MBDA certainly hasn’t shied away from advertising it on the F-35. They’ve probably done some degree of design work already.
Well, if 70% (or something like that) of all NATO countries will use the F35 then probably it is good business for MDBA if they can fit the missile in the bays.
However, it will take time and someone has to take the first step to fund it.
@totoro’s statistic indicate effectiveness is down to last evolution in measures-countermeasures race
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?117432-historical-kill-percentages-of-SAMs
Yeah, it is indicative but still no actual test results which would be good to have.
Tu-22m your better than that, look at the view and situation u are presenting; top view, afterburner.
Thanks for having high expectations of me, but if you compare that pic with actual afterburner you will see a bit of a difference.
Now think about how the dual tails hide the exhaust plume that the mixing with ambient air and nozzle shape go into dissipating exhaust gas or do u assume that the USAF and DoD is bullsh*tting everyone that they plan that Ir and RF detection range are roughly equal. Did they put the LOAN nozzle on for looks? Come on, obviously there are angles that don’t present a favorable IR sig.
And don’t pull that Gripen crap, it uses standard heat exchangers which is a huge RF and IR liability. Your touting the heat exchangers on the Gripen is worse than silly, the’ve been standard on fighters since the 70’s. Guess what, they found a more effective method for surface cooling and exhaust cooling. The knock on the F-35 had to do with the heat in the combustion chamber, do u know the exaust temp? I don’t, but they’ve stated its lower than comparable turbofans. The use of fuel as a heat dump as in the case of the F-22 and F-35 may have hit their limit, but as of now they are the best thing going to preserve all aspects of LO. There are several scholarly papers dealing with this. Needless to say the conclusion is in diametric opposition to your conclusions.
You can cool down exhaust gases by increasing the “surface area” of the jet vs surrounding cold air. Flat nozzles are great for it, as well as putting the exhaust in two jets. The F22 is a prime example. Unfortunately there are still two jets, both with pretty high temperature and a pretty large plume (as is the case when much warm air and exhaust gases are pushed out in a jet).
There is so many buzzwords going around the F35, but once details emerge it allways turns out that original claims where exaggerated. Just take the Beesleys maneuverability claims, the supercruise or the other bs.
Heat exchangers where the coolant is fuel that goes into the engine is the exact same thing as the F35 has. Maybe it is just a part of the rebranding hysteria going on at LM. If I where to rebrand ‘wings’ into ‘signature reducing lift surfaces’, would that change their function? If I where to rebrand “fuel as coolant fluid” with “fuel as heat dump”, would that change the function? No, it is exactly the same.
And sure, I have no doubt that the engine is colder than comparable engines since there are no other fighter jet engines in the same class! Are they comparing with AL41, F136 or the J58 on the SR-71? Let me just guess here, they didnt give any model to compare with, it was just like the BS claims about its capabilities vs “4th gen fighter”. Or do you call the comparison below serious?
In this case they didnt provide any example of the fighter they compared with even though the picture on the right (only more advanced) has been standard for a long time outside of USAF.
TU22m !
Mach 2+….AFFENGEIL !
Well, with almost straight pitot intakes and no vents the theoretical top speed is around mach 2. Some aircrafts, like Viggen, could however reach mach 2.1 in special circumstances and I think F16 has a top speed of mach 2.05 for the same reason.
Sign In
