Low Observable and Courtney Mil,

Funnily enough much of the research in to nanotube particles has been carried out by civilian organisations and universities, and that includes Chinese organisations. The Chinese have also been publishing data.

There are actually many civilian uses for microwave absorption materials such as electronic shielding in electronic goods, ovens and many other applications.

hval,

My point exactly. The research extends into comms too, where it's making huge improvements to the issues of interference. Not many military contractors conduct this sort of research on there own and, as we use more and more emerging technologies in civil and mil fields, we have to rely on researchers with funding to push the boundaries.

Courtney Mil,

I agree that it is now very difficult to keep information secret; particularly when many of the new developments and technologies are now developed by private organisations.

It doesn't help when the Chinese nick all your top secret new super duper aircraft details.

CM said,
Indeed and I wonder how'd the cranking work, since the LO plane may need to expose its rather "inconvenient" aspect, during the maneuver.
Staying "on-course", in front LO cone, would just bring it sooner to the merge...

I would still want to crank, Nitro, if only to slow my approach to the bad guys so that my kill assessment and second shot was still at a reasonable range. But, as you say, I'd want to know where my RCS weak points were.

I like your use of the term "inconvenient".:ok:

Start with a plan view and with ruler follow the leading and trailing edges. That one will never be classified or unknown to the enemy.

So whilst you hold you adversary on the beam it would be about now that you wish your APG-81 wasn't bolted down or that a repositioner was in your weight and trim budget.

Hmm. Good point, well made.

Interesting application of that theory was the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile, which looked much like a fat pencil. Yes, there was a big spike on the side, but if you could see it, it was moving at 90 deg to your radar beam, so no Doppler... and of course it was flying at low level so that would be the only way to pull it out of the clutter.

Oh my sainted trousers! The bashing of the F-35 by the club of the uninformed has finally moved from being just a bit amusing to outright hilarious.

SSSEtwhatever...

Please explain further. I know that the Church of Fixed AESA maintains that there are ways to view the world beyond +_60 deg. off boresight & that repositioners are merely a bodge used by the unwashed, but can you enlighten us further?

When are these aircraft due in either RN or RAF Operational Service?

Indeed SSSETOWTF!! And very tedious.

Glad Rag

Some sketch details of a time line here albeit not 'official' and no details of 'operational' forecast date.

First U.K. pilots begin training to fly F-35 - Community - Crestview News Bulletin


The U.K. has purchased three of the planes, two of which already are at Eglin. The third is expected in February.

For now, those planes are added to the Marine fleet of 11 F-35Bs. The three planes are expected to be flown to the U.K. by 2018.

In my view the only way to get the UK buy cancelled would be to show that it is (now) the wrong spec for our military needs. Wailing about costs and timescales will never cut it as those arguements applied to just about every past aquisition and never stopped any of them.

LO & co,

There's no church of fixed plate AESA, just common sense and my experience of working on both fixed and repositioning AESA radar programs. I know which one I prefer by a country mile and it doesn't involve anything flapping around.

In terms of performance, the F-35 is just fine. It out-climbs a single bubble Hornet in dry power and out-accelerates the F-18 in level flight in reheat through the Mach - I've seen it with my own eyes from both cockpits. So if you're waxing lyrical about how great the Hornet is on one hand, it's completely contradictory to turn around and bash the F-35 (even if some of the spec numbers have changed over time).

There's a lot of frothing at the mouth about how stupid LM are for building stealthy aircraft, but the very people who are alleged to have figured out stealth-defeating technology are spending a lot of money frantically developing their own stealthy aircraft as fast as they can. So in my opinion it's also utterly contradictory to mank on about how dumb the Americans are for developing and building stealthy aircraft if you think the Russians (+ Indians) and Chinese are so very clever.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!

SSSE - That's just your opinion, man.

Actually, the people who actually build 3000-foot-runway-operable SSSE jets today, and will deliver a very nice AESA-equipped version to IOC in 2018, think that a repositioner (which rotates rather than flaps) is a neat idea with real utility.

Faster than a Hornet? True, and my Plymouth Reliant can blow the doors off your AMC Pacer.

That said, what is likable about the Super H (from my viewpoint) is that it is here and relatively affordable and has lots of proven capability. But "threats", you say. Well, the major threat to everyone's military capability today is fiscal.

Stealth is a very powerful technology. It also has costs in terms of money and other capabilities forgone, as we are seeing every day. I believe every air arm will eventually employ stealth technology.

But the US has spent 30 years chasing the idea that all its combat aircraft (including helos at one point) should be stealthy, and so far we have seen that it is about as practical an idea as equipping one's entire navy with submarines.

And if there is any frothing at the mouth about LM, it is mostly occasioned by their utter failure to execute on time and on budget, exacerbated by their arrogant refusal to admit that they have underperformed.

People get very wrapped around the axle about the cost of these aircraft to the UK, completely missing the fact that from a National perspective they are effectively cost neutral due to BAES share.

Buying SH/Rafale etc does nothing for UK industry apart from drive further redundancies, makes the carriers unaffordable with cats and traps requirement and keeps us out of the stealth game, which must have some merits or why else would nations also be developing it.

The UK buy in to F-35 is as much for keeping BAES at the cutting edge of technology as it is about capability for the RN/RAF. To think any different is frankly naive.

The situation is different for the other partners but just for once I believe the UK politicians actually got it right on the balance of investment when it came to being a Level 1 partner.

The real question of course is how fast does it need to be. The Navy clearly believes the Hornet to be fast enough to do what they want it to do.

Except MRA4.....

@ WhiteOvies
 

Just to clarify, what cutting edge do LM allow BAES to "keep"?