I thought the goal with the higher bandwith was to use the block III super hornets and the upgraded block IIs more as shooters for the F-35s, I thought that was independent on NIFC-CA. Which doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been used for other things.

I still wonder if the pod capacity provision could not be used one way or another to help the F-15Cs communicate with the F-35s or F-22s, without having to rely on gateways mounted on dedicated planes. I know the F-35 can emit on link-16 and that the F-22 will be upgraded for that but a much faster gateway could maybe help, all the more that the tactical situation change very quickly during air-to-air combat. It could help for data fusion for instance.

Regarding the LREW design above, apparently the booster has the same diameter as the second stage. Considering that, would it make sense to jettison the booster after it is used? It seems to me if the missile keeps the booster, the mass will be higher so intertia will be higher so the missile will slow down more slowly. If the booster’s diameter were larger it would be different because the booster would have a impact on drag.

Also, if the booster is kept, why not while you’re at it make it a dual pulse design and integrate long chord wings like on the ESSM to make it coast better?

The first stage could be jettisonned about 10-20km from the target, and then the second stage motor would be optimized to regain energy and aerodynamics would be optimized for maneuvrability.

I imagine also that with a boostered design it would be easier to make several variants. For instance a longer range variant with a bigger booster could be used by the F-15Cs and the F-18s on their conformal stations and some of their wing pylons. If the diameter of the booster is larger it would have to be jettisoned after it’s been used.

I believe a typhoon can guide a meteor launched by another meteor, but not via link-16. But I don’t think an F-35 could guide a meteor launched by a typhoon, but it could guide an SDB II given that the SDB II has link-16.

Personally I’d still go with an off-boresight missile. All the more that AIM-9X seeker has probably a range of 10-20km depending on whether the missile is detected in the forward or aft sector so it can be used as a long range WVR missile or near BVR missile if the situation présents itself. And IIR sensors are harder to fool that older IR sensors.

A gun would be usefull maybe 1-3 percent of the time in a2a, a missile much more than that.

Would I have tried to use the internal volume of the gun and ammo magazine for an extra AMRAAM or an off boresight missile, not sure, the AMRAAM takes more space.

Bring_it_on, I’m not sure a hit to kill missile like CUDA would fit both roles, maybe. I’ve heard there’s also a program for directional warheads, probably more for the AMRAAM successor, or even perhaps the AMRAAM himself. The AMRAAM is lacking in terminal maneuvrability due to its lack of sustained thrust at long range, so maybe a directional warhead would help.

Maybe a modular concept would make the weapon easier to upgrade. For instance they could swap the motor if a new one becomes available. Imagine if they could for instance swap the existing 120D motors with a ramjet or whatever, that would be nice..

Frankly they should look at the possibility of more modular missiles, with several motors for instance, one for the quadruple launcher and one for a 12′ missile with 7″ diameter. 4 long range and 4 shorter range missiles would be a good loadout.

[RIGHT][/RIGHT]

Really? All? Let’s look at the F-22, Rafale, F-35, tejas, J-11, some Su-35. Super light shade right?

Only a child can’t admit when their wrong. Done with you for now, you really should be ashamed over your temper tantrum this last few pages.

I should be ashamed because what, kid? because a narcissist idiot told be I should be?

A narcissist that can’t figure out why a plane designed for 50% a2a and 50% a2g and that would spend its most of its missions at medium/ high altitude due to its stealth should be painted in light color? What kind of new retard is that?

And btw in case you have missed it in the discussion, they ARE going to paint it in light grey. So much for you calling me wrong. Can’t get any worse than that for a arrogant narcissist.

F-35 radar has more T/R modules than even PAK-FA’s radar. Unless they use vastly different frequency ( which is highly unlikely because of resolution and what not), F-35 do have a bigger radar than Eurofighter.

The Caesar antenna will be a bit larger though, and can rotate, which is a interesting capability for a2a.

Still doesn’t mean that the F-35 couldn’t have had a larger radar with minimal consequences, except for the extra weight for the stovl variant.

Those statement would need to be backed up by hard data. You don’t know how much radar range will improve or how much it would affect aircraft signature , aerodynamic and weight

Do you really need hard data for that? If having an almost straight forward fuselage to have a large radar in front was that bad, most fighters capable of mach 2+ wouldn’t be designed like that.

I don’t think so. They look the same,there may be 2-3 cm different but offered no advantage for backward visibility.If visibility was top piriority then the canopy will look more like F-16’s

Your 2 pictures are not from the same angle. If you look at pictures from the same angle you’ll see the difference is probably about 10cm. If the cockpit is elevated by 10cm that means that the radar would be 20cm more in diameter, that might be a bit too much.

Note also that the edge on the side of the F-35 fuselage is at an angle ( up towards the intake ), contrarily to that of the T-50, so that gives the illusion from those pictures that the difference is not much.

Highly unlieky, if you change the canopy shape then alot others factors like aerodynamic and siganture will change. I don’t think they want to do all the test again

DUH! Of course I’m not talking about changing the shape now. You think about that when you design the plane. And btw, when they did the requirement for the plane they didn’t expect that the JSF would face stealth planes that soon, and that it would be so late. The Chinese have had plenty of time to study the F-35 and may well have chosen a larger antenna deliberately to be on par.

Now I was thinking about that yesterday, if they are looking at an F-35 derivative for the future a2a dominance fighter to save costs vs a new gen plane, maybe modifying the forward fuselage for a larger antenna and exploit the extra width for side arrays could be an idea… Of course there would a CoG issue to solve. Bigger modifications than that have been done on other planes. Think Su-34 for instance

These F-16s have a special coating for low RCS for the SEAD role, it has nothing to do with visibility issues.