Amiga500Amiga – The wing is draggy too.
‘course it is. The whole thing is an aerodynamic flop verging on Subpar Hornet proportions.
However, the C will still out perform the A in all but roll maneuvers. Even then – that difference won’t be significant.
Amiga500As someone who is fairly involved with personel on the program I should point out that there are no rumours of this type and this chaps talking out his rear end.
You think you are the only one “fairly involved with personnel on the program”? :confused:
If anything – I am being disingenuous calling it a rumour at this point.
You seem to be fairly involved with the wrong people on the program – maybe the powerpoint wizards rather than the engineers.
Go compare the W/S and T/W ratios for the F-35 against some contemporaries.
Amiga500I don’t want to drift off-topic but in relation to accuracy of navigation in the two world wars, a reading of the history of WW2 in particular reveals that (a) dead reckoning navigation, especially at night, was quite inaccurate and (b) navigation aids of various sorts were developed to assist with getting aircraft of the different combatant countries over their intended targets. The early bombing results of the RAF, when analysed, showed a frightening lack of accuracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Report
Oh, no doubt about it – but that is, or was high altitude bombing.
Low level night-time bombing had quite high levels of precision when required.
Obviously, when seeking to land an aircraft, I would imagine descending to a low level would be necessary! 🙂
Amiga500The F-35C is heavy – 4500 pounds OEW above the A, and that’s without a gun.
Whats the wing loading though?
At empty weight, its something around:
A = 311 kg/m^2
C = 255 kg/m^2
To equate those wing loadings, your gun is gonna have to weigh ~ 3.5 tonnes.
At MTOW, its roughly:
A = 745 kg/m^2
C = 512 kg/m^2
I’d definitely rather have -C than -A. If the rumours are true, the sustained turn rates are already a joke. I would want to minimise the damage and avoid the small wing variants.
[Although, if I’d a free choice, I would take neither.]
Amiga500To draw an analogy: Everyone designing warships these days pays some attention to RCS and other signatures. But if you look at a Horizon/Type 45 versus a Zumwalt, you’ll see that there are different levels to aim at; and that the US navy, having aimed high (or low as the case may be) has been forced to back off.
Indeed; everything is a compromise…
Some compromises are worth making, others are not.
IMO, the F-35 is several compromises too many, most of which are toward enabling STOVL operation.
Amiga500Wouldn’t it be easier to just go for the F-35C and not throw any more money at Lockheed to develop probe and drogue F-35A? It would also mean that if in the future we wished to change the carrier configuration we could already have carrier capable aircraft.
Shhhhh. Don’t be coming out with such logic! Thats an absurdly sensible idea.
Amiga500Is that a problem ?
Yep – pilots expect their hands to be held at all times by the flight computer these days.
Cue the “but you weren’t there” line…. :rolleyes:
It’d make you wonder how multiple airforces fought 2 world wars with only charts and a compass…
Amiga500Likely nothing.
It’ll just be a concept rendering by someone. Not necessarily reflective of what the engineers on the program are actually thinking.
Amiga500-The F-22, even with TVC, was not as good as anticipated in close. Was it showing all of its cards?
Who knows. Certainly no-one in here will (or, if they do, they won’t be stating it), anyone who does state with certainty is a bullsh!tter and can be discounted as such.
Typically, air forces do hold back something in exercises – normally on the electronic front though.
Its possible the F-22s were thrust limited, maybe even g limited for the exercise. But, I would consider both those possibilities as “unlikely”.
The starting point of the exercise would need to be known though – it may have been (very) unfairly balanced in favour of the Typhoon.
What does this mean for the F-35 that is no where near a agile as the F-22?
Because of the HMCS, the F-35 will be able to get missiles away, but, (1)the missiles will bleed alot of energy on initial turn, reducing their Pk and (2)the F-35 will have a tough task being able to evade any incoming missiles.
If a dogfight went beyond the first volley, IMO the F-35 would be at a distinct disadvantage in energy state. All the situational awareness in the world* won’t matter a damn then.
*unless the other guy has lost you in the chaos – which I consider unlikely with any good pilot in any modern aircraft.
Amiga500It is a crap article to put it bluntly 🙂
With posts like this do you honestly wonder why people are questioning your (supposed) credentials? :confused:
Of course the headline is going to say that to grab people’s attention – and you know what – its right. You wanna beat an F-22 with a Eurofighter (or similar) – you get him into a knife fight or stalk them from the rear quarter.
Compared to the F-22, yes, the Eurofighter has limited VLO characteristics.
A 1 v 1 is a basic training exercise. It is blindingly obvious that is what the journalist meant. For your signal management/signature management read maneuver/exercise.
If you want to discredit the article – better to find evidence to the contrary than slang an author who doesn’t normally cover aerospace topics for not using the correct terminology.
Amiga500IMO, an aircraft with a low RCS will continue to be harder to detect than one with a high RCS.
Yep. I don’t think anyone is saying it isn’t useful to have.
However, real argument is quite simple.
Will you have sacrificed too much in terms of speed/maneuverability/persistence to obtain VLO qualities?
[Particularly if VLO means you get detected at 200 miles instead of 600 (to grab 2 numbers out of thin air). Is 200 useful? I would say not particularly.]
For this reason – I never beat up on the F-22. It has superior speed, maneuverability and persistence to what is currently out there. The F-35? It has none of the above.
Amiga500It would be quite complex having the nozzles able to perform significant yaw motions – simple due to the close proximity.
Also – as an aside – the close proximity of the nozzles, with the resultant trade-off in maneuverability for reduced base pressure drag further increases the likelihood this thing is a high speed interceptor/interdictor.
Amiga500Can you explain more thoroughly, thanks?
Wing buffeting is directly related to aerodynamic and structural damping coefficients.
If we strengthen the wing (side effect is greater wing loading) than yes, we will get less buffeting.Or if we change the wing aerodynamics properties we can postpone buffeting.
You don’t necessarily have to strengthen the wing – indeed a general strengthening program is probably the least efficient way to combat the problem.
[considering 2d aerofoil for simplicity]
You are better off moving the flexural point (f.p) and/or the aerodynamic centre (a.c).
Moving the a.c aft will help damp buffet, as will moving the flexural centre forward.
In terms of vibration, when vortex shedding starts cycling loading/unloading of the local wing “aerofoil section” and that loading/unloading time period becomes in-step with the… ahhh, whats the phrase for it… flexural response isn’t it, but it’ll do, and the distance from f.p and a.c – then you have a buffet problem.
[obv. in a 3d wing, that will have to be done across the wingspan, with increasing the sweep of the wing also a good means of alleviating buffet as the aeroelastic qualities of the wing are improved. This is directly related to the complexities of the forward swept wing.]
If we for example have two same planes, but one with more and other with less fuel, do you think that the plane with more fuel will have less buffeting?
Perhaps the heavier plane is more stable and that could cause less wing buffet? That is what I can think of right now 🙂
The heavier plane is less gust sensitive, which improves ride quality.
The presence of fuel in the wing should make little change to flexural centre; while fuel may move the centre of mass backward, it adds no structural rigidity.
The F-15E, with its relatively low wing load, suffers more from gust sensitivity than wing buffet. I probably should have used gust response instead of buffet earlier – as I meant general buffeting (as in the word buffeting), rather than specifically wing buffeting.
The older F-15s had wing buffet issues, which have been evident in their recent fatigue problems.
Amiga500never said there was anything stopping me from saying what forms of management
You were asked:
“signal management”?
What does that exactly mean in this context?
To which you replied:
As usual you embarrass yourself by trying to make snide remarks on a subject you have no working experience in. You know very well what it means so stop trying to impress your followers and get over yourself.
Then you were asked:
I have no idea what “signal[s] management” means, because (1) if taken literally, it is so general as to be meaningless and (2) if it is indeed a term of art, it has been kept secret so effectively as to be invisible, on an Internet search or elsewhere.
It’s also somewhat confusing because in plain English “signal” means an intentional act, so it is unclear whether you’re talking about EM scattering from an object, or not.
If you can provide some citations to outside sources using the expression “signal[s] management” in reference to counter-detection technology, it would be illuminating in the extreme.
From which you started your 002 and half impersonation. Shaken not stirred and all that.
You couldn’t even clear up whether you were talking about emission control or interrogating wave control.
Of course, the wider used phrase for interrogating wave control is signature management, i.e.:
http://www.hollingsworth-vose.com/pdf/AFNBrochure.pdf
http://www.ursi.fi/2010/papers/P2_Tuohimaa.pdf
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/pic/docs/PIC_FactSheet_SignatureManagement.pdf
Whereas convention has signal management as intentional emissions from the control object.
At the minute, your in a hole and its only getting deeper.
Usually, the first thing you do is stop digging!
Amiga500“Signature Management” is what I am speaking of. Abusive how ? You very well know that we can’t just pull out references just to appease you, there is such a thing as the Official Secrecy ACT, ever heard of it ? You however work your way around arguements by challenging people on things you very well know we can’t put into the public domain and try and discredit people because of it.
Oh bull****.
Nothing is stopping you from saying whether it is signal emission management, signal reflection/refraction management, signal process management or signal communications management.
You’ve shown yourself up badly here. Knowing a few acronyms and buzzwords does not mean in-depth knowledge or wisdom in a particular field. Indeed, if you knew the field half as well as you’d like to portray, you’d know fine well that explaining that signal management can be either emission (emcon) or reflection/refraction (LO/VLO), although more traditionally the former, is not releasing any state secrets.
Sign In
