F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
That's on them - they've known about the requirement for satcoms for a very long time and if they've not made arrangements to buy and fit the gear for their own local requirements, I don't see this as a F35 issue.
SATCOMs is part of Blk4 and has been so since the finalizing of Blk3. While the SATCOM aperture is on the F-35's spine, it is currently empty. As each feature of each block is voted on by all members of the JSF Partnership, Canada knew of the Blk4 SATCOM issue going back to at least 2008. I did a little digging and the earliest that I found public info on the movement of SATCOM to Blk4 is April of 2008.
fretburner
Banned Member
Do you think Canada will wait for Blk4 before declaring their F-35s IOC? They're supposed to receive their training planes before the estimated 2018 delivery timeline for the Blk4 planes right?
Yes, its not a JSF issue. Thats a SATCOMM procurement issue for Canadian Def. They're not the only ones who have been tardy in ensuring that all their systems can talk and play btw.
It does however have nothing to do with JSF but with the Canadian Spectrum mgt procurement and future planning process
My intent was not to direct any blame towards the F-35 program, and I applogize if it came across that way. My intent was to add some information to this disscussion.
no harm, no foul.
its a lesson in how context and intent can be lost in a forum as opposed to face to face...
According to the current issue of Aviation week and Space Technology it is both. Only one small area of the fight deck was test coated with the new material.
speaking of Aviation week, Bill is back from F-35 gardening leave again and his first post in nearly 2 months is up to his usual standard.
He spun the numbers and came up with ...
How Much for That Stovl Capability?
""The Stovl jet also bears a share of the three-version costs. Subtract that $16.9 billion from the $56.4 billion in total SDD, divide the result by three. Add that to the $16.9 billion in unique costs, plus $4 billion for the CDA. That's $34 billion in then-year development costs for the F-35B.
Total Pentagon investment for 340 F-35Bs, according to the program of record: about $92 billion, or $270 million per unit. ""
now using Bills nonsense, that means the A or C only cost $13.36b to develope
56.2 - 16.1 = 40.1 divide by 3 = 13.36
Using his numbers, the B cost $34b and the A or C only cost $13.36b, dont you love his logic and how he spins numbers to suit himself
personally I think it's time the old bugger got permanent gardening leave
He spun the numbers and came up with ...
How Much for That Stovl Capability?
""The Stovl jet also bears a share of the three-version costs. Subtract that $16.9 billion from the $56.4 billion in total SDD, divide the result by three. Add that to the $16.9 billion in unique costs, plus $4 billion for the CDA. That's $34 billion in then-year development costs for the F-35B.
Total Pentagon investment for 340 F-35Bs, according to the program of record: about $92 billion, or $270 million per unit. ""
now using Bills nonsense, that means the A or C only cost $13.36b to develope
56.2 - 16.1 = 40.1 divide by 3 = 13.36
Using his numbers, the B cost $34b and the A or C only cost $13.36b, dont you love his logic and how he spins numbers to suit himself
personally I think it's time the old bugger got permanent gardening leave
as sweetman, wheeler, c-c and elp can't add up maybe all 4-5 should marry and form a couple...
/sarcasm off
He'd have had a great *management* accountant - I was always told the difference between a management accountant and a chartered accountant was that the chartered guy was legally obliged to give you the correct answer, wheras a management account was around to give you the numbers that suited your case.
He's starting to sound more and more desperate the better the aircraft does - now it's routinely flying, demonstrating capability and looking quite good, he's thrashing around like a fish in that last inch of the catch net.
Bless him...
Ian
While i have always had my doubts about the F-35B and realisticly believe that making a STOVL version of the F-35 was a BAD idea (should have just built a purpose designed STOVL attack aircraft a much better upgrade of the harrier without all the compromises forced upon it by the F-35 A &C.) over all it is the one that is the most irreplaceable.
The A model as far as im conscened is a waste. Far better aircraft could have been built. Maybe not F-22's but more modern versions of the F-15/F-16.
C model.....sigh its made a few cuts to what is recomended. No gun for one.
Add to that these aircraft are all only stealthy in a limited range.
External weapons/fuel/etc negate that stealth. Or look at a picture of a f-35 from behind-compare to a F-16.....
C-model really isnt that much better than new built models of the F-18SH soon to be in production.
--------------------------------
Here is the thing Jack. There is NOTHING out there to replace the Harriers with. Plus more people can operate the B Models than C.
The A model as far as im conscened is a waste. Far better aircraft could have been built. Maybe not F-22's but more modern versions of the F-15/F-16.
C model.....sigh its made a few cuts to what is recomended. No gun for one.
Add to that these aircraft are all only stealthy in a limited range.
External weapons/fuel/etc negate that stealth. Or look at a picture of a f-35 from behind-compare to a F-16.....
C-model really isnt that much better than new built models of the F-18SH soon to be in production.
--------------------------------
Here is the thing Jack. There is NOTHING out there to replace the Harriers with. Plus more people can operate the B Models than C.
There is no compromise forced onto the F-35B by the F-35A and C. It is a purpose designed STOVL aircraft.
You couldn’t build a far better aircraft at the same cost.
It has a gun but doesn’t carry it all the time. Plus it is hardly a make or break deal (the gun).
Not true at all.
Good thing it can fly 600 NM away from home drop two big bombs and fire two air to air missiles without having to carry anything external.
Even a Block III Super Hornet is going to lack the stealth and range of the F-35C. It might have the same mission systems but not all of the package.
Mate your ideas are not grounded in what is actually going on with the F-35.
No they are. First everything for the F-35 A,B,C are Estimates. The aircraft has so far just hatched. Nothing is really known. Add to that everyone admits there are differences between the models for performance.
F-35B has to match the F-35 A and C models which are not STOVL. So no its not a purpose built aircraft.
Pics of the Sterns of both the F-35 and the F-16
An F-16 Fighting Falcon Aggressor soars over the Alaska Range :: Air-Attack.com
Third F-35 Carrier Variant Aircraft Completes First Flight :: Air-Attack.com
A true stealth aircraft like the F-22 has a different build. Plus IR is still the same unlike again a F-22.
-------------
2 missiles and 2 bombs? Hold the phone folks....
Here is my thing I WANT the F-35 to succeed.
However that said I simply think it would have made more sense for the Airforce to just have its own light fighter maybe a evolved F-16 suplamented with say the F-15SE or something like it.
The Navy to go for either the F-18 as the new models will be getting more powerful engines, conformal fuel tanks, improved avionics and systems, stealth features and more.
In my mind again just my opinion the Navy needs a strike aircraft like the A-6. ALOT of capacity and range. Ability to refuel other aircraft (which the hornet can Do...but not very well.) and conduct other missions. No need for super speed.
I'd like to see a straight up Fighter in the navy again. Not a master of none which the F-18/F-35 both are.
But like i said the B model is a must nothing exist to replace the Harrier...except the F-35B.
F-35B has to match the F-35 A and C models which are not STOVL. So no its not a purpose built aircraft.
Pics of the Sterns of both the F-35 and the F-16
An F-16 Fighting Falcon Aggressor soars over the Alaska Range :: Air-Attack.com
Third F-35 Carrier Variant Aircraft Completes First Flight :: Air-Attack.com
A true stealth aircraft like the F-22 has a different build. Plus IR is still the same unlike again a F-22.
-------------
2 missiles and 2 bombs? Hold the phone folks....
Here is my thing I WANT the F-35 to succeed.
However that said I simply think it would have made more sense for the Airforce to just have its own light fighter maybe a evolved F-16 suplamented with say the F-15SE or something like it.
The Navy to go for either the F-18 as the new models will be getting more powerful engines, conformal fuel tanks, improved avionics and systems, stealth features and more.
In my mind again just my opinion the Navy needs a strike aircraft like the A-6. ALOT of capacity and range. Ability to refuel other aircraft (which the hornet can Do...but not very well.) and conduct other missions. No need for super speed.
I'd like to see a straight up Fighter in the navy again. Not a master of none which the F-18/F-35 both are.
But like i said the B model is a must nothing exist to replace the Harrier...except the F-35B.
Yeah building a completely different 5th Gen stealthy, supersonic STOVL capable fighter would have been much cheaper...
Virtually every major air arm in the world thinks the complete opposite of this statement and so do the manufacturers of the F-15 and F-16, but please feel free to disagree with them.
The -C model is equipped with the same General Dynamics manufactured GAU-22 25mm gun as the -A and the -B model. Again feel free to disagree with this statement of fact.
Very true. The F-35 is only stealthy in radar frequency bands from about 0.10Mhz up to about 60Ghz and of course in IR radiation bands.
Absolute rubbish isn't it? You might want to look at a radar frequency chart sometime though, just to make sure of the facts about the frequency bands that military and civilian radars actually use...
Here's a starting point that might help.
Radar Frequency Bands
Really? If you put external weapons or fuel on the F-35 it's stealth is negated? What happens exactly? Do the shaping, materials and internal structures of the aircraft stop absorbing and disappating the EM energy that a radar "paints" the aircraft with?
Wow, that seems to break a few laws of physics as they are currently understood. I think you've made an amazing scientific discovery here.
If you put external weapons on an aircraft, the LO properties inherently designed into it, suddenly stop working! Makes you wonder why aircraft manufacturers both to incorporate LO treatments into aircraft that soley rely upon external weapons and fuel to have any sort of payload capability whatsoever, doesn't it?
Or could it be, that reduced low observability is still a militarily useful property even if it is not as great a survivability feature as a "full" LO capability? That would seem to explain why manufacturers of aircraft like Super Hornets, Typhoon's, Rafales, SU-35's, F-16's, F-15E's etc, which are all wholly reliant upon the carriage of external weapons still apply features that effectively lower the radar-cross section (RCS) of their respective aircraft, despite the fact that those external weapons will still provide significant radar reflectivity spikes across the aircraft's whole RCS...
Funny how it seems a worthwhile action for all those aircraft, to lower the aircraft's RCS despite carrying external weapons, but if the F-35 were to carry exterenal weapons, suddeny it's stealth is no longer of any benefit...
Sorry to disagree with you again, but the US Navy disagrees with you. So does that long time, well known and publicised critic of the F-35 program (and much else besides) the US GAO.
Even that ardent critic accepts that the F-35 will be 35% more capable than even the latest generation Block II Super Hornet and that's only the Block 3 level F-35 capability.
The real "goodies" in F-35 capability start to come in Block IV and V...
I thought that the -B model was the Harrier replacement? Silly me, I must be confused...
Last edited:
The aircraft has been flying for more than two years now, so its not a paper airplane... From media reports the pilots can't wait for the aircraft to enter the operational fleet...
Many members of the US Congress wish to eliminate the USMC... In their eyes the US Army is America's land force, not the Marines. If they succeed there won't be any need for a US STOVL aircraft... Does the US need three air forces? Between the four forces the USMC is fourth in the pecking order, not first...
I guarantee the USAF and USN will get theirs, but the USMC may not... Until an opponent builds up a significant bomber force threatening the USA, pure interceptors aren't required as much...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Hate to break it to you, but the direction you seem to want organizations like the USN to head in terms of combat aircraft is the opposite of what its own combat experience has been, essentially since the Vietnam War.
Take the suggestion of dumping of the F-35C (and the F/A-18 version) and replacing the Fleet Air Arm with a dedicated attack/strike aircraft and a separate fighter aircraft. One of the things the USN amongst others want, is a multi-role aircraft. Not dedicated fighter and attack/strike aircraft. The reason being, aircraft with dedicated roles are of limited (or no) use outside of their specific role. Which means that an attack/strike aircraft is of little use in an air to air engagement, or if such an engagement is on the horizon. By the same token, a fighter is not much use moving mud, and would be of little use once the battlespace has been sanitized vs. enemy aircraft.
Also, by combining fighter and attack/strike roles, then the attacking aircraft on a strike mission can to a degree self-escort, which can reduce the number of aircraft required to sortie on a particular mission. Given the advancements made in materials, avionics and weapon systems, what used to require a dedicated platform, or sometimes a number of them, can now be done with a single platform which can also perform other functions.
What also seems to be overlooked is just what the F-35 (of the various variants) is supposed to do. It is to be a multi-role platform for the air forces, the USMC and naval aviation, and provide advanced capabilities well into the future.
The F-35 (all variants) is a LO aircraft. It might not have been designed to have as small a sig as the F-22 or have the sig reduced across all bands as much as the F-22, but it is still LO. As such, the sig of other recent, non-purpose designed aircraft (Typhoon, SHornet, etc) which has had sig reduction work done would still have a larger sig than the F-35. Once things like external stores, which other aircraft require in order to provide a useful mission capability, that sig difference grows larger still.
Attempting to keep with an Evolved F-16, something like an F-16 Block 60 or perhaps something even more advanced, runs into the limitations of the airframe in terms of just how much sig reduction is possible in that particular shape and fitting the desired kit. BTW while the F-16 was originally conceived as a lightweight fighter, the modern ones like Block 52+ are no longer 'lightweight' by any means. Nor are they inexpensive to purchase. Which means if they will no longer be able to operate in threatened airspace with a reasonable chance of survival, they would be a waste of resources in purchasing for future operations. Same goes with the proposed F-15SE, it can be made to have a smaller sig when compared to a 'standard' F-15, at least in some aspects, but the reductions cannot be as significant or comprehensive as can be achieved in an aircraft purposed designed with LO in mind.
-Cheers
No they are real. You can even download pictures of them to prove it. As to the performance it is very close to the design estimates. They flew prototypes 10 years ago and have had thousands of engineers working on them.
Yes there are differences in the performance between the A, B and C and that is because they are different versions. If they were all the same they wouldn’t be called A, B and C! The F-35B adds the weight of the STOVL lift system and to compenstate for it reduces the size of its bomb bays and fuel load. The F-35C adds a bigger wing so it can fly slow enough to land on an aircraft carrier and gets a range advantge from the extra fuel it carries. The F-35A without any of this is cheaper.
Mmmm…. Interesting concept. Doesn’t make any sense but.
Ahh another stealth expert. Notice that the F-22 and F-35 don’t look anything like the F-117? Yet they are both stealthier than it? This is because there are more than one way to achieve a solution.
-------------
Why? Are you calling? Sounds like you’re having a phone conversation or two with yourself. Everything you have said here about the F-35 is wrong. But think of the good side to this. The only way you can go from here is up because you can’t get any worse off.
- Status