pfcemObviously your mental capacity is too weak to look past a full “s duct” ….
Quite the opposite. I have stated MANY TIMES that the production/service T-50/PAK FA will utilize radar blockers.
According to you, there is no such thing as slight angle adjustment to conceal the engine…
Removed By Moderator
From a full frontal angle, little of any part of the engine can be seen. There are NO pics showing the engine from the angle, it was always blacked out with shadows.
Removed By Moderator
Radar blocker takes care of the rest. No issue there.
Tell that to the people who continue to disbelieve the reality that the T-50/PAK FA does not have any s-ducts. I have stated MANY TIMES that the production/service T-50/PAK FA will utilize radar blockers.
***
Sferrin says otherwise and I have to confess that I, too, don’t remember ever having read about radar blockers for series F-23s. His cl;aim might have some substance. It’s your job now to find a quote confirming they, indeed, were planned if you want to continue this debate.
Removed By Moderator
It’s pretty obvious that T-50 will rely on radar blockers, regardless of whether 40%, 50% or even 80% of the engine face would be directly visible.
How many times do I have to say that the production/service T-50/PAK FA will utilize radar blockers?
And? Why does it matter?
There are those who continue to disbelieve the reality that the T-50/PAK FA does not have any s-ducts.
The reality is that the T-50/PAK FA does not have any s-duct & ~50% of the engine face CAN been seen direct line of sight from head on in level flight so the T-50/PAK FA NEEDS radar blockers to achieve the magnitude of RCS it is intended to have. I have NEVER said that it can not do so with radar blockers but it absolutely is NOT doing so with s-ducts.
***
I’m sorry, but this is not true, I’m sorry for the pro west/east fanboys eating fanboy books, confusing real RCS requirements with obsolete technology.
The state of this program is already advanced, this is not a YT-50, this is clearly a operative prototype, and IMO is not the only one there.
Russians did consider the whole S-duct thing, as you can see in the flateric pictures.
What they are doing with this PAKFA will be great, basically they will troll the ‘stealth’ industry and a bunch of fanboys with good engineering, the only thing that really matters, and they will achieve the same performance in the RCS field.
They won’t go with the S duct thing, they already studied it, and laughed over it, the S duct is a source of radar return, it shows more surface on exposed angles than a conventional duct, they will screen the whole thing, will they use blockers? or a grill? we don’t really know
They could even go with the same intake type of the F-23, don’t say that redesigning the intake would require a immense airframe redesign, look at the J-10B or even the F-16 with the DSI thingie.
But i really think this is the final airframe’s design
The only thing you got right there is that the current airframes (yes there is more than one) are ‘operative prototypes’ & most likely close representative of the production/service design.
Note I believe that they can & will achieve F-35 magnitude RCS but have made the decision NOT to match the F-22.
pfcemSince this is a ‘news” thread…check out the latest news on the flight test program (search AF-3 – it is all over the place). The usual GOOD news. Of particular note is that as of the end of June the flight test program is 18 flights ahead of schedule.
***
You sir are the one being disingenous, simply focusing on one area of the package it is relatively easy to claim your beliefs as fact.
Try looking at the overall package, the picture isn’t so rosy.
You have that backwards.
I posted earlier in the thread a report on the Dutch potentially stepping out of the testing program…now why would they be looking to do that if everything was so hunky dory
Politics.
Seems like fairly good evidence to me.
But it isn’t evidence of anything pertaining to the program but rather the liberaism of some Dutch politicians.
Your definition of evidence however appears to be anything which you believe supports your beliefs with the exclusion of anything which doesn’t
You have that backwards.
***
Even with rumored price reductions (40% seems very high – source?), the cost per aircraft will still be more than estimated when the JSF program was started.
It isn’t a price reduction (& the source of the 40% has already been give more than once) but rather the REALITY that the ACTUAL costs have been, are & continue to be nowhere near the BS CAPE projections. They have been, are & continue to be near the 2007 program projections.
***
Yea, read the article, but the 40% was an offer that wasn’t accepted according to the same article. It seems more like 20% off the 2009 CAPE estimate, or 60.8m is going to be the price for the LRIP-4 F-35A’s – the other models are going to be more expensive according to other reporting. And according to Sweetman, LM is pressuring its suppliers and subs to cut costs now, with the idea of recovering costs later through higher pricing in later lots. And of course the 60.8/copy doesn’t include development or support costs either. So the fact remains that the JSF / F-35 program will cost significantly more than originally envisioned – there’s no escaping reality.
Sorry but you are wrong. The 40% lower than the latest BS projections IS the cost being negociated. The problem is people not making clear which numbers exactly they are referring to. Remember that the BS Dec 2009 projection was a wide range AND since then CAPE has come out with later even higher projections.
The “20%-25” seems to be vs the LOW end of the CAPE projections while the “40%” seems to be vs the HIGH end of the CAPE projections.
***
No argument there – I’d like to see those prices as well – gives some needed perspective.
It has always been stated (& understood by the informed) to be $10-15 million higher.
pfcemThe point of the post was to illustrate that there are so many definitions / “flavors” of URF that it is better to wait until the negotiations are complete before we start to authoritatively state the price of the LRIP-4 aircraft.
There is only one definitions / “flavors” of NRF (which is what LM is & has been using), only differrent wording of the same, you are simply spinning in an attemp to confuse the issue.
What the final cost of LRIP 4 ends up being will not change anything. The naysayers will continue to ignore the ACTUAL costs of the program just as they have done with LRIP 1-3 & continue spouting thier wet dreams of the F-35 costing $100 million or more.
***
What it all means is there are legitimate questions about what the pricing stated by LM actually means, and the need for all parties to use common metrics stating / analyzing cost (and other) data.
LM is quoting NORECURRING FLYAWAY, not just its cost. NRF INCLUDES the airframe from LM, the avionics from NG, the engine from P&W & a number of other items associated with the aircraft.
pfcemOnce again you ignore the blatantly obvious. You have no idea what the magnitude is in the charts. The left side of the chart may be zero. I might be a large leap from zero. Without numbers in the charts the bars mean nothing.
I am not ignoring anything. You DO NOT need the exact numbers to understand what the chart is showing OR to make comparisons from it.
***
Deviations can occur on a fair margin. You can’t simulate/calculate everything. And of course you also learn from the flight tests about things you haven’t thought about or you weren’t able to predict accurately.
Keep spinning…
pfcemWell pfcem, this is for all YOU know.
Note I am NOT saying that the F-35 can in fact go Mach 2 but NOTHING has been provided to prove otherwise. Its KPP is subsonic cruise with supersonic dash speeds comparable to F-16 and F/A-18) & its inlet design has already flown at Mach 2.
Funny thing is LM thinks differently and is explicit on M1.67.
No it doesn’t.
Yes well, I’d expect as much from you.
You might as well said M1.6 < JSP top speed < M23 and make equal point, which is no point at all.
Unlike you I prefer to stick to the realm of reality & realistic possibility. Again, its KPP is subsonic cruise with supersonic dash speeds comparable to F-16 and F/A-18) & its inlet design has already flown at Mach 2.
Sorry, been looking for something to respond to, but found nothing.
You mean “been looking for something to respond WITH, but found nothing”.
pfcemGiven the above why are you such an advocate of the putting all the eggs in one basket type approach, a la the the JSF?
The beauty of the F16 was that it was (is) so flexible; it had sufficient performance to be able to more than adequately perform a variety of roles and could be upgraded to further enhance it’s abilities. All this at a (relatively) low cost.
The F-35 is more than the F-16 could ever hope to be.
The F35 is never in a month of Sundays going to be able to provide either the level of performance or the ability to be upgraded without major re-design. Plus it’s gonna cost a bundle. All this for a “first day of the big war” striker…hhmm very useful when you don’t know whats coming :rolleyes:
Quite the opposite.
But that won’t stop the apologists claiming (without any hard evidence) that it is the best thing ever. Tell me again how many test flights of those planned?
Nobody is claiming it to be the best thing ever. It IS however significantly superior to previous generation fighters.
LM pr have done a superb job…just a pity that the Engineering dept aren’t of the same calibre in their field. :diablo: In reality i’m sure the LM engineering dept are very good, just that the marketing and sales chaps and chapesses have sold them down the river by telling lots of porkies in order to secure the sale.
You clearly have no idea WFT you are talking about.
For those who will be upset by the above; it is fundamentally the absurd claims of the pro F35 lobby versus what will (eventually ;)) be the real world performance of the thing that gets me riled.
Because the absurd claims of the anti F-35 lobby versus what IS & will be the real world performance of the thing gives you orgasms.
If LM and their apologists were realistic when commenting on the platfrom rather than presenting it as off world tech that is light years ahead of everything else and in fact will never be bettered i would have little to say.
LM & the ‘apologists’ arn’t the ones being unrealistic.
pfcemActually you can see 40-50% of the PAK-FA and 15-20% of the YF-23 the “>” for the PAK-FA and the “<” for the YF-23 seems to have fan-boy biases.
In your dreams.
***
You can see 0% of the T-50 if we assume radar blocker installed.
Same for a production/service F-23 had it been seleced rather than the YF-22. BUT unlike the T-50/PAK FA, the vast majority of engine faces of the YF-23 are blocked/shielded from view from straight on level flight.
So, what’s the point?
That contrary to the wet dreams of some here, the T-50/PAK FA DOES NOT have any s-ducts blocking/shielding the engine faces from view (either from eyesight OR radar) but production/service aircraft will rely on radar blockers (which as of yet are not fitted to the prototype aircraft) to do so.
pfcemWhat exactly is ‘super maneuverabilty’?
Is there any actual generally agreed definition for it to explain it, or are we just talking about performing Cobras at airshows?:confused:
Sounds a bit like another catch phrase in the style of ‘Stealth’ – much bandwidth expended talking about it, even if people say exactly what it is.:rolleyes:Are the Eurocanards all that more ‘maneuverable’ than the F-16 or F/A-18 anyway…?:confused:
‘Super maneuverabilty’ is the ability to perform controlled post-stall maneuvers.
pfcemIt’s predicted not known. That you can accurately predict the handling in general is true as todays FCS are software driven. If everything would be exactly known no one would bother testing the aircraft in reality.
And the point is that the simulator mentioned in that article is not even meant to accurately present the aircraft’s handling qualities.
Known within a small margin of error. As I have already said, flight tests are to verify/confirm performance/characteristics NOT learn of them.
***
Not at all, stability has a significant impact on turning performance, but neither F-16 or F-35 has anything over contemporary fighters these days,
on the contrary with regards to euro delta canards, they are at a severe disadvantage.
And that is with regards to either instability and/or wing loading, let alone both.
The F-16A vs the Mirage 2000 is a suberb example of how wing loading DOES NOT accurately represent agility – the F-16A & Mirage 2000 have VERY similar agility (both instantaneous & sustained) but quite different wing loadings. If wing loading was even close to being at all an accurate measure/representation of agility, the F-16A & Mirage 2000 would be quite different rather than very similar.
It would help if you would stop the BS of making up argument nobody has made so as to stear the ‘discussion’ away from your obviously incorrect postings.
***
pfcem,
No metric on the chart then its worthless for comparison sake. Don’t try to convince anyone otherwise. Nobody is buying that argument.
Wrong, the chart shows exactly what it is intended to & comparisons CAN quite clearly be made.
pfcemCan the YF-23’s compressor blades be seen while looking straight down the intake? From my understanding, you have to look at them from an angle. In the T-50’s case, I’m looking at them straight down the intake, which is not good if the aircraft is flying head-on against, say, and F-22 (who’s compressor blades cannot be seen in a similar fashion to the T-50’s).
Looking ‘straight down the intake’ horizontally & vertically with the line of flight, you can see <15% of the F-23 compressor blades. As your POV/camera angle moves down &/or out, more can be seen.
Looking ‘straight down the intake’ horizontally & vertically with the line of flight, you can see >50% of the T-50/PAK FA compressor blades. As your POV/camera angle moves down &/or out, more can be seen.
***
Actually it’s exactly the same angle – well almost.
Not even close.
You are looking from below and from the side to see the engine on the YF-23 and T-50.
No, the image of the T-50/PAK FA is from a short distance ahead of the probe, more or less directly in line with the LEVCON leading edge & (appears to me) eye level (more or less vertically in line with the upper edge of the INSIDE of the intake) pointed in a horizontal direction directly at the man in blue but vertically level with the ground.
***
The YF-23 never had blockers nor was it planned. That bottom shot is of the F-32 mockup and as I said, the X-32 never had one. So no, I don’t agree.
While the YF-23 & X-32 did not have radar blockers, the F-23 &/or F-32 (if they had been chosen of the the F-22 &/or F-35 respectively) would have.
***
I think you’ve missed the point I was trying to make. I’m not discussing whether the T-50’s comp face can be seen directly from the front (BTW, we can’t make an accurate assessment of this yet, since the angles in those pictures are not quite representative enough – too close and too sideways/below), but the fact that YF-23’s comp face CAN be seen from certain angles and it would have been a guaranteed compromise of it’s stealth in certain circumstances (in certain maneuvers for example) if not remedied accordingly.
BS. You CAN quite clearly see that much of the T-50/PAK FA compressor blades can be seen from a significantly large cone POV/camera angle. The image in reference here is not even from the best POV/camera angle.
***
Certainly not at the angle that you posted.
Actually, his angle is about right BUT the position of his line is WAY off. The alignemnt of the camera is AT the man in blue, not the intake.
The image of the T-50/PAK FA is from a short distance ahead of the probe, more or less directly in line with the LEVCON leading edge & (appears to me) eye level (more or less vertically in line with the upper edge of the INSIDE of the intake) pointed in a horizontal direction directly at the man in blue but vertically level with the ground.
***
I see where you are heading to, to the 0deg angle, ergo perfectly frontal aspect RCS. The way I see it, neither YF-23 nor T-50 have any part of the compressor faces visible at exactly that angle. In both cases you’d need to look at them from slightly below and from side, in case of the YF-23 quite a bit from below and from side.
You can see <15% of the YF-23.
You can see >50% of the T-50/PAK FA.
pfcemAnd when I said otherwise?
What you posted is nothing like it.
What you don’t seem to recognize, are difference margins between KPP and top values, for an optimized design.
No, YOU fail to recognize the difference between KPP MINIMUMS & absolute performance maximums.
Pfcem, for the second time, the weight doesn’t matter in terms of linear motion (top speed).
Yes it does – but thanks for so missing the point again.
The inlet isn’t just the “mouth”, but the duct size and layout behind the mouth as well, which is even more important.
So, yes and if the LM designers did a good job optimizing air ducts (in size and shape) for M1.6, the plane most certainly got bigger fuel tanks and weapon bays, then it would have, if the top speed KPP was M2.
Thanks for so clearly demonstaring you have no clue WFT you are taking about.
Pfcem, for the third time…
The plane (JSF, or F16) reaches it’s top speed once the overall pressure increase (total drag) equals the thrust, including pressure increase from the inlet.
Which is NOT Mach 1.6!
JSF and F16 have different engines with different airflows producing different thrust, so inlet shape is just a (minor) factor in that pressure (drag) build-up.
This is because, F16’s F1X0 requires less airflow for the plane to fly M2 than F135 in F35 and so, while having the same pressure increase (bump), F1X0 (in F16) has less (or equal) drag to overcome, then the inlet pressure bump adds to the total drag of the F16.
F35 is something else.
Does not in any way change the fact that the F-35’s inlets DO NOT limit its top speed to Mach 1.6.
To extrapolate that F35 would somehow fly M2, if just fitted with F119 (f.e.) is plain wrong.
It would take inlet/duct redesign to reach that speed, if possible at all.
Who has implied that simply fitting a F-35 with a F119 would ‘allow’ it to reach Mach 2? For all you know the F-35 can reach Mach 2 as is. The only thing you DO know is that the F-35 has a MINIMUM requirement of Mach 1.6 “with a full internal load” (actually, if you knew much you would also know that the actual KPP is “subsonic cruise with supersonic dash speeds comparable to F-16 and F/A-18“) AND that the F-35 inlet design has been tested/flown through the entire F-16 flight envelope (INCLUDING Mach 2.0).
***
Then you failed to understand what was written.
This has often been a noticable fault of yours.
No, I understood what was written perfectly. If what what written is not what was ment, that is not my fault.
***
So how fast the F35 can fly, then?
> Mach 1.6 but most likely < Mach 2.0
At any rate what its actual top speed is (no doubt to be classified for many many years) is rather mute as an operational limit (possibly/likely ~Mach 1.6) is most certainly to be placed on it that is below its true top speed. And as has been seen with the F-15, F-16 & F/A-18 operational careers it is highly unlikely that the F-35 will spend much of any time above Mach 1.5 even if it were capable of Mach 2.5.
***
just to remind some people the reality of engineering : you stick to what is requested cause any extra costs money: you are asked for 1,6Mach then you put the objective at 1,65, you add 20% when dimensioning the systems (or more depending on the parts) … and that’s it. Though the design objective is still 1,65Mach. The plane may fly faster but it is not designed to do so (and even if not causing a crash, you will dramatically shorten the life time of some systems doing so).
Concerning optimization … it depends on your optimizing goals. For the propulsion you will naturally optimize the fuel consumption, but also the maintenance costs (parts life time, logistics/time for maintenance, parts’ prices …), acoustics, lower IR signature, constaints from the airframe … to make the list short. Once again it costs money … so you do optimizations to meet the requirements (which is difficult enough) … not more: the F-35 can fly 1,6 Mach, though it is certainly not the flight domain for which the more money has been spent.
The next optimizations will come for the next upgrades (LM certainly plans to make money over the next 30 years with the F-35 … and not only with maintenance :diablo:)
What is ‘asked for’ (aka the KPP) is “subsonic cruise with supersonic dash speeds comparable to F-16 and F/A-18“.
The F-35’s flight performance ‘optimization’ (not JUST speed) is to be ‘similar’ to (or better than) the F-16 & F/A-18.
pfcemNot sure if this is the right thread for this query, but just wondering: does the US Navy’s acquisition of the F-35C make the EA-18G Growler redundant?
No – the F/A-18E/F is going to be around for quite some time.
Why would you need an electronic attack/jamming escort aircraft if the strike plane is stealthy?
You don’t. BUT sometimes the additional EW assests would be helpful, other times is would be a hunderance.
***
i dont now why bother with “true stealth” in an modern AF, if you got 4 gen today. UCAV is the future is in my book 6 gen.
Think of the possiblies!no need for dead pilots
no need for resque operations
no need for pilot systems like ejectionseats OBogs, cocpit etc.
no need for 9g restriction
less weighthave i missed anything? probably loads of it.
An updated “4 gen” is clearly a alternativ for F-35.
F-35 in my view overated for most missions.
Becasue reality is quite different from your wet dreams.
***
A 13 TM aircraft with a completely new engine, dominating the market?..a program that is still in development, and nobody already knows if will fare well?
Yes. And contrary to your BS plenty ‘know’ it will fare well.
Europeans won’t buy a lot of them, is too heavy for them, what’s next, Turkey? how many will be bought?
Denmark: 48
Italy: 131
Netherlands: 85
Norway: 48
UK: 138
+
Australia: 100
Canada: 80
Turkey: 100
And that is just the already planned orders of the 8 (non-US) partner nations…
If the F-35 would weigh 9-10 tons, and would share it engine with another aircraft, with the US industrial infrastructure, then yes, it would dominate the market, i don’t know if the program will or not be a success, but i’m ready to bet this program is not a F-16 reincarnation.
Why?
This aircraft is not a ‘western Mig-21’ (aka F-16), is a complex plane full of ridiculous over engineering, I’m sorry to burst your fantastic bubble…but this design won’t achieve such success.
Sorry to burst YOUR bubble but it IS in fact the ‘next F-16’.
Expect countries getting out of the program, and a lot of order cuts, after we see the final product.
Expect additional orders from partner nations as well as non-partner nations & many other nations greatly anticipating the day they are put on the list of those cleared to receive it.
It success will be comparable with the F-18 at best..if it ends successfully
In your dreams.
This aircraft is more complex and heavy than a F-15…by a long shot…and you come here saying it will be a F-16v2…keep on dreaming Toan…it will be a harsh awaking.
Everything is more complex today than decades ago.
And the F-35A is 1336/1936 lbs LIGHTER than the F-15A/F-15C.
YOU are the one who is dreaming. Wake up & join the 21st century.
***
faster than you think…
Not as fast as you dream. If it were it would have happend decades ago.
none
AKA you are full of crap.
***
well, we see about that, it may be for uk, and obsolite means upgradible?
Obsolete meaning 4th (4.5) generation when 5th generation is here. Just as 4th generation fighters made 3rd generation fighters obsolete…
***
I was thinking…
…why not the Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle as a possible alternative?
It’s the final evolution of the venerable F-15 Eagle family, two seats, twin engines and configurable CFTs.
While A little on the expensive side (although similar to the Rafale &/or Typhoon) the F-15SE IS a good ‘alternative’ for those who won’t be cleared to recieve the F-35 for quite a while yet.
pfcemA better example is when you compare both with somewhat equal negative stability, or positive for that matter, for apples comparison.
No, F16A vs Mirage 2000 is a suberb example of two aircraft with amazingly similar agility (both instantaneous & sustained) despite significantly different wing loading.
***
I wonder why those charts show the F-16C when the F-15E is the premier USAF jet the F-35 will replace.
Because the F-35A will replace the F-16C & not the F-15E.
And why the F-16C and F-18C in the first place?
Because the F-35A will replace the F-16C & the F-35C will replace the F/A-18C.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to show the F-16 Blk50/52 and F/A-18E if they are going to pick on those two families of aircraft?
What Block F-16 do you THINK is being shown?
The purpose is NOT to ‘pick on’ the F-16 &/or the F/A-18 but rather to show the F-35’s relative superiority.
btw – these charts are absolutely worthless for comparison sake. How do you know the variance in the bars has any relationship to the magnitude of the actual performance? I could make a .1% difference look like a 50% difference with the right graph.
No it is not. It clearly shows what it is intended to.
***
JJ,
you miss or ignore the point that this is not even a simulator to train/prepare pilots, the aircraft isn’t accurately simulated, to take the claims serious is somewhat laughable, let alone that the real world performance is relevant, not was is planned on paper or simulated in the simulator. So far most if not all of the performance claims about the F-35 are just that, claims! Has the F-35 demonstrated Mach 1.6? No! Has it demonstrated a roll rate of 300°/sec? Not reported! Has it achieved an AoA of 55°? Not in reality! etc.
It remains yet to be seen whether the F-35 will match the claims in reality and how a final production version will look like. It wouldn’t be the first time that the aircraft is tested up to this or that performance mark, but that the production aircraft will end up with tighter limits.
YOU continue to ignor the reality that the flight performance of aircraft is known well before it is verified/domonstrated.
***
You right, but there are differences and not only wing loading. Wingloading is a simplified way to look at it. But that makes f-35 better than every other? 446kg/m2 have alot more to prove thats for sure..
The point is that wing loading is NOT an accurate measure of agility.
a big belly is a lifting body
LOL
a blended wing body and tunneling etc have liftbody effects, not a fat crosssection for storing arms.
A properly designed belly. Does not even HAVE to be that big either…
LOL! why does a stealth figther need bigger engines for traveling slower?
It doesn’t.
have you ever heard of electronics miniaturization and moore´s law?
Yes I have.
pfcemI’ve been researching the various fifth-generation programmes, and it strikes me as odd how aside from the possible exception of the PAK-FA there is no real competitor for the F-35 in the global fighter market. Which means from 2017 or so onwards the Eurofighter, Rafale and so on will be effectively shut out of the high-end fighter market.
How can the European aerospace industry take this standing down? A few of them have a stake in the F-35 program but it means peanuts for them in terms of technology gain. Why aren’t France, Sweden, Germany or one of the other nations that haven’t signed up for the F-35 developing an alternative? They already have most of the elements for a 5th gen design from the Eurofighter and Rafale programmes, and if Russia can do stealth so can they.
So does anyone have an idea for such a programme? I think funding issues can be solved by collaborating with an Asian customer that is interested in such a design(like South Korea’s KFX, Japan’s ATDX or the Indian MCA). Any thoughts?
Makes you wonder if Europe will ultimately repeat the Eurofighter Typhoon/Rafale…That is not develope their own 5th generation fighter until after US 5th generation fighters (the F-22 at least) have been in service for decades & ultimately end up taking delivery of their 1st 5th generation fighters around the same time the US does its 1st 6th generation fighters.
***
I think it’s a matter of doctrine, the european companies are busy with UCAV’s for strike, and seemingly intend to have 4.5 manned fighters for defence.
No, it is a matter of funding. Europe ‘blew its wad’ on the Eurofighter(s) & does not have the political will to start all over again when it hasn’t even taken delivery of all its Eurofighter(s).
***
If the F-35 will come close to its promises is still an open question.
What promises are still an open question?
The single main advantage is the stealth claim of the F-35. The degree of that is shrinking constantly till the point, where the future customer have to decide if that is still worth the extra cost.
Wrong. The F-35’s stealth advantage vs previous genreation fighters is not srinking nor are the advantages of its stealth advantage and full rate production F-35A’s will be less expensive than Typhoon &/or Rafale.
Most people may not realize, that even the stealth fighters are in need of the most effective EW-suit for survival.
No they are not. Sometimes EW will help, other times it will actually be a hinderance.
So from a given point someone can ask, if both cost are in need to get the desired result. The same question is about stand-off weaponary, which does not make much sense for a stealth fighter.
But they aren’t so the question is bunk/mute.
In the meanwhile stealthy SRAMs can deal with fixed targets in a much more economical way.
LOL
For some time to come there is shortage of economical fighters for air-policing duties or even much less demanding asymmetrical warfare.
For which even an ‘old’ Block 40/42 F-16 is ‘overkill’. Something more akin to the F-5 would have potential here…
***
The F-35 is being entirely overstated here.
No it is not.
“no real competitor” what exactly are you talking about here?
That in a ‘competition’ based on capability/cost-effectiveness the Typhoon & Rafale are noncompetative vs the F-35.
One of my most consistently repeated statements, in response to what is effectively ridiculously effective commercial marketing; is there is no such thing as stealth. Period.
This whole marketing strategy of low RCS is for the most part a complete non-presence in any large scale, extended conflict between any, no kidding, really any, major powers.Stealth is fiction. Let me just mention that again. The whole low RCS stealth hollywood movie thing is a complete fiction. It’s not stealth. It isn’t.
Here is what Kelly Johnson, who initiated development of modern “stealth technologies” with the original HaveBlue project, calls it, “I prefer to call it High Survivability Technology, Stealth is a fiction.”And here’s why, even during deployment of F-117s in the Gulf what was found was as it so happened a civilian technician managed to demonstrate his ability to track the fighters throughout local mobile telephone coverage because of gaps caused in the coverage between towers returned faults to the station for them. As described you could “track Nighthawks because of gaps they caused in local cellphone coverage.” Luckily the Iraqis hadn’t thought of this and the major point it demonstrates, which is also one Kelly Johnson is acutely aware is that a wide receiver coverage area negates signal dispertion designs simply by coordinating signal reception from all facings of the intruding enemy aircraft into the coverage area. In others words it does nothing for you inside any EWR/GCI network, and is directly combated by the Soviet PVO airborne datalink system that’s been in standing doctrine since the 80s.
Here’s what all this “stealth technology” really does for you: if you happened to be in a basically one versus one scenario well outside enemy controlled airspace (in terms of any major powers with mobile EWR/SAM coverage and other datalinked wide area detection systems on multiple facings, ie. including enemy fleet forces), then it makes it really, really super hard for individual seeker heads to track effectively, for airborne radars to find you and lock you, for any point defence to have a really good shot at tracking you, for blahblah etc. you get the idea. Great penetration development, really changes the game (especially SEAD), great survivability features, almost kills the fully active missile seeker head dead in the water (note, Russians place the SARH seeker on the same development priority to ARH missiles, partially I would speculate because of the PVO intercept doctrine and datalink system for target engagement).
It’s just coincidence perhaps, the way all this works out is that technically speaking East/West are really each other’s biggest weaknesses: US military hardware winds up best designed for defeating other NATO hardware and outdated hardware from any quarter, whilst CIS equipment is virtually single-purpose designed to defeat NATO equipment but only in open, extended hostilities. Russian equip is not designed for policing actions or border disputes, whilst US/NATO equipment, including the Stealth emphasis in design technologies very much is. It was an economic decision made by the US in terms of cost-benefit ratio and most particularly the export marketplace.
It’s actually a shock anybody buys anything other than US to tell the truth. That’s the war being fought. After all, economics is what wound up bringing down the Soviet empire, it had nothing to do with military technologies (which many argued the USSR was conventionally superior, without question).
Thanks for so clearly demonstrating you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
***
If you anyway need to escort with AEW/EW/SEAD/A2A, then F-35 bring nuffing new.
You don’t. In fact AEW is the only one of those the F-35 can not effectively do for itself.
UCAV’s that brings a whole new meaning to “stealth”, but more importantly the fact that they are unmanned, can be sent on a potentially lethal mission.
UAVs are decades away from being even half what you dream them to be.
But it really comes down to if it is more economical then flinging cruise missiles, which i doubt. I guess it’s a case to case which way is cheapest.
The F-35 IS more cost-effective than flinging cruise missiles. Sure cruise missiles have their purpose but it is a limited (& quite costly) one.
***
I think imagination is a limiting factor on how UCAV’s can be put to use, they have great potential. Risking UCAV’s in deep strike without coverage seem more plausible then manned attack a/c.
A MORE limiting factor is reality.
pfcemReread what I wrote…so once more, KPPs are indeed minimums, but are maximums (or just about) as well.
THRESHOLDS are minimums that MUST be met or exceeded.
OBJECTIVES are ‘maximums’ for which exceeding is considered as no value.
Mach 1.6 with a full internal load is a THRESHOLD, not an OBJECTIVE.
If F35 (and its inlet) has been designed for M1.6, it’ll do M1.67 (as disclosed), but won’t do M2.
It hasn’t, it has been designed for >Mach 1.6. And again, Mach 1.67 was with a full internal load for the pre weight reduction (aka ~2400 lbs heavier than post weight reduction) design.
However, if the JSF does M2 with current inlet and KPP is M1.6, then the design team did a poor job optimizing the plane and it could have larger weapon bays, or fuel tanks.
Nobody is saying the F-35 does Mach 2. What HAS been said is that its inlets do not limit it to Mach 1.6. And no higher (or lower) Mach limited inlet would not effect the size of the weapons bays or the internal fuel capcity (the exception of course would be a totally difference VG inlet).
Don’t confuse JSF’s inlet installation with F16’s and both won’t do the same, although the inlet shape is similar.
I am not confusing anything. The DSI inlet fitted to a F-16 in 1996 was to verify/demonstrate the performance/functionality the JSF inlet design.
***
What he is trying to say is that it fulfills the same function as a VG intake, namely, supply the air to the engine at a velocity of around 0.4-0.5Mn under all conditions with the minimum of losses. It just does it without all those heavy and expensive to make movey bits, that also cost alot more in maintenance during the a/c’s lifetime.
I responed to what he posted, not what you think he was trying to say.
Sign In
