F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
I believe that the F22 was initially design brief was for a multi-role fighter / attack aircraft. Many of the features that would have helped it achieve a better A to G role were deleted from the final spec.
I believe that the F22 was initially design brief was for a multi-role fighter / attack aircraft. Many of the features that would have helped it achieve a better A to G role were deleted from the final spec.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However the missiles will have difficulty locking-on to a LO jet like the T-50.
Last edited by KenV; 28th Aug 2015 at 15:27.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'm pretty sure that an AMRAAM's terminal homing radar is capable of locking onto an object with that size RCS
Originally Posted by Willard Whyte
We're all jolly glad we can count on your assurances Ken, jolly glad indeed.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO: As for the T-50 video.... Apparently not everyone got the "air combat maneuvering is dead" memo.
I don't know how the T-50 will be when it finishes development*, the FLS is sorted and it gets it's new engines. I wouldn't use that video to sing it's BFM praises. It would be interesting, if one of the pilots here reviewed it for us.
*don't they plan to have a dozen built by 2020?
It's hard to review a fighter based on a single video, especially from a display that majors in slow speed handling, but one or two things are immediately apparent. Most obvious is the quite remarkable ultra-high aoa handling that the Russians seem to do so well and have been for a long time - it clearly demonstrates LO's line about air combat manoeuvring. But more than that is the confidence they have in that handling to be doing it at low level, with a prototype. Roll and yaw control, even what looks like beyond 90 degrees is amazing although roll rates don't look that snappy at slow speed.
The other thing that is very clear is the SEP available, especially if those aren't the production engines. And that, in my opinion based only on the vid, is where there is a difference between T-50 and F-35, demonstrated in this video in two ways: the ability to accelerate in the vertical even at high aoa and the energy manoeuvrability available to be able to accelerate very rapidly from virtually stationary to conventional flight. Regaining energy does not appear to be an issue; again this points to LO's comment.
I think we did see an example of higher speed sustained g, but it's hard to guess at the parameters there. We also saw its ability to generate in excess of 90 degrees of pitch without simply stopping in the sky; nose authority like that wouldn't go amiss in a knife fight in a phone booth.
What the video doesn't show is off bore site weapons capability, how its acceleration continues at higher speeds, how additional weight affects what we saw there or whether it has any un-fighter-like g limits. I think I know the answers to those, but you only asked for comment on the vid.
Usual caveats about judging from videos and about any other platform and systems capabilities apply.
The other thing that is very clear is the SEP available, especially if those aren't the production engines. And that, in my opinion based only on the vid, is where there is a difference between T-50 and F-35, demonstrated in this video in two ways: the ability to accelerate in the vertical even at high aoa and the energy manoeuvrability available to be able to accelerate very rapidly from virtually stationary to conventional flight. Regaining energy does not appear to be an issue; again this points to LO's comment.
I think we did see an example of higher speed sustained g, but it's hard to guess at the parameters there. We also saw its ability to generate in excess of 90 degrees of pitch without simply stopping in the sky; nose authority like that wouldn't go amiss in a knife fight in a phone booth.
What the video doesn't show is off bore site weapons capability, how its acceleration continues at higher speeds, how additional weight affects what we saw there or whether it has any un-fighter-like g limits. I think I know the answers to those, but you only asked for comment on the vid.
Usual caveats about judging from videos and about any other platform and systems capabilities apply.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a bit of light hearted banter...
It is noticeable that your posts are becoming increasingly belligerent whilst most of the "normal combatants" have declared something of a truce...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the T-50 video.... Apparently not everyone got the "air combat maneuvering is dead" memo.
On the other hand.....
according to the article linked on another thread ( How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs ) LtCol Spanky Clifton is not enamored with thrust vectoring nor such slow speed maneuvering in combat. According to him, once you get in a close-in visual fight the old rules still apply and rule #1 is that speed is life (and more is better).
Since India is co-developing the fighter the T-50 will become, it'll be interesting to see what happens when IAF sends its fighters to operate in joint exercises with/against Typhoon, F-22, and F-35.
Last edited by KenV; 28th Aug 2015 at 15:29.
Ken,
Spanky's premise, with which I agree totally, is that once you use any significant amount of off-axis thrust vectoring, you slow down awfully quickly and become a strafe panel in the sky. This big thing here is that those engines in the prototype appear to produce so much thrust that energy loss isn't such a big problem and it appears to be able to accelerate rather well, even when pulling hard. In my opinion, the T-50 seems to offer the option of trading energy for extreme manoeuvre with the knowledge that you can regain it quickly, or it can do sustained, higher-energy, high g. Nice to have an option you don't have to use, but can without taking the rest of the day to get back up to fighting speed.
Spanky's premise, with which I agree totally, is that once you use any significant amount of off-axis thrust vectoring, you slow down awfully quickly and become a strafe panel in the sky. This big thing here is that those engines in the prototype appear to produce so much thrust that energy loss isn't such a big problem and it appears to be able to accelerate rather well, even when pulling hard. In my opinion, the T-50 seems to offer the option of trading energy for extreme manoeuvre with the knowledge that you can regain it quickly, or it can do sustained, higher-energy, high g. Nice to have an option you don't have to use, but can without taking the rest of the day to get back up to fighting speed.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
once you get in a close-in visual fight the old rules still apply and rule #1 is that speed is life (and more is better)
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to have an option you don't have to use, but can without taking the rest of the day to get back up to fighting speed.
Clearly, the Russian designers have a different philosophy and thus have taken a different approach and emphasized different features than the designers of the F-22 and F-35. And that is largely because USAF has decided to put so many oof its eggs in the stealth basket. It'll be interesting to see which philosophy (stealth vs super maneuverability) wins out once the T-50 is fully developed, goes into production, and starts flying against F-22 and F-35.
And speaking of production, the Russians and Indians don't seem to be enamored of concurrent engineering. It appears that they're building test aircraft and fully wringing them out before committing to production. Yet another philosophical difference.
Ken,
Thanks for the come-back. You have completely changed the basis of my post, the purpose of which was "review the video". My comparison between the T-50 and F-35 was purely about the former's manoeuvre capability; nothing to do with stealth, which has the bigger RCS. If you read my caveats you will see that I deliberately excluded any platform and system capabilities (which includes stealth) that could, potentially, make a big difference to whether either aircraft even arrives at the merge. Agreed?
Thanks for the come-back. You have completely changed the basis of my post, the purpose of which was "review the video". My comparison between the T-50 and F-35 was purely about the former's manoeuvre capability; nothing to do with stealth, which has the bigger RCS. If you read my caveats you will see that I deliberately excluded any platform and system capabilities (which includes stealth) that could, potentially, make a big difference to whether either aircraft even arrives at the merge. Agreed?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite. Speed is life. But if you want to turn (i.e. in a visual, turning fight), you need to be at corner velocity.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mach Two
Not quite. Speed is life. But if you want to turn (i.e. in a visual, turning fight), you need to be at corner velocity. Much above that and you're g-limited with an ever increasing radius and decreasing turn rate as you get faster. Your oppo arcs you and you catch a rocket up the jet pipe.
In a HOBS fight you may want to keep the distance from the shooter, not so much be at a corner speed but rather at high speed, to both rapidly engage the target and defeat the incoming missile.
I suspect, both F22 and Typhoon were designed to operate in supersonic with that in mind.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
Thanks for the come-back. You have completely changed the basis of my post, the purpose of which was "review the video".
Thanks for the come-back. You have completely changed the basis of my post, the purpose of which was "review the video".
If you read my caveats you will see that I deliberately excluded any platform and system capabilities (which includes stealth) that could, potentially, make a big difference to whether either aircraft even arrives at the merge. Agreed?
However the missiles will have difficulty locking-on to a LO jet like the T-50.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A rare bit of good news.
The F-35 is an electron vacuum cleaner much like the F-22. The problem is sharing all that data with 4th gen aircraft because the F-35's MADL is not compatible with 4th gen aircraft. But it looks like they're developing some effective work arounds by using aerial refuelers as data repeaters. (and by they way, one reason why the KC-46 has 25+ miles of extra wiring.)
Tests show F-35s can share data with older aircraft - Reuters News 08/28/2015
Two weeks of joint testing of the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet at a California air base by the Royal Netherlands Air Force showed that the new stealthy jets are able to share a significant amount of data with older warplanes, the pilot in charge of Dutch F-35 testing told Reuters.
Colonel Albert De Smit, commander of the Netherlands operational test detachment, said the testing sought to validate that the new fifth-generation F-35s could share useable data with older F-16s and aerial refueling aircraft via the Link 16 system.
He said the results showed that during combat, the F-35 could help relay key targeting, surveillance and other data to less capable F-16s and other planes, in much the same way that the U.S. Air Force's F-22 fighter jets work with older aircraft.
"The amount of information that we can share is very promising," De Smit said in a telephone interview this week. "It provides fourth generation aircraft with information that they normally would not have ... It looks like they're going to be able to execute a better mission" if used together with F-35 jets.
He added that it could take months to fully evaluate the results of the tests, which involved two to three Dutch and British F-35s, as well as Dutch F-16s, refueling planes and a small fleet of A-4 Skyhawks posing as enemy aircraft.
The Netherlands is one of the eight countries that joined the United States in funding development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and its military is a formal part of the F-35 operational test community, along with the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, as well as Britain and Australia.
The Netherlands already had two F-35 A-model jets, which are being used for the testing, and it plans to order 37 more in coming years. The planes due to go into service in 2019.
Tests show F-35s can share data with older aircraft - Reuters News 08/28/2015
Two weeks of joint testing of the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet at a California air base by the Royal Netherlands Air Force showed that the new stealthy jets are able to share a significant amount of data with older warplanes, the pilot in charge of Dutch F-35 testing told Reuters.
Colonel Albert De Smit, commander of the Netherlands operational test detachment, said the testing sought to validate that the new fifth-generation F-35s could share useable data with older F-16s and aerial refueling aircraft via the Link 16 system.
He said the results showed that during combat, the F-35 could help relay key targeting, surveillance and other data to less capable F-16s and other planes, in much the same way that the U.S. Air Force's F-22 fighter jets work with older aircraft.
"The amount of information that we can share is very promising," De Smit said in a telephone interview this week. "It provides fourth generation aircraft with information that they normally would not have ... It looks like they're going to be able to execute a better mission" if used together with F-35 jets.
He added that it could take months to fully evaluate the results of the tests, which involved two to three Dutch and British F-35s, as well as Dutch F-16s, refueling planes and a small fleet of A-4 Skyhawks posing as enemy aircraft.
The Netherlands is one of the eight countries that joined the United States in funding development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and its military is a formal part of the F-35 operational test community, along with the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, as well as Britain and Australia.
The Netherlands already had two F-35 A-model jets, which are being used for the testing, and it plans to order 37 more in coming years. The planes due to go into service in 2019.