TooCool_12fok, let’s see, projections, projections and projections again…
now, reality check:
– even the latest missiles didn’t have such a fantastic PK even when shot against targets unable to detect they’ve been locked or shot at,
– you plan to shoot at far range and turn back? your nozzle pointing to your oponent will be the most perfect target to any half modern IR missile on the planet
basically, agains a mig29 (80s model) you’ll have a good chance of survival, but against a more or less modern threat from now and in the next 15 years, you’ll be about as well armed as the F-105 in vietnam… er, no.. on the seconds thought, the F-105 had speed, at least… the F-35 won’t even have that
TooCool_12fwhat issue?
TooCool_12fwhat c-seven said (albeit somewhat roughly), is that the saying that comes from US pilots in vietnam (if I remember well) should apply also in brasil:
“our’s not to reason why, our’s but to do or die”
basically, when military start voicing publically their opinions on subjects where politicians have to take decisions, they’re way out of line. If you wear a uniform, you have an obligation of discretion… and having all that people in uniforms publishing their opinions instead of staying where they belong (serving the nation and not doing politics) gives more an impression of a bunch of clowns than that of a military
TooCool_12fnice looking aircraft 🙂
about the LERX, I don’t think it’s movable (it’s not in down position while landing, for example) but the space between it and the fuselage may provide additional vortex to increase lift and add more manouverability, similarily to “saw cut” on delta wings
TooCool_12fhello,
i’m slightly wary of posting in this febrile atmosphere but please be kind….
The Harrier was capable of VIFFing (and was famous for doing so against Argentine Mirages and the like over the falklands. This was the use of verctored thrust to suddenly change the position of the aircraft relative to its pursuer…
cannot the same be applied to the F35? I’m sure they haven’t got to testing that sort of thing yet, but doesn’t the principle apply in the same way?:confused:
the F-35 (even in its B version) doesn’t have movable nozzles in a way harrier has (the F-32 in its VTOL version) had somewhat similar setup for the front ones). If you only turn down the rear nozzle of the F-35, you’d just have a pitch down momentum which wouldn’t be of much help… 😉
TooCool_12fthis was an interesting read
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-080-DFRC.htmlhe landed the thing at 44° AoA
sounds like a controlled crash, carrier style 😮
actually, no, it was quite gentle landing… thing is, the XF-92, according to Yeager, was extremely sensitive because of almost nonexistent stick forces, so you easily overcontrolled it; Yeager used to say that “it would be perfect, if the stick was 18ft long” .
What he also said was that, as deltas were something new by that time, pilots didn’t feel very confident with them, and for that reason, the convair pilot never landed at speeds under 170mph, even if convair engineers said he should be able to slow down more. That’s probably also what happened to Scott Crossfield when he landed (his story is in the link provided)… he landed way too fast
When Yeager landed at 67mph, he didn’t just decide to do it (kinda: “oh, how about I land it at 67mph?”), but only wanted to see how much he could slow down the bird. He went in for landing, flared and kept the nose up for as long as possible, wheels just above the surface, and the aircraft just kept flying until it touched at 67mph. He was astounded at the result.
It’s caracteristic of a delta wing… you have little lift for a given AoA, but it can keep flying to much higher AoA than a conventional (straight or swept) wing. That’s also the reason why delta winged fighters tend to have high landing and take off speeds, you can’t pull max AoA on the ground as you’d hit the runway with the nozzle.
TooCool_12fFor the XF-92, you can also read “Yeager”, he mentions it as he was the USAF test pilot who had to test it after convair pilot failed to do enough progress with it.. he landed the thing at 44° AoA and 67mph on his second flight in it
TooCool_12fagain who said it did, i made no such claim of the f-35 or fa-18 which both have 55, like it or not
the nassa f-18 was just to show a moded platform that had 70 like the f-22
i found it interesting if you didnt
as to straight line, true and the same applies to deltas at 30
the XF-92 did 44° back in the beginning of the 1950’s (and there was no FCS to control the thing, it’s purely aerodynamic control), so one may say the deltas do quite well at high AoA (actually better than classic configurations)
anyway, and again, an F-35 that does 50°+ AoA in anything else than a straight line, I’d be curious to see that (and I bet I’m not the only one)
TooCool_12fyou arent really silly are you ?
i showed you a f-18 that does 70
would you like me to show you the inproduction one that does 55
then i’ll show the the deltas that do about 30who the F said f-35 does 70, it does 55, its the f-22 that does 70
where did I say the F-35 goes to 70°? your link showed that a modified airframe of another jet (which, from the beginning was aerodynamically optimized for completely different performance type), with ways of control that the F-35 doesn’t have (nor ever will) managed a particular feat… nothing form that link shows anything that may eventually suggest that the F-35 would be able to do any AoA at all… it is completely different aircraft.. that’s one thing.
the second is, the 70° AoA was achieved through controls that have nothing to do with the lift provided by the airflow over the wing. At that point, the airflow is turbulent and you need other means of control which the F-35 (again) doesn’t have… and at 50°, to do anything besides a straight line, you’d need something similar in ways of control
TooCool_12ffrom your link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Alpha_Research_Vehicle
“The High Alpha (angle of attack) Research Vehicle was a modified F/A-18 Hornet used by NASA in a 3-phase program investigating controlled flight at high angles of attack using thrust vectoring, modifications to the flight controls, and with actuated forebody strakes“
actually, it tells how they managed to control it, and neither thrust vectoring which gives momentum as needed without using aerodynamics or the actuated forebody strakes which allow for vortex managment are present on the F-35 nor do they help in any way maintain airflow on the wings… they are there to allow control in post stall conditions, which means when wings don’t produce lift as they are supposed to.
The only part of it that the F-35 may use is “modified flight controls”, which means reprogrammed FCS, but it remains to be seen if it ever allows anything else than just maintaining balance in a straight line just by using the thrust of the engine
TooCool_12fwell, either the air doesn’t have the same caracteristics in the US as on the rest of the planet or the 50° gives you only turbulent airflow over the wings (post stall)
now, as Scorpion82 said, I’ll believe it when I see it…
TooCool_12factually, saying that the aircraft has 50+° ability in sustained flight means only ithat it was the control software programmed to allow maintaining of the balance while “sitting” on its engine… you’re completely unable to manouver at that point.
The air won’t follow the curvature of the wings at such angles unless the leading edges your wings are really heavily bent downwards, which would mean that that flight is in “post stall” conditions.
What’s more, 50° AoA at any speed even close to normal flight speeds would result in such high acceleration (G’s) that the pilot would be blacked out almost instantly, and the airframe most probably damaged (if not broken)
TooCool_12fFirst, by your definition of “stealth”, ECM is the ultimate stealth instrument.
A single plane (EF-111) can electronically “stealth” a group of cheaper, non stealth planes (F16) on the way to target and back.
This was proven on multiple real-war occasions.
Can F22 or F35 do the same?what, do you think they wont use ecm with 5th gen ?
Second, there is no day one.
Again, you’re parroting PR, without insight on the matter whatsoever.
So, if you want to go bust S-300 sites, with JDAMs or such, you’ll surely need LO plane, but Europe (f.e.) built Taurus and StormShadow/SCALP for that purpose, which will do the job equally (if not better), but at a higher cost per launched weapon.
That’s it and don’t get carried away by the idea that USAF can do combat missions, RuAF, Luftwaffe, AdlA, RAF or such, can’t.i bet you like this quote then
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/455/
MT: Are you worried by the competition by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?Casolini: Not really. The Eurofighter and the F-35 are aimed at different sectors of the market. Actually, we feel that the very presence of the F-35 will turn the Eurofighter into the veritable “Coalition Fighter”. Despite claims by the manufacturer about air combat capabilities, it is pretty obvious that F-35s deployed in their primary attack role would need to be protected from the possible presence of enemy fighters – and with the F-22 programme terminated at 187 aircraft, there is no way the US Air Force could extend its air superiority umbrella to cover allied/coalition attack assets in addition to its own. Some countries that are currently considering the possible purchase of the JSF, basically in that it would enable them to participate to US-led coalitions, will soon discover this basic point. This is for instance the case with Turkey or Japan, which would eventually want to deploy the same mixed fleet of Eurofighters and F-35s as Italy and the UK.
i want to be a fly on the wall and see their faces when the ef and rafale pilots are told the good news
“in this mission the f-35 wont be running top cover for themselves and will go in as a protected strike asset, now it is your job to run top cover for them, you are going to suck up all the su’s and sams for them while they run a stealthy attack“
I’d like to be a fly on the wall and see the faces of the “F-35 buyers” who thought they’ll get an aircraft that will do everything if they see that quote… rather than buying rafales as “just top cover”, they may as well consider to buy only rafales in that case… and doo all the job with them 😉
TooCool_12fSays who? An internet nick ‘ChrisDNT’? I am not impressed.
As a European I prefer the US still strongly involved here and military ties intertwined. F-35 provides a great mechanism in that regard.
curious quote from someone who calls himself FreeWarrior
if the F-35 is entirely dependent of US for programming, integration, repairs and maintainance, that means that any airforce relying on the F-35 alone is completely US-dependent… which is actually (for non US countries) quite the opposite of “freedom”, “independence” or any other similar notion .
If you depend entirely upon another country than your own, you’re only entitled to a freedom it agrees to grant you.
TooCool_12fyeah, I hesitated before answering in the first place… but you must be right.. it’s a piece of cake to navalize an aircraft… next conclusion should be that those americans definitely have no clue… in 60 years of operating, they didn’t manage to efficiently navalize one ground aircraft (unless they almost completely rebuilt it… and even then, it wasn’t exactly a top performer either)…
Sign In
