well, the problem was that the wire was smacked down against the deck by the wheels passing over it and it didn’t have the time to rise back up for the hook to catch it.

The new hook has it’s “apex point” below the center of the wire now. This is no longer a significant issue.

EODAS is already on the edge of obsolence.

Really? Considering that NOBODY has anything operational like it, how is it obsolete? You don’t know it’s size, it’s capabilities, etc and you are assuming it will never get upgraded.

Just FYI, the resolution the EODAS offers is identical to the resolution of a pocket-size imager I got on my table as we speak.

It’s job is not to ID (that belongs to EOTS), but to track. You do not need hi res to track. Again, you are assuming it never gets an upgrade.

As for the mentioned 650 parameters for identification of a potential threat, it is a strictly software thing -(un)fortunately quite easy to upgrade with simple software updates. These don’t even have to be integrated with the particular 4th gen aircraft – a modern targeting pod will do..

Source? Thought not.

Swing and a miss.

btw, The F-35 is massively software driven. So as you upgrade admitted to, it will be easy to increase it’s capabilities. This is another benefit to the F-35 vs other 4th gen systems (low cost to develop due to large customer base, low cost to upgrade due to software driven, and low time to upgrade since it’s mostly software).

Understood.

You’re referencing the system as a whole rather than speaking directly about the hook-to-wire interface.

Recent tests showed 5 of 8 traps with the 3 missing ones due to the hook not being in the right place. In other words, every time the wire met the hook, the hook grabbed it.

This was done without a new damper.

So now it’s down to:
– Testing the new damper (to keep the hook on the deck longer)
– Software updates (to land the F-35 in the right spot)
– Pilot training (to use the FCS properly)

Yes, only one wire on the test pad, IIRC.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/engines+have+ingested+birds+since+1988/7275133/story.html

Not only does that article not say anything about the CF-18 being safer than the F-35, it makes no mention of how the CF-18s were damaged by the birds.

btw, The F-35 has gone through ingestion testing.

You’re making too many assumptions when trying to come up with an RCS value. You’re assuming that the study had access to all the info, you’re assuming that it references an RCS reduction of 95% rather than a detection rage reduction, you’re assuming that it’s referencing a 4th gen 5m2 value as a baseline, you’re assuming that they would give you the actual RCS value rather than the minimum goal of the program, you’re assuming, you’re assuming, etc

From that you present your analysis as fact and expect the rest of us to go along. Not gonna happen.

Swing and a miss

Ohhh, so close. You almost have learned the lesson of providing sources when making absurd claims.

I was under the impression that you knew about this; every F-35 critic does. You surprised me by not knowing this critical piece of information, so I overestimated you.

Still no source?

My bad on SFC as I was just throwing numbers…

Here is some that I found.

F119-PW-100
(MIL) 25,000lbs @ (~0.800?) lb/HR/lb st (Speculation varies between 0.600 – 0.860…)
(MAX) 37,000lbs @ (~1.950?) lb/HR/lb st

So AB is either 2.5:1 to 3:1 -ish in fuel consumption.

What that does not show, however, is at what speed, altitude, and drag penalties are involved. Since we are talking about drag penalties for <= MIL only we need more detail.

For that you need a chart like:

If even F-22 cannot stay over M1.0, then what is the supercruise feature good for?

The basic idea of supercruise, as I understand it, is that your fighter spends MOST OF THE TIME in the supersonic region, so that it immediately enjoys speed advantage whenever an unexpected encounter occurs. Much like MiG-31, only without AB.

If USAF fly their Raptors in subsonic, then they basically negate all the F-22s were designed for..

You cannot negate physics. Supersonic drag will suck gas at a much higher rate than subsonic. The point of supercruise is that you can still go >M without using your AB.

Here is a LM F-22 site: http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html

The range listed at the bottom is 410nm with only 100 of it being supercruise. If the F-22 wanted to spend it’s entire time in supercruise, its overall range would be <300 as I’ve seen quotes of supercruise requiring twice the gas as subsonic for the F-22.