I think the concept of it being a warmed over B2 style flying wing design is rubbish.

If you want my opinion Coach, the eventual design is much more likely to be along the lines of the sort of thing that was doing the rounds in 2006 and then didn’t fit the profile.

Designs are complete and submitted, the selection was supposed to have occurred, but has been pushed back.

BTW, Northrup’s entry is either a flying wing or a great piece of disinformation, as they’ve shown the ‘alledged’ basic shape already.

Think about software blocks and DAS capability before jumping on that statement with the usual overreach. DAS does have limited utility right now, it is not flying with 3f software.

You havent heard about it because it is close to BS.

The actual IR suppression from fuel comes from cooling the hull around the engine and avionics, not from cooling the exhaust.

_{Cooling of exhaust gases with fuel, ie letting the exhaust pass a heat exchanger in the hot section would cool the fumes for <1/300th of a second assuming it runs on dry thrust. With afterburner going the effect does not exist. But cooling fumes would make them smaller and lower the pressure in the engine giving lower exhaust speed -> lower net thrust. Also the time is too short for any cooling.}

Using fuel to cool down parts of the engine isnt anything new, for instance Gripen has used it for a long time http://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.174315/reaktionsmotor-12—bade-vacker-och-stark

Sure, one could rebrand it as IR suppression if spin and BS is the forté of the manufacturer. In the case of Gripen it uses huge heat echangers behind the cockpit leading the heat over the back of the aircraft.

Additives in the fuel will only make cooling of the jet go faster once it leaves the nozzle. So instead of having a tail of 30 meters it will have one of 28 (probably even less but it doesnt matter). Looking at IR footage we can clearly see that what matters is near the airplane, and thats stuff that the F35 does not tackle.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239073[/ATTACH]

Tu-22m your better than that, look at the view and situation u are presenting; top view, afterburner.

Now think about how the dual tails hide the exhaust plume that the mixing with ambient air and nozzle shape go into dissipating exhaust gas or do u assume that the USAF and DoD is bullsh*tting everyone that they plan that Ir and RF detection range are roughly equal. Did they put the LOAN nozzle on for looks? Come on, obviously there are angles that don’t present a favorable IR sig.

And don’t pull that Gripen crap, it uses standard heat exchangers which is a huge RF and IR liability. Your touting the heat exchangers on the Gripen is worse than silly, the’ve been standard on fighters since the 70’s. Guess what, they found a more effective method for surface cooling and exhaust cooling. The knock on the F-35 had to do with the heat in the combustion chamber, do u know the exaust temp? I don’t, but they’ve stated its lower than comparable turbofans. The use of fuel as a heat dump as in the case of the F-22 and F-35 may have hit their limit, but as of now they are the best thing going to preserve all aspects of LO. There are several scholarly papers dealing with this. Needless to say the conclusion is in diametric opposition to your conclusions.

Yeah normally that’s used to describe a radar, and how like a torch it gives away its position. He was talking about it in terms of its limited FoV and how the long ranges registered by IRST manufactures apply only to very focused scans.
]

Exactly, but moreover, IRST systems are more effective when using a radar to cue them. You can have the target data fed from AWACS or another platform operating radar, but again the datalink has to narrow beam and directional as to not give away position.

Newer IRST systems can track multiple targets and have much faster scan rates. At medium ranges, you still have the IFF issue. Without the NCTR techniques of radar, especially if the target is not radiating, IFF is an Achilles heel to long range IRST weapons targeting.

My point was that limiting a fighter to a single sensor with inconsistent range, IFF, target ranging, and FOV issues is not a recipe for success. That is not discounting that IRST on fighters used in conjunction with modern AESA AWACS and datalinks certainly shrink the involability zone LO aircraft enjoyed.

Pentagon Reconsideringk Total F-35 Buy, Dunford Says
My bet is only 750 will be purchased for USAF, 360 for USMC and 300 for USN.

The word that came out was no change on total numbers for now, I think that the outcome of the next election and sequestration will influence whether the total buy is altered. Btw, 1750 total “A” variant has always seemed like a pipe dream as it will push production into the 2040’s, ( considering the delayed production ramp up) right around the time the F-X project or offspring will begin to see fruition. Not even the USAF is going to be able to afford to concurrent procurement programs.

What were these F-15s doing? Radiating with their APG-63 in fruitless effort to locate the F-22 with radar.. Idiot’s tactics because they have nothing else to rely upon.. Don’t expect fighters equipped with IRST and passive detection and tracking systems to do the same mistake..

Exactly and they have to radiate. Passive detection and tracking require your opponent to radiate signals. That is the point of MADL or IDFL in the case of the F-22. They include EM shielding or did u think that LO only refers to radar reflectivity. Both US fighters were designed to shield any emissions that can be tracked. Notice I said tracked, they might be detected, but the whole point is to shield and scatter emissions. Fighting with IRST as your main means of detection is akin to boxing in a dark room with a flashlight. When u don’t have the complete package of radar, IR, and EM low observability, it is better to emit than die.

A flight of F-22’s can use one on the periphery as an emitter outside of engagement range and share targeting data with other F-22’s. Moreover, coupled with say Typhoons as in Red Flag. The Typhoon can act as a quarterback calling plays to the other aircraft in the fight( or vice versa). The F-35 unlike the F-22 can communicate with other fighters.

Even if an aircraft in the flight is using link-16( needed because as of now F-22’s can only securely share data with each other, but can receive link-16 data), the location of the other fighters is not revealed.

The issue you point out is simple. If u are detectable, it is better to attempt to use radar to try and locate the adversary aircraft than to commit Emcom suicide. IRST is not going to provide the wide area scan you need nor is it preferable to radar. If there is a flight of two F-22 and four Typhoons and only one is using radar, they still have a massive advantage over another flight using your “passive detection and IRST”. Lastly, the fighters without a secure datalink give away their position even sharing data. As Link-16 or APD-518 ect. can be tracked.

guess you didnt get the memo of failed KPP then ?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/01/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performan/

So again, you and msphere take some initiative look up the known values of the F-35 in regard to acceleration and turning and compare them to different F-16 DI and weights. Stop making blanket statements and come back with hard numbers. Myself and others have done this already. Maybe seeing the reality of what is being discussed can induce you to add some arguement of value to the discussion.