It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Export F35 to be `monkey model`

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

The weight savings applied to the F-35B provided some bonus payload for the Air Force and Navy versions, although the F-35B weapons bay had to be modified and as a result can only accommodate weapons up to the size of a 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition. The Air Force and Navy variants can still carry the 2,000-pound JDAM.


I believe the change was making the weapon bay shorter. So does anybody know what weapons it can fit internally, I'm thinking of paveway II/IV and AIM-120 since they both longer than the 1000lb JDAM. It probably only effects the UK since the US marines F-35B prime role will be CAS.




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BLV12
 



Did they sell these more capable aircraft when the F16 and F15 entered production? The answer is no..

Regarding the F-15 and F-16, you need to think about that statement a bit more. More capable models simply did not exist when the USAF was first buying them, or they would have bought them themselves!

the US NEVER actually marketed an inferior version of either aircraft at any time. MCAir and GD, as they were at the time, marketed the most advanced model that existed, the standard USAF model.

An attempt to do so was made with the F-16/79 ( a less well equipped export model powered by a J-79 engine) and it was given a universal bums rush, leading to the then standard F-16A being exported instead.

Improvements to all fighter types are made incrementally by the manufacturers and offered for sale to all customers. The reason that higher capability models of these fighters have been exported more recently is simply because the US itself wasn't buying new airframes at the time it was built. The F-15SG, for instance, is based on the F-15E, but is newer, and better. If the USAF ordered more F-15E's, the model they would get would be identical to the SG, simply because that was the latest model, notwithstanding any specific changes that were requested (until the advent of the F-15SE of course). This is the reality of fighter manufacture, and it has ALWAYS been that way.

The idea that America would GET AWAY with offering a stripped out less capable aircraft to export customers is no more than the fantasy of American supremacist dreamers. The notion of 'keeping the best stuff for ourselves' is not only very desirable, but also the most sensible course to take. Trouble is, that NEVER happens. That is why countries are having a hard time getting hold of the F-22 at all, because the US Govt and Lockheed both know that if you sell it, you sell all of it. Nothing less would be acceptable. The other idea is just for public consumption.

If Country Z wants the same model fighter the USAF has, and has the money to pay for it, then that is what they will get, anthing else is pure bull crap. This is *especially* true regarding the F-35, which, do not forget, was designed to be the US export market fighter from the very beginning, and with the input of the USAF, USMC, USN, RAF, RN and several other air forces all at the concept stage.

Attempts to now give the contrary impression that the US operated models will be somehow 'special' is nothing more than a publicity excercise to sooth a paranoid nation (whose paranoia was, incidentally, stoked deliberately by the Bush administration over the preceding two terms).

You may demand a source for this. The only source I can give is the historical record of how things have always been done and a slice of common sense, and a suggestion to take off the star spangle spectacles and have a think.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by BLV12
 


No, I cannot back up my statement - you can call it rubbish, bullcrap, or whatever, if you want. However if you ask WHY I believe what I do, then you will certainly get an answer.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
The F-35 is not `all aspect stealth` its best front on , not so great side on and bloody aweful rear on - that great big engine nozzel really doesn`t help here;


and thats the selling point for the F-15SE , its pretty good front on (ala F35) ok side on(ala F35) and aweful rear on.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

and thats the selling point for the F-15SE , its pretty good front on (ala F35) ok side on(ala F35) and aweful rear on.

I find that very difficult to believe, unless we're talking about an export F-35. That would mean the F-15SE is more stealthy than the Eurocanards, and furthermore as stealthy as a clean sheet aircraft designed with stealth as a high priority. That, despite the F-15 having the engine face clearly visible front on. I doubt it will be as "stealthy" as the "Super Fries".

[edit on 22/7/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


www.ausairpower.net...


From the front this is predicted by Ausairpower.net as possibly being as low as the export version of the F-35 Lightning II. For reference the radar cross section of the non-export version of the F-35 from the front is 0.001 m²


and

www.airforce-magazine.com...


Instead, says Boeing spokesman Damien Mills, the company was trying to make the point that the Silent Eagle could meet the level of stealth approved by the US Government for release to international customers


bold is mine

now - can you see why i say the F-35 will be a monkey model? the US government has a level of stealth approved for international customers - and that WILL be lower than domestic content.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   



[3] Boeing F-15SE ‘Silent Eagle’. This low-signature version of the F-15 Eagle was assessed during the compilation of this NOTAM. Its radar cross section, while claimed to be comparable to the export configuration of the F-35 from nose-on is likely to be substantially inferior from other aspects. Its infrared signature will be similar to the standard F-15 Eagle. Thus, the PAK-FA using radar will detect the Silent Eagle at a range sufficient to launch BVR missiles and at similar or greater ranges to the F-35 for infrared-based engagements. Flying wide sweeps and distributing sensor detections as is done for the legacy Sukhois will enhance radar detections and enable IRST ranging. The advantage the F-15SE Silent Eagle has over the F-35 JSF is that it has the aerodynamic performance and fuel reserves to egress from a dangerous air combat engagement.

www.ausairpower.net...


So yes it is "export model", which I agree with. I especially like the part about fuel reserves, how a 37,500lb aircraft with 13,125lb of fuel has more reserves than a 29,360lb plane with 18,483lb of fuel I don't know. How the F-15SE aerodynamically outperforms the F-35 despite factual data, I don't know either.

BTW, does anyone know how to convert 'G', to degrees per second?


Now - can you see why i say the F-35 will be a monkey model?

Yes. If it is true then the F-35 is as Waynos said - bull crap.

I don't really like APA, they are not really the brightest sparks (my opinion). But if they had there way the Eurofighter would be terrible, and the only solution would be the F-22, F-111, and AFTS modified Caribou's.

[edit on 22/7/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

The sustained turning performance of the F-35A Lightning II was recently disclosed as 4.95 G at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. A 1969 F-4E Phantom II could sustain 5.5 Gs at 0.8 Mach with 40 percent internal fuel at 20,000 feet



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Yes, I want to see how good 4.75g's at 15,000 feet is compared to other aircraft that I have degrees per second graphs in. It would also be nice to know how heavy the F-35 was - an F-35 that weighs 36,752lb (40% fuel) is rather different than an F-35 at 70,000lb (MTOW). All other data shows that F-35 is similar or slightly better than the F-16, which is nothing to scoff at. F-4E with a maximum fuel fraction of 0.26 clean at 40% fuel would obviously out turn a F-35 with 0.38 fuel fraction WITH munitions, for example.



On a side note...

What a day, first RAAF Super Hornet flies and the US Senate cancell the F-22A... Not a good day to be a card carrying member of Air Power Australia!

Abraham Gubler


www.defence.gov.au...

[edit on 22/7/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



The F-35 is a stealthy airframe. Because the F-35 is designed to fly and fight in even the most heavily defended airspace, stealth is an essential component of the jets' design. The stealthy airframe is tailored for the mission of flying into the teeth of the most advanced air defenses that the enemy can muster where conventional aircraft are vulnerable, Davis said. While the aircraft has a different radar cross section depending on which aspect angle is facing a threat radar, the plane meets the stringent requirements set forth by the U.S. military services based on more than 20 years of American experience with stealth aircraft design, Davis explained. Furthermore, stealth does not merely apply to an aircraft's radar cross section, an aircraft's infrared signature is similarly tailored to be less detectable by the enemy, Davis said. The sum total is an aircraft that is less vulnerable to the enemy from the air or ground.

Link


Let's also not forget how passive and active sensors, and radiation in general, affect things.


In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

The aircraft flies in "large measure like the F-22, but it's smaller, and stiffer" than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.

Link


Sometimes I feel like this is besides the point. The total sum of the capabilities this jet offers is phenomenal. Combined with the right tactics, support systems, and pilots, it will be a game changer. Comparing one specific figure and beating to death is like critiquing one brush stroke on a Picasso painting.


[edit on 22-7-2009 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
except that as proven above - the F35 is subject to congressional limits on tech for export - especially regarding the stealth - and if boeing can say with confidence that the SE can have a frontal stealth similar than that of the `export` F35 then the export F35`s are indeed reduced capability or monkey models.

and given the specific T/W ratio of the F-35 , i would say it out accelerating an F-16 is utter bollocks unless you give it sod all fuel:




and more numbers:


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
hearing some aweful reportst that Delta SSD is not just for crypto - but the entire export programme for the F35 will result in `monkey` model of the aircraft , with capabilities only on par with the 4th gen++ aircraft , degraded electronics and attack systems , and stealth thats `not as good`;


is this the information that the euro countries have got hold to cause the rethink on teh aircraft?

[edit on 9/7/09 by Harlequin]



Do you really expect the US to endow the export version of the F-35 with all the most technically advanced "bells and whistles" that the domestic versions will have?
Why would anyone think that?

This should come as no surprise to anyone in the know and is, was and will be the expectation of anyone purchasing export models of a current advanced US military inventory aircraft.

Fact of the matter the UK version will be shipped with more advanced stealth coatings than other export versions but every country that is onboard with the project knows the score and knew it before signing up.

If this causes a 'rethink" of buying the aircraft its politicians and not military aquisition personnel who are having a problem with this.

Even with downgraded stealth and avionics the package as a whole is still far more advanced that the closest competitors, in as much as the F-35 is a board plugged system of systems with extremely easy upgrade capabilities.





[edit on 7-23-2009 by intelgurl]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 




At 50% fuel, F-35 does indeed of a t/w ratio of about 1.05, and at 50% fuel the F-16 does indeed have a t/w ratio of 1.19. However, in such a scenario, the F-35 will have a 0.21 fuel fraction, the F-16 will have a 0.10 fuel fraction. If you find these aircraft comparable then you are simply kidding yourself.

Lower the fuel load on the F-35 so it matches the F-16's amazing 0.10 fuel fraction and the F-35 will fare slightly better than the F-16 - but obviously is flying inefficiently as the plane is full of empty space. On the other hand, if we attempt to get the F-16 to do a 600nm mission we end up adding 3 x 370 gallon tanks, where the aircraft will still fare worse than the F-35, but will end up g-limited, and furthermore aerodynamically dirty. This is why the requirement was for a >600 nautical mile fighter, rather than a 150 nautical mile one.

Bottom line, if you give each aircraft the same mission, the F-35 is likely to be similar to the F-16 block 50. Oh, and it's not like we see clean F-16's flying combat missions.


the F35 is subject to congressional limits on tech for export - especially regarding the stealth

Which are?

As for Air Power Australia, and the Boeing said so arguement...

But people are suckers for charts and graphs and scare tactics so the APA/ELP crap sticks to some casual observers. Whenever challenged directly by real subject matter experts though this crown will fade away for fear of exposure. Just like when I asked ELP about why he thinks the F-35 wont meet program goals. THE BEST answer he could come up with is that it's on LM slides. Well woopee Fing doo. That's a real hard core factual argument there! Give me a break. But put up a pretty website and airshow photos of Flanker variants that aren't even in or near production and these fanboys see that and go crazy...lol

DarthAmerica on f-16 dot net.


[edit on 23/7/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
boeing sold the F/!-18 to the RAAF with the maximum `permitted` stealth functionality as deemed by the LO/CLO ExCOM for export; they are the people who decides what can be sold and at what level.




ELP piccie (rather simplified) over stealth

and



just how `tuned` the F35 really is - the B2 stleath ability covers a far greater spectrum - simply put the F35 is `stealth to missiles and thats about it.

take the SA8 `Gecko`;


"Land Roll" C band target acquisition radar, H band conical scan target tracking radar and two J band pulse mode fire control radars (range 35 km/22 miles for acquisition, 30 km/19 miles for tracking and 25 km/16 miles for guidance)
P-40 "Long Track" E band early warning radar (also used by the SA-4 and SA-6, range 175 km/108 miles)
P-15 "Flat Face" or P-15M(2) "Squat Eye" 380 kW C band target acquisition radar (also used by the SA-3 and SA-6, range 250 km/155 miles)
"Thin Skin-B" E band height finding radar (also used by the SA-4 and SA-6, range 240 km/148 miles)
"Land Roll" is mounted on the TELAR, "Long Track" on a tracked vehicle (a modified AT-T), "Flat Face" on a van and "Thin Skin" is mounted on a truck. "Land Roll" has a 360 degree sweep for target acquisition but a more limited cone in which it can track and engage targets



not 1, X band radar in there , even the tracking radar is on C band - and latest rumour mill is that the new 9A33M4 is SARH on the C band

[edit on 23/7/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
How do you downgrade the stealth. I thought the stealth was in the design of the aircraft. Are they going to weld a few boxes on the back and have it contineously broadcast?

Regards



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


This is what I was getting at in my own post.

Thje F-35 will not be changed for export. It will not have any crucial items removed. Lockheeds reputation as an arms trader with its customers demands it.

Now this is not to say that everything the USAF/N/MC gets will be on every plane. There are always specific items of equipment that are wanted by some opertators and not others. Even RAF Typhoons are different from those of Italy Spain and Germany. Not better, just different.

So it will be with the F-35.

Lockheed cannot afford to become known as a company that will supply you with weapons that are deliberately less able than the same ones supplied to someone else. Just think about the implications of something like that.

All the talk about 'levels of stealth' and 'coatings' is just hot air in my opinion. In any case the value of these 'coatings' is highly questionable anyway given the problems and crippling maintenance costs that have been reported with the F-22.

The only real value in LO is the level of 'built in' LO that is a result of the design and the architecture of the aircraft itself and these are items that cannot be change even if the Govt wanted them to be. Any additional LO from special coatings is far too fragile and transient to be of any real value in a combat zone.

So while a particular coating may be banned, it will in all likelihood not be missed either. However in terms of inherent capability and on board equipment - as long as they have the money to pay for it then they will get the same level (and possibly higher after US deliveries have ended) as the US forces get. Money will decide. Not politics.

After all if a customer cannot be trusted, why supply the type at all. Or, from the other side, if you don't trust me, maybe I'll give you a reason?



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
the US government allready disagree with you - they ahve a maximum allowable export level of `stealth` - boeing have said the USN super hornets are stealthier than the RAAF ones , and they want this changed so , in the words they used the F-15 SE will have the same maximum level of export stealth as the F35 export model.

the government make the rules not lockheed.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
But is there any evidence that this is actually real and not just the hot air and spin I was referring to? So far all I have seen is that someone says its the case.

What is the reason that the RAAF Hornets are less stealthy? Is it because US rules mean they must be or is because Australia didn't buy 'itemX' in their order? What is it that is actually different?

Besides, if the Super Hornet had to have its stealth reduced to meet some arbitrary limit, then the F-35 has no purpose for export customers, surely?

[edit on 24-7-2009 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


these people:

www.dsca.mil...

the Low Observable/Counter Low Observable Executive Commitee

read the above link - they are the ones who decide what level of stealth is permissible for export which stems from:


www.defensetech.org...

thats from 2007 :


Lockheed Martin has been handed another $134 million contract to develop a "partner version" of the JSF "that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible." That's on top of $603 million awarded for the same basic job four years ago.


nearly $1 billion USD to sanitize the F35 to meet government policy for export.

and of coruse:


The decision on whether to release stealth technology is also not up to the JSF program office, but to a high-level group called the LO/Counter-LO Executive Commitee (LO/CLO-Excom).


which is what ive been saying all along : lockheed can spin this all they want at RAAF press conferences - they have NO SAY in how `stealth` the monkey model for export will be.

And the LO/CLO ExCom are the ones Boeing are getting the sales point data from (max level of export stealth) and saying that the F15SE will be as stealthy in the front aspect as the export F35.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Oh boy....



boeing have said the USN super hornets are stealthier than the RAAF ones , and they want this changed so , in the words they used the F-15 SE will have the same maximum level of export stealth as the F35 export model.

Source?




The Australian aircraft - the first four of which will be delivered to Amberley in January 2010 - is a carbon copy of the US Navy's Super Hornet except for an automated aircraft carrier landing system.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...


I love your logic. Boeing knows more about export stealth then the US Government, RAAF, and Lockheed itself, because of data that everyone seems to fail to provide on F-35 "export" stealth. And yet you disregard Lockheed "press releases" (the correct term is JSF Brief) and instead go for Boeing press releases, or Carlos data with airshow photos? What reports about about "Delta SSD"? So far there's been Carlo Kopp, and our beloved ELPIE - neither of which pull any weight in the real world - and furthermore always bug out from any rational debate on other forums. Furthermore, it's about the "release of stealth technology and/or capability", not just some specific (yet presently completely unspecified) RCS that all aircraft must adhere to.

[edit on 24/7/2009 by C0bzz]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join