Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Share

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:00 am

    Development of F-35 fighter behind schedule by two years
    27.07.2009

    Development of multipurpose fighter F-35 Lightning II is behind schedule by two years, which could lead to an increase in its cost. CQpolitics reported with reference to sources in Congress. The MPs insist that the military provided more information about the program because they felt during the debate over the fate of the other fifth-generation fighter F-22, these figures hide the Pentagon.

    Commission United States military authorities concluded that the production of new aircraft will begin no earlier than 2016, as originally planned, which will produce a series of fighter aircraft in 2014. In doing so, according to the Accounting Chamber United States (Government Accountability Office, GAO), this delay may lead to the rise of another 7.4 billion dollars.

    As reported in an interview with the publication of the Director of Defense Studies, American Enterprise Institute of Social Policy Studies (The American Enterprise Institute) Tom Donnelly (Tom Donnelly), delays the supply of F-35 may affect the entire fleet Pentagon. That fighter, according to an analyst in the future should take the place of many other aircraft, including F-15, F-16 and F-18.

    Backlog of developing a new fighter aircraft may also have international implications, as it is delivered, many expect the allies of Washington. According to the Association of Air Force United States (The Air Force Association) Tags Douglas (Douglas Birkey), these aircraft is awaiting United Kingdom, the National Guard and Marine Corps United States, as well as many other buyers, which rapidly aging fleet.

    Recall that a fighter F-35 is positioned as an alternative to the Pentagon's more expensive aircraft F-22 Raptor. Production of the latter, on the initiative of the White House and the U.S. military must stop, though, object to it, many Congressmen.
    24.07.2009

    http://www.lenta.ru/

    Turk1
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 86
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2009-07-16
    Location : Great land of Turkey!

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  Turk1 on Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:07 am

    2016 WTF!!! That means we won't get ours until when, 2018?!?!

    Vladislav
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 122
    Points : 143
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  Vladislav on Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:26 am

    Turk1 wrote:2016 WTF!!! That means we won't get ours until when, 2018?!?!

    Oh yeah, PAKFA is going to beat your azz!!

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    F-35 development and problems thread:

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:27 pm

    Air Force F-35 completes first test flight


    4/22/2010 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The Air Force version of the F-35A flew for an hour April 20 from Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base, Texas, becoming the seventh F-35 Lightning II to fly.

    AF-2, the conventional takeoff and landing aircraft, is the Air Force's version of the Joint Strike Fighter. This fifth-generation fighter is the first one to carry an internal GAU-22/A 25-millimeter Gatling gun weapon system.

    "The first flight of AF-2 is a significant achievement for the F-35 program, the U.S. Air Force and our international partners who will operate the F-35A," said James "Sandy" Sandstrom, Lockheed Martin's F-35 U.S. Air Force program manager. "This aircraft is configured to test and verify the multiple weapons loads that will deliver fifth generation combat capability to the warfighter.


    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2010/04/mil-100422-afns04.htm

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Northrop Says F-35’s DAS Tracks Ballistic Missiles At 800 Km

    Post  nightcrawler on Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:49 pm

    http://www.defencetalk.com/northrop-says-f-35-s-das-tracks-ballistic-missiles-at-800-km-28618/

    BALTIMORE: Northrop Grumman Corporation's AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter successfully detected and tracked a two-stage rocket launch at a distance exceeding 800 miles during a routine flight test conducted aboard the company's BAC 1-11 test bed aircraft.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Major F-35 Component Cracks

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:56 am

    Major F-35 Component Cracks



    The cracks have appeared in the STA 496 bulkhead, located just aft of the main landing gear, of the F-35B static test airframe. (Alcoa illustration)

    PARIS --- The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has encountered a new, serious problem as a bulkhead on an F-35B fatigue test airframe developed cracks after only 1,500 hours of tests that are due to last 16,000 hours.

    “The aft bulkhead of the F-35B BH-1 fatigue-test specimen has developed cracks after 1,500 hours of durability testing,” Aviation Week’s Ares blog reported yesterday. “This is less than one-tenth of the planned fatigue test program, which is designed to prove an 8,000-hour airframe life with a safety factor of two.”

    This incident again raises questions about the technical viability of Lockheed Martin’s redesign of the aircraft, especially for the F-35B STOVL version, and about the company’s claims that its simulation systems are so good that flight testing can safely and drastically be cut back to lower costs.

    Lockheed Martin issued the following statement on the issue:

    "During a recent durability ground test, fatigue cracks were discovered in the aft bulkhead of BH-1, an F-35B ground test aircraft. The cracks were discovered during a special inspection when a test engineer discovered an anomaly; the aircraft has logged approximately 1500 hours of durability testing. Precautionary inspections were conducted on all flight test aircraft and the CTOL ground test aircraft. No additional cracks were found and flight testing has not been impacted.

    “The root cause investigation is underway and will determine if the cracks were caused by a test anomaly that is not indicative of flight conditions, an engineering issue or a material failure. Durability testing is conducted early in the development of a new aircraft program to avoid costly sustainment issues later in the life of the aircraft."

    A knowledgeable source confirmed to defense-aerospace.com that the frame in question is the STA 496 bulkhead, and added that “by all accounts, so far, the undercarriage loads are in the mix, which brings into focus a debate that was had some time ago about whether or not the full spectrum of the [Conventional Take-Off and Landing] loads should be used as well as those for the STOVL scenarios ([Vertical Landing] and, possibly, Ski-Jump)” for the fatigue test program.

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/120126/cracks-on-f_35b-test-airframe-highlight-risk-of-reduced-testing.html

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:07 am

    ...& Canada buying this immature warplane??

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:22 pm



    F-35B aircraft: Is it worth the cost?

    PATUXENT RIVER NAVAL AIR STATION, Md. — The F-35B is a supersonic stealth fighter jet with an unprecedented new twist: It can take off and land like a helicopter.

    That’s what makes the airplane a crucial part of the strategy to modernize the Marine Corps as it reverts to its traditional mission as America’s go-anywhere, quick-reaction force after 10 years of ground combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s also what makes the airplane a vastly more expensive option and has caused the technical problems and development delays that led to the program being put on probation earlier this year by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

    Marine Corps officials demonstrated the F-35B for reporters on Friday, hoping to at least raise the question of whether the plane is worth the cost and effort when budget-cutters are looking hard at Pentagon programs that might not make the grade.

    “Is the juice worth the squeeze? We’ve got to have that discussion at the most senior level of our country,” said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, who calls himself “a realistic cheerleader” for the program.

    The Marines want to buy 340 of the planes to replace the AV-8B Harriers that first went into service 25 years ago. Each F-35B costs $150 million, compared with $24 million for a Harrier.

    The F-35B’s test pilots said it’s worth it — and then some.

    “It’s really quite a leap in technology,” said Lt. Col. Matt Taylor. “It flies like an airplane on a perfect day, every day.”

    “The airplane hands down is much more stable than the Harrier was,” added Lt. Col. Fred Schenk, a former Harrier pilot who flew Friday’s demonstration, which included a short takeoff, a low-speed pass at 60 knots and a vertical landing.

    But the co-chairmen of the debt commission appointed by President Barack Obama — Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson — concluded late last year that the F-35B wasn’t worth the cost and recommended the Pentagon cancel it, saving $41 billion on an estimated purchase of 311 planes.

    Aside from the technical problems and cost overruns, they noted that the plane’s sophisticated capabilities were not as relevant in current combat conditions. Also, development of the Marine version of the F-35 was a drag on the rest of the Joint Strike Fighter program, they said.

    The Pentagon plans to buy more than 2,400 F-35s for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps for about $380 billion. But estimated total operating costs of up to $1 trillion have outraged lawmakers and put the entire JSF program on the list of possible targets for budget cuts.

    “Be assured, the cost of the jets are coming down,” Lockheed Martin chief executive Bob Stevens said in response to congressional critics. He noted that the $1 trillion estimate was comparable to any other major replacement of an entire category of equipment.

    Meanwhile, the problems that led Gates to put the F-35B on probation are directly related to what makes it so special: a unique lift system that diverts jet exhaust, allowing it to take off and land vertically while still flying at supersonic speeds and maintaining a stealthy profile to enemy radar systems.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60605.html#ixzz1VIvgnUYS



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:26 am

    The F-35 is supposed to replace a whole range of NATO aircraft including F-16s and AV-8s and Tornados etc etc.

    Compared with the current performance of the F-16 I would say the improvement is not really warranted right now because the F-16 can do the job and is much much cheaper if less capable.

    For those with AV-8s however the vertical take off F-35B is their only choice as the bog standard F-35 conventional takeoff model simply wont take off from the same ships a VSTOL aircraft can and the cost of enlarging the ships and modifying them to take STOBAL (short take off but arrested landing... like the Mig-29K and Su-33) will limit the loads the F-35 can carry perhaps to the point where it is pointless carrying it.

    A lot of air forces will have to make some very expensive choices in the next few years.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  ahmedfire on Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:44 pm

    $41 billion for 311 planes is a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere in the military.

    The F-35B: Keep It or Kill It?

    http://xbradtc.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/the-f-35b-keep-it-or-kill-it/

    the problem with using the F-35B as a ground attack unit is that it simply doesn't have the loiter time. With the STOVL configuration, it sacrifices the fuel which is needed to sustain vertical thrust or even fly a few extra circles around the combat zone.

    a helicopter gunship with extra fuel stores could easily provide top cover for ground troops.

    Cancellation of the F-35B (and switch to F-35C by the USMC) could eventually see the replacement of the Wasps with additional evolved CVNs operating in a hybrid strike / air assault role as proposed for the RNs Queen Elisabeth Class. Alternatively removal of the need to operate STO/VL could see the merging of a number of LPD, LSD etc. into perhaps classes of small and medium LHDs.


    the other problem with the JSF is that its target customer group is the group of countries which wanted to buy the F-22 but couldn't because of the Military-Secret trade ban. Primarily, Japan, Australia, and Israel. I guess they're worried about getting a bastardized version of F-22 tech and F-16 combat role.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:58 am

    Correction, a helicopter could provide direct fire support, but not top cover.

    There is no helicopter in service that has the air to air capability of a WWII fighter let alone a modern fighter.

    Even a LIFT like a Yak-130 or L-39 is far superior to a helicopter in air to air combat.

    In the past flying low or hovering or waiting for the plane to come in on an attack run and turning towards the incoming aircraft to spoil his angle is simply pointless because any modern fighter with AMRAAM or WVR AAM will take you out easily from stand off distances... with modern radar and modern missiles a helicopter is a sitting duck.

    The Marines would need a full carrier to provide air cover, though their might be some potential with the tilt rotor for a gunship with a higher payload than a helo.

    The money they are spending on the F-35B could be spent on AV-8 upgrades to allow them to be used for another 30 years and still have several billion in change.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  ahmedfire on Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:05 pm


    Apache can circle around the target and provide precise support with it's MG, while the F-35 can fly in, drop bombs, and speed away.

    the A-10 seems like a more sensible choice than the F-35 for an asymmetrical combat role

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:36 am

    If there are no airfields near the "beach assault" area then if the F-35B is not developed as a replacement for the AV-8 (Harrier) and you try to perform the attack with just helos (when the AV-8s are retired... they were going to be replaced by F-35Bs) then your air control centres on Cobra attack helos.

    In fact the late model Cobras are better armed for air to air use than the Apaches because the gun on the Cobra is half a vulcan. (ie take a Vulcan cannon used in most current US fighters and remove every second barrel so it goes from a 6 barrel gun to a 3 barrel gun) This halves the rate of fire but also reduces weight and recoil force. The rate of fire is still plenty for aerial targets (rate of fire is not important against most ground targets) and the high velocity rounds make shooting fast moving aerial targets easier than the slow firing low velocity 30mm cannon on the Apache.

    The simple fact of the matter however is that any cheap 4th gen fighter or even most 3 gen fighters would be very unlucky to lose an air fight with a helo. The fighters radar and missiles and speed means it can dictate combat and most of the time the helo wont even see what hit it.

    Cobras and Apaches can carry sidewinders, but fired at low speed and low altitude where helos operate the range of the weapons is a small fraction of the range when the same weapon is fired from a fighter at 600km/h at medium altitude... let alone a BVR missile shot with an R-77 from 20km or so.

    Corrosion
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 196
    Points : 213
    Join date : 2010-10-19

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  Corrosion on Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:33 am

    My general opinion on F 35

    You have to look at at from three perspectives. One is from American Industry perspective, second is American Forces perspective, third is American Allie's forces perspective. I am not including American Allie's Industry perspective because very success of F 35 is against their interests in the long term.

    As far as US forces are concerned they can easily afford delays in F35, any version of it. They have numerical superiority that is un-matched in the world. Maybe China will field equivalent number of fighters as US in 15 years time or so. Followed by Russia and India but its US and China which will have numerical superiority. USAF is quite capable currently with F 22 as its flagship, although it is quite draining on resources as per its maintainence reports. Add to that, hordes of f15 and f16 fighters, which will easily be competent enough for next 10-15 years. USN, is also sitting pretty currently with F18 C and E models. US marines look like are going to loose most as F-35B does look in a bit of trouble. GarryB, I dont think Harrier can hold its own against any decent adversary with capable SAM network. Ok they can manage with AV-8B because their AF will pave the way for them. But they are far from ideal.

    As far as other US Allies are concerned, they very much need a "capable" f-35, especially countries like Japan, Australia, Turkey, South Korea, Israel, some Europeans including U.K. etc. maybe even Saudi Arabia. These countries are seriously counting on F35 to deliver as US Empire influence will reduce in future. Many of these air forces would have liked to have F22 instead. they wont like any more delays either as that will make them order more f teens and that will likely reduce their order of F35. And they have to operate f-teens against PakFa and J20 etc when they would have liked an all f35 force 20 years down the road.

    As far as US industry is concerned, a capable and non delayed F 35 is important. Although Boeing can make some quick profits by selling some silent F-15s. But US industry wont like any of their non-US traditional customers buying something else (example is scenario where some will get something like PakFa because F 35 is not good enough and cant hold its own against big J-20s who will also be in superior numbers in PLAAF for example Japan or S Korea.) US armed industry doesnt have much to worry about delays in F 35 as far as their US customers are concerned. Even if it is not capable enough they will still sell over 1000 f 35 to US Armed Forces. But then F35 will be short lived and another (possibly 6th gen) fighter will be developed and they will again have another project(s) to work at. Not much to loose there for US manufacturers as far as US Armed Forces are concerned IMHO.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:38 am

    Apache can circle around the target and provide precise support with it's MG, while the F-35 can fly in, drop bombs, and speed away.

    the A-10 seems like a more sensible choice than the F-35 for an asymmetrical combat role

    Oops now I understand... when I said top cover, I didn't mean helos can't provide top cover for troops on the ground, I meant that without fixed wing fast aircraft with decent radars and dedicated air to air weapons there is no top cover to protect the helos because helos can't fight aircraft... it is not what they are designed for. They carry missiles that can be used against aircraft but that is only a last ditch self defence thing... you wont see any helo deployed as an interceptor except in very extreme situations.

    As far as US forces are concerned they can easily afford delays in F35, any version of it. They have numerical superiority that is un-matched in the world. Maybe China will field equivalent number of fighters as US in 15 years time or so.

    Actually they have the problems of an ageing air fleet and an entire empire to manage, and their plans called for the F-35 to be in service and mass production by 2014-2015 so when we hit that date if they are not in mass production then there will start to be problems.

    GarryB, I dont think Harrier can hold its own against any decent adversary with capable SAM network. Ok they can manage with AV-8B because their AF will pave the way for them. But they are far from ideal.

    The Sea Harrier is a very capable aircraft with an excellent radar and now with AMRAAM is it in many ways as good as an F-16 except for dash speed. The AV-8 II doesn't have the excellent radar of the Sea Harrier however and is oriented to a CAS/strike role.

    It would be fairly unlikely for a Harrier to ever take on SAM positions as these would more likely be taken on by a naval force of subs and ships with land attack cruise missiles to minimise risk.

    The Marines are the primary reason for the more expensive VSTOL F-35B model however.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    F-35 Saga: Pentagon considers cancelling F-35 program

    Post  nemrod on Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:11 pm

    http://www.russiatoday.com/usa/pentagon-f35-report-combat-012/http://www.russiatoday.com/usa/pentagon-f35-report-combat-012/


    Iam very happy to post this topic, hoping the end of JSF 35. Several hundreds billions dollars's program is going to agonize. What a good news in this monday morning.
    I know that Canada gave up this expensive program, it stays now Japan, I know Netherland is very reluctant. Germany is no longer in the program.

    Very good news, very good news.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  Viktor on Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:37 pm

    It certainly does not sound good.

    Media attacks on F-35 now comes on regular basis, on daily basis from all directions (Turkey, Eu(different countries), Australia,

    Canada).

    On the other hand we are here talking about fighter/bomber with highly inferior flight characteristics and extremely

    high price tag and maintenance and with its price keep rising. Very Happy

    I wish him all the luck and, greater the numbers, twice the fun Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:47 am

    Most of the money has already been spent and there is now really no alternative as most of the aircraft it is to replace are no longer in production and many are very worn out.

    The very idea of cutting this dog of a program and replacing it with a modern, capable aircraft that isn't the best at everything, but is pretty good at most things is simply not how it is done in the US at the moment. A cheap aircraft means small profit margins, even if it would be good for the military... they don't actually need a super whiz bang plane that will beat everything... on paper the European fighters that went up against Serbian Mig-29s were inferior in some aspects too... if those Serb fighters had been properly upgraded SMT models with RVV-AE missiles the air combat might have been more interesting and less one sided... though NATO still likely would have gotten its way in the end.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:... if those Serb fighters had been properly upgraded SMT models with RVV-AE missiles the air combat might have been more interesting and less one sided...

    Just a quick question please, is AA-12 really more efficient than AIM 120 AMRAAN ?

    Furthermore to back to the original topic, I've just learned UK's military budget will be reduced significantly.
    http://www.opex360.com/2013/03/10/la-defense-britannique-doit-sattendre-a-de-nouvelles-coupes-budgetaires/

    An F-35's partner less. Nevertheless, the greats more punctions-UK, and USA-, seem to be ignored yet, but they won't be avoided. It won't be delayed.
    We are in the same early 90's situation that prevailed in USSR. Soviet's budget melted, meanwhile, US military budget skyrocked.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:13 am

    Just a quick question please, is AA-12 really more efficient than AIM 120 AMRAAN ?

    Is like asking a father which son he loves best... both are likely to be effective and both have plus and minus features.

    The AMRAAM is lower drag, and is far more widely deployed and can be considered fully operational with most fighters in the US able to operate it. It is fully digital and is orders of magnitude more effective than the Sparrow SARH missiles it replaced. (PK (kill probability) of 40% compared with PK of about 4-5% for Sparrow).

    The AA-12 is actually several missiles from the early RVV-AE that was a Soviet missile (with a Ukrainian seeker) to the current RVV-SD which is all digital with a Texas Instruments controller chip.

    The AA-12 has grid rear fins for flight control that allow better manouver capability with the penalty of higher drag and increased RCS. Of course the higher drag is nullified because the Mig-29 and Su-27 based aircraft that can carry it can accelerate to higher speeds than their western counterparts before launching the missiles, and the better manoeuvre capability means it is much harder to evade for the target.

    The AA-12 can engage targets pulling 12g.

    It will be interesting to see what versions of the AA-12 go into service as the previous model (R-27) had IR and passive radar homing models too. In fact there were more than a dozen different combinations of AAM based on the AA-10 including models especially for the Su-33 and Mig-29K for use over water, models for older upgraded aircraft like the Mig-21-98 and Mig-23-98, plus also larger rocket motor versions and even ARH models.

    Despite what you read in books most BVR engagements don't occur at hundreds of kms range... generally they will occur at ranges of 20km to about 60km and no more.

    Even if it says the missile has a range of 110km no pilot will waste a missile trying to hit a target at that range.

    The question is like asking which is better... an M16 or an AK... and you will get as many answers as people you ask, but on this forum I would say the R-77... with its folding rear grid fin design is rather more unique and interesting than the boring triangular fin AMRAAM. Both are designed for internal carriage.

    I have read that a new model R-77 will have all triangular fins to reduce drag and extend range. (range is good for low RCS aircraft as the further you can launch your missile from the less likely he is to detect your presence).

    Personally I would like to see a two stage R-77 with a solid rocket booster that has small triangular folding fins in a fairing over the rear grid fins.

    The result would be you launch the missile and the solid rocket booster unfolds its stabilising fins, which together with the body strakes keep the missile flying with the rear grid fins folded in a low drag configuration. When the solid rocket booster burns out it can fall away leaving the fairing over the rear grid fins with the small triangle fins directing the missile in a low drag mode powered by the missiles rocket engine on a cruise to the target area.

    When the target is detected the light fairing can drop away and the rear grid fins can deploy and steer the missile to the target.

    The triangular fins can be connected to the servos for the rear grid fins but for the early part of the journey the missile does not need to be very manouverable. When the missile is in the target area the fairing can be dropped and the grid fins deployed for maximum manouver capability.

    The rear grid fins actually generate less drag than a fin of the same control surface area, but most control surfaces don't have as much area so they generate less drag, but also less lift. The grid fins allow much harder turns as they work at much higher angles of attack than ordinary fins... in other words if the triangular fin of the AMRAAM could turn as far as the grid fins on the R-77 they would stall and stop turning the missile. The grid fins continue to exert a turning force on the missile to allow it to turn harder and faster than other modern missiles that don't use thrust vectoring control.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:37 pm

    Thx Garry for your explanations.
    There is very usefull to talk in this forum.


    Regards.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  Viktor on Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:16 am

    Excellent documentary movie about the F-35 that pretty much sums it all


    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    F-35 Saga : Pentagon considers cancelling F-35 program

    Post  nemrod on Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:47 pm

    Denmark seems to be reluctant too, and threat the JSF F-35

    http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130316/DEFREG01/303160005/Danish-Fighter-Restart-Could-Hurt-F-35

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/26/denmark-fighters-idUSL6N0CE7UH20130326

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    F-35 Saga : Prices soar, enthusiasm dives for F-35 Lightning

    Post  nemrod on Tue May 28, 2013 2:01 pm


    http://www.asian-defence.com/2013/03/prices-soar-enthusiasm-dives-for-f-35.html

    My impression :
    Is the F-35 another US shit ?
    I don't know, however it is easy to remember the case of F-104, when one aircraft was easilly bought to other nato's military air force.
    The same was the F-16, let's remember about the most century's market where F-16 was opposed to Mirage F-1 -far better than US aircraft-, when unfortunetly F-16 won. However i read in website that according to US high official defense the F-16 is less effective of all US fighters. An incredible unflaterring comment.
    As F-35 price soars reaching nearly 200 millions $, in deep economic crisis context it is dubious if F-35.
    I suspect that US as they did previously, by flowing this aircraft, is looking for the goals to get fleeced clients, secondly, looking for prestige, and controll allies air forces.
    Finally limitted the indigenous allies industies, that could become cumbersome concurrents.
    But 200 millions per aircraft, little crazy.

    gaurav
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 309
    Points : 309
    Join date : 2013-02-19
    Age : 36
    Location : Blr

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  gaurav on Tue May 28, 2013 4:29 pm

    But 200 millions per aircraft, little crazy.
    200 million /aircraft then what do you say of a country like India ..

    which is buying rafale crap for another 200 million usd/aircraft.
    126 aircraft for a potential 20 billionUSD deal. It looks like a GDP of a medium sized country..


    On top of it, politicos are licking their lips , on the sight on this deal..
    ..
    Scams reign on all fronts.. Sad

    Sponsored content

    Re: F-35 Development and News Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:42 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:42 pm