The not so stealthy JSF… - Page 3

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The not so stealthy JSF… (Page 3 of 6)

Posted: 3/17/2006 6:22:51 PM EDT

[#1]

I always thought this thing was a waste of money from the begining.

Posted: 3/17/2006 6:26:08 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Lockheed JSF spokesman John Kent said there has been no downgrading of any of the aircraft’s stealth for foreign or domestic sales.

So that's why he didn't return my emails today… he's busy running damage limitation.

ANdy

Posted: 3/17/2006 6:31:03 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Lock-Mart says different.....

JSF Stealth Won’t Be Reduced: Program Officials

By MICHAEL FABEY

Foreign press reports that the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) sold to Australia will be less stealthy than promised are wrong, prime contractor Lockheed Martin says.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported March 15 that the proposed Australian version of the JSF would have “low observability” instead of “very low observability.”

Lockheed JSF spokesman John Kent said there has been no downgrading of any of the aircraft’s stealth for foreign or domestic sales.

“It appears that there was just a misunderstanding of terms and definitions,” Kent said.

He said the Australian press reports apparently misinterpreted what “low observable” would mean.
The planes will still have the same stealthy ability to avoid radar and other detection equipment as before, he said.

Australia is one of the partner countries expected to buy JSFs in the coming decade.

Another U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released this week says JSF officials have taken four “key actions” to speed up such technology transfers:

• Lockheed developed an international industrial plan that identified the type of licenses needed to transfer certain of the technologies;

• JSF program agencies now have dedicated staff for JSF technology licensing;
Lockheed and JSF program agencies have used exemptions in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to avoid delays; and

• Talks about releasing classified information or other technology are taking place early in the program.

Another GAO report released this week said the Pentagon plans to start low-rate initial production of the plane by 2013 without completing some performance tests.

And ain't that last sentence a kicker?

They are going to start building it WITHOUT completing performance testing!!!

LM Translation: Trust us, we reckon it 'should' be ok on the day, possibly, probably, maybe…

And I still call BS on LM's counter claim…

A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.

That sounds like LM is telling something differerent from the official script...

ANdy

To be honest, it seems like your article and mine both prolly have some bias. Just looking at the surface of this bro-hah-ha I find it hard to believe that the LO or electronics capabiltites are a problem, since this is the most current design of a fighter with a lot of experience gained from a lot of programs, especially the F-22. Performance problems I can understand due to the "jointness" of the program but I don't see that being a deal-breaker, as I'm sure it's performance would match damn near any adversary(it's engine will have the highest rated thrust, so that can't be faulted). Just my opinion but I still think it will be a good plane. Time will tell. YMMV. For the record I also think the Super-Hornet is a great fit for the Navy and a good investment by them. That and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee.

Posted: 3/18/2006 10:36:38 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Hopefully someone at defence will kill off the JDF. We have a new defence minister now, and he's more sensible than the last one. Trying to replace both the bugs and the pigs with one little plane was always a stupid idea.

For 35 years we've been able to penetrate the air defences of any nation in the region AND sink anything on the high seas. It's pissed off the neighbours, many of whom were or are little better than petty tin-pot dictatorships. A good time was had by us

Now, with so many flankers entering the region, we have nothing to counter them (the F/A-18A+ that we have has never had the legs to do more than defend Darwin, really) and no meaningful strike radius once the pigs are retired in 2012 or so. I have a bad feeling about this...

Having just read up on the Australian documentation I agree 100% with you Lert that the F-35 selection is a disasterous choice for the RAAF. You go from 'Top Dog' to being just another dog in the pack.

The RAAF has always maintained a clear and decisive advantage in both it's strike and Air Defence capability over the 'locals'.

The F-35 choice is the 'Bean Counters' option, not the 'Military' option.

If the RAAF cannot afford to buy the F-22, it should buy the Typhoon, which can eat an SU-27 for breakfast.

ANdy

Posted: 3/18/2006 12:32:07 PM EDT

[#5]

Gets better…

Sign up for fighter or pay more later, says US company

By Tom Allard
March 17, 2006

AUSTRALIA has been delivered an ultimatum to sign up for the troubled Joint Strike Fighter project or face financial penalties, and an influential US body has warned of huge cost blow-outs and of the aircraft's untested capability.

The manufacturer of the fighter, Lockheed Martin, made the demand as it confirmed that some countries - possibly including Australia - would get models inferior to those operated by US and British forces.

Yet, according to the US Congress's audit and investigative arm, the much vaunted stealth characteristics of the fighter remain worryingly unproven, even for the premier US variant.

Jane's defence newsletter quoted Lockheed Martin's senior executive on the project, Tom Burbage, as saying the US wanted a commitment to the fighter by the end of the year in a memorandum of understanding that would last through "the life of the program".

If a customer then declined to go ahead "there will be a penalty associated with the disruption of production planning", Mr Burbage said.

Australia had wanted to defer its final decision on the fighter - the world's costliest ever military project and one critical to Australia's future air combat dominance in the region - until 2008. Australia has budgeted to buy as many as 100 of the jets for $15 billion.

The Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, did not comment directly on the threat of financial penalties in the proposed memorandum of understanding but said Australia would not sign an unsatisfactory deal. "We are committed to negotiations but we would not sign up to an agreement unless we are satisfied we have all the information we need and it was in Australia's interests," his spokesman said.

The fighter program has received heavy criticism this week amid threats from partner countries, including Australia, that they will pull out if they do not get access to technology. The US Congress's Government Accountability Office said there had been inadequate testing on the fighter for it to be considered a mature design and that production should be slowed.

"Significant development risk remains, and it is likely that current cost and schedule goals will not be met," it said in a report.

"To improve the chances for a successful outcome, we are recommending the JSF program delay production and investments in production capability."

The office has strong influence over US legislators, but the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have insisted that the aircraft's design is sound. If the Pentagon slows funding and production it will not only increase the price of the aircraft but leave a bigger gap between the scheduled retirement of Australia's fleet of F-111 and FA-18 jets in 2010-12 and the delivery of their replacements.

The Herald also revealed this week that the fighter's ability to elude powerful radar had been downgraded.

The Jane's newsletter said Mr Burbage had told it that different countries would get different versions of the fighter.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sign-up-for-fighter-or-pay-more-later-says-us-company/2006/03/16/1142098602856.html

Posted: 3/18/2006 12:52:36 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Latest news was the USAF was going to buy a few of the Marine models for CAS. Why, I haven't the foggiest clue.

"We bought this new great F-35 for CAS! It's so great the Marines use it for CAS! Now we can retire the A-10s!"

Posted: 3/18/2006 12:55:07 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Latest news was the USAF was going to buy a few of the Marine models for CAS. Why, I haven't the foggiest clue.

"We bought this new great F-35 for CAS! It's so great the Marines use it for CAS! Now we can retire the A-10s!"

replacing the A-10 with a F-35 would be the biggest mistake the AF has ever made, bar none

Posted: 3/18/2006 12:55:52 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Latest news was the USAF was going to buy a few of the Marine models for CAS. Why, I haven't the foggiest clue.

"We bought this new great F-35 for CAS! It's so great the Marines use it for CAS! Now we can retire the A-10s!"

Yup…

Aviation Week & Space Technology Login|Subscribe |Register

USAF Plans for Fighters Change
By David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall
09/19/2004 06:24:17 PM

LOW DOWN

The U.S. Air Force's top leaders say the service will buy several wings of the short takeoff/vertical landing F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, following the news from Lockheed Martin's engineers that the aircraft is shedding more than a ton of weight and gaining thrust.

The service's vision includes changes to the basic short takeoff/vertical landing (Stovl) configuration that could be so extensive as to represent a fourth Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) version--in addition to the design for the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B, the USAF F-35A and the U.S. Navy F-35C. But program managers have adamantly rejected the notion, so far, of deviating from the stated program plan.

Air Force Secretary James G. Roche says the service will buy "hundreds" of the Stovl F-35Bs in addition to the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35As that will be bought in larger numbers. Stovl aircraft are needed to operate from short, unprepared airstrips near the front. With each wing requiring roughly 100 aircraft, the ground support force would equate to at least two wings, but more likely four or more.

"We learned in Afghanistan and Iraq the importance of air support to land forces from austere locations," Roche told those attending the Air Force Assn. convention. "We must be rapidly available to land forces, particularly the American Army. That's why we will procure a short takeoff/vertical landing version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter."

Adding to the battlefield impact of new and modernized aircraft, "the next step is to perfect our ability to engage moving targets with precise munitions as well as increasing precision from both lighter and smaller but more effective weapons," he said.

While Roche and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper would only say that the F-35B buy would be in the hundreds, the final number depends on how the Army reorganizes itself into smaller, more widely dispersed units, Jumper says.

USAF will only need to see broad outlines of the Army strategy, though, before committing on a Stovl plan, says Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hal Hornburg. A decision on how to proceed isn't needed until 2006, he added.

The average cost of the CTOL F-35 is now $45 million each, says Rear Adm. Steve Enewold, the Pentagon's program executive official. The Stovl for the Marine Corps and the larger deck carrier design for the Navy are now in the $55-60 million range, he said. That could mean that the Air Force would have to buy fewer total F-35s. It also echoes broader decisions about reducing USAF's force structure in the next several years.

Jumper contends that paying more to buy the F-35B capability is both good leadership and good finance.

"I DON'T THINK THAT even reduced numbers of the kind of capabilities we intend to buy will produce any less killing capacity," Jumper says. "The lethality of even a reduced number of systems will be extraordinarily increased over what we have right now. It's neither right nor proper for us to argue that the same force structure and size is required when the killing capacity of each of these systems goes dramatically up."

JSF program officials say there are options for modifying the F-35B for Air Force service. These include the installation of an interior cannon (instead of the Marine Corps' gun in a pod) and a probe for hose and drogue refueling (in addition to the boom capability) for operations with special forces, Marine Corps and British tankers. Whether that would require the Air Force to pay for development of an electrical refueling system to replace the standard hydraulic model is not yet known.

There were also hints that Air Force F-35Bs could evolve with a propulsion system designed for more emphasis on short takeoff and less on vertical landing. Other possibilities include a tailored combination of fuselage and wing to carry more fuel and weapons once the program office relaxes its rigid control of the fighter's three versions. Other JSF options could include development of reconnaissance, electronic attack and laser armed versions, say senior industry officials.

"WE WANT TO MAKE that [USAF F-35B] the dedicated close air support capability for the future, beyond what [number] we keep of the A-10s," Jumper said. "I say the number [of F-35Bs] will be in the hundreds. But the Army is in the throes right now of completely redoing their concept of operations. But before we declare a number, we will need to understand more than we understand now and learn with the Army about their new concept of operations. We plan to work very closely with the Marine Corps as well with the Stovl version of the aircraft."

JSF program officials said they have identified 2,700 lb. in weight or weight equivalent reductions for the Stovl aircraft using strategies that include:

Reducing the distance between interior structural elements in the wing so the aircraft's exterior skin can be thinner.

Reducing the size of the weapons bays by 14 in. as well as the size of the vertical tails.

Rounding the shape, the loft line, of the fuselage behind the cockpit to hold more fuel. That was one of several changes that decreased drag.

Redesigning the electrical system to decrease the battery size and the amount of wiring.

Redesigning the wing-mate joint.

Rerouting some thrust from the roll post outlets to the main engine thrust.
Additional equivalent weight reductions will result from changing carrier operations requirements from those demanded for the Harrier including instrument flight patterns and vertical hover rate ratios.

The weapons bay reduction will eliminate certain weapons from the Stovl configuration, including the Joint Standoff Weapon and 2,000-lb. bombs. However, Hornburg doesn't see that as an impediment to the Air Force embracing the Stovl aircraft. Since that model will be dedicated to close air support in the Air Force, it won't need the large weapons. Instead, it would likely carry 250-lb.-class small-diameter bombs.

The Lockheed Martin team also recaptured a 600-lb. equivalent reduction by redesigning the auxiliary inlet on top of the JSF's fuselage for better pressure recovery, said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and general manager for JSF. Predictions are that the changes will decrease takeoff roll by 100 ft., he said, and allow the bring-back weight for a carrier recovery to include two 1,000-lb. bombs, two air-to-air missiles and reserve fuel. Critical design review is slated for late 2005 with first flight of the production-configured aircraft in the summer of 2006 and funding for low-rate initial production to begin in 2007. Production in 2014-15 is expected to reach one aircraft per day.

By contrast F/A-22s are now priced at $130 million each with engines and are expected to reach a production rate of 32 per year. So far, 83 aircraft are on contract or delivered with another 24 in the Fiscal 2005 budget. The 41st aircraft is to be the first delivered to Langley AFB, Va., where the initial operational squadron will be established.

Officials discussing the program hinted at new roles for the stealth fighter. Researchers believe the stealthy design of the Air Force's Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (Jassm) will allow them to carry the missile externally on the F/A-22 without a large sacrifice in low observability.

The desire to carry Jassm on the F-22 stems in part from the development of new high-power microwave (HPM) payloads for the missile that are expected to be key weapons in disabling the electronics of enemy air defense, communications and command and control systems.

However, Jumper appears testy when asked about development of these directed-energy weapons which Pentagon officials have said could be ready for production in 2-4 years if funded.

"If the contractors say we will have production-ready, disposable HPM weapons in 2-4 years that means 6-8 years," Jumper says. "I already have lots of good ways to kill targets. Why invest in a technology I won't be able to use for years?" Replying to a call by top Air Combat Command officials for the rapid development of such non-kinetic, or non-explosive weapons, Jumper says, "If ACC wants more non-kinetic weapons then let's see it in their budget."

Advocates of the technology who have intimate knowledge of work at the Air Force Research Laboratories at Kirtland AFB, N.M., say the HPM weaponry is indeed nearing a production capability. However, they also caution that directed energy weapons such as HPM are not magic. There are defenses against them. You can't use them all the time and expect success every time. Only in specific circumstances should they be brought into play.

HPM PAYLOADS also are being designed for the conventional air-launched cruise missile and Tomahawk land attack missile with an eye to further reducing the capability to fit in the miniature air-launched decoy missile.

USAF officials are still wrestling with what to do with the bulk of their existing fighter fleet and are trying to keep options open to see what happens with the F/A-22 and F-35. One example is the A-10 force. USAF leaders had suggested they would retire A-10s to free up money to upgrade the rest of the fleet. However, Air Combat Command has devised a strategy to pay for upgrades without sacrificing existing airplanes. Some A-10s will probably be retired nonetheless, Hornburg says, but mainly because they are so near the end of their service life that upgrading them doesn't make sense.

The Air Force expects to begin flight testing of the first A-10s with the precision engagement upgrades late this year, with the hope of fielding the first aircraft next year. The enhancement allows the A-10 to drop GPS-guided bombs and integrates a targeting pod into the system, notes Roger Il Grande, Lockheed Martin's A-10 manager.

Similarly, the Air Force is moving to give its F-15C an air-to-ground capability, while also enhancing its strike F-15Es. The full extent of the F-15C upgrades is still under review, however, Jumper suggested.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/09204wna.xml

Posted: 3/18/2006 2:09:04 PM EDT

[#9]

I wonder if the costs would have been lower had they gon with the boeing design.... I thought a big part of their pitch was lower production costs.

Posted: 3/18/2006 2:10:57 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
I wonder if the costs would have been lower had they gon with the boeing design.... I thought a big part of their pitch was lower production costs.

Not likely. At least the LM prototype was within the weight limit for the STOLV version. The Boeing version was overweight from the start.

Posted: 3/18/2006 2:26:03 PM EDT

[#11]

How many of you all are actually qualified to be making some of these claims?

This isn't directed at any member in particular...

I'd be curious to know how many members posting in this thread are pilots, aeronautical engineers, or other qualified individuals.

With some of the things I'm reading here, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of you just got excited playing flight simulator in your momma's basement and decided to become an "internet expert" know-it-all...

Posted: 3/18/2006 2:29:29 PM EDT

[#12]

Here's the deal. Those who are truly qualified to comment on the characteristics of the F-35 can't. So we're left with the people who read every detail they can and make educated guesses from those readings.

Posted: 3/18/2006 2:30:00 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
How many of you all are actually qualified to be making some of these claims?

What claims? When someone makes a technical claim, they back it up with a cite or get called out on it. As for opinion, everyone is qualified to offer their opinion.

Don't be sore because lots of big words and acronyms are being thrown around. Spend some time at JDW, Strategypage, FAS, and other such sites, and you too can follow along!

Posted: 3/18/2006 2:53:25 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
I wonder if the costs would have been lower had they gon with the boeing design.... I thought a big part of their pitch was lower production costs.

Don't get me going on the X-32!!!

Posted: 3/18/2006 3:00:30 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So....

Did we downgrade it for export, or LIE about how Un observable it was?

Creative embellishment by export-starved defense contractors............again.

This is very disappointing to hear, but not surprising.

Then again, who is Australia going to engage in aerial combat? Or even 'need' to penetrate the air defenses of?

So LM did indeed lie about the JSF's radar profile and subsequent stealth capabilities?

Posted: 3/18/2006 3:19:13 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Hopefully someone at defence will kill off the JDF. We have a new defence minister now, and he's more sensible than the last one. Trying to replace both the bugs and the pigs with one little plane was always a stupid idea.

For 35 years we've been able to penetrate the air defences of any nation in the region AND sink anything on the high seas. It's pissed off the neighbours, many of whom were or are little better than petty tin-pot dictatorships. A good time was had by us

Now, with so many flankers entering the region, we have nothing to counter them (the F/A-18A+ that we have has never had the legs to do more than defend Darwin, really) and no meaningful strike radius once the pigs are retired in 2012 or so. I have a bad feeling about this...

Having just read up on the Australian documentation I agree 100% with you Lert that the F-35 selection is a disasterous choice for the RAAF. You go from 'Top Dog' to being just another dog in the pack.

The RAAF has always maintained a clear and decisive advantage in both it's strike and Air Defence capability over the 'locals'.

The F-35 choice is the 'Bean Counters' option, not the 'Military' option.

If the RAAF cannot afford to buy the F-22, it should buy the Typhoon, which can eat an SU-27 for breakfast.

ANdy

It's just a hunch, but I think that the former defence minister drank ALOT of the Army's cool-aid, with a lot of prodding from the navy.
Exhibit A- Army is the darling service at the moment due to the high optempo in Iraq, Afghanistan, all the way back to Timor in 1999
Lesson: The army does most of the work, so fund capability that helps the army. F-35 is "good" at CAS.

Exhibit B- Navy gets shiny new LHDs, and new AEIGIS destroyers to defend them. The Navy really misses having an aircraft carrier, and the LHDs have a long, flat deck, and there IS that STOVL version of the F-35...
Lesson: Navy supports army ops to get new toys of its own.

Exhibit C- The Australian govt, for whatever reason, has drunk the "complex warfare" cool-aid and decided that there will be no threats from nation-states in the forseeable future, so we don't need long-range strike or air defence capabilities. After all, China's funding our economic boom by buying gas and minerals off us, so why would they be a threat? No-one else can match us, so why bother funding expensive capability that we're not going to use? The airforce can get new transports, tankers and AEW aircraft to support the army and the navy.

Lesson: Its really hard for an airforce to get the cool toys from the beancounters when the whole country has been drinking the "no specific threat" cool-aid since the end of the Vietnam War.

Posted: 3/18/2006 3:20:26 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
The super hornet lower RCS is because of a special "stealth" paint job.

Why not start a new production line of A-10 Super Warthogs that uses

same stealthier paint
bigger more reliable engines
a small air to groun/ with air to air search radar
LATARN or FLIR built in
and enclosed wheel pods to allow for full load of mavericks or hellfires

I like the A-10 but I don't care how good a paint job you give it. With those huge ducted fan engines, it will show up line a neon sign on radar.

Posted: 3/18/2006 3:23:42 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if the costs would have been lower had they gon with the boeing design.... I thought a big part of their pitch was lower production costs.

Don't get me going on the X-32!!!

Get going on the X-32, I dare you!

Posted: 3/18/2006 3:24:54 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if the costs would have been lower had they gon with the boeing design.... I thought a big part of their pitch was lower production costs.

Don't get me going on the X-32!!!

Get going on the X-32, I dare you!

+1. What's the matter Vito, chicken?

(Kind of curious to see what was right/wrong with the -32...)

Posted: 3/18/2006 4:01:37 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
How many of you all are actually qualified to be making some of these claims?

This isn't directed at any member in particular...

I'd be curious to know how many members posting in this thread are pilots, aeronautical engineers, or other qualified individuals.

With some of the things I'm reading here, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of you just got excited playing flight simulator in your momma's basement and decided to become an "internet expert" know-it-all...

Valheru is a Rhino pilot. We just had another board member get selected for Rhinos. Dport is active Navy, vito works in the british defense industry.

Me? I plan to fly the JSF eventually. Note that I don't sit around arguing specs, just policy.

Posted: 3/18/2006 4:38:33 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Lesson: Its really hard for an airforce to get the cool toys from the beancounters when the whole country has been drinking the "no specific threat" cool-aid since the end of the Vietnam War.

'No specfic threat' is a valid argument when you fly Mirage III's and F-111's and the 'natives' are flying Mig 15's and IL-28's.

Unfortunately someone in Canberra seems to have not noticed that the 'natives' now Fly SU-27's and 30's and are looking to buy TU-22's

ANdy

Posted: 3/18/2006 5:17:30 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if the costs would have been lower had they gon with the boeing design.... I thought a big part of their pitch was lower production costs.

Don't get me going on the X-32!!!

Get going on the X-32, I dare you!

+1. What's the matter Vito, chicken?

(Kind of curious to see what was right/wrong with the -32...)

From a personal point of view? I worked for a Boeing sub-contractor on the X-32 so I'm somewhat biased.

From a 'airplane' point of view?

I think LM won the bid because it's plane was 'sexier' and supposedly cheaper.

The X-32 was a good plane, terrific range and very stealthy, but it was no doubt about it an ugly little fucker. There was less technical risk in the X-32 and Boeing were also very keen on developing a 'robot strike' (UCAV) version in parallel.

Although there were issues with the original delta wing, the redesigned wing that Boeing wanted to fit promised much better performance.

The X-Plane project was a good example of why you should not select a plane like that again. Boeing stumbled at the first hurdle, but picked itself up and saw a way to build something much better. The nature of the contest stopped them proving it.

We need AeroE in on this one tp quote specifics, he's the McD aerostructures guy.

ANdy

Posted: 3/18/2006 5:39:59 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Compared to contemporary international fighters of its time, the F-20 used 53% less fuel, had 63% lower operating and maintenance costs, needed 52% less maintenance manpower, and was four times as reliable.

It had one less engine.

Posted: 3/18/2006 5:46:38 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Valheru is a Rhino pilot. We just had another board member get selected for Rhinos. Dport is active Navy, vito works in the british defense industry.
Me? I plan to fly the JSF eventually. Note that I don't sit around arguing specs, just policy.

I stood under the wing of a C-141 at an airshow once....

Posted: 3/18/2006 6:22:27 PM EDT

[#25]

Okay, a Rhino = ????

TIA,

Corey (who's just trying to follow the conversation)

Posted: 3/18/2006 6:29:58 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Okay, a Rhino = ????

TIA,

Corey (who's just trying to follow the conversation)

Superhornet.

Posted: 3/18/2006 6:30:03 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Okay, a Rhino = ????

TIA,

Corey (who's just trying to follow the conversation)

F/A-18 E/F, one of these:

aka "Superhornet" or "Superbug"

Posted: 3/18/2006 6:47:27 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Here's the deal. Those who are truly qualified to comment on the characteristics of the F-35 can't. So we're left with the people who read every detail they can and make educated guesses from those readings.

Agreed, this is why we need to consider the dangers of mis-information. The PNAC's mention of the F-22 and JSF show an agenda, and I for one dont like thier conclusion that the JSF should be killed, yet keep the F-22.

Their are MANY advantages of having a multi-role fither/bomber.

Posted: 3/18/2006 6:55:05 PM EDT

[#29]

Thanks guys.

But why is the Super Hornet called the Rhino?

I can see Superbug, but Rhino?

Corey

Posted: 3/18/2006 7:03:10 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Thanks guys.

But why is the Super Hornet called the Rhino?

I can see Superbug, but Rhino?

Corey

Who the hell knows, the F-4 pilots I knew all called IT the Rhino, or Double Ugly, maybe some of that heritage got handed down to the mini-F15E.

Posted: 3/18/2006 7:04:21 PM EDT

[#31]

I think the F-16XL would be an excellent aircraft but would probably not meet naval requirements with one engine.

Posted: 3/18/2006 7:11:38 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks guys.

But why is the Super Hornet called the Rhino?

I can see Superbug, but Rhino?

Corey

Who the hell knows, the F-4 pilots I knew all called IT the Rhino, or Double Ugly, maybe some of that heritage got handed down to the mini-F15E.

Tanks.

Maybe Rhino because of the additional carrying capacity?

It don't matter why, I just want to know what the darn plane is!

Corey

Posted: 3/18/2006 7:13:07 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
A friend of mine who is a Lt. Col in the USAF who currently flys 16 said that when he was flying in the older F-111s that he came damn near close to mach III in one and the paint pealed off the leading edge of the swing wings after the run. He said it was under rated in speed intentially by the DOD. He was also involved with the bombing of Sadaams palace in GW1 with the bunker buster bomb that was made out of gun barrel from a Iowa Class battleship

The bunker busters were made out of 5 in gun barrels. There were still two IOWA battleships in service at the time. The other two only recently decommed.

As for the Mach III thing, I'm not concerned about the speed of the aircraft, only the capabilities of moder Look Down/Shoot Down radars and modern missiles.

Pretty sure the original Bunker buster (GBU-28) were made of 8" 203mm howitzer( M110?) barrels that were sitting in an Army depot in PA. Total weight was something like 4,700 lbs with around 630 lbs HE.
I think the VARKs could only carry one and had a GBU15/24 on the opposite station for balance.

Posted: 3/18/2006 7:14:35 PM EDT

[#34]

Rhino was I think an homage to the F-4, also because of its extended fuselage/nose (at least according to wikipedia).

Quoted:
I think the F-16XL would be an excellent aircraft but would probably not meet naval requirements with one engine.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/F-16xl.jpg

The JSF has .... one engine.

Posted: 3/18/2006 8:07:39 PM EDT

[#35]

The Cranked Arrow F-16 was a great idea if they would have started retrofitting F-16s to that spec in the 1990s to buy us more time on its replacement, but they didn't and we are too far into the procurement cycle to go that route now.

The Armed_Scientist Air Force Modernization Map

A.) Kill the JSF, transfer half of the funds to expand and accelerate F-22A production

B.) Use the other half of the funds to put into production the X-45C/X-47

C.) End F-22A production at 700 airframes

D.) Focus all development and procurement funds in the post 2015 time frame to developing Launch on Demand and transatmospheric systems to offset the super-annutationed of the bomber force. Space based rail guns, hypervelocity kinetic energy penetrates (god rods), and depending on the state of DOE research into the field, free orbiting pure fusion reentry vehicles.

Ideally during this time frame the navy will have fast tracked the development of their naval rail gun system and be fielding that on DD(X)s and have started on next generation guns with twice the muzzle velocity of the initial system which would allow the rail guns to fire farther inland. This combined with a dedicated nuclear powered rail gun ship would give the Navy revolutionary low-cost strike capabilities that would largely render the carrier obsolete.

The US is on the verge of a revolution in warfare if we are willing to embrace new technologies and not stay married to legacy systems.

Posted: 3/18/2006 8:17:01 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
The Cranked Arrow F-16 was a great idea if they would have started retrofitting F-16s to that spec in the 1990s to buy us more time on its replacement, but they didn't and we are too far into the procurement cycle to go that route now.

The Armed_Scientist Air Force Modernization Map

A.) Kill the JSF, transfer half of the funds to expand and accelerate F-22A production

B.) Use the other half of the funds to put into production the X-45C/X-47

C.) End F-22A production at 700 airframes

D.) Focus all development and procurement funds in the post 2015 time frame to developing Launch on Demand and transatmospheric systems to offset the super-annutationed of the bomber force. Space based rail guns, hypervelocity kinetic energy penetrates (god rods), and depending on the state of DOE research into the field, free orbiting pure fusion reentry vehicles.

Ideally during this time frame the navy will have fast tracked the development of their naval rail gun system and be fielding that on DD(X)s and have started on next generation guns with twice the muzzle velocity of the initial system which would allow the rail guns to fire farther inland. This combined with a dedicated nuclear powered rail gun ship would give the Navy revolutionary low-cost strike capabilities that would largely render the carrier obsolete.

The US is on the verge of a revolution in warfare if we are willing to embrace new technologies and not stay married to legacy systems.

What do the Navy/Marine Corps do in the meantime?

Posted: 3/18/2006 9:07:19 PM EDT

[#37]

I say...

Keep the BombCat flying!

Posted: 3/18/2006 9:29:12 PM EDT

[#38]

Reopen the North American P-51 and F-86 production lines and build millions of them.

Posted: 3/18/2006 9:38:46 PM EDT

[#39]

Does anyone have an estamate on what the total production numbers for the JSF will be?

Posted: 3/18/2006 9:51:23 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Hopefully someone at defence will kill off the JDF. We have a new defence minister now, and he's more sensible than the last one. Trying to replace both the bugs and the pigs with one little plane was always a stupid idea.

For 35 years we've been able to penetrate the air defences of any nation in the region AND sink anything on the high seas. It's pissed off the neighbours, many of whom were or are little better than petty tin-pot dictatorships. A good time was had by us

Now, with so many flankers entering the region, we have nothing to counter them (the F/A-18A+ that we have has never had the legs to do more than defend Darwin, really) and no meaningful strike radius once the pigs are retired in 2012 or so. I have a bad feeling about this...

This is the reason why it was a huge mistake to retire the F-14 right now. The upgraded models still had some life in them.

Posted: 3/18/2006 9:58:21 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Reopen the North American P-51 and F-86 production lines and build millions of them.

And produce millions of clones to pilot them!

Posted: 3/18/2006 10:04:34 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Hell if I was the Aussies I would buy the SU-27. To be honest the Su-27 isn't a bad plane, for the price it's actually pretty good. but Politics would doom this from ever happening.

What's the range for the SU-27, and is it a fighter? Interceptor? For what?

Posted: 3/18/2006 10:06:56 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Even if the JSF goes into production, I have lived to see the last manned US fighter. As a child I read about such things and couldn't comprehend it.

Yup. UAVs are the future, even if they aren't as romantic. However, there may still be another generation of manned "fighter" ... the ABL. Let's face it, anything that can take out several SCUDs at 100 miles can take out a Flanker, a Superbug or anything else.

Aircombat with 747s!

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:18:01 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Hell if I was the Aussies I would buy the SU-27. To be honest the Su-27 isn't a bad plane, for the price it's actually pretty good. but Politics would doom this from ever happening.

What's the range for the SU-27, and is it a fighter? Interceptor? For what?

The SU-27 comes in a variety of types…

SU-27: Dedicated Air Superiority Fighter
Maximum speed Mach 2.35
Range at height, internal fuel 2,046 n miles (3,790 km; 2,355 miles)
at height, with external tanks 2,370 n miles (4,390 km; 2,727 miles)

SU-30: 2 seat Multi-Role Fighter-Bomber
Max mach at height: 2,35
Combat range: with max internal fuel 1,619 n miles (3,000 km; 1,865 miles)
with one flight refuelling 2,805 n miles (5,200 km; 3,230 miles)

SU-34: 2 seat Dedicated Strike Bomber
Performance: Su-34 - Max speed at 36,000ft Mach 1.8 or 1900km/h (1025kt), max speed at sea level Mach 1.14 or 1400km/h (755kt). Range with max internal fuel 4000km (2160nm).

Sukhoi did offer SU-27's to the RNZAF!!!!!

ANdy

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:19:32 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Thanks guys.

But why is the Super Hornet called the Rhino?

I can see Superbug, but Rhino?

Corey

It has to do with setting the traps on carriers. The guys below decks don't know what plane is next, so the guys on deck tell them. To facilitate communications each type of aircraft have distinctive names. The E/F got the nickname Rhino. Who decided that? I have no idea.

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:31:34 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks guys.

But why is the Super Hornet called the Rhino?

I can see Superbug, but Rhino?

Corey

It has to do with setting the traps on carriers. The guys below decks don't know what plane is next, so the guys on deck tell them. To facilitate communications each type of aircraft have distinctive names. The E/F got the nickname Rhino. Who decided that? I have no idea.

Carry on from the last McD fighter? Phantom called the Rhino because of it's big nose and toughness…

Anyway, F/A-18's are flown by FAG's…

ANdy

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:42:24 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
I say...

Keep the BombCat flying!

www.tomcat521.com/tomcat/patches/bombcat/bombcat.jpg

If we're going to do that, we might as well have kept the F-4 flying off AC decks.

Posted: 3/22/2006 12:48:52 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hell if I was the Aussies I would buy the SU-27. To be honest the Su-27 isn't a bad plane, for the price it's actually pretty good. but Politics would doom this from ever happening.

What's the range for the SU-27, and is it a fighter? Interceptor? For what?

The SU-27 comes in a variety of types…

SU-27: Dedicated Air Superiority Fighter
Maximum speed Mach 2.35
Range at height, internal fuel 2,046 n miles (3,790 km; 2,355 miles)
at height, with external tanks 2,370 n miles (4,390 km; 2,727 miles)

SU-30: 2 seat Multi-Role Fighter-Bomber
Max mach at height: 2,35
Combat range: with max internal fuel 1,619 n miles (3,000 km; 1,865 miles)
with one flight refuelling 2,805 n miles (5,200 km; 3,230 miles)

SU-34: 2 seat Dedicated Strike Bomber
Performance: Su-34 - Max speed at 36,000ft Mach 1.8 or 1900km/h (1025kt), max speed at sea level Mach 1.14 or 1400km/h (755kt). Range with max internal fuel 4000km (2160nm).

Sukhoi did offer SU-27's to the RNZAF!!!!!

ANdy

Thanks. Just finished "Mig Pilot" -- an interesting "read".

Posted: 3/22/2006 2:19:22 AM EDT

[#49]

how does the JSF look?

Posted: 3/22/2006 3:36:25 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
how does the JSF look?

Kind of like what you'd expect to see if the F-22 and F-16 had children.

uplink.space.com/attachments/251857-f35-6.jpg

FWIW, I still think the F-35 is a very adequate design to do what we want it to do. It will be more stealthy than the F-16 or F-18A and C models it is designed to replace. It should be equally manuverable, while having a reduced radar cross section. And if the price stays in the same general range as projected, it won't cost any more than the F-16 currently costs. The way I see that, it's a win. The F-35 will still offer a first strike capability. This could be accomplished by carrying two bombs internally with no external stores. That would right away give it a tremendous advantage over the F-16 or F-18. Then later on, when enemy air defenses are knocked out, hardpoints can be added and generous external stores carried when being low observable isn't as important.

I am not satisfied that the F-35 would be an ideal aircraft for a foreign government if that government is wanting to use it as an air dominance fighter. That is not what the F-35 was designed for. It can go air to air if need be, but it's not as suited to that role as the F-22. That is no great revelation, as we have known that from the start. The F-35 has much the same mission as F-16's. F-16's weren't exactly designed with air dominance as their primary task either. The F-15 did that while the F-16 was used to SUPPLEMENT it in the air to air role and deliver the punch in attacking ground targets while F-15's flew cover. The F-35 aircraft was not meant as a substitute for the F-22, more as a lower cost supplement to it, just as the F-16 was to the F-15. It is merely a replacement for aging F-16's and F-18A and C's. When viewed in that regard, I can definately see where we will be upgrading by buying F-35's.

But the problem with foreign sales is apparently those foreign thought they could purchase F-22 capable aircraft for F-16 prices. That just isn't the case. There is a reason why the F-22 costs more. If they aren't willing to pay F-22 prices, then they should not expect F-22 quality. It's really as simple as that. And I would agree that there are several platforms I'd consider over the F-35 if air dominance was my primary concern. Or perhaps I would consider buying some F-35's for air to ground roles and something like the Typhoon for air dominance. And if I were the Aussies, I'd keep the F-111 in service for as long as possible. It is a dedicated long range strike aircraft. They aren't going to get anything better. IMHO, even the F-15E can't do some of the things the F-111 can. And no multi-role fighter bomber will be able to match it's long range, low altitude and speed on the deck. Being the Aussies have no long range bombers, I'd look at modernizing the F-111's. Then they should perhaps consider going with the Typhoon or F-18E/F if they want something with a greater emphasis on A2A combat.

BTW, I wonder if Boeing has considered spiffing up the F-15 and marketing it toward foreign friendly governments who wish to have a more capable air dominance fighter without the price tag of the F-22? The F-15 production line is still open. So it would seem this could be feasible. Boeing could add some extra goodies, borrowing on the F-22's advanced radar and electronics. You'd then have an aircraft far more capable than the standard F-15, but at a much reduced cost compared to the F-22. You'd give up the low observables game, but with a radar comparable to the F-22's and something like the Meteor missile added to it's armament, I am not sure it would really matter all that much. In fact, perhaps something along the lines of the F-15K the South Koreans have just purchased might be the perfect solution for the Aussies. The F-15K is really an updated F-15E that's even more advanced and capable than our own. Give the Aussie version a better A2A ability (helmet sighted AIM-9X, Meteor or comparable long range missile and AESA radar) and it should be able to adequately handle air dominance and long range strike. Thus, it could replace their aging F-111's and provide a more credible A2A threat than the F-35. They could then keep in service their fleet of F-18's for the intermediate roles. Or to take this even further, perhaps the Aussies could dig down deep in their pockets and just buy a small number of F-22's or Typhoons to use in the air dominance role and replace everything else they have with the new F-16E/F, which is a poor man's version of the F-15E. It has much increased range with the external fuel bladders, good payload, good electronics and improved radar and is low cost and currently being produced. This is the solution the Israeli's have gone with, as well as the UAE. Something like this might be the best solution for them. Afterall, everyone's needs vary. Sometimes you have to tailor pick weapons systems to suit those specific needs, rather than trying to solve issues by just tossing out a blanket solution for everyone.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The not so stealthy JSF… (Page 3 of 6)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us