wrightwing, you don’t understand the problem, the problem, i think, is not about the space in the bay, but the space for a safe launching, you can fit another missile, but how can you launch it in a safe way? there is no enough space, can you show me the picture with 3 missiles?, for sure they need a deployable system.

Fitting 2 missiles on the bomb’s place , i still don’t see enough space for a safe launching

It sure makes it a whole lot easier to predict the RCS,

Seriously…it doesn’t make any sense for me…you are increasing the reflectivity on a conventional shape

I really doubt these new f16/mig29 and all these gold coated canopy figthers got a special system to predict where their radar returns are going.

I think people, and especially the media, like to search for overcomplicated explanations for simple things, just for the stealth sake.

Oh, and just to get some perspective on the evil spurious returns bit – two palm-sized surfaces placed at 90° contributes about 10m² to your RCS.

Basically, you are saying that just the things on the cockpit are contributing the 60% of the F-15’s RCS….

I think is enough for this, i’m probably derailing the thread with this issue.

So to decrease it RCS you increase the RCS of the cover, increasing the overall reflective surface, which doesn’t have any sign of LO shape, which is more exposed to radar than the cockpit , and this last would or would not be exposed to radar incidence…

I really think the golden foil has a more mundane work, but then, on this, is my personal opinion.

You guys should check the quantity of surfaces facing downward on the “stealth” planes, and should check why most IRST’s are mounted on the nose’s top, then you will realize why the radar is facing upwards…

The radar is an instrument, is a sensor, it has other requirements, is not just a structure.

What’s the advantage of it?

To compensate the lack of aperture on AESA radars on turns, so in maneuvers the radar can still illuminate the target.

That is what i know, i know as well that the web stealth explanation is popular…

I don’t see any real LO feature on the radar mounts, check , for example the apf77/81, no zigzag shape on the mount, not “smooth” curves..lol..probably RAM, but i bet is to get better reception and probably to avoid undesired return/interference…rather than to decrease the RCS

If the indians buy that batch of 50 Su30s, the mrca will be half dead.

The numbers are getting ridicously high, 100-200 80 million planes….+the pakfa + the LCA.

With tri-mode seeker missiles in the development path, I don’t see the F-35’s missiles being rendered “ineffective” any time soon.

So fixed AESA’s have no off-boresite capability eh?

Northrop Grumman seems to think otherwise…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkpFsXz9yk&feature=related

I know there were some tests over the Apg81 in 2006, but if i recall correctly these were structural, power and general mounting in-flight tests, not real radar performance testing with 30 targets…….

Most likely is a simulation

About your trimode stuff, you spoke like a real salesman…

Real world Pk numbers, eh? Can you by any chance tell me what the real world Pk numbers of Russian, Chinese or even French BVR weapons are?

I know it’s popular to rag on the AMRAAM’s Pk, but do you ever ask yourself how those ideas were created? About which missile? Is there by chance a difference in capability between an AIM-120A and an AIM-120C7 for example? Does the “real world” firing data that exists for AIM-120A bear any relevance whatsoever to a missile that has been developed for nearly 20 years since that firing data was largely generated and has been upgraded more than 10 times in that process?

I’m sure it is relevant if YOU want it to be…

And that’s why is important to carry more and more missiles, the A-B-C-D-X promises and tales are old, same tale was said for the AIM-7, same tale is said for the Amraam, same tale is told by everybody

That’s why is important to use different sensors and seekers for the weapons as well

But if you insist so much on the BVR thingy, at least 15 missiles should be carried on a average plane to be effective, the problem is not the radar, BVR intrinsically has many problems, these problems can’t be solved with magical radars, since the ECM/EW technology advances faster than the radar technology, the solution isn’t advanced missiles as well, is the quantity of missiles, and accept that some will miss, but then there are space/weight/design limits.

bloodshot,the sustained value is what really matters for service ceiling.

Instantaneous performance is another matter, and is not related with the practical service ceiling, or the sustained flight

The F-16 can reach higher altitudes, as the F-22, higher than their practical ceiling.

Instantaneous turn is telling us how fast the airframe is losing energy, so, for example a full delta wing can lose energy more quickly than a more conventional wing.

again;

but the image must be on the forum, if you intrapolate the value should be around 3.5g’s at 30000ft, close or same for 22’s value

I can’t tell if the F-22 has a 60kft of operative height, but taking both values of sustained turn at 30000fts, i would not be surprised if both have the same practical ceiling or at least close