some F35 info

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Lucky13 said:
It's where it started, with what was available back then....still makes it old news pal!
Click to expand...

I believe the SAAB system was strickly ground-to-air/air-to-ground(?) similar to contemporary USAF SAGE system which may have been implemented as early as the F-94. Still an impressive capability for SAAB.

The modern data system provides massive data sources, in real/almost-real-time, to the on-scene commander (pilot/WSO). This includes airborne threats from AWACS, ground moving targets from JointSTARS/Globalhawk, active targeting from other F-35s, ground sites, etc., etc., etc., a revolutionary step in system awareness.
 
Not that revolutionary....

From SAAB...

Gripen has highly developed net centric warfare capabilities. The objective is to find and exploit information. With this definition every Gripen unit is net centric, considering the high-end sensor suite and strong focus on data links for sharing information within the Gripen Tactical unit. Gripen already has Link 16 which is used for battle space control in large NATO-led operations, as well as digital CAS and video link for cooperation with Forward Air Controllers on the ground.

Edit:

The Gripen is fitted with the "Tactical Information Datalink System (TIDLS)", which gives the fighter four high-bandwidth, two-way datalinks with a range of about 500 kilometers (310 miles) and very high resistance to jamming. The datalinks allow the Gripen to engage in combat using another aircraft's sensors or from targeting data provided by other defense systems. Data acquired from remote sources is fused and displayed on the fighter's main MFD. The link is fully operational when the aircraft is on the ground, allowing a pilot on standby to have high situational awareness of the battle environment.

One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target's track through triangulation from several radars; or allow one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allow multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to "burn through" jamming transmissions. In addition, TIDLS gives the Gripen transparent access to the SAAB-Ericsson 340B Erieye "mini-AWACs" aircraft, as well as the overall ground command and control system. This system provides Sweden with an impressive defensive capability at a cost that, though still high, is less than that of comparable systems elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
More grist to the mill:

F-16 Vs. F-35 In A Dogfight: JPO, Air Force Weigh In On Who's Best « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

While the article acknowledges that the F-35 lacked full mission software, it still misses the key point that the purpose of the trial was to evaluate the F-35's flight control software, not to undertake a combat evaluation of the F-35 against the F-16. There are some good quotes, though, notably from Deptula...and the reference to every pilot who's flown the F-35 liking it should be quite telling (although I don't believe for one second that it will alter anyone's mind on this forum).
 
Last edited:

You beat me to the post on this article. Another major point that some of the anti-F-35 camp (to include skeptics, doubters, the media, armchair fighter pilots and engineers) is the fact that the performance specifications of this aircraft WAS DICTATED BY THE CUSTOMER!!!! And so far, AFAIK (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll once again repeat) the only notable performance parameter that the F-35 couldn't meet was the 9G sustained turn, which I think was only an air force requirement, and in the larger scope of things means very little.

GrauGeist said:
What I would like to see, is an F-16 just try and bounce a fully equipped production F-35...
Click to expand...

In due time!!!
 
parsifal said:
How many gs in a sustained turn can the F-35 do?
Click to expand...

Hugely complicated question - depends on altitude, speed, aircraft weight (which is constantly changing!). The link Joe provided is a great mini-treatise on the subject. Unfortunately, like most measures, sustained g rate may not be as important as it sounds - unless you're flying a Spitfire and progressively turning inside an Me109. I believe (and, if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate contradiction from those better informed than I) that instantaneous turn rate may be of greater significance in a close-in fight because it allows rapid change to the direction in which the aircraft's nose is pointing (not necessarily the direction the aircraft's heading), to allow weapons engagement. According to the article Joe linked, the F-35A has better instantaneous turn than the F-16...which is pretty darned impressive in my book.
 
"Saying the F-35 can't beat the F-16 in a dogfight is a little like complaining that a tank can't beat a horse at a fence jump and calling for a return to the age of cavalry charges. Tanks aren't built to jump fences; they are built to flatten them. Similarly, F-35s aren't made so much to win dogfights with lesser planes as to blast them out of the sky from afar—before a visual combat situation has begun. Moreover, the press reports do not mention that the F-35's missile defense systems and ability to suppress enemy radar can enable F-16s and other aircraft, unmanned as well as manned, to get much closer to their targets and strike them much more effectively than would otherwise be possible."

In Defense of the F-35 - The American Interest
 
I still don't believe the politicians will allow BVR fire in most situations ... and THAT's why I lament the F-35's lack of within-visual-range prowess. It isn't because I think the F-35 can't take something out BVR ... it's because I think they won't be allowed to do so by the President or whoever is setting the ROE.

Why is this so hard to understand?

That being said, I see in the AIA Daily Lead blogs that the F-35B has been cleared for combat deployment on carriers as of today. That means we should be seeing some operational mission flights coming down the pike. Looking forward to it ... right up to the point where they restrict the ROE.

Up until then, I expect a great performance from the F-35. It WILL do what it designed to do. My worry is it won't be allowed to by politicians ... not that it can't prosecute the battle if not restricted. I fully expect it to perform in a real battle where we are in combat.

I worry it can't perform in a political battle where we fly in and try to intimidate the enemy from 25 feet away, and who might turn out to not be what we expect as an opponent. If we think it's an airliner and it turns out to be a Sukhoi Su-37 ... or even maybe 4 of them in close formation, then the F-35 might be in some difficulty. The thing is, it ain't all that hard for a modern 4.5-gen fighter to fake an airliner's flight profile, and save fuel while doing it to boot.

So if that turns out to not be an issue,then I have no worries. The only people, at this point, who fly these are Russia, China, and India. I hope we aren't fighting them anytime soon. We seem peaceful enough at this point, but you never know. Neville Chaimberlain probably thought so, too, in 1939.

That article above about the F-35 and horizontal turns is funny. NOBODY is worried about 77° versus 79° level turns. They are worried about vertical turn performance and instantaneous turn performance ... pulling 4.6 versus 5.whatever, not about level turns that are never used in combat. ALL jet fighter pilots know that. The author is throwing flak at the argument of taking issue with reducing the g-limit and is talking about level turns! It is classic misdirection ... get them focused away from the issues. Anyone else think that is just wrong?

He is perfectly correct in what he says, but combat isn't composed of level turns. If you split-S from 6,500 feet, you aren't turning level, but you DO need some good g-limits to make it at 450 knots. The g-limits COUNT. That's why even WWII fighters had a g-limit of about 8. Not so they could whip around in level turns, but to escape from vertical dilemmas at high speeds and make hard turns as required.

If the F-35 g-limit is 8 or more and we are talking only about "sustained g" at some altitude, then I retract my objection. It is an excess-power issue, not an airframe strength issue. I'm also teaching new courses right now and haven't read up on it. This may well have been addressed already, and I haven't seen a flight envelope curve set for it or noticed it if I did ... it SHOULD be classified at this time.

I can agree that the difference between 4-point-something and 5-point something isn't much. That isn't the issue. I'm wondering why a military attack plane with the word "fighter" in the name, even if it is an "attack-fighter" or a "fighter-bomber" or a "stealth-fighter," can't sustain 8-g like they could 80 years ago, plus a 50% safety factor before failure.

You can pull more g's in a P-39, and it wasn't one of our better units in the 1940s ... again, if the F-35 real structure limit is 8 or more, then I bow out with objections.

Otherwise it seems like a whitewash that won't matter much BVR when flown as designed and intended, but WILL WVR when flown with political ROE. Or at least that's how I see it. If we don't hamstring the F-35, it won't matter much, and since the B models are now cleared, it won't be too long before we know.

I hope Washington is smart about it and the issue never comes up, but "Washington" and "smart" almost never see the same sentence. They are usually separated by a paragraph or more in the stories.

Joe, help me out here. You BELIEVE 10-g or you KNOW 10-g? Are we talking structural g-limits or sustained turn capabilities? If it's only sustained turn, I withdraw my objections. Otherwise ... they stand and I escalate the objections.

If the airframe can handle high g limits, then the issue is sustained g. That can be handled rather easily unless the encounter is WVR with equal or nearly equal numbers with both sides being aware of the coming fracas.
 
Last edited:

Because it's not backed up by the data. In Vietnam, BVR engagements started out being 22% of the total number of engagements. Towards the end of the conflict, that number increased to 41%. So even given the push for guns to be reinstalled on fighters, the proportion of BVR engagements INCREASED during that conflict. By Desert Storm, a whopping 59% of all engagements were BVR (source for data is this Air Warfare College paper - perhaps not the best source but it's what I could find by taking 5 mins to Google for info!).

So even in Vietnam the ROE allowed increasing use of BVR. In all honesty, how valid is your concern about limiting ROE, particularly given enhancements in network centric warfare that permit far better identification and recognition of threats in the BVR fight? Is it possible that politicians might hinder ROE? Yes. Is it really likely? Experience would suggest not.



Firstly, what would an airliner be doing pootling around in a combat zone? Secondly, have you heard of Non-Cooperative Target Recognition? Most data on the capabilities are classified but Wikipedia provides some of the concepts, essentially using radar to identify the aircraft type based on engine modulation. Again...it's all about information integration. If you have it, you can engage at longer range but without it you're blind. Western Coalitions certainly have the data whereas our opponents don't.



The problem here is you're mixing and matching terms inappropriately. By definition "sustained g" is a turn in which the g, speed and altitude are all constant. As you rightly point out, that's not a particularly useful measure of combat performance. However, sustained g is not a "g limit". The point of the article is that the anti-F35 crowd jumped on the lowering of sustained g and misinterpreted that to mean it can't dogfight as well as current platforms. It's bollox. As I pointed out earlier, instantaneous turn rate is far more relevant and in that area of performance, the F-35 beats the F-16, which is one of the most manoeuverable aircraft on the planet.



There is no way on the planet that a WWII vintage aircraft could sustain 8g. That's absolute nonsense. They might have been able to achieve an 8g turn momentarily but not sustain it. Again, it's all in the language you're using. In terms of g, "sustain" doesn't equal "achieve", it means "remain at". Achievable g for the F-35 is, I believe, north of 10g with a safety margin on top of that.
 
Last edited:
GregP said:
Joe, help me out here. You BELIEVE 10-g or you KNOW 10-g? Are we talking structural g-limits or sustained turn capabilities? If it's only sustained turn, I withdraw my objections. Otherwise ... they stand and I escalate the objections.
Click to expand...

Actually 9.9Gs structural. I can't pull up the reference but it is mentioned in one of the articles I posted earlier
 
I withdraw my objections and will await some operational info before continuing.

In several articles I read they were saying the g-limit was being lowered. Nobody mentioned sustained g. The articles I read also said the Naval version with the extended wings was structurally limited to 7 g. Perhaps that is wrong, too. I don't have time right now, but will pursue that as I get the time. Cheers.
 
Last edited:
One of the things about the F-35 is that it is an a/c designed to a spec that is quite unique. its designed to be both stealthy and also with decent to excellent performance. My guess is that in the future, where the scenario requires it, tactics will be worked out to maximise the F-35s chances of achieving a favourable attacking position and then finishing off its opponents with a final pass. Thats if its stand off weaponary hasnt already made you hit the silk beforehand.
 
That was one of the huge dis-information flubs about this aircraft. The media also treats this aircraft as if was one version. The issues with the F-35B were being mentioned as if the problems existed across the board.
 
Here's a little issue with the F-35 that I know will be blown out of proportion as soon as news about ISIS subsides.

Test Uncovers Cracks on F-35 Test Plane

From the article...

The military has certainty got a lot out of the test F-35C. In fact, the damaged article has been used for more than 13,700 test hours. DellaVedova told IHS that that amount of test hours is equivalent to 6,850 flight hours or more than 20 years of operational flying use. Those figures are especially whopping, considering that DellaVedova said all the F-35Cs that currently soar the skies have less than 250 flight hours.

It should also be noted that aircraft used for durability testing are purposefully pushed to the limit so that investigators can simulate operational flying, which makes it easier to spot flaws."
 
I think my biggest concern was price. But when they said the g-limit was put to under 6, I interpreted that to be structural. Apparently it isn't. It is an excess thrust limit. Naturally, if they configure one for air-to-air, it won't be carrying a full bomber load and the limits will change for the better. Of course, the test I saw quoted the F-16 p[ilot as saying the F-35, even light, couldn't fight, couldn't run, and couldn't disengage.

We'll find out soon enough.

I still have concerns because almost ALL of the peacetime kills that the F-15 achieved over it's lifetime were from WVR. I was not concerned about wartime ROE ... it's peacetime ROE that make me think that the vast majority of intercepts thus plane will have will be within 1,000 feet ... simply because you don't DO things in peacetime that you do in wartime. One of those things is attack without being SURE.

Again, we'll see. I have less concerns now than I did a few days ago.
 
GregP said:
I still have concerns because almost ALL of the peacetime kills that the F-15 achieved over it's lifetime were from WVR..
Click to expand...

The F-35 will not (and should not) fulfill the role that an F-15 is currently employed in, that's what the F-22 is for. With that said, I'd like to know your source for that. Even if a contact is spotted WVR it's still tracked and locked on and the only really unique environment where VR combat can almost be assured is over Israel. Summary of F-15 Combat Action

I think everyone is concerned about the price but as previously shown, it's really in the ball park with some contemporaries and is actually cheaper than the F-22 in the "A" version.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Gulf of Sidra 1981 Info wanted
Replies
7
Views
1K
Barrett
B
F
Allison J33 -A-24 Info
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
SR-72 Darkstar info
Replies
8
Views
1K
SaparotRob
M
Some Interesting Vietnam Shots
Replies
5
Views
1K
Gnomey
Experimental Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. Some rare, unclassified footage
Replies
2
Views
691
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register