3 ms·
Thanks for the informative post! > The targeting helmet has been operational for a couple of years now and has gone through 3 revisions. The 3rd revision elimi
by GVIrish 12y ago
Thanks for the informative post!
> The targeting helmet has been operational for a couple of years now and has gone through 3 revisions. The 3rd revision eliminated issues of jutter, etc and is now more or less ready for combat.
With the updates to reduce the visual issues, has the updated helmet now been put through it's paces by test pilots?
> The turning & acceleration performance is only poor when compared to air dominance fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Su-35, or legacy fighters like the F-16 when they're stripped of external weapons, fuel tanks, pods, etc that are otherwise required for combat.
So the F-35 performance envelope is comparable to those Gen 4/4.5 fighters when both aircraft are flying clean?
> - It's original 'budget' / targeted price was $50 million. While the jet's far more expensive than that, so is every other modern fighter. Even a modern Block 60 F-16V goes for more than $70 million flyaway, while more relevant fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, etc are over $100 million. As of LRIP 8 / F135 Lot 8, an F-35A with engine is approximately $108 million, with the total cost decreasing approximately 3.5% each year through to 2018 when full-rate production begins and the price drops to ~$85 million, being cheaper than pretty much all of the competition.
Forgive me for saying so but how is a significantly more complex aircraft like the F-35 going to cost signficantly less than current Gen 4 aircraft> All of the flyaway costs I've seen for F-35's have been well over $150 million/unit, even without R&D costs factored in. Admittedly unit cost is a number that is juggled and obfuscated endlessly when talking about defense aircraft but it doesn't seem believable that on an apples to apples comparison the F-35 will cost less than planes like the Typhoon.
> The only nation that's backed out is Canada, and even then it's almost certain they'll end up going with the F-35 anyway based on what the RCAF has been asking for.
The saving grace for the F-35 is that US has many political and economic tools it can use to convince partner nations to continue with the program. But it's still looking like many partner nations will reduce the number they had planned to buy.
> Other than the STOVL and stealth, that's exactly what the F/A-18 is, and even then the E/F/G models have tried to utilise stealth to a degree in their forward hemispheres.
Yeah looking back on that sentence, "strike" pretty much means interdiction/air support. Still, I think if the JSF program chosen either STOVL or stealth and not both we'd be looking at a very different story right now. And of the two stealth is WAY more valuable than STOVL.
- Dragon029 12y ago>With the updates to reduce the visual issues, has the updated helmet now been put through it's paces by test pilots? I'm not sure how many flight hours have been made with the new helmet, but so far test pilots have no complaints. It's possible there could be more issues, but so far there's no evidence of such. >So the F-35 performance envelope is comparable to those Gen 4/4.5 fighters when both aircraft are flying clean? Unfortunately not; a clean F-16 or F-15, etc will outperform an F-35 in most (but not necessarily all) areas. A combat loaded F-35 vs a combat loaded F-16 or F-15 however is a different scenario and is where the F-35 is comparable or superior, as it's then more streamline / more clean than legacy fighters. To give a recent example from a Dutch pilot flying: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvlimgf4g151bvd/Airjan2015.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvlimgf4g151bvd/Airjan2015.pdf?dl=... "When comparing performance, I would say that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16." >[Costs] As of right now, an LRIP 8 F-35A, with an engine included, is $106-108 million (the airframe alone is $94.8 million). Right now this is on par the Eurofighter Typhoon, while the Rafale is roughly $100 million, etc. Some 4th gen fighters will always be cheaper than the F-35 but, frankly, those are budget fighters that aren't comparable. As for future costs, the F-35 airframe drops in cost around 3.5% each year and the engine, 4.5%. Beginning Full Rate Production in 2018 is set to make a large drop in cost for the same reasons anything in mass-production costs less as well. >The saving grace for the F-35 is that US has many political and economic tools it can use to convince partner nations to continue with the program. But it's still looking like many partner nations will reduce the number they had planned to buy. Time will tell - it is possible that it will be short in sales, but I predict that such decreases will only be due to a gradual international disarming / enduring peace or another major recession; or a European / Eastern proliferation of advanced, competitive UCAVs. >Yeah looking back on that sentence, "strike" pretty much means interdiction/air support. Still, I think if the JSF program chosen either STOVL or stealth and not both we'd be looking at a very different story right now. And of the two stealth is WAY more valuable than STOVL. I with your last statement, but I don't think the JSF would have actually been all that much different - it'd be slightly more optimal, but it'd still be a single engine fighter, with a thick airframe to house large internal bays, fuel loads, etc. Canopy visibility would still be roughly the same due to stealth requirements, etc. Possibly the only major external change would be in nozzle design.