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

[AGRA]

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

Engine thrust is determined by two elements: mass flow (ie how much air is going through the engine) and exhaust velocity (ie how hot the air is).

The F135 for the JSF has been designed to have increased mass flow compared to the F100 in the F-16. This is because the JSF in its F-35B version will be a VTOL aircraft. While the F135 engine exhaust will only provide about half of the F-35Bs vertical attitude lift thurst (and operate at under half overall power) it is very important that this thurst be of high mass, low velocity. Hot air is the worst thing you can pump in a VTOL configuration. This is why the Pegasus on the Harrier wouldn't look out of place hanging on a 767 because of its huge fans compared to the much narrower F-16 F100 (both engine's producing roughly the same thrust).

So does this mean the JSF will be louder? Considering the F135 has a lot more thrust than the F100 it shouldn't. Becuase exhaust velocity is a major cause of noise.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

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.

Well what is a platform spiral developement program? And whats the system for the F-35 to carry 6 internal AAMs?

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...

So the F-35 can carry AAMs on the 6 external hardpoints? I thought right now the F-35 can only carry 2 internal AAMs until the upgrade for 6 internal AAMs from the spiral developement program, according to LM they already have plans for 6 internal AAMs.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Well what is a platform spiral developement program? And whats the system for the F-35 to carry 6 internal AAMs?

A spiral development programme is a number of planned upgrades to be introduced after the platform reaches IOC.

The system is a specially designed double ejector rail for the inboard "ground" hardpoint, allowing 6 AAM's to be carried internally.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

A spiral development programme is a number of planned upgrades to be introduced after the platform reaches IOC.

The system is a specially designed double ejector rail for the inboard "ground" hardpoint, allowing 6 AAM's to be carried internally.

Oh I get, I don't suppose the spiral program includes upgrades to carry more of other weapons too like JADAMs and JASSM.

So does LM already have this double ejector rail or are they still working on it?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Oh I get, I don't suppose the spiral program includes upgrades to carry more of other weapons too like JADAMs and JASSM.

So does LM already have this double ejector rail or are they still working on it?

I believe its still being worked on, but its hardly the most challanging problem LM has to deal with.

AFAIK all of the JDAM series will be able to carried internally, as well as JSOW at IOC. JASSM can only be carried externally and again this will be available at IOC.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I believe its still being worked on, but its hardly the most challenging problem LM has to deal with.

AFAIK all of the JDAM series will be able to carried internally, as well as JSOW at IOC. JASSM can only be carried externally and again this will be available at IOC.

Can you give me a link about the double rail please? Now can the F-35 carry the SLAM-ER? I was just wondering if it could just in case if the JASSM gets canceled for any reason.

 

[Aussie Digger]

So the F-35 can carry AAMs on the 6 external hardpoints? I thought right now the F-35 can only carry 2 internal AAMs until the upgrade for 6 internal AAMs from the spiral developement program, according to LM they already have plans for 6 internal AAMs.

It will depend on whether the external hardpoints are "wired" for AMRAAM and have the "G" rating to allow them the carry the missile.

I expect all the external hardpoints will be capable of carrying at least one AMRAAM with the middle and in-board pylons capable of carrying "dual rail" launchers for AMRAAM.

Existing such launchers exist as you can see here under the port wing of this RAAF Hornet:

http://www.defence.gov.au/airshows/aia07/gallery/20070320a/2007031987sqn8193387_0074.jpg

 

[F-15 Eagle]

It will depend on whether the external hardpoints are "wired" for AMRAAM and have the "G" rating to allow them the carry the missile.

I expect all the external hardpoints will be capable of carrying at least one AMRAAM with the middle and in-board pylons capable of carrying "dual rail" launchers for AMRAAM.

Existing such launchers exist as you can see here under the port wing of this RAAF Hornet:

http://www.defence.gov.au/airshows/aia07/gallery/20070320a/2007031987sqn8193387_0074.jpg

True and even if not the F-35 can still carry 6 AIM-120 AAMs internally(plus two AIM-9s on the wing tips stations externally) under the spiral development program, though I don't know when that will happen, most likely around 2015. I don't expect the Air Force to talk about it much, because they are afraid it might damage their case for more F-22s(over and above 187) but I see the F-35 being upgraded to carry 6 internal AMRAAMs by 2015.

 

[Wall83]

Norwey is also in collaboration with Saab to develop the new Gripen version F/E, and that alone should be proof enuogh that they will choose the Gripen as their next fighter.

Sweden also have planes to shrink its airforce from about 150 Gripen fighters today to about 100 planes in the future. This means that about 50 Gripens soon will be on sale. And for a nice price Saab surley will upgrad these planes to version C/D standard.

 

[AGRA]

Norway is a 1% partner in the JSF project and as part of this has indicated a commitment to acquiring 48 F-35As. Their indicative procurement timetable is deliveries of 8 F-35As in 2014 followed by 12 in each of 2015, 2016 and 2017 and a last 4 in 2018. It has cost Norway hundreds of millions to date as a JSF partner.

Norway has in the past maintained two type fighter fleets with the F-5 and F-16 in service. They may be planning a similar approach with the F-35 and JAS-39.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Norwey is also in collaboration with Saab to develop the new Gripen version F/E, and that alone should be proof enuogh that they will choose the Gripen as their next fighter.

Sweden also have planes to shrink its airforce from about 150 Gripen fighters today to about 100 planes in the future. This means that about 50 Gripens soon will be on sale. And for a nice price Saab surley will upgrad these planes to version C/D standard.

The UK (BAE systems) is in collaboration with SAAB in the development of the Gripen. I don't see a UK order for Gripens on the cards any time soon...

 

[energo]

Norway is a 1% partner in the JSF project and as part of this has indicated a commitment to acquiring 48 F-35As. Their indicative procurement timetable is deliveries of 8 F-35As in 2014 followed by 12 in each of 2015, 2016 and 2017 and a last 4 in 2018. It has cost Norway hundreds of millions to date as a JSF partner.

Norway has in the past maintained two type fighter fleets with the F-5 and F-16 in service. They may be planning a similar approach with the F-35 and JAS-39.

This is very unlikely due to the high cost of operating two aircraft types. The defence department 2006 conceptual analysis did however cover a mixed solution, but only with F-16 (ie. old) and new fighters.



Regards,
Bjørnar

 

[Atilla [TR]]

When it comes down to air to air suppority over the Aegean like I asked in another thread, I wonder if a Eurofighter would have made a better choice then the F-35.

 

[ROCK45]

air to air

In a rare 1 vs. 1 or 2 on 2
I would still think the F-35 going to see the Typhoon first, then get into a good firing position, and fire first. Even if the Typhoon picks up the F-35 radar at some point it's still going to have to deal with Slammers coming at them. If the F-35 stays out side the radar range of being pick up by the Typhoon which is not known because the jet isn't operational yet, wouldn't be difficult getting a lock on the F-35 still? The F-35 could exit the battle and then enter again if it had the fuel and shoot off the another salvo of Slammers. I sure the F-35's radar, missiles, something will show up on some warning device at some point I realized that but the time the pilot has to react is shorten. Missiles that pull 30/35 Gs fired from inside the missile designed perfect kill zone are too difficult to escape. I know stealth isn't magic but judging by the F-22 test when it beats four and five F-15Cs at the same time and they know its in the area, the F-35 going to do pretty well in air to air.

 

[Magoo]

The UK (BAE systems) is in collaboration with SAAB in the development of the Gripen. I don't see a UK order for Gripens on the cards any time soon...

Not for a couple of years now AD. Gripen Int'l was wound back in 06 and Saab now handles all Gripen marketing ocne again I believe.

 

[Scorpion82]

In a rare 1 vs. 1 or 2 on 2
I would still think the F-35 going to see the Typhoon first, then get into a good firing position, and fire first. Even if the Typhoon picks up the F-35 radar at some point it's still going to have to deal with Slammers coming at them. If the F-35 stays out side the radar range of being pick up by the Typhoon which is not known because the jet isn't operational yet, wouldn't be difficult getting a lock on the F-35 still? The F-35 could exit the battle and then enter again if it had the fuel and shoot off the another salvo of Slammers. I sure the F-35's radar, missiles, something will show up on some warning device at some point I realized that but the time the pilot has to react is shorten. Missiles that pull 30/35 Gs fired from inside the missile designed perfect kill zone are too difficult to escape. I know stealth isn't magic but judging by the F-22 test when it beats four and five F-15Cs at the same time and they know its in the area, the F-35 going to do pretty well in air to air.

Well that's the simple theory and how it should work, but what if it doesn't work like that? No one can guarantee that the non stealthy aircraft's ESM/RWR isn't capable to detect, identify and locate the threat. Add advanced IRST sensor fusion and maybe other assets on the battlefield all being linked to each other. I think an advanced IADS network shouldn't have that much problems to detect and track an aircraft like the F-35. These data could be forwarded to a non stealthy interceptor. The situation, tactics and pilot skills matter as well and these are dynamic, non predictable variables.

 

[Grand Danois]

And what if a non-stealthy jet has to penetrate a similar IADS including stealthy jets?

I'd think that LPI makes it very difficult to locate VLO jets, just as the VLO jet relies on off board sensors too. If the latter is the case, then they won't be detected by any ESM/RWR. Because they don't emit anything at all.

The non VLO jet will be detected regardless if it is emitting or not.

All being equal, VLO infers a huge synergetic multiplier to capability, particularly in offensive operations.

Well that's the simple theory and how it should work, but what if it doesn't work like that? No one can guarantee that the non stealthy aircraft's ESM/RWR isn't capable to detect, identify and locate the threat. Add advanced IRST sensor fusion and maybe other assets on the battlefield all being linked to each other. I think an advanced IADS network shouldn't have that much problems to detect and track an aircraft like the F-35. These data could be forwarded to a non stealthy interceptor. The situation, tactics and pilot skills matter as well and these are dynamic, non predictable variables.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

And what if a non-stealthy jet has to penetrate a similar IADS including stealthy jets?

I'd think that LPI makes it very difficult to locate VLO jets, just as the VLO jet relies on off board sensors too. If the latter is the case, then they won't be detected by any ESM/RWR. Because they don't emit anything at all.

The non VLO jet will be detected regardless if it is emitting or not.

All being equal, VLO infers a huge synergetic multiplier to capability, particularly in offensive operations.

Well put. Scorp' you have to look at things from an equal perspective. In real terms the F-35A will practically allways have a similar support structure to the non LO platform, becasue anyone who can afford an F-35 should have the funds for a decent air combat system. As GD said LPI is a big advantage, and even if it is compromised somehow and the threat has the ability to take a shot whout a radar track with a missile system that will not be effected by said platforms VLO (pretty unlikely), Link 16 allows the VLO platform to launch an AIM 120 without transmiting. Game over!

Anyway 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 is pointless. Aerial combat is not fought between platforms, its fought between air combat systems, and VLO effectively takes your enemies AEW&C out of the picture. Sensor coverage dominates engagements and VLO dominates sensor coverage, the effect should be plainly obvious.

 

[Scorpion82]

And what if a non-stealthy jet has to penetrate a similar IADS including stealthy jets?

I'd think that LPI makes it very difficult to locate VLO jets, just as the VLO jet relies on off board sensors too. If the latter is the case, then they won't be detected by any ESM/RWR. Because they don't emit anything at all.

The non VLO jet will be detected regardless if it is emitting or not.

All being equal, VLO infers a huge synergetic multiplier to capability, particularly in offensive operations.

I bascially agree with you. But my point is a different. Many people seem to believe that stealth makes an aircraft invincible and therefore undefeatable, but that is only partitially true. You can shut down all RF emissions, but you can't eliminate radar and IR signatures, but you can reduce them lowering the probability of detection. I think a non stealthy fighter has at least better chances in the defensive role. I think LPI is much overstated, because where emissions are you can detect them. A stealth fighter operating in the offensive role will probably not enjoy that much support by other assets, as AWACS for example might be to far away to assist properbly.

 

[Grand Danois]

I bascially agree with you. But my point is a different. Many people seem to believe that stealth makes an aircraft invincible and therefore undefeatable, but that is only partitially true. You can shut down all RF emissions, but you can't eliminate radar and IR signatures, but you can reduce them lowering the probability of detection. I think a non stealthy fighter has at least better chances in the defensive role. I think LPI is much overstated, because where emissions are you can detect them. A stealth fighter operating in the offensive role will probably not enjoy that much support by other assets, as AWACS for example might be to far away to assist properbly.

LPI. I use the word locate, as nedeed to develop a track or facilitate a ground control intercept. The difficulty is in correlating emissions. Detection is only the first element in the chain. VLO breaks the kill chain in several places, which is why detection is not enough.

Yes, AWACS assist is less in such situations (hefty IADS), but then you employ other tactics, like only shutting down a number of emitters and using passive sensors. But you rarely enter hostile air space to take up a fight to take on enemy fighters in the air, but rather to destroy assets on the ground. Depending on type of campaign, of course.

Non VLO jets suffer less in a defensive role. Yes. VLO is increased survivability, increased operational and tactical flexibility.