I think everyone here would appreciate this : estimate performance of US aircraft :
This reminds me of comparison between F-16/79 and F-16C, J79 engine have lower thrust than F-110 series so F-16C is better at BFM, however due to lower bypass ratio of the J79, F-16/79 can fly higher amd faster than normal F-16C
no offense garry, but i dont think you or anyone else on this board has anything to teach msphere on IR cameras
Your comment is not directing at me , but I too remember that Msphere did mentioned once ,very long time ago that he work on IR camera or something similar and i did believe it at the point , but reading his comments now , i have to say iam very sceptical of that
Now add this gold coating to material with 60% base transmissivity. Even worse.
No , the gold coating act as the reflection layer but the absorbing panel already included the reflection layer (ITB010 ) and absorbing layer (ITB0390) in it , in other words the 60% transmissivity of the glass panel is with both reflective layer , absorbing layer and the Polycarbonate
So, there is no facts of its existence in F-22 and F-35?
all we know is that F-22 canopy used a thin layer of indium tin oxide, no official information about what used on F-35 or B-2 or PAK-FA , or J-20 canopy or what kind of RAS they have ..etc , but that quite normal that there are classified aspect when it come to military equipment.All we can do now is speculate
I dunno what about US made canopy glass, but Russian polycarbon glass used for canopy glass production has 90% optical transmissivity.
http://viam.ru/optical_glass
The canopy with 90 % transmissitivity is the one without gold coating ( aka completely transparent , commonly used on aircraft where RCS isnot important) like this :
As soon as you add a reflective gold layer , the canopy don’t have 90% transmissivity anymore
While TDK ITB RAM has “over 60%”. https://product.tdk.com/info/en/catalog/datasheets/e9e_bdj_003.pdf
the panel with transmissivity of > 60% was designed to absorb electromagnetic wave with frequency of 5.8 Ghz , since the glass is a 1/4 wavelength absorber , it will be alot thinner if it was designed to absorb radar frequency of 8-12 Ghz ,thus will have higher transsmissivity
other mechanical characteristics which are unclear and may be not sufficient to by used for canopy production.
the main component are indiumn oxide and Polycarbonate which is actually what used on fighter canopy , it is also shock resistantce , i see little reason why it cant be used on fighter
Yes. But didn’t, they discover this way earlier with F-16 and have blue..?
neither F-16 or Have blue take advantages of continuous curve to reduce RCS.I assume you are thinking about Tacit Blue program
Ermm…this commercial RAM has very poor optical transmissivity and unclear mechanical and thermal characteristics. Not every material is suitable for such thing as canopy glass.
70% transmissivity is very good , not poor at all , the transmissivity of Have glass on F-16 isnot any better.Clear heat absorbing window glass and solar control window glasses have about 60 to 75 percent transmittance. That 70% transmittance is about equal to light tinted sunglasses like sporting sunglasse. The main component of this commercial radar absorbed glass are indium tin oxide and Polycarbonate which are actually quite common on fighter canopy
Stealth jets like the F-117..?
What did LM discover between F-117 and F-22 as far as canopy glass and shape are concerned?
continuous curve
Does F-22 or F-35 canopy contain such a RAM layer?
Iam quite sure they do , given that transparent RAM available commercially and these are billions dollars weapon programs
You know, somehow I find this funny, because you have a huge glass from the canopy that is not faceted, and suddenly designers are worried of a small section of glass that must be faceted.
the canopy is bigger but at very shallow angle compared to the IRST , we know for a fact that a plate can have very difference RCS depending o the angle of it relative to the radar so this likely to be the similar case. Also it is unlikely that it just a coincident that all previous stealth aircrafts have faceted IRST
Inetrnal RAM?! Sounds strange. Who would need the RAM behind the reflecting coating?
No, the RAM is placed between the canopy normal frame and the inner gold coating , you can imagine it like this , the canopy have several layer , the outer most layer is Acrylic then come Polycarbonate , after that is the RAM coating , then the inner most layer is a thin layer of gold to prevent the radar wave from entering the cockpit .
When there is a huge metallized(i.e. ideally reflecting in RF) canopy, after all – who will care about some tiny IRST station?!
Canopy can be coated with internal transparent RAM layer too
Stealth techniques
And where is the problem? There are other posters like Vnomad, Spud, FBW, Broccoli, hopsalot or others who do exactly the opposite.. always disagree if there’s a negative report/analysis and agree if there’s a positive one.. the world needs balance… 🙂
I dont mind people having agenda , but you need to be consistent , and dont deny something too obvious ,none of the people you mentioned even deny that they like the F-35
Simple.. It can take-off , land
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APuYyfq12ts
fire a missile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EnttHIgx8s
refuel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5ZmecTtqRI
its system crashing every 30 minutes...
source ?
There are few problems with your statement..
#1 Rafale is not my favorite aircraft (although I like it)
#2 My personal dislike for the F-35 is unimportant here.. the myriad of sources, articles and reports showing the aircraft as P.O.S./disaster, etc. is important, though
There are various reports , testimony , analysis of the F-35 that were posted here, some are negative , some are positive , but the thing is your position has always been disagree if it a positive report/analysis , agree if it is a negative one , Your agenda is very clear to everyone here so iam not sure what the point of you denying my statement
Let take recent example :You dislike this Denmark evaluation , saying the people who do the analysis never fly the aircraft , but not long ago you actually quoted analysis from Picard and Carlo Kopp and said that they are legit eventhough you know full well neither of them ever fly the F-35.
#3 If were were to judge the F-35 solely on its actual capabilities, then it would hardly beat even a MiG-29..
Alright give it a shot ,explain then , in exactly what way is the Mig-29 has better capabilities than F-35 ?
Of course it is totally different.. Because if Rafale is chosen, then we know that a well designed, established system has been chosen.. albeit a costly one, no doubt about it.. But choosing the F-35 based on mission effectiveness is like electing a horse for a president.. that cannot be even meant seriously..
In short, if your favorite aircraft (Rafale) was chosen then you will think that was because it was so well designed, have great capabilities.. etc, if the platform you hate (F-35) was choosen then you would blame the evaluation for being inaccurate, unfair.. etc
Basically, it has to do with your agenda rather than actual capabilities of the fighters