F-22.....

GrauGeist said:

And then it gets a little more interesting...

The J-31 seen at the Zhuhai international airshow

[/url]

Click to expand...

I think the Chinese J-31 is showing their psychology very well.

Even infamous IJA or IJN purchased the western weapon licenses to understand mechanism perfectly and never showed their secret weapons until the war began because they were serious about fighting.

On the other hand, Chinese weapons not only look like imitations as ever but are introduced easily one after another. Such a style would be coming from their strong pride mixed with traditional complex against the western culture and technology. However, it is clear that they are not serious about fighting with the super power but only enjoying responses from it.

That would be good as long as they enjoy it but they should know it is not easy to survive in the international society.

If there are any Pentagon planners who think that somebody else isn't going to get stealthy aircraft, I suggest that those planners are severely delusional.

Maxwell's equations aren't classified.

swampyankee said:

Maxwell's equations aren't classified.

Click to expand...

They're not, and there are other ways to make an aircraft stealthy as well.

swampyankee said:

Maxwell's equations aren't classified.

Click to expand...

They're not, and there are other ways to make an aircraft stealthy as well.

FLYBOYJ said:

They're not, and there are other ways to make an aircraft stealthy as well.

Click to expand...

I worked on LO for a while, during the early phases of the LHX project. Quite a lot of the technical literature on radar cross section prediction had been translated from Russian.

swampyankee said:

I worked on LO for a while, during the early phases of the LHX project. Quite a lot of the technical literature on radar cross section prediction had been translated from Russian.

Click to expand...

True, but there's other ways of doing this, just sayin. I worked LO as well - F-117, F-22 and B-2

FLYBOYJ said:

True, but there's other ways of doing this, just sayin. I worked LO as well - F-117, F-22 and B-2

Click to expand...

You almost certainly did much more of it than have I. I've done enough to know that it's not the panacea that some people claim it to be and that it doesn't require some mysterious science that is uniquely American: the Chinese or the Russians can develop stealth aircraft without stealing from the US. Of course, it's easier to do so if they do steal, so they (and everybody else) has an incentive to try to steal other's technologies. I suspect that's been true since Oog's tribe figured out how to put a stone point onto a spear.

Some folks were wondering why the 17-year gestation period for the F-22. Among the items that caused such a long delay, the software is VERY high on the list.

The F-22 has a God's eye view of the hemisphere in which it is flying, Each F-22 knows the state of fuel and weapons of each other F-22 in the air in that hemisphere. The thing can gly the mission by itself if the pilot is incapacitated, and then return home, land, amd park in the same parking space from which it departed. Debugging several million lines of code is NOT simple and, the thing is, each logical loop must be exercized and verified.

Today, roughly 55 - 65% of the cost of a front-line fighter jet is software, comparted with 0% for anything in WWII. The pilot is something of a computer "super user" who is monitoring and exercising his highly mobiile and adrenaline-generating PC.

If 17 years was a long gestation, the Isralei Lavi development morphed into the Chinese J-10 in only 20 years, and it was FLYING in 1986. So the Chinese basically bought a flying aircraft and "improved it" for 20 years to get the J-10. No wonder they didn't want to start from scratch ...

The problem comes from trying desperately to shrink the abacus so calculations can be made faster. You can only fit so many midgets into a J-10 and they are all madly working their abacus and screaming out the answer to the pilot. With tripple redundancy, feeding them all is a monumental task, not to mention the holding tank for the outhouse. Several J-10's have come to grief when they suffered engine turbine blade damage from multiple chopstick hits, usually in pairs. Bamboo wouldn't be so bad, but carbon fiber chopsticks tend to get wedged into the bearings somehow.

GregP said:

Some folks were wondering why the 17-year gestation period for the F-22. Among the items that caused such a long delay, the software is VERY high on the list.

The F-22 has a God's eye view of the hemisphere in which it is flying, Each F-22 knows the state of fuel and weapons of each other F-22 in the air in that hemisphere. The thing can gly the mission by itself if the pilot is incapacitated, and then return home, land, amd park in the same parking space from which it departed. Debugging several million lines of code is NOT simple and, the thing is, each logical loop must be exercized and verified.

Today, roughly 55 - 65% of the cost of a front-line fighter jet is software, comparted with 0% for anything in WWII. The pilot is something of a computer "super user" who is monitoring and exercising his highly mobiile and adrenaline-generating PC.

If 17 years was a long gestation, the Isralei Lavi development morphed into the Chinese J-10 in only 20 years, and it was FLYING in 1986. So the Chinese basically bought a flying aircraft and "improved it" for 20 years to get the J-10. No wonder they didn't want to start from scratch ...

The problem comes from trying desperately to shrink the abacus so calculations can be made faster. You can only fit so many midgets into a J-10 and they are all madly working their abacus and screaming out the answer to the pilot. With tripple redundancy, feeding them all is a monumental task, not to mention the holding tank for the outhouse. Several J-10's have come to grief when they suffered engine turbine blade damage from multiple chopstick hits, usually in pairs. Bamboo wouldn't be so bad, but carbon fiber chopsticks tend to get wedged into the bearings somehow.

Click to expand...

Hence the same arguement on the F-35. People still parrot the 2011 Rand Report and all the bad press put out by Pierre Spey, but yet many of those problems have been long corrected.

I'm hoping you are right, Joe. Since we are going to field that thing, I hope it is a roaring success.

I simply do NOT agree with spending the amount of money to develop it that we have spent, no matter what the end-item product does. It tells me that "concurrent development" is definitely NOT a way to go in the future, and that there needs to be a timline and cost ceiling that, if reached, will trigger automatic cancellation. If the allotted time is exceeded, then the project would be cancelled automatically. I would not set the timeline too tight, but 17 years for the F-22 was ridiculous and the timeline for the F-35 isn't exactly a record setter, either.

I have the distinct feeling that the timeline kept extending as the government kept adding changes and new capabilities to the wish list. For cost containment, I'd like to see a specification developed and then locked in stone. If some NEW computer capability or other capability comes down the pike, then price adding it to the existing fleet separately and continue to fly while the cost-to-benefit is agrued. If they REALLY need the new capability, then develop a new weapon with that capability.

We ought to have a weight target and when it is reached, then anything added would trigger removal of something else. How else can we get to a desired specific fuel fraction?

Somewhere there HAS to be a better way than what happened and is continuing to happen with the F-35 cost and development schedule.

Maybe someone out there can answer this for me?

Is the F-35 combat ready in all three of its variants RIGHT NOW? If so, how many per quarter are being delivered? How many is the UK flying right now? Are they in workup to operations or are they operational? How many of each variant are WE flying? Are they all (or at least mostly) operational? Has it participated in any simulated combat exercises multinationally? How did it do?

I have heard some things but am unsure of the real answers since most if not all of the hype comes from the manufacturer or the armed services and most of not all of the criticism comes from opponents who have an axe to grind with the program. It would be nice to see facts without all the embellishments the press gives them.

I KNOW the pilots like the airplane, but do they like it when other fighters are trying to find them and shoot them down in a wargame? Are they being flown in the wargame as they will be deployed in real life or will future planners hang ordnance under the wings and negate stealth all the way into a target and still expect good results agianst 5th-generation enemy fighters that have been designed to find and kill F-18s ... which is what the F-35 looks and performs like when weighted down with external ordnance? It doesn't get stealthy and aginle until all that underwing crap, including aux fuel tanks, is gone.

GregP said:

I'm hoping you are right, Joe. Since we are going to field that thing, I hope it is a roaring success.

I simply do NOT agree with spending the amount of money to develop it that we have spent, no matter what the end-item product does. It tells me that "concurrent development" is definitely NOT a way to go in the future, and that there needs to be a timline and cost ceiling that, if reached, will trigger automatic cancellation. If the allotted time is exceeded, then the project would be cancelled automatically. I would not set the timeline too tight, but 17 years for the F-22 was ridiculous and the timeline for the F-35 isn't exactly a record setter, either.

I have the distinct feeling that the timeline kept extending as the government kept adding changes and new capabilities to the wish list. For cost containment, I'd like to see a specification developed and then locked in stone. If some NEW computer capability or other capability comes down the pike, then price adding it to the existing fleet separately and continue to fly while the cost-to-benefit is agrued. If they REALLY need the new capability, then develop a new weapon with that capability.

Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head with that one!

GregP said:

We ought to have a weight target and when it is reached, then anything added would trigger removal of something else. How else can we get to a desired specific fuel fraction?

Somewhere there HAS to be a better way than what happened and is continuing to happen with the F-35 cost and development schedule.

Maybe someone out there can answer this for me?

Is the F-35 combat ready in all three of its variants RIGHT NOW? If so, how many per quarter are being delivered? How many is the UK flying right now? Are they in workup to operations or are they operational? How many of each variant are WE flying? Are they all (or at least mostly) operational? Has it participated in any simulated combat exercises multinationally? How did it do?

I have heard some things but am unsure of the real answers since most if not all of the hype comes from the manufacturer or the armed services and most of not all of the criticism comes from opponents who have an axe to grind with the program. It would be nice to see facts without all the embellishments the press gives them.

I KNOW the pilots like the airplane, but do they like it when other fighters are trying to find them and shoot them down in a wargame? Are they being flown in the wargame as they will be deployed in real life or will future planners hang ordnance under the wings and negate stealth all the way into a target and still expect good results agianst 5th-generation enemy fighters that have been designed to find and kill F-18s ... which is what the F-35 looks and performs like when weighted down with external ordnance? It doesn't get stealthy and aginle until all that underwing crap, including aux fuel tanks, is gone.

Click to expand...

Thae navy version just passed carrier trials, this just in...

Lockheed F-35 jet on track to meet Marine Corps target: Navy - Yahoo News

I think what has happened is many people (especially the press) still blends all 3 versions together and assumes that the issues brought to light in 2011 still exist. Additionally I think everyone is putting too much emphasis on this aircraft in the air-to-air role. It's primary function from day one was that of a STRIKE aircraft - it drops bombs. With that said, "dogfighting" in the pure sense shouldn't even be considered in the fore front.

"Fly to your target, if interecpted, kill your enemy BVR, drop your bombs, go home and drink beer."

The aricle you posted above says they expect the F-35C to be ready for deployment by the end of the decade! That's 5 years away! First flight for the model was 9 years ago! I suppose if they make it by 2020, then the F-35C will only be a fewe years short of the F-22's record ... which was d isgusting to me.

But I suppose it is what it is.

Funny the STOVL is going to be combat-worthy sooner than the Navy version!

And the F-35A...

Officials remain confident in F-35A schedule

Anyone care to explain this comment made on YouTube....

As usual they don't even know that their F22 raptors got their asses handed to them by Gripen in red flag 2013.. F-16? Haha what a joke.

Lucky13 said:

Anyone care to explain this comment made on YouTube....

As usual they don't even know that their F22 raptors got their asses handed to them by Gripen in red flag 2013.. F-16? Haha what a joke.

Click to expand...

key word here, Jan: "comment made on youtube..."

The comment sections of any media, be it YouTube or Facebook or any other place is where the collective IQ of the human race takes a dangerous dip...

About the same as on Facebook then, eh?

Lockheed is going to offer Japan a stealthy hybrid of the F-22 and F-35 fighter jets
Source: Reuters

Above was news dated April 20, 2018.
Yesterday, Nikkei reported Lockheed Martin formally offered Japanese government reproduction of the F-22 as a varient for JASDF if Japan is going to cover half of the development costs. Abe will be glad to accept it.
Source: 次期戦闘機のＦ22改良版、日本が過半生産

Interesting.

1. F-22 wing will be modified to the triangle shape so that it can fly longer like a bomber.
2. Stealth technology and fighting system of the F-35 will be adopted.
3. More details are unknown at the moment.


Source: 次期戦闘機のＦ22改良版、日本が過半生産