Lockheed-Martin F-35 "Lightning II" - Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   
From the folks who I consider gods when it comes to statistical info comes these revelations about the JSF.

www.fas.org...



Survivability: radio frequency/infrared signature reduction and on-board countermeasures to survive in the future battlefield--leveraging off F-22 air superiority mission support

USAF-Multi-role aircraft (primarily air-to-ground) to replace F-16 and A-10 and to complement F-22. The Air Force JSF variant poses the smallest relative engineering challenge. The aircraft has no hover criteria to satisfy, and the characteristics and handling qualities associated with carrier operations do not come into play. As the biggest customer for the JSF, the service will not accept a multirole F-16 fighter replacement that doesn't significantly improve on the original.


JSFs integrated avionics and stealth are intended to allow it to penetrate surface-to-air missile defenses to destroy targets, when enabled by the F-22s air dominance. The JSF is designed to complement a force structure that includes other stealthy and non-stealthy fighters, bombers, and reconnaissance / surveillance assets.

Propulsion Baseline: Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 derivative from F-22 Raptor


It would sound to me that ultimately the sucess of the JSF hinges on the use of the F22. As the facts above show.


And as shown here, the Air Force thinks this way too.

www.fas.org...

Tagged to replace an aging fighter fleet, the JSF will fulfill a future ground-attack role, with air superiority provided by the F-22 Raptor.

The Air Force needs the Joint Strike Fighter to replace its aging fleet of F-16s and A-10s, according to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael E. Ryan. "This will ensure that young Air Force men and women always will have the advantage of technologically superior weapons. We never want a fair fight; we want the odds to be 100 to 1 in our favor."

The Air Force's Joint Strike Fighter focuses primarily on countering the ground threat while maintaining a secondary air-to-air capability, according to Maj. Michael McGee, Air Force JSF Requirements Office, Directorate of Operational Requirements.

"Currently, we team the F-15 to counter the air threat and provide air superiority with the F-16, which counters not only the surface-to-air missile threat but acts as the majority piece of our ground-attack force of fighter aircraft," McGee said. "Just as the F-15 and F-16 play complementary roles today, so too will the F-22 and the JSF."


[Edited on 28-2-2004 by Agent47]




posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   
thanks. i had thought of that earlier today. (hmm thinking of ATS posts while not on ATS, is that a good sign?) and couldn't the turrets potentionally disrupt the current aerodynamics of the aircraft? maybe they could do one single mounted turret in the nose. that way it could swivel 360 degrees on the vertical axis, while 180 degrees on the horizontal. that would pose a problem for where the radar could go, but those are so small they could just do a dedicated wing pod or something. that's what they do on a lot of light aircraft so they can keep the nose free for lighter cargo.

but if it were launched form behind, which would probably more than likely be the case it would be a problem as well. also, being in the nose would mean running more stuff from the power source through the aircraft, giving slightly more vulnerability and potential to cause problems.

EDIT: also, isn't this possibly going to be the last manned fighter? i think i remember them saying that on the nova episode on this i saw.

[Edited on 2/28/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
You know its not like I dont love the JSF but I realize the importance of a multi platform Air Force, and as such Ive come to represent for the Raptor.

www.fas.org...



Myth: The Air Force doesn't really need the F-22 to maintain air superiority in the 21st century.

Fact: The F-22 is integral to the Air Force's tactical aircraft modernization program and the key to dominating the skies in 2010 and beyond. By the time the F-22 comes online, the F-15 (today's premier fighter) will be more than 25 years old. Without the F-22, the Air Force will steadily lose its edge in air superiority in the 21st century. By 2005, flying the F-15 into combat will be the equivalent of driving a 20-year-old car in the Indianapolis 500.

Myth: Other countries don't have the technology to compete with the F-15's defense and strike capability, so there is no reason to improve on it.

Fact: America's best fighter, the F-15, is on par with current Russian fighters, and behind Europe's and Russia's newest class of fighters set to roll off production lines by 2005. These include the French Rafale, Europe's Eurofighter and the Russian SU-35. The F-22's capabilities are critical to maintaining air superiority.

Myth: The F-22 doesn't bring anything to the fight the F-15 isn't already providing.

Fact: To maintain the levels of air superiority and dominance provided by the F-15 today, we will need the F-22's capabilities of speed, supercruise, maneuverability at supersonic speeds, stealth and integrated avionics to allow our pilots to identify and defeat threats. It also will give our air warriors a capability they've never before had: First look, first shot, first kill. Additionally, the F-15 does not provide any air-to-ground capability; the F-22 will provide first-day, near-precision, air-to-ground capability with the Joint Direct Attack Munition.

Myth: The F-15 will still be able to provide an adequate defense and effective strike force 15 years from now.

Fact: The F-15 is expected to provide an adequate defense and effective strike force for the next five to 10 years (when the F-22 is scheduled to become operational); but not 15. Without the F-22, we won't have the capability to counter the threat because we won't have the speed or stealth -- dramatically decreasing our chances of survival.

Myth: The Air Force's insistence on the F-22 is part of an obsolete, Cold War mentality because future conflicts will be low intensity and not require the same high-tech equipment we needed for the Cold War.

Fact: Low-intensity conflicts are not necessarily low technology. The threat includes not only advanced fighter aircraft, but also increasingly lethal surface-to-air missiles. The number of countries possessing the most advanced SAMs is expected to increase from 14 to 21 by 2005 -- an increase that will overwhelm our current fighter force's ability to gain air superiority.

Myth: The F-22 is cost-prohibitive and not worth the return on investment.

Fact: With an average aircraft "sticker price" (fly-away cost) of less that $85 million, the F-22 will cost less than 1 percent of the Department of Defense budget during its production period. In its most costly year, 2003, the F-22 will consume less than 5.6 percent of the Air Force budget; 1.7 percent of the defense budget and 0.25 percent of the total federal budget.

Myth: Air superiority is a "nice to have" that has to be weighed against budget constraints.

Fact: Owning the sky is worth the cost. For less than 1 percent of the DOD budget, the F-22 will enable all of America's air, land and sea forces to operate effectively and free from enemy air attack. Thanks to air superiority, no airman, soldier, sailor or Marine has lost his or her life to enemy aircraft in the last 40 years.

Myth: As a cost measure, rather than continue with development of the F-22, the Air Force can simply upgrade its current fighters.

Fact: The average F-15 will be 26 years old in 2005. Even with major upgrades, it will not match the capabilities of the newest foreign fighters. An improved F-15 would only provide one-third the effectiveness of the F-22 at nine-tenths the cost.

Myth: The Joint Strike Fighter is a respectable substitute for the F-22 at a much lower cost.

Fact: The Air Force's modernization strategy is to develop a mix of high-capability F-22s and lower-cost JSFs to achieve dominant capability and force readiness. The JSF is very effective as a low-cost, multi-mission aircraft optimized for attacking ground targets. It is not a substitute for the F-22. The JSF is primarily designed as an affordable replacement for the Air Force's aging F-16s and A-10s, and will depend on the F-22 for air superiority. Just as the F-15 and F-16 are a highly successful, synergistic team today, the F-22 and JSF will be the winning team of the future; however, neither can succeed on its own.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   


[Edited on 28-2-2004 by Agent47]



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
Myth: The Joint Strike Fighter is a respectable substitute for the F-22 at a much lower cost.

Fact: The Air Force's modernization strategy is to develop a mix of high-capability F-22s and lower-cost JSFs to achieve dominant capability and force readiness. The JSF is very effective as a low-cost, multi-mission aircraft optimized for attacking ground targets. It is not a substitute for the F-22. The JSF is primarily designed as an affordable replacement for the Air Force's aging F-16s and A-10s, and will depend on the F-22 for air superiority. Just as the F-15 and F-16 are a highly successful, synergistic team today, the F-22 and JSF will be the winning team of the future; however, neither can succeed on its own.


You're not saying anything that I disagree with here - I hope you didn't take what I was saying in the original post to mean that the F-35 is an affordable substitute for the F-22...
And in case that is what you gathered let me clarify my original statement....
What I said was: "the abilities that the F-22 brings to the table are massive overkill for battlefield support and attack - the US would be ill-advised putting the most expensive fighter in history in a high risk ground support/attack role."
The F-22 has it's place, it is an air superiority fighter, the most advanced one in the world - however, ground attack and battlefield support is not what it was built to do - it can do it - and do it quite effectively - but the F-35 has been designed specifically for ground attack and battlefield support.
Plus the fact that putting a Raptor in that role would be putting a 150 million dollar plane in a high risk position that a 50 million dollar plane can do just as effectively.


Originally posted by Agent47
Id have to disagree with the argument for armament seeing as the F-22 is an air superiority fighter this pic is a good depiction of what it needs to do its job.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
[Edited on 28-2-2004 by Agent47]

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with -could you be more specific?



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl

www.abovetopsecret.com...
[Edited on 28-2-2004 by Agent47]

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with -could you be more specific?


Nevermind, it was a misinterpretation by me.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
You mentioned that the F-15 has no air to ground capability..... Has that always been that way or is it recent.

I was just at the Boeing site and it was stated that the F-15 was a dual role fighter. I could have sworn I saw F-15s in the first Gulf War with Iron Bombs under the wings??



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
i think it was used for some air to ground stuff, but primarily i thought we used f-117's and b-1b's to bomb iraq to pieces. and we used a-10's for buildings, people and tanks. just what i though was used for though.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
F-15 variants can drop bombs with the best of 'em. Here are some quotes from an online article on the F-15E "Strike Eagle":
"Although the slogan of the F-15's original design team was "Not a pound for air-to-ground," the F-15 has long been recognized as having superior potential in the ground attack role. In 1987 this potential was realized in the form of the F-15E Strike Eagle."
"While new to the operational inventory, F-15E Strike Eagles were among the first airframes tasked to react to events in the Persian Gulf in August 1990. The 4th Fighter Wing deployed two F-15E squadrons to Southwest Asia in August and December of that year, and spearheaded an attack on Iraqi forces Jan. 16, 1991. The war was brought to a swift and successful conclusion in late February 1991. "
"The mission of the Strike Eagle is as succinct as that of its air-to-air cousin: to put bombs on target. While previous models of the Eagle are assigned air-to-air roles, the "E" model is a dual-role fighter. It has the capability to fight its way to a target over long ranges, destroy enemy ground positions, and fight its way back out. The F-15E performs day and night all weather air-to-air and air-to-ground missions including strategic strike, interdiction, OCA and DCA. Although primarily a deep interdiction platform, the F-15E can also perform CAS and Escort missions. The F-15E is especially configured for the deep strike mission, venturing far behind enemy lines to attack high value targets with a variety of munitions. "

[source]
F-15E Strike Eagle - GlobalSecurity.org

The U.S. is also exporting the F-15I model to Israel. It has air-to-air as well as air-to-ground capabilities.

Personally, I can't wait to see some actual head-to-head comparisons of the JSF with existing airframes



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Thanks for the info. It is hard to believe that Boeing got the F-15 contract in 1969 and look where we are today......a testament to a great design.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Agent47 or intelgurl, could one of you please respond to my second post on the 100kw laser? sorry to pry, i'm just really interested in that aspect and want to know more about it. thanks.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
You mentioned that the F-15 has no air to ground capability..... Has that always been that way or is it recent.

I believe that was on Agent47's post... where he was quoting an article on the FAS (Federation of American Scientists) website.
I'm not sure how that false statement got mixed into an otherwise valid resource web site.
But the F-15 is a great bomber, although designed primarily for air superiority.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Thanks. I always thought the F-15 had ground strike capability.....I thought I was losing my mind for a sec.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Like cmdrkeenkid said, the 100kw laser weapon is really interesting. That is the kind of technology that could radically change things. If Raytheon, or a competitor ,can shrink a solid state laser down to the size of a drop tank and still have enough power to destroy incoming air-to-air missiles, that would beat the crap out of chaff and flares!
If anyone gathers up enough information it might merit its own topic along with the Airborne Theatre Defense Laser and the Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser and all the other ones I am sure exist but I have not heard of yet. I found a discussion about a lost post on beam weapons but not actually find an active thread along these lines.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Agent47 or intelgurl, could one of you please respond to my second post on the 100kw laser?


I really think you answered your own questions... but I'll be glad to put in my 2 cents...

cmdrkeenkid: "couldn't the turrets potentionally disrupt the current aerodynamics of the aircraft?"

The turrets could certainly disrupt the aerodynamics, but don't go thinking these turrets would be big hemispheres like the 50 cal top turrets on a B-17 or something. Whatever aerodynamic issues there would be concerning the turrets, they would be an easy fix compared to the engineering it would require to make the turrets flow with the stealth the rest of the plane has been designed with. But I'm confident the engineers can do it.

cmdrkeenkid: "maybe they could do one single mounted turret in the nose."
Like the ABL 747? Probably not going to happen that way, as you noted, where are they going to put the radar? in an outboard pod? Not on a stealth combat aircraft...

cmdrkeenkid: "but if it were launched from behind, which would probably more than likely be the case it would be a problem as well."
I'm guessing "it" is referring to a surface to air missile - which is the very thing the bottom turret would be designed to handle...as for an air to air missile, the plane could certainly be manuevered so that the laser could get a shot off.

cmdrkeenkid: "isn't this (F-35) possibly going to be the last manned fighter? "
I suppose it's possible, but who knows...



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
thanks! i thought i had as well in my ramblings, but the two of you seem to know a whole lot more on the topic than i so i thought i would ask. i just know how to fly planes, not how to build them.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   
So its official there going to add the laser on the JSF?



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
So its official there going to add the laser on the JSF?

I wouldn't say it's official - yet - there is however an active competition for it between TRW and Raytheon.

[Edited on 29-2-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Overall I see a lot of potential in the F-35 as a strike-fighter. I think that once all the kinks are worked out of the system, the F-35 will be one of the best strike fighters in the world. My only gripe is that I still think it should have been a twin engine aircraft like the F/A-18. I personally don't believe that a single engine aircraft has enough of a safety magin for combat.

Tim

[Edited on 1-3-2004 by ghost]



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
I personally don't believe that a single engine aircraft has enough of a safety magin for combat.

Yep, Damn right!
(sarcasm)Those single engine F-16's just couldn't make it as a combat aircraft.
(/sarcasm)

I think that the F-35 being a stealth design will help with the survivability, other than that the issue of engine reliability comes into play. I think the F-35 is a good design, the Boeing competitor to it was also a single engine and looked like a damn pelican with it's mouth open.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join