FBWMost fighter jet engine have that frontal cover as far as i know.Unless they doesnot reflect radar wave like engine fan blade, i dont see much different. Ex:
IGV section has blades (and are in the front of basically every modern turbofan) but don’t rotate like the fan/axial compressor blades. A variable IGV like on the F404/F414 series can be actuated to open or close off airflow. The “Radar Blocker” of the Super ( in the X-32, articles have said the variable IGV that acted as the blocker) looks like the fan stage IGV, coated with RAM and shaped in such a way that the radio waves would be bounced away from emitter.
The picture of the Pak-fa that shows the (alleged ?) fan stage. You can see more blades behind, so it is doubtful that we are looking at a separate blocker like used on the Super Hornet. Either Sukhoi has planned to incorporate RCS reduction and hiding the compressor on a new IGV section, a separate section of variable vanes set in front of the fan (that we haven’t seen yet), or both.
For those who don’t know what we’re talking about, watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc8Ssi3K4SY
FBWBecause you know, this is not my first post about F-22 characteristics and I have been subjected to a real swarm assault by the usual crew from ‘murica every time I just suggested that the F-22 failed short to its original intended mission and was so downgraded to a mere homeland defence mission( the remaining one in which their hyped supercruise ability has a definite tactical advantage) with all of them based on US territory , one ocean away by any possible menace, while the 30+ years F-15C (in a very limited number) are still in first line.
Possibly it is met with hostility because it is contrary to the facts. You once asked me to P.M. you the details of the F-22 bed down and basing. I did so, in order for you to understand that your suppositions are incorrect.
The F-22 is well suited for the air superiority mission (strike was always a distant second on design priorities). There may be no better air superiority fighter currently in service. That is not an opinion, look how other services use it as a benchmark for how their aircraft performed relative to the F-22 in exercises, or how even Russian officers and officials refer to the F-22 when benchmarking the Pak-fa. The only real failure in the F-22’s intended mission capability is range.
The F-22 was always going to be bedded down at bases within the U.S. Once the planned numbers were cut to the (original) minimum of 10 squadrons, the USAF planned to concentrate the F-22 in a few locations to ease maintenance and lower costs.
so downgraded to a mere homeland defence mission
– this is patently false. The F-22 squadrons are rotated through the expeditionary wings just as ANY other fighter in the U.S. inventory. In fact, what aircraft have been deployed to Europe the most as part of the so called “European Reassurance Initiative”, the F-22. Why do you think that there are F-22’s forward deployed to Kadena AFB on a rotational basis? When there is a crisis, why are F-22’s deployed as part of a Theater Security Package?
Given that our valuable opinion would have been of extreme support to me on those awkward moments, please, next time I will ever return on the argument, I’ll call you in advance.
O.K?
It is somewhat discouraging to take time to give you actual information, articles, documents, have you agree you were wrong, then repost the same misguided opinions (not based in reality) over again a few months later. If you want to ignore the actual facts in a discussion, please preface your posts with “I don’t care what is factual, I am going to state my opinion repeatedly in spite of reality”. Then I will know to ignore your posts.
FBWIts quite funny reading the stuff you post.
“PakFa is not intended to do what the F-22 was intended to do…”
You do understand that the F-22 can’t do what is WAS intended to do!?The Threat picture today just look higher than what was the requirement back at end of the 80/early 90’s. Hense the F-22 can’t do what it was intended to do.
What the PakFa IS intended to do is AIR SUPERIORITY and MULTIROLE MISSION, the latter is something the F-22 have to undergo a serious upgrade, which no one even know when and what as of yet. And even still, the F-22 will evah nevah be able to do what the PakFa CAN do due to much better designed Internal W-bays for different weapons.
So in the end, let me fix it for you. The PakFa can do things the F-22 was never intended to do 😉
Ok, lets break this down piece by piece:
“F-22 cannot do what it was intended to do”- No,it cannot establish air superiority deep over Warsaw Pact territory as the Cold War ended. It CAN achieve its mission of OCA over hostile territory and you’d be a fool to not acknowledge the unique capabilities the F-22 provides (unique as of 2017).
“The threat picture is higher than what the requirement was….. “
Do you have any supporting evidence that the F-22 cannot? Or is this just wishful thinking? Do you not think that the designers anticipated evolution of threats over the planned 30 year lifespan of the aircraft? The USAF states otherwise, hence the continuous upgrade path.
“The Pak-Fa can do Air Superiority and Multirole, the F-22 needs an upgrade and no one knows when and what”
When starting a childish “my plane is better than yours” flame post, it help to get the facts somewhat straight. One, the Pak-Fa isn’t in service. Your sure it is going to enter service with the full spectrum of mission capability from the start? That is not the way Russia typically introduces new weapon systems. Two, the F-22 has the ability to execute the full spectrum of missions as of increment 3.1. They are now on 3.2a which added improved electronic attack ability. Look things up before talking out your a**. And lastly, you know the Pak-fa will have better internal bays? Please share with all of us the depth of the internal bays. Would love for you to post the dimensions and capacity of the launchers in each bay. Unfortunately, you can’t.
Typical throwaway post, short on details, long on conjecture. Why do you just post ” I like the Pak-fa better because it looks cooler and I like to slag US equipment”, because that was about the intellectual depth of your post.
FBWThat is because Haavarla is wrong as well, before agreeing with what he says, it would do both of you well to look up some information about the current capabilities of the F-22.
FBWI am the one being immature ? When we all know that Sukhoi was mandated and set out to design a 5th gen stealth aircraft. And I am just trying to prove what we all already know. And people are just using cheap tactics and filibusters to try and prove something that is not true.
You are being immature. For two reasons: One, trying to somehow “prove” that an exposed first stage would not impact RCS, and using non-examples like the YF-23 to support this flawed hypothesis. The bottom line is that a clear view of the compressor would be a negative for both RCS and NCTR (and therefore supremely unlikely that the Sukhoi has not mitigated this through both a mild curve in the duct and a “blocker” similar to the planned F-32 variable guide vanes).
Two, long after pretty much everyone has come to the conclusion that Sukhoi is not relying on hiding the face of the engine alone, you are attempting to show what isn’t there (or rather what is there clear as day in photos). The obsession with the YF-23 is exhibit A in the intellectual dishonesty you are displaying.
Let people have the thread back without being subjected to twisted theories such as: “No, the Pak-fa engines would not be visible due to my amateurish drawing circles on a diagram”, or even better “Even if it shows, no big deal, look at the X-32 and YF-23”
To summarize, an exposed engine would have a significant impact on RCS so drop that part of the argument. The Pak-fa will not be relying on a curved duct to hide the engine face alone, so drop that part of the argument. Lastly, Sukhoi isn’t stupid, trust they have done range testing on their solutions and found it acceptable from an RCS standpoint. Hence there is no argument except in your mind.
FBWDSI were incorporated for weight, simplicity, without using a boundary layer diverter, the RCS advantages have mostly to do with not having variable intake ramps and diverter. That it can hide a small percent on the inlet is a very secondary consideration.
FBWMSphere goes in for the kill…
I think we are witnessing the collapse of the opposing sides argument on this subject.
The only one having this arguement is you:
1. The unbuilt F-23 EMD did not have a direct line of sight to the engine-draw all the lines you want, still does not change the fact the duct bent upward and inward.
2. The X-32 does not prove your theory, it disproves it. The inlet of the X-32 was a result of needing a massive amount of airflow at low speed for the direct lift system. The guide vanes that composed of the radar blocker choked off airflow at subsonic speeds to lower RCS. At supersonic speeds, the flow would be unrestricted, but fan blades would be exposed to a degree (this is according to what Boeing proposed for the unbuilt production version).
None of this says the Pak-fa isn’t stealthy because there is no clear determination of exactly how exposed the face is, or what Sukhoi has planned. So please, drop the whole freaking nonsensical arguement.
FBWAll this debate about the engine face makes little sense.. There’s obviously more to it than just hidden/not hidden..
If Boeing/Grumman, after having designed B-2A or BoP, and Sukhoi, after having evaluated S.47, still make a stealth design with engine blades visible, then it has to mean something..
]
FYI, Northrop designed the B-2 (merger with Grumman wasn’t until B-2 was already in production). Bird of Prey was McDonnell Douglas design before merger with Boeing.
Not that those facts impact the whole radar blocker vs. hidden compressor face. But Boeing’s in-house design expertise on low observables isn’t a given. McDonnell Douglas and Grumman were teamed up on the failed A-12.
FBWMsphere, to answer your question from above, it’s simple:
None of the issues you brought up:
intercept incoming planes wanting to land on the strip on Spratleys? attack installations on the islands? attack cargo ships bringing in supplies? strike mainland China? I am not really following their intended role there
have anything to do with the reality of forward presence in the SCS. I will state it again, what the F-35B brings to the table is flexibility. There are 9 Carrier strike groups in the USN, there is exactly one base within 1,000 miles of the south china seas with USAF combat aircraft. The F-35B adds 10 LHA/LHD platforms and FOB/FARP options to deploy the F-35B.
Why is the U.S. there? Why is China there? Considering the accuracy of their claims, the U.S. has every right to challenge China’s attempt at hegemony there.
FBWBecause more than one person incorrectly said that Canadians don’t know or care about the F 35. Reality is, its probably the easiest scandal to identify in Canadian federal politics. The cartoons are some evidence of that.
Except that it isn’t a scandal, nor would it be accurate to say that it is the easiest to identify. I’m not sure how often you visit your mother, but I can tell you that it does not register as either a scandal, or a major issue in Canada that comes up in conversation (unlike Trump for example, or the stalling of the Canadian Economy). The only reason there was so much media attention directed on the F-35 (or any defense issue in Canada recently), was the campaign promise of Trudeau and subsequent backlash.
How would I know? I grew up an hours’ drive away from the border, and still have family in the area. I visit (them and) Canada regularly and Canadians are regular visitors near my former hometown.
FBWOK, I forgot the F-35B was already IOC’ed, mea culpa.. OK, let us elaborate on that.. what exactly should the presence of the F-35Bs in the area achieve and what would be their role except deterrence? Do you think MCAS Iwakuni will in any way prevent the Chinese from working on the bases on Spratleys? How?
The F-22’s at Kadena or Andersen are limited by two factors: AAR and the limited number available in a TSP (usually around 4 fighters to supplement the F-15C’s at Kadena).
The F-35B’s can operate from any modified LHD/LHA, and the modifed VTOL pads (while not exactly equvalent to the AV-8’s simple expeditionary pads, they can be set in place in a few days).
Edit- AM-2 matting testing commenced in 2014-15, and has been used over concrete. Deploying AM-2 matting on soft soil condition may be labor intensive, but still adds flexibility that a fixed airfield does not have.
Specifically, read the Marines plan for distributed operations of the F-35B:
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/10f62895-b4c2-4fa7-b853-73753a139f08/Distributed-STOVL-Operations-and-Air-Mobility-Supp.aspx
FBWNo. The F-22 is the perfect plane for this situation.. The F-35, even if it worked, would have very little to do there, except being used in the CAP role, for which, the F-22 is the ultimate option.
Really? That contradicts everything that the Marines have been saying. Operating the F-35 from LHA, MCAS Iwakuni provide flexibility that F-22’s operating out of Guam and Kadena cannot.
Forget a hot war scenario where both of those bases can be plastered with DF-21, in the current situation where China is asserting it’s claims in the S. China sea and Senkaku, F-35’s can provide a forward presence that the F-22’s cannot (look at the distances involved).
FBWRed flag, like it or not, is a game in comparison.. there are no real shots at the aircraft, if one has a glitch, he can go down and land rapidly… it is nowhere near the danger of a real combat zone, where, if you go down, you may very well have to fight for your life. Granted, ISIS have no long range A2A missiles and so on, but not sending a bomber to the only place on earth where you drop bombs in real targets, and that while it desperately needs to improve its image is either a complete nonsense, or indicates the worries the Pentagon has about its real capabilities and risks it would involve to put it in real operations
That is too simplistic, RF exercises are designed to put pilots and aircraft in the most challenging scenarios possible. The real world threats are simulated as accurately as possible and missions tailored to teach pilots how to survive in a combat environment. They are not “track meets”. Units often experience failure as the missions ramp up in difficulty. It is not a game, nor is operating large numbers of aircraft (especially at low level) in close proximity a particularly safe environment.
No, they are not being put in real danger by being fired upon. That doesn’t diminish fact that pilot and aircraft are exposed to combat scenarios that test the capabilities of both to the limit. In RF that include U.S. only units, they use the full spectrum of that capability. Read some of the comments from pilots that fought during the 90’s. They’ve stated (I’m paraphrasing): Combat was just like the Red Flag exercises, only easier.
So yes, DoD and the services do get a very real look at the capabilities of aircraft and units at RF.
FBWAnd I only countered with that because you continue to take this absolutist approach on media outlets. Its the only thing you seem to care about
– Due to my profession, I do take the spread of false, misleading information via websites posing to be news outlets and social media seriously indeed.
It is not the only thing I care about in regard to the situation in Syria. If you look through my posts on the topic, I’ve never varied from one theme- Regardless of the politics, the losers in this have been the civilian population in Syria. I don’t believe that any of the nations involved (US, France, Russia, Gulf States, etc) have acted in the best interests of the people of Syria. As to who is better at “bombing the crap out of ISIS”. It doesn’t matter, as eventually the people who live in there: Iraqi, Kurds, Turks, various ethnicities in Syria will have to coordinate in order to completely defeat ISIS. Don’t see that happening any time soon, do you?
FBWDon’t be so bitter, I know I slapped you the last days on various thread but it was not volunteer, I juts want to make sure that time to time a true fact appears on this thread. You can have any discussion you want, but as soon as you based it on biased data sorry but I will correct them.
Operational cost are more expensive than legacy fighter. It is a fact.
Acquisition costs in LRIP9 is 200 million per bird, it is also a fact.Now if you have source who contradicts that please share them and we can discuss it. But as I said, since the LRIP9 contract are now published there is no doubt about my numbers.
Your a clown….
One that got called out on your “Rafale development costs were cheap”
One that got called on your misinterpretation of the DOT&E
One that cannot find a single supportable fact that LRIP 9 F-35 cost $200 million apiece (I have all of the contracts sitting here on a word file waiting to rebut your “facts”)
Go play on youtube they are full of it, you’ll fit right in. As I said on the other thread when you invented your myth about Rafale dev costs… put up or shut up. Where are your facts about the LRIP 9?
(By the way, shall I repost your fail on the afterburner conversation from last year, Remember? You couldn’t answer a single question about what afterburner stages were after popping off about how afterburners are either on or off? That was good for a laugh. See the problem here Ezco, is that you can B.S. only so long before you expose yourself. Guess what? Your naked.)
Facts….
P.S.- don’t bother responding. Congrats, you are only the third poster I’ve ever blocked or ignored (along with JSR, perfect company for you).
Sign In
