some F35 info

[parsifal]

This is not new, but its the first time ive seen it. F-35 going through STOVL. Nice and stable hover characteristics and seems to taxi exceedingly well. Looks stable in the air as well, especially compared to the AV-8 which always behaved a little unsteadily in the hover.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7s59qe5mPE

For comparison, here is a clip for similr manouvres for the BAE Sea Harrier


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAYjZPneasQ

 

[Lucky13]

First, there are some munitions that won't fit in the F-35B in the planned loadout, later mods will take care of that. As far as weapons, it depends what model of the F-35 you're talking about.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkADougHayward.pdf

The F-35 could carry 18,000 pounds of bombs in internal and external stores (depending on model) From what have read on the Gripen, there's nothing definitive on it's bomb load (because its primary role is an air to air fighter?) but loadouts don't come close to 18,000 pounds.

As far as speed - compare both birds at lower altitude because that's where it's really going to make a difference. BTW the F-117 was subsonic...

True, I think that Gripen's limit is 18,000+ take off....
As for which version of the '35, wasn't really thinking any particular version of them, just in general...
As for the F-117, every time that Top Ten of fighters shows on of the famous reality show channels, Discovery, History and National Geographic, which ever one it is, it's 'facepalm', as I seem to remember that the F-117 is not a fighter....
Thanks for the link, if I remember correctly, I think that it was a few of the NATO boom-booms, that's too big for the -35's weapons bay, the Meteor being one of them...I'll have a look anyway!

 

[gumbyk]

Hoe much safer would it make carrier ops, with not having to use the catapault?

 

[parsifal]

in the case of the Melbourne, of the 11 losses whilst in RAN service, 6 occurred whilst on the carrier. Of these, 3 related to catapult failure, 1 to engine failure, 1 to pilot error and 1 was a deck handling accident (restraining cable parted when the ship was hit by a freak wave and the bird went over the side). For the land based crashes, 1 was to airframe failure (nosewheel snapped and the a/c flipped), 1 was a mid air collision, 1 was put down to pilot error and 2 to engine failure.

Total losses to engine failures were 3, which is a statistically significant number, but how does that compare with a similar random sample of twin engine aircraft.

After the final deployment in 82 Melbourne had had all fixed wing operations suspended and it was intended at that time to retain that restriction until final retirement in 86. The RAN jumped at the chance of getting an invincible class at scrap prices, because they knew they could operate the Harriers with about half the attrition rate compared to catapult operatiuons.

I dont know the US experience, and thats one of the bits of information I wanted from Sys.

 

[Lucky13]

Found this, while looking for other things for this thread....

Navy's new $12b aircraft carrier beset with performance problems

 

[parsifal]

Im cautious about that article. The ship is still going through its acceptance trials and its normal that some systems don't perform to spec straight away. the proof will be if, the ship is not accepted into service or a new delivery contract is negotiated, or, it is accepted and it has problems whilst in service.

 

[GrauGeist]

Found this, while looking for other things for this thread....

Navy's new $12b aircraft carrier beset with performance problems

First off, the article is from the Boston Globe, a typical "metro" rag that thrives on hysteria-journalism for ratings.

The carrier is first in a series, so yes, there will be bugs with the new technology. The Nimitz ran into similar issues when they were developing that class and the bugs were worked out before it's debut. And if you notice, the article quickly mentions that it's still two years yet, before anticipated delivery, but moves along to other wrist-wringing, burying that little bit of important information.

I did have a great laugh, however, over the part where they were concerned about the power requirements for the electro-magnetic catapault. The nuclear powerplants on these carriers (and our subs) generate enough electricity to power a fair portion of a small city, so this is a prime example of journalism that twists facts to leave the reader the impression that the Gerald R. ford is a fiscal and material failure...

 

[Lucky13]

I know that it's a bit off topic, but.....does any of these *rse wipes, actually know what they're talking about....I know, stupid question!

 

[GrauGeist]

I know that it's a bit off topic, but.....does any of these *rse wipes, actually know what they're talking about....I know, stupid question!

The majority of editors or contributing editors don't know their azz from a hole in the floor. They simply take a wire service report and add it to their own publication. They *may* embellish it a little, but by and large, it'll be the same story, just different newspaper.

This is why so much incorrect information keeps circulating, because they keep regurgitating articles. Like this persistant "F-35 versus F-16" story which keeps popping back up like that mystery floater in the commode that just won't go down with the flush.

In the words of Mark Twain: "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."

 

[gumbyk]

in the case of the Melbourne, of the 11 losses whilst in RAN service, 6 occurred whilst on the carrier. of these related to catapult failure, 1 to engine failure, 1 to pilot error and 1 was a deck handling accident (restraining cable parted when the ship was hit by a freak wave and the bird went over the side). For the land based crashes, 1 was to airframe failure (nosewheel snapped and the a/c flipped), 1 was a mid air collision, 1 was put down to pilot error and 2 to engine failure.

Total losses to engine failures were 3, which is a statistically significant number, but how does that compare with a similar random sample of twin engine aircraft.

After the final deployment in 82 Melbourne had had all fixed wing operations suspended and it was intended at that time to retain that restriction until final retirement in 86. The RAN jumped at the chance of getting an invincible class at scrap prices, because they knew they could operate the Harriers with about half the attrition rate compared to catapult operatiuons.

I dont know the US experience, and thats one of the bits of information I wanted from Sys.

So, from those figures, eliminating the need for the cat eliminates that same number of accidents as all engine failures?

 

[parsifal]

So, from those figures, eliminating the need for the cat eliminates that same number of accidents as all engine failures?

well, one would think so, but before I sign on the dotted line, you have to know what the engine failure rate for a/c like the sea harrier has been. Does that VTOL technology in any way make worse the engine failure rate.

For the Falklands war, a total of 20 Sea Harriers and 8 Harrier GR3s were deployed. operations were pretty intense, with I think 7 lost in total. 2 lost in bad weather, presumed to be a midair collision, 3 shot down by enemy ground fire, 1 lost to engine failure (exploded while in the hover), 1 was shot at by small arms, punctured a fuel tank and then ran out of fuel and ditched before they could get back to the Hermes.

The datasets are not comparable though im afraid.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I dont know the US experience, and thats one of the bits of information I wanted from Sys.

I think it was shown he was incapable of providing that and because he continued to speak out of ignorance rather than fact. (and being warned about it countless times) He's now on a little cyberspace vacation.

 

[parsifal]

That was the obvious outcome from almost the beginning of this discussion. ive never seen sys so obstinate.......its a pity, because there may be some substance to at least some things he was saying. i honestly dont know how much of an advantage having two engines is. if he had stopped squawking it might have been good discussion.

 

[GrauGeist]

...i honestly dont know how much of an advantage having two engines is...

In looking at the F/A-18 incident reports (some of which I posted earlier), it appears that having two engines aboard didn't stop catastrophic failure during an engine fire and/or engine disintigration, ultimately resulting in the downing of the aircraft.

I am far from an expert on aircraft engines, but it seems to me that having two engines in direct proximity to each other exposes either one to damage in the event one fails.

It would be interesting to see a comprehensive list of contemporary single and twin engined military aircraft incident reports, that are equipped with comparable engines and compare failures.

 

[razor1uk]

Slightly off topic or belated, my musing on the 2 engines..

Considering that that most jet engines are designed to cost and certainly mostly for civilian models, the combustor/turbine section, and the compressor casings are designed to keep debris inside until they leave the nozzle of the engine; I'd assume that military engines are more paired down more than civvy ones - possible less compressor cassing protection.,

..and that the F/A-18 has a narrow rear (narrower than say the MD-D F-4 - due to it being essentially decended from the N improved F-5/YF-17), while having a thin fuel tank between the engines bays,

..I'd guess that that the single engine faliure was more than designed for, that the nature of the faliure if it didn't shed debris into the other engine through the interior structure/spaces the fuel tank, then the damage also affected the auxillary drives, electro hydraulic transfer system in such a ways that the associated safeguards/cut-outs/switch-overs were unable to work to keep it controllable and or powered.

Generally 2 engines are safer, even if a more usual fault renders one in-operable; such as a fueling or cooling problem/mechanical or software glitch. Also when the engines are widely spaced, you have greater control problems when power is lost, but how the power is lost is less likely to affect the other engine directly. Closely spaced engine give less directional problems and help make a smaller, more aerodynamic vehicle, but with a slightly higher chance of a serious problem spreading to the adjacent engine.

But Voltare did say "All is possible in for the best of Worlds." (or something similar)

 

[Lucky13]

I still find it funny, that they decided to go for the internal weapons bay, for which the Meteor missile is too large, know they'll how to make a smaller one to fit, how will that affect its performance, will it be less than the 'normal' version? I don't know how 'hot' the Meteor is, among other missiles in missile universe of today and I can't help but think back to the F-102 and F-106 with their internal weapons bays and their....eeerrmmmm....Falcons, I do know that things have moved on after those, quite a bit too, but didn't they still leave a bitter aftertaste though? Which also makes me wonder why they didn't develop the Phoenix..

Found this at: The Best Air-to-Air Missile in the World Is in Sweden. Gripen fighters the first to get the new Meteor missile

According to the manufacturer, in a head-on engagement the Meteor provides a no-escape zone three times greater than that of a conventionally powered missile. With the Meteor launched in pursuit of a target—a tail-chase engagement—the Meteor is five times as lethal as a conventional equivalent such as the American AMRAAM.

Mind you, I don't know how reliable the site is, plus it's from July last year. Since then, they've tweaked some more on the Meteor, changed here and there, think it's using K-Band or what it was called, which improved and made it even more sensitive towards anything stealth, think that increase in sensitivity was a fair bit, hopefully I'll find it again!
Trying to find where I found it, have a nagging feeling that it was in the Gripen for Canada article that I posted....

Again, damn interesting thread and discussion!

 

[GrauGeist]

Internal weapons bay reduces radar cross-section...munitions on hardpoints would most likely be used in ground attack where being a sneaky bastard isn't a priority.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No doubt its a great missile, I'd like to see it proven in combat.

With that said, as far as it being too large to fit I the weapons bay - the F-35 can carry wing pylons and will do so once air superiority is achieved. But backing up, remember, the F-35's primary role is that of an attack aircraft. If it can't be effectively picked up on radar why worry? Although its been over 20 years since the Gulf War, looked at what the F-117 achieved (I know Lucky, you probably don't want to hear about it). AFAIK, they were first in/ first out and no fighter ever threatened them.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Internal weapons bay reduces radar cross-section...munitions on hardpoints would most likely be used in ground attack where being a sneaky bastard isn't a priority.

You beat me to the punch!

 

[parsifal]

sneaky bastard...I like that terminology