The role of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation at the Pentagon is to ensure that US weapons programs continue on track and that the weapons do what they are supposed to. His report for the 2016 year can be found here. The interesting observations in the report, with respect to the F-35, are listed following: Read the rest of this entry »
Posts Tagged ‘F-35’
Posted by picard578 on January 14, 2017
Posted by picard578 on November 5, 2016
Posted by picard578 on November 5, 2016
It is completly flaw. That is the normal wrong way to compute F-35 price. People takes the last contract price to L.M. and divide by the number of planes. In this case it is $6,370,955,495 divided by 57 that is to say $ 111.77 Millions but the real price have to takes into acount all contracts related to LRIP 9 like long lead items and so on. Here is the list Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by picard578 on December 21, 2015
Canada is a Western country that at the first look has most at common with Russia. It is huge, but vast majority of its population is concentrated in a narrow swath of land to the south, near the US-Canadian border. It borders United States to the south and west, while to the east is rest of the NATO and to the north is inhospitable Arctic, with its vast natural riches and strategic importance.
Defense of northern Canada depends mostly on three or four forward operating locations – fourth one is the only with permanently assigned squadron, and that one consists of transport aircraft. Only the far east and south of Canada have proper air bases. CF-18s are based in Bagotville to the extreme south-east and Cold Lake to the south-west. Extreme north is patrolled by long-range patrol squadrons using CP-140 Aurora aircraft; no fighter aircraft are present there on a continuous basis, despite primary mission of Canadian fighter jets being to patrol Canadian airspace. Main warning system is a chain of radar stations making up the North Warning System (DEW Line). Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Weapons Systems Analysis | Tagged: Canada, F-18E, F-35, fighter aircraft, fighter for Canada, fighter selection, Gripen, Gripen NG, JAS-39, lightning II, Rafale, SAAB Gripen, Super Hornet, Typhoon, vs | 22 Comments »
Posted by picard578 on November 16, 2015
Note: F-35 might be capable of SEAD/DEAD operations, but even there its low sortie rate / high maintenance downtime and limited payload / endurance will limit its effectiveness.
The RealClearDefense website has published an interesting article on the Israeli Air Force – arguably the best in the world. It worries that the IAF, its pilots’ skills notwithstanding, may lose its technological edge, because the F-35 cannot defeat modern Russian fighters, especially those equipped with infrared search and tracking systems:
“If the F-35 cannot hold its own against fourth-generation fighters, which are increasingly equipped with infrared sensors that can detect stealth aircraft, it will be limited to ground-attack missions and require escorts to carry-out operations in contested airspace. The former head of the USAF’s Air Combat Command admitted last year that the F-35 was not built as an air-superiority fighter and needs the USAF’s existing stealth fighter, the F-22, to protect against enemy aircraft.
This shortfall represents a major problem for Israel, which cannot acquire the F-22. Congress banned its export and production ended in 2011. Israel will…
View original post 202 more words
Posted by picard578 on October 21, 2015
F-35 is intended to replace the F-16 and is promoted as F-16s successor. However, closer look reveals that this is not true. While the F-16 was designed as daytime visual-range dogfighter, F-35 was always intended to be a multirole aircraft with primary focus on air-to-ground missions and limited air-to-air performance. This did not stop Lockheed Martin from advertising the F-35 as a dogfighter, before its obvious inability to actually achieve high maneuverability forced them to change rhetorics.
This comparison will use both F-16A and F-16C for comparison, where applicable. When not noted otherwise, data will be assumed to apply to either both versions or only F-16C. F-35 used for comparison will be F-35A, since it is a standard model and is intended to replace the F-16 (F-35B being a replacement for AV-8 and F-35C being a replacement for F-18).
Posted by picard578 on September 11, 2015
This article will compare Rafale C and F-35A. Both aircraft have similar, almost identical purposes: they are to replace most other fixed wing aircraft types in use by their respective air forces. Both have land-based and carrier versions. But there are major differences in actual approach, and in the final product. While Rafale’s maneuverability is undisputed, it is often-ignored fact is that F-35 was advertised as a highly-maneuverable dogfighter, before its obvious inability to actually achieve high maneuverability forced Lockheed Martin to change rhetorics. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in weapons | Tagged: Dassault Rafale, Dassault Rafale vs F-35, Dassault Rafale vs F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Dassault Rafale vs F-35 Lightning II, F-35, F-35 Lightning II, rafale vs f-35, Rafale vs JSF, Rafale vs Lightning II, vs | 101 Comments »
Posted by picard578 on September 1, 2015
This article will compare a theoretical FLX concept with the F-35 JSF. Hence, it is more than just a comparison of different aircraft. Rather, it is a comparison of results of two different approaches. FLX is a thoroughbred air-superiority fighter, while the F-35 is a jack-of-all-trades (supposed to be; its design imperatives were in-theatre strike and battlefield interdiction). FLX uses an integrated design approach where each piece of technology used has very clear purpose within FLXs operational concept, while the F-35 is an exercise in cramming every possible piece of “high technology” into one airframe. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by picard578 on July 16, 2015
CLAIM: F-35 can supercruise
Incorrect. F-35 can achieve and maintain speeds just above M 1 though usage of minimum afterburner. “Supercruise” claim can be discounted by comparing the F-35A with F-16A.
F-16A has a 40* wing sweep with a laminary wing profile designed for supersonic flight. Its engine has a frontal area of 6.082 cm2 while providing 64,9 kN dry (uninstalled) thrust, giving 10,67 N/cm2. F-16A also has wing loading of 338,5 kg/m2 at combat weight, span loading of 947,2 kg/m and TWR of 0,7 at combat weight and dry thrust.
F-35A has a 33* wing sweep with a supercritical wing profile designed for transonic flight. It also has frontal area about as large as the F-18s. Its engine has a frontal area of 10.715 cm2 while providing 124,5 kN dry thrust, giving 11,62 N/cm2. F-35A has wing loading of 427,9 kg/m2 at combat weight, span loading of 1.698 kg/m and TWR of 0,7 at combat weight and dry thrust. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by picard578 on July 15, 2015
This author, along with several others, has been warning for a long time that the F-35 “Joint Strike Fighter” is decidedly inferior even to legacy aircraft, let alone to the latest Russian and Chinese jets and air defense systems.
This conclusion has been drawn from several publicly-known facts, including the F-35’s limited stealthiness, poor weapons payload, limited range and endurance, poor situational awareness, and lack of maneuverability (i.e. sluggishness).
But until this year, any debate about the F-35’s performance and capabilities was purely academic. It could have been conducted only based on paper data and the laws of physics.
That debate is no longer academic.
It has now been established, through realistic testing, that the F-35 is indeed so sluggish, so unmaneuverable, and offers such poor situational awareness to its pilot, that it’s hopelessly outmatched in a dogfight (i.e. close range combat) – even by the legacy aircraft it’s intended…
View original post 1,091 more words