=pfcem;1347158]Mach 1.6 is the top speed KPP THRESHOLD, not Mach limit. It is in fact a MINIMUM limit.
There’s also a limit…
So start realising some of us are actualy educated over here and show us an official source saying precisely this.
MIMIMUM limit, not maximum limit (if it did not meet or exceed Mach 1.6 it would not be accepted). YOU have a serious reading comprehension problem.
I know damned well what KPPs are but you seems to ignore FACTS they dont talk in terms of KPP nowhere there but design goal and limits or specifications for some good reasons.
I don’t have to tell them anything, you however should ask the to please stop confusing you…
You’re probably confused yourself with figures you read elsewhere like as for in “Requierements”?
These are predicted performances from design goals and LIMITS, NOT KPP THRESHOLDS.
A CLEAR case in point. See the document you referenced…it says “450-600nm Range”. Guess what. JUST LIKE MACH 1.6 IS A KPP THRESHOLD, 450nm (for the F-35B) & 600nm (for the F-35A) are KPP THRESHOLDs AND is COMBAT RADIUS (including reserves for combat action) not range.
A CLEAR case in point it doesn’t SAY nowhere KPP THRESHOLD but LIMIT or simply M 1.6 as for SPECIFICATIONS which is cristal clear since KPP THRESHOLD were part of L-M design goal.
As far as i’m concerned LIMIT out of requierements, and SPECIFICATIONS implies designed structural or aerodynamic KNOWN VALUES not “Minimum” limits and if they did their job properly, they don’t have to talk in terms of KPP THRESHOLD about the Mach LIMIT since the last Critical Design Review.
L-M knows for which Mach they designed it and have certainly CG-VALIDATED their design long ago or at least they atempted to, they also went through an extensive wing-tunnel test programme for EACH Critical Design Review…
About the “range” example you are giving, you simply forget that WEIGHT, ENGINE, INLET and SYSTEMS performances were some issues at the time of publication of one of the doc (Jan 2007) and still ARE to some large extend.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/24/319197/lockheed-delays-first-f-35-stovl-flight-again-but-engine-fix.html
This is naturaly traded vs range which is certainly the hardest thing to compute (As opposed to Mach limits) due to engine and inlet performances variables, and variables, there ARE since the first flight…
What they still DON’T know is the result of the fixes following their few development issues such as engine blade or power failure to name only a few, once they will have fine tuned the aircraft they will be able to talk range because they will have proper datas on it.
For the time being they only can give validated (by simulation) designed limits and Mach is one they already know.
As you seem to pass on ONE more reality yourself; the ~ as for “1.200 mph” = quiet logical since Mach is a constant value weither airspeed is NOT, so what? No talk about KPP THRESHOLD here? Got it?…
Read NELLIS handbook they’ll explain this to you in no uncertain terms.
=Mick;1347107]Possibly, but there is a lot of work going on with the UK defence industry on UAV technology, and not just covering the actual platforms.
Mick i’m way OFF to even try to deny this but there are economical realities in the EUs which means that it is highly unlikely for ANY European country to develop and produce an UCAV on its own.
At least EADS had the honnesty to reconise that, so did DGA simply because they already had the technology ready and budget for Grand Duc as early as 2003 before eventualy realising that it wouldn’t be armed with that sort of money and that developing the weapon bay could be very costly.
De-facto it was and they had to open the programme to european partners in order to allow for the whole systems to be developed properly…
More to it there are also historical realities meaning BAe had to design and build TWO TDPs in order only to keep up with SAAB and Dassault which had a clear lead at the time.
Mike Turner was lobbying MoD in order to keep up “with the rest of europe” as he did put it at the time which in fact meant Dassault and SAAB; he got Corax and Raven, full size yes but YEARS behind too…
Where they all are technologicaly is unclear in the case of the nEUROn team but i know the UK (MoD sources) still have some work to do on the IR signature Dpt only to develop the technology necessary for it (and that SAAB took the mickey into claiming nEUROn to be the first FULLY stealth platform in the EUs), based on MoD own staments on technology they aren’t far from being right, regardless of the number of UAVs developed and designed in the UK.
So what is happening in the UKs right now is i think what was going on with dassault at the time minus a few years thanks to Turner and his two TDPs.
It doesn’t matter too much for Dassault if Taranis fly earlier, they have it wraped up and financed, they were the first in the EUS to get there and they also retained design leadership which is what matters for them in order to develop and maintain design skills.
The nEUROn team is already at technology feasability studies stages for the successor of Tornados and Mirage 2000 (EFCS of course not those in French service) at DGA request as well as an operational version of nEUROn at an even more advanced stage.
One of the conceiptual drawings to be find on Dassault website ressembles F-23 strongly…
EFCS: Not a bad thing.
Everyone else in europe is developing L.O now depending on budgets at different levels of technologic advance.
Neuron is aiming at a level of stealth not attempted before in continental Europe.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw071408p1.xml
Eight of the 13 technology efforts were related to radar and infrared low-observability.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw071408p1.xml
Now if i compare this with what i read from MoD sources, there is a technologic gap of a few years and BTW the stealth weapon bay is obviously part of the 8 technology efforts mentioned by the article and a hell of a costly one too…
=radar;1345609]you are right, if you want to have a single, well balanced radar, s-band is the choice but how many non-aegis aaw-ships are using only a single radar?
The T-45 and Horizon doesn’t need the equivalent of the SPY, they do not guide the ASTER in the terminal phase of the engagement ASTER posses its own seeker.
The reason for the developement of the T-45 SAMPSON radar, was the will of MoD to give it the ability to fire and guide BOTH SM2s and ASTER which is not the case of the EMPAR but doesn’t mean it is less capable when using ASTERs…
As for the Thales S 1850M surveillance radar, for the story, when it was turned ON in Brest for the first tests they figured they could easaly monitor the trafic over Paris Roissy…
Just to give you an idea…
The design is quiet interesting and i strongly believe SAAB already have the right level of expertise to pull it off their hat.
But for everyboy benefit; i just bring you a not-so-fresh news (June 2007).
The nEUROn team is already at technology feasability studies stages for the successor of Tornados and Mirage 2000 (of course not those in French service) at DGA request as well as an operational version of nEUROn at an even more advanced stage.
One of the conceiptual drawings to be find on Dassault website ressembles F-23 strongly…
EFCS: Not a bad thing.
Yes, US-based subsidiaries of BAE Systems and GKN Aerospace doing some work on the avionics and fuselage structure. Smiths Aerospace was providing the landing gear, but they are part of General Electric now.
Here goes..
Since i dont anticipate an improvement in MoD finances any time soon, you got a clue as to how MoD are (snickyly) planning to get their intercontionental UCAV in the future.
Obviously it doesn’t flater some egos but it is a much more realistic PoV.
Here a composite of MoD stament on Taranis programme goals…
LordAssap,
What part of KPP (Key Performance Parameter) THRESHOLD (MINIMUM acceptable) do you not understand?
What part of DESIGNED Mach LIMIT do you not understand?
It’s pretty CLEAR that a designed which LIMIT is M 1.6 isn’t going to go any faster no?
Now go and tell L-M the doc they provide their customers is inacurate and that the Mach LIMIT for all variant is NOT the limit.:D
Sign In
