I may have missed it in this thread, but the big reason for the range difference between the A and the C is that the C has no gun, hence more internal fuel.
The C has a bigger wing, which adds some fuel volume, and will take off at higher weights – it actually needs to because the OEW is higher. I rather doubt that it will (in practice) lift heavier external loads.
The bigger wing is also going to increase drag transonic/supersonic; it may reduce drag-due-to-lift in cruise, but not by much.
AFAIK the 56k is a theoretical figure, multiplying the potential highest mil power of the F136 by an achievable augmentation ratio at that BPR.
I have never specifically heard about a VHF AESA, but can’t think of any reason why such a thing would be impossible.
VHF is a much more serious threat than it used to be, not because VHF has improved all that much (doesn’t really need to, although all-digital processors and displays are useful) but because the netting of different systems has become more sophisticated, and because of high-power AESAs in other bands.
Combine a cue signal from VHF with AESA’s ability to focus power, and your PD starts to improve.
An F-117N and (later) an A/F-117N were among the much improved 117 designs proposed in the late 1980s/early 90s, with new wing, tail and afterbody shape. Nothing flown, unless in a black program, which I rather doubt since there was no detectable customer interest.
The picture is authentic. Whether the design is real or not I leave up to you.
And considering that the OEW of the smaller F-35A is 29,000 lb, something close to 40,000 pounds makes sense.
My impression was that deH had hung on too long to the centrifugal jets and had been cut out of the first UK axial generation (Avon, Sapphire, Olympus). Gyron was an attempt to leap-frog the competition with an engine optimized for supersonic flight.
Gyron data was to prove useful some 20 years after the great Gun wrote this story, when a surprise package arrived at Hakodate…
YS
You displeased foreigner, no model either.
And no jig-a-jig. Put violet club away!
Why put a laser (or other DE) in an agile fighter, anyway? (Assuming you call the F-35 agile.)
It’s a line of sight, speed of light weapon – no need whatsoever to point aircraft at adversary. With the right configuration it could shoot in almost any direction. It can engage missiles, so if the firing rate is adequate (and with other defenses) agility is not that necessary for defense.
Now think about the field of regard if you have one laser optical chain. Where do you want it? Not above the fuselage, with no depression below the nose at all. It wants to be at least like a targeting pod, put preferably in the nose like the ABL.
The “laser fighter” – when and if it can be made to work – should be a stealthy flying wing with upper and lower optical heads. Alles andere is Unsinn!
Laser on the F-35, as described, is a half-baked idea.
Aurcov,
The B has a nominal 450 nm standard profile. It can carry 2 x 425 USG tanks which will help to some extent.
A fully tricked F-16 can do 630 nm with bigger bombs.
Otaku – Did any Navy big-wigs say that on the record? Because they won’t be big-wigs for long at that rate…
The design of the MiG Skat indicates that the objective is all-aspect LO. That pretty much follows from the design of any UCAV, in that UCAVs can’t shoot back or otherwise respond to a threat. Wideband? Probably, since the ability to do wideband depends on having a configuration that can be protected on all edges by serious RAS.
Can they do it? There is a known and documented Russian stealth program that has yielded operational RCS-reduction kits and has certainly got as far as large-scale RCS models. Look at the Tu-160…
Once you understand the basic principles, what takes time and money is all the details – maintainability, doors, apertures. What France and UK have realized, though, that you can only do so much on the pole and that the graduation exercise is to build a demonstrator like an old Lindberg model – it’s not the real thing but all the doors and other moving bits work. Watch Japan doing the same thing.
There’s nothing impossibly wrong about Skat, although the inlet looks odd. I suspect that it’s a graduation exercise and a bait for foreign partners.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat… unless it’s the one that disappears bit by bit until all you can see is the grin.
Bulge on C-17 is designed to deal with things that you Rooskies made a lot of and now are on the black market everywhere… Circular panel is movable/rotatable.
I see the French Knights are in action… time to build a large wooden badger.
The only comment of Jacko’s that I’d add to is that there is a distinction between Gen1 “pointers” and the later DASH/JHMCS. The latter have feedback from missile seekers, targeting pods and radar so that you know tha the sensor is looking at what you are looking at.
It would also be worthwhile to consider JHMCS use on the Super Hornet in the FAC-A role – see possible target, geolocate, image with ATFLIR, transmit image to ROVER on ground, confirm target, pass coordinates to the C-model coming in with JDAMs…
Not to mention the two-seat helmet function that’s been tested.
I think in cases where the HMD has not been applied, the customer has not worked his way through the list of potential applications. I bet that once DAMOCLES is on board they will suddenly find that they need it.