AA-1 came within ~100 lbs (may have been ~125 lbs – the point is that it was VERY close) of its projected weight.

I might be mistaken here, but the earlier weight figures given were all noticeabley lower than 13 t. So if this was the projected weight I question why a weight reduction was seen to be necessary and where the lower figures earlier stated did come from. Ok so far it has been said that the over weight was affecting the B model not the other ones. It looks like they have adjusted the weight afterwards and then “matched” the projected weight. Feel free to correct me on that.

So external tanks drop its top speed SIGNIFICANTLY…

It does yes. Though ~M 0.4 for 3 tanks is not bad if you ask me and that is still a quite high speed for 3 tanks.

With less than a full load of fuel the Flanker has AWESOME agility DESPITE its size & weight. The same will prove to be the case for the F-35…

But you can’t have all of that at the same time and there is the limitation, which shouldn’t be forgotten. In the end every solution is a compromise with pros/cons and you have to take into account the requirements and weight those different factors against each other.

LOL! We figured this one long ago since all what you don’t know (a LOT) is rooted there including STANDARDS, DEFINTIONS, PROGRAMMES REQUIEREMENTS etc.

There is indeed a lot I don’t know, no problem to admit that. But your contineously accusations against me for knowing nothing is nothing else than a personal attack based on unreasoned grounds.

It is what it IS, NOT what you ignorant fantasist keep making up.

No fantasies, facts. Operational ceiling is the upper limit expressed by the word “ceiling” itself. I you don’t grab that it’s not my problem, but your fault!

You are.

Well copycating the offensive, provocative way of your style to lead discussions yes. Just for you, maybe you learn that this is no way of a civilised discussion. I have taken mutiple approaches of a friendly way, despite the negative experiences of the past, but that didn’t prevent you from coming up with such crappy accusations etc. Maybe that’s the only way you figure out that this is annoying to say the least.

Sure thing my dear Scorpion. When someone posts his own minister and top squadron official information i LEARN from it i dont TRY to pretend i know better as you do.

All nice, but you have to understand what they actually say. But it seems to be in your nature to interprete things YOUR way, which isn’t what these officials had in mind when releasing this or that information.

Proof positive that YOU invent what you write to your convenience.

I invent nothing, I stick with what I get told, read or experience myself. There might be errors here or there, sure, but I’m just a human and humans make errors. That includes you as well!

JSF was rooted WAY before this but as always you prefer to blank out the goodies.

No question that the root which eventuelly led to the JSF date back to earlier times, but you simply ignore the fact that the USMCs requirements head to be harmonised with that of the USAF and USN and that their requirements had a significant impact on the design.

Copy/paste

Do you want to blame me for what you are doing on a regulare base?

and usual mediocre comprehension of the impact on F-35 (see below)…

Oh thank you, that must be a compliment from “no comprehension to medicore comprehension”:diablo:

SEA harrier havent ANYTHING to do with Harrier II but the USMC Harrier II+ might, there is a good reason why, if you’re smart enough you’ll figure why.:D:D:D

BTW RN never specified SH replacement as requierement, you’re still INVENTING stuff here.

READ:

ASTOVL aircraft for the USMC and Royal Navy (RN)

The Royal Navy operated Sea Harriers not Harrier II. It just operates Harrier II (in form of the GR.7/9) since the Sea Harrier was withdrawn from service and the Harrier Joint Force was formed and that’s just a few years ago. So what was this new aircraft for, if not a replacement for the Sea Harrier? Do you think they just called for a new aircraft and keep the Sea Harrier flying?:diablo:

AGAIN i never claimed NO impact since supersonic DASH and internal weapon were part of USAF requierements but it is certainly NOT designed as a LWF.

The supersonic capability was already required by the USMC/RN and later studies called for a stealthy aircraft either, before any JOINT was underway. No one said the JSF was designed/required to be like the LWF, but the fact remains that the USAF/USN had requirements to replace the F-16 and F/A-18 in the AA roles as well not just in the AG roles. The USN even need a replacement for the F-14, which has become the F/A-18E/F more as a kind of temporary solution, because it was available on time.

I’ve stated previously that I agree that LPI isn’t NPI. The point of LPI is that RWR/ESM systems have to recognize the LPI signal as that of a fire control radar, before they will be of use defensively.

True and there is where the problem might be. As said this might perfectly work against older RWRs, but it might be more difficult with latest tech RWR/ESM systems. Note that I don’t say it is or it is not.

How effective have the RWR/ESM systems of the F-15/16/18 been at detecting the F-22?

No idea, about that part pretty much nothing has been released. There were talks about the inability to detect the F-22 with radar or to lock on AIM-9s, but I can’t remember to have read that RWR weren’t able to do so.

Would you suspect that they have pretty up to date digital signal processing/filtering? The Super Hornet’s avionics/sensors are every bit as up to date as any threat aircraft

Super Hornet yes, F-15 and F-16 not necessarily.

and the Raptor has still managed to perform as advertised.

It has performed well against its adversaries in exercises yes, doesn’t tell you much about RWR performance and LPI at all…

Granted you’re still going to want to limit emissions, but LPI is not going to be the huge torch in the dark sky, that conventional modes are.

No one said that it is a huge torch in the sky;)

Just to put things in a relative: I’m just trying to make you guys understand that LPI is no magic and that an LPI radars transmissions can still be detected! Not more not less.

I see, I don’t remember anything like that…Do you have any more details or sources about that, and about the 2000lt tank(s) under consideration, please? (Don’t take it the wrong way, not saying it’s not true or anything)

I found this: (Old news I know) http://www.eurofighter.com/news/article10.asp it says that it had flown “with subsonic 1500 litre tanks” and “The 1500 litre tank is the largest that the aircraft will carry”So, was that one of the reasons the 1500lt tanks were rejected, cause they were “Subsonic” tanks?

Yes as said the 1500 l tanks were tested and even jettisioned by DA3 back in the 90s, but they were subsequently deleted from the requirements as not being supersonic capable.
This was said in the Eurofighter special of AFM & AI from december 2003. It was also stated that “However, there is a possibility that a 2000 l tank could be developed”.

Another quote from an offical Eurofighter briefing from 2002:
“Possible enhancements include 440 Imp gal (2000 l) drop tanks and associated inboard pylon wet station…”

If you look at more recent images in the Eurofighters marketing brochures you’ll also find some images with a multi-role loadout including large wing tanks, similar to that of the 2000 l tank as used on the Rafale.

Let’s put that number in context………..How long could a Typhoon maintain A/B at Mach 1.6 clean vs Mach 1.6 carrying external fuel tanks!!!!

Who needs to fly at that speed sustained? You accelerate there to launch your missile with as much kinetic energy as possible. It is a short dash to increase your missiles range by a fair margin. Add a higher ceiling and you easily outrange an enemy on weapons range which uses a similar missile but flying lower and slower.

SAME; that’s because you DON’t KNOW about FACTS.

And YES you are continuously arguing against official documentation and atempting to rewrite international aviation standards even so they are writend by (for ex) the USAF Flight Test Centre.

LOL

Boy i’m the one bringing proper source, having an history of proper aerospacial education in the field and not arguing about what i don’t KNOW. 😎

Your so called history means pretty much nothing for me. Posting proper sources is one thing, being able to interpret what these sources or the people you try to discuss with tell correctly an entire different thing.;)

No you DON’t if it was the case you would’nt NEED to invent 80% of what you write and pretend that (for ex) the Operational altitude of the Mirage 2000-5F as given by A/Da Defense minister and the French top AdA squadron is not what they say. :p

It’s not what YOU mean it to be.

Scorpion you’re drifting dangerously toward copycating someone WAY above your level. Give it a rest.:(

I don’t need copycat anyone. Way above my level of ignorance & arrogance…

[QUOTE]Proof positive that YOU invent what you write to your convenience.

The JSF programme was started in August 1995 that is nothing I invented, but a fact.
I just quote you on that:

You failed to INFORM YOURSELF PROPERLY AS USUAL.

There, I suppose the early architect of the JSF programme is NOT an USN Officer and doesn’t manage to bring any evidence that JAST was the original planned JSF STVOL version which BTW was already a COMMON programme with the UKs.

ENUFF SAID.:D:D:D

ASTOVL was the name of the USMC/RN supersonic capable Harrier II replacement with initial studies running by DARPA between 1983 and 1987. The result of the studies was that an aircraft of that type wouldn’t satisfy the needs of the customers with the technologies being available. STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) followed between 1987 and 1994 with LM being involved.
It was thought that this could attract the USAF and USN as well.

The ASTOVL/SSF concepts were originally seen as developing a replacement for the U.S. and U.K. Harrier jump-jet. As the ASTOVL/SSF concepts became multi-service with the suggestion of multiple variants, the program was re-christened as the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF).

The CALF program’s aim was to develop the technologies and concepts to support the ASTOVL aircraft for the USMC and Royal Navy (RN) and a highly-common conventional flight variant for the U.S. Air Force.

The U.S. Air Force’s MRF program began in 1991 as a relatively low-cost F-16 replacement. Similar in size to the F-16, the MRF was to have been a single-seat / single-engine aircraft, with a unit flyaway cost in the range of $35 to $50 million.

In January 1991, with the cancellation of the ATA and the NATF, the Secretary of the Navy directed that planning commence for a new A-6 replacement program. This new program became the known as the A-X, an advanced, “high-end,” carrier-based multi-mission aircraft with day/night/all-weather capability, low observables, long range, two engines, two-crew, and advanced, integrated avionics and countermeasures. The Air Force participated in this new program from its initiation, still seeking a replacement for the F-111 and, in the longer term, the F-15E and F-117A.

Concurrently, as a result of the termination of the NATF in 1991, increased air-to-air requirements were added to the A-X, prompting a change in the name of the Program from Advanced Attack (A-X) to Advanced Attack/Fighter (A/F-X).

A core of A/F-X personnel performed a large portion of the working-level planning and definition of the emerging JAST Program.

The goal of the JAST program was not to have developed a new aircraft, but instead it was to mature the technologies that a new series of tactical aircraft could use.

Would you GENIUS explain us how all this could have no impact on the original USMC requirements, let alone the RN whose Sea Harriers were used for AA as well.

The BAe Hawk does it too…

So what…?

AGAIN you keep arguing in face of official documentation on a subject you can’t understand because you keep arguing instead of LEARNING.

I’m not argueing in the face of offical documentations, I’m sticking with fatcs!

If YOU don’t KNOW, it’s because you DON’t LISTEN boy. :rolleyes:

If you don’t KNOW, it’s because you are an upper arrogant chap with an unprecedented level of ignorance who tries to rewrite history.

Why dont you inform yourself properly on the program for a starter instead of asking people to do your home work for you and THEN arguing that the much informed and official sources presented to you knows less than yourself anyway.

I do inform myself, but in the face of ridiculos claims besides you, I simply ask where this crap comes from and it’s obvious it is created in your fantasy land.

I’m NOT your nanny and doesn’t DO breastfeeding (wrong gender), all your bubling just show one thing for sure; you know too little to argue at all.

Yes I indeed know too little about your weired fantasies to understand them.

Separate USAF/USN Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) and Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) projects…
Now go and get it for us genius and SHOW US which were the original JSF Customers, WHICH aircraft they operated, how long before the second joined the programme and what set of requierement they actualy ADDED to those already existing?

Hmm I fail to see where USMC and RN are mentioned in that passage:rolleyes:
The JSF programme was initiated IN 1995 following a couple of studies and requirement definitions of all three services (USAF/USN/USMC). The F-35 is derived from the F-22 suited to the requirements of all three services. If you are incapable to see the similarities between the F-22 and F-35 designs, despite the differences it’s your problem not mine. You are inventing the wheel again! The F-35 was designed as a multirole fighter with strong emphasis placed on AG, but AA was also part of the requirements that’s a simple fact you try to deny for whatever reason.