F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[RobWilliams]

Partners are first at the trough for getting jobs from future parts orders and some partners get more access to stuff that counts (the UK paid for Tier one access and while I have no idea what we got, we paid a lot for it)

25% workshare I think is the figure thrown around and a fairly substantial amount of BAE involvement (i recall reading 'the aft fuselage of every F-35 made' at one point, how true it is i don't know), not to mention the obvious RR lift fan contract.

Which probably means that RR are fairly pleased with the UKs decision picking the B.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The Norwegian missile is the NSM/JSM that is a Candidate weapon for Blk4 integration.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile"]Naval Strike Missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

View attachment 5608

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012annual_psr/WERTH.pdf

 

[fretburner]

Not sure what Swedish missile you're on about here? Israel got very little over and above "you can have these jets, sod off about the source code, bugger off about help to integrate Israeli weapons, figure it out yourself)

My bad. I was referring to the Norwegians and their stealthy cruise missile which they want carried internally.

 

[StobieWan]

The Norwegians have funded integration of the NSM themselves I think - can't swear if it was the manufacturers or Norway but I believe it's being done. Nice missile.

 

[fretburner]

The Norwegian missile is the NSM/JSM that is a Candidate weapon for Blk4 integration.

Naval Strike Missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

View attachment 5608

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012annual_psr/WERTH.pdf

I'm curious on why there's no mention of the AIM-120D?

The Norwegians have funded integration of the NSM themselves I think - can't swear if it was the manufacturers or Norway but I believe it's being done. Nice missile.

From the specs, it does seem like a very nice missile. It looks stealthy as well. Any ideas on how much this will cost? I presume a lot more expensive than a JSOW-ER?

 

[Haavarla]

I'm pretty sure the Norwegian state own parts of the Kongsberg group, not sure how much though..

So in the end it is not Kongsberg whom paid for the R&D, but our State, which in turn means ME, sinse i pay my bloddy high taxes.. nfloorl:

 

[SpudmanWP]

It's likely that -120D will make it into Blk3 since the D is done now and they are still working on Blk3.

Another option is that -120D is not a "candidate" weapon as it has already been chosen to be part of Blk4.

 

[aussienscale]

Interesting article I saw linked in another forum, but of particular interest to me was this passage:

"Much speculation has swirled around the question of the F-35’s electronic warfare and electronic attack capabilities. The Air Force has resolutely refused to discuss any specifics. Yet experts have pointed out that, in its most recent EW/EA roadmap, USAF has failed to mention any plans for a dedicated jamming aircraft. It is a conspicuous omission.

O’Bryan certainly couldn’t go into the subject of the fighter’s EW/EA suite in any detail, or the way it might coordinate with specialized aircraft such as the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System, RC-135 Rivet Joint, E-8 JSTARS, or EA-18G Growler jammer aircraft.

He did say, however, that F-35 requirements call for it to go into battle with "no support whatever" from these systems.

"I don’t know a pilot alive who wouldn’t want whatever support he can get," O’Bryan acknowledged. "But the requirements that we were given to build the airplane didn’t have any support functions built in. In other words, we had to find the target, ... penetrate the anti-access [defenses], ... ID the target, and ... destroy it by ourselves."

O’Bryan said the power of the F-35’s EW/EA systems can be inferred from the fact that the Marine Corps "is going to replace its EA-6B [a dedicated jamming aircraft] with the baseline F-35B" with no additional pods or internal systems.

Asked about the Air Force’s plans, O’Bryan answered with several rhetorical questions: "Are they investing in a big jammer fleet? Are they buying [EA-18G] Growlers?" Then he said, "There’s a capability here."

Some interesting responses here, if you take what he is alluding to, makes you wonder about the Aus Government on the Growlers ? But I suppose the Growlers will fill the gap until IOC of the JSF ? Is this potentially the reason why they made the Growler Decision ?

Plenty of other commentary in their on RCS, Stealth etc. I know he is LM and people willgo on about the LM marketing machine etc, but some food for though, and not to be taken as gospel, but hey, these guys are making the plane so I am guessing they know what it can do

Cheers

The F-35

 

[ADMk2]

Don't forget the fact that USMC aren't replacing EA-6B because they are adamant against buying F/A-18E/F or EA-18G, so when they say they are replacing EA-6B with F-35, it's airframes and passive EW / ESM only.

For all it's good points, I'd don't think even L-M would claim it has an all aspect, wide band offensive jamming capability...

If it did, Next Generation Jammer wouldn't exist...

 

[SpudmanWP]

Some other good bits.

The F-35

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

This confirms two things.
1. LM does not consider just going over M to be supercruising.
2. It can

Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours.

The F-35’s radar cross section, or RCS, has a "maintenance margin," O’Bryan explained, meaning it’s "always better than the spec." Minor scratches and even dents won’t affect the F-35’s stealth qualities enough to degrade its combat performance, in the estimation of the company. Field equipment will be able to assess RCS right on the flight line, using far less cumbersome gear than has previously been needed to make such calculations.

You read that right, the F-35's RCS gets BETTER over time, not worse through normal use.

Much, much more at the jump.

 

[ADMk2]

Some other good bits.

The F-35



This confirms two things.
1. LM does not consider just going over M to be supercruising.
2. It can



You read that right, the F-35's RCS gets BETTER over time, not worse through normal use.

Much, much more at the jump.

Really? L-M needs EQUIPMENT to determine RCS?

They should hire our amazing Dr Kopp. He can do it using nothing more than jpegs taken from the internet...



Nice bit of info about the performance though. Should shut up a few of those who think the fact that the Gripen NG can fly at M1.2 without burners and without any stores for a few miles is something special...

 

[SpudmanWP]

They'll just claim that because he works for LM that he MUST be lying.

 

[ADMk2]

They'll just claim that because he works for LM that he MUST be lying.

Ah yes, excellent point.

SAAB employees don't lie. Only Lockheed Martin ones do.

I'd forgotten that pearl of KP wisdom...

 

[kato]

I'd forgotten that pearl of KP wisdom...

LM employees don't lie. They may also be generous if you duly present what their version of the truth is.

At least that's the way it used to go.

 

[ADMk2]

LM employees don't lie. They may also be generous if you duly present what their version of the truth is.

At least that's the way it used to go.

That's right, they don't all lie. They just sell whatever version of the truth the highest bidder pays for...

 

[gf0012-aust]

"Much speculation has swirled around the question of the F-35’s electronic warfare and electronic attack capabilities. The Air Force has resolutely refused to discuss any specifics. Yet experts have pointed out that, in its most recent EW/EA roadmap, USAF has failed to mention any plans for a dedicated jamming aircraft. It is a conspicuous omission.

its been a while since I attended any of the JSF briefs - but the last was within 12 months

at that meeting its AESA solution was specifically referred to as a discrete weapon system. it has the capacity to be steered and direct energy as part of a deception/disruption/destruction tool.

sigmgt is not just about masking/deflecting, in contemp terms its also about active participation.

prev sigmgt capabilities such as earlier iterations of RAM were passive. eg F117 mapping their journey through heavy preplanned trips requiring extensive topo knowledge and being companioned up with other assets to clean or confuse the corridors. eg rivetj, awacs, etc...

active sig management provides an asset with greater autonomy and the capacity to have less dependancy on companion systems as part of the journey. That doesn't necessarily mean that the companions are no longer needed, but it does mean that they can be retasked for other priority roles within the bigger package picture.

its a systems event with the platform becoming a system in its own right as well as contributing to the overarching blue response.

 

[jack412]

GF, was anything said about the barracuda RWR sys that can be said publicly because I've heard it referred to as a passive radar system and EW sniffer

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF, was anything said about the barracuda RWR sys that can be said publicly because I've heard it referred to as a passive radar system and EW sniffer

Nope, but to get an idea start looking at the F-22's ALR-94 - AN/ASQ-239 is a vast improvement on ALR-94

 

[jack412]

fair enough, I've just found posted the pdf full article http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November 2012/1112fighter.pdf

page 54 last column
if we go by what is said about the USAF and USMC faith in the f-35, we have wasted our money on converting the SH to growlers

 

[ADMk2]

fair enough, I've just found posted the pdf full article http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November 2012/1112fighter.pdf

page 54 last column
if we go by what is said about the USAF and USMC faith in the f-35, we have wasted our money on converting the SH to growlers

No we haven't. You're assuming the Growler would only be useful in supporting the tactical fighters in an escort role... F-35 probably won't need it, but it will make their job much easier.

Growler will also provide great support to the rest of ADF which won't have the advantages F-35 will have...