want their own full coatings capability), then they have to be prepared to pay to be different (this includes not only the cost of their own facility, but also potentially the cost from making the 'pooled' solution less efficient). In many cases, countries may baulk at this. That said, the whole issue of how F-35s will be sustained is still one in need of a lot of work. Up until now, most focus has been on developing/producing aircraft. There is however growing focus on the sustainment side...a lot of this is being driven by the partner nations too.

 

[F-14D]

Within US forces, the F-35 capabilities will be pretty much identical. Internationally, that's been a subject of much debate. Clearly, Britain will get everything, but some of the other partners are not so sure, especially regarding stealth. Somecountries have been told they will not be allowed to do depot level maintenance in order to protect the stealth technology, and that's been the cause of much angst. I don't think that's really been settled yet.

My understanding is that those nations who are part of the development program (i.e. UK, Australia, Italy, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Turkey) all get the same basic F-35 as the USA. There is no 'export variant' for these countries. I believe the same goes for the F-35s both Israel and Japan have selected. Outside of that it will be a case by case basis...though I suspect that anyone approved to get the F-35 will get the full package.

My understanding of the maintenance aspect isn't so much tied to releasability of technology, but rather for cost purposes: one of the aspects of the F-35 program is that there is also pooled sustainment solutions. If any one country wants to be different however (say, they want their own full coatings capability), then they have to be prepared to pay to be different (this includes not only the cost of their own facility, but also potentially the cost from making the 'pooled' solution less efficient). In many cases, countries may baulk at this. That said, the whole issue of how F-35s will be sustained is still one in need of a lot of work. Up until now, most focus has been on developing/producing aircraft. There is however growing focus on the sustainment side...a lot of this is being driven by the partner nations too.

One of the not yet publicly settled is the level of stealth that goes to the non-Tier 1 (US & UK) operators, and the level of access they'll have to repairs of the a/c. Italy specifically and loudly wanted to be able to do depot maintenance and realizes it'll cost more. They want to learn how to do the advanced production techniques necessary which they could then use(not the stealth, of course) in developing their own advanced manufacturing, not necessarily in aircraft.

 

[bobbymike]

F-35C High Speed Pass. Is it just me or does the engine sound really cool and different from other fighters?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL0_A2g8TKM&feature=player_embedded

 

[shedofdread]

F14D - thanks for that info. Not yet settled, eh? Thought that might be the case...

As to the engine noise, I know it's been a long time since I heard one but why am I reminded of af F104? Hmmmm... Something about the whistle (airframe noise?) and the low notes?

 

[Mike Pryce]

The first UK F-35B may be about to fly today:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a08cf4b73-7a93-4995-8aa6-db4019e3d138&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

50 years ago this month the UK issued the joint OR356/AW406 requirement for the Hawker P.1154. Half a century on the country's first supersonic STOVL aircraft is finally set to fly - albeit thousands of miles away.

Good luck to all those involved in the flight. They will have achieved something that thwarted many others.

 

[robunos]

short fo reading through 64 pages and counting of this thread, is there a professional, military-gounded place i could go to find out if canada has dropped the F-35 yet?

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120411/liberals-accuse-conservatives-of-lying-on-f35s-120411/


cheers,
Robin.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Um, he did ask for "a professional, military-gounded place". That article does not even come close.

 

[LowObservable]

On Stealth access, from report found here:

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=126148

"Alenia personnel operating in the paint shops in the Cameri Faco will apply the special paint that contributes to the low radar signature of the F-35.
Even after analyzing the product, the formula of the paint cannot be duplicated because even an understanding of its basic elements will yield neither
their individual percentages nor the action of the additives used by their American makers."

"The Faco would allow Alenia Aeronautica to assemble and test complete aircraft in full autonomy, except for measuring the level
of aircraft stealthiness, which is currently considered a critical element by the United States. Indeed the plan foresees the building within the Cameri
Faco of a separate section to measure the stealthiness, fully fitted out by the American prime contractor and exclusively reserved for US staff."

On Canada: The core of the issue is that DND decided that they wanted to buy JSF without a competition and then wrote a requirement that only JSF could meet. They did this because they were under industry pressure to make a decision. (That probably came from LockMart, who knew by 2009-10 that the program could not make the published schedule.)

The government then used the DND's custom-made requirement as a club to beat their critics and to silence any opposition to the non-competed buy (which they were likely under pressure from Washington to announce).

What's amusing is that the F-35 won't meet the Canadian requirement if they can't get the EO-DAS video feed to the HMDS to work properly, with adequate resolution and latency, which the QLR report called "high technical risk", because that's one of the things they made mandatory.

 

[SpudmanWP]

What is more likely is that the DnD saw the operational success of VLO assets like the F-117, B-2, & F-22 and decided the spec should meet these abilities. They then realized that nobody else was going to be able to produce a VLO fighter in the timeframe needed in order to replace the CF-18. The fact that nobody to this date has a western fighter anywhere near the F-35's capabilities bares this out.

Was the DnD supposed to handicap their requirements in order to allow other fighters to meet them?

 

[robunos]

@SpudmanWP :-


He also asked "if Canada has dropped the F-35 yet?" which was the part I was replying to.....


cheers,
Robin.

 

[LowObservable]

Spud - I'm sure that DND was impressed by the VLO story. Do you have any specific information as to what level of access Canada has to B-2, F-117 and F-22, however? My impression is that the UK has the only open doors there.

Also, DND was working with 2008-2009 schedules and numbers, and had no clue whether (for example) the French approach of reduced RCS, good EW and the SCALP option would offer comparable survivability and effectiveness across Canada's likely mission set.

They had no clue because they never asked. They read the magazines, went to one dealership and bought the car.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Spud - I'm sure that DND was impressed by the VLO story. Do you have any specific information as to what level of access Canada has to B-2, F-117 and F-22, however? My impression is that the UK has the only open doors there.

All partners had access to classified data before any development agreements were signed.

Also, DND was working with 2008-2009 schedules and numbers, and had no clue whether (for example) the French approach of reduced RCS, good EW and the SCALP option would offer comparable survivability and effectiveness across Canada's likely mission set.

You're making some big assumptions with NOTHING to back them up with. Many keep bringing up the Great White North and patrolling it as Canada's greatest need. What does SCALP have to do with that?

The fact is that a VLO airframe starts out with all the advantages of survivability and can always add EW and standoff weapons to make it even MORE effective. 4th gen assets will need RCS reduction AND EW/standoff weapons in order to just TRY to survive.

They had no clue because they never asked. They read the magazines, went to one dealership and bought the car.

That's compete and utter hogwash.

 

[LowObservable]

Usual politeness that we come to expect.

Canada certainly never obtained full data on the Super Hornet and contacts were limited to preliminary discussions. Given RCAF/USN contacts it would be astonishing if talks with any other manufacturer went beyond that, but if you have evidence to the contrary it would be fascinating to see it.

I'm sure all partners had access to some classified data. But what I asked was what level of access they had to other stealth programs. First-hand visits to the operational units? Runs through the operational training and rehearsal sims? Debrief with the maintenance teams? Or was it (more likely) formally presented through the JPO/Contractor team?

Why do you drag up the Great White North? And act as if I had linked SCALP to it? My own view is that if you want to procure equipment, you start with your missions and (simplistically) look for the system that fits your budget and on average is best at the missions you consider most important and that you expect to perform most often. Can you show where Canada did that?

"The fact is that a VLO airframe starts out with all the advantages of survivability and can always add EW and standoff weapons to make it even MORE effective."

Talk about assumptions. Unless you have one of the two potential standoff weapons (the slow one or the little one) that fits in the F-35 weapon bays, you have just turned it into an inferior imitation of a Rafale.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Canada certainly never obtained full data on the Super Hornet and contacts were limited to preliminary discussions. Given RCAF/USN contacts it would be astonishing if talks with any other manufacturer went beyond that, but if you have evidence to the contrary it would be fascinating to see it.

In legalese, "You're assuming facts not in evidence" again.

Why do you drag up the Great White North? And act as if I had linked SCALP to it?

Because you brought it up. Since Canada's primary F-35 mission is to patrol it's boarders, to mention SCALP as a means to survive is disingenuous.

My own view is that if you want to procure equipment, you start with your missions and (simplistically) look for the system that fits your budget and on average is best at the missions you consider most important and that you expect to perform most often. Can you show where Canada did that?

The primary mission of any military is to get the job done. The secondary mission is to bring your pilots home alive. The F-35 is clearly superior in both regards than any 4th gen assets today.

"The fact is that a VLO airframe starts out with all the advantages of survivability and can always add EW and standoff weapons to make it even MORE effective."

Talk about assumptions. Unless you have one of the two potential standoff weapons (the slow one or the little one) that fits in the F-35 weapon bays, you have just turned it into an inferior imitation of a Rafale.

There are three primary standoff weapons that are slated for the F-35 in a Blk3/4 timeframe. They are the SDB family, the JSOW family, and JSM. The JSM cannot be considered "slow". The JSOW-ER is also in development and not "slow".

In addition to internal standoff weapons, the F-35 is planned to carry not only JASSM and JASSM-ER, but the same SCALP that you are touting as a Rafale advantage. Before you say "but that will ruin it's RCS", the F-35 carrying a SCALP will still have a HUGE RCS advantage over a Rafael carrying a SCALP. There is also the issue of UAI wihich will allow the F-35 to carry newer weapons as they are developed without needing a Block upgrade. How are those Rafale upgrades coming?

 

[LowObservable]

If the primary mission is to patrol Canada's borders (as opposed to its boarders, who are happily ensconced in the third floor back) and the border threats comprise bombers that don't have air-to-air radar (except TWR), or (if the ice melts) ships that, if they employ radar, can be detected and ID'd outside engagement range, what is the value of stealth?

 

[SpudmanWP]

I said Primary mission, not every mission.

btw, ships can carry SAMs so the advantage of stealth is obvious.

Canada needed a fighter that will do the job and survive in every mission, not just it's primary one.

 

[Grey Havoc]

You would wonder if the once proposed F-35D variant might have met the JASDF's needs a bit better.

In other news: U.S. May Sell 4 F-35s to Japan (DefenseNews)

 

[GTX]

U.S. May Sell 4 F-35s to Japan

Standard part of FMS process...nothing to be read in to the "may".

 

[seruriermarshal]

Two Lockheed Martin F-35Bs Ferried To Eglin, Marking 25th DOD Delivery

FORT WORTH, Texas, May 10, 2012 – Two Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) production aircraft were ferried to Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., today, marking the 24th and 25th F-35 deliveries to the Department of Defense. The 5th Generation multirole fighter jets were delivered to the United States Marine Corps and are now assigned to the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing’s Marine Fighter/Attack Squadron 501 residing with the host 33d Fighter Wing.

U.S. Marine Corps pilots Maj. Joseph Bachmann and Lt. Col. Matt Kelly piloted the aircraft, known as BF-9 and BF-10 respectively, which departed Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base, Texas at 1:26 p.m. and 1:42 p.m. CDT for an approximate 90-minute flight to Florida’s Emerald Coast. The jets became the 10th and 11th F-35s to join Eglin’s fleet. Both jets will be used for pilot and maintainer training at the F-35 Integrated Training Center there.

One additional STOVL production jet, BF-11, will join the fleet at Eglin in the coming days. All three jets were formally accepted by the U.S. Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) on behalf of the Marine Corps with the signing of Department of Defense Form 250 (DD-250). BF-9 and BF-10 were accepted May 4 while BF-11 was accepted May 5. Prior to acceptance, the three F-35Bs underwent a series of company and government checkout flights at Lockheed Martin’s F-35 production facility in Fort Worth, Texas.

The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th Generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Three distinct variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least nine other countries.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 123,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's net sales for 2011 were $46.5 billion.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/may/120510ae_f-35bs-ferried-to-eglin.html

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

It's too bad Japan was probably waiting out for either the F-22 being legalized for export, or seeing how the F-35 turned out. For proper air defense, interception, and dogfighting, I'm not that impressed with the F-35 (either A or C) as it was forcibly pushed into having to deal with too many concessions for other roles. Ideally, the F-22 would be great for Japan. It's just too bad it's illegal to export it, though I'm hoping to see the production line opened back up.

I'm really hoping that the Shin Shin technology demonstrator now in construction really leads to a proper aircraft for Japan in replacing the F-15. They have the technology, and they are not stupid. More than anything they just need to manage their costs. A proper supercruise engine is the only thing I see them having trouble with, but I'm sure they could license build an F119 variant.

 

[sferrin]

A proper supercruise engine is the only thing I see them having trouble with, but I'm sure they could license build an F119 variant.

ROFL! Good luck with that.

 

[GTX]

... though I'm hoping to see the [F-22] production line opened back up.

Good luck with this too...

 

[sferrin]

... though I'm hoping to see the [F-22] production line opened back up.

Good luck with this too...

Yep. They're already moving F-35 work to Marietta.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

A proper supercruise engine is the only thing I see them having trouble with, but I'm sure they could license build an F119 variant.

ROFL! Good luck with that.

If anything, it's the electronics, and build materials in the airframe that are of legal issue in the F-22, at least I would think.

As for opening up the production line again, we all know the F-35 isn't good enough. We need more F-22s.

 

[sferrin]

As for opening up the production line again, we all know the F-35 isn't good enough. We need more F-22s.

Apparently the USAF, USN, USMC, and half a dozen other air forces and navies haven't got the memo. You should educate them.

 

[bobbymike]

F-35 Sensors Track Ballistic Missiles in Tests: Northrop Grumman announced June 26 that it recently demonstrated the ballistic missile detection and tracking capabilities of its AN/AAQ-37 distributed aperture system and AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar. These sensors are featured on the F-35 strike fighter, but were resident aboard the company's BAC1-11 test bed aircraft during these tests, which the company coordinated with five NASA experimental rocket launches. "Northrop Grumman demonstrated these ballistic missile tracking modes with only minor modifications to the baseline F-35 radar and DAS software," said Jeff Leavitt, vice president of Northrop Grumman's combat avionic systems business unit. The DAS and APG-81 autonomously detected, tracked, and targeted multiple, simultaneous ballistic rockets, according to the company's release. DAS detected all five rockets—which were launched in rapid succession—and tracked them from initial launch well past the second-stage burnout, notes the release. This wasn't the first time that DAS tracked ballistic missiles.
------------------------------------------------
Seems like a great capability. Cue this sensor to a boost phase air launched ballistic missile interceptor.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

F-35 Sensors Track Ballistic Missiles in Tests: Northrop Grumman announced June 26 that it recently demonstrated the ballistic missile detection and tracking capabilities of its AN/AAQ-37 distributed aperture system and AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar. These sensors are featured on the F-35 strike fighter, but were resident aboard the company's BAC1-11 test bed aircraft during these tests, which the company coordinated with five NASA experimental rocket launches. "Northrop Grumman demonstrated these ballistic missile tracking modes with only minor modifications to the baseline F-35 radar and DAS software," said Jeff Leavitt, vice president of Northrop Grumman's combat avionic systems business unit. The DAS and APG-81 autonomously detected, tracked, and targeted multiple, simultaneous ballistic rockets, according to the company's release. DAS detected all five rockets—which were launched in rapid succession—and tracked them from initial launch well past the second-stage burnout, notes the release. This wasn't the first time that DAS tracked ballistic missiles.
------------------------------------------------
Seems like a great capability. Cue this sensor to a boost phase air launched ballistic missile interceptor.

DAS is pretty interesting as it assumes the responsibility of an IRST. I wouldn't know if a dedicated IRST system is better or not, but DAS certainly seems pretty capable.

As for opening up the production line again, we all know the F-35 isn't good enough. We need more F-22s.

Apparently the USAF, USN, USMC, and half a dozen other air forces and navies haven't got the memo. You should educate them.

The USAF, USN, USMC were forced into it by a foolish congress that lacks real logistical sensibilities. The foreign air forces involved, of which many were involved from the early days have a vested interest and probably don't want to deal with the political fallout involved with pulling out of the program. It would mean soured relations with the US and the citizens will complain of the wasted capital. The capability for the cost right now per plane just isn't worth it, especially when the capability in many ways hardly meets future needs of these smaller air forces.

If anyone wants to mention the F-4, the F-4 was I think a very happenstance aircraft. It was built around a very high end Navy specification and met USAF requirements simply because it was better than anything the USAF had in production at the time.