Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?

[Bearcat]

Whats the top speed of the F-35? Reason I ask is russian TU-160's are regularly flying along the norwegian coast, and theese strategic aircraft are capable of mach 2.

In wartime, the role of the norwegian air force is air superiority until NATO can support Norway. Speed is essential in this scenario.

So, what's the top speed of the F-35?

 

[ROCK45]

Top speed

Bearcat I do not know the top of an F-35 I'm not sure the true speed is released yet. TU-160's capable of mach 2 but I think in bursts and assume couldn't maintain that speed for long periods of time because of the fuel used. For an intercept radar platforms would guide the F-35 into a position in the path of the incoming TU-160 to take a shot. Getting into position for the intercept in the key and sometimes fighters just don't have enough fuel to reach the bomber and stay with for long. Tankers have help a lot because fighters can use up huge amounts of fuel in burst flight just trying to get in the area of the bomber. I read in this other forum that a fighter wouldn't have such a easy time trying to catch a 747 in a trail chase for a long period of time. It's not that the 747 is faster it just carries tons of fuel and maintain a descent speed for a long time. Looking over the specs on the tu-160:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/
I don't see on the above web site top speed for maintained speeds but wow it sure seem to carry a lot of fuel.

Quote from site
The performance of the Russian Tu-160 is often compared to the US B-1B. The aircraft has an operational range of 14,000km and a service ceiling of 16,000m. The maximum flight speed is 2,000km/h at high altitude and 1,030km/h at low

I hope Norway has good early warning.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wink

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Whats the top speed of the F-35? Reason I ask is russian TU-160's are regularly flying along the norwegian coast, and theese strategic aircraft are capable of mach 2.

In wartime, the role of the norwegian air force is air superiority until NATO can support Norway. Speed is essential in this scenario.

So, what's the top speed of the F-35?

Its top speed is Mach 1.8 or 1200mph. Thats the speed of an F-18 Hornet.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Whats the top speed of the F-35? Reason I ask is russian TU-160's are regularly flying along the norwegian coast, and theese strategic aircraft are capable of mach 2.

In wartime, the role of the norwegian air force is air superiority until NATO can support Norway. Speed is essential in this scenario.

So, what's the top speed of the F-35?

There are so many issues involved in air combat, that why the F-35 even needs to "catch" a Mach 2 flying aircraft is beyond me.

An AMRAAM flies at Mach 4 for the majority of it's flight afterall...

 

[Bearcat]

You dont use AMRAAMs to ID an aircraft in a QRA-role. You need speed to get to the AO.

As far as I know, almost all QRA scrambles has been to ID high flying bombers, and speed is of the essence. A total of 88 russian aircraft were ID'd in 2007 in QRA by the RNoAF, a number which probably will be surpassed this year.

I had the impression that the F-35 would be slower than mach 1,8.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

You dont use AMRAAMs to ID an aircraft in a QRA-role. You need speed to get to the AO.

As far as I know, almost all QRA scrambles has been to ID high flying bombers, and speed is of the essence. A total of 88 russian aircraft were ID'd in 2007 in QRA by the RNoAF, a number which probably will be surpassed this year.

I had the impression that the F-35 would be slower than mach 1,8.

OK first of all, the TU-160 can only go at Mach 2 for a few minutes, they almost always cruse, they don't go at top speed on the QRA-role ether, they are always cruising at around 400-600mph. Finally, no the F-35 will do a good 1200mph, you must be thinking about the X-35 prototype, it only did Mach 1.5, but the F-35 is rated for Mach 1.8 maybe more.

 

[jaffo4011]

Because the F-35 is designed to carry 2 internal air to air missiles (though this can be increased to 6) and 2 stations for bombs internally plus 6 external weapons for a wide range of air to air and air to ground weapons or fuel tanks. I know this because that is what the F-35 was designed for. Its payload is more than 20,000+lbs that is more than the legacy fighters it will replace and it is more than even the F-22 Raptor. The U.S. will never export the F-22, the USAF too busy trying to get more F-22s for themselves before they even start thinking about exporting it, so no Norway will not get the F-22, but they could get the F-35.

these facts dont mean that its the best fighter!....the nimrod has a big internal weapons bay for all sorts of weapons but that doesnt automatically make it a fighter that cant be surpassed!!

overall systems and design make a good fighter and what manufacturer is going to state that their plane is a dud in comparison to its competitors?
now i wouldnt put an f35 in that class(or any yet) as its barely through its initial trials and hasnt been bench marked against its competitors as of yet.

id be very wary of stating''my planes the best,or second best'' before its been up against its peers in some way or another.

i for one hope its superb as the royal navy especially will be relying on it to look after the fleet.

 

[davedogman]

Eyed this thread and just wanted to comment on the comp/bus talk...

Compare with the Mk4 Gripen C's SDS80 computer, hosted by D96/MACS processor modules running PowerPC G3 processors at around 7 GFLOPS of DSP speed, built around a 5x1 Mbit/s standard MIL-1553B bus (used since the 1970s).

The F-35s Intergrated Core Processor is currently PowerPC G4 based, hooked onto a 2 Gbit/s fiber channel bus and supplemented by a 800Mbit/s IEEE 1394B link. It has a baseline 40000 CPU MIPS plus 76 GFLOPS DSP capasity, but will likely be in the 1-2 TFLOPS range in the final production version. The display processor running the panoramic LCD cockpit alone runs at 220 GFLOPS.

Some of this will also find its way into the F-22 CIP 2005 plug-in upgrade.

Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy

First of all simply comparing GFLOPS is ridiculous since different hardware and software demand different amounts of processing power to perform at peak levels. Next, in the presentations by Saab to the NoMOD it is mentioned a couple of times of a overall increased system performance on the Gripen "N".

Talking about what might come in the F-35 is just as futile as trying to guess what might come in the new Gripen unless you actually know what you're talking about.

Gripen was always designed to be easy upgradable including the bus hardware. (Yeah we've heared over year about how complicated everything with Gripen is.. can't be NATO compatible.. can't add extra weapon stations.. can't do this and that.. still it happens. It's selling and it's delivering jets on time.) JAS39C came about in the mid 90s with its first flight 2002 and the Swedish gov has continuously financed the long term development. With the 39C they also moved to the COTS Mercury architecure (same RACE/RACE+ arch as F-35 ICP and for F-22's SAR) for the CPU's.

In one presentation to the NoMOD last year this sentence is in black and white.

SAAB: "Better computers and bus performance"

So let's not assume too much unless you actually have information. And remember the Gripen Demo is a partnership with some major US aerospace companies who actually spend their own money on this project because they see good export opportunities.

 

[Bearcat]

You'd think that engine noise would increase progressive with engine-power, or in a matter, speed of an aircraft.

However, I read an article in a norwegian paper claiming that one single JSF would generate as much noise as 50 F-16's taking off simultaneously.

This is the conclution of the norwegian SINTEF, the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia. The basis for this, is that the JSF is 15-17dB louder than an F-16. These noise values are said to be released by LM. The noise levels for Gripen and Typhoon are however not released, but are rumoured to be +5dB for the Gripen and +10dB for the Typhoon, compared to the F-16.

Why the JSF engine is so extremely noisy compared to the other aircrafts is truly puzzleing. Perhaps someone may shed some light to this?

One thing is for sure, theese noise levels will affect which aircraft is to be chosen as Norways next generation fighter!

 

[F-15 Eagle]

You'd think that engine noise would increase progressive with engine-power, or in a matter, speed of an aircraft.

However, I read an article in a norwegian paper claiming that one single JSF would generate as much noise as 50 F-16's taking off simultaneously.

This is the conclution of the norwegian SINTEF, the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia. The basis for this, is that the JSF is 15-17dB louder than an F-16. These noise values are said to be released by LM. The noise levels for Gripen and Typhoon are however not released, but are rumoured to be +5dB for the Gripen and +10dB for the Typhoon, compared to the F-16.

Why the JSF engine is so extremely noisy compared to the other aircrafts is truly puzzleing. Perhaps someone may shed some light to this?

One thing is for sure, theese noise levels will affect which aircraft is to be chosen as Norways next generation fighter!

Yeah I do know that the F-35 is much louder than any other jet out there that I know of. But honestly I love that rumbling noise of a fighter jet, its so awe inspiring... it gives me goose bumps.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You'd think that engine noise would increase progressive with engine-power, or in a matter, speed of an aircraft.

However, I read an article in a norwegian paper claiming that one single JSF would generate as much noise as 50 F-16's taking off simultaneously.

This is the conclution of the norwegian SINTEF, the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia. The basis for this, is that the JSF is 15-17dB louder than an F-16. These noise values are said to be released by LM. The noise levels for Gripen and Typhoon are however not released, but are rumoured to be +5dB for the Gripen and +10dB for the Typhoon, compared to the F-16.

Why the JSF engine is so extremely noisy compared to the other aircrafts is truly puzzleing. Perhaps someone may shed some light to this?

One thing is for sure, theese noise levels will affect which aircraft is to be chosen as Norways next generation fighter!

I seriously have to question this. In fact my internal BS meter is singing like a canary.

How would they have made any acoustic measurements when the first aircraft has only just run off the line?

They can't do it on static tests
They can't do it on the mule
They would have access to the measurement facilities where the aircraft (pre-production) is tested.

As much as I don't want to believe that an entity would have a vested interest in whiteanting a program for various reasons (idealogical, technical, commercial, philosophical etc...), I have to question how they did their measurements when they don't have access to the platform or the facilities in the US where these tests can only be conducted. (they're not done offshore). The US is not going to allow any independant (ie non US military) technical team anywhere near the platform for any form of measurement. They can measure their own aircraft if given access, but to do a comparative based on any publicly released info (and public info is always sanitised for any active let alone emergent system)

So, in my own experience on mil project evaluation says that this is just BS of the highest (no matter how feigned the sincerity) order.

 

[Grand Danois]

As I read it from the articles & quotes, as the publication isn't available, SINTEF assumes an increase in noise levels for the purpose of doing acoustic modelling of environmental noise impact, i.e. they don't claim it is an increase of 17dB over the F-16. They rather use it as an arbitrary number.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As I read it from the articles & quotes, as the publication isn't available, SINTEF assumes an increase in noise levels for the purpose of doing acoustic modelling of environmental noise impact, i.e. they don't claim it is an increase of 17dB over the F-16. They rather use it as an arbitrary number.

and on the basis of making a determination, it is absolutely and fundamentally useless as none of it is empirical.

in polite terms. someone is making an assumption and guessing an outcome without access to even the remotest of data.

you just can't do an acoustic test on the engine (static), it has to be done sans production at various distances and altitudes using holographic sensors at various ranges.

if anyone/entity submitted this kind of claim in a real commercial (let alone military) acoustic evaluation they'd be laughed out of the lab.....

 

[Grand Danois]

and on the basis of making a determination, it is absolutely and fundamentally useless as none of it is empirical.

in polite terms. someone is making an assumption and guessing an outcome without access to even the remotest of data.

you just can't do an acoustic test on the engine (static), it has to be done sans production at various distances and altitudes using holographic sensors at various ranges.

if anyone/entity submitted this kind of claim in a real commercial (let alone military) acoustic evaluation they'd be laughed out of the lab.....

I'd say the environmental study is ok. Again as I read it, it is hypothetical in the sense that it asks the question "what if the noise level increases 17dB per take off." The error is to attribute that arbitrary number to a particular jet, unless you have solid sources for it, which for the reasons you state, I agree they don't.

It could be suspected as a case of whiteanting, however, for the benefit of the doubt, they are not suggesting buying a different jet, but rather distributing them differently on their bases in case of a noisy jet.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It could be suspected as a case of whiteanting, however, for the benefit of the doubt, they are not suggesting buying a different jet, but rather distributing them differently on their bases in case of a noisy jet.

I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you know what will happen, the fan clubbers/lobbyists/advocates will start quoting material like this as evidence and fact.

 

[Grand Danois]

I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you know what will happen, the fan clubbers/lobbyists/advocates will start quoting material like this as evidence and fact.

Agree on that. It is dangerous to associate a priori or assumed data with an actual product, just for the benefit of public outreach (people relate better to a JSF, than to a "generic noisy jet").

Because the press will quote it as fact, or it will be misinterpreted by the readers...

But I am curious as to the source of that number, hmmm...

 

[Sea Toby]

I actually live near the Fort Worth, Texas Lockheed plant, and I can guarantee everyone the Lightning II isn't 50 decibels higher than a Falcon. To my ears, a sonic boom has much more noise than either of the jets flying above me either taking off or landing. And a sonic boom is a sonic boom, no difference.

The F-35A is actually a wonderful jet to watch. I also like watching the F-16s too, along with the F/A-18s at the Joint Reserve Base. The jet that made the noise was and is the B-52 bomber. When it flew overhead landing while driving the freeway, you felt it. Fighter jets are nothing in comparison.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I've been doing some research on the F-35 lately and for some reason I can't get over the fact that most sites say the F-35 can only carry 2 AMRAAM's internally and 2 AIM-9's on the wing tips. Now I know there are two 2500lbs and two 5000lbs stations externally on the wing pylons but can they carry AMRAAMs or just bombs? If that is the case then the Air Force really needs to find a way to fit 6 AMRAAMs internally because theres no way the USAF can achieve air dominance with only 187 F-22s. If the F-35 can only carry two AMRAAMs then they will only be for self-defense for only one engagement unless they can carry more. I find that a little scary but I hope I'm wrong. Does someone know anything about this?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I've been doing some research on the F-35 lately and for some reason I can't get over the fact that most sites say the F-35 can only carry 2 AMRAAM's internally and 2 AIM-9's on the wing tips. Now I know there are two 2500lbs and two 5000lbs stations externally on the wing pylons but can they carry AMRAAMs or just bombs? If that is the case then the Air Force really needs to find a way to fit 6 AMRAAMs internally because theres no way the USAF can achieve air dominance with only 187 F-22s. If the F-35 can only carry two AMRAAMs then they will only be for self-defense for only one engagement unless they can carry more. I find that a little scary but I hope I'm wrong. Does someone know anything about this?

LM have allready got an system planned to allow the F35 to carry 6 AAM's internally, its part of the platforms spiral deveolpment programme.

"Our spiral development program includes the ability to carry up to six internal AMRAAMs", G. Richard Cathers, senior manager of Lockheed Martin's strategic studies group, told the IQPC Fighter Conference in London on Wednesday. "It's a capability second only to the F-22."

http://tinyurl.com/2xtxxq

We should probably wait untill the platform is operational before we worry about upgrades. If its feasible and the requirement is there they'll do it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I've been doing some research on the F-35 lately and for some reason I can't get over the fact that most sites say the F-35 can only carry 2 AMRAAM's internally and 2 AIM-9's on the wing tips. Now I know there are two 2500lbs and two 5000lbs stations externally on the wing pylons but can they carry AMRAAMs or just bombs? If that is the case then the Air Force really needs to find a way to fit 6 AMRAAMs internally because theres no way the USAF can achieve air dominance with only 187 F-22s. If the F-35 can only carry two AMRAAMs then they will only be for self-defense for only one engagement unless they can carry more. I find that a little scary but I hope I'm wrong. Does someone know anything about this?

The F-35 will not carry "wing tip" air to air missiles as this would compromise it's LO measures significantly. Each F-35 variant will be capable of mounting 3x hard points under each wing. I imagine these hardpoints will be wired and stressed to carry various combinations of A2A and A2G munitions.

The F-35 will also operate 2x internal weapons bays. These internal bays will each contain 1x hardpoint and 1x missile rail.

On present plans each internal bay will be capable of carrying various operational loads.

On the F-35A/C These include:

2x 2000lbs class (Mk 84 bombs, GBU-10 LGB's, GBU-31 JDAM's, AGM-154A/C JSOW) munitions with 1x 2000lbs munition per bay

1x AIM-120C/D AMRAAM missile per bay. Total being : 2x bombs and 2x AMRAAM on internal bays alone.

This is the "operational configuration" used when ranges, performance etc of the aircraft is discussed and is therefore considered the "standard configuration".

This does not mean that is the LIKELY operational configuration, just one possibility used to ensure some sort of baseline for statistics.

The JSF project office has confirmed that each F-35 variant will be capable of carrying up to 4x AMRAAM missiles or 2x AMRAAM and 2x WVR (AIM-9X Sidewinder or AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles) on it's internal hardpoints and rails from the aircraft's introduction into service.

The project office has also stated that studies to increase the internal air to air missile carrying capability of the F-35 are being conducted. Given the internal bays are both longer and wider than the F-22's weapons bay, greater A2A missile carriage is not only likely but probable. However separation testing will comprise a big part of F-35 weapons testing as dropping weapons from an internal weapons bay, particularly at supersonic speeds is no trivial matter, from all reports...

The F-35 will be a very capable air to air performer. On strike missions, legacy jets only carry 2x AMRAAM's on usual missions and it's typical to match strikers with "escorts" on current missions.

The F-35 will be lucky enough to be one of the few jets truly capable of doing both simultaneously...