Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 May 2014 10:22

>>First of all, we do NOT manufacture AL-31FL HPT/LPT disks and blades ... they are directly imported from Russia and HAL merely assembles them - even the compressor blades and disks are imported.

source?

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 02 May 2014 12:36

Hello, in their article Air&Cosmos specified that SNECMA was in talks with a forge making parts for BMW. I guess it would be Bharat forge... Not sure also that India will opt for M 88-2 4E (pack CGP) There is a study plan running on hot parts (Plan d'Etudes Amont "THEO").
Btw, i think i have done a wrong manipulation registering under my name (which is not a prob as my ident is quite public), some of you may know me as "Halloweene"

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 06 May 2014 23:17

Met a Dassault executive today, SATCOM and HMD ARE integrated now.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 07 May 2014 01:43

Viv S wrote:... And since the Americans were the ones who swung the NSG exemption for India, maybe a contract to Westinghouse as well. Being a supporter of nuclear power, I'm all for it.

But on the defence front, we can't really afford prolificacy at this stage. Especially not in lieu of a domestic aircraft that's on the verge of maturity.

Westinghouse is Japanese owned. And they are holding up the deal because India won't sign the NPT

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 07 May 2014 01:47

srin wrote:
Reducing the deal size is going to affect the volume discounts typical of these deals and the offsets. And then, it is possible for Eurofighter to say that they could have been cheaper if the number of units was 65 instead of 126.

So - at best, you are asking for renegotiations and at worst, you are asking for new tender.

The way around this is to go for the 126 and negotiate a unit upcharge if only 63 are purchased.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 May 2014 09:32

To the best of one's knowledge,the Rafale was chosen as being the best technically and on costs.Therefore,even if numbers are halved for argument's sake,the EF would still cost more,as reduced numbers of EF would face the same problem,less numbers,increased cost.

I would however suggest that the new dispensation take a urgent fresh view of the entire issue of Indian defence,and as far as the IAF is concerned,what bang it can get from its bucks allotted-alternatives to gold-plated limos.Just as the JSF is paupering the US def. budget,so too will the Rafale pauper our def. budget.If the other requirements of the other two services are sacrosant,then the rest of the IAF's acquisition programmes,indigenous development of weapon systems,etc. will take a huge hit.

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 May 2014 11:16

Philip wrote:To the best of one's knowledge,the Rafale was chosen as being the best technically and on costs.Therefore,even if numbers are halved for argument's sake,the EF would still cost more,as reduced numbers of EF would face the same problem,less numbers,increased cost.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of: firstly, how large volume deals work; and secondly, how costs are ammortized.

Even if two products are priced the same for 'x' units, they need not be priced the same for say '4x' units or 'x/2' units. The per-unit list price differs because of volume discounts that kick in. And, the discount schedule is different for different companies.

The list price also has the development cost amortized. The proportion of the development cost in the list price differs, and the actual magnitude of the cost too. So, if you halve the price, you need to increase the proportion (not linearly) and that isn't uniform.

Thirdly, and unique in this and something I haven't seen first hand is the value of ToT. The IP can be licensed at wildly differing prices, and halving the total order may mean that different things may be on the table. In this case, to use a wild example, making radar locally may be off the table.

So - commercially, when there are two different products, and one of them is priced lower than the other, halving the order size doesn't necessarily mean that the same product will still have lower cost. Even if Rafale is still shown to be eventually lower, EF can still drag MoD to court because all the above are normal business practices.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 May 2014 11:50

non linear declining cost curve - normal for all manufactured products, more complex for high end goods

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 May 2014 17:56

For Raffy enthusiasts:
http://fortunascorner.com/2013/10/14/fr ... ck-combat/
French Fighter Pilot ‘Shoots Down’ F-22 Stealth Fighter In Mock Combat
Dec 2013.

The French ‘Shot Down’ U.S. Stealth Fighter: Turns out fancy new American jets aren’t invulnerable– by David Axe / War-Is-Boring (note: David Cenciotti contributed to this article); 6-21-2013 (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/f59db16282ca)

New evidence confirms that a French fighter pilot once “killed” an American F-22 Raptor stealth fighter in mock combat.

Although not unprecedented, the simulated shoot-down is still a big deal for a couple reasons.

For one, the Lockheed Martin-madeF-22 is supposed to be the most fearsome warplane in history, a quarter-billion-dollar-per-plane technological marvel that flies higher and faster than its opponents while avoiding detection by radar. The Pentagon is counting on a tiny number of the pricey Raptors — slightly more than 180 — to ward off potentially much larger numbers of enemy planesfor the foreseeable future. Every mock dogfight the F-22 loses undermines the Pentagon’s plans for air dominance.

Plus, the French still have a totally undeserved reputation in non-French military circles for battlefield incompetence — one based mostly on a bad reading of World War II history. That a French pilot could defeat an F-22 speaks volumes about the Raptor’s limitations … and about French air-combat prowess seven decades after Paris’ surrender to Nazi Germany.

The French victory over the F-22 occurred in November 2009. A squad of F-22s from the Air Force’s 1st Fighter Wing in Virginia flew to Al Dhafra, in the UAE, to train with French air force Rafale fighters and Typhoon jets from the British Royal Air Force.

The following month, the French Ministry of Defense released video captures — one can be seen [above] at left — from a Rafale’s forward-facing camera showing an F-22 in a disadvantageous dogfighting position, implying the French plane had won at least one round of pretend fighting.

But the American pilots insisted their planes had gone undefeated against the French during the November exercise — that, in fact, the F-22s had “shot down” Rafales in six one-on-one engagements. Five other simulated battles ended in draws, the Americans said. The U.S. pilots copped to just one loss in the war game — an F-22 defeated by a Mirage 2000 flown by an Emirati aviator.

But a video[www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_em ... GuWadoTgkE] posted by a French Website on June 18 proves that the Americans were lying — or at least incorrect. The video from the Rafale’s camera clearly shows the French plane maneuvering into a good position to launch an infrared-guided Mica missile against a defending F-22.

To be fair, it’s unclear what scenario the jets were playing out: whether, for instance, the F-22 started out slower and lower in order to let the Rafale gain the advantage for training purposes. Nevertheless, the video shows that the Rafale, a decade older and less sophisticated compared to the F-22, can be roughly comparable to the Raptor when maneuvering at low speed during close combat.

Even before the Emirati and French wins in 2009, the Americans knew the F-22 could be beaten, although they rarely mentioned this uncomfortable fact.During the Raptor’s first-ever major air exercise in 2006, an Air Force F-16 most likely dating from the 1980s managed to “kill” an F-22. A Navy Growler jet,designed to jam enemy radars, repeated the feat in 2008 or early 2009.

“No matter how magical the F-22, any pilot can make a mistake,” admitted Lt. Col. Dirk Smith, a Raptor squadron commander.

And the 2009 war game would not be the last to result in “dead” Raptors. In June 2012 a contingent of German pilots (flying the same new Typhoon fighters as the British) figured out the best tactics for shooting downthe F-22.

Eight times during a two-week war game in Alaska, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter maneuvers meant to simulate close-range dogfights. “We were evenly matched,” German Maj. Marc Gruene told Combat Aircraft.

The key, Gruene said, was to get as close as possible to the powerful F-22 … and stay there. “They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively.”

Gruene said the Raptor excels at fighting from beyond visual range with its high speed and altitude, high-tech radar and long-range missiles. But in a slower, close tangle — what pilots call a “merge” — the heavier F-22 is at a disadvantage. “As soon as you get to the merge … the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22,” Gruene said.

Neither does the 30-year-old American F-16, a Navy jamming plane or the 1990s-vintage Rafale — flown by a Frenchman! The worrying implication, of course, is that Chinese, Russian and other rival planes also need not worry about America’s main jet fighter.
,,,,,,
Rare video shows F-22 Raptor shot down by the French Rafale in mock air-to-air combat – by David Cenciotti, The Aviationist, 6-19-2013 (http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f- ... cNkeZx6_YV)

As already mentioned earlier on The Aviationist (especially when discussing the famous claims by the German Eurofighter Typhoon pilots at Red Flag Alaska 2012) in November 2009, some 1st Fighter Wing’s Raptors from Langley AFB, flew to Al Dhafra, in the UAE, to train with the French Air Force Rafales and the RAF Typhoons during exercise ATLC 2009.

The episode is quite famous because in late December of the same year the French Ministry of Defense released the captures taken by the Rafale’s OSF (Optronique Secteur Frontal) showing an F-22 in aerial combat. In fact, although the U.S. Air Force pilots told that their plane was undefeated during the exercise, the French were killed once in six 1 vs 1 WVR (Within Visual Range)engagements versus the F-22 (the other 5 ended with a “draw”) and one Raptor was claimed as killed by a UAE Mirage 2000 during a mock engagement.

However, the following interesting video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGuWadoTgkE] just made available by the French website http://portail-aviation.blogspot.frproves that even the French scored at least a simulated kill (or, to say it better, were able to achieve a proper position to fire a “Fox 2″, an IR-guided Mica missile) against the Raptor.

HUD or sensors’ captures and videos are no more than marketing stuff because, unless the scenario and ROE are known, it is impossible to say when the alleged kill took place, what was happening before and after, which was the tactics.

Nevertheless, the video shows that the Rafale is almost comparable to the F-22 especially when maneuvering at low speed during close air combat.

By the way, when we talk about maneuverability, we can’t but mention the Su-35 Flanker-E and its stunning display at Le Bourget.

Further reading:
…F-22 Raptors Taunted Iranian Fighter Jets — David Cenciotti writes: The March incident began over a drone, and luckily, no one started shooting;
…F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane — The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was meant to improve the U.S. air arsenal but has made it more vulnerable instead;

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 May 2014 18:53

Even F-18 Super Hornet's have scored Aim-9 and gun kills on the F-22. Typhoons have as well. So has the the F-22 on these fighters. The disadvantages of the F-22 for WVR combat are well known even in US air force structures. It lacks the JHMCS that every other US jet has (F-16, F-15, F-18 etc), it lacks an IR targeting solution that the F-35 and F-18SH will have (not to claim that the rafale used a HMS but just to show the lack of capability on the f-22 vis a vis other US fighters). The US has been saying for ages that no matter how potent modern fighters get, how supermaneuverable they get, they lose quite a bit of advantage once they enter the WVR regime of air combat as there the potency of the missile/weapon and the targeting system becomes a big leveler in addition to tactics. The asymmetrical advantage 5th gen jets provide you in air combat is mostly in the BVR domain (for strictly air to air ops), get closer and there is not much difference, especially when the adversary (a rafale or typhoon) has bleeding edge electronics, and top notch missiles and is piloted by some of the best pilots in the world. This would hold true for most 5th gen fighters although aircraft like the F-35, J-20, Pakfa that would have an HMS/HMD from the start would have some tactical advantage. Things like EODAS are big here, and I am sure the F-35's will routinely get the better of F-22's (current lot) in WVR BFM.

Here you can see HUD imagery released by F-18SH pilots after getting a gun kill on the f-22 raptor

Coming to the point about the rafale being an expensive proposition. I'd take the rafale anyday, it has won in an open evaluation against all parties that wished to participate. It was no1 in tech eval. Best for a cost/capability point of view. It is the PRIME system for the french aerospace, and a matter of pride for france. This is important because no matter how low the european defense budgets fall, france would always invest to keep the rafale bleeding edge in a lot of areas. We can pick and choose which technology we want throughout the life of the program. In contrast the Typhoon program is totally disorganized, with some partners wanting a particular set of capability while the others wanting nothing.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 08 May 2014 01:18

brar_warrior wrote:Even F-18 Super Hornet's have scored Aim-9 and gun kills on the F-22. Typhoons have as well. So has the the F-22 on these fighters. The disadvantages of the F-22 for WVR combat are well known even in US air force structures. It lacks the JHMCS that every other US jet has (F-16, F-15, F-18 etc), it lacks an IR targeting solution that the F-35 and F-18SH will have (not to claim that the rafale used a HMS but just to show the lack of capability on the f-22 vis a vis other US fighters). The US has been saying for ages that no matter how potent modern fighters get, how supermaneuverable they get, they lose quite a bit of advantage once they enter the WVR regime of air combat as there the potency of the missile/weapon and the targeting system becomes a big leveler in addition to tactics. The asymmetrical advantage 5th gen jets provide you in air combat is mostly in the BVR domain (for strictly air to air ops), get closer and there is not much difference, especially when the adversary (a rafale or typhoon) has bleeding edge electronics, and top notch missiles and is piloted by some of the best pilots in the world. This would hold true for most 5th gen fighters although aircraft like the F-35, J-20, Pakfa that would have an HMS/HMD from the start would have some tactical advantage. Things like EODAS are big here, and I am sure the F-35's will routinely get the better of F-22's (current lot) in WVR BFM.

Here you can see HUD imagery released by F-18SH pilots after getting a gun kill on the f-22 raptor

Coming to the point about the rafale being an expensive proposition. I'd take the rafale anyday, it has won in an open evaluation against all parties that wished to participate. It was no1 in tech eval. Best for a cost/capability point of view. It is the PRIME system for the french aerospace, and a matter of pride for france. This is important because no matter how low the european defense budgets fall, france would always invest to keep the rafale bleeding edge in a lot of areas. We can pick and choose which technology we want throughout the life of the program. In contrast the Typhoon program is totally disorganized, with some partners wanting a particular set of capability while the others wanting nothing.

Mister Brar_Warrior welcome to BRF. Its very refreshing to have someone so knowledgeable and also frank and honest.

Many people inspite of having knowledge sadly end up in two different camps either russian or american. They'd never acknowledge F-22 shortcomings like you did be it american or russkie platform depending which camp the poster is from.

Also nice insight from you about Rafale vs Ef2k programs. Seems IAF picked up the best.

Hope you have a long and nice stay at BRF.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 May 2014 01:50

^^^^^

++1

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 May 2014 01:51

Cosmo_R wrote:Westinghouse is Japanese owned. And they are holding up the deal because India won't sign the NPT

Doesn't work that way. Being owned by a consortium headquartered in Japan does not mean the company's operations are administered under Japanese law. For all practical purposes its an American company, which means only the particulars of the Indo-US nuclear agreement matter.

Westinghouse, India's Nuclear Power Corp. Near Pact

General Electric, Westinghouse keen to develop 12K MW of nuclear power in India

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 May 2014 02:06

Dhananjay wrote:Many people inspite of having knowledge sadly end up in two different camps either russian or american. They'd never acknowledge F-22 shortcomings like you did be it american or russkie platform depending which camp the poster is from.

I can't speak for everyone but I'm certainly in the camp that would like political considerations to be set aside and choices made only on the merits of the equipment in question.

Also, if you look at my older posts you'll find a mention of the F-22's limitations including the lack of an HMS, EODAS(-like system) or the Aim-9X. All were part of the F-22's upgrade program, but the first two have been cancelled as a result of sequestration. Aim-9X integration is still on the books, albeit deferred to the end of the decade. At WVR like I said, the F-35 will dominate the faster and more maneuverable F-22. (And the faster and more maneuverable PAK FA.)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 May 2014 03:36

That sounds like a miracle,that the JSF will win the WVR battle against even current 4th-gen Russian and Eurocanards, given the well-known stats on the performance parameters,lowered,of the JSF even at the testing stage.You know the words,"can't turn,can't run,etc...." It's entire raison d'etre has been stealth to get off the first BVR shot,giving nightmares to some as it carries only 2 BVR AAMs,which at the current moment of time (AMRAAM) on the JSF has some bug that's proving most difficult to eradicate adn confuses its own flares with incoming enemy missiles! Here's just one report.Details posted earlier from DID.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... -05089/The F-35′s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy
May 30, 2013

F-35 air-to-air arguments

Jan 30/13: Pilot Views. Flight International interviews both experienced pilots and Lockheed Martin personnel, in the wake of the performance downgrades announced by DOT&E’s 2012 report. Those downgrades affect survivability against incoming air defense missiles, where maneuvering performance is critical when attempting to break their guidance lock. Nor are they especially helpful in combat against aircraft whose maximum and sustained turn performance heavily outclass it.

On the “bright” side, the F-35 is said to have good instantaneous turn performance and good high (50 degree limit) angle of attack performance, comparable to a Boeing F/A-18 Hornet. Lockheed Martin business director and former combat pilot Steve O’Bryan also cites the F-35′s performance at high altitude, claiming that it can outclass other Gen 4/4+ fighters “that [he's] familiar with” when operating “clean” and relying on its weapon bays.

That may be true, but many air combat engagements quickly descend from high altitude and into lower altitudes and speeds, as participants bleed energy in turns and maneuvers. Energy is life, and acceleration matters. As for the F/A-18A-D Hornet, it’s a good but not great dogfighter by 1990s standards, whose defining strength is its performance at slow speeds and “nose authority” to point and take a shot.

All fighters have limitations, and fighting to your plane’s strengths is a big component of good airmanship. What’s concerning is the apparent number and extent of the F-35′s kinetic weaknesses, and the structural difficulty of fixing them. The net tactical effect is that pilots will be forced to depend even more heavily on electronics like the EO DAS and APG-81 radars, and on a stealth profile that’s less effective and more variable than the F-22A’s. Flight International external link.

Jan 13/13: Testing. The Pentagon’s Department of Operational Test & Evaluation submits its 2012 report, which includes 18 pages covering the F-35. The fleet continues to work through significant technical challenges, which isn’t unusual. What is unusual is the steady stream of deliveries that will have to be fixed later, in order to address mechanical and structural problems found during testing. From an air-to-air point of view, 2 issues deserve special mention.

One issue is weight. The F-35 was designed with little margin for weight growth, but new capabilities and fixes for testing issues often add weight. Weight growth above designated limits directly affects aerial performance, and at some point, weight dilemmas can become a lose/lose proposition. One frequent consequence is higher costs, for example, as very expensive but lightweight materials are used to save an extra pound here and there. Another consequence is reduced performance, as seen in the F-35B’s drop to 7.0 maximum Gs after its aggressive weight reduction effort. A third consequence involves ruggedness and survivability, as seen by the fleet-wide problem created by saving just 11 pounds in all variants. Without fuelstatic flow fuses and Polyalphaolefin (PAO) coolant shutoff valves, DOT&E estimates that these flammable substances make the F-35 25% less likely to survive enemy fire.

The second issue that deserves especial mention is that key aerial combat standards have been lowered, following initial tests. All F-35s will sit at 5.0g or less sustained turn performance – a figure that places them in a class with 1960s era planes like the F-5 or F-4 Phantom, instead of modern designs like the F-16. Acceleration is also poorer, compared to a reference F-16C Block 50 with AMRAAM missiles on its wingtips zooming from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2.

The USAF’s F-35A dropped the most, from an expected 5.3g – 4.6g in sustained turns. Acceleration will take 8 seconds longer than the F-16.

The STOVL F-35B dropped from 5.0g to just 4.5g sustained turns, and more thrust during vertical landings comes at the expense of straight flight performance. Its acceleration takes 16 seconds longer than the F-16.

The Navy’s large-winged F-35C did best in turning, with a slight drop from 5.1g – 5.0g, but trans-sonic acceleration was abysmal at 43 seconds longer. DOT&E report external link [PDF] | Lockheed Martin re: 2012 testing external link | Reuters external link | TIME external link magazine. | Washington Post external link.

March 20/12: Australia. Former Australian research scientist and defense analyst Dr. Dennis Jensen, MP external link [Liberal - Tangney, near Perth] makes a point of addressing external link the F-35′s air superiority capabilities:

“ADF [Australian Defence Forces] still contend that the overall capability of the JSF is superior and that it will defeat all discernible threats…. To get a handle on the assertions made by Defence, I worked through a step by step process of an 8 versus 8 combat. It was evident that this process was not going to end well for the JSF, so the “we are getting into classified areas” get out of jail free card was pulled. I can confirm that we were not even close to classified data.

….JSF and USAF analysts stated that against Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters the Raptor had a kill ration of 30 to 1 and the JSF 3 to 1…. Against aircraft 30 years newer, such as Su-35S, PAK-FA and the Chinese J-20, and you can imagine the results are likely to be very different…. AVM [Air Vice-Marshal] Osley advised that the JSF has some 650 ways to detect and avoid such threats…. if a JSF has to leave airspace because it detects the presence of Su-35Ss, PAK-FAs or J-20s that it cannot defeat, then the enemy wins airspace-dominance without firing a shot.”

PS:However,there are still huge Qs about the R deal.What cost,what TOT,etc. Our problem these days is preparing fro a two-front war,where we desperately need numbers.Second line of LCA manufacture essential.Cheapest solution,other than buying more MIG-29s,etc. How much we can save just buying Raffys and FGFAs (we do need to acquire stealth/5th-gen tech though ) and funding/developing the AMCA is also open to debate. Partners will be needed as we've seen with the LCA.SoKo,Japan,Brasil are all contemplating developing their own 5th-gen aircraft.The former leveraging a modest JSF purchase for support for their own bird.If we do go down the FGFA route,then there should be appreciable rewards negotiated for the AMCA.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 May 2014 04:12

Philip wrote:That sounds like a miracle,that the JSF will win the WVR battle against even current 4th-gen Russian and Eurocanards, given the well-known stats on the performance parameters,lowered,of the JSF even at the testing stage.You know the words,"can't turn,can't run,etc...."

I've been making assumptions so far, but given that you're repeating the same line I'll desist this time round and keep it simple.

Plain question: Do you know how the EODAS & HMDS work? Why is the Aim-9X the only SRAAM with a 2-way datalink?

It's entire raison d'etre has been stealth to get off the first BVR shot,giving nightmares to some as it carries only 2 BVR AAMs

Air to air: It'll carry 6 BVRAAMs. Same as the PAK FA.

Air to ground: It'll carry 2 BVRAAMs. Same as the PAK FA.

which at the current moment of time (AMRAAM) on the JSF has some bug that's proving most difficult to eradicate adn confuses its own flares with incoming enemy missiles!

Also the helmet ~~doesn't~~ didn't work, fuel dump system ~~doesn't~~ didn't work, it ~~isn't~~ wasn't cleared for supersonic flight, it ~~isn't~~ wasn't cleared for high AoA flight, its IPP ~~has~~ had failed...

Will it work at IOC/FOC is all that matters.

As for the rest.. cherry picking the DID article again?

if a JSF has to leave airspace because it detects the presence of Su-35Ss, PAK-FAs or J-20s that it cannot defeat, then the enemy wins airspace-dominance without firing a shot.”

If the F-35 detects the Su-35S, PAK FA or J-20 first (which it will), it has the option of shooting first. And the aircraft shooting first is almost always the one that wins.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2014 04:46

Viv S wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:Many people inspite of having knowledge sadly end up in two different camps either russian or american. They'd never acknowledge F-22 shortcomings like you did be it american or russkie platform depending which camp the poster is from.
I can't speak for everyone but I'm certainly in the camp that would like political considerations to be set aside and choices made only on the merits of the equipment in question.

Also, if you look at my older posts you'll find a mention of the F-22's limitations including the lack of an HMS, EODAS(-like system) or the Aim-9X. All were part of the F-22's upgrade program, but the first two have been cancelled as a result of sequestration. Aim-9X integration is still on the books, albeit deferred to the end of the decade. At WVR like I said, the F-35 will dominate the faster and more maneuverable F-22. (And the faster and more maneuverable PAK FA.)

As per US CONOPS, the F-22's utility is greatly diminished (if not lost altogether) if it were to be used for a role that warranted close in combat. If it came to that, its a mission planning failure for DARPA, USAF and special commands that make sure that an asymmetric advantage is maintained between its top tech and potential enemy. Its an air-dominance fighter that enables high tempo ops from Day One (as opposed to a systemic build of intensity as the battlefield is sanitized) and as such is a mix of an F-15C and Mig-31 in mission profile. Its high and fast (super cruise of mach 1.72) with a lofted Aim-120D to be replaced by a future missile.

Priority (in order) for the F-22 program

1) Mission computer commonality with the F-35
2) MADL
3) tech refresh of other planned hardware
4) JHMCS + Aim9x

MADL will take care of the IRST issues, as your passive tracks can be done by F-35's in the loop. The US CONOPS for its AEW (Air Expeditionary Wings) is to use a mix of F-35 and F-22 for air superiority missions, so if both have MADL, problem solved. MADL would have been in the latest block increment for the F-22, but the program did not want to fund its slice of the technologies maturity, therefore kicked it out some years so that the F-35 program (a much better funded program) could pay for its maturity and the F-22 program would just go and acquire an established system.

MLU will see other changes, Son of AETD (variable cycle engines), total avionics commonality with the F-35 (things like AESA T-R modules etc which can be simply swapped etc) and new modes for the radar, EW system etc.

It's entire raison d'etre has been stealth to get off the first BVR shot,giving nightmares to some as it carries only 2 BVR AAMs

The F-35 carries 4 BVR weapons in an air superiority mission profile. 2 BVR weapons are carried in an A2G profile for self protection.

That sounds like a miracle,that the JSF will win the WVR battle against even current 4th-gen Russian and Eurocanards, given the well-known stats on the performance parameters,lowered,of the JSF even at the testing stage.You know the words,"can't turn,can't run,etc...."

Miracle perhaps to the uninformed. WVR BFM over the last few decades have shown that tactics, weapons and targeting options play a HUGE role (plus training) in how WVR kills are obtained. Parity can easily be obtained against superior performance aircraft through having cutting edge WVR weapons (block 2 and block 3 aim-9x) coupled with WVR optimised sensors (360 degree EODAS plus EOTS). The block 2, 3 + EODAS enables the F-35 to launch a WVR weapon irrespective of where it is pointed, this enables it to launch the weapon and disengage the "fight" in order to get into an advantageous position for the next joust if the missile does not do its work. An F-22 in a similar situation would have to use all its POWER and turning ability to keep its nose at an attitude where the aim-9x seeker can get a lock on the target fighter or be in a zone to lock on after launch. The EODAS can feed all targeting information to the Aim-9x Blk 2 and Blk 3 in real time as it not only tracks targets 360 degrees around the aircraft, but its algorithms also tracks individual jets in the furball so that the wrong aircraft is not targeted after launch. The Aim-9x block 2 and block 3 missiles are for all practical purposes Aim-120 like missiles but with an IR seeker. The Aim-9x Blk 3 which will IOC for the US Navy just a few years after the JSF will infact range very similar to the Aim-120C (60% greater range than an aim-9x blk 2).

As the rafale engagements have shown, a TVC equipped fighter that has kinematic superiority (f-22 can supercruise at mach 1.7+) can at best get 5 "neutral" BFM scenarios and be shot down once. How are those numbers for you? WVR is a nasty business where even a Mig-21 can hold its own against an F-15C, or an F-4 or F-5 can teach a few things to F-15 and F-16 drivers.

As far as the turning capability of the F-35 is concerned, Folks forget that its mostly going to be fighting clean, and its HUGE INTERNAL fuel will not always be at 100% capacity. Take an F-16 out to for Air superiority or a mixed AD and SEAD mission and see how it is kitted. You'd need CFT's or at least 2 (if not more) large fuel tanks. A pod, plus external missiles. Performance goes down the toilet. Same thing with the F-18 SH. Where have those fighters gone into combat clean?

Want some heavy reading in the spec (KPP) change. If you can stomach it, here is a 4 part write up on the performance and how it matches up to what the USAF is now doing and wanted.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2013 ... -spec.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 May 2014 04:53

if a JSF has to leave airspace because it detects the presence of Su-35Ss, PAK-FAs or J-20s that it cannot defeat, then the enemy wins airspace-dominance without firing a shot.”

One of its designed features is to "leave the airspace and let the missile work for you"

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2014 04:59

That sounds like a miracle,that the JSF will win the WVR battle against even current 4th-gen Russian and Eurocanards, given the well-known stats on the performance parameters,lowered,of the JSF even at the testing stage.You know the words,"can't turn,can't run,etc...." It's entire raison d'etre has been stealth to get off the first BVR shot,giving nightmares to some as it carries only 2 BVR AAMs,which at the current moment of time (AMRAAM) on the JSF has some bug that's proving most difficult to eradicate adn confuses its own flares with incoming enemy missiles! Here's just one report.Details posted earlier from DID.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... -05089/The F-35′s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy
May 30, 2013

The infamous spec change (see above). And as far as the flare issues and what not, its not a BUG per say. Its issues with the system integration, and as such perfectly NORMAL for weapons testing. What do you think weapons are tested for? FUN? They are tested for the very purpose of detecting glitches, nags and major flaws so that they are removed before IOC is declared. Thats whats happening. Earlier it was that it couldn't land on a carrier because its Tail hook was broken. They tested OT it for that very reason. They didn't take it to the carrier and had a crash and then went to see what was wrong. OT testing is for this very reason. It took 14 months to redesign the hook, another 3 to put it back and the F-35 is now trapping normally (100% RAA record and 6 out of the first 6 traps at PAX river). Throughout the 14 months, bloggers such as David Axe had a field day talking about how POOR the program was because the fighter couldn't trap. He is not alone, there is a crop of such taloid journos every generation. The F-16 had its fair share that called it the widow maker and lawn dart etc because they were crashing so much (Had you been around (and this forum) I bet you would have been posting links to blogs such as f-16fallingfromthesky.com on an hourly basis, at a much higher frequency than what you are doing with the f-35 program).

For the 2 missile carriage also see above. If you took half the time you take to post links that are mostly repetitive on learning about the fighter you'd realize that it carries 4 BVR missiles internally from start/design. There are plans to make that into 6 missiles at a future date as capability is added. Lockheed has even proposed a missile that would enable that number to rise even further (CUDA).

When the US wargamed F-16 and F-15 fighters that had the JHMCS vs those that did not, the result were heavily in favour of the fighters with the system. These are fighters with absolutely no difference in kinematics or turn performance. Technology in WVR is a big big leveler, EODAS is a level of magnitude higher than what advantage the JHMCS system provided to the legacy teen series fighters, for it opens up the doors for a truly MRAAM weapon, meaning that even in WVR the F-35 can engage an F-22 from farther out (even with the same weapon) then the F-22 can engage it. What happens if you give an EODAS to an F-22 (hypothetically speaking)? Contrary to what many think (F-22 due to better performance will clean the f-35 good) what will most likely happen as that you will approach parity and enter MUTUAL KILL territory. That is totally unacceptable for any air force (to trade fighters like that).

NRao wrote:
if a JSF has to leave airspace because it detects the presence of Su-35Ss, PAK-FAs or J-20s that it cannot defeat, then the enemy wins airspace-dominance without firing a shot.”
One of its designed features is to "leave the airspace and let the missile work for you"

Its not " leave the airspace" as in "go Home" its to remove oneself from the traditional way of conducting WVR. You launch a WVR weapon using EODAS+EOTS from beyond WVR ranges, and instead of heading to the merge as you would in a normal engagement you go out and position yourself for the next chess move in case the missile misses. Idea being to throw the opponent off into a "defensive" posture from far out and then to be able to maneuver with the tactical flexibility of not having to bother about the immediate consequences of not having the opponent in your sight as the missile heads towards it. Its not only the 360 degree nature and integration that is tactically groundbeaking it is also the computing that tracks each and every fighter in the furball (even those that look alike such as 2 f-16's where one is an enemy and one is a friend) no matter how fast or how hard they are maneuvering in the battlespace.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 May 2014 05:25

Philip wrote:That sounds like a miracle,that the JSF will win the WVR battle against even current 4th-gen Russian and Eurocanards, given the well-known stats on the performance parameters,lowered,of the JSF even at the testing stage.You know the words,"can't turn,can't run,etc...." It's entire raison d'etre has been stealth to get off the first BVR shot,giving nightmares to some as it carries only 2 BVR AAMs,which at the current moment of time (AMRAAM) on the JSF has some bug that's proving most difficult to eradicate adn confuses its own flares with incoming enemy missiles! Here's just one report.Details posted earlier from DID.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... -05089/The F-35′s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy
May 30, 2013

F-35 air-to-air arguments

Jan 30/13: Pilot Views.

I would think those that article to be rather dated by now. ?????

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 May 2014 06:05

It will all be worked out in the end.Like a fairy tale,"they all lived happily ever after!"
The bird is already 7 years late,deadlines are slipping so badly from the latest GAO /Pentagon reports.There are huge issues to be sorted out,from cracking airframe,helmet that doesn't work perfectly,main missile incompatability due to a bug,and the most serious of all,the software development upon which the entire combat capability of the aircraft rests.All reports today speak of further delays.It would help if the testing regime proved otherwise,instead of repeated lowering of performance standards so that the aircraft can limp through to IOC .What did Bogdan himself say in the Senate hearing when questioned by McCain? Parts falling off production aircraft and it's taking more time to repair them than anticipated.

The fact remains that the aircraft was never intended for aerial combat and design parameters for the STOVL version have given it some inherent fundamentals that make it inferior to existing 4th-gen aircraft and stealth birds in the works. Its shape and aerodynamics cannot be changed.Let's see how many missiles internally the JSF will actually field as against the T-50/FGFA.CUDA is an afterthought,yet to be perfected and fielded on a JSF prototype from which missiles have been test fired.The same concept could easily be developed and fitted onto any of its rivals if they feel the need.

http://insidedefense.com/20120301239200 ... d-926.html

Pentagon Slackens Difficult-To-Achieve JSF Performance Requirements

The Pentagon last month relaxed the performance requirements for the Joint Strike Fighter, allowing the Air Force F-35A variant to exceed its previous combat radius -- a benchmark it previously missed -- and granting the Marine Corps F-35B nearly 10 percent additional runway length for short take-offs, according to Defense Department sources.

On Feb. 14, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- in a previously unreported development -- agreed to loosen select key performance parameters (KPPs) for the JSF during a review of the program convened in advance of a high-level Feb. 21 Defense Acquisition Board meeting last month, at which the Pentagon aimed to reset many dimensions of the program, including cost and schedule.

Pentagon sources said a memorandum codifying the JROC decisions has not yet been signed by Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the JROC chair.

Sources familiar with the changes, however, said the JROC -- which also includes the service vice chiefs of staff -- agreed to adjust the "ground rules and assumptions" underlying the F-35A's 590-nautical-mile, combat-radius KPP.

Last April, the Pentagon reported to Congress in a selected acquisition report that "based on updated estimate of engine bleed," the F-35A would have a combat radius of 584 nautical miles, below its threshold -- set in 2002 -- of 590 nautical miles.

To extend the F-35A's combat radius, the JROC agreed to a less-demanding flight profile that assumes near-ideal cruise altitude and airspeed, factors that permit more efficient fuel consumption. This would allow the estimate to be extended to 613 nautical miles, according to sources familiar with the revised requirement.

The estimated combat radius of the short-take-off variant, which is being developed for the Marine Corps, is 15 percent lower than the original JSF program goal even though the aircraft is slated to carry fewer weapons than originally intended, according to the April report.

The short-take-off-and-landing KPP before the JROC review last month was 550 feet. In April 2011, the Pentagon estimated that the STOVL variant could execute a short take-off in 544 feet while carrying two Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 missiles internally, as well as enough fuel to fly 450 nautical miles. By last month, that take-off distance estimate grew to 568 feet, according to DOD sources.

The JROC, accordingly, agreed to extend the required take-off distance to 600 feet, according to DOD officials.

The JROC review of the F-35 program last month was held in accordance with a policy adopted by the council in June 2010, which requires a reassessment of requirements for all programs with cost growth exceeding 25 percent of the original program baseline. One goal of the policy is to determine whether a decision to relax requirements should be made to improve acquisition cost and schedule estimates. --

When deployed in a strike mission,the JSF can carry only 2 AAMs apart from 2 JDAMs,a total of 4 internally.Where are the 6 missiles? Has a single test been done carrying a mock-up of 6? Only the Norwegians have been shown a 2019 configuration showing 6.All available info available today shows the FGFA/T-50 carrying 6-8 AAMs.It is only when Block 5 is developed that..... "Lockheed Martin states that the weapons load can be configured as all-air-to-ground or all-air-to-air, and has suggested that a Block 5 version will carry three weapons per bay instead of two, replacing the heavy bomb with two smaller weapons such as AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles." Block 5 is planned to appear the earliest by 2021.

F-35A: The standard internal weapons load is two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles and two 2,000-pound GBU-31/B JDAM guided bombs.
F-35B:Internally, two 1,000 lbs bombs can be carried (compared to 2x 2,000 lbs in case of the F-35A/C), due to the somewhat smaller bomb bay dimensions. ( It is going to be interesting to see how 6 will be carried in a smaller bomb bay).

Some heartening news from Wik,summarising the many reports:

In a report released in 2013 it was stated that flaws in the fuel tank and fueldraulic (fuel-based hydraulic) systems have left it considerably more vulnerable to lightning strikes and other fire sources including enemy fire than previously revealed, especially at lower altitudes.[175] This report updated a separate report from 2010, in which Lockheed Martin spokesman John Kent said that adding fire-suppression systems would offer "very small" improvement to survivability.[176] The same 2010 report also noted performance degradation of the three variants, the sustained turn rates had been reduced to 4.6 g for the F-35A, 4.5 g for the F-35B, and 5.0 g for the F-35C. The acceleration performance of all three variants was also downgraded, with the F-35C taking 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower performance level than expected from a fourth generation fighter.[177] On 30 August 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models take several complex maneuvers in order to "accelerate" to their top speed of Mach 1.6, which consumed almost all of the onboard fuel.

[178] The F-35 program office is reconsidering addition of previously removed safety equipment.[179] In 2012, Lockheed Martin program manager Tom Burbage said that while the relatively large cross-sectional area of the fighter that was required by the internal weapons bays gave it a disadvantage against fourth generation fighters that were operating in a clear configuration, once both fighters were armed the F-35 had the advantage.[180]

In March 2013, USAF test pilots, flying with pre-operational software that did not utilize the all-aspect infrared AAQ-37 DAS sensor, noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights which would get them consistently shot down in combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption";[181] in response, program manager Bogdan suggested that pilots worried about being shot down should fly cargo aircraft instead.[182] The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):

Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.
Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.
The radar performs poorly or not at all.
Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
Maintenance tools do not work.[183]

The JPO responded that more experienced pilots would be able to safely operate the aircraft and that procedures would improve over time.[184]

Even in the final "3F" software version, the F-35 will lack ROVER, in spite of having close air support as one of its primary missions.[185]

A 2014 Pentagon report found these additional problems:

Only a third of the fleet is airworthy.
The Inertial navigation system does not work.
There is an unknown bug with the AMRAAM.
DAS confuses the aircraft's own flare launches with incoming missiles.
A single well placed bullet can render the F-35B's vertical landing capabilities useless.[186]

Pentagon−Lockheed Martin relation issues

In September 2012, the Pentagon criticized, quite publicly, Lockheed Martin's performance on the F-35 program and stated that it would not bail out the program again if problems with the plane's systems, particularly the helmet-mounted display, were not resolved. The deputy F-35 program manager said that the government's relationship with the company was the "worst I've ever seen" in many years of working on complex acquisition programs. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters the Pentagon had no more money to pour into the program after three costly restructurings in recent years. He said the department was done with major restructuring and that there was no further flexibility or tolerance for that approach. This criticism followed a "very painful" 7 September review that focused on an array of ongoing program challenges. Lockheed Martin responded with a brief statement saying it would continue to work with the F-35 program office to deliver the new fighter.[187]

On 28 September 2012, the Pentagon announced that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter support program would become an open competition. They invited companies to participate in a two-day forum on 14–15 November for possible opportunities to compete for work managing the supply chain of the aircraft. Their reason is to reduce F-35 life-cycle costs by creating competition within the program and to refine its acquisition strategy and evaluate alternatives that will deliver the best value, long-term F-35 sustainment solution. This could be hazardous to Lockheed Martin, the current prime contractor for sustainment of all three variants, and selection of another company could reduce their revenues.[188]

In 2013, the officer in charge of the program blamed Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney for gouging the government on costs, instead of focusing on the long term future of the program.[189]

In 2014, Lockheed was reported to be having problems with build quality, including one aircraft with a valve installed backwards and another with gaps in the stealth coating

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2014 06:19

Yes in an air to ground mission the jet will carry 2 BVR weapons for self protection. Whats wrong with that? Its not the maximum load of the aircraft. For air defense missions it can carry 4 missiles internally.

Scenarios for the F-35 loadout:

Mission 1 ) Stealth CAS/SEAD: Internal Aim-120's for self defense x 2, 2 x 2000 Lb or other weapons (SDB's, JDAM's, JSOWS etc)
Mission 2) Semi Stealth: Internal 2x Aim-120's for self defense , 2x 2000lb bombs or other weapons + 2x Aim-9x's externally
Mission 3) Air superiority: Stealthy: 4 x Aim-120's Internally or 2xAim120's + 2xAim-9x block iiis (Future) or 3 x Aim-120D's + 1x Aim-9x blk III
Mission 4) Air superiority: Semi stealth 4 x Aim-120 D's internally + 2x AIm-9x's externally

Won't even go into the non-stealthy mission loadouts as the F-35 absolutely DESTROYS the F-16 and F-18 (aircraft it is replacing) in a non-stealthy loadout, especially with the heavy stuff and TOS (time on station). Just for a teaser though here it is for a non-stealth (AD degraded mission profile)

Do provide me pictures of an actual T-50 weapons bay carrying even 1 missile before you come and ask me about pictures of an F-35 carying 6. Its a future capability. While you talk about missiles for the T-50 that have not even entered developmental testing, you ask about proof (pictorial and other) about another future capability for the F-35. Why this double standard? The F-35's block maturity post block 4 is still open for addition, many things can be added in block 5 or later. The jet is slated to remain in service for decades and so is its production (unless we assume your line of thinking that it will soon ABORT and be cancelled perhaps after the marine core announces a 13 month delay). That 6 AMRAAM load has been mentioned to customers, means that its an option thats on the table for the future. Unless you are one that believes absolutely nothing of what the russian OEM's say about their kit (A missile that cannot miss etc etc) you have no reason to show pessimism towards future capability for the JSF. As shown to you, Lockheed is working internally on an Hit to kill Missile for the F-35 that can potentially up internal carriage to 12. If you believe what russian missile makers have to say about their "in development" projects, you cannot use double standards when a JSF team member (Lockheed or others) come out and say they are working on something for the future.

Has a single test been done carrying a mock-up of 6?

Has a single test (fire) been done of the Russian missiles you speak off and provide links to for the PAKFA?

It will all be worked out in the end.Like a fairy tale,"they all lived happily ever after!"

Yes, just like the F-16 before it. While you live in the bubble that there would be delays because so and so said so. I will keep the 13 month USMC delay in mind and bring it back when the USMC IOC's in 2015 and deploys to Japan in 2016.

The fact remains that the aircraft was never intended for aerial combat and design parameters for the STOVL version have given it some inherent fundamentals that make it inferior to existing 4th-gen aircraft and stealth birds in the works. Its shape and aerodynamics cannot be changed.Let's see how many missiles internally the JSF will actually field as against the T-50/FGFA.CUDA is an afterthought,yet to be perfected and fielded on a JSF prototype from which missiles have been test fired.The same concept could easily be developed and fitted onto any of its rivals if they feel the need.

An afterthought? Are you serious? Afterthought to what? The AMRAAM does not need replacement. The US Air force specifically asked for Hit to kill technology to which Lockheed responded with a missile program they have on going. Its an afterthought to what exactly? Its a response with a missile design that would most likely compete with other missile designs from other design houses.

As far as it being a program. Well so are the missiles you post about for the PAKFA. Has one been fired (New ones, the ones that will never miss and provide SO ranges to PAKFA that the F-35 cannot match). The level of hypocrisy in your argument is astounding.

I can understand your feeling and the bloggers and others that have made it a profession to bash the f-35. The latest i have heard today is "it was never meant to do aerial combat". This is a classic, one for the archives I guess someone forgot to tell this to the developers and operators from the USAF (that will have a mix of air superiority F-35's and F-22's to protect strike f-35's) or the numerous others that have bought it for the purpose of AiR DEFENSE against 4th , 4.5 th and 5th gen fighters.

Reminds me of a picture I saw on another forum which tried to capture the feeling bloggers and so called "experts" special interest folks such as those that run f35baddeal etc like websites must be having when Australia, South Korea etc announced orders.

This sums it up ..

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 May 2014 06:26

Philip wrote:It will all be worked out in the end.Like a fairy tale,"they all lived happily ever after!"
The bird is already 7 years late,deadlines are slipping so badly from the latest GAO /Pentagon reports.There are huge issues to be sorted out,from cracking airframe,helmet that doesn't work perfectly,main missile incompatability due to a bug,and the most serious of all,the software development upon which the entire combat capability of the aircraft rests.All reports today speak of further delays.It would help if the testing regime proved otherwise,instead of repeated lowering of performance standards so that the aircraft can limp through to IOC .What did Bogdan himself say in the Senate hearing when questioned by McCain? Parts falling off production aircraft and it's taking more time to repair them than anticipated.

Worst case scenario, it'll be late. Unless we want it in 2016... *meh*.

#main missile incompatability due to a bug# - David Axe's garbage.

The fact remains that the aircraft was never intended for aerial combat and design parameters for the STOVL version have given it some inherent fundamentals that make it inferior to existing 4th-gen aircraft and stealth birds in the works.

'Never intended for aerial combat' - that's an absurd assertion. Its an F-16/Harrier II/Hornet replacement.

When deployed in a strike mission,the JSF can carry only 2 AAMs apart from 2 JDAMs,a total of 4 internally.

How many BVRAAMs can the PAK FA carry when deployed in a strike mission?

Where are the 6 missiles? Has a single test been done carrying a mock-up of 6? Only the Norwegians have been shown a 2019 configuration showing 6.All available info available today shows the FGFA/T-50 carrying 6-8 AAMs.

Where are the PAK FA's AAMs? Has a single test been done carrying a mock-up of even one missile? *All available info available today shows the FGFA/T-50 will fly only with a gun*

Some heartening news from Wik,summarising the many reports:

Wikipedia... :sigh:

Edit: Appears to have been covered in the post above. Anyway.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2014 07:03

Worst case scenario, it'll be late. Unless we want it in 2016... *meh*.

#main missile incompatibility due to a bug# - David Axe's garbage.

Its tough to rebut the same thing over and over again. David's Axe's rant has been countered in the media. I've provided the link for all to see and read and make up their own mind. One can hardly expect to spoon feed it every time the same author and his nonsense is repeated

Most of these points are repetitive. GAO etc reports, explanations to which has been provided and rebuttals to which exist on the internet.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 May 2014 08:13

brar_w wrote:
Worst case scenario, it'll be late. Unless we want it in 2016... *meh*.

#main missile incompatibility due to a bug# - David Axe's garbage.
Its tough to rebut the same thing over and over again. David's Axe's rant has been countered in the media. I've provided the link for all to see and read and make up their own mind. One can hardly expect to spoon feed it every time the same author and his nonsense is repeated Most of these points are repetitive. GAO etc reports, explanations to which has been provided and rebuttals to which exist on the internet.

Imagine a this turkey flying!!!!

After a couple of attempts, at least on BR, one has to let it slide. The situ(ation) has actually improved. It used to be "it cannot fire a missile", "it cannot fire a gun", "it cannot fly at night", "in rain", ........ Vanity Fair? People must have made a ton on network hits with that article................. All that nonsense has since died. Now we have to wait out for this new set to die its own death. 4 vs. 6, parts falling, software issues, the Gen said the sun rises from the South.......

But I have to thank Axe/Sweetman/Sprey/etc. They say the best Guru is your own spouse. IF it were not for these yahoos, I would not know so much more about a lot of things.

BTW, the first FGFA is going to be out in 2014.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 May 2014 15:37

The two aircraft are not at the same developmental stage.One has never claimed it to be.There are no double standards.When the Russian bird carries its AAMs will certainly provide pics.Till then one will continue to post available info as it comes.

Why 6 AAMs are being touted for the JSF internally right now when it can only carry 4 at the moment beats me.On a strilke misison it just has 2 AAMs to defend itself BVRs at that and one ha salready posted analyts views what would happen to it in the WQVR scenario.The entire raison de'etre of the JSF is its much touted stealth capability.The moment it carries underwing munitions it loses that advantage and even the US def. establishment admits that it was NEVER meant to be an air-superiority fighter,without the F-22 "irrelevant",says the head of the USAF's Air Combat Command.

I would suggest to JSF enthusiasts to read the Pentagon/GAO's very own reports,US general's Bogdan,Wheeler,etc, who have listed out/acknowledged the aircraft's current shortcomings.

Sure,in the future evrything will be hunky-dory,new upgrades will be developed,"hit-to-kill" whatever.Right now,they can't fix the bug in the AMRAAM,apart from many other flaws.Nevertheless,the vulture is a patient bird.But the desperate attempts to tout it as the magic bullet that will outfly,outfox (and outcost) any other aircraft in the sky when it's struggling to be perfected,that too with lower standards of performance to limp past its testing regime is amusing to say the least.Anyway,"to each his own".Let's wait and watch,and judging from the evidence available,it's going to be a long wait.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2014 16:05

The two aircraft are not at the same developmental stage.One has never claimed it to be.There are no double standards.When the Russian bird carries its AAMs will certainly provide pics.Till then one will continue to post available info as it comes.

Which missiles would those be? The ones in "development" or the existing missiles?

Why 6 AAMs are being touted for the JSF internally right now when it can only carry 4 at the moment beats me

Why AAMs are being touted for the PAKFA internally that are still in development and only exist as articles in the media beats me
Why things that do not even hang from the fighter such as (EODAS analogous) are being touted beats me.

From your favourite tabloid blog

Russia’s New Dogfighting Missile Can’t Miss

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2a5cd0edf210

On a strilke misison it just has 2 AAMs to defend itself BVRs at that and one ha salready posted analyts views what would happen to it in the WQVR scenario.

It has 2 BVR missiles to defend itself in the STEALTH mission profile. 4 missiles in the semi stealth design profile and even more in an AD degraded profile. As a matter of exercise just try to see how the USN or the USAF will have to kit the F-16 or F-18 to obtain a similar TOS as the F-35A and C with internal weapons and see how many BVR missiles those aircraft can carry for "self defense". Also do let me know how many BVR weapons the PAKFA carries (internally) along side internal carriage of 2000lb or 1000 lb PGM's

The entire raison de'etre of the JSF is its much touted stealth capability.The moment it carries underwing munitions it loses that advantage and even the US def. establishment admits that it was NEVER meant to be an air-superiority fighter,without the F-22 "irrelevant",says the head of the USAF's Air Combat Command

Stealth is a initial phase of war capability.Mission profiles have been designed around the stealth mission, semi stealth mission and AD degraded mission with external carriage of weapons. There is a logic in providing it (and i assume the PAKFA) with external weapon option, because stealth is not required 100% of the time for every type of mission.

As far it being an air superiority mission. Thats one mission profile that the F-35 would have to do in the AEF from its 1st day of IOC in 2016. The AEF's air superiority component will rely heavily on a mix of f-35's and f-22's. In addition to that evaluations by the air forces of Australia, South Korea, Japan in the Pacific have given them enough confidence that it can hold its own among contested air spaces where there is a genuine 4.5 to 5th gen threat indexed. Australian air chief is on record to say the same. But he is no expert, or perhaps not internet savvy so as to read some "blogs" such as war is boring.

Sure,in the future evrything will be hunky-dory,new upgrades will be developed,"hit-to-kill" whatever.

Yes they will. Ever read a decent book on the F-16 ? And how it evolved from where it started to where it stands now? The USAF does a very nice job of keeping its multi role fighters mission relevant over their lifetime. I bet if you were around (and the internet for that matter) you'd be bashing the f-16 supporters in its early development and IN SERVICE DAYS by claiming " why talk of a BVR missile on an F-16" thats a future capability. Just to point out the F-16 did not have BVR capability for quite some time after it was "in service". From the top of my head it occurred during the latter half of the block 15 development, by the time hundreds of previous block fighters had been delivered. A lot of F-16 experts claim that it took the USAF many years to get to the block 30/32 where a capability was finally reached that was closest to what they eventually wanted. All multi-decade weapons systems are in a constant fluid development long after they IOC or even FOC'd.

Right now,they can't fix the bug in the AMRAAM,apart from many other flaws.

In March they began seperation testing for an Aim-120 AMRAAM. In June they began to test the Aim-120 for separation and live launch. Here's a video. In October they began to test out OPERATIONAL and MISSION relevant scenarios for the Amraam launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVkqrkA8KnU

Then In october they upped the tempo and began firing the missile using onboard sensors and data links against live drone targets. All the problems mentioned in the report were remedied between June and October of 2013.

The test pilot, Air Force Captain Capt. Logan Lamping employed the AIM-120 radar-seeking missile from the F-35's internal weapons bay against an aerial drone target in restricted military sea test range airspace. Test data and observers confirmed the F-35 identified and targeted the drone with its mission systems sensors, passed the target "track" information to the missile, and launched the AIM-120 from the aircraft to engage the target drone. After launch, the missile successfully acquired the target and followed an intercept flight profile. Moments before the missile was about to destroy the target, a self-destruct signal was sent to the AIM-120 in order to preserve the aerial drone for use in future tests.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... mraam.aspx

Since you clearly did not read the rebutal of david axe's missile claim i'll go ahead and post it again.

Axe:

he Third ‘Embarrassing Detail’: ‘The JSF’s main air-to-air missile doesn’t fully work—and it’s not clear why’

(bold emphasis is mine)

The F-35 needs three basic weapons in order to be cleared for combat in 2015: a laser-guided bomb, a satellite-guided bomb and the AIM-120 air-to-air missile.

The nav system problems slowed the addition of the satellite bomb—basically, the munition didn’t know where to land. That, at least, was a known unknown—and engineers were able to solve it with a “fix in the mission systems software,” according to the report.

But the AIM-120 isn’t working on the F-35, either. And in contrast to the bomb problem, testers have not been able to resolve the missile issue because they can’t quite duplicate it. “Problems involving integration of the AIM-120 medium-range missile have been difficult to replicate in lab and ground testing,” the report notes.

It is, in other words, an unknown unknown. And who can say what the solution is.

Read more: http://op-for.com/2014/02/punk-journali ... z317czdqMj
OP FOR

Reply:

This is where Axe REALLY would have benefitted from either actually knowing how to do research or how to write a balanced news story. Axe self-refutes the GPS weapon canard he laid down under the previous ‘embarrassment’. This leaves us with the LGB and the AMRAAM ‘narrative’. Again, Gilmore’s testimony in June of last year is most helpful (bold emphasis still mine):

“Safe separation testing for the laser-guided bomb, GBU-12, has been delayed until a new lanyard and lanyard routing procedure are available. Deficiencies, some of them recently discovered, in the electro-optical tracking system’s ability to maintain a track have also hampered progress in laser-guided bomb employment testing. As a result, the first end-to-end GBU-12 weapons delivery test is not likely before October 2013.”

And

“Integration of the AIM-120 medium-range missile has experienced problems that have been difficult to replicate in lab and ground testing. A safe separation event in which an AIM-120 missile was launched from a flight sciences aircraft occurred on June 5, 2013… The first end-to-end weapons delivery test using AIM-120 missiles is not likely to occur before November 2013, and meeting this date depends upon implementing essential corrections to deficiencies in the mission systems software and completion of remaining safe separation testing.”

Now let us introduce the following events relevant to Axe’s assertions that also came to pass before the DOT&E report was released:

On 29 October 2013: “An F-35 B-model jet released the Guided Bomb Unit-12 (GBU-12) Paveway II bomb from its internal weapons bay while flying at around 25,000 feet, successfully smashing into a tank parked on the ground”(Source)
And…

On 30 October 2013: Test data and observers confirmed the F-35 identified and targeted the drone with its mission systems sensors, passed the target “track” information to the missile, and launched the AIM-120 from the aircraft to engage the target drone. After launch, the missile successfully acquired the target and followed an intercept flight profile. Moments before the missile was about to destroy the target, a self-destruct signal was sent to the AIM-120 in order to preserve the aerial drone for use in future tests. (Source)

Apparently the program did an acceptable job of “meeting this date”and was successful in “implementing essential corrections to deficiencies in the mission systems software and completion of remaining safe separation testing.”

Something may have been an ‘unknown-unknown’, but only to those not involved. Other than demonstrating the test and development of the F-35 is proceeding apace, the problems Axe was ‘pointing’ to appear to have been solved (and flagging that he really hasn’t a clue as to what he’s writing about), why exactly is Axe doing his ‘chicken little’ routine?

A nice synopsis of late 2012 to late 2013 weapons testing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVkqrkA8KnU

See why the JPO Chief is having such a tough times? These reports are written in the first half of the year, published in the second half and idiot bloggers and armchair generals continue to cite them as evidence of the program failure long after those problems have been corrected, fixes implemented and test points completed and verified. Move on ,shall we?

For those looking to genuinely seek info on the program and what remains to be done (rather than hammer away on google trying to find "doomsday" news on the F35), here is of what weapons testing is left before the marines declare IOC and beyond as the block 3F capability is reached (essential for USN and International customer's IOC).

http://aviationweek.com/awin/f-35-weapo ... cus-amraam

Let's wait and watch,and judging from the evidence available,it's going to be a long wait.

Yes we know, A 13 month delay for the USMC that takes them past the USAF IOC date (2016 Aug-december) if the aircraft does not get cancelled or is ABORTED as you put it.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 May 2014 16:28

Philip wrote:The two aircraft are not at the same developmental stage.One has never claimed it to be.There are no double standards.When the Russian bird carries its AAMs will certainly provide pics.Till then one will continue to post available info as it comes.

The F-35's development isn't going to remain static either. And the roadmap does include 6 AMRAAMs, CUDA, Aim-9X Blk3, DIRCM, and so on.

Why 6 AAMs are being touted for the JSF internally right now when it can only carry 4 at the moment beats me.

The PAK FA can carry only zero at the moment. But since its bay appears sized to accommodate upto six modified R-77s, we allowing for a capacity of six. The F-35's bay can accommodate six missiles as well, what it requires is an extra hardpoint or an adaptor for two AAMs.

On a strilke misison it just has 2 AAMs to defend itself BVRs at that

On a strike missions the PAK FA just has 2 AAMs to defend itself at BVR.

and one ha salready posted analyts views what would happen to it in the WQVR scenario.

Actually, all you've done is indicate that you're unfamiliar with how the F-35's EODAS and HMDS work.

The entire raison de'etre of the JSF is its much touted stealth capability.

That and the APG-81, EOTS, DAS, HMDS, Barracuda, MADL, ALIS and a superb MMI.

The moment it carries underwing munitions it loses that advantage and even the US def. establishment admits that it was NEVER meant to be an air-superiority fighter, without the F-22 "irrelevant",says the head of the USAF's Air Combat Command.

The F-35 has been walled of from the sequestration, F-22 upgrades have not.

I would suggest to JSF enthusiasts to read the Pentagon/GAO's very own reports,US general's Bogdan,Wheeler,etc, who have listed out/acknowledged the aircraft's current shortcomings.

I promise you I read them before you did.

Right now,they can't fix the bug in the AMRAAM,apart from many other flaws.

No bug in the AMRAAM.

Sure,in the future evrything will be hunky-dory...

Describes the PAK FA pretty aptly. Will have a credible AESA radar and EW suite. Will feature a comparable variety of munitions. Will have better stealth once gets past the prototype stage.

(But pay for it NOW.)

Edit: Huh. Late again. I think I'll leave the rebuttals to Brar_w.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2014 16:52

Describes the PAK FA pretty aptly. Will have a credible AESA radar and EW suite. Will feature a comparable variety of munitions. Will have better stealth once gets past the prototype stage.

(But pay for it NOW.)

Not only that, he claims that despite it only flying prototypes, having no mission system fully delivered, no full sensor suite integrated with early block software, no "new" weapon that is being tested in the air etc, and it flying with an interim engine, it will IOC ahead of the F-35 that IOC's 14-16 months from now.

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 12 May 2014 17:30

F-35 may turn out to be a winner for the USAF, but does going for -ANY- major new import (with associated limitations on ToT) make sense for India? The IAF's current mix is potent, and even if several aging airframes are retired in due course, would continuous evolution and further intake of the Su-30MKI & LCA Tejas suffice? Available funding could then go to domestic R&D, and acquisition of foreign firms & engineering talent.

Would this be worth trying out for a decade or two?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 May 2014 18:45

sohels wrote:F-35 may turn out to be a winner for the USAF, but does going for -ANY- major new import (with associated limitations on ToT) make sense for India? The IAF's current mix is potent, and even if several aging airframes are retired in due course, would continuous evolution and further intake of the Su-30MKI & LCA Tejas suffice? Available funding could then go to domestic R&D, and acquisition of foreign firms & engineering talent.

In principle its a good approach. Invest in domestic systems and make up technological limitations through force multipliers, greater focus on networking and standoff weaponry. Resulting economies of scale will further depress costs. Plus domestic R&D will get a strong leg up. 'Buying' tech hasn't help us significantly to date, nor can we expect some breakthrough 'insights' through a JV. Also, we have more than sufficient homegrown engineering talent, and where we lag we can certainly opt for foreign consultancy.

However, while the Su-30MKI and Tejas are sufficient for the vast majority of roles there are several high-risk missions that will entail a higher than justifiable degree of risk. Obvious ones like SEAD/DEAD but also more exotic ones like taking down an enemy AWACS. Plus small numbers of fifth gen aircraft interspersed within older fighter can provide a huge force multiplier effect operating at the forward edge of the battle-space, radar-silent, ESM systems fully cocked.

The Chinese will certainly be fielding them and if we wait long enough the Pakistanis will too. Its not something we can afford to forego (the AMCA will be a while in coming). But its also not something that we should be splurging on at the cost of domestic aircraft (Tejas or AMCA). Which is the ideal platform? Let the IAF and MoD decide, but after a proper evaluation.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 May 2014 12:32

Dassault hopes to sign Rafale India deal this year

Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA) Chief Executive Eric Trappier said he hoped to sign a deal to sell Rafale fighter jets to India by the end of the year following the election of pro-business candidate Narendra Modi as the country's new prime minister.

India's military had previously postponed a plan to buy 126 of the fighters, a deal estimated at $15 billion, until the 2014/15 financial year due to budget constraints.

"It's reassuring for us, because I think that will accelerate the process further," Trappier told journalists on the sidelines of the Ebace business aviation show.

satya · Post by **satya** » 21 May 2014 19:59

Its a done deal . But expect it to be more pro-desh than one 'agreed' upon by UPA.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 21 May 2014 20:18

Modi will sign the deal but he will try and extract more concessions. Indigenous content must go up and we need access to more technology especially wrt to the M88 engine.

The biggest problem I see with this deal is that its going to be a long time before we are able to address our dwindling force levels. If he can't get the type of concessions he wants, I think this deal will flop. Just throw the money at the LCA and Kaveri and ramp up the numbers. Producing 20+ LCAs/year with 90% indigenous content with a good radar, engine, HMCS, and missiles will go a lot further than purchasing the rafale at this stage. We will get more bang for the buck.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 May 2014 20:42

My vote:

* ~~Rafale~~ {saves $15-20 billion}
* ~~FGFA~~ {saves $30 billion}

* Cap MKI at 220 {saves, whatever}

* Get 100 PAK-FA MKI {@$60 mil = about $8 billion, with all sorts of "stuff"} {start a line for India in Russia}

* Take $30 billion and pour that into:
** A super network
** A super engine
** A 5.5+ Gen AMCA

satya · Post by **satya** » 21 May 2014 20:57

Baba , Gen. Suhag's appointment was cleared with him prior to being announced by GoI. He is not going to cancel the MRCA deal with France no matter what.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 May 2014 20:59

PAK FA MKI @ 60 million sounds rather optimistic, especially for a production run of a 100. Stealth comes at a cost and complexity, it would be tough to credit lower cost of construction of legacy soviet era stuff to modern stealth jet with 2 rather large supercruising engines.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 21 May 2014 21:16

Not that I know for sure given that all this info is pretty much all hush hush, heck we dont accurately the RCS numbers of any of the frontline aircraft and only have approximate numbers to rely on but I do think that the Pak-Fa's stealth skin is a simple affair relative to the complexity of the f-22. The f-22 is a nightmare in terms of maintenance and is a hangar ducati whilst given Ruskie modes of construction logic the Pak-Fa will be a runway luna.

We know nothing of the engines of the pak-fa to get an idea of its cost. Whilst 60 million does seem low I dont think the actual figure (in numbers) will be much much higher than that given that the pak-fa stealth approach will be lesser in complexity and Ruskies want to compromise on stealth for practicality.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 May 2014 21:28

With 5 prototypes in the air and no fighter flying with full configuration, or mission system (and propulsion) we are years away from nailing down on the cost of construction for a licence build with its associated learning curve. No matter how PRACTICAL the Russians get they will try to add the most cutting edge stealth features and processes they can and that would not be cheap to produce. They themselves are procuring a mixed fleet of 4.5 gen and 5th gen fighters..5th gen won't come cheap (in 5th gen timelines).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 May 2014 23:18

brar_w wrote:PAK FA MKI @ 60 million sounds rather optimistic, especially for a production run of a 100. Stealth comes at a cost and complexity, it would be tough to credit lower cost of construction of legacy soviet era stuff to modern stealth jet with 2 rather large supercruising engines.

I pulled that number out of the air based on $50 mil for the PAK-FA and $100 for the FGFA. Driving a hard bargain ..................

I do not see the PAK-FA as a good "5th Gen" plane. But, do consider it to be better than the MKI. Which is why I would prefer to reduce the MKI numbers and plunk those funds into a better MKI.

I would make building a super network a priority, followed equally by investing in engineS and a 5.5+ Gen plane.

India, IMVVVVHO, should skip the "5th gen" tech craze. And, by not investing in the MMRCA + FGFA she stands a good chance to do so.