Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,232
799
California
The F-35 can receive L16 but cannot transmit on this network to preserve its stealth. It can only transmit on MADL, which is a short-range system and requires a line of sight between the transmitter and receiver. Moreover, MADL is not a NATO system and no other aircraft has it except the E-2D which can be used as a relay to other types of aircraft or ground systems by converting MADL <=> L-16. So it is fair to say that the F-35 is not very good at interoperability, and this is deliberate, otherwise it would be enough to make MADL a NATO standard.
lol.

F-35 Data Fusion: How the Smartest Fighter Shares What it Sees​

F-35 Data Fusion: How the Smartest Fighter Shares What it Sees - Aviation Today
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,528
4,139
74
France
lol.

F-35 Data Fusion: How the Smartest Fighter Shares What it Sees​

F-35 Data Fusion: How the Smartest Fighter Shares What it Sees - Aviation Today
That's what I'm saying: it has an L-16 receiver but it transmits via MADL to a relay that does the conversion to L-16.

MADL allows a lot. More information can be shared than via other methods and it’s hard to jam. The downside is that it’s really just for inter-F-35 communications. The B-2 Spirit bomber is MADL-compatible, and there were plans to upgrade the F-22 Raptor, but they were scrapped. There has been talk of other fighter upgrades to the new network, but it’s expensive and cumbersome.

The legacy Link 16 system has wide compatibility. Lemons said that, unlike most platforms which simply put a Link 16 communication box onboard, the F-35 went an extra step of flying with a receiving box to see what other aircraft would get from them.
If the F-35 was a full member of the L-16 network there would be a conflict between the tracks merged using MADL and the L-16 tracks
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,961
10,948
India
The F-35 can receive L16 but cannot transmit on this network to preserve its stealth. It can only transmit on MADL, which is a short-range system and requires a line of sight between the transmitter and receiver. Moreover, MADL is not a NATO system and no other aircraft has it except the E-2D which can be used as a relay to other types of aircraft or ground systems by converting MADL <=> L-16. So it is fair to say that the F-35 is not very good at interoperability, and this is deliberate, otherwise it would be enough to make MADL a NATO standard.

You are actually referring to the F-22, which can only use Link 16 on receive while using the IFDL for F-22-only transmit. The F-35 doesn't face this issue.

While Raptors can receive over the Link 16 network—the standard across US and NATO aircraft—it can’t transmit over the system. Instead, it uses the F-22-only Intra-Flight Data Link (IFDL). F-35s can transmit on Link 16 to fourth gen jets and talk among themselves using the stealthy Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), a capability the Air Force had planned to install on the F-22 but canceled because of cost about five years ago.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,961
10,948
India
That's what I'm saying: it has an L-16 receiver but it transmits via MADL to a relay that does the conversion to L-16.


If the F-35 was a full member of the L-16 network there would be a conflict between the tracks merged using MADL and the L-16 tracks

You seem to have misunderstood that statement. This is an extension of our earlier discussion on datalink and formatting of data. Gary's referring to how the F-35 checks how data that's been sent by it is interpreted by other platforms, which is transmitted back to the F-35.

“The challenges were more associated with how the other platforms would interpret our data and making sure what we sent them provided them good information rather than information they couldn't use because of how it was formatted.

The part in bold would require the F-35 transmitting data over the Link 16 after all.

The F-35 carries the full capabilities of the Link 16, and it carries an additional receiver for research purposes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: john0496

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,232
799
California

F-35 Not as Survivable as Previously Hoped, HASC Chair Says​

Whaaaat Adam Smith is knocking the F-35 again? Nooooo say it aint so!! Smith is a known F-35 hater because of his Boeing connections, honey, this isn't his first hit and won't be his last.

Is this what you do with your life? Search for articles about the F-35?

Lets see Smith's connection.
2018302580-300x0.gif


Top pac contributor and top individual contributor is Boeing!!! :unsure: :ROFLMAO:

Remember this doozy From Smith?

HASC Chairman Calls on Congress to ‘Scrub’ F-35 Program​

HASC Chairman Calls on Congress to 'Scrub' F-35 Program - USNI News



Even though he hates the F-35 why don't you post what he said? Let me do that for you..

-Upgrades in missile technology over the past several years have made the F-35 less survivable than previously hoped, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Aug. 31, as he pushed for more investment in smaller, unmanned platforms.

Speaking at a virtual event hosted by the Brookings Institution, Rep. Adam Smith (D.-Wash) was quick to note that the F-35 remains more survivable than other fighters “by quite a bit,” pointing to the F-16 for comparison.

“But it’s also got some environments that it’s not going to be able to get into, because of how much missile technology has improved since we started building the thing,” Smith said.

Lol. Meaning the Rafail would do a lot worse.

Nice try but you failed as you've been doing ever since I've been here. Good thing for you I'm here to correct you properly about the F-35, it's critics and your Rafail.

'It's how they always get their money from congress. The most advanced military in the world is at a disadvantage because of a news article.. $771B isn't enough. Give us more money for my new project.'
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Ashwin and Bon Plan

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,528
4,139
74
France
Whaaaat Adam Smith is knocking the F-35 again? Nooooo say it aint so!! Smith is a known F-35 hater because of his Boeing connections, honey, this isn't his first hit and won't be his last.

Is this what you do with your life? Search for articles about the F-35?

Lets see Smith's connection.
View attachment 20756

Top pac contributor and top individual contributor is Boeing!!! :unsure: :ROFLMAO:

Remember this doozy From Smith?

HASC Chairman Calls on Congress to ‘Scrub’ F-35 Program​

HASC Chairman Calls on Congress to 'Scrub' F-35 Program - USNI News

Speaking at a virtual event hosted by the Brookings Institution, Rep. Adam Smith (D.-Wash) was quick to note that the F-35 remains more survivable than other fighters “by quite a bit,” pointing to the F-16 for comparison.
He is reduced to making comparisons with F-16s to try to support his claims! Pathetic, why doesn't he try to compare with the Rafale? No doubt he doesn't even know all the things that make it superior, and neither do you, but that doesn't stop you from talking rubbish.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bon Plan

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,350
1,061
France

HASC Cites ‘Enormous Concern’ About F-35; Readiness Chair Suggests Buy Cutback​


The House Armed Services Committee has “enormous concern” about the F-35 fighter’s sustainment, and Congress may cut back on purchases of the jet to let the sustainment enterprise catch up, Readiness subcommittee chair Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) said March 19.

Garamendi, near the end of a hearing on the military’s organic maintenance capability, said the “huge problem” with the F-35 is, “we buy more planes [but] we’re not able to maintain the older ones, so the more we buy, the worse the overall performance has been. That is going to stop.” He did not elaborate about whether he intends to try to restrain F-35 purchases in the upcoming fiscal 2022 budget.
 

zinswinsin

Well-Known member
Dec 4, 2017
566
336
USA
I don't really pay much attention to articles like this.

If missile technology makes the F-35 less survivable than the F-16, Rafale, Typhoon, Su whatever is 10 x fcked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lolwa

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,232
799
California
He is reduced to making comparisons with F-16s to try to support his claims! Pathetic, why doesn't he try to compare with the Rafale? No doubt he doesn't even know all the things that make it superior, and neither do you, but that doesn't stop you from talking rubbish.
Talking rubbish? Says the man living in the rubbish pile. That's all you've been doing when it comes to the F-35 luckily for you I'm here to finally call out your BS. Shall we take a look at your history of rubbish talk? You frenchies and your BS claims of the F-35 and Rafail will no longer go unchecked this is why some of you in here are very upset that I'm here.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bon Plan

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,528
4,139
74
France
Talking rubbish? Says the man living in the rubbish pile. That's all you've been doing when it comes to the F-35 luckily for you I'm here to finally call out your BS. Shall we take a look at your history of rubbish talk? You frenchies and your BS claims of the F-35 and Rafail will no longer go unchecked this is why some of you in here are very upset that I'm here.
No, in the end we like clowns, it relaxes us, especially when they think they're convincing everyone when in fact they're making fools of themselves.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,528
4,139
74
France
No, in the end we like clowns, it relaxes us, especially when they think they're convincing everyone when in fact they're making fools of themselves.
 

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,232
799
California
No, in the end we like clowns, it relaxes us, especially when they think they're convincing everyone when in fact they're making fools of themselves.
I back up my claims from sources like F-35 pilots, Heads of F-35 program, USAF and DOD while you und Bon use sources from people not in the know and from people who love to give their opinions.

Bon thinks your Rafail supercruise range is 800 miles more than the F-22 by a lot even though the F-22 carries 18,000lb of fuel more than Rafail and its 1250 liter center tank do you also believe such idiocy? I bet you do.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,528
4,139
74
France
I back up my claims from sources like F-35 pilots, Heads of F-35 program, USAF and DOD while you und Bon use sources from people not in the know and from people who love to give their opinions.

Bon thinks your Rafail supercruise range is 800 miles more than the F-22 by a lot even though the F-22 carries 18,000lb of fuel more than Rafail and its 1250 liter center tank do you also believe such idiocy? I bet you do.
I don't know what Bon Plan believes and I don't feel obliged to have the same opinions as him, but you seem to me to have a very simplified view of the effect of the mass of fuel carried on the autonomy of an aircraft. Indeed this mass is not the right variable to consider because it does not take into account the empty weight of the aircraft which is an equally important factor to consider. If we therefore neglect the aerodynamic factors and only want to evaluate the contribution of the mass of fuel carried to the range, we must examine the fuel-fraction.
  • For the F-22 it is 29.3%.
  • For the Rafale C it is 33.6%
  • for the Rafale B it is 32%
  • and for the Rafale M it is 31.4%.
Thus the F-22 does not gain any advantage in terms of range because of the mass of fuel it carries compared to the Rafale, quite the contrary.

 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,961
10,948
India
I don't know what Bon Plan believes and I don't feel obliged to have the same opinions as him, but you seem to me to have a very simplified view of the effect of the mass of fuel carried on the autonomy of an aircraft. Indeed this mass is not the right variable to consider because it does not take into account the empty weight of the aircraft which is an equally important factor to consider. If we therefore neglect the aerodynamic factors and only want to evaluate the contribution of the mass of fuel carried to the range, we must examine the fuel-fraction.
  • For the F-22 it is 29.3%.
  • For the Rafale C it is 33.6%
  • for the Rafale B it is 32%
  • and for the Rafale M it is 31.4%.
Thus the F-22 does not gain any advantage in terms of range because of the mass of fuel it carries compared to the Rafale, quite the contrary.


Interesting to note that the Su-30MK, with a lower fuel fraction than the F-35A, outranges it.
 

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,232
799
California
I don't know what Bon Plan believes and I don't feel obliged to have the same opinions as him, but you seem to me to have a very simplified view of the effect of the mass of fuel carried on the autonomy of an aircraft. Indeed this mass is not the right variable to consider because it does not take into account the empty weight of the aircraft which is an equally important factor to consider. If we therefore neglect the aerodynamic factors and only want to evaluate the contribution of the mass of fuel carried to the range, we must examine the fuel-fraction.
  • For the F-22 it is 29.3%.
  • For the Rafale C it is 33.6%
  • for the Rafale B it is 32%
  • and for the Rafale M it is 31.4%.
Thus the F-22 does not gain any advantage in terms of range because of the mass of fuel it carries compared to the Rafale, quite the contrary.

Interesting to note that the Su-30MK, with a lower fuel fraction than the F-35A, outranges it.
Does the MK have weapons or is it clean? F-35's "disclosed official" combat radius/range numbers are done with internal weapons including its top speed unlike 4th gen fighters.