Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes

[MartG]

Ayahuasca said:

Interesting however that the F22 seems to have more of a bubble canopy, in common with other 'fighters' eg F15, F16, later marks of Spitfire, Mustang, etc.

With the advent of the modern helmet mounted sighting systems which allow the pilot to 'see' through the aircraft it's only a matter of time before transparent canopies are ditched completely, especially as they are difficult to make stealthy

[Ayahuasca]

MartG said:

Ayahuasca said:

Interesting however that the F22 seems to have more of a bubble canopy, in common with other 'fighters' eg F15, F16, later marks of Spitfire, Mustang, etc.

With the advent of the modern helmet mounted sighting systems which allow the pilot to 'see' through the aircraft it's only a matter of time before transparent canopies are ditched completely, especially as they are difficult to make stealthy

Ah, reliance on technology means that old fashioned eyeballing skills are no longer needed.

OK. Can't see that ever going wrong.

[V8 Fettler]

Sylvaforever said:

aeropilot said:

What interception duty...?

The F-35 hasn't been designed as an interceptor, it's a strike aircraft with a self defence capability.

perhaps someone needs to point this out to the RN then.

Does the RN need a manned aircraft as an interceptor?

[Vitorio]

aeropilot said:

The only flaw in that idea is the F-22 buy.......as the US Govt expressly forbid the sale of the F-22 to anyone other than the USAF.


I don't understand why many other European airforces didn't buy the A-10, best CAS a/c bar none.

Berrrrrrrrtttttt ........

Yeah, i know the F-22 cant be exported. Doesnt matter either way though, our government would never have bought it anyway

eharding said:

Depends. The field toolkit that came with our Yak-52 has an assortment of highly specialised and quite delicate tools for fertling with specific bits of the aeroplane that react badly to being touched inappropriately.

On the other hand, clamped in pride of place in the toolkit, and taking up a considerable proportion of the space, is a GBFO hammer that wouldn't look out of place being wielded by Thor in a Marvel feature film.

Back in the Soviet days, the engineering approach seems to have been to first apply the specialised and delicate tools to the job, and if that doesn't work, beat the living crap out of the offending part of the aeroplane with the GBFO hammer until it stops either a) offending or b) being what might still be described as a part of the aeroplane.

Nowadays, of course, things are different. Stages (a) and (b) still apply, but are then followed by step c) present the aircraft owners with a GBFO invoice.

Haha, sounds awesome, try all the advanced sensitive special stuff, if that doesnt work, whack the living fk out of it.

[Ayahuasca]

V8 Fettler said:

Sylvaforever said:

aeropilot said:

What interception duty...?

The F-35 hasn't been designed as an interceptor, it's a strike aircraft with a self defence capability.

perhaps someone needs to point this out to the RN then.

Does the RN need a manned aircraft as an interceptor?

The RN already has a few good interceptors. They are called Type 45 destroyers.

I would imagine the RN wants air power to project force, i.e. to threaten enemy land or surface targets.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

V8 Fettler said:

Does the RN need a manned aircraft as an interceptor?

Only an idiot relies upon a MEZ.

[Vitorio]

Ayahuasca said:

The RN already has a few good interceptors. They are called Type 45 destroyers.

From what wikipedia tells me, those only reach out to 120km with their weapon systems though, not too hard stay out of, unless you literally put one in the water every 200 km

[aeropilot]

Ayahuasca said:

V8 Fettler said:

Sylvaforever said:

aeropilot said:

What interception duty...?

The F-35 hasn't been designed as an interceptor, it's a strike aircraft with a self defence capability.

perhaps someone needs to point this out to the RN then.

Does the RN need a manned aircraft as an interceptor?

The RN already has a few good interceptors. They are called Type 45 destroyers.

Yeah, like we should be relying on those when they can't operate for extended periods in 'warm' waters, and they keep getting total power failures of which a 'solution' to is still be evaluated, but will most likely invlove dry dock, major work including cutting open the hull to install bigger, better gennie's etc.!!!!
One T45 has already been reduced to 'port training ship' duties, and may not even return to front line duties in the future.
Usual MOD procurement/do-it-on-the-cheap/clusterfk fiasco.

[DMN]

Ayahuasca said:

V8 Fettler said:

Sylvaforever said:

aeropilot said:

What interception duty...?

The F-35 hasn't been designed as an interceptor, it's a strike aircraft with a self defence capability.

perhaps someone needs to point this out to the RN then.

Does the RN need a manned aircraft as an interceptor?

The RN already has a few good interceptors. They are called Type 45 destroyers.

I would imagine the RN wants air power to project force, i.e. to threaten enemy land or surface targets.

And they learnt from the Falklands that you need many layers to your defence. Air power (fighters and AEW), decent SAM's, close in weapons and top of the range ECM.

Going back to the F35's alleged performance against the F16. Its more than a little harsh to compare a fully developed 35+ year old aircraft against one still under development. Once the production versions start reaching frontline squadrons and OCU's, then its time to compare.

[telecat]

DMN said:

Ayahuasca said:

V8 Fettler said:

Sylvaforever said:

aeropilot said:

What interception duty...?

The F-35 hasn't been designed as an interceptor, it's a strike aircraft with a self defence capability.

perhaps someone needs to point this out to the RN then.

Does the RN need a manned aircraft as an interceptor?

The RN already has a few good interceptors. They are called Type 45 destroyers.

I would imagine the RN wants air power to project force, i.e. to threaten enemy land or surface targets.

And they learnt from the Falklands that you need many layers to your defence. Air power (fighters and AEW), decent SAM's, close in weapons and top of the range ECM.

Going back to the F35's alleged performance against the F16. Its more than a little harsh to compare a fully developed 35+ year old aircraft against one still under development. Once the production versions start reaching frontline squadrons and OCU's, then its time to compare.

The F16 started as a Agile lightweight Air superiority/Interceptor Fighter and became a good Strike Fighter. The F35 is working the other way. Not Good for those wishing to Defend their Air space with it.

[aeropilot]

telecat said:

The F16 started as a Agile lightweight Air superiority/Interceptor Fighter and became a good Strike Fighter. The F35 is working the other way. Not Good for those wishing to Defend their Air space with it.

More fool them for buying it then.......

[V8 Fettler]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

V8 Fettler said:

Does the RN need a manned aircraft as an interceptor?

Only an idiot relies upon a MEZ.

.... which logically leads to: what aspects of the F35 prevent it being considered as an interceptor?

[IanH755]

The reasons given for it's lack of suitability as an interceptor are usually -

Limited weapons carriage (stealth only)
Limited range
Limited top speed

Then there's it's limitations in ACM -

Poor sustained pitch rate
Poor instantaneous pitch rate
Poor thrust/weight ratio
Helmet size makes moving head around the cockpit during ACM difficult.

There were a few others mentioned by the "impartial" test pilot rather than the programs own test pilots - https://warisboring.com/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35...

How "impartial" the pilot really was is also up for debate but, as has been mentions before, the aircraft was initially designed as a strike weapon with a self defence capability and, with the usual expansion most projects have, it's had a limited interception capability added.

For an alternate view a Norwegian pilot has written a good article of the positive sides of ACM in the F35 here - https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-i...

[V8 Fettler]

Thanks Ian, interesting reading.

[Evanivitch]

IanH755 said:

The reasons given for it's lack of suitability as an interceptor are usually -

Limited weapons carriage (stealth only)
Limited range
Limited top speed

Please can we stop applying cold war ideas to a 21st century aircraft?

F35 has superior data links with other assets, including GBR and AEWAC. It can work to intercept targets effectively without revealing it's own location.

If it needs to, it uses a AESA radar to obtain targets BVR and engage, or hand off to other assets that are sitting silent.

It can then use the LRC to close in with a low risk of itself being detected by the target. Or engage with an AMRAAM at range a of >100 miles.

[Sylvaforever]

Ayahuasca said:

V8 Fettler said:

Sylvaforever said:

aeropilot said:

What interception duty...?

The F-35 hasn't been designed as an interceptor, it's a strike aircraft with a self defence capability.

perhaps someone needs to point this out to the RN then.

Does the RN need a manned aircraft as an interceptor?

The RN already has a few good interceptors. They are called Type 45 destroyers.

I would imagine the RN wants air power to project force, i.e. to threaten enemy land or surface targets.

Huh the ones that have a certain electrical problem that requires extra generators welded to the decks then?

Good job the supersonic surface hugging ASM's are radar guided then.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos


Have the T45 been exposed to a beligerant trial?

Then again neither has the F35b.

So you can see the trend of having the testing/trialing of these weapon systems tailored to suit commercial expedience , the failures of these weapon systems, under operational conditions, is proof of this.

[Sylvaforever]

Evanivitch said:

Please can we stop applying cold war ideas to a 21st century aircraft?

F35 has superior data links with other assets, including GBR and AEWAC. It can work to intercept targets effectively without revealing it's own location.

If it needs to, it uses a AESA radar to obtain targets BVR and engage, or hand off to other assets that are sitting silent.

It can then use the LRC to close in with a low risk of itself being detected by the target. Or engage with an AMRAAM at range a of >100 miles.

No it can't do anything of the sort.

All that has been PROVEN is it can drop semi-dumb bombs (laser only no gps) and squirt sidewinders off the non stealthy outboard pylons, the Amraam firing FAILED and was destroyed by the RSO as it headed off range.
It does not have "superior data link to other assets" (other that one other F35) and the solution to this returns to transmitting link 16, not entirely stealthy. The USAF investigating alternative ejection seats points to the sheer inertia of this program!

The issue most have with F35 ( bar shrills) is it is already outdated, has NEVER met any of the planned metrics without having the goalposts moved as, er, it couldn't meet the planned metrics; the testing of the airframe systems that were deleted as the program was so behind schedule illustrates the power of the military industrial combine to steam roll a failing program to conclusion.

Oh and most importantly it's FUGLY and has no management of the F135's enormous heat signature.

[Evanivitch]

Sylvaforever said:

All that has been PROVEN is it can drop semi-dumb bombs (laser only no gps) and squirt sidewinders off the non stealthy outboard pylons, the Amraam firing FAILED and was destroyed by the RSO as it headed off range.

The aircraft is still undergoing trials phase and will do so. Just because IOC has been declared by USAF doesn't mean there's a freeze on capability.

[quote]It does not have "superior data link to other assets" (other that one other F35) and the solution to this returns to transmitting link 16, not entirely stealthy. The USAF investigating alternative ejection seats points to the sheer inertia of this program!

You're failing to understand how comm's networks function. Whilst F35 might have the only MADL-MADL link, there's nothing stopping a second aircraft acting as a Link16-MADL bridge, thus allowing the strike aircraft to remain undetected.


[quote]The issue most have with F35 ( bar shrills) is it is already outdated, has NEVER met any of the planned metrics without having the goalposts moved as, er, it couldn't meet the planned metrics; the testing of the airframe systems that were deleted as the program was so behind schedule illustrates the power of the military industrial combine to steam roll a failing program to conclusion.

There has never, ever been a single modern piece of military hardware that someone hasn't labelled as outdated by they time it's entered service. EF2000, not stealthy. F22, lacks sensor integration. T45, lacks laser expansion. QE2 carrier, not enough UAV integration.

[quote]
Oh and most importantly it's FUGLY and has no management of the F135's enormous heat signature.

And you know this bit of highly sensitive data how? Watched the display at RIAT through a clip-on FLIR?

[IanH755]

Evanivitch said:

Please can we stop applying cold war ideas to a 21st century aircraft?

F35 has superior data links with other assets, including GBR and AEWAC. It can work to intercept targets effectively without revealing it's own location.

If it needs to, it uses a AESA radar to obtain targets BVR and engage, or hand off to other assets that are sitting silent.

It can then use the LRC to close in with a low risk of itself being detected by the target. Or engage with an AMRAAM at range a of >100 miles.

Just to clarify, non of those above actually counter the points in my post regarding the range/speed/weapons carriage. Plus the points you raised are incorrect -

1. Superior DL's with legacy assets - No it doesn't. MADL is only F35 to F35, AWACS and legacy A/C only have a Link 16 DL to the F35 so it's no better at distributing any info than a F-15/16 according to the people who built it ( http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SDRs/D...).

2. 100+ mile AMRAAM's - No it doesn't, that's hysterically inaccurate!

[Evanivitch]

IanH755 said:

Just to clarify, non of those above actually counter the points in my post regarding the range/speed/weapons carriage. Plus the points you raised are incorrect -

1. Superior DL's with legacy assets - No it doesn't. MADL is only F35 to F35, AWACS and legacy A/C only have a Link 16 DL to the F35 so it's no better at distributing any info than a F-15/16 according to the people who built it ( http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SDRs/D...).

2. 100+ mile AMRAAM's - No it doesn't, that's hysterically inaccurate!

Why does the F35 need superior speed, range and weapons if it has superior target acquisition and BVR capability? You're applying cold ware top-trumps to a 21st century platform. How many guns does a T45 have?

You've missed my previous points on datalinks. The F35 can easily bridge a legacy Link 16 platform to a paired MDAL F35.

And regarding AMRAAM. Well, pick your source.