By that criteria all space news belongs in this subforum.

Nope

That’s not a “stealth” AAM it’s an air breathing missile seemingly intended for use against a non manuovering target.
Rather different to the original proposal.

Heaven forbid someone contribute to a thread with new info rather than just hurling insults.

Why don’t you lay out for us what you think you know about this missile’s RCS? With a turbojet engine and a passive seeker there is no obvious reason this missile couldn’t be quite stealthy.

Even if it isn’t particularly stealthy the fact that such a proposal has been advanced and funded for development speaks to some of the concerns posters in this thread have articulated about the potential utility of a relatively slow and/or loitering missile. (At least in theory a turbojet or low-bypass turbofan powered missile could be supersonic.)

That is not entirely true, but it is very close.

First of all the videos you posted show WVR missiles which by all standards and from all sides are of excellent quality.
Pretty much today if you are locked by a WVR missile chances are you are dead, barring a missile malfunction or a quick release.
There is very little a pilot can do to avoid being hit that is why active systems are now considered to at least give a pilot a chance by blinding the missile’s tracker momentarily at least if not taking it out of action.

You have to look back to his original claim:

a hypothetical fighter able to sustain 9g at 30k ft is immune to current and future missiles at any range,
and could simply fly a circle until everyone is bored of trying

This is of course inaccurate, we agree.

For BVR missiles however, an initial manoeuvre can lead the targeting system to an impossible intercept point (given the distance and the relative speed). So manoeuvring is not useless for BVR engagements.

I never said that maneuvering was useless. What I said was that flying in a circle (9g at 30k ft or otherwise) was useless.

A fighter can potentially defeat a BVR shot in any of several ways, most preferably by simply turning away from the missile and exiting its engagement envelope.

Your obsession with g is misplaced:
The missile does not try to trail and turn with the aircraft, as a following fighter would in a gun fight, mistake no.1

Mistake no.2- An aircraft sustaining a 9g turn would be as dead as an aircraft in a 5g turn if the missile fired at a side aspect cut the corner to complete the intercept
( the exception to all following: being a rear aspect attack where the missile at medium to long range would have a diffucult time turning with the fighter to complete intercept)

Mistake no.3- an aircraft’s ability to sustain a 9g turn at 30,000 feet would really be largely irrelevant to avoiding a missile( the turn would be of such short duration as to not matter whether altitude or speed were impacted for that instant). Give me an aircraft with a high instantaneous rate of turn with good pitch and roll.

Lastly, your confusion over what a sustained turn means is confounding considering it’s come up repeatedly. In other words, a hypothetical fighter flying around at 30,000 feet sustaining a 9 g turn would be as dead as a fighter flying straight: to the missile, the vector of the aircraft would change very little from Missile launch to impact.

This is something of an article of faith for him. People have explained over and over again why his theory isn’t true, but he always returns to it. (and almost always in the F-35 thread for some reason…)

Below is a still image showing the path an actual missile (AIM-9x) took intercepting a fighter in a steady turn.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234378[/ATTACH]

Full video:

As you can see from the image/video the missile does exactly what you would expect it to do. It uses its thrust vectoring to pull an impossibly tight turn (for a manned aircraft) putting itself on an intercept trajectory with its target. Once the initial turn is complete the missile flies an essentially straight path to its point of impact with only minor course corrections.

What is important for Obligatory to realize is that neither the precise number of Gs, nor the target’s turn radius, nor its altitude, nor its speed, fundamentally change anything. Whether the target is sustaining 3Gs or 13G, and whether the target is at 10k ft or 40k ft, what the missile will do is the same. It will put itself on an intercept course and unless the target makes some radical new maneuver late in the missile’s flight the target is dead dead dead, period. There is nothing magic about flying a circle at 30k ft while pulling 9Gs or at any other altitude or load factor. The missile does not need to match or exceed the target’s sustained turning capability, it isn’t trying to duplicate the course taken by the target. Given accurate information on the target’s course and acceleration the missile will need make only fine corrections to its course to complete the intercept.

also seem f-35 acceleration same as su-27s and f-18c without any fuel tank or pod

That estimate is at least broadly consistent with the various anecdotal accounts out there. Up to about M1.2 the F-35 is right there with the best of them. Above 1.2 some of the stronger performers have the advantage. Air policing will not be an issue.

Hopsalot, may I ask a question?………you mention the F 35 has the “CAPACITY” to hold 3 AMRAAMS each right?…now as I recall, there was issue and discussion as to whether the weapons bays where actually carrying 3 or where being limited to 2 each…….

any clarification on that? and I seem to remember that the AIM 120 was UNABLE to be launched from the internal Weapons bays, is that right?…so carried only as an external hard point mounted ordnance? seems crappy if true that one of the best BVR weapons, would cause the F 35 to reduce it’s speed,performance etc. and worse increase it’s Stealth when it may be of actual benefit in a BVR shoot out….

See, I;m trying ….. 🙂

Cheers

The original Ares post is down now(or link is broken) but:

The Joint Strike Fighter could be upgraded to carry up to six internal AIM-120 AMRAAM Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, according to a Lockheed Martin executive. “Our spiral development program includes the ability to carry up to six internal AMRAAMs”, G. Richard Cathers, senior manager of Lockheed Martin’s strategic studies group, told the IQPC Fighter Conference in London on Wednesday. “It’s a capability second only to the F-22.”

Cathers added that the JSF’s air-combat capability “has not been advertised as it could or should have been”, partly because “at the same time as we are developing the F-35, we and the USAF have wanted to expand the F-22 program.” Apparently, the USAF has not wanted to advertise the JSF’s air-to-air capability, concerned that it would weaken the case for acquiring more than the 183 F-22s authorized today.

The article I linked earlier today also refers to this future capability:

What’s more, a potential future upgrade foresees the F-35 increasing its air-to-air missile loadout from its current four AIM-120 AMRAAMs to six of those weapons.

Also, there was at least one LM marketing video that depicted 6 internal AMRAAM.

Yes, the AIM-120 can be fired from the internal bay. There is video on youtube.

Not that I disagree but in that case they are not in the same performance class rather than weight class.

They are most certainly in the same general performance class.

Despite all that, the kinematic behavior of these two aircraft could not be more different, at least if we refer to Czech AF pilots having compared the then-evaluated F-16C and Mirage 2000C to a Porsche while F-18 was more akin a luxury Cadillac, both in terms of flying abilities (handling, speed, agility, acceleration) and equipment (ergonomics, cockpit spaciousness..). If that is true, then Rafale must be a Ferrari 458 and the F-22 a Veyron or a Koenigsegg.

I suppose I should take some of the blame for introducing the can analogy into this discussion. You seem quite taken with it, even if confused.

Really? Rafale as a Veyron? With M1.8 max speed?

This is getting more than a little bit dumb. You type post after post of assertions without the benefit of reason or sources and I am left to correct you over and over again. Simply repeating yourself in the face of contradictory evidence doesn’t make your arguments any more convincing.

I personally think you are entirely incorrect here and that the differences are considerable. From the numbers alone the Rafale comes closer to a Raptor than to a Super Hornet.

I don’t have the time to take on a second charity educational project at the moment. The F-22 versus Eurocanard thing has been beaten to death 100 times. The F-22 has speed and altitude performance no other fighter today can approach. I suggest you do some reading.

Forget FRP then. By 2018, the F-35 will be competitive on acquisition cost with the Rafale.

The production rate is 11 Rafales annually. That figure is going remain unchanged. Between 2014 and 2019, only 26 Rafales are to be delivered to the AdlA. The remaining 40 will be adjusted between India and UAE.

If the Indian and Emirate contracts come through, French requirements will be serviced in a 5th tranche (2019-2021). If not the French MoD will pay for the earmarked aircraft and close the production line down. In either case, the production rate is going to remain unaffected.

Vnomad, you are correct about the critical role production rates play in achieving cost reductions… despite the amusing speculation by some. (wishful thinking? :confused:)

Here is the opinion of someone actually involved in the program:

Some 80% of targeted cost improvements have been tied to boosting F-35 annual production rates from 40 to more than 100, but the latest push includes possible changes to manufacturing facilities and processes or even part of the jet’s design to improve affordability, said Sean Stackley, the Navy’s acquisition chief, following a two-day meeting with contractors at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

http://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-and-military-aircraft/articles/f-35-weekly-update-13th-june-2014/

…But who are you going to believe? :highly_amused: