SM-6 hits over horizon target using F-35B as sensor

originally posted by: Ohanka
I wonder how many more of these fake reports to justify continued funding for this failed aircraft there will be

Hundreds of them, I'm sure.
Is the UK buying them?

a reply to: Ohanka

I wonder how many more times we'll get to hear all about how good reports are BS.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Ohanka
I wonder how many more of these fake reports to justify continued funding for this failed aircraft there will be

Hundreds of them, I'm sure.
Is the UK buying them?

uk committed 8 billion last i heard. its supposed to be full operational by 2018 or 2019 at the earliest. so we still have a good many years to go. if it follows the path the f-22 took we will hear about new issues arising after its deployed aswell. hopefully this doesnt suffocate anyone.

Hi,

I see this as very good news ship are expensive in both crew and cost anything that allow the fleet to kill the attackers at range is more than worth the effort.

A lession that has been learn't the hard way a number of times and forgottern a number of times.

I would love to know what the F35 can do with a Amraam or Meteor. Sort of makes you hope that no one has that lession to learn.

Personally never been a fan of the F35 but with the stealth, range and the amount of future dev I starting to warm to it.

RAB

originally posted by: RAB
Hi,

I see this as very good news ship are expensive in both crew and cost anything that allow the fleet to kill the attackers at range is more than worth the effort.

A lession that has been learn't the hard way a number of times and forgottern a number of times.

I would love to know what the F35 can do with a Amraam or Meteor. Sort of makes you hope that no one has that lession to learn.

Personally never been a fan of the F35 but with the stealth,range and the amount of future dev I starting to warm to it.

RAB

its range is quite pathetic. half that of an f-16. its hard to find its range with the external tanks attached though. so it could come close to an f-16 for total range. but with that huge engine i doubt it.

a reply to: TheScale

God, you just love old information don't you. The combat radius (which is the only range figure that matters) of the F-35 is far better than the F-16. The F-16 combat radius, with two external tanks and two MK-84 class bombs, and 2 AAMs is about 740 nm. The F-35A, on internal fuel alone, with 2 2,000 lb weapons, and 2 AAMs has a combat radius of about 700 nm. That means that it will retain its stealth, and be able to hit targets as far away as an unstealthy F-16, that requires external fuel tanks.

a reply to: Zaphod58

u want to provide the proof of that claim, cause im looking at the govts own report and its quite abit less then an f-16. i mean just a quick google search will bring up dozens of reports from multiple countries claiming it cant fight at long range at all and even the twin seat version of an f-16 outranges it.

a reply to: TheScale

Even using official numbers, you're still so wrong it isn't funny. The combat radius of the F-35A is officially listed as "greater than 590 nm". That's with 2 2,000 lb bombs and 2 AIM-120Ds, on internal fuel alone, with no external stores. The combat radius of an F-16C/D, with 2 2,000 lb bombs, 2 AIM-9s, and 1,000 gallon external fuel tanks is 740 nm. Add more weapons, and that drops significantly, down to as low as 340 nm, with three external fuel tanks. If you add external tanks to the F-35A, then that range is going to significantly increase, just as if you remove the external tanks from the F-16, that range is going to significantly decrease.

The F-35 goes 600 nm on internal fuel only, whereas the F-16 requires extra fuel to go 740 nm.

a reply to: Zaphod58

yes those are close to the numbers im seeing, but they are kinda cherry picked considering the role of an f-16 isnt really as a ground attack craft and thats where they are pulling these numbers from, its main role was as an interceptor but theyve had to reconfigure it due to other issues within the military.

a reply to: TheScale

It doesn't matter if it's air to air, or air to ground, the combat radius isn't going to be a lot different. The amount of fuel they carry is the same, either way, as is the fuel burn per hour. The role of the F-16 is whatever mission it is performing. It may have been designed as a fighter, but production changes made early allowed for air to ground weapons.

a reply to: Zaphod58

well just for comparison with external tanks and nothing else on the wings an f-16 will go over 2000 miles. id put the f-35's range with external tanks but cant seem to find any real hard numbers on that. best numbers i can find are pure estimates that put it at about 1800nmiles for the f-35c. its about 300 less for the f-35a, and 600 less for the f-35b. i also should clarify about an earlier post about multirole airframes,. when i mentioned that i didnt mean an aircraft capable of say air to ground and air to air support, i was pointing to how the f-35 airframe is meant to replace a multitude of airframes designed for a singular goal. ie the a-10. when u create something designed to replace those specialized planes u have to make sacrifices to suppoort those other roles. there has never been an airframe in the history of flight that was designed to replace such a wide gamut of airframes. by doing this u end up with something that is maybe just avg at some of its roles. if building a plane for a specific role then u can neglect other areas that dont fit its mission profile and create something that is exceptional at its task.

LLS-1? I didn't think the Navy had a sense of humor like that.

a reply to: TheScale

That's not what multirole is. Multirole is an aircraft that does multiple missions. Any aircraft can replace the A-10 in the CAS mission, and has. The F-35 is designed to be a fighter, strike, and CAS platform, as is the F-15E, F-16, F-18.

As for range, again, the F-35 range is using nothing but internal fuel, while the F-16 is using both internal fuel and external fuel tanks, so again, the F-35 will have a longer range than the F-16 when using external tanks. Although range is irrelevant. Any time the aircraft are flying long range, they're going to have tankers travelling with them, so it doesn't matter how far they can go with their own fuel. The only range figure that matters is combat radius.

a reply to: Stngray

They actually had to get Congressional approval to name it the USS Desert Ship.

a reply to: Zaphod58

it may be put down on paper as being a CAS airframe but im pretty sure every single person would agree that its going to be terrible at that role. its a fast mover, doesnt have the resilience of the a-10 airframe and cant stay on station for nearly the same period of time. when firing on enemy troops or dropping munitions u dont want to be moving in fast from high altitude. most pilots even with exceptional eyesight will more or less just be praying they dont shoot their own guys. then u have the issue of that exhaust plume coming out of that engine. when flying real low u open yourself up to alot of AA threats. according to pilots who have talked about its abysmal turn radius, your gonna have a problem evading IR threats.

a reply to: TheScale

First off, CAS doesn't require a persistent low altitude presence anymore. B-52s and B-1s are flying CAS and doing great at it now, with PGMs, as are F-16s, F-15s, and just about every other bomb carrying types out there. You don't have to get down in the weeds, in range of gun threats anymore.

Second, pilots are loving the F-35. Every pilot that has flown it has said how great it is to fly, and how easy it is to fight. The pilots that didn't like it, were flying older non-production aircraft, using older software. Dogfighting the F-35. The F-35 is able to turn with, and even cut inside an F-16 in BFM.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TheScale

First off, CAS doesn't require a persistent low altitude presence anymore. B-52s and B-1s are flying CAS and doing great at it now, with PGMs, as are F-16s, F-15s, and just about every other bomb carrying types out there. You don't have to get down in the weeds, in range of gun threats anymore.

Second, pilots are loving the F-35. Every pilot that has flown it has said how great it is to fly, and how easy it is to fight. The pilots that didn't like it, were flying older non-production aircraft, using older software. Dogfighting the F-35. The F-35 is able to turn with, and even cut inside an F-16 in BFM.

that article is interesting. kinda contradicts itself at points. it can have a high angle of attack, while braking giving a pilot time to fire his weapons yet the pilots say the buffeting at those high angles of attack, or lower angles of attack then an f-16 will produce a buffeting not allowing the pilot to see his hud and use his weapons. so it starts buffeting at a lower angle of attack then an f-16 has worse visibility then an f-16 but those are positives somehow? youll find alot of military guys cant tell u the truth cause they will experience consequences of those actions.

a reply to: TheScale

youll find alot of military guys cant tell u the truth cause they will experience consequences of those actions.

Of course. The typical "It's good, so they're trying to protect their career" argument. Let me guess, the bad news about the F-35 is Truth, right? Everything that says it's a bad aircraft is absolutely correct, while anything good about it is a lie.

Yes, it buffets, but the new helmets that have been introduced counters that. The pilots aren't looking at a HUD, they're looking at their helmet mounted display. The early helmets had a problem with buffeting, but the new helmets have smoothed that out. It doesn't buffet at a lower angle of attack, it buffets at a higher angle of attack than the F-16 can reach, and high G loads.

The F-35 uses sensors to "see" 360 degrees around the aircraft. That will allow pilots to look behind them and use the cameras to display what's there on their helmet display. Pilots that have experience flying other aircraft have a tendency to not use that system, and will look around to see what's there. Pilots that come straight to the F-35, will have more of a tendency to use that system, and the visibility will be better for them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

it states in that article loud and clear that the buffeting starts at a lower angle of attack then an f-16 would. a heads up display whether in the helmet or in front of the pilot is essentially the same thing. ones just in your helmet. id love to know how they have fixed the buffeting when that is something that affects the entire body of a pilot eyes included. doesnt matter if the helmets improved if your eyes themselves are gyrating in their sockets. they are literally being shook so violently that they cant resolve whats in the display in their helmet going by that article u provided. btw the spin of the pilot in that article is quite prominent when he starts trying to justify why the view that isnt as good as the f-16's is a plus.

"The overall experience of flying the F-35 in aerial combat is different from what I’m used to with the F-16. One obvious difference is that the F-35 shakes quite a bit at high g-loadings and at high angles of attack, while the F-16 hardly shakes at all. The professional terminology is «buffeting», which I also described in an earlier blog post (English version available). This buffeting serves as useful feedback, but it can also be a disadvantage. Because the buffeting only begins at moderate angles of attack, it provides me an intuitive feel for how much I am demanding from the aircraft; what is happening to my overall energy state? On the other hand, several pilots have had trouble reading the information which is displayed on the helmet visor, due to the buffeting. Most of the pilots here at Luke fly with the second-generation helmet. I fly with the third-generation helmet, and and i have not found this to be a real issue."

so he makes an assumption by saying since he uses the 3rd gen helmet that all those other guys that may or may not be using it are wrong. so just this one pilots opinion is something to set the rule by when other pilots have said otherwise.
in response about him being worried about reprisals if he says negative things.... well even he brought up that point in other articles and never put it to rest
" Am I bought and paid for by Lockheed Martin, or is it the Ministry of Defence that threatens government reprisals if I don’t provide «the official story»? I know that many have doubts regarding the F-35 when it comes to both maneuverability and engine power."

a reply to: TheScale

He's flown with both helmets, and the third generation helmet dampens the vibration. There's actually a difference between a HUD and a helmet mounted display. The third generation helmet is a lot different than the second generation helmet. It doesn't have the latency problem the second had, it dampens the vibration that the second didn't, and several other features. But of course, that's just opinion and lies, right? Considering how long he's flown the F-35, he's flown with both the Gen II and Gen III helmets. The Gen III helmet was introduced late last year, so unless he went from not flying the aircraft, to an instructor pilot in a couple of months, he's flown with both and knows the difference.

The new helmet apparently fixes existing software and hardware bugs and is reportedly big improvement over previous generations of the helmet, which had been marred with problems.

www.popularmechanics.com...

It clearly states that it occurs at a high angle of attack, and high G load. The F-16 suffers very little buffeting, which is actually a drawback. Buffeting gives the pilots feedback as to what the aircraft is doing, and what they need to do to counter it. According to pilots, the buffeting in the F-35 actually decreases as they're maneuvering, and in the F-16 they only have instruments to rely on for information. But the new helmet has caused to to cease being a major problem.

But of course, I'm sure you have a counter to show what a total POS the F-35 is, and what a complete waste of money it is, right?