F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[SteelBird]

how did you get the RCS of T50'
the 0.3 RCS was originally said by a certain lobbyist called AJAY SHUKLA ,who apparently heard it from someone else who also heard it from someone else and so on..............

I think RCS 0.3 cannot be considered as stealthy at all. Even an F-16 can achieve near that figure. Furthermore, what's the RCS of the J-20 and J-31?

 

[Jura The idiot]

Sorry, I will add some.
...

oh thanks ... but I'm only kibitzing here

Yes, I'm talking about Spectra. Even Spectra is an acronym.

how many were produced yet?

And some technologies appear to be new, but are actually quite old, and some are not yet implemented on fighter designs. A lot of the technologies which are new on jets for America are actually 15-20 years old on European jets.

can you please name some of them?

 

[tphuang]

how did you get the RCS of T50'
the 0.3 RCS was originally said by a certain lobbyist called AJAY SHUKLA ,who apparently heard it from someone else who also heard it from someone else and so on..............

well, the Russians themselves saids it's 0.1, so 0.3 isn't exactly a magnitude off. It's quite clear just looking at their pictures that Ameircans chose to emphaisze their 5th generation aircraft a lot more than the Russians.

 

[Jura The idiot]

well, the Russians themselves saids it's 0.1, so 0.3 isn't exactly a magnitude off. It's quite clear just looking at their pictures that Ameircans chose to emphaisze their 5th generation aircraft a lot more than the Russians.

I found this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

looks very cool ... but probably was posted here before ...

 

[aksha]

well, the Russians themselves saids it's 0.1, so 0.3 isn't exactly a magnitude off. It's quite clear just looking at their pictures that Ameircans chose to emphaisze their 5th generation aircraft a lot more than the Russians.

well,the 0.1 RCS is based on the statement from shukhoi that the RCS of the T50 will be more than 40 times less than that of a shukhoi 30 MKI

and i beleive that the T50 will be stealthier when airforce variants start coming in in 2017
you know that one of its main customers the IAF is like a very demanding wife,and they have already criticised its design,a few years back (if it is true),and i expect the russians to respond to their needs,if they want to keep their funding intact.


but we are going off thread

 

[A Bar Brother]

well, the Russians themselves saids it's 0.1, so 0.3 isn't exactly a magnitude off. It's quite clear just looking at their pictures that Ameircans chose to emphaisze their 5th generation aircraft a lot more than the Russians.

The Russians are talking about something else. The Americans are talking about something else.

As I had mentioned before stealth doesn't come with shaping alone.

What the Americans are doing is reflect the oncoming waves away from the emitter, which means bistatic and multistatic radars are capable of detecting the F-22 and the F-35. What the Russians could be doing is refract the oncoming waves inside the aircraft and absorb the waves using plasma inside the aircraft, apart from using RAM and other materials like the Americans are doing. That would mean, theoretically there are little reflected waves which makes even bistatic/multistatic radars less capable at detecting the PAKFA compared to the F-22/F-35.

Anyway, the Russians are talking about average RCS, not frontal RCS. And their figure is for the first stage PAKFA which comes without LO/VLO engines. So the average RCS will be higher since the rear RCS will not be any bigger than, say the Rafale or Typhoon. The same as why I said the J-31 is going to need new engines with augmentors to call itself LO or VLO.

So if you add the RCS figures from all sides and then take the mean, you will get the advertized 0.1 to 1 m2 for PAKFA.

If you are talking about frontal RCS only, then the Mig 1.44 and Su-47 are as stealthy as the Rafale and Typhoon. The side profile is actually better since the vertical fins are canted on the Russian designs.

 

[A Bar Brother]

how many were produced yet?

As many as there are Rafales, apart from prototypes.

can you please name some of them?

HMDS, datalinks, ROVER and sensor fusion. IR missiles at BVR ranges too, which the Americans plan to get with newer Blocks AIM-9X.

ROVER is this.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So something that the USAF is introducing this decade was introduced in the Gripen back in 1996.

 

[tphuang]

I found this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

looks very cool ... but probably was posted here before ...

Carlo Kopp is a very bad source

well,the 0.1 RCS is based on the statement from shukhoi that the RCS of the T50 will be more than 40 times less than that of a shukhoi 30 MKI

and i beleive that the T50 will be stealthier when airforce variants start coming in in 2017
you know that one of its main customers the IAF is like a very demanding wife,and they have already criticised its design,a few years back (if it is true),and i expect the russians to respond to their needs,if they want to keep their funding intact.


but we are going off thread

The Russians are talking about something else. The Americans are talking about something else.

As I had mentioned before stealth doesn't come with shaping alone.

What the Americans are doing is reflect the oncoming waves away from the emitter, which means bistatic and multistatic radars are capable of detecting the F-22 and the F-35. What the Russians could be doing is refract the oncoming waves inside the aircraft and absorb the waves using plasma inside the aircraft, apart from using RAM and other materials like the Americans are doing. That would mean, theoretically there are little reflected waves which makes even bistatic/multistatic radars less capable at detecting the PAKFA compared to the F-22/F-35.

Anyway, the Russians are talking about average RCS, not frontal RCS. And their figure is for the first stage PAKFA which comes without LO/VLO engines. So the average RCS will be higher since the rear RCS will not be any bigger than, say the Rafale or Typhoon. The same as why I said the J-31 is going to need new engines with augmentors to call itself LO or VLO.

So if you add the RCS figures from all sides and then take the mean, you will get the advertized 0.1 to 1 m2 for PAKFA.

If you are talking about frontal RCS only, then the Mig 1.44 and Su-47 are as stealthy as the Rafale and Typhoon. The side profile is actually better since the vertical fins are canted on the Russian designs.

Sorry about going off topic, I've actually put my concerns in the Indian thread instead.

 

[FORBIN]

The US Marine Corps has received its first carrier-based Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II, marking the 36th and final delivery of a Joint Strike Fighter in 2014.

Lockheed Martin says the 22 December delivery of aircraft CF-19 meets the 36 aircraft delivery target for 2014, and marks the 109th overall delivery of operational F-35s to the USA and partner operators.[/B]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The first USMC F-35C out of a planned 80 will be assigned to the US Navy’s VFA-101 “Grim Reapers” squadron, 33rd Fighter Wing, based at Eglin AFB. After delivery CF-19 will be used for F-35C pilot training.

Furthermore, the first two Royal Australian Air Force F-35As have been delivered to Luke AFB in Arizona – home of the international F-35A training centre.

The Australian flightcrew’s training will be conducted in conjunction with the 61st fighter squadron, while the 62nd fighter squadron is expected to stand-up in June, to be joined by partner nations Italy and Norway. Flight operations for the 62nd are scheduled to begin in September 2015, the USAF says.

Of the 36 aircraft delivered in 2014, 23 are USAF ‘A’ models, two are RAAF ‘A’ models, four are USMC ‘B’ models and seven are ‘C’ models – six for the USN and one for the USMC.

Numbers, delivey know before long time, but USMC F-35C yet a little surprise, no new unit as planned because VFA-101 is a joint OCU/Fleet replacement squadron ( for Atlantic Fleet ) will get 10 USMC F-35C, in more 4 USMC frontline sqn's each also 10 F-35C with also 12 in reserve and 5 on stock for attrition total 67.
Actually USMC have also 4 F-18A/C Sqns regurlarly deployed on CVN.

Exact number now for USMC orders : 353 B and 67 C : 420 she get actually 170 F/A-18A+/B/C, 95 D, 131 AV-8/TAV-8 : 378 with also 27 EA-6.

Then in fact same number planned for USMC aviation for about 2030 but quality/power increased with new stealth fighter which get a better range particularly in relation to the AV-8 which is a good boy but less sophisticated.

And new 62 FS now based to Luke, 56 FW use 20 F-16C/D block 25 get new F-35A end 2015 but with USAF IOC planned for 2016 presumably delivery also for futur sqn based to Hill, 388 FW.


PS :

The 36 F-35 deliveries include:
•23 F-35A - U.S. Air Force
•2 F-35A - Royal Australian Air Force (first two)
•4 F-35B - U.S. Marine Corps
•7 F-35C - U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps (first carrier variant)

The 36 F-35 Lightning II aircraft are assigned to the following installations:
•19 - Luke Air Force Base, Glendale, AZ
•14 - Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso, FL
•2 - Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, S.C.
•1 - Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, AZ

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

61 FS have right now 17 US and VFA-101 in september 8 F-35C now with this one 9 or 10.

 

[kwaigonegin]

We don't know. I doubt we will know that soon anyway.

Of course you can dismiss the entire thing, but active capability is better than passive capabilities in many respects. Active ECM is the future for stealth, and is completely in control of the aircraft and its pilot. Passive stealth is dependent on the enemy not being sophisticated enough to counter it.

The Spectra is as close as we can currently get to active stealth, from what's available in open source. It works exactly as the theory states. It re-transmits the same signal back to the source at one-half the wavelength. Now we can try and speculate on how quickly it can do that, and whether it happens in real time or close enough for the time lag to not matter.

As far as the AdlA is concerned, they were confident that they could negate the Bars radar on the MKI during Garuda exercises. That in itself is a big deal considering it could negate an ESA radar.



Sorry, but you are looking at this in a way that is convenient to yourself. Hostage did not have any hidden meaning in what he said. His statement was clear as day. Without the F-22, the F-35 is irrelevant. That's why he wants the F-22 upgrades, and that's why he wants all the 1763 F-35s. The same reason as why he wants to scrap all the A-10s.

To me he makes a lot of sense.

We have a working Typhoon pilot saying the same things too.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even the recent article quoting the officer, that you yourself quoted too, saying that the F-22 is far too important. Check Post 2012.



The F-35 is not even close to perform in air to air combat at the same level as the F-22. Hostage practically says the same, the two officers above state the same, the Typhoon pilot says the same, and even the tons of civilian analysts who criticized the F-35 say the same. Heck, even Kwaigonegin said the same in this thread. And I'm sure you would take the words of these gentlemen more seriously than mine.

The F-35 is a strike aircraft, a good one too. And as long as Pentagon and LM reiterate the "F-35 for air superiority" rhetoric again and again, the number of naysayers will only grow. And this is coming from a person who is actually supportive of the F-35, even though my recent posts don't look like it.

eh? sorry too lazy to look up what I said but if you asked me if the F35 superior or even on par with the F-22 ... the answer is of course not in the realm of ACM and dogfighting. Not even close. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.
However I think right now you guys are talking about the Hi-Lo mix and the force multiplier of the F-22 with F35 as piggy backs. I also agree with what Gen Hostage said in regards to the F-35 (taken in context). I don't think he was bashing the F-35 as much as to maybe imply the Pentagon should bought more Raptors to supplement the F-35s.
There is no question in my mind that in a modern high intensity, high threat environment an offensive strike package of F-22s proving air cover with F-35s doing the ground pounding would be the most effective mix.

Anyway the design requirements and objectives of the F-22 was very simple. Make a plane that is a direct replacement for the F-15s in A2A with the most advanced but feasible technologies available. PERIOD!
There were not a lot of compromises that needed to be made either during or after the fact. There were no 'partner' nations, no different variants and certainly not much in terms of the consolidation of supply chain and manufacturing.
The primary politicking at that time that was involved was who was going to built them. Lockheed or McD/Boeing/Northrop.

The ugly politics (which ultimately led to the decrease in acquisition) of the Raptor primarily came about AFTER the plane is all good and done and way passed LRIP. Heck, had the Pentagon chose the YF23 it would've been an equally good choice as well and the F23 would've evolved into the most dominant 5th gen fighter today like the Raptor has, dare I say maybe even a tad better because the specs for YF23 was actually a tad more capable than the YF-22.


* as a side note people need to also realized that when the YF-22/23 came about in the initial planning and development stages, the world was also a different place then when the JSF program came about. Reagan was president, Berlin Wall was still up and Pentagon, DoD was run by old school Generals and Admirals. The US still had to worry about the USSR/Warsaw Pact nations and their numerical fighter superirority especialyl n the European theater. Around that time frame, the USSR had also just released the likes of the Mig 29s and the SU 27s which made people sweat a lot!
To make the engineers sweat even more F-15s had a PROVEN A2A combat ratio W/O a single air to air loss! Perspective was different then then they were later. The engineers etc were DETERMINED to make the absolute best A2A platform and F15 Eagle replacement they possibly could no holds barred.