F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[sunderer]

Philk, are you saying the RAAF will only able to deploy 10 JSF at any time? If that is what you are saying on what do you base that comment?

 

[BKNO]

French politicians long regarded JSF as a political and economical CON designed to undermine european efforts to keep their Aerospacial industries alive.

there are archives on the Assemblee nationale website which make it clear that years ago they alredy regarded the programme as a threat.

As a matter of fact, F-35 is FAR from being the "coup de genie" F-16 was but have already an economical and industrial back-up suffiscient to place itat the head of most new fighter programmes in the West.

I tend to agree with your analysis on F-35 real capabilties, though....

 

[Waylander]

And this statement by the same country which stepped out of the EF consortium...

 

[BKNO]

As a matter of FACT Rafale as a programme (and price per unit) cost LESS to France than Typhoon to ANY of the Eurofighters members.

More to the point, France designed and produced 100% of it (appart for the license-built Mk16), it comes with multi-role capabilites and NOW combat record a few years before Typhoon and is carrier capable as the MN F1s proved since a few years now.

There was little point for France to stay in the Eurofighter consortium at all, really.

I find the analysis leading to your stament a little weak to say the least!!!

From all the recent western fighter programmes, (F-22, Typhoon, Gripen) Rafale seems to be the one which experienced the lest problems, there have been some with early F1s avionics and radars but they didn't lead to a crash or the fleet being grounded for example...

Here are a few good links for your information...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/1999/06/09/51977/Wings+ofchange.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/09/51970/marine-rafale.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1997/07/09/10543/raring-to-go.html

 

[Waylander]

My post was not intended to say that it was your statement but, as you said, the statement of France.

In the end with the french staying in the program the costs of the EF would be lower and they would benefit from the exports which even with the Rafale as direct contender exceed the non-existing Rafale exports.And while developing everything on your own might be good for your own economy it also hampers your ability for further improvements. With more and more EF users the chance for integration of new tech and weapons rises and the price drops.
And what is the real multi-role capability? The Rafale is able to drop LGBs but has to rely on Mirages or Etendards for painting the targets. The EF also successfully dropped LGBs (Agreed not during hot missions) and the integration of a taregting pod goes on with the brits wanting to deploy their EFs as soon as possible to A-stan with this capability.

For me staying in the program would have been a win-win situation for both sides. Also the development of a navalized EF would be interesting for the UK.
But now its too late and as selfish as it may sound I hope that the Rafale gets no contracts against the EF in the future.

 

[BKNO]

Quote: "In the end with the french staying in the program the costs of the EF would be lower and they would benefit from the exports which even with the Rafale as direct contender exceed the non-existing Rafale exports."

Perhaps the cost would have been lower but tell me some here, is Typhoon navalisable?

Aswer NO.

Is Typhoon fully operational with Scalp/AASM/LGB capabilties NOW?

Answer NO.

Quote: "And while developing everything on your own might be good for your own economy it also hampers your ability for further improvements."

You're talking about the number ONE in the EUs here, Dassault have the technologies and the expertise to do a lot better than the whole Eurofighter consortium with less money so there is NO advantage for France to collaborate on a lower share programme at higher cost.

As long as we're concerned, there is MORE of further upgrades and new standards funded by DGA than it is the case for Eurofighter including Radar, engines, Optronics, Avionics, defense suite etc.

Again, Typhoon lags behind whatever way you look at it in terms of developements and actual capabilities.

Quote: "With more and more EF users the chance for integration of new tech and weapons rises and the price drops."

Doesn't look that way so far does it?

Quote: "And what is the real multi-role capability? The Rafale is able to drop LGBs but has to rely on Mirages or Etendards for painting the targets."

For YOUR info, Damocles have been integrated, tested and Carrier tested long ago.

The FACT that it is not intended to be integrated to the F-2s is a question of choice, nothing technical here but FUNDS.

As for the REST of the A2G ordonances, all F2s are CLEARED with SCALP/Apache, AASM Exocet and LGBs, which i FAR more than can be said of Typhoon.

Quote: "The EF also successfully dropped LGBs"

Rafale did SO in 2000.

Quote: "For me staying in the program would have been a win-win situation for both sides."

Not for the Marine Nationale NO.

Quote: "But now its too late and as selfish as it may sound I hope that the Rafale gets no contracts against the EF in the future."

If it is what it takes to get the best there is in the EUs so be it.

 

[philk]

JSF Deployability/bang for a buck .. . .

So, let's say the RAAF does eventually end up with 100 JSF over years.
At whatever cost, over whatever timeframe, and in whatever different levels of configuration, as delivered over time, but eventually has 100 all up.
Take out at any given time those in maintenance. Those under-going 'block' upgrades. Consider how many tankers available to take them to or from any extended engagement, the need to re-strike within 24 hours at distance . . with all the logistics involved . . a serious standing "go anytime" strike force of 10 is about right.
Not to mention what to 'strike' with given actually a very limited warload by a comparatively small plane .. great at airshows, a strategic waste of money.

 

[Tasman]

The mere fact Australia has now committed to $3 billion worth of Super Hornet orders, to cover for the JSF being late, amplifies my point.
As to maintenance costs, and so-called savings, when even a senior JSF partner like the UK had to strike a deal (still undisclosed re actual terms) to get the maintenance codes for it's very expensive investment in JSF, you gotta wonder how many Ozzie dollars will provide how many fully capable and fully maintainable fighting unit numbers from day one?
I suggest the answer will be very poor economic value per airplane.
The uncomfortable question the people writing the cheques don't want to front, is exactly what is the perceived threat?
If it's Indonesia, then we are talking 100 JSF who can take the flight line at short notice (not 100 in total, of whom 60 are in the shed)), probably 30 tankers, and adeqaute AWACS and interceptor cover. . not going to happen is it?
Menzies bought the F-111 because he wanted to be able to bomb Jakarta . . the arithmetic and practical military realities are different now.
The money wasted on an under-capable JSF (it is neither a real interceptor nor a bomber of any true deterrent capability even in flights of 10 or so . . which is all the RAAF will be able to field at any given time), the question mark over whether it will be fully maintainable in Australia unless the codes are handed over raises another barrier.
I stand by what I said before . . Aussie JSF is an expensive, late, and under-capable trophy project, which is no substitute for much greater numbers of more capable, and tanker supported, aircraft sooner.

Your post raises many questions philk.

Where have you come up with this information? What threat from Indonesia would require Australia to put 100 F-35s plus 30 tankers on the flight line at short notice? How have you come up with a figure of 10 F-35s as the maximum the RAAF will be able to put into the air at one time? What evidence do you have that the RAAF would have a higher availability rate if they bought 100 Sukhois they than they would have from a fleet of 100 F-35s?

Re the codes, the RAAF and Australian government seem happy with the arrangements made. What evidence do you have that this is not the case?

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Note to all.

If you want to discuss Rafale start another thread.

 

[BKNO]

Fair Enough you're right it is not the right topic.

This brings us back on the F-35 programme and the fact that Europe is partly funding it while funding for R&D i sadly lacking in the EUs...

It was my subject.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The mere fact Australia has now committed to $3 billion worth of Super Hornet orders, to cover for the JSF being late, amplifies my point.
As to maintenance costs, and so-called savings, when even a senior JSF partner like the UK had to strike a deal (still undisclosed re actual terms) to get the maintenance codes for it's very expensive investment in JSF, you gotta wonder how many Ozzie dollars will provide how many fully capable and fully maintainable fighting unit numbers from day one?

Mate you should learn something about Australia's plans before making such definite statements, I think. For starters we haven't committed to a number of aircraft beyond "up to 100 fighters". We will not decide until 2008 to even BUY the F-35A Lightning II and there can be no doubt that RAAF is intensly studying the issues surrounding operating an all F-35 based fleet.

FYI, we currently intend to purchase the aircraft in multiple tranches, with the main tranche of up to 75 aircraft, to replace our 71x strong fleet of legacy Hornets and the final tranche of 25 to replace our F-111 capability, or now I suppose our F/A-18F capability.

This of course assumes we actually acquire a 3rd tranche of F-35A's and don't opt for something else. Such as a UCAV based solution, which is a possibility.

I suggest the answer will be very poor economic value per airplane.
The uncomfortable question the people writing the cheques don't want to front, is exactly what is the perceived threat?

Compared to what? We are buying Super Hornets at $30-$40m CHEAPER per plane than we could buy F-15's. Typhoons are likely MORE expensive than current iterations F-15, with F-22 at the TOP end of the price scale and Rafale sitting somewhere between SH and F-15. F-35A is intended to be cheaper than any of them. Whether it turns out to be or not remains to be seen, however that is the intention and we will get an AWFUL lot of combat capability at not a lot of money if it turns out to be the case.

What is the threat to Australia? Not much really. We are more likely to use our combat aircraft in overseas wars than in defence of our own Country. Just like France, England, USA and pretty much anyone else. We have not had to defend our mainland from direct attack since WW2 and that was the only time we've had to.

If it's Indonesia, then we are talking 100 JSF who can take the flight line at short notice (not 100 in total, of whom 60 are in the shed)), probably 30 tankers, and adeqaute AWACS and interceptor cover. . not going to happen is it?

How on EARTH did you come up with idea of 30 tankers? RAAF intends to acquire 5x KC-30B tankers. Where are the other 25x coming from?

Out of interest RAAF operates 17x F-111C strike aircraft. As of July 2006, at any particular time on a day to day basis they can generate somewhere between 7 and 10 operational aircraft from that fleet, as announced in the Senate enquiry into Australia's Regional Air Superiority and can be read here: (http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/J9433.pdf)

That is roughly 50% or more of the fleet on a daily basis without a heightened threat level. RAAF demonstrated at Red Flag 07 that during "surge" operations it can maintain it's aircraft at a higher readiness levels. Do you honestly think that with the reduced maintenance requirements of a modern aircraft RAAF could NOT do better than this?

The idea that "60" out of 100 strong F-35 fleet would be "parked in the shed" is ludicrous.

RAAF operates around 57x Hornets in it's 3x front line Squadrons and from advice I've heard generates around 12x operational aircraft per Squadron for day to day operations. IF this is correct and I have no reason to believe it's not, we've actually got between 43 and 46 operational aircraft from a fleet of 74 operational aircraft on a day to day basis WITHOUT moving to a higher operational status.

A bit different to your scenario isn't it, where we'd supposed have LESS operational aircraft from a larger and much more modern fleet...

Menzies bought the F-111 because he wanted to be able to bomb Jakarta . . the arithmetic and practical military realities are different now.
The money wasted on an under-capable JSF (it is neither a real interceptor nor a bomber of any true deterrent capability even in flights of 10 or so . . which is all the RAAF will be able to field at any given time), the question mark over whether it will be fully maintainable in Australia unless the codes are handed over raises another barrier.

10 aircraft? WTF? See my above remarks as to what we can generate now. I doubt very much even Occum would argue that operational F-35 aircraft will be MORE maintenance intensive than our legacy combat fleet.

The code issue has been resolved successfully already. You're out of date there too. As to the capabilities of the F-35, well I'd back it against the Euro-canards ANY day of the week.

I stand by what I said before . . Aussie JSF is an expensive, late, and under-capable trophy project, which is no substitute for much greater numbers of more capable, and tanker supported, aircraft sooner.

Apparently 9 Countries disagree with you there, all of which operate teen series fighters or equivalent which possess capabilities the Euro-canards have yet to match, let alone exceed.

Whatever aircraft RAAF operates is going to be supported by EXACTLY the same tanker capability. The idea that non-stealthy teen series fighters or Euro-canards are a better option for RAAF than a fully capable F-35A is laughable.

 

[Rich]

Philk is typical of the Internet snert who cruises defense forums badmouthing the F-35 in what is a manifestation of anti-American'ism. He/they dont know the first thing about the airplane, war planes in general, and are generally big on hot air but short on facts.

Such trolls have shown up much more since the F-22 row, which wasn't a row at all until a few on the outside made it so for their own personal reasons. In this thread how many times have the regulars answered the same points, or lack of points, and how many times? And every few weeks in this thread, and others like it, a new troll pops up and blurts more inane generalizations ridiculous, unsupported, statements.

If there is a good thing its that the Philks dont stay long.

 

[BKNO]

Ho please: Give us a break with the basic "antiamericanism" thing.

I SAW the F-16 fly the contest vs the SAAB and Dassault contenders at Le Bourget Airshow and i thought it was a beautiful design and it WAS superior to the Mirage and the SAAB.

F-35 simply doesn't cut the mustard designwise it wasn't designed by a few genius, F-16 WAS.

Want some examples? No supercruise, limited structurally to 7.0, 7.5., 9.0G by design, limited stealth features, lower TWR, Higher wingload very limited rearward visibility, low maximum Mach, limited payload etc.

Excuse ME but if you want to have ME admiting it is better than ours or a Gripen or a Typhoon you better come up with a LOT better than that and make sure WE in Europe dont develop technologies capable of detecting L.O targets a much longer range (like AESA radar or long range, all weather Optronics for example), including entirely passively.

I couldn't give a donkey if it was a Chinese or Russian aircraft, i'm a real aircraft enthusiast and as much as i like the F-22 i think F-35 is a good example of design cross-wiring and owes more to commercial necessities than real design genius.

BTW No one ever eared (in France and many other places) of an aircraft getting over 35% of its designed weight target (while using CATIA for the purpose of designing it) and then having to be so dramatically redesigned to reach them that it limits the G-load it can sustain structuraly. WHOTWOZAT???

I really think that a number of people who are giving the F-35 a thumb down have a case, one for example is the requierements and performances which aren't that of a LWF but of a strike aircraft.

As for the argument "If it sales it's better" when it comes to a totally unproven prototype or pre-production aircraft it simply doesn't make sense and so far it is all due to commercial arguments.

So yes again what do YOU think makes it so good appart for the commercials from the manufacturer???:sniper It better be good...

But i'm open to sugestions...

 

[Rich]

Ho please: Give us a break with the basic "antiamericanism" thing.

I SAW the F-16 fly the contest vs the SAAB and Dassault contenders at Le Bourget Airshow and i thought it was a beautiful design and it WAS superior to the Mirage and the SAAB.

F-35 simply doesn't cut the mustard designwise it wasn't designed by a few genius, F-16 WAS.

I'm more then willing to listen to legitimate concerns about the program. But people shouldn't simply imply its a lemon and leave it at that. Most of all after serious defense professionals in the forum, and we have a few here, patiently examine each point made and answer the concerns and questions. Any other types of irrational ism borders on anti-Yank'ism due to a lack of concrete statistics and facts.

Ive noticed an increase in this type of behavior ever since the F-22 row that was created in large part by a so called aviation expert in Australia for his own purposes.

F-35 simply doesn't cut the mustard designwise it wasn't designed by a few genius, F-16 WAS.

Was does that mean exactly?

Want some examples? No supercruise, limited structurally to 7.0, 7.5., 9.0G by design, limited stealth features, lower TWR, Higher wingload very limited rearward visibility, low maximum Mach, limited payload etc.

The thing just started flying so give it a chance. When you look at the aircraft and its systems do so in the parameters of how it will be used, how its support systems will meld with it, how the overall networked avionics and radars will come together, and overall how it will mesh with the RAAF, their mission, and the weapons it will carry.

Judging the airplane using WW-l Red baron dogfight, or airshow, performance comparisons serves nobodys interests. And its not a real world comparison because it was never out intent to build a F-35 to out dance anything in the sky like a Fokker triplane would a Sopwith Camel. Why? you ask? Because if an enemy gets to that point then we, and you, have failed in the mission already. In other words judge the F-35 in the parameters of the RAAFs mission, its radar network, its EW system, superior training, avionics and block upgrades, networked lethality.

To many people simply look at performance figures and figure they know it all. Most of all they underestimate the advantage the stealth of the F-35 gives its operator. Add to that the reality that dumb bombs will be consigned to museums very soon with the evolution of one shot one kill 1st world airforces. Weight reductions in a fighter bomber like the F-35 will mean less in the real world because everything that is dumped off it will be some type of high precision weapon. Much of which will be stand off bombs and missiles.

Excuse ME but if you want to have ME admiting it is better than ours or a Gripen or a Typhoon you better come up with a LOT better than that and make sure WE in Europe dont develop technologies capable of detecting L.O targets a much longer range (like AESA radar or long range, all weather Optronics for example), including entirely passively.

Name the technologies capable of doing same please? You mean you cant? Well when you do develop a technology that negates the advantage of stealth then do let us know. Until you can that means you cant! And there's a reason NATO air forces have been on the F-35 wagon since the beginning. About 9 nations are funding its R&D. Do I need to tell you why?

I really think that a number of people who are giving the F-35 a thumb down have a case, one for example is the requierements and performances which aren't that of a LWF but of a strike aircraft.

From the beginning we've designed it as primarily a attack aircraft. So I dont understand your point.

As for the argument "If it sales it's better" when it comes to a totally unproven prototype or pre-production aircraft it simply doesn't make sense and so far it is all due to commercial arguments.

Ive read that 6 times and still cant figure out what in hell it means. Maybe someone can translate.

So yes again what do YOU think makes it so good appart for the commercials from the manufacturer??? It better be good...

I never saw a commercial about it. My answer is "stealth", stealth, stealth, stealth, avionics, radar, network, STOVL, affordability, performance, multi-role, dependability, and most of all its going to be able to see and kill the enemy before the enemy can see and kill it!

Is it the fastest fighter out there? No!
Can it carry the most bombs? No!
Is it the stealthiest? No!
Does it have the longest range? No!
Is it the cheapest? No!

But overall its going to have the right systems and characteristics to make it a very successful design. In the roles its being designed for, and for the air forces its aimed at, the F-35 is going to do great.

Yeah, I can just see the Aussie's buying SUs from Uncle Vlad's traveling arms bazaar?nfloorl: Maybe Uncle Vlad and co., with his traveling circus, will pull some air show stunts in it and all your problems will be solved, <snicker>.

 

[kinggodzilla87]

Japan throws down the gauntlet: 'We want the F-22 Raptor"

There has been alot of discussion as of late about Australia and Isreal getting a crack at the F-22. The country that has the resources and will to do so, Japan, is putting increasing pressure on the US to release the F-22 Raptor for purchase.

Japan which is pressing the US to enter the F-22 for thier F/X program. SO far the US has indicated that upgrades to exisiting fighter designs would be submitted like the F-18 E/F or the F-15E with AESA radar. The suble threat is that if the F-22 fails to be entered, The EF Typhoon equipped with the advanced radar would be the best avalible and they might go that route. Japan is also pointing out thier willingness to have foreward deployed US bases and the like which are comming under increasing protests and calls for withdrawl by Japanese citizens.

Pressured by both and increasingly militaristic and yes belligerent China as well as North Korea, Japan feels it needs a stealthy frontline fighter to compliment its burgeoning missile defence system. The raptor would be an ideal aircraft for Japan to use in the offensive and defensive role. Its range, altitute, and sensor package would dramaticaly enlarge the defensive envelope around thier home islands. Also Japan, like the Uk and Australia represents little or no security risk in terms of the aircraft and its technology.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw042307p2.xml&headline=F-22%20Tops%20Japan''s%20Military%20Wish%20List

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ho please: Give us a break with the basic "antiamericanism" thing.

I SAW the F-16 fly the contest vs the SAAB and Dassault contenders at Le Bourget Airshow and i thought it was a beautiful design and it WAS superior to the Mirage and the SAAB.

F-35 simply doesn't cut the mustard designwise it wasn't designed by a few genius, F-16 WAS.

1 person designed the F-16? WOW. That's truly amazing.

Want some examples? No supercruise, limited structurally to 7.0, 7.5., 9.0G by design, limited stealth features, lower TWR, Higher wingload very limited rearward visibility, low maximum Mach, limited payload etc.

Excuse ME but if you want to have ME admiting it is better than ours or a Gripen or a Typhoon you better come up with a LOT better than that and make sure WE in Europe dont develop technologies capable of detecting L.O targets a much longer range (like AESA radar or long range, all weather Optronics for example), including entirely passively.

Well for starters you are wrong about the aircrafts agility. It is being designed to have the same agility and basic peformance levels of the F-16 or F-18 series fighters.

With it's clean profile it should be more capable of ACM than these legacy fighters carrying large RCS and "draggy" external drop tanks and quantities of weapons...

Those capabilities you talk about will already reside in F-35. The US already has AESA equipped fighters in service (F-15, F/A-18E/F SH) the F-35 is going to be the NEXT generation.

Please let us know when Europe manages it's first generation in this field, will you? I know. IRST gives you the advantage eh? Well apart from the fact that you can't scan an open sky with it, as you can with a radar it's okay I suppose. Of course the F-35 will have it too, but yours is obviously much superior right? I'm sure the Euro-canards are having a full 360 degree DAS system installed too aren't they?

No Supercruise? Hmm. The F-22 is the only aircraft to my knowledge that truly supercruises. I guess F-35 will have to be content with being the "best of the rest". Limited payload? Why because you've read it only has 2x hard points and 2x rails mounted internally? I suggest you read a bit further...

Low maximum mach? Compared to what? The aircraft is being designed to achieve M 1.8 in maximum afterburner. Is this not fast enough? It seems to be fast enough in the F/A-18...

Limited stealth features? Compared to the B-2 or F-22, you "may' be right, though of course it's had the benefit of 10 years of further development of low observables technology than either of those aircraft. Compared to ANY other aircraft you are absolutely dead wrong. Compared to anything else the F-35 will be of entire magnitudes smaller in RCS.

I couldn't give a donkey if it was a Chinese or Russian aircraft, i'm a real aircraft enthusiast and as much as i like the F-22 i think F-35 is a good example of design cross-wiring and owes more to commercial necessities than real design genius.

BTW No one ever eared (in France and many other places) of an aircraft getting over 35% of its designed weight target (while using CATIA for the purpose of designing it) and then having to be so dramatically redesigned to reach them that it limits the G-load it can sustain structuraly. WHOTWOZAT???

No-one in "France and many other places" have tried to create a stealthy supersonic STOVL aircraft before, with the same basic agility and performance levels of the F-16/F-18 series EITHER.

I really think that a number of people who are giving the F-35 a thumb down have a case, one for example is the requierements and performances which aren't that of a LWF but of a strike aircraft.

As for the argument "If it sales it's better" when it comes to a totally unproven prototype or pre-production aircraft it simply doesn't make sense and so far it is all due to commercial arguments.

So yes again what do YOU think makes it so good appart for the commercials from the manufacturer???:sniper It better be good...

But i'm open to sugestions...

Combination of stealth, more than acceptable aerodynamic performance, a combination of sensor fusion and networking capabilities that is unplanned by ANY other fighter today, unrefuelled range greater than that of virtually any other "tactical fighter" and a cost of production aircraft that is likely to be lower than other available tactical fighters, plus a range of options in aircraft configuration that is greater than any other aircraft period (CTOL, STOVL, CV, F-135 engine, F-136 engine, weapons choices etc).

For political gains, the choices of 9 Countries to invest in SDD and thereby gain workshare and a SAY in the development of the aircraft, the addition of 2 more countries with "observer" status (Israel and Singapore) and at least 1 more Country (Japan) with an already declared interest in the program. South Korea seems a likely target in future years as well...

So now the USA, UK, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Israel, Singapore and Japan have all decided that F-35 is in their best interests for a large if not dominant position within their future air combat capabilities?

Are they ALL wrong? That's an AWFUL lot of politicians who've signed on to it...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also Japan, like the Uk and Australia represents little or no security risk in terms of the aircraft and its technology.

Actually, thats not the case. There are still some serious issues about the Japanese compromising some elements of the US submarine fleet via Toshiba leaking propellor technology to China - and then there is the Aegis leak by one of their staffers.

 

[Grand Danois]

Europe is working on developing GaN HEMT technology in the KORRIGAN consortium. AFAIK, no GaN AESA is currently being developed or in the works for the Rafale. They are working on a GaAs AESA radar, the RBE2, to be fielded in 2012.


Thales Reaches Key Milestone in High-Performance Phased Array RBE2 Radar Programme

NEUILLY-SUR-SEINE, France --- Thales, European leader in electronic combat systems, is pursuing the final phase of development and production engineering for the active phased-array radar for combat aircraft.

The announcement follows the successful completion of a series of flight tests on the Mirage 2000 test-bed aircraft conducted in the first quarter of 2007 at the Cazaux test centre in Southwest France. The tests produced extremely positive results with the active phased-array radar installed on an actual aircraft, and represent a key milestone in the process of qualifying the new sensor's performance in an operational configuration.

In October 2006, the French defence procurement agency (DGA) and the industry team behind the Rafale programme agreed to a roadmap that will deliver Rafale fighters equipped with a new generation of sensors, including the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) RBE2 radar, to the French Air Force and Navy by 2012.

Thales’ AESA RBE2 technology will offer new high performance radar capabilities providing a high quality combat system designed for integration into the missions systems of combat aircraft. With its expertise in this technology, Thales has been working on and perfecting this technology over a number of years. Within its dedicated research and technology centre in France, optimised gallium arsenide T/R modules, to form the radar’s antenna, have been developed in cooperation with UMS. (UMS, United Monolithic Semiconductors (UMS), is a Franco-German EADS/Thales-owned company.)

Furthermore, the AESA RBE2 gives a strong operational performance, including improved detection of small targets at long range and high-quality Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imaging.

Tactical situations become easier to analyse with the AESA RBE2 radar – its electronic phased array gives the pilot instantaneous detection and pursuit capabilities within the front sector. The AESA RBE 2 provides the full range of radar functions required for any combat aircraft in the 21st century.

Thales expects to move into integration testing on board the Rafale in the second quarter of 2007. Series production start-up is scheduled for late 2010.

[...]

link

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Now I am at it, an update on the JSF.

Another Significant Milestone For Joint Strike Fighter Program

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued April 23, 2007)

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program has achieved another significant milestone with the approval of funding for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP).

As of 23 April 2007, the first JSF test aircraft has completed 14 test flights. Test pilots have been impressed by the aircraft’s maturity so early in the test program and its excellent handling qualities. The aircraft has already been flown to 30,000 feet, 0.8 Mach, and 16 degrees Angle of Attack with all systems working as designed, including:

- the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine (in full afterburner) - the world’s most powerful fighter engine, generating 40,000 pounds of thrust;

- the Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) System - a major contributor to the JSF’s advanced situational awareness capabilities; and

- the most comprehensive instrumentation package for any combat aircraft.

For a first test aircraft it has also shown a very high level of reliability and maintainability having conducted two back-to-back sortie events and landed “Code 1” (i.e. ready to fly again) on 13 of 14 flights.

This success, and progress in the broader JSF Program, has led to US Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) approving the release of full funding for two Conventional Take-Off and Landing Variant (CTOL) aircraft in LRIP Lot 1, and long lead funding for the six CTOL and six Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing variants in Lot 2. This significant milestone was achieved on 19 April 2007.

As well as the first two LRIP aircraft in production, the end of 2007 will see another 20 test aircraft in production/assembly. The head of the JSF Program, BRIGGEN C.R. Davis said “While the LRIP 1 jets do not constitute a huge leap in production, they signify the start of many deliveries to our war fighting customer."

Deliveries of JSF aircraft are expected to extend beyond 2030 and could comprise more than 4500 aircraft.

Australia’s first JSF deliveries are expected in 2013.

link

 

[rjmaz1]

Want some examples? No supercruise, limited structurally to 7.0, 7.5., 9.0G by design, limited stealth features, lower TWR, Higher wingload very limited rearward visibility, low maximum Mach, limited payload etc.

No supercruise? Only the F-22 can do that. The F-35 with weapons can cruise just as quick as all other fighters.

Limited G rating? That just to increase flight hours.

Limited Stealth? Second only to the F-22 (comparing fighters), stealth beats all other fighters by a golden mile

Lower TWR? With similar fuel weight load the F-35 has greater thrust to weight than Eurofighter. Most 4th generation aircraft always have a pair of drop tanks on the wings. The F-35 design instead integrated those fuel tanks into the internal structure. By elimiated external weapons and fuel tanks the F-35 can travel faster with less thrust.

Low Maximum Mach? You'll never see the F-15 or Eurofighter travel Mach 2 in combat. Cruising speed is where its at, even the fast F-22 doesn't sit at Mach 1.5 all day.

Limited Payload? With the SDB it can carry heaps of bombs and a pair of AMRAAM's. No longer will the enemy flood you with 100+ cheap fighters. Even china is moving to quality over quantity.

Note that the F-35 can cruise at Mach 0.8 at only 30,000feet. Its a fairly fast jet considering it thrust to weight ratio is low. I was told that the F-35 will indeed hit Mach 1 without afterburners at a higher altitude. Note that this is not supercruise. An aircraft is not supersonic until all air is traveling faster than the speed of sound which is atleast Mach 1.3, by that definition only the F-22 can supercuirse. Alot of aircraft can reach Mach 1 however which would be classed as transonic. Still Mach 1 is pretty quick, most modern fighters can hit Mach 1 without afterburners but put a pair of bombs and missiles onto the aircraft and they will now travel much slower. In my opinion in combat config the only aircraft that will be quicker will be the F-22 and probably the Eurofighter. Everything else will not have a speed advantage over the F-35, let alone a stealth advantage