why ? you wouldnt read it and its obvious you havent already googled it on several planes
google will tell you if you want

funny to hear that from you… when you ask for links, you don’t read them (nor even aknowledge them) but just ask for the same link again 5 pages later.. when you state something, you never back it up..

I say that F-35s nozzles are like a beacon for any radar looking at it from behind, for all those metallic blades that you can’t hide back there. What’s more, it will also attract anything IR with the heat generated (you have the report of the navy stating exhaust gas temps of 1700°C). From there on, I say it can’t be stealthy from the rear aspect.

You say F-35 is stealthy from rear aspect? prove it.

time for you to get onto google for a read, there is enough public info out there

time for you to provide a link to show otherwise?

A huge round nozzle with sawtooth edges, among other LO treatments.

actually, any radar pointing at the rear side of the fighter will have it’s emissions bouncing inside the nozzle and back out…

with the temperature of the emission gases, you’ll have hard time putting any ram coating on the inner sides of the nozzle, not to speak about rear turbines, etc…

sawtooth edges may reduce a little the radar signature, but the main problem is the same as with the air intake… make the intake edge as “stealthy” as possible, if your conduct is straight, wide and without radar blocker, your engine will “shine” on any radar pointing at it (just take at the PAK-FA discussion, no need to go again through all that here as well). rear side it’s the same story. Straight out with all these turbine metallic blades looking out…

As much as you WISH it were not true, the F-35 IS a 5th generation fighter. It has ALL the defining characteristics of a 5th generation fighter.

well, let’s see by the definition given a little before:

does it cruise at M1.5? no

does it have an all aspect stealth? no (look at that huuuge round nozzle in the back)

according to your “all defining caracteristics of a 5th gen fighter”, it misses at least two of them (maintainability still has to be seen)

so, according to your claim that all characteristics are mandatory to qualify, the F-35 is a 4.5gen aircraft at best…

while I agree with you on that, no, how do you think that your “customers” should feel knowing that a foreign nation has the key to their hardware and they don’t?

Iv never understood why the Russians didnt put cats on their CV. They arent the most complicated things in the world after all, and the bennifit the would add would more than compensate for their development costs……

for a very simple reason:

because they’re not aircraft carriers “officially”… turkey forbids crossing its territorial waters to aircraft carriers (Montreux Convention), so, unless russia wants to start a war with turkey, they’re stuck in the black sea if they make “aircraft carriers”

As they are labelled “heavy aircraft carrying cruisers”… the russians manage to get around the interdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov

as for the f-18 or the rafale, yeah, they’d probably be able to take off, but not with some significant load

TooCool
i’ll agree with that, its as i understand it, the canards provide higher aoa over just a delta
not real sure about it not being aerodynamic ones you may need to explain what you mean more if you dont agree with 30 and 55

when I say “it’s not aerodynamic ones”, I mean that the software is programmed to maintain the aircraft between given limits, depending on what you want and need.

for example, 9G isn’t the structural limit for an airframe, but a software one. It’s programmed like that because, usually, the pilot has problems going beyond anyway, so the aircraft will not exceed it.

The demo rafale, for instance, had it shifted to 11G’s. It’s a short demo and a light aircraft (just the fuel needed for the demo onboard and the pilot “in good shape”), so they probably considered it safe enough to pull a bit more. They made no modifications, other than inside the programming to achieve that. For the AoA is the same story: it’s a choice to keep things like that. Why pull more than 30° AoA? if you can do so, you’ll be way too slow for fighting anyway and on landing you’d destroy your engine nozzles. At “normal” flying speeds, a rafale does just fine. One way to see how well the lift is generated is to look at the stall speed of an aircraft.

the rafale M does its approach at 120kts, which would mean that by applying standard 1.3 factor we’d get a stall speed of 92kts (the rafale A got down to 82kts)

you can see here:

http://www.avions-militaires.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=3859

the brief detail of the areas explored through all test flights of the Rafale A, flight by flight