ATFS_CrashIt could be that lady astronaut’s purse and tampons burning up as it reenters the atmosphere. đ she lost her purse after trying to clean it out. ( okay it really wasnât a purse; it was a tool bag đ apparently with a couple of grease guns:eek:)
Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper first astronaut to lose her bag in space
http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/bmata/2008/11/heidemarie_stefanyshynpiper_fi.html
Astronaut loses tool bag in Space – Short version – STS-126
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvUhFwNxEqU
ATFS_CrashThe metric used to assess radar performance in the US is Pcum90 (probability density function that gives a 90% probability of detecting the target) for a 1 sqm target. But RCS engineers often use Pcum50 (50% probability of being detected) as a metric of the effectiveness of stealth features. Lots of factors effect the probability density function, such as radiated power, range, gain, scan rate, clutter, reflectance, incidence and atmospherics for some frequencies.
When comparing Irbis, Bars, APG-77, Flap Lid, Sampson, Etc., the person performing the comparison needs to assure the same metric is used. For example, Irbis or Bars may claim great detection range, but upon closer examination you might determine the they were stating cued search rather than max volume search. By using cued search, the scan rate within a small (cued) sector may be an order of magnitude greater than it would be in a max volume search. Of course, the cued search range looks great in a sales brochure, but isn’t representative of how the radar will be used for 99% of its lifespan.
So true. So often people try to compare to dissimilar figures as if they are the same. Which is misleading at best; sometimes it is naivety/ignorance but often I canât help but feel there is some deliberate dishonesty/con.
Such as
US TWS compared to Soviet RWS
Or
US Look down range, to Soviet level first detect range
Or
(different sized targets)
US 5 m² target TWS range, to Soviet 25 m² target RWS range
ATFS_CrashFor the benefit of the others.
Supersonic speed is the result of the inlet and outlet-system.
At Mach 2+ it is 63% of thrust, what is generated by the inlet and 29% by the outlet, when the engine is down to 8% or just keep it running.
Be it the F-111, F-14A or the MiG-25 to give some prominent examples about that and their moderate installed thrust values. :p
Fix the inlet-system and your former Mach 2+ fighter is down like the F-14D, B-1B or MiG-27 and Su-24 to give some prominent examples.
Inlet ramps/cones donât give much benefit until above Mach 2. Going supersonic is counterproductive for a stealth aircraft; because the sonic boom can give away its location acoustically and on radar and IR. The shock wave on the SR-71 was so powerful that it could be seen on radar hundreds of miles away with conventional radar of the era. I would think that most of the time that the F-22 and JSF are being used that they would be subsonic; unless itâs scrambling to an impending urgent threat or trying to search an unreasonably large area.
Like Chuck Yeager said âinlet ramps are not worth their cost and weight in most casesâ I think he was talking about inlet ramps on the F-4 Phantom II. He said something to the effect, that was his opinion that the cost, complexity and weight added to the aircraft was hardly worth the slight gain of speed. I think he said this about the time of the Vietnam war, at that time there was about a 20% loss of thrust using fixed inlets at Mach 2.
ATFS_CrashWhat I’m saying is that it’s unfortunate that the fact that it has to carry them internally means the current design is massively limited in its weapon load, resulting in the greatest problem with the fighter.
Your continuing to argue in circles; because you fail to comprehend or acknowledge the full extent of what Iâm saying. đ
What you perceive as an advantage for the Su-35 and disadvantage for the JSF; will most likely and most often be on the contrary; an advantage for the JSF and a disadvantage for the Su-35.
As has been said many times but has fallen on deaf ears and hard heads. It doesnât have to carry weapons internally; it has external hard points. When it carries its weapons internally it has a greater degree of stealth. Even if it carries weapons externally; it would still be more stealthy than the Su-35 with an equivalent load out. Therefore legacy aircraft like the Su-35 is more likely to be fodder and it and its weapons are more likely to become losses. As others have already pointed out; the JSF already by default carry a lot of things internally that legacy aircraft had to carry on hard points; so even if the JSF has less hard points or uses less hard points; that is largely because it doesnât need them as much. Often hard points are used up by such things as fuel, jammers, targeting pods, etcâŚ.; with the JSF there will be less need to use an hard points in that fashion, so it frees up more hard points for weapons.
ATFS_CrashA lot of nonsense here. The speed limit of the F-16 is 800 kt TAS at sea-level (pressure limit). Higher up, the inlet design of the F-16 is the limiting factor. It passes its best possible value at Mach 1,5. Behind Mach 1,5 the thrust of a F-16 does drop considerably. At ~Mach 2 the two “lines” of drag and thrust do set the theoretical stop. If you add a J-79 with ~8 tons of AB or a GE-100 with ~13 tons of AB do not matter about that. đ
Yes your post is a lot of nonsense. A lot of pseudoscience and confabulation. Science taken out of context because of your lack of knowledge or because you are wishing to advance an agenda (a confabulation).
My and my acquaintance assertion that the F-16 has plenty of thrust, is not necessarily a Mach 2 reference, it is pointing out that the limiting factor on the F-16 may have other factors involved such as overheating from thermodynamics when the aircraft is empty; understandably when aircraft is fully loaded and has high drag there may be thrust limitations. You seem to have mental tunnel vision/fixation.
Your sea level specifications seem to be just a red herring to derail the debate; we are talking about flying, not driving. We of course were not talking about sea level.
The two YF-16s reached speeds of over Mach 2.0, maneuvers achieving 9g, and altitudes above 60,000 feet. Although the YF-16 was designed for 6.5g at full internal fuel, 9g capability at reduced fuel loads and non-critical mach/altitude combinations
Source http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article25.html
I guess you don’t know as much about propulsion efficiency at altitude as you claim.
Agreed; his posts prove that. His attacks is apparently based on his own insecurities; his attempts to bluff and bully only make a fool of himself.
I still don’t understand why you quoted me for your original message. Probably you just mixed up my posting with someone elses, it’s easy to do.
Itâs obvious that he was responding to you because you are trashing/bullying trying to bluff your way and or because you apparently donât understand what you are posting or what djcross is posting. In your apparent attempt to bully and bluff; you demonstrate your own ignorance. It seems you still donât understand what heâs talking about or and youâre a troll trying to filibuster, bully and or bluff.
First of all there is a big difference in weight, but most of all you clearly has not understood how a turbofan engine works.
And your point is? Or are you just saying random stuff?
The above two quotes were posts by you (Rogerout) were in response to djcross’s quote below.
As far as the “no supercruise” statement…Do you really believe a clean F-35A with 28,000 lbs of dry thrust cannot break mach, while an F-16 with only 23000 lbs at full afterburner can reach mach 2? F-35 may not be a mach 2 jet, but to state it cannot break the sound barrier by a good margin with 28000 lbs thrust defies critical examination.
I feel that if you (Rogerout) understood as much about turbofans as djcross; you would understand how itâs related. Iâm not sure if I know as much as djcross in the technical aspect; but even with my poor language skills I understand he makes more sense; whereas you seem to be more rhetoric ( pseudoscience/out of context.jargon)
To assume that the JSF and F-16 cannot super cruise, or exceed Mach 2; proves that you ignore the facts and donât have as good of an understanding of jet engines as you claim/pretend/think.
ATFS_CrashI’m not saying it should carry weapons externally; I know full well what would happen then in regards to RCS. What I’m saying is that it’s unfortunate that the fact that it has to carry them internally means the current design is massively limited in its weapon load, resulting in the greatest problem with the fighter.
One of the many weaknesses of the Su-35 is that it has no choice but to carry its weapons externally. In a high threat environment it would be foolish for the JSF to put ordnance on externally; but it can if they feel it needs to. The JSF can go into a higher threat environment than the Su-35; which is another advantage to the JSF and a disadvantage to the Su-35. The JSFâs stealth increases the odds that it will choose and dictate the fight. As I said before what you perceive as a disability for the JSF is actually in most cases an advantage for the JSF and the disability for the Su-35. Having more hard points is hardly an advantage if you get shot down before you have a chance to use them. đ The JSFâs stealth increases the odds that it could spoof or decoy a missile. đ
ATFS_CrashShame it’s such an Achilles’ heel for the F-35 at least. I don’t know any other jet that would get away with being launched with four useful ordnance stations.
On the contrary, itâs an advantage to the JSF; an Achillesâ heel for the Su-35. The humongous RCS of the Su-35 would be laughable with full weapons stores. Thereâs a good chance a fully loaded Su-35 wouldnât even get a lock before it was shot down by a JSF.
An F-16 can’t go beyond M1.6
From what I understand at higher altitudes the F-16 can go Mach 2. The rumor I heard is that lower altitude there are restrictions on speed because the canopy can be damaged/craze/melt.
Perhaps he was pulling my leg but acquaintance of mine told me he accidentally crazed a canopy during ACM by exceeding the maximum recommended speed in a dive. He claimed that there were deductions on his paycheck. Regrettably I never did ask if he was joking. He claimed that F-16 had plenty of power to go faster but was limited due to excessive skin temperatures; due to thermodynamics.
ATFS_CrashTo stay serious. Both programs, the F-22A and the F-35 had run into serious problems.
If you want to be serious you should keep in mind that no major program has ever been completed without having serious problems. As I said it is normal to have a few shortcomings, but typically the overall projects despite their few shortcomings; meet or exceed their specifications.
If you had the same degree of sarcasm and scrutiny of all aircraft programs, then I guess you reconsider that there never has been a successful aircraft program.
Sometimes there are shortcomings or contradictions within the specifications themselves. Such as with a proposal to put a laser in the JSF, from what I understand the specifications for the electrical power demands for all other electrical equipment, in the power generation capability; do not allow for the full additional electrical demands that the design specifications for the proposed laser. So if they choose to add a laser; theyâre either going to have to reduce the power demands of the laser and reduce the power of the laser or theyâre going to have to increase the electrical generating capacity of JSF.
The reasons that these manufacturers have large engineering and R&D departments that pay a fairly decent wages is it takes a considerable amount of effort to try to meet or exceed the goals and the design requirements. Regrettably sometimes it takes longer to meet the goals and sometimes not all goals are met, however most goals are not only met but exceeded.
The engineering and R&D departments are typically under a considerable amount of stress. Premature baldness, graying is common. Heart attacks, strokes, and mental breakdowns are not unheard of. Typically they are workaholics with little social or family life.
Did I claim, once….
Iâm sorry but my comments were not specifically or exclusively in reference to you. I think it pertains with almost all the figures that everyone uses; then they often act like itâs gospel. I really had no specific person in mind when I made that comment. You were questioning the validity of the AFA PDF; my point is a grain of salt/skepticism should be given to all sources. Everyone is subject to inaccuracies; whether it be by recklessness, ignorance, prejudice, deliberately misleading, or honest mistakes.
I was essentially agreeing with your skepticism, but criticizing everyone to be skeptical.
Bars radar (predecessor of Irbis) was able to detect a Su-27 target at over 330 Km (range precision mention indicates RWS) and also retain scan, and tracking of targets. Hence statement of Irbis range of 350-400 Km vs “small fighter sized target” of 3Mtr square is very possible considering the power and signal processing improvement to Irbis
Your comparison seems a little funky to me. I would think an Su-27 would be a much larger target than 3 m². đ With weapons I expect it to be much larger. đ RWS is not the same as TWS or targeting.
ATFS_CrashFor the most part Iâm in favor of the opt out organ donation scheme (default being an organ donor); except for perhaps minors; which maybe the parents should have an option to override an organ donation over a minor.
While I think an opt out program would definitely increase the number of organs available, I think it may decrease the quality of organs. I suspect people that volunteer their organs for donation screen themselves; in other words I suspect that people that are drug addicts, excessively promiscuous (have unprotected sex, or other high-risk behaviors), have severe contagious diseases (IE AIDs, hepatitis, mad cow) are more likely to screen themselves out and less likely to volunteer ( opt in) their organs.
If your strange cult states that you should not give then thats fine, but you should not recieve either.
Contrary to what you say I think atheists should be allowed to receive organs, though they should be farther down the list.
(that was just a joke to reflect your own prejudice)
ATFS_CrashFor the most part Iâm in favor of the opt out organ donation scheme (default being an organ donor); except for perhaps minors; which maybe the parents should have an option to override an organ donation over a minor.
While I think an opt out program would definitely increase the number of organs available, I think it may decrease the quality of organs. I suspect people that volunteer their organs for donation screen themselves; in other words I suspect that people that are drug addicts, excessively promiscuous (have unprotected sex, or other high-risk behaviors), have severe contagious diseases (IE AIDs, hepatitis, mad cow) are more likely to screen themselves out and less likely to volunteer ( opt in) their organs.
If your strange cult states that you should not give then thats fine, but you should not recieve either.
Contrary to what you say I think atheists should be allowed to receive organs, though they should be farther down the list.
(that was just a joke to reflect your own prejudice)
ATFS_Crashnow neither the United States military’s or the engine manufacturer’s numbers are good enough?
I would consider the engine manufacturer to be more reliable and to have less to hide if all you want is basic thrust estimates. However I still think that they are just ballpark figures depending on the conditions and subject to change. I still would take them with a grain of salt.
I am skeptical of all sources, even when I am in the loop. You never know when someone is going to make a mistake. So professionally it is wise to check sources, specifications and math. It’s best not to take anything for granted unless you have to.
Another famous quote about hazardous professions.
Dead sure or dead.
ATFS_CrashOFFICIAL ‘rated’ numbers for F135-PW-100 from Pratt & Whitney
43,000 lbs with reheat
28,000 lbs without reheat
(I believe that the 48,000 lbs number is a typo)
I am suspicious you are correct. Wouldnât it be easy to mistakenly misread/transcribe 43 into 48? I wouldnât be surprised if thatâs what happened.
Is there any analysis of what can be done to counter incoming missiles with hard kills, or is outrunning them the only realistic option ?
Theoretically you could focus radar to microwave/overheat electronics or other components in an incoming missile or to induce an EMP that burns out the electronics.
Or you could use a laze to kill, laser.
Joint High Power Solid-State Laser (JHPSSL) Program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9JZSjsgWm0
You canât outmaneuver EM weapons. In the future maneuverability may be less important. In the future and possibly now, and to some extent now it is possible to use EM weapons to blind, confuse or disable or destroy incoming missiles.
ATFS_CrashInteresting. Also interesting that the figures are not on the military’s official press release, and also interesting that it claims the F-22 is twice is manoeuvrable and with twice the turn rate of the F-35, rather contrary to the test pilot claims. I imagine it will be some time yet before we know with any certainty, but nonetheless, it appears that either F-135 is vastly more powerful than the military are willing to admit and the AFA have leaked details or someone’s overestimating.
It’s interesting that so many think that the military and manufacturer would be eager to release the exact specifications of an aircraft. Itâs interesting that so many people think the exact figures are available when the aircraft hasnât even finished itâs preliminary flight testing, certification and evaluation. Itâs interesting to think that people donât think that some information might leak or be a deliberate leak as propaganda or a deliberate leak as misinformation or just mistaken figures due to bad conversions, memories or transcription. Itâs interesting that some people seem surprised that some of the figures seem a little funky and are different.;) Do you think a manufacturer and government is going to pay better attention and update the public figures more often or do you think they will be professionals and concentrate more on manufacturing, than PR/sales.
Targets are not always met, and often they are exceeded. So donât expect the finished product to have the exact specifications that were in the target goal. When the target goals were originally made; it wasnât known if all the goals could be made considering all the restraints. With the advent of newer technology sometimes the goals are far exceeded. So donât be surprised if the finished product of the production models has a few shortcomings, and far exceeds most specifications.
It kills me :rolleyes: that people want to have urinating contests with inaccurate outdated specifications and targets or speculation; that is often very far from the reality or eventuality. It amazes me how many people think they know governmental secrets or and know how to predict the future.
ATFS_CrashLet us analyze stealth.
Your post demonstrates you only have a childlike/elementary understanding of stealth, yet youâre criticizing people that have demonstrated a much deeper understanding of stealth with their posts. You and several others should get a better understanding of stealth so you can keep up with the conversation and so you donât make such fools of yourselves.
No one here beside you flanker fanatics have associated invisibility or invincibility with stealth. So youâre only making dishonest ad hominem arguments by making such dishonest assertions/insinuations.
The Lockheed propaganda is the F-22 will be undetactable to known radar systems
Support your claims, prove it. Otherwise we will assume that you are doing your typical method of operation of dishonest ad hominem attacks by taking things out of context.
All stealth aircraft like the F-22 can be detected by all radars, however the range is such and the quality is such that it has little or no tactical use. In most cases stealth gives an advantage that can be exploited and used tactically that usually gives it an upper hand.
If the first time you detect an F-22 or a JSF is when the weapons bay opens or when the missiles go active itâs probably too late for you.
In many cases the detection may not be strong enough to trigger an alert. In many cases there would be no warning at all. And in many cases when there is a warning, itâs too late to use countermeasures or to launch a counterattack. Too bad for you.
density plays a very important part in detectability as well as atomic number….. density will also affect visibility
If your claim is true that higher densities have a higher RCS than you should stand out like a sore thumb and be easy to track. đ
Nobody with an understanding of stealth says it is “invisibility”, PRIMARILY that comes from ignorant media.
Media, PR/sales reps, children, trolls and/or flanker fanatics.
I find the use of âinvisibilityâ and âinvulnerabilityâ in the context of stealth on a message board to be a red flag for suspicion of being a fanatic or and troll with ad hominem attacks..
ATFS_CrashThe manoeuvering capabilities and turn rate of the Lightning is much less than official statements suggest
So we should ignore the experts and the official releases; but we are expected to blindly believe the author and you? hahahaha I take all with a grain of salt.
Computer modelisation of air-to-air combat F35 vs Su35 showed a close combat rate victory of 5:1 in the Su’s favour
So we should base our opinions on computer modelization of hypothetical values with a Soviet bias? The exact performance of either aircraft is not known, so the figures are ballpark figures and speculation at best. There is likely to be considerable difference between different models of the JSF in regards to performance. So we should take conservative estimates for the JSF, and optimistic estimates for the SU-35 as gospel?
Unlike you I tend to prefer to keep an open mind until hard figures are available.
The F-35 was thought of and conceived as an universal strike aircraft, and is therefore very potent when attacking pinpoint “difficult” targets. It is not an air superiority fighter
Itâs not designed to be an air superiority fighter; however itâs fighter capability might surprise many and is probably more capable than most, if not all legacy aircraft.
Therefore, any country that would purchase the Lightning should think twice about it, because it will certainly lack F-22s for support and also some other crucial capabilities (datalink, infomerge with other sensors, and most importantly, as the author highlights, precision GBUs).
Hypocrisy. Others could also claim the contrary: For instance; one shouldnât get the third rate legacy SU-35 (or other flanker) because it would certainly lack F-22 support. đ
So once again apparently like many he seemed to expect Soviet aircraft to have all kinds of support but not your potential opponents.
After all when Allied forces gloat about how many Soviet aircraft we have shot down; the Soviets response/excuse is almost always that those were inferior Soviet export versions that lacked the same equipment and support that domestic Russian aircraft would have. đ So the same is true on the other side of the coin. đ
So youâre arguing out of both sides of your mouth.
The lack of precision guided ammo renders the F-35 a simple stealthy dumb bomber similar the the -117 IN THAT ROLE.
I suspect contrary to your claims the F-35 still has the ability to use guided weapons without special support. Youâre dead wrong about the F-117 being a dumb bomber. It was capable of dropping dumb bombs, but its specialty was dropping precision guided weapons. The F-117 lacked air to air capability, and only had a fraction of the sensor capability.
A small payload and relatively weak AA missiles load are another problem.
Itâs not necessarily a problem for the JSF. As I have said before; what you perceive as a weakness in the JSF and a strength in the SU-35; may actually be a strength for the JSF and a weakness for the SU-35.
The SU-35 larger payload is not necessarily an advantage under all conditions, since it makes a humongous easy to detect radar target even larger; which makes it easier to detect and shoot down. It also reduces the range and speed of the SU-35. Being able to carry more missiles is hardly an advantage if youâre fighting a stealth that can shoot you down before you can get off a shot. The SU-35 is just a more efficient way of squandering resources. đ
The garbage in this article reminds me much of previous laughable claims. Itâs much like the Soviet thinking that a cobra is going to be a beat-all maneuver, which has proven to be a weakness in most cases rather than a strength.
Sign In
