F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(why should a curved duct + blocker be less efficient than a full-LOS-blocked duct?)
Last edited by KenV; 31st Aug 2015 at 21:13.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockheed Upbeat Despite F-35 Losing Dogfight To Red Baron
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III declined comment through a spokesman, saying only, “Curse you, Red Baron!”
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockheed officials have separately downplayed reports that the same F-35, flown by the same pilot, previously lost mock dogfights with the Goodyear Blimp and a beagle on a flying doghouse.
Ho ho ho...-RP
KenV - so exactly how do you know the RCS numbers for all those aircraft?
Quick answer, obviously, is that you don't, but just like to make
up to disrupt arguments that from your viewpoint are going the wrong way.
Quick answer, obviously, is that you don't, but just like to make
up to disrupt arguments that from your viewpoint are going the wrong way.
just to clarify, the changes to the RB199 HPT Blades from equiaxed to single crystal were NOT RSAF funded. they were in fact funded by R-R as the RSAF engines were sold with a 200 hour warranty and because so many engines were being rejected inside warrenty, the change to single crystal was necessary. The single crystal HPT blade was also taken by the RAF/GAF and IAF as reliability improvements
The primary reason that the RB199 had so many problems was down to the fact that (due to cost of ownership) the RAF decided to send their HP Nozzle Guide Vanes for a wide gap braze repair by a repair agancy. the result was that they stopped buying new HPNGV's and repaired them instead.This disastrous as the HPNGV on RB199 was structural in that it transmitted all the structural loads through the aerofoil onto the outer platform which was then secured onto the casing. As a result, brazed HPNGV's had little structural rigidity and failed, allowing the HP inner static structure to move rearward contacting the HP rotor. As a result, two F3's crashed.
the MoD had to spend some £100m to fix such problems.
the MoD had to spend some £100m to fix such problems.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV - so exactly how do you know the RCS numbers for all those aircraft?
Boeing has advertized the forward RCS of the Super Hornet as "significantly under 1 meter2" and stated that the Silent Eagle has similar forward RCS to Super Hornet.
LM states F-22 RCS is the size of a "steel marble" (.0001-.0002 meter2), and F-35 the size of a "metal golf ball" (.0015m2). Thus both these stealth aircraft have RCS much smaller than any of the above.
Quick answer, obviously, is that you don't, but just like to make up to disrupt arguments that from your viewpoint are going the wrong way.
up to disrupt arguments that from your viewpoint are going the wrong way.
And what is this business of "make stuff up to disrupt arguments"? I see no "argument" that I have "disrupted". Further, I see no place where my arguments "are going the wrong way". You appear to be reading into my statements things that simply do not exist.
And finally, you appear to be maneuvering into position for yet another juvenile tit-for-tat personal battle. I will not be baited to engage.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google is your friend. Google "Frontal RCS XXX" (where "XXX" is the designation, such as F-22, of the aircraft of interest) and you will get many hits.
For the Google impaired, here are two links:
According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II
It is claimed that the Super Hornet employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the F-22 and F-35. While the F/A-18E/F is not a stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal radar cross-section an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters. Additional changes for reducing RCS can be installed on an as-needed basis.
(one order magnitude less than 5m2 is .5m2, about the same as T-50)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing...ction_measures
Once again, you can trust the public sources of this data, or not. But the data most certainly is available and I did not "make it up" as was claimed.
For the Google impaired, here are two links:
According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II
It is claimed that the Super Hornet employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the F-22 and F-35. While the F/A-18E/F is not a stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal radar cross-section an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters. Additional changes for reducing RCS can be installed on an as-needed basis.
(one order magnitude less than 5m2 is .5m2, about the same as T-50)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing...ction_measures
Once again, you can trust the public sources of this data, or not. But the data most certainly is available and I did not "make it up" as was claimed.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Don't see the Russian claims about their RCS there, or the figures for the F18 after the "as required" add-ons, presumably intake RAM etc.
Seems an unsubstantiated claim and a weasely attempt to slide out from under.
Seems an unsubstantiated claim and a weasely attempt to slide out from under.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't see the Russian claims about their RCS there, or the figures for the F18 after the "as required" add-ons, presumably intake RAM etc.
Seems an unsubstantiated claim and a weasely attempt to slide out from under.
For the Google impaired, another link (this one specific to the T-50):
Sukhoi's patent of the T-50's stealth features cites an average RCS of the aircraft of approximately 0.1-1 square meters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA#Stealth
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google is your friend.
Radar Cross Section (RCS)
Amazingly, after all this time, the F-35 isn't better than a B-2 bomber or the F-22 in general terms of stealthiness. I suppose all of this is rather subjective matter dependent on various technical factors.
For those who may think the adversaries aren't working the stealth detection problem, they are. Here is a Chinese article where the authors were probably partly educated in the USA, one way or the other.
http://www.jatm.com.br/ojs/index.php...wnload/470/424
I wonder if a new rule of engagement for the F-35 can be arranged where adversarial detection is limited to head on detection only where it excels in stealthiness.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazingly, after all this time, the F-35 isn't better than a B-2 bomber or the F-22 in general terms of stealthiness. I suppose all of this is rather subjective matter dependent on various technical factors.
Said by whom? I don't think anyone associated with B-2 would take second place to anybody - and what about VHF?
The problem is that you can find all kinds of stealth comparisons. The F-22 vs F-35 comparison cited by our learned friend KenV was directly contradicted by ACC's commander last year, not that any sensible person believes him.
I'm absolutely certain that the Russians would put an accurate RCS in a patent document and that it would not be the slightest bit naive or ill-informed to believe that they would. And I am Juliusing Caesar.
And I retract any accusations of anyone making stuff up, since Wikipedia is a valuable source of classified military information.
By the way, statements like "the laws of physics constrain what is possible in terms of RCS reduction" have the double benefit of being true and mostly meaningless. The laws of physics constrain things, because otherwise (drum roll) they would not be the laws of bleeding physics, would they?
The question is what those limits are and whether we have actually reached a "Maxwell don't allow" point with the current generation of fighter-type aircraft or with tailless "mantas".
The problem is that you can find all kinds of stealth comparisons. The F-22 vs F-35 comparison cited by our learned friend KenV was directly contradicted by ACC's commander last year, not that any sensible person believes him.
I'm absolutely certain that the Russians would put an accurate RCS in a patent document and that it would not be the slightest bit naive or ill-informed to believe that they would. And I am Julius
ing Caesar.And I retract any accusations of anyone making stuff up, since Wikipedia is a valuable source of classified military information.
By the way, statements like "the laws of physics constrain what is possible in terms of RCS reduction" have the double benefit of being true and mostly meaningless. The laws of physics constrain things, because otherwise (drum roll) they would not be the laws of bleeding physics, would they?
The question is what those limits are and whether we have actually reached a "Maxwell don't allow" point with the current generation of fighter-type aircraft or with tailless "mantas".
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd have to do the same as you and google up the story, to quote the source. I think it was the AF mag article that said about the F-35 dry thrust at Mach 1.2. No doubt you wouldn't accept it.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a1bill,
From the wording of the article:
That is the same as the F-22 where the F-35 is reported to have a -30dBm2, the same as an insect, don't know which insect. That is why I stated the reported RCS is rather subjective in nature, e.g., you can believe what you want or not.
KenV,
Only time in service will give the true answer and that hasn't happened yet.
From the wording of the article:
The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. B-2 stealth bomber has a very small cross section. The RCS of a B-26 bomber exceeds 35 dBm2 (3100m2 ) from certain angles. In contrast, the RCS of the B-2 stealth bomber is widely reported to be about -40dBm2 .
KenV,
The F-35 is (allegedly) the first stealth platform whose RCS features are not maintenance intensive and whose characteristics are compatible with a typical carrier environment.