hopsalotMiG-31 had datalink in early 80s.
…and all datalinks are the same of course. This guy may be an expert, but he isn’t saying something we like.
hopsalotMoving on from armor chest beating:
US has built up a sizable air-base on Syrian territory.
Those are clearly just local Syrian patriots.
hopsalotAgain that ignorant and stupid argument. (i) realiability measure is the ability to perform an operational contract (which ability is ZERO% for F-35 atm). Of course, facts not Absolutely obvious won’t cross hurdles of thick skulls. Btw, what has Rafale to do in this?
Speaking of facts, and the permeability of skulls…
The F-35 is operational today with both the USAF and the USMC. The F-35 is also scheduled to go IOC with the IAF this year.
Maybe do a little basic research before posting next time? Nah… :very_drunk:
hopsalotSome shaping features work in general (edge alignment, concealing compressor face, canopy coatings..), but many of them are frequency tuned, specifically for X-band (zig-zags, dimensions of edges, inner structure, RAM characteristics).. thus, an anti-stealth radar can be something as simple as a radar working in a different band.. logically, removing the F-35’s tail or other modification to its shape is still going to make a great deal of difference because a non-existing tail is stealthy in any frequency band…
Yes, shaping is for the most part targeting the X-band, but no removing the tail is not “stealthy in any frequency band.” When you are talking about the sorts of very low frequency radars that are frequently advertised as having counter-stealth capabilities the entire aircraft effectively resonates. In theory a very large aircraft like a B-2 might be able to shaping effectively in those bands but it won’t work for a fighter.
if your assumptions were true, there would be zero need to develop a 6th Gen design.. they’d simply stick to the stealthy F-35 and replaced the bowels by something next gen..
That makes an awful lot of assumptions… the first being that whatever the USAF decides on for its 6th Gen design is more or less a fighter as we know it today and the second that greater stealth would be the principal goal of the design.
A 6th gen design might be quite large for instance… optimized for endurance and perhaps armed with laser weapons that make traditional maneuverability irrelevant. It will also likely take a system of systems approach, where it will act in concert with drones of various types, etc, potentially freeing it of the need to venture directly into the most heavily defended areas.
This is why they take so long studying the problem before launching a program.
hopsalotSpeaking of BS about Russian tanks or equipment in general, let me put another kind of unfounded nationalistic BS…
That is also a funny kind of ranting that everyone does; that the ones who fought were incompetent, had their army had been doing the fighting everything would have been different… When is the last time any European Nation has seen real conflict to warrant that confidence to their military?
Well, there was Libya, and before that the 2003 Gulf War, (and all the while Afghanistan), then Allied Force in 1999, and before that the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The French have been involved in a few things in Africa, most notably Mali, but also the Ivory Coast, etc.
Few full scale wars besides 1991 but there have been a steady stream of conflicts since the end of the Cold War.
hopsalotA two tone on top (for the time on tarmac) and an underbelly grey will do for me. I am bored by all this tactical grey/tactical black etc…
If purchased these would be operated by the USAF…. don’t expect any crowd pleasing paint schemes.
hopsalotThe new generation of anti-stealth radars is going to proliferate quickly, that’s why they want the PCA as soon as they can get it.
Those “anti-stealth” radar are radars that function in a way that ignores aircraft shaping for the most part. (either very low frequency or “passive” radars, etc)
That being the case, removing the F-35’s tail and pretty much any other modification to its shape isn’t going to make a great deal of difference.
Of course those radars have pretty significant drawbacks themselves and really aren’t drop-in replacements for existing radars. That is why you see all the same people who talk about “anti-stealth” radars working furiously to develop their own stealth aircraft. Even designs like the PAK DA, which won’t fly until sometime well into the 2020s are being designed as stealth designs… which pretty well tells you Russia doesn’t expect stealth to become obsolete anytime soon.
hopsalotMaybe the US have friends? True? :stupid:
Seriously though, enough RT for you.
hopsalot[QUOTE=Sintra;2378029]
The only way that Finland would join NATO is if it feels so threatned by its Eastern neighbour that the majority of its population would agree with it, if that happens, well Russia can only blame itself.
Look at your posts… Loved the bit about “military resolution”…
And while you and the likes of the JSR “Russia Stronq crowd” might not like, Russia wont do nothing against a NATO country except yell a lot and troll the informatic systems of that same country.
And for Christ sake, stop with the “NATO agressive bulls####”, the western European countries are spending 1,8% of their GDP in defense, they are not preparing themselves to march over Moscow.
It hurts that your old “allies” have decided to pass themselves “en masse” to NATO?
Well sorry about that, but the Poles, the Hungarians, the Checks, etc, didnt particulary liked “Soviet friendship”.
+1
I love how the Russia Stronk crowd alternates between beating their chest about how all their neighbors better watch their step lest Russia be forced to defensively invade them again… and complaining about how all their neighbors suffer from “Russophobia” and shouldn’t be talking about joining an alliance to defend them from Russia. :rolleyes:
hopsalotI don’t like this whole gun pod concept. No sir.
A 5th gen jet with 2/4 AIM-120. No AIM-9 and a frekkin gun pod slug underneath..
We are all really surprised to hear this.
hopsalotThe JSTARS would never be able to get close enough.
I wonder if they couldn’t expedite a delta tailless derivative of the F-35 to improve the stealth and range, with stock fuselage. Make it capable of only 4000 hours of flight hours to develop it faster. Minimal external payload if any to shorten dev time. The pilots would train mostly on the regular F-35s and in simulators. They could build like 50-100 of those and have them do SEAD, bomber escort and other things that require very high stealth with a2a capabilities.
Would the gain in stealth be sufficient that’s the question.
What makes you think their stealth isn’t already sufficient, given that that is exactly what they are training to do with them?
hopsalotHe doesn’t brag about the F-35 being an almost F-22, a super dogfighter or anything else like you have done for ages.. So where’s the lie?
Still misremembering that old article?
This report does not contain anything to argue too much about.. Newer meets older, newer wins.. Where’s the catch?
I feel like I should congratulate you on your progress. :rolleyes:
hopsalotNice picture. Speaking of the gun pod I do wonder why they didn’t design it to carry more ammunition. I’m guessing that the times it is going to be used are when the F-35 is carrying a lot of external stores anyway.
Mig-29 100 or 150 round capacity
Rafale 125 round capacity
Eurofighter 150 round capacity
Su-25 250 round capacity
Su-35 150 round capacity
Su-34 150-180 round capacity
Gripen 120 round capacity
F-35A 182 round capacity
F-35B/C 220 round capacity (external pod)
All above numbers from Wikipedia.
The F-35 is pretty much right among the pack where ammo capacity is concerned. It isn’t a lot of ammo, but it is about what you get…
hopsalot20000ft orbit at 130kt ISR is dead
Light attack is more something budget centered here*. How to perform the mission at low cost and still perform? I think that this is the very aim of such program. It is clear that some aspects the mission are seemingly in opposition and a mix of airframe might then be seen as the right choice. Facts are that, budget wise, you can’t stick 300 planes in this and be budgetary efficient.
What happens if a technology surface and change the name of the game (MANPAD able to engage at higher alt – swarming bots that put advanced basing at constant risk…)? You are left with 300 planes sitting on AMARG far away from the grunts on the ground…
The choices made by Textron fits most of the aspects today. The new increased swept wing even better the plane characteristic in dive and the high G high Alpha mission** has been taken in consideration, perhaps motivated by potential synergies with the T-X program.
It is true that the Scorpion is not in appearance capable to assume the austere basing mission and that some of the SOCOM needs won’t be fulfilled this way. But this is here an aspect of the mission that is counter-intuitive with the low budget aspect of such program. SOF mission does not come cheap and are backed by a fairly descent budget. Per def, even with the present over-utilization of SOF, the economy of scale does not exist. IMOHO, there is room with the austere basing/sof requirement for a more capable airframe such as a derivative from the Army Vertical lift program. You’ll have speed, VTOL, payload, troop insertion etc.. available from such that will fulfill all the 21st needs of a Bronco descendant, itself an helicopter with wings… 😉In most situation, it is in my opinion that austere basing won’t be relevant and speed and range are now more valuable in a COIN scenario.
@Hopsalot and Spudman: Laser will do great… And leave the plane at a safer alt
*As it has been before
**aquiring a new target
A laser might also solve your new MANPAD problem. (plus, any such new MANPAD would be a huge pain for any aircraft without a DIRCM/laser defense system)
hopsalotHmmmmmm
I have a cynic in me that says if the USAF gets two or three hundred Scorpion´s… someday, those aircrafts will be the replacement for the A-10 by default and then someone will slash the number of F-35A´s by the same amount.
Get the Bronco, or the Tucano, or the IOMAX Archangel, if the “light attack role” transforms itself into a six ton, twin seater jet…
If any of those aircraft were purchased they would end up replacing the A-10 in most cases. At this point the A-10 isn’t useful against a high-end threat. Its residual value lies in its utility in exactly the sort of environments where the various light attack aircraft are designed to operate.
The Scorpion would likely cost more than a turboprop powered light attack aircraft, but it would also be quite a bit faster and offer a lot of additional capability. The question for the USAF is where the sweet spot is…
Sign In
