“First of all” do you expect a complete solution on a f__king plate?

Use your brain to make the connections, thats what it is there for.

Did you read the rest of what I wrote, or did you immediately start responding once you saw that I didn’t accept your assertion hook, line, and sinker?

“Secondly” Have I mentioned the F-16 or F-18 in this thread? :confused:

404PostNotFound….

this may refresh your memory

The aircraft in question will need to fall back onto the traditional strengths of a combat aircraft, namely speed and maneuverability.

The F-22 has both properties in abundance. The F-35 does not.

So…….unless you’re saying that an aircraft that is more agile(and quicker)than either of these aircraft doesn’t possess the traditional strengths of a combat aircraft, I have to raise the BS flag. I’ll grant you that the F-35’s top speed is lower than either the F-22 or PAK FA, but so is every other recent fighter’s.

Ten years & four months in RAF service so far, & intensively used ever since.

Earlier model C-130s have been flying 30-40yrs just fine.

I don’t speak about low freq antenna in an AAM, but a SAM (which is a bit larger). the AAM would be guided from the launching aircraft and have independant terminal guidance only.

besides, I don’t speak about it as an easy task, but ever since the first stealth aircraft were known, you can be sure most if not all, modern countries do research to overcome it (which is about good 20 years by now, if not more)… Sooner or later, first “counter stealth” models will appear… possibly there are some in tests as we speak about it..

I don’t think you’re going to fit that type of seeker in a SAM either. You’d need networked offboard sensors, datalinked to that SAM(and that’s assuming none of those sensors are being jammed or attacked).

for now… it’s like the sword and the shield.. one gets better, than the other improves…

all stealth designs aim to counter X-band radars, and you can be sure all manufacturers are doing their best to find alternative ways to detect.. IR, or going to other bands. Once one succeeds (and it’s monly matter of time) the today’s stealth will have to find something else. In 20-30 years, it is quite possible that we see radar types that “see” today’s stealth designs

It’s not just detection that needs to improve though. It’s a means to engage at long ranges, that is also vital. It’s not enough to know that something’s out there.

I believe that a formal evaluation would have been Australia’s best interest, the Air 6000 was ‘broken’ a long while before the JSF sole aircraft announcement, Eurofighter were already aware of the problem as Australia were not interested in the Typhoon Future capability plan and any Australia involvement. While the JSF’s future potential was not only considered but was evaluated against the other contenders original configurations…. So it was a done deal before the cursory paper evaluations that were done.

For those in the Know about Battlemodel I think it fair to say they didn’t know JACK about the Typhoon then;), and by implication the other contenders

I think that most aircraft available today could fulfil Australia’s real needs for the foreseeable future. So in short yes I think Typhoon would have been suitable, and better than the JSF for Australian industry (Australian Industry certainly thought so)

Depends what your up against I don’t think the JSF will be suitable in 20-30 years, difference is the JSF will only be starting in Australian service in 2018 that tech level is not going to last till 2048.

Older fighters are usually struggling with newer models within 15 years of service.

Name any fighter that is 30 older than the current models that could compete with them!, that’s the situation the JSF will face as will all current fighters, the JSF is just not that special.

I think the JSF will have just as much of a problem, but without the means to bug out when the situation dictates.
The JSF will be quickly over taken by UAV’s in its primary role, you simply don’t need a manned platform to go bombing, unfortunately its a bit of a slouch when it comes to AtoA, I’m not just talking about combat manoeuvring, getting into a position to attack a supercruising target will cause the JSF all sort of problems. so a jack of all trades and master of non is a bad engineering choice.

Now were committed despite the protestation of some,we have no real insight to what we will get or when.. In fact I’d go as far as to say the JSF program right now may never look in such good shape as it is now. (scary huh)

Cheers

Cheers

Without referencing APA or the debunked RAND assessment, could you elaborate on why you think the F-35’s A2A abilities are questionable? Furthermore, could you explain how far these inbound foes will be supercruising(or why a target travelling below M2 is such an challenge to intercept, when F-16s have shot down Mig 25s).

actually, what I’m talking about is the reflections not on the “petals” of the nozzle, but from turbine blades staring out through the nozzle.

Basically, the nozzle from behind looks like this, more or less:

considering that RAM coating is fragile and need lots of support, how do you imagine coating and maintaining that part which is the one that has to support very high constraints (temperature,gases flow and pressure), and therefore, how do you imagine preventing the radar waves entering the nozzle from coming out and giving away your position?

While “saw-tooth shaped nozzle may help reduce the rcs somewhat from the sides, from rear aspect, it’s the inside of the nozzle that poses problem

There is the use of radar blockers in the nozzle for one, and secondly exactly how many angles would a radar be able to view directly inside that nozzle? At most, there’s a limited cone that would be vulnerable.

just saw that…

actually, one thing makes me wonder whether some here have personnality problems…

in PAK-FA thread, everybody and his uncle (anti-pak-fa) claimed that it couldn’t be stealthy because its engine could be seen. Yet, you assume that a part of the engine that has to stand much higher efforts (temperature, pressure, gases flow…) is made of some material that besides having such high resistance acts like rcs reduction material?

LM and DoD were saying that the program was more or less fine, yet it ends up being way over cost and over schedule (yes, pfcem, we know you don’t agree).

If they told you it can fly directly to mars, would you believe them just because they say so? If the had the technology to render the rear of the engine “non reflective to radar” in a straight duct (nozzle) don’t you think the wouldn’t loose their time on designing S-ducts on air intakes, loosing internal volume at the same time as well?

Try to think logically. LM has a piece or equipment they try to sell (and at a price way over that initially proposed) and the DoD did everything it could to terminate anything even remotely concurrential to it… They say to you “yeah, the rear of the engine is stealthy, yet, we couldn’t make the front part that way so we hid it behind an S-duct so the radar doesn’t see it”, doesn’t it sound strange to you?

Look at the nozzle on the F-35

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/8082/lockheedf35lightningiis.jpg

and on the T-50

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5281/506i.jpg

and then tell me if you notice any differences in shape(and I don’t mean the aperture).

and from the front-

http://www.armybase.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-jsf-lightning-ii.jpg

vs.

http://i46.tinypic.com/20mhao.jpg

Say what you will about cost overruns/software maturity- the proof of concept has already been demonstrated in terms of RCS studies(by the USAF mind you).

On the T-50, the engines can be see from the front aspect even, and with a conventional shape, increasing both the RCS and IR footprint.:eek:

Hello Gentlemen 🙂

I ‘ve been browsing and reading your forums for a while now and I decided to join . I ‘ll try to be a fair , honest and good poster . I also hope to share a lot 🙂

High AoA , high Gs , high turn rates , etc are needed but what matter is the fly by wire . The Rafale has the best FBW Dassault ever made and that only says a lot . Dassault has always been the benchmark regarding FBWs .
What an aircraft can do during testing as nothing to do with what the aircraft will be capable to do in real Ops , obviously .
The Rafale has proven to be capable to fly very demanding patterns where other aircrafts could not , because of the FBW .
As a proof , we just have to look at this video :
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9n6fh_demonstration-du-rafale-dassault-av_tech

Rafale demo at Le Bourget , 2009 , commented by the demo pilot himself Cpt. Cédric “Rut” Ruet .
During the display , he says himself that 3 figures (manoevers) could only be done with the Rafale because of 1) better FBW and 2) acceleration and thrust .
He even quote the Typhoon not being able to reproduce what Rafale does .

Cheers .

That was a nice display, but I didn’t see anything that caused disbelief.