Not sure why you thnk it wasn’t sleek. Looks sleek to me.

So do you think the engineers arbitrarily gave up on the aircraft being stealth ? And that’s why its there ? Or do you think the engineers are unaware and if only you could inform them, they would remove it ?

Again. Do you think the engineers missed this ?

More engine fan is exposed in the YF 23 intakes than the F 22 Raptor yet the YF 23 had better all around stealth than the Raptor. This fact doesn’t put your theories about the non stealthieness of the sphere or canopy in a very good light.

The onus is on you to provide the data that proves this. So far, you havn’t.

Not really, the cockpit height is quite large.

Not sure but a sphere on the front of the aircraft does not cater well for RCS reduction.

I’m not here to read minds but flat edge pointing forward is not stealthy.

It had better stealth than the YF-22 allegedly not necessarily the F-22. Even non-stealth aircraft have taken measures to avoid a visible engine face.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADP011111

It’s already been covered.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137788-F-35-News-and-discussion-(2016)-take-III&p=2338395#post2338395

The Flanker and the Fulcrum have had IRSTs since the mid 80’s, so that argument doesn’t hold.

The JSF was designed for subsonic range and no more than F-16/F-18 speed because it was meant to be multirole, not because supercruise was considered useless or almost useless.

And the F-117 has existed since 1983, so the argument does hold valid.

Well it isn’t an interceptor, that much is true, but trends in air combat studies have shown that higher speed increases detectability. There’s little point in taking measures to improve IR stealth and then flying at such a speed that it makes them almost irrelevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmGRn7GirS0

I would almost consider you a troll, but you do understand why MiG-25 is faster with its lower wing area, so you definately are not, I still don’t get why you understand my point. STR envelope is not as wide as you think.

You accuse me of picking an arbitrary point, and I’ve kept repeating myself one arbitrary point is enough to prove you are wrong. Fine, lets have it your way.

Between 1000m and 11000m, clean MiG-29 with 1500k fuel (in other words lowest Cd0 possible) can sustain between 0,51 to 0,69 Cl. I can expand that envelope further if you like, but aerodynamics manual give only values of 1000m, 5000m and 11000m, I would have to use German MiG-29G manual, but that gives IAS not TAS, I am simply too lazy to convert them all.

And I’ve marked those 3 points (0,51 0,54 and 0,69) on the L/D graph of the manual:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248452[/ATTACH]

Though you are right in a sense that a slight increase in wing area on clean MiG-29 would increase max STR performance in this case (25% decrease in Cl increases STR up to 4%), those are extreme points, max available STR. This just steepens the graph, you get a negligibly higher max STR value, but it would cost STR values lower speeds, less than max G excess powers at max STR airspeed, 1G climb rate.

To give realistic numbers, 9Gs at Cl=0,51, MiG-29 is most efficient (by 4%) when sustaining 7Gs at same speed, and it lift efficiency at 5,3Gs is exactly equal to what it is at 9Gs. Increase wing area, make it most efficient at 9Gs, and it will have higher max STR (by 4%), but its efficiency will drop at 7Gs (by 7,1% of original) , and it will drop further at 5Gs (by 12% of original).

It wouldn’t be the case if air density allows the aircraft to achieve its max STR at Cl=0,69, every increase would bring “usable” Cl area more closer to the more efficient points.

Hence, I will repeat a 100th time, Wing loading is not an automatic, direct indicator of better performance. Its a trade-off like any other parameter in the design of the aircraft.

1- That in itself, has nothing to do with higher maneuverability, that instability is eventually compensated by elevators, higher instability = higher elevator deflection. If that passes the max L/D point of the elevator, it gets more inefficient.
2- My graph isn’t a percentage of instability, it shows elevator deflection angle to keep constant Gs at given speeds.

You are avoiding the factual answer to my question. On Typhoon Rafale Mirage 2k, elevators are the flaps of the main wing, they act in exactly same manner as Su-27M or F-4/15 testbeds. and 99% of the time canards are just canards. So your assumption canards work on deltas because they lack tail is invalid.

Well that was exeggareation/BS; take M2k’s 0,9-1,1 mutliply it by 1,15-1,25 for canards, you get my estimate of 1-1,37 for Typhoon. Not a tad higher than that, just as Su-27’s estimate is not a tad higher than MiG-21-Su-27 comparison.

It was not, my guess was it can be anything between two numbers, and guess what, its a number between them. Its lower then my highest estimate.

Don’t get THAT low. Take a chronometer and measure, 12,8 seconds. Then your video wasn’t 15 seconds it was 16,1 seconds anyway, and it seemed slowing down as well and not making a circle but spiral. You can’t sustain an ITR for 360 degrees, you can’t sustain it even for 90 degrees.

Using very low fuel = true, otherwise there is no way Su-27 can sustain 28 deg/s, its STR at 50% fuel is 21,75.

Removing s*** from aircraft is not so easy, especially for maneuverability. I won’t even get into that.

Good old Su-27, at farnborough (for your “safety” concerns), and operational aircraft (for your radar removed concerns)

Starting around 4:26, 14,7 seconds full 360 turn then vertical climb, then barrel rolls to slow down:

Your 1st and and that 15-16 second turn in last video were impressive nonetheless, but honestly, 2nd and 3rd and remainder of 4th is still not any better than this (forewarning the videos volume is a little to high):

I don’t know, frankly I don’t care that much about quoting someone. It was on the wikipedia, you can follow the citation link.

I don’t understand why you don’t understand my point. In level flight, or at none arduous g, smaller wings are better, but as soon as Cl increases, the equation dictates that drag increases with the square of Cl.

The calculation clearly shows that larger wing area will be a benefit at lower speeds or lower air density due to needing lower Cl to achieve the same turns.

Well you should understand that I don’t speak Russian, so unless you say what the axis are, I won’t know. I was assuming the Xt % was instability margin. The instability makes an aircraft easier to turn and reduces trim drag.

With a tail, the tail is balancing to moment about the CoG already, so the canard has no need to produce downforce, and hence no need to speed up airflow over the wing in producing that downforce, this is why they are positioned level or even slightly below the wing. So it’s apples to oranges.

With a delta, the canard is above the wing, so the faster airflow under the canard increases lift for the wing.

So you’re correcting you BS estimate now that it’s worked against you?:stupid:

Your estimates suck.

Nah, your video was 14-15s at least. My video is with a drop tank and the aircraft climbs during the turn and it also looks like the pilot eases up 4s in to avoid blacking out.

Again 15s and descending during the turn.

Why are you showing an F-4?

Wow, quote on wiki, must be true.

As I said before, you were shown, but you chose to disbelieve the answer you were given. But you cannot realistically expect an air force or missile company to declassify trials results just to keep you happy.

As has already been pointed out, the information in question was published (and went unchallenged) in a professional magazine directed at the EW community.

Let’s break down this quote to isolate the opinion from the fact:

Just how did you derive these figures? How many aviation journalists did you talk to in order to gather the data?

I have met several aviation journalists in recent years, but they are not ‘drinking buddies’ so I cannot claim to have any knowledge of how they operate. But to borrow your own words, “Methinks that’s opinion and artistic license.”

I would take “It can determine a target’s bearing, and to some extent, it’s range” as indicating that:

* range perhaps cannot always be determined
* the range data may be of limited accuracy

I would take “It can even provide mid-course guidance for AMRAAMS” as meaning what it says. The sentence contains no information as to the quality and accuracy of the mid-course guidance, so we can only speculate on how good it is.

‘To some extent range’ are the words used. That is not going to give accurate information for a mid-course range and velocity update. Sorry, that’s Bill inferring and giving an opinion.

I see no reason why the trials would be classified. The exact details and technology in the avionics for sure would be, but not some rough overview of the trial with a loose but not accurate guide to the range of the engagement. I’m afraid this is just the all too common an excuse used when not being able to substantiate claims. If the capability was truly classified, as you claim, then Bill would be in prison for disclosing it, or the person who disclosed it to him would be in prison, depending on who had signed the official secrets act. This is where this kind of gambit falls down I’m afraid. It can’t be classified and not classified simultaneously.

Using the same method as that detailed in the quote 😀 and having read significant literature in the field in question. Some material doesn’t even pass the wikipedia test (i.e. what you could expect most to know), let alone the SME test. I’ve seen claims that were obviously false and even self-contradictory.

So PIRATE IRST must have the same capability given that it can a) determine bearing very accurately (more so than RWR) and provide passive ranging data (again no mention of quality)??? I’m sorry but the ‘to some extent range’ statement disqualifies that which is stated after it.

Or is it a matter that it comes back to my much earlier statement, it may work in the very near BVR, but will probably be unsuccessful at longer ranges?

The radar could provide an accurate velocity vector at launch, so the missile knows in which direction to go to have a lead.

And by mid-course that could have all changed completely. It could have a similar bearing, but a different speed and heading, meaning the missile doesn’t get close enough for seeker lock.

Mmh not too convinced… Check the drawings for the 6th gens, they look damn fast.

The drawings look static to me.

Why did they make the F-22 capable of that kind of speed?

To cover ground for intercepts quicker. At the time stealth vs stealth wasn’t such a consideration because no enemy had anything similar on the horizon.

What I define as sufficient speed is a speed at which the F-35 would not be completely outclassed. Fighting a PAK-Fa which can supercruise at mach 1.8 with a plane which can supercruise at mach 1.2 (it can hardly do it with the current F135 ) is definitely a disadvantage. If at least if it could do 1.4, that would be well above the transsonic regime. Maybe also the top speed could be increased to around 1.8 to reduce its disadvantage in top speed.

With more SC capability, the IR signature would be significantly reduced, as the plane wouldn’t have to use its reheat as much.

If the aircraft is to be used to enter in enemy airspace it is better to have maximum stealth from all angle, including from the ground.

An aircraft at M1.8 has a huge IR signature, supercruise of not. Supercruise doesn’t stop the wings and surrounding air heating up.

Flying directly over a SAM site will never be stealthy.